Oihid

[OddHat]

Re: Oihid

 

A significant number who have OIHID at all have it on a majority of their points (Obviously most characters posted on these boards don't have OIHID at all). As an example off the top of my head, there's Hyperman posted by Hyperman in another thread who saves about 70 pts on a 350 character. Athenian, posted by Oddhat, has it on slightly more than half of her points and saves 40-45 pts on a 350 character using this limitation. And the 2 official characters that I managed to find both had it on the majority of their points. They're not all 80+% of their points, but the worst offenders such as Thorn are significantly over 80%.

 

Hyperman and Oddhat, I hope you don't take offense at bringing your characters in this discussion.

 

1) Foci are easier to deal with.

 

2) Often foci are placed on only a power here and a power there. On a small fraction of a character's points. It's not worth junking the foci system for the rare situations where foci is placed on the majority of a character's points. This is unlike OIHID where it's rarely not on the majority of a character's points.

 

3) Foci are deeply ingrained into the Hero psyche. Far more so than OIHID. It's already taking far too much of my time writing only about OIHID, let alone if I brought Foci into the discussion.

 

No problem. If you wouldn't allow Athenian , fair enough. She's not in your game.

 

I will point out tht Athenian takes OIHID on 177 or so points; Defender takes OIF on a little over 200 points. She is getting less of a point break than a flagship character, and will be in her Human form at least as often as he is without his Armor. And in case you were wondering, no, I would not let her pull a 0 phase change.

 

In the test runs I used her for, she worked out as a well balanced part of her group, and was not overpowered as compared to the other characters she was with or the foes she faced. For me, how well a character will work in the group and in the campaign is a major part of deciding if that character will be played.

 

As to the other three points you quoted, #1 I disagree with, #2 is incorrect in my experience (the same thread that has Athenian also has two others with OIHID, both of whom have it on less than half of their points), and #3 is, well, odd. Wonder Woman (pre power up), Captain Marvel, Iron Man and other OIHID characters have been around forever. It would be strange not to have a mechanic to reflect this.

[Reneshat]

Re: Oihid

 

Let's say a character wears armor. That armor is his super hero costume. If he is wearing that armor, he is in super hero costume. Wouldn't that only work as an oihid?

[paigeoliver]

Re: Oihid

 

Let's say a character wears armor. That armor is his super hero costume. If he is wearing that armor' date=' he is in super hero costume. Wouldn't that only work as an oihid?[/quote']

 

I fail to see how something can be both an OIF and OIHID. Otherwise almost every focus based power would be OIHID as well.

[Reneshat]

Re: Oihid

 

I fail to see how something can be both an OIF and OIHID. Otherwise almost every focus based power would be OIHID as well.

 

Hmmm, let me think. Magic rings, guns, necklaces, etc. Do you think everyone notices Green Lantern because of his ring? I always thought it was the flashy spandex and the mask, but I might be wrong.

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

No problem. If you wouldn't allow Athenian , fair enough. She's not in your game.

 

I will point out tht Athenian takes OIHID on 177 or so points; Defender takes OIF on a little over 200 points. She is getting less of a point break than a flagship character, and will be in her Human form at least as often as he is without his Armor. And in case you were wondering, no, I would not let her pull a 0 phase change.

 

In the test runs I used her for, she worked out as a well balanced part of her group, and was not overpowered as compared to the other characters she was with or the foes she faced. For me, how well a character will work in the group and in the campaign is a major part of deciding if that character will be played.

 

I wouldn't reject her out of hand, although I would look carefully at her in comparison to others in the group.

 

As for comparing her to Defender, shame on you! She's far better built and more interesting than he is. Although she might be in trouble in a head to head fight with him because of his flight.

 

 

As to the other three points you quoted, #1 I disagree with, #2 is incorrect in my experience (the same thread that has Athenian also has two others with OIHID, both of whom have it on less than half of their points), and #3 is, well, odd. Wonder Woman (pre power up), Captain Marvel, Iron Man and other OIHID characters have been around forever. It would be strange not to have a mechanic to reflect this.

 

1) Fair enough, although foci rules are obviously more restrictive than OIHID rules IMO.

 

2) The foci rules ecompass more than just power armor types. They also emcompass people who merely have it on a weapon, or maybe flash defense goggles, or kevlar armor, or any numerous other ways where a portion of a character's points are in foci. Just look at CKC for example to see numerous characters with foci on small amounts of powers, but nowhere near the majority of their points.

 

3) I was talking about the Hero System rules, not comic books. Characters with foci in Champions are far more common than characters with OIHID.

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

Hmmm' date=' let me think. Magic rings, guns, necklaces, etc. Do you think everyone notices Green Lantern because of his ring? I always thought it was the flashy spandex and the mask, but I might be wrong.[/quote']

 

Well, the rules for OIHID specifically warn against making something both a Focus and OIHID. As for Green Lantern, while he may have a Secret ID (in some incarnations) and an OIF (ring), I don't see anything about him that would warrent OIHID. Heck, he violates OIHID by taking less than a phase to change and having no way to stop the change w/out taking the ring (which you already got the OIF bonus for). Maybe some extra PRE based on the nifty green costume, but not his GL powers.

 

As for power armor characters, some could be built as OIHID, some with OIF (not a big fan of that), some with -1/4 Restrainable or some with the Vehicle rules (be very careful of balance here). However, I doubt there's many (if any) cases where it would be appropriate to combine even two of these in one char.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Oihid

 

Well' date=' the rules for OIHID specifically warn against making something both a Focus and OIHID. As for Green Lantern, while he may have a Secret ID (in some incarnations) and an OIF (ring), I don't see anything about him that would warrent OIHID. Heck, he violates OIHID by taking less than a phase to change and having no way to stop the change w/out taking the ring (which you already got the OIF bonus for). Maybe some extra PRE based on the nifty green costume, but not his GL powers.[/quote']

 

IIRC, the origin of OIHID was characters like Thor who seem to have a focus, but the focus doesn't act like one in the comics (never taken away, etc.). Certainly, the old "Don Blake/Thor" didn't deserve OAF on all the powers gained when he shifted into Thor Form, notwithstanding he would change back if separated from the hammer for a minute.

 

As for GL, is his ring an OIF? When is it successfully taken away? He seems able, at least recently, to control it from a distance, and I seem to recall him summoning the ring to him. I can't see it for GL specifically, but a similar character (whose ring can't be removed by force) could possibly take OIHID on the basis that putting on the ring constitutes taking on his ID. The ring would need to be realy obvious so he can't just wear gloves over it, hide it in a pocket, etc., but if there were some issues preventing constant access to the ring, OIHID might be a good fit.

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

This forum needs a smiley for use when a thread has jumped the shark.

 

Hmmm...

 

 

 

 

Don't with ?

 

I especially liked in post #374:

 

We're just quibbling at this point. (snip)

 

Uh....haven't we been "just quibbling" since something like page 3 (if not 1)?

 

And yet, I'm fighting the compulsion to reply to many of Gary's points in post 374.

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

We're just quibbling at this point. We both agree that there is a problem with a certain amount of their points in one overarching limitation. The only thing we're quibbling about now is what percentage constitutes 'too sweeping'

Okay, I don't seem to be getting my point across well enough. My point is that distinction between 'sweeping' and 'too sweeping' is not just percentage. Other factors have to be taken into account before I'll label something 'too sweeping'.

As I said before, giving everyone the same option doesn't make it fair. An example would be a Cosmic VPP if the control cost was 0. Even if everyone has access to it and spent the rest of their points on background skills, it still wouldn't be balanced or fair.

Well, it's fair to the players (not the GM but I'll get to that) but probably not balanced. What you've got there is a power that almost every player would want for their character. Heck, you've almost made it an every-hero power. It's fair for the players because they all have access to it. It's unfair to the GM because adjudicating one cosmic VPP can be enough of a headache. Because of those factors, I don't think your analogy stands.

How many pts in background skills do you require? Not that I thought you would approve him, but just pointing him out as an example of a character with the vast majority of his points with OIHID.

I'd prefer a minimum of about 10% or so of points in background abilities (not just skills). However, I'm not sure that's really germane to this discussion. In any case, I'm certainly not planning on starting any threads stating that I think characters who only spend 5% of their points on background abilities are unfair and unbalanced and that we need a rule requiring players to spend at least 10% of their points on background abilities.

 

An example of an official hero with OIHID is Stalwart. He is 489 pts of which 134 pts are not subject to OIHID and 365 pts are subject to OIHID. He has 57 pts worth of perks and noncombat skills. The rest of the 134 pts are in 3 3 pt CSLs and enough stats to make him a decent agent level.

Stalwart is a hero. And he has roughly 75% of his points (after factoring in the OIHID savings) subject to OIHID.

 

Stalwart is a GM-only character. He may be a hero, but he's an NPC and thus built to NPC, not PC standards. I don't think he'd meant to be an example of how PCs should be built. Otherwise his write-up wouldn't be in the GM's Vault.

 

With that said, just for the sake of argument, let's take him through the steps:

 

1. Does this character have all of their Powers bought with the same Limitation?

It looks like it, but I don't have the write-up in front of me.

 

1a. If 'no', are enough Powers bought that way to make the GM uncomfortable?

It certainly looks like it. Fail on Step 1.

 

2. Is that Limitation worth -1/2 or more?

No.

 

2a. If 'no', is the Limitation worth enough to make the GM uncomfortable?

IMO, no. Pass on Step 2.

 

3. Is the Limitation likely to occur 1/3 of the time or more?

No.

 

3a. If 'no', is the Limitation frequent enough to make the GM uncomfortable?

IMO no. Pass on Step 3.

 

4. Is the character significantly underpowered when the Limitation is in play?

If he's good enough to count as an elite agent while suffering for his OIHID, I'd say no. Pass on Step 4.

 

5. Is the character significantly overpowered when the Limitation is not in play?

If the other characters are built with the same base points & experience and have achieved similar points savings, then no. Pass on Step 4.

 

6. Is the player likely to avoid playing this character when the Limitation would apply?

Unknowable since we don't have a hypothetical player. So we won't take this one into consideration.

 

In my analysis, he only fails Step 1, so I'd say he passes overall.

 

A significant number who have OIHID at all have it on a majority of their points (Obviously most characters posted on these boards don't have OIHID at all). As an example off the top of my head, there's Hyperman posted by Hyperman in another thread who saves about 70 pts on a 350 character.

So I'm guessing he clocks in at over 70-75% of his points limited by OIHID (I haven't done the math). If so, he goes through the steps I just did for Stalwart. Without more info on his writeup, I can't say if he'd pass for my campaign or not.

Athenian, posted by Oddhat, has it on slightly more than half of her points and saves 40-45 pts on a 350 character using this limitation.

At only slightly more than half, Oddhat's probably not going to need to go through the steps unless something else about the character were to jump out at me.

And the 2 official characters that I managed to find both had it on the majority of their points. They're not all 80+% of their points, but the worst offenders such as Thorn are significantly over 80%.

But they're both designed to NPC, not PC standards. Therefore, you can't take them as examples of how PCs should be built.

 

Gestures and Restrainable are easy to deal with since grabs and entangles are fairly common. And the rulebook does suggest that Gestures and Incantations should primarily be for heroic campaigns.

Well, I've seen Gestures mainly on super-mage type characters in Superhero campaigns. Not on all of them, but several, including some official write-ups (Stingray comes to mind, but it's only on some of her powers). Even so, you could still build a Dr. Strange type character that required Gestures or Incantations on 70% or more of their Powers/Points.

 

To stop a one-handed Gesture, you'd have to grab both arms. How do you fairly adjudicate that the grab didn't end up on an arm and leg or both legs or an arm and neck or something other than both arms? How is OIHID harder to deal with than this?

 

With Incantations, you've got to stop them speaking. Your grab would have to involve their head (specifically their mouth) which runs into the same problems as one-handed gestures. In addition, Entangles don't normally stop someone from speaking. So, how is this easier to deal with than an OIHID that requires a magic word?

Also, most of these limitations and disads do not apply to the majority of a character's points. They're not as sweeping as OIHID or many conditionals.

So, you're saying that frequency of the occurrence is a significant factor in the problem with OIHID and Conditional Powers? I'm a little dubious on that reasoning. I'm also not convinced the problem comes up quite as often as you imply it does.

A blanket no even if he spends the 150 extra points on background skills, talents, and perks?

It wasn't a blanket 'no'. It was a 'no' based on the character violating steps 1-4. Actually, since you were basing this on the book example (which assumed the character being overpowered), it actually violated 5 out of 6 steps. I'd say the 'no' was fully justified.

 

Now, I'm assuming that you're changing the example by suggesting that the 150 extra points were spent on background abilities. In that case, the character gets re-evaluated. In the re-evaluation, it's still going to fail steps 1, 2 & 3 (half of the process). Steps 4 & 5 will depend on how likely those background abilities are to come up in play and so it's harder to say pass/fail on that one. If some only come up rarely, but a few come up enough to keep the balance between under/over-powered, then the build would pass those steps. Step 6 is still an unknown quantity.

I actually don't like any threshold. I dislike the limitations where one character is significantly more powerful than his comrades most of the time but worthless some of the time. For solo campaigns that's fine, but not when there are other people involved.

The character's being over/under powered has nothing to do with what I asked. What I asked was: What how often can a Limitation be enforced and still be fair to the GM (i.e. not strain him too much or take too much time away from other players)?

It's a sliding scale. I would never allow a 14- hunted or DNPC for example, in a 6 party group. It takes too much airtime away from the rest of the players. In a solo campaign, 11- or 14- would be perfectly ok. And yes, 6 characters each with 11- or 14- hunteds and DNPCs would suffer 'disadvantage burnout'.

So why is a 25% frequency okay for Disadvantages but not for Limitations? Is a 25% frequency bad for some Limitations but not others? If so, why?

Ok, I apologize at taking offense if that wasn't your intent. And I apologize if my posting style gave you offense.

No sweat. I'm not going to take offence to anything said over the internet unless the person is obviously being deliberately offensive. I was just trying to point out that some of your statements come close to 'one-true-wayism'. You haven't actually crossed that line; just come close. I freely admit that I may have stepped on that line here and there. I'm trying to be careful of that, though.

 

Ok. I've been responding to a lot of people in this thread, so I apologize if I mixed you up with someone else.

No sweat. I've lost track of who said what to whom in internet discussions often enough. I figured that was what was happening here.

 

There are a few reasons.

 

1) Foci are easier to deal with.

In what ways? Is this true for all Focus Lims or only certain values of Focus?

 

2) Often foci are placed on only a power here and a power there. On a small fraction of a character's points. It's not worth junking the foci system for the rare situations where foci is placed on the majority of a character's points. This is unlike OIHID where it's rarely not on the majority of a character's points.

Two of the iconic PC-example Champions characters (Defender and Nighthawk) have OIF on significant portions of their points. Defender saves well over 100 points and Nighthawk clocks in at about 35 (these would be a lot higher if I based their OIF savings off the powers' Active Costs rather than their MP slot costs). I know others do as well, but I'd have to look them up to be certain which ones.

 

3) Foci are deeply ingrained into the Hero psyche. Far more so than OIHID.

That's certainly debatable. Besides which, even if the Focus Lim is more integral to the game system, OIHID is a significant part of the genre that the game tries to emulate. OIHID fills a very valuable role in that regard.

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

IIRC' date=' the origin of OIHID was characters like Thor who seem to have a focus, but the focus doesn't act like one in the comics (never taken away, etc.). Certainly, the old "Don Blake/Thor" didn't deserve OAF on all the powers gained when he shifted into Thor Form, notwithstanding he would change back if separated from the hammer for a minute.[/quote']

 

Sure, the old Thor, Captain Marvel (DC) and some others fit in my opinion.

 

As for GL, is his ring an OIF? When is it successfully taken away? He seems able, at least recently, to control it from a distance, and I seem to recall him summoning the ring to him. I can't see it for GL specifically, but a similar character (whose ring can't be removed by force) could possibly take OIHID on the basis that putting on the ring constitutes taking on his ID. The ring would need to be realy obvious so he can't just wear gloves over it, hide it in a pocket, etc., but if there were some issues preventing constant access to the ring, OIHID might be a good fit.

 

I was just trying to point out that Focus and OIHID shouldn't be on the same power. You'll chose whichever you feel fits the character best. There's just too much overlap between the two Lims to justify putting both on the same power.

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

IIRC, the origin of OIHID was characters like Thor who seem to have a focus, but the focus doesn't act like one in the comics (never taken away, etc.). Certainly, the old "Don Blake/Thor" didn't deserve OAF on all the powers gained when he shifted into Thor Form, notwithstanding he would change back if separated from the hammer for a minute.

 

As for GL, is his ring an OIF? When is it successfully taken away? He seems able, at least recently, to control it from a distance, and I seem to recall him summoning the ring to him. I can't see it for GL specifically, but a similar character (whose ring can't be removed by force) could possibly take OIHID on the basis that putting on the ring constitutes taking on his ID. The ring would need to be realy obvious so he can't just wear gloves over it, hide it in a pocket, etc., but if there were some issues preventing constant access to the ring, OIHID might be a good fit.

I think part of the GL problem is that in general in comics (as opposed to, I think, Fantasy or Dark Champions/modern adventure) Foci are rarely lost in general, at least rarer than the Limitations suggest, and I mean that even disregarding obvious "my focus is not a lim" characters like Thor. One could argue that an OAF should generally be a -1/2 lim in Champions (as opposed to the base HERO value) for as much as (I think) superhero games in general (in this case reflecting the source material even accurately) actually make OAFs into a true lim. I'm not quite saying that, but my observation is that it's a reasonable argument to make.

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

Okay' date=' I don't seem to be getting my point across well enough. My point is that distinction between 'sweeping' and 'too sweeping' is not [b']just[/b] percentage. Other factors have to be taken into account before I'll label something 'too sweeping'.

(snip)

 

Go go, Netzilla!

 

Glad you responded, I was itching to. I get your comments on "too sweeping" and I don't think Gary is.

 

You're doing great, and it spares me writing all this.

 

That being said, you don't think you're going to change Gary's mind, right?

 

PS - let me add - to me it's a simple bottom line at this piont - OIHID can be abused. Whether it's really being abused in people's campaigns, relative to other -1/4 lims, is hard to say. But the HERO rulebook is quite clear on the matter of OIHID usage and makes specific suggestions that it can be used too broadly. There's really just nothing to see here.

[OddHat]

Re: Oihid

 

IIRC, the origin of OIHID was characters like Thor who seem to have a focus, but the focus doesn't act like one in the comics (never taken away, etc.). Certainly, the old "Don Blake/Thor" didn't deserve OAF on all the powers gained when he shifted into Thor Form, notwithstanding he would change back if separated from the hammer for a minute.

 

As for GL, is his ring an OIF? When is it successfully taken away? He seems able, at least recently, to control it from a distance, and I seem to recall him summoning the ring to him. I can't see it for GL specifically, but a similar character (whose ring can't be removed by force) could possibly take OIHID on the basis that putting on the ring constitutes taking on his ID. The ring would need to be realy obvious so he can't just wear gloves over it, hide it in a pocket, etc., but if there were some issues preventing constant access to the ring, OIHID might be a good fit.

 

This was the reasoning behind the 350 point versions of Athenian (Wonder Woman tribute) and The Light (Green Lantern tribute) in my New Circle thread. Athenian has powers deriving from a tiara, belt, and bracelets. The Light has powers deriving from a Jade Crown. Both can summon and dismiss their foci, and will very rarely be without those foci; thus, OIHID. Some versions of Thor, Iron Man and Green Lantern follow the same pattern.

 

Personally, I think assigning a -1/4 value to these types of foci makes far more sense than giving them a -1/2, but that type of judgement call is up to each GM.

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

Go go' date=' Netzilla![/quote']

 

 

Glad you responded, I was itching to. I get your comments on "too sweeping" and I don't think Gary is.

 

You're doing great, and it spares me writing all this.

 

That being said, you don't think you're going to change Gary's mind, right?

 

Changing Gary's mind isn't really my goal. I've been around the internet (and this is especially true for usenet) long enough to know that changing people's minds via the 'net is a difficult proposition at best.

 

I can understand where Gary's concern comes from, even if I don't share that concern. I'm just wanting to give Gary and others some counterpoints to think about. I think that some of Gary's arguments raise questions that should be addressed and I'm trying to point these out. I'm also trying to illustrate how a lot of these concerns can be alievated without resorting to extensive house rules that challenge certain paradigms of the game system.

 

At the end of the day, Gary can do whatever he wants with his campaign (same as anyone else).

 

PS - let me add - to me it's a simple bottom line at this piont - OIHID can be abused. Whether it's really being abused in people's campaigns, relative to other -1/4 lims, is hard to say.

 

Well, I'm sure it is being abused in some campaigns and not in others. I'm of the oppinion that an alert & active GM can stop those abuses (sometimes at character creation).

 

But the HERO rulebook is quite clear on the matter of OIHID usage and makes specific suggestions that it can be used too broadly. There's really just nothing to see here.

 

But what else would we do if we weren't busy building mountains out of mole hills?

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

I think we'd have to go to work or something, Netzilla! So let's keep building those mountains...

 

Just to be clear, I think the general issue that Gary raised is good to discuss and he has a point, just that my "bottom line" is the end response to that (interesting enough) point.

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

Okay' date=' I don't seem to be getting my point across well enough. My point is that distinction between 'sweeping' and 'too sweeping' is not [b']just[/b] percentage. Other factors have to be taken into account before I'll label something 'too sweeping'.

 

Well, it's fair to the players (not the GM but I'll get to that) but probably not balanced. What you've got there is a power that almost every player would want for their character. Heck, you've almost made it an every-hero power. It's fair for the players because they all have access to it. It's unfair to the GM because adjudicating one cosmic VPP can be enough of a headache. Because of those factors, I don't think your analogy stands.

 

 

The same applies to OIHID except obviously the magnitude is different. It's not as valuable as a 0 control cost cosmic vpp and it doesn't cause nearly as many headaches. However, it's still valuable (relative to straight characters) and still causes some headaches (relative to straight characters).

 

 

I'd prefer a minimum of about 10% or so of points in background abilities (not just skills). However, I'm not sure that's really germane to this discussion. In any case, I'm certainly not planning on starting any threads stating that I think characters who only spend 5% of their points on background abilities are unfair and unbalanced and that we need a rule requiring players to spend at least 10% of their points on background abilities.

 

Thorn is at roughly 5%. I was just wondering about your philosophy because you were making a comment about how it would be ok if someone with OIHID spends those 75 extra points on background stuff. It seems that if he had already spend 10% of his points on background stuff that he would only have to spend about 10 or so of the 75 to be in balance with your default standard.

 

 

Stalwart is a GM-only character. He may be a hero, but he's an NPC and thus built to NPC, not PC standards. I don't think he'd meant to be an example of how PCs should be built. Otherwise his write-up wouldn't be in the GM's Vault.

 

If you're going to use only PC standard characters, then we'll be left with a sample size of only 6, the Champions. Virtually every published character is a NPC, so not allowing characters like Stalwart would make it almost impossible to discuss this issue.

 

 

With that said, just for the sake of argument, let's take him through the steps:

 

1. Does this character have all of their Powers bought with the same Limitation?

It looks like it, but I don't have the write-up in front of me.

 

1a. If 'no', are enough Powers bought that way to make the GM uncomfortable?

It certainly looks like it. Fail on Step 1.

 

2. Is that Limitation worth -1/2 or more?

No.

 

2a. If 'no', is the Limitation worth enough to make the GM uncomfortable?

IMO, no. Pass on Step 2.

 

3. Is the Limitation likely to occur 1/3 of the time or more?

No.

 

3a. If 'no', is the Limitation frequent enough to make the GM uncomfortable?

IMO no. Pass on Step 3.

 

4. Is the character significantly underpowered when the Limitation is in play?

If he's good enough to count as an elite agent while suffering for his OIHID, I'd say no. Pass on Step 4.

 

5. Is the character significantly overpowered when the Limitation is not in play?

If the other characters are built with the same base points & experience and have achieved similar points savings, then no. Pass on Step 4.

 

6. Is the player likely to avoid playing this character when the Limitation would apply?

Unknowable since we don't have a hypothetical player. So we won't take this one into consideration.

 

In my analysis, he only fails Step 1, so I'd say he passes overall.

 

1) 365 out of 489 pts worth.

 

2) What do you mean by worth enough?

 

3) Stalwart is the head of the FBI hostage rescue team. Obviously he'll be in heroic ID most of the time and won't come close to the 1/3 threshold that you seem to be holding. It'll only come up if he's caught with his pants down.

 

4) Not elite agent, decent agent. 15 Str, 12 Dex, 18 Con, 3 SPD with WF small arms but no martial arts and no equipment other than what he can pick up. I don't think that qualifies as being elite.

 

5) Don't know. He doesn't work with other supers most of the time, but he's fairly tough with 50 Str, 20 Dex, 35 Con, 60 pt multipower with 6 attack slots, flight, invisibility, tunnelling, and lots of enhanced senses including X-Ray vision. What keeps him in check is that his Str, Dex, and Con have 'no figured characterisics', which limits his toughness tremendously.

 

6) His psych lims and background indicate that he would grab a gun and enter the scenario anyway if you as GM would allow him to pick up a gun he hasn't paid for. He probably wouldn't armed with his bare hands. He has 20 pts overconfident, but his description seems to clearly imply that this overconfidence is only if he's in the armor.

 

 

So I'm guessing he clocks in at over 70-75% of his points limited by OIHID (I haven't done the math). If so, he goes through the steps I just did for Stalwart. Without more info on his writeup, I can't say if he'd pass for my campaign or not.

 

Hopefully I gave you enough info.

 

 

At only slightly more than half, Oddhat's probably not going to need to go through the steps unless something else about the character were to jump out at me.

 

Athenian's tough, but not abusive. She's got great CV, high defenses, high con, and base level special defenses. I would probably allow her in my campaign, but I might ask Oddhat to remove 2 of the special defenses so that she has some weaknesses, unless the rest of the party was unusually weak for some reason.

 

 

But they're both designed to NPC, not PC standards. Therefore, you can't take them as examples of how PCs should be built.

 

They're what we have available. We only have 6 examples of PC types, and they're not very well built for the most part.

 

 

Well, I've seen Gestures mainly on super-mage type characters in Superhero campaigns. Not on all of them, but several, including some official write-ups (Stingray comes to mind, but it's only on some of her powers). Even so, you could still build a Dr. Strange type character that required Gestures or Incantations on 70% or more of their Powers/Points.

 

To stop a one-handed Gesture, you'd have to grab both arms. How do you fairly adjudicate that the grab didn't end up on an arm and leg or both legs or an arm and neck or something other than both arms? How is OIHID harder to deal with than this?

 

With Incantations, you've got to stop them speaking. Your grab would have to involve their head (specifically their mouth) which runs into the same problems as one-handed gestures. In addition, Entangles don't normally stop someone from speaking. So, how is this easier to deal with than an OIHID that requires a magic word?

 

Unlikely that even a Dr. Strange type would have gestures/incantations on his Stats or skills.

 

An entangle automatically gets all of a character's limbs. A grab gets 2 limbs of the attacker's choice. No adjudication needed, unless for some reason you use hit locations for grabs.

 

Incantations can be stopped at any time. The OIHID with a magic word can only be stopped before the change. After the change, the character's stats and powers are for the most part, persistent.

 

 

So, you're saying that frequency of the occurrence is a significant factor in the problem with OIHID and Conditional Powers? I'm a little dubious on that reasoning. I'm also not convinced the problem comes up quite as often as you imply it does.

 

Yes. As I said before, a -1/4 that saves 2 pts on HRRP is going to bother me much less than a -1/4 on 300 of a character's points. Frequency does matter.

 

 

It wasn't a blanket 'no'. It was a 'no' based on the character violating steps 1-4. Actually, since you were basing this on the book example (which assumed the character being overpowered), it actually violated 5 out of 6 steps. I'd say the 'no' was fully justified.

 

Now, I'm assuming that you're changing the example by suggesting that the 150 extra points were spent on background abilities. In that case, the character gets re-evaluated. In the re-evaluation, it's still going to fail steps 1, 2 & 3 (half of the process). Steps 4 & 5 will depend on how likely those background abilities are to come up in play and so it's harder to say pass/fail on that one. If some only come up rarely, but a few come up enough to keep the balance between under/over-powered, then the build would pass those steps. Step 6 is still an unknown quantity.

 

If the character does spend all 150 extra points in background skills, he'll still be as powerful in combat as the rest of his team (assuming the limitation doesn't crop up), but he'll be dominating in non-combat with 150 or more skills, perks, and talents. He's still unbalancing, but in the non-combat arena instead of the combat.

 

 

The character's being over/under powered has nothing to do with what I asked. What I asked was: What how often can a Limitation be enforced and still be fair to the GM (i.e. not strain him too much or take too much time away from other players)?

 

It depends. Some limitations such as OAF occur within the normal course of play. Others like many Disads or OIHID or many Conditionals must be specifically planned for by the GM to make them happen. A party of 6 people with a bunch of these would bog the game down if the GM properly enforces them, so in practice a bunch of stuff slides.

 

 

So why is a 25% frequency okay for Disadvantages but not for Limitations? Is a 25% frequency bad for some Limitations but not others? If so, why?

 

Disads don't give you as many points back as sweeping limitations such as OIHID. Letting a disad slide won't make the character any more powerful than a regular character. Letting OIHID slide would. In practice, I don't even see the 25% frequency occur for many disads. For example, 6 players with 2 8- hunteds apiece would logically result in 3 hunteds showing up over the course of the average scenario. This never happens. What ends up happening is that a GM might not have the hunters show up, but retcon that the hunter was observing the player or doing some other nefarious stuff in the meantime.

 

A player with OIHID, 2 8- Hunteds, 8- DNPC would average one of these occuring per scenario if you use the rulebook guidelines.

 

 

No sweat. I'm not going to take offence to anything said over the internet unless the person is obviously being deliberately offensive. I was just trying to point out that some of your statements come close to 'one-true-wayism'. You haven't actually crossed that line; just come close. I freely admit that I may have stepped on that line here and there. I'm trying to be careful of that, though.

 

No sweat. I've lost track of who said what to whom in internet discussions often enough. I figured that was what was happening here.

 

Sure. No harm no foul.

 

 

In what ways? Is this true for all Focus Lims or only certain values of Focus?

 

Anything other than IIF is easier to deal with. With IIF, I share many of the concerns that I do with OIHID.

 

 

Two of the iconic PC-example Champions characters (Defender and Nighthawk) have OIF on significant portions of their points. Defender saves well over 100 points and Nighthawk clocks in at about 35 (these would be a lot higher if I based their OIF savings off the powers' Active Costs rather than their MP slot costs). I know others do as well, but I'd have to look them up to be certain which ones.

 

Defender has 'no figured characteristics' on his savings. As I've said before, this sharply limits the benefits of OIF. I probably wouldn't allow Defender if his primaries didn't have that limitation.

 

Nighthawk's gadgets are fairly easily dealt with if you don't want them around. They're only 6 Def at best, which means that an EB with 12d6 EB could spread +4 OCV and specifically target the utility belt if he wanted to. And if captured, his gadgets get taken away.

 

 

That's certainly debatable. Besides which, even if the Focus Lim is more integral to the game system, OIHID is a significant part of the genre that the game tries to emulate. OIHID fills a very valuable role in that regard.

 

 

OIHID would fill that role anyway, whether it was a limitation or a disad.

[OddHat]

Re: Oihid

 

Defender has 'no figured characteristics' on his savings. As I've said before' date=' this sharply limits the benefits of OIF. I probably wouldn't allow Defender if his primaries didn't have that limitation.[/quote']

 

Personally, a total of -1 in limits (OIF+NFC) on a powered armor character would get every bit as close a look from me as OIHID on that same character. In the end, it still comes down to the GM having to look at the character, not a problem with the mechanics.

 

Thinking about it, this also comes down to your dislike for figured characteristics in general.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Oihid

 

Originally Posted by Gary Defender has 'no figured characteristics' on his savings. As I've said before, this sharply limits the benefits of OIF. I probably wouldn't allow Defender if his primaries didn't have that limitation.

 

Personally' date=' a total of -1 in limits (OIF+NFC) on a powered armor character would get every bit as close a look from me as OIHID on that same character. The point difference is easilly enough to buy Damage Reduction, higher base stats, 0 End on attack powers, a huge END bat, and other tricks that make NFC almost meaningless. In the end, it still comes down to the GM having to look at the character, not a problem with the mechanics.[/quote']

The only thing this type of restriction for an Armor-Type character actually accomplishes is make the player keep track of 2 seperate END totals (personal and End Reserve). As OddHat pointed out, virtually ALL other differences can be made up for by applying points saved towards higher defenses.

 

Also, what if the Armor has a virtually unlimited power supply but still requires USER EFFORT to engage its systems? That seems like a pretty good description of the way Booster Gold's suit behaves so I don't understand the grounds for making such an arbritary statement that the Defender example is the only right way.

 

HM

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

Personally, a total of -1 in limits (OIF+NFC) on a powered armor character would get every bit as close a look from me as OIHID on that same character. In the end, it still comes down to the GM having to look at the character, not a problem with the mechanics.

 

Thinking about it, this also comes down to your dislike for figured characteristics in general.

 

 

That's not really true at all. Not all -1's are equally limiting or cost effective.

 

Let's take a look at the big 3 primaries.

 

1) Str with a -1 costs 1 pt for 2. However, you can easily get that exact same '-1 limitation' by buying it straight and selling back the Stun! And you'll still have the PD and Rec for free while paying the exact same 1 for 2 cost. So I hope you can see my point that enforcing a 'no figureds' sharply limits it's value.

 

2) Let's say you want +20 Dex +4 Spd. Using OIF by itself costs you 40 pts for the Dex and 13 pts for the Spd for a total of 53 pts. By placing NFC on it, it now costs you 30 pts for Dex and 27 pts for Spd and a total of 57 pts. This isn't much of a cost increase, but at least it's still there. I will freely admit that the Dex with NFC has the least impact.

 

3) Con with the -1 costs 1 for 1. Sell back End and you're paying the exact same 1 for 1, but you get ED, Rec, and Stun for free compared to OIF+NFC. Con is an especially horrible deal when dealing with NFC.

 

It's true that you can sell back only 1 figured so you can't take full advantage of (1) and (3) at the same time, but I hope you see that the benefits you're losing far exceeds the cost savings for taking NFC on top of OIF.

[OddHat]

Re: Oihid

 

That's not really true at all. Not all -1's are equally limiting or cost effective.

 

Let's take a look at the big 3 primaries.

 

1) Str with a -1 costs 1 pt for 2. However, you can easily get that exact same '-1 limitation' by buying it straight and selling back the Stun! And you'll still have the PD and Rec for free while paying the exact same 1 for 2 cost. So I hope you can see my point that enforcing a 'no figureds' sharply limits it's value.

 

As I said, this is part of your endless crusade against figured characteristics.

 

They will not go away Gary. You must endure them.

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

As I said, this is part of your endless crusade against figured characteristics.

 

They will not go away Gary. You must endure them.

 

 

Just pointing out that primaries with NFC goes a long way toward balancing a focus based character such as a powered armor type.

[Rapier]

Re: Oihid

 

That's not been my experience at all. I'd suggest that players who do things like that are powergaming at the least and more likely pulling munchkin tricks. I, personally, and several of the groups I've played with now and in the past have played our characters in disadvantageous situations; sometimes deliberately. Overcoming adversity is, after all, part of the fun.

 

So, why is the GM allowing this player to switch characters every time one of their Limitations would come up? If the player does this kind of thing repeatedly, why doesn't the GM talk to the player about their behavior and let them know it's unacceptable? If the player refuses to comply by the campaign standards, why do they keep getting asked back?

 

This is not a problem with OIHID. This is a problem with the GM & Players. I could swear I've pointed this out before (as have others).

I agree. I would have to look long and hard at any player that powergamed to that level. I would have to really consider whether I wanted that person to be around in the first place.

 

However, I have allowed a few characters over the years to have some pretty sweeping limitations. I have also allowed that person to sit out a couple of adventures and bring in a backup character. We all as a group tend to have a couple of characters that we switch off with (with one primary, obviously). If you have a character that is hydrophobic to the point of catatonia (eg total psychlim), it would make a lot of sense for that person to stay at home when taking on the Remoray and the Eel Gang at their underwater HQ. As far as I'm concerned that IS the effect. Now, yes, this example is a disad and not a lim, but the principle is the same.

 

This is why Batman always ends up hanging around the Watch Tower making cocoa (with little tiny bat-marshmallows) while WW and GL take on the baddies.

[Rapier]

Re: Oihid

 

In any case' date=' why does there have to be one set number? Why can't it vary from campaign to campaign so long as all the players feel they're being treated fairly? If you're uncomfortable with 5-10% feel free to up the frequency (as I've repeatedly suggested before). It's your campaign. Why are others wrong for keeping theirs at 5-10%?[/quote']

Regardless of what Mr Stevey may say, as far as I'm concerned (and since I'm the GM my concern is the only one that counts ) 5 - 10% IS the frequency of a 1/4 lim. There also had to be some give and take with limitation frequency. It is simply impossible to include (unless you have a very small group) all character's limitations as often as the book suggests and still keep the campaign, plot and story arc moving forward.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Oihid

 

Just pointing out that primaries with NFC goes a long way toward balancing a focus based character such as a powered armor type.

 

Not really. Most FC's are still overpriced.

 

Seriously, as pointed out, END Battery and Damage Resistance can be even _more_ effective.

 

And if you don't allow the high STR/DEX/CON on an OIF... what's to stop the concept of "I'm a Mutant... with Power Armour"?

[Rapier]

Re: Oihid

 

I fail to see how something can be both an OIF and OIHID. Otherwise almost every focus based power would be OIHID as well.

It can't...well...yes, it can, but not really.

 

OIHID and OIF Power Armour are the same limitation, as is Doesn't Work in Darkness and Only Works in Light. If you see a player bring you a Focus and OIHID on the same power give 'em a smack on the peepee.

 

The OIHID Power Armour character should also expect to get hit with EMPs etc, and the Focus Power Armour character should expect to not be able to take his armour through baggage check!