Oihid

[Dust Raven]

Re: Oihid

 

And why no gripes about Foci? A 350 character that spends 100 points on Characteristics and 50 points on skills can use the other 200 points to buy 300 points of powers with OIF or IAF for a 450 point character. It's not like people actually take those foci away or destroy them or anything. And so what if they do. Just make sure you've got one OIF +60 STR power and the rest are OAF. More free points and the Limitations don't count...

 

 

Limitations don't count... Wait... what was that rule about Limitations that aren't Limitations?

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

Incidentally, I've worked out a mathematical formula if people want to houserule Multiform so that any points spent in multiform count toward the max that any single form can have. I think this houserule will fix most of the brokenness of multiform. The most expensive form pays the cost.

 

With 1 additional multiform, take the character's point total and divide by 6. So for example, a 350 pt character would spend 350/6 = 58.3 pts for his multiform. The character could have up to 2 forms of 291.7 pts each. 58.3*5=291.7, and 350-58.3=291.7.

 

For each doubling, take 5/6 or .83 pts from the cost. So a character with 2 additional forms would have 58.3-.83= 57.5 pts for each form. 57.5*5=287.5 and 350-57.5-5=287.5.

 

It works out to the character can have 1 additional form for 292 pts each, 2 for 288, 4 for 283, 8 for 279, etc.

 

It might be better to rule that each 5 pts adds 1 form instead of doubling. Or to make it a 1/4 advantage for each doubling of forms.

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

You're not understanding the math involved.

 

A 1/4 limitation is a 20% difference, not a 25% difference. Unless you're using the extra points saved and putting a 1/4 limitation on those as well. (snip)

 

Yup, sorry!

 

However, I'd say - while incorrect on what I wrote - that as 1/4 is where granularity begins, it's not a far stretch. However, you're right that my commentary was incorrect.

 

Yours is a very strange campaign if 75 pts difference doesn't matter a whole lot. I can design a pretty good character on 350 pts. Give me 75 more to add on, and my second character will crush my first one.

 

First, mine is probably not "normal," but I've seen other campaigns. In pointsless games a 20% swing is not uncommon and yet the characters can be on a reasonably even footing.

 

As to your +75 character, because you KNOW the capability of the first one of course you could crush him. But I think 2 different people who are both efficiency experts could end up with a 20% swing that the "weaker" character might end up being more capable of whupping the more-points character's rear. But as I stated, I don't suggest that would be the norm. Merely that I don't think the probability is a certainty. Having 20% more points IME just doesn't mean that much.

 

And in any case, Gary, you are NOT an "average joe", and I still posit two average players won't make characters so predictably greater with just a 20% differential.

 

What's your personal experience?

 

I can only directly survey the current campaign I'm GMing but not having time to pour through each issue, I'm glancing and guessing around 10%, though interestingly the times I can think of have out of that been more often in "signficant" events such as going into Kingpin's lair when he was prepared.

 

In the former campaigns, I don't recall anyone having OIHID at all signficantly so can't remember to what degree it came up. In campaigns I've played in also really hard to say, I just don't know.

 

I have some ideas...

 

I think you'd be a good source for such.

 

Tangential question - very generally, how would you represent a lim that would likely come up around 5%-20% of the time? The low end of that scale could probably be fine with a Disad, but the higher end seems more in lim territory. As such, I think that's where the quality (impact/timing) of the lim matters more than frequency and can/should more often lead to employment of a limitation.

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

He can be built in a few other ways as well' date=' including just having the Heroic Form be a special effect, in which case he would get no limitation value for it.[/quote']

 

But this is a non-abusive case so I'm not worried about it.

 

 

OIHID will get you a character that automatically has all of the skills and disads of the base character (unless tweaked otherwise), is fully within the rules, and is a valid limitation in the hands of a GM who cares at all about making it count. The 425 figure you are throwing around assumes that the character has thrown all but 10 points into OIHID, which is silly. You now say that it is only characters that put too many of their points into OIHID which you object to. That makes it into a problem to be dealt with on a case by case basis by GMs, not a problem with the rules as written.

 

Nope, the 425 assumes a 50 pt normal character. He has 375 pts with a -1/4 limitation and 50 without limitations. 300+50 real points and 375+50 active points.

 

 

The Multiform meanwhile gets you a player who wants to know why he can't have a 280 point normal form, perfectly legal by the rules, and why he can't boost the power of his multiform after every adventure by feeding XP into the power at 1 point of XP per 5 points added to that form. He'll also want to know why he can't add more forms. You can house rule all of this so as to avoid the problem, but that is more of a pain than just giving him OIHID, or forbiding it, or allowing it as a 0 point limit.

 

 

Because this was agreed upon when the character was built?

 

 

As to the whole "this limit is different than all other limits" deal, I disagree with you on that as well. If I were to change the way limits were handled by making them into disads, I'd do the same for all limits. Keeps things simple and more or less balanced as they are.

 

See, I could have just posted a link to page one of the thread?

 

 

Where's the fun in that?

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

Incidentally, I've worked out a mathematical formula if people want to houserule Multiform so that any points spent in multiform count toward the max that any single form can have. I think this houserule will fix most of the brokenness of multiform. The most expensive form pays the cost.

 

With 1 additional multiform, take the character's point total and divide by 6. So for example, a 350 pt character would spend 350/6 = 58.3 pts for his multiform. The character could have up to 2 forms of 291.7 pts each. 58.3*5=291.7, and 350-58.3=291.7.

 

For each doubling, take 5/6 or .83 pts from the cost. So a character with 2 additional forms would have 58.3-.83= 57.5 pts for each form. 57.5*5=287.5 and 350-57.5-5=287.5.

 

It works out to the character can have 1 additional form for 292 pts each, 2 for 288, 4 for 283, 8 for 279, etc.

 

It might be better to rule that each 5 pts adds 1 form instead of doubling. Or to make it a 1/4 advantage for each doubling of forms.

I was suspicious of the new rule stating any form (not just most expensive) could be base, but frankly I now accept it and like it. I think it allows for more appropriate character conception where needed and I don't think it's innately unbalancing, though naturally it can easily be unbalancing.

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

First, mine is probably not "normal," but I've seen other campaigns. In pointsless games a 20% swing is not uncommon and yet the characters can be on a reasonably even footing.

 

As to your +75 character, because you KNOW the capability of the first one of course you could crush him. But I think 2 different people who are both efficiency experts could end up with a 20% swing that the "weaker" character might end up being more capable of whupping the more-points character's rear. But as I stated, I don't suggest that would be the norm. Merely that I don't think the probability is a certainty. Having 20% more points IME just doesn't mean that much.

 

And in any case, Gary, you are NOT an "average joe", and I still posit two average players won't make characters so predictably greater with just a 20% differential.

 

Maybe in an arena duel, the person short 20% might occasionally win one. But in terms of an overall campaign, the person with 20% more points is going to be either much tougher and more powerful, be much more versatile, or have tons of skills to dominate noncombat situations. Or all of the above.

 

BTW, I'm talking about reasonably efficient characters and equal players. Yeah a 350 efficiently built character can beat a 425 non-efficiently built character, but it's not the general case.

 

I can only directly survey the current campaign I'm GMing but not having time to pour through each issue, I'm glancing and guessing around 10%, though interestingly the times I can think of have out of that been more often in "signficant" events such as going into Kingpin's lair when he was prepared.

 

In the former campaigns, I don't recall anyone having OIHID at all signficantly so can't remember to what degree it came up. In campaigns I've played in also really hard to say, I just don't know.

 

How many points do your OIHID characters have with this limitation?

 

 

I think you'd be a good source for such.

 

Tangential question - very generally, how would you represent a lim that would likely come up around 5%-20% of the time? The low end of that scale could probably be fine with a Disad, but the higher end seems more in lim territory. As such, I think that's where the quality (impact/timing) of the lim matters more than frequency and can/should more often lead to employment of a limitation.

 

 

It depends on the limit. I really don't want to make a blanket rule, but it depends on how often the limit is reasonably expected to come up and the scope of the limit. I don't mind if the player takes a -1/4 seldom used limit on his HRRP. But if he takes it on 60 Str, 30 Dex, 30 Con, and 6 Spd as well as many powers, I'm going to be a lot more critical of it.

[OddHat]

Re: Oihid

 

Nope' date=' the 425 assumes a 50 pt normal character. He has 375 pts with a -1/4 limitation and 50 without limitations. 300+50 real points and 375+50 active points.[/quote']

 

Right. And the idea that this is a potential problem to be addressed by GMs on a case by case basis rather than a problem with OIHID itself? Remembering that you yourself conceeded as much when commenting on Treb's PC?

 

 

Because this was agreed upon when the character was built?

 

Heh. I'd rather just save the time arguing about it ("But it's in the rules!" "No." repeat until guns are drawn) by using a nice, simple, and valid interpretation of the character built using OIHID.

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

Maybe in an arena duel, the person short 20% might occasionally win one. But in terms of an overall campaign, the person with 20% more points is going to be either much tougher and more powerful, be much more versatile, or have tons of skills to dominate noncombat situations. Or all of the above.

 

BTW, I'm talking about reasonably efficient characters and equal players. Yeah a 350 efficiently built character can beat a 425 non-efficiently built character, but it's not the general case.

 

Eh, maybe. Maybe not. I think it depends a lot on how much either character specializes and what in.

 

How many points do your OIHID characters have with this limitation?

 

Only one maintained it he had/has a high percent, it's earlier in this thread, like the large majority (the type you would critcize in general). As stated, I'm okay with the amount it's come up as it's come up more in the crunch times.

 

The other one, who no longer has it, was more limited, I'm thinking 50% of the points roughly.

 

It depends on the limit. I really don't want to make a blanket rule, but it depends on how often the limit is reasonably expected to come up and the scope of the limit. I don't mind if the player takes a -1/4 seldom used limit on his HRRP. But if he takes it on 60 Str, 30 Dex, 30 Con, and 6 Spd as well as many powers, I'm going to be a lot more critical of it.

 

I don't expect a blanket rule, I agree. Just curious.

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

(snip) ("But it's in the rules!" "No." repeat until guns are drawn)

 

Wow, tough group!

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

I was suspicious of the new rule stating any form (not just most expensive) could be base' date=' but frankly I now accept it and like it. I think it allows for more appropriate character conception where needed and I don't think it's innately unbalancing, though naturally it can easily be unbalancing.[/quote']

 

 

It's unbalancing if you allow each form to be at your campaign max.

 

Player one has 1 350 pt form. He's a straight character.

 

Player two is Duplicate Boy who can turn into a 350 pt version of anyone he's ever studied (paid points for). He has 16 350 pt forms that cost his base form 90 pts. Now he has 16 forms each just as inherently powerful as player one. He can always pull out the Brick form, Mage form, EB form, Mentallist form, skills form, etc whenever he needs their abilities and depending on his foes.

 

The only way to balance Duplicate Boy with a regular character is to limit the max points that each form is allowed. That way he can pull out a 275 pt brick, mage, EB, etc and not step on the toes of people with regular 350 pt characters.

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

You can also just require each form to have its own limiting gotchas, even if they're 350, IMHO.

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

Right. And the idea that this is a potential problem to be addressed by GMs on a case by case basis rather than a problem with OIHID itself? Remembering that you yourself conceeded as much when commenting on Treb's PC?

 

 

It was very early in this thread where I mentioned the main problem being a character with the majority of his points with OIHID. I believe I've mentioned it many times by now.

 

 

Heh. I'd rather just save the time arguing about it ("But it's in the rules!" "No." repeat until guns are drawn) by using a nice, simple, and valid interpretation of the character built using OIHID.

 

 

If the player is going to argue after already agreeing to something when the character was built, then the problem would seem to lie more with the player.

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

You can also just require each form to have its own limiting gotchas' date=' even if they're 350, IMHO.[/quote']

 

 

But since the player has full control of when each form manifests, he'll never pull out a form unless he thinks it's safe to do so.

 

Brick form may have 2X effect from sonics. Duplicate Boy uses his EB form when Howler shows up.

 

Mage form may have low defenses. DB uses a better defended form in combat and pulls out Mage form in noncombat when he needs utility powers.

 

Skills form would only be pulled out in infiltration mode or stealth operations.

 

You get the idea.

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

But since the player has full control of when each form manifests, he'll never pull out a form unless he thinks it's safe to do so.

 

Brick form may have 2X effect from sonics. Duplicate Boy uses his EB form when Howler shows up.

 

Mage form may have low defenses. DB uses a better defended form in combat and pulls out Mage form in noncombat when he needs utility powers.

 

Skills form would only be pulled out in infiltration mode or stealth operations.

 

You get the idea.

I have a player with multiforms, not all at max, but most are high. The thing is most of the forms are immobile! They are mostly big huge UBO "things" with different sorts of abillities. A few are barely mobile (such as by wind) and a couple are just plain weird elements with narrow abilities. They each have to be highly pigeon-holed, but it seems to work out well.

[OddHat]

Re: Oihid

 

It was very early in this thread where I mentioned the main problem being a character with the majority of his points with OIHID. I believe I've mentioned it many times by now.

 

If the player is going to argue after already agreeing to something when the character was built, then the problem would seem to lie more with the player.

 

I don't even see the "majority" thing being that much of a problem, though again it will vary from game to game. If OIHID Guy has the majority of his points OIHID in my campaigns, he isn't doing any better than characters with similar numbers of active points who managed to get there with other limits and builds. In my own games, I try to evaluate characters as a whole, measured against campaign standards. I also enforce limits.

 

the problem would seem to lie more with the player

 

If OIHID is being abused (for a give value of "abused"), that problem is with the player, and the GM.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Oihid

 

And why no gripes about Foci? A 350 character that spends 100 points on Characteristics and 50 points on skills can use the other 200 points to buy 300 points of powers with OIF or IAF for a 450 point character. It's not like people actually take those foci away or destroy them or anything. And so what if they do. Just make sure you've got one OIF +60 STR power and the rest are OAF. More free points and the Limitations don't count...

 

That's back in the first five pages too, I think...

 

But it's still an excellent point, and falls squarely in with my view that all limitations enhance "points available", and they can all be simulated by disadvantages. I don't support removal of limitations in favour of disadvantages, but if the shift were to be made, it should be made on an overall basis, not for just one limitation.

 

375 with OIHID + 50 without = 425

 

150 with OAF + 275 without = 425

 

Hmmm...I don't think anyone's mentioned the fact that OIHID waters down the value of any other limitations you put on your powers. A multiformer with limitations on his powers would get a bigger point break than the same character built with OIHID.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Oihid

 

When I said 'see you in 4 or 5 pages', I never actually expected it to happen.

 

I think you are ALL goofing around.

[OddHat]

Re: Oihid

 

When I said 'see you in 4 or 5 pages', I never actually expected it to happen.

 

I think you are ALL goofing around.

 

At this point I fear you are correct.

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

At this point I fear you are correct.

 

Hey! I'm serious, damnit! This is a matter of life or death. There can be no more important debate than what we are discussing here! The fate of the very world, nay, universe hangs upon the outcome of this debate! Surely this is obvious to everyone.

 

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

You seem to feel the "spirit" of the rules should be the major factor in whether something should be allowed. Then why are you ok with OIHID on the majority of a character's points when page 194-195 strongly suggests that limitations that are too sweeping shouldn't be allowed?

 

Well, taking the whole paragraph in it's entirety, it answers the question for you. You'll note that it's not a warning against all "sweeping" limitations. Instead it is a warning of certain types of "sweeping" lims: characters that will be useless a large portion of the time (daylight is far more frequent than intense electromagnetic fields) or players only playing that character in favorable conditions. If neither is likely to be the case with the OIHID character, I don't see the problem.

 

Again, so long as the GM shows a little foresight and willingness to enforce the Lim, there is no problem.

 

In any case, that a character can take OIHID on 300 CPs and it might be abusive, that doesn't mean OIHID needs to be chucked and replaced with a Physical Lim. It just means you need to be careful of what OIHID builds you allow. Just like anything else in the Hero System.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Oihid

 

Your problem seems to be that you have a persecution complex where Zl'f is involved.

 

Since Zl'f doesn't have OIHID on the majority of her points, I wouldn't have a problem with her. I have problems with the people who do have it on the majority of their points. Happy now?

"Persecution complex where Zl'f is involved"? Now that's funny. I wasn't aware you were a monkey comic genius.

 

No, there's no problem with Zl'f. And it's not because Gary the Magnificent thinks she's OK since Zl'f doesn't have OIHID on the majority of her points. I frankly don't need your stamp of approval, and I'm insulted you seem to think I do. Zl'f is OK because I'm a good player, and because I have good GMs who will enforce the genre. I may be a good player, but I'm also far from unique. I play with other good players. Zornwil, Hugh Nielson, NetZilla, TheRealLemming, and Hyper-Man, and the others who have posted on this thread are also good players and/or GMs. And there are undoubtably hundreds if not thousands of other HERO and Champions players who are also good enough to play this game without your smug and sanctimonious assumption that without Gary to approve or disapprove our game and character designs we just must be doing it all wrong.

 

I utterly reject your implicit premise throughout this thread: That most players and most GMs are simply not honest enough or competent enough to police OIHID themselves, and therefore the Limitation must be disallowed because it makes you uncomfortable that the unwashed masses might abuse it. Your condescension reeks, Gary. You're a snob.

 

Who the hell died and made you Grand Inquisitor anyway?

[Rapier]

Re: Oihid

 

"Persecution complex where Zl'f is involved"? Now that's funny. I wasn't aware you were a monkey comic genius.

 

 

Who the hell died and made you Grand Inquisitor anyway?

Hmm. A little more...strongly worded than I would have, but basically sums up my feelings.

 

Gary, it seems to me that your problem is not with OIHID, it's with how it has been used (and not used) in the games you have played in. I can assure you that in all of my games that OIHID is, in fact, a limitation. In fact, there are times when a story arc almost would warrant an INCREASE in the value of the lim (if that arc was an average example of the campaign, as a whole).

 

I'm also a bit of a optimist, I would believe that most of the good games/campaigns running around out there DO use OIHID (and any limitation or disadvantage) enough to warrant its use as a limitation.

[JmOz]

Re: Oihid

 

Something to consider about how often the lim comes up: It only matters that it is constent for that game:

 

If I as GM decide that -1/4 effects the charact 25% of the time, then any -1/4 lim should, be it IIF, Intence magnetic fields or OIHID. Another GM may choose that a -1/4 will come up once every 3-4 adventures, but again that is fine, as long as he is consistent and that higher lims happen more often than lower lims.

 

The big problem comes when the character with a IIF has it taken every session, but OIHID man has never had a problem...

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

I will be the first to admit some 1/4 lims never really come up, or don't rise to the occassion they probably should. In my experience, it's more often things like IIF and Gestures that get buried; a lot of it is the bad GM (bad me!).

 

But, to take a tangent again here, a big issue is that it's hard to work in all the various lims and disads and not end up with a mish-mash of a story.

 

But if the game's fun and the players are suitably challenged by a reasonable portion of their character sheet problems as well as however they roleplay, then all is well.

 

One thing, strongly related to this, is that good roleplayers make lots of trouble for themselvesl without needing lims or disads. Happens all the time - pettiness, carelessness, miserliness, etc. all end up creeping into characters and the PCs make "mistakes" that aren't on their character sheet. I think this is an under-explored dynamic, and it tears asunder the many criticisms levied against not leveraging lims or disads "enough".

 

And that gets me now to where I finally needed to be to say this...while it's wonderful to debate the math and the character sheet and the rules intent and balance and so on, the reality is THE CHARACTER SHEET IS ONLY THE BEGINNING! We obsess too much on points and powers and lims and such. The reality is in play it's all a big ball of flux, it's like herding cats sometimes. And good roleplayers, which I wholly admit to having been blessed with all the time I've played (sans 2 players, distant past), know how to make fun, know how to play characters that have flaws and make mistakes.

 

So there's this underlying problem with all these analyses, and it's the glorious problem of how the best laid plans go awry in a game, and it's the glorious problem of how, like life, things just keep changing in ways one cannot readily predict.

 

Otherwise, RPGing just wouldn't be fun, anyway.

 

It's pretty good up here on this high horse...

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

"Persecution complex where Zl'f is involved"? Now that's funny. I wasn't aware you were a monkey comic genius.

 

No, there's no problem with Zl'f. And it's not because Gary the Magnificent thinks she's OK since Zl'f doesn't have OIHID on the majority of her points. I frankly don't need your stamp of approval, and I'm insulted you seem to think I do. Zl'f is OK because I'm a good player, and because I have good GMs who will enforce the genre. I may be a good player, but I'm also far from unique. I play with other good players. Zornwil, Hugh Nielson, NetZilla, TheRealLemming, and Hyper-Man, and the others who have posted on this thread are also good players and/or GMs. And there are undoubtably hundreds if not thousands of other HERO and Champions players who are also good enough to play this game without your smug and sanctimonious assumption that without Gary to approve or disapprove our game and character designs we just must be doing it all wrong.

 

I utterly reject your implicit premise throughout this thread: That most players and most GMs are simply not honest enough or competent enough to police OIHID themselves, and therefore the Limitation must be disallowed because it makes you uncomfortable that the unwashed masses might abuse it. Your condescension reeks, Gary. You're a snob.

 

Who the hell died and made you Grand Inquisitor anyway?

 

For someone who pretends to not care about my opinion, you've been awfully defensive throughout this entire thread. You've been posting lots of defenses of Zl'f, including detailed breakdowns of her points.

 

It's pretty sad when you have to resort to personal insults when you're arguing your case. Everyone else in this thread for the most part have been posting civilly. Maybe you should try it sometime.