Oihid

[JmOz]

Re: Oihid

 

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!

 

Then explain this one to me:

 

The swordsman can transform, when he does his mystical sword teleports to his hand as long as he had it last time he changed back, when he is Jack James he does not have access to it. The sword can be taken away normaly however when he has it, and will prevent the transformation back.

 

Sometimes, rarely, the two can go together

[Rapier]

Re: Oihid

 

Then explain this one to me:

 

The swordsman can transform, when he does his mystical sword teleports to his hand as long as he had it last time he changed back, when he is Jack James he does not have access to it. The sword can be taken away normaly however when he has it, and will prevent the transformation back.

 

Sometimes, rarely, the two can go together

But in this case, are we not talking about two separate powers/limitations?

 

1) He has a heroic ID, where he has special powers

2) He has a magic sword that does damage

 

Are not the two separate (seperate? god my brain just switched off)?

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

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).

1. Not every player is going to want OIHID for their character, nor does it come close to being designed as an 'Every-Hero' construct like your 0 Control-Cost VPP.

2. A 0-Control Cost VPP does not in any way limit the character. An OIHID does.

3. A 0-CC VPP will slow the game way down as players compute adjustments to their power set.

4. A 0-CC VPP will reward players who know how to 'work the system' way more than OIHID does.

 

These things combined with the fact that a 0-CC VPP is exponentioanlly harder to adjudicate than an OIHID falsifies your analogy.

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.

First, 10% is not my default standard. 10% is my minimum. Second, you're attempting to relate two things that don't directly relate. That's why I said Thorn wouldn't pass even without having most of his points wrapped up in one Limitation. They are two distinct requirements. If you're only making the minimum contribution to background abilities plus putting most of your powers under one Limitation, you're pushing your limit on two requirements. Obviously that will increase the likelihood of your character being sent back for revision.

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.

Actually, I'm limiting out characters appearing in GM-only materials (like CKC and the GM's Vault sections of other books). Other characters are more likely to (and should) be seen as examples by the players. These can be taken as examples of starting (the Champions, Shugoshin, Kinetic, Meteor Man III etc.) or experienced/high-powered characters. They're placed in the common sections of the materials to act as examples for the players.

2) What do you mean by worth enough?

A -1/4 Lim can be worth enough if it covers enough points. It takes fewer points on a -1/2 Lim and even fewer on a -3/4 Lim. Basically, it’s a comparison on the value of the Lim (-1/4, -1/2, -3/4, etc) to how many points of the character are covered by it. So, 75% at -1/4 may be considered enough by some GMs. So might 60% at -1/2, 50% at -3/4; just to illustrate the thinking involved. I guess you could roll 1 & 2 together to some extent, but I prefer keeping them as separate steps. Keep in mind that just failing 1 & 2 alone won't be enough me to send a character back. I can't vouch for other GMs.

 

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.

Such is the nature of OIHID. I don't see that as a problem.

 

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.

Ah, for some reason I thought you'd written 'elite'. My goof. In that case he'd fail on Step 4.

 

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.

Well, I've been working under the assumption that you're using him as an example of a PC submission. Therefore, it's presumed he'd be working with a group.

 

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.

Step six doesn't cover weather the character would want to up and leave; it's about the player. Basically it's a question of how much I, as GM, trust the player of the proposed PC. If I could expect him to play those Dissads as written, that would pass this step. If the player's going to pout, switch characters or just not participate, then we've got a problem. Of course, I'm not likely to allow a player like that into my game for very long anyway, but the step is there for the sake of completeness.

 

So, at this point we know he fails steps 1 & 4 and passes 2 & 3. That puts him on thin ice. Steps 5 & 6 are harder to say as we don't have hypothetical players. If either of those failed, there's a good chance he'd be sent back. If there were anything else I objected to in his write-up (doesn't directly relate to this discussion so I'm not looking it up right now), he'd definitely get sent back. In any case, a potential problem character is taken care of during development without the use of paradigm-challenging house rules.

Hopefully I gave you enough info.

All you gave me was a points ratio. I've stated many times that I need more info than that to make a call.

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.

We have a few more examples than that if you go by what I explained above. As to their builds, I have dislikes of a few of them as well, but not for any of the reasons that have come up in this thread (as I recall; I don't remember how most are set up for background abilities).

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

Depends on how many of his spells pump up his stats or give him additional skills. Neither is out of concept for a super-mage. In any case, you could still end up with a very powerful character without taking stats or skills out of normal human range.

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.

I don't see anything in the description of grab that says the attacker gets to choose which two limbs they've grabbed. It just says that it affects 2 of the targets limbs (usually the arms parenthetically). So, are you going to rule that every time someone with Gestures, a Focus or Restrainable is grabbed, it will automatically be their arms that are pinned? 'Usually' implies to me that there's a certain amount of the time that is not the case. How often that is gets left up to the GM to decide.

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.

Incantations can only be stopped while their being said. With a 0-phase power, you'll have to have a held action. (Never mind constant powers with Incantations only to start). OIHID, taking a Full Phase, can be stopped in the middle of the process. And Entangles still don't stop either. Also, are you going to rule that grabs against someone with Incantations always affect the head/mouth?

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.

Sorry, by Frequency, I was meaning how many characters do this, not points ratios. Anyway, as I've said before, I need more than just points ratios to go on.

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.

You're assuming that all 150 points in background abilities will come up in every non-combat situation (or at least a significant portion). That's not necessarily the case. I've seen characters with some skills, talents or powers that come up maybe once or twice in a campaign. Heck, one of my current characters has PS: Soldier and KS: U.S. Army which have never come up in 3 years. He's also got a power that he's only used once in that time frame. I knew these wouldn't come up often, but bought them because they fit the concept. Some background abilities are like that.

 

Besides, the character you're suggesting still fails steps 1-3 right off the bat. 4 & 5 are possible to pass at this point. Not likely on that many points, I'll grant you, but possible. If either one failed or #6 failed, he'd be sent back for revision. The character is dealt with right out of the gate with no house rules required.

 

If the character does manage to make it past steps 4-6, he's still on my 'observe closely' list. Basically, I'd give the player a reserved approval, letting them know exactly where I was uncomfortable with the build. I'd also tell them that if I determine that he's out of balance after seeing him in play, a revision will be called for before he can be used again. Consider it a play-test if you will.

Again, the character's dealt with; no house rules required.

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, do you agree that different GM's have different tolerance levels and thus no one set frequency can apply across all campaigns?

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.

I don't agree with that at all. If you're character gets 20 points from a Vulnerability that never comes up in play, that's effectively 20 free points. Other characters are being penalized for taking those points while yours isn't. If he's go 2 20-pt Psyche Lims that the GM doesn't enforce, that's still 40 free points that other characters are being penalized for. Uneven enforcement of anything is unfair to the players, no matter what the Lim or Dissad is or if the points involved are 20, 40 or 60.

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.

How does retconning watching Hunters every 4 games take less GM work than planning for an OIHID once every 4 games? You've still got to adjudicate the effects of those Hunters' off-screen activities.

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

So long as this character's -1/4 Lim comes up as often as other character's -1/4 Lims and his 8- Dissads come up as often as other character's 8- dissads, who's being cheated here?

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.

What does that have to do with me challenging this statement of yours, "Often foci are placed on only a power here and a power there. On a small fraction of a character's points." That is the statement of yours that I was responding to. I brought up Defender and Nighhawk as counter-examples of that statement. Basically, I'm challenging your contention that people use OIHID as a sweeping Limitation significantly more often than they use OIF as a sweeping Limitation.

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

Okay, so you don't want to do away with OIHID entirely, you just want to change it into a Dissad. The thing is, you still need to convince me that this is necessary. You need to show proof that OIHID is more abusable than other Limitations, gets abused more often, is harder to spot by an alert GM and is harder to adjudicate.

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

This is a little different than what I was talking about. In this case, the character knows that water will be involved and thus sits it out. However, if the player decides he's going to sit the game out or use a different character because he somehow got wind of the GM's plot involving the local dam being burst, that's a very different situation (and actually a symptom of a couple larger problems).

 

Then there's the issue of how often the player manages to finagle an in-game reason for the character to never be around water. If it's a regular occurance, there's a problem.

 

Basically it's a GM/player trust issue more than anything else. Of course, that covers a lot of points in this debate.

[JmOz]

Re: Oihid

 

But in this case, are we not talking about two separate powers/limitations?

 

1) He has a heroic ID, where he has special powers

2) He has a magic sword that does damage

 

Are not the two separate (seperate? god my brain just switched off)?

 

Actualy it was a magic sword he only has access to in Hero ID, In otherwords sometimes both will be a part of the character. Now I should make it clear I am only advocating for the inclusion of in OIHID a comment to the effect that "A character should not take OIHID and Foci with explicit GM Permision"

[JmOz]

Re: Oihid

 

This is a little different than what I was talking about. In this case' date=' the [b']character[/b] knows that water will be involved and thus sits it out. However, if the player decides he's going to sit the game out or use a different character because he somehow got wind of the GM's plot involving the local dam being burst, that's a very different situation (and actually a symptom of a couple larger problems).

 

Then there's the issue of how often the player manages to finagle an in-game reason for the character to never be around water. If it's a regular occurance, there's a problem.

 

Basically it's a GM/player trust issue more than anything else. Of course, that covers a lot of points in this debate.

 

I don't know about the part I bolded, if the character has to go to some effort to get around it, and it increases the value of the story, then it is a good thing, and the limitation has done its job.

 

I have in my current group two characters with OIHID and one with OIF on the majority of there powers, it has yet to be a problem

[Rapier]

Re: Oihid

 

This is a little different than what I was talking about. In this case' date=' the [b']character[/b] knows that water will be involved and thus sits it out. However, if the player decides he's going to sit the game out or use a different character because he somehow got wind of the GM's plot involving the local dam being burst, that's a very different situation (and actually a symptom of a couple larger problems).

 

Then there's the issue of how often the player manages to finagle an in-game reason for the character to never be around water. If it's a regular occurance, there's a problem.

 

Basically it's a GM/player trust issue more than anything else. Of course, that covers a lot of points in this debate.

Ah. Gotcha. Although I would have to say that the problem started a lot earlier when the GM accepted the character in question. I once had a player want to play a vampire. We sat down and had a LOOOOOONG talk about how this would effect the character, especially with the Susc to sunlight. She made the character, but she doesn't show up very often.

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

I don't know about the part I bolded' date=' if the character has to go to some effort to get around it, and it increases the value of the story, then it is a good thing, and the limitation has done its job.[/quote']

 

No doubt. Of course it might get a little old around the hundreth time. Like I said, it's all about frequency.

 

I have in my current group two characters with OIHID and one with OIF on the majority of there powers, it has yet to be a problem

 

Sure. Our group has had similar characters until recently (one moved and the other's currently taking his turn as GM). It was never a problem for us. Of course, neither were the Multiform character, Elemental Control build, the several Multipower chars and even the couple VPPs (all things I've seen labled abusive way more often than OIHID). The GM checks each one to start, isn't shy about saying "no" to things he doesn't like, and is perfectly willing to deal with problems that only show up after play has started. All of us who take turns GMing do that. I suspect your group probably works with a similar dynamic (don't know about the rotating GM bit though).

 

A lot of these 'abuse' threads would go a lot smoother if folks would accept the idea that the GM saying "no" can be a good thing and will head off a lot of these problems before they start. Why use a page long house rule to prevent munchkinism when a simple "no" can do the job in 2 seconds?

 

Eh, getting soapboxy. It must be my bed time.

[zornwil]

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.

If indeed there is a balance issue...

[Kristopher]

Re: Oihid

 

If indeed there is a balance issue...

 

indeed.

[Kristopher]

Re: Oihid

 

Why use a page long house rule to prevent munchkinism when a simple "no" can do the job in 2 seconds?

 

**ding**

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

**ding**

 

Don't worry, coach, I'm okay. What round is it? Oh, wait... What? No. That was that dream I just woke up from. Never mind.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Oihid

 

Wait a minute! Wait a minute! I thought this entire thread was about stopping the unchecked rampages of OIHID-based characters? Now I see lines like "primaries with NFC goes a long way toward balancing a focus based character such as a powered armor type." I need to know how these dastardly powered armor types supplanted the evil OIHID types as Public Enemy #1? Is there something important you're not telling us? Are the powered armor types in league with Dungeons & Dragons 3.0, and hence threatening all of RPGdom?

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

Wait a minute! Wait a minute! I thought this entire thread was about stopping the unchecked rampages of OIHID-based characters? Now I see lines like "primaries with NFC goes a long way toward balancing a focus based character such as a powered armor type." I need to know how these dastardly powered armor types supplanted the evil OIHID types as Public Enemy #1? Is there something important you're not telling us?

 

Actually, I think it's morphed into any Limitation that's commonly referred to by its acronym is Evil!!!!! So, OIHID, OIF, IIF, OAF, IAF, FOA, RSR, ASPCA, NCC, RBR, YMCA, RBOS, STRM and FCC are all fair game.

 

 

Are the powered armor types in league with Dungeons & Dragons 3.0, and hence threatening all of RPGdom?

 

I hate to tell you this, but D&D's been upgraded to 3.5 now. The Eeeevillle just keeps growing!

 

Hey, at least we haven't run afoul of Godwin yet.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Oihid

 

Wait a minute! Wait a minute! I thought this entire thread was about stopping the unchecked rampages of OIHID-based characters? Now I see lines like "primaries with NFC goes a long way toward balancing a focus based character such as a powered armor type." I need to know how these dastardly powered armor types supplanted the evil OIHID types as Public Enemy #1?

 

My experience is that Gary has a lengthy list of powers, advantages, limitations, stats, frameworks, etc. which are potentially hugely unbalancing and require major fixes to prevent such abuse. I'm still waiting for his list of the abilities which are NOT subject to such abuse. So far, it seems limited to HRRH with OIHID (assuming the character has no other powers, of course).

[zornwil]

Re: Oihid

 

Well, imagine how broken Gary must think OTHER systems are if HERO is his system of choice!

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

1. Not every player is going to want OIHID for their character, nor does it come close to being designed as an 'Every-Hero' construct like your 0 Control-Cost VPP.

2. A 0-Control Cost VPP does not in any way limit the character. An OIHID does.

3. A 0-CC VPP will slow the game way down as players compute adjustments to their power set.

4. A 0-CC VPP will reward players who know how to 'work the system' way more than OIHID does.

 

These things combined with the fact that a 0-CC VPP is exponentioanlly harder to adjudicate than an OIHID falsifies your analogy.

 

It's only an 'Every-Hero' construct if the players don't care about conception. Which they would be tremendously tempted to do so obviously.

 

2, 3, and 4 merely states that the vpp would cause more problems than the OIHID which I already agreed with. Not that OIHID wouldn't cause problems of a lesser magnitude and frequency.

 

 

First, 10% is not my default standard. 10% is my minimum. Second, you're attempting to relate two things that don't directly relate. That's why I said Thorn wouldn't pass even without having most of his points wrapped up in one Limitation. They are two distinct requirements. If you're only making the minimum contribution to background abilities plus putting most of your powers under one Limitation, you're pushing your limit on two requirements. Obviously that will increase the likelihood of your character being sent back for revision.

 

A character built straight might have 50 background skills/perks talents and 300 combat points if I understand you correctly. An OIHID might have 60 pts of skills etc, and roughly 350 combat points. It seems the OIHID would still be much better off even if he more than fulfils your requirements.

 

Actually, I'm limiting out characters appearing in GM-only materials (like CKC and the GM's Vault sections of other books). Other characters are more likely to (and should) be seen as examples by the players. These can be taken as examples of starting (the Champions, Shugoshin, Kinetic, Meteor Man III etc.) or experienced/high-powered characters. They're placed in the common sections of the materials to act as examples for the players.

 

That's still not a big sample size, and there are no characters with OIHID in that small group.

 

A -1/4 Lim can be worth enough if it covers enough points. It takes fewer points on a -1/2 Lim and even fewer on a -3/4 Lim. Basically, it’s a comparison on the value of the Lim (-1/4, -1/2, -3/4, etc) to how many points of the character are covered by it. So, 75% at -1/4 may be considered enough by some GMs. So might 60% at -1/2, 50% at -3/4; just to illustrate the thinking involved. I guess you could roll 1 & 2 together to some extent, but I prefer keeping them as separate steps. Keep in mind that just failing 1 & 2 alone won't be enough me to send a character back. I can't vouch for other GMs.

 

Ok.

 

Such is the nature of OIHID. I don't see that as a problem.

 

By himself it wouldn't be a problem. If he were with a group of other supers and was significantly more powerful most of the time but weak some of the time, it might cause balance problems.

 

 

Ah, for some reason I thought you'd written 'elite'. My goof. In that case he'd fail on Step 4.

 

Ok.

 

Well, I've been working under the assumption that you're using him as an example of a PC submission. Therefore, it's presumed he'd be working with a group.

 

It's only one of two published characters that I know with this lim, so yeah it's an example of a PC submission.

 

Step six doesn't cover weather the character would want to up and leave; it's about the player. Basically it's a question of how much I, as GM, trust the player of the proposed PC. If I could expect him to play those Dissads as written, that would pass this step. If the player's going to pout, switch characters or just not participate, then we've got a problem. Of course, I'm not likely to allow a player like that into my game for very long anyway, but the step is there for the sake of completeness.

 

 

Logically, the character wouldn't go on any adventures vs villains if his OIHID was lost. He'll only be as good as an average agent, even if he picks up an unpaid for gun and kevlar armor. Would you insist that the player bring him on that Mechanon showdown if his armor was lost?

 

 

So, at this point we know he fails steps 1 & 4 and passes 2 & 3. That puts him on thin ice. Steps 5 & 6 are harder to say as we don't have hypothetical players. If either of those failed, there's a good chance he'd be sent back. If there were anything else I objected to in his write-up (doesn't directly relate to this discussion so I'm not looking it up right now), he'd definitely get sent back. In any case, a potential problem character is taken care of during development without the use of paradigm-challenging house rules.

 

As currently written, what changes would you ask of Stalwart when you send him back?

 

All you gave me was a points ratio. I've stated many times that I need more info than that to make a call.

 

I've given you more info than that. I don't want to post the entire character because it's copywrited.

 

 

We have a few more examples than that if you go by what I explained above. As to their builds, I have dislikes of a few of them as well, but not for any of the reasons that have come up in this thread (as I recall; I don't remember how most are set up for background abilities).

 

Still not a lot of samples. And none with OIHID.

 

Depends on how many of his spells pump up his stats or give him additional skills. Neither is out of concept for a super-mage. In any case, you could still end up with a very powerful character without taking stats or skills out of normal human range.

 

Stats for any adventuring type eat up a good chunk of their points. A stay at home NPC type can get away with fewer points in stats.

 

 

I don't see anything in the description of grab that says the attacker gets to choose which two limbs they've grabbed. It just says that it affects 2 of the targets limbs (usually the arms parenthetically). So, are you going to rule that every time someone with Gestures, a Focus or Restrainable is grabbed, it will automatically be their arms that are pinned? 'Usually' implies to me that there's a certain amount of the time that is not the case. How often that is gets left up to the GM to decide.

 

Yes. See page 144 of UMA which strongly suggests that the attacker can choose any limbs he wants. And if the target takes Gestures, that implies that it be an actual limitation and subject to grabs.

 

The times where the attacker can't grab the arms would be in situations where he can't reach them. Perhaps he's on the ground and can only grab the legs, or maybe the target has many levels of growth.

 

 

Incantations can only be stopped while their being said. With a 0-phase power, you'll have to have a held action. (Never mind constant powers with Incantations only to start). OIHID, taking a Full Phase, can be stopped in the middle of the process. And Entangles still don't stop either. Also, are you going to rule that grabs against someone with Incantations always affect the head/mouth?

 

Yes, if that is one of the 'limbs' that the attacker chooses (assuming he can reach the head). An Incantation for an instant power can easily be stopped. You cover their mouths, and suddenly they can't use their 12d6 EB to blast you. Basically, you only need to stop it once during the battle and the target can't use it until he breaks out.

 

As for Incantations only to start, the powers turn off if you're Stunned or Knocked Out (and as I stated previously in this thread, I would never allow it for a persistent power). The OIHID can be done well before battle and in some cases aborted to. Stunning or being knocked out doesn't leave the OIHID character any more vulnerable than any other character.

 

Sorry, by Frequency, I was meaning how many characters do this, not points ratios. Anyway, as I've said before, I need more than just points ratios to go on.

 

Well, if every character has OIHID, there is no problem. If some have it while others don't, you may have balance issues.

 

 

You're assuming that all 150 points in background abilities will come up in every non-combat situation (or at least a significant portion). That's not necessarily the case. I've seen characters with some skills, talents or powers that come up maybe once or twice in a campaign. Heck, one of my current characters has PS: Soldier and KS: U.S. Army which have never come up in 3 years. He's also got a power that he's only used once in that time frame. I knew these wouldn't come up often, but bought them because they fit the concept. Some background abilities are like that.

 

 

Not 150 pts worth. OTOH, if a character spends 150 pts on skills like PS Video Games, KS Pornography, and PS Tiddlywinks, I will withdraw any balance objections.

 

 

Besides, the character you're suggesting still fails steps 1-3 right off the bat. 4 & 5 are possible to pass at this point. Not likely on that many points, I'll grant you, but possible. If either one failed or #6 failed, he'd be sent back for revision. The character is dealt with right out of the gate with no house rules required.

 

If the character does manage to make it past steps 4-6, he's still on my 'observe closely' list. Basically, I'd give the player a reserved approval, letting them know exactly where I was uncomfortable with the build. I'd also tell them that if I determine that he's out of balance after seeing him in play, a revision will be called for before he can be used again. Consider it a play-test if you will.

Again, the character's dealt with; no house rules required.

 

You've just described a whole series of 'house rules'. You just haven't formalized them.

 

So, do you agree that different GM's have different tolerance levels and thus no one set frequency can apply across all campaigns?

 

Yes, I don't know where I stated otherwise.

 

 

I don't agree with that at all. If you're character gets 20 points from a Vulnerability that never comes up in play, that's effectively 20 free points. Other characters are being penalized for taking those points while yours isn't. If he's go 2 20-pt Psyche Lims that the GM doesn't enforce, that's still 40 free points that other characters are being penalized for. Uneven enforcement of anything is unfair to the players, no matter what the Lim or Dissad is or if the points involved are 20, 40 or 60.

 

 

If Disads were unlimited, I would agree with you. However, since a character usually has a fixed limit (150 is standard), the character's power level isn't increased. (Don't take that to mean that I endorse not bringing in a character's Disads). Limitations are a whole different ballgame. Limitations actually increase the character's power level directly by effectively adding points to his character sheet.

 

 

How does retconning watching Hunters every 4 games take less GM work than planning for an OIHID once every 4 games? You've still got to adjudicate the effects of those Hunters' off-screen activities.

 

With retconning, you can make up anything you want. Since you never brought up the hunters during actual play, you can declare anything you want that the character's may not have seen. And you can do it offscreen. With OIHID, anything that makes it a limitation must be done onscreen, and you can't make things up later.

 

 

 

So long as this character's -1/4 Lim comes up as often as other character's -1/4 Lims and his 8- Dissads come up as often as other character's 8- dissads, who's being cheated here?

 

A character with 300 pts of -1/4 vs a character with 50 pts of -1/4 is benefitting from a low frequency, even if they were the exact same frequency. And he benefits even more compared to the person with no limitations.

 

 

What does that have to do with me challenging this statement of yours' date=' "Often foci are placed on only a power here and a power there. On a small fraction of a character's points." That is the statement of yours that I was responding to. I brought up Defender and Nighhawk as counter-examples of that statement. Basically, I'm challenging your contention that people use OIHID as a sweeping Limitation significantly more often than they use OIF as a sweeping Limitation.[/quote']

 

Nighthawk isn't a 'sweeping' limitation. He has it on a relatively small percentage of his points. Defender is, but I've already explained why I thought it was ok for him since a good chunk of his points are spent in a mandatorily inefficient way. And as I said, I wouldn't approve Defender if that mandatory limitation wasn't there.

 

Okay, so you don't want to do away with OIHID entirely, you just want to change it into a Dissad. The thing is, you still need to convince me that this is necessary. You need to show proof that OIHID is more abusable than other Limitations, gets abused more often, is harder to spot by an alert GM and is harder to adjudicate.

 

 

If I haven't convinced you by now, I never will. At the end, we must agree to disagree.

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

My experience is that Gary has a lengthy list of powers' date=' advantages, limitations, stats, frameworks, etc. which are potentially hugely unbalancing and require major fixes to prevent such abuse. I'm still waiting for his list of the abilities which are NOT subject to such abuse. So far, it seems limited to HRRH with OIHID (assuming the character has no other powers, of course).[/quote']

 

 

PS Tiddlywinks isn't unbalancing.

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

Why use a page long house rule to prevent munchkinism when a simple "no" can do the job in 2 seconds?

 

It's a one paragraph house rule. And why have any house rules at all if the GM can just say no?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Oihid

 

PS Tiddlywinks isn't unbalancing.

 

Well, that doubles the list...

[Gary]

Re: Oihid

 

If indeed there is a balance issue...

 

 

Compare Defender now to Defender if he didn't have NFC on his armor. A significant change in power.

 

Or we could do it this way. You create a 350 built straight and I create a 350 with Powered Armor and where I get figureds for my primaries. I betcha my 525 pter is going to be tougher than your 350.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Oihid

 

Compare Defender now to Defender if he didn't have NFC on his armor. A significant change in power.

 

Or we could do it this way. You create a 350 built straight and I create a 350 with Powered Armor and where I get figureds for my primaries. I betcha my 525 pter is going to be tougher than your 350.

 

Not if my 350 point character buys Transform: Powered Armor to Leisure Suit.

 

JUst to make sure, it will be AE Radius, with enough Megascale to cover the solar system. It will only be one slot in his MP.

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

It's only an 'Every-Hero' construct if the players don't care about conception. Which they would be tremendously tempted to do so obviously.

 

2, 3, and 4 merely states that the vpp would cause more problems than the OIHID which I already agreed with. Not that OIHID wouldn't cause problems of a lesser magnitude and frequency.

 

It's the order of magnitude involved that makes your analogy bad. Yes, both lighters and flamethrowers can set things on fire. However, the order of magnitude makes referencing flamethrowers silly when discussing the dangers of handling a lighter. Also, you're 0 Control Cost VPP violates Meta-Rule #4 of the Hero System (HSR 348). OIHID doesn't.

 

A character built straight might have 50 background skills/perks talents and 300 combat points if I understand you correctly. An OIHID might have 60 pts of skills etc, and roughly 350 combat points. It seems the OIHID would still be much better off even if he more than fulfils your requirements.

 

Okay, we need to back up and deal with this 425/400/x vs. 350 comparison you keep making. When was the last time anyone saw a PC submission that involved a character built with no Limitations and no Frameworks what so ever? How common an occurrence is this? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Ironclad and he gets so many bennies in the form of Figured Characteristics it almost doesn't matter.

 

By himself it wouldn't be a problem. If he were with a group of other supers and was significantly more powerful most of the time but weak some of the time, it might cause balance problems.

 

I don't think anyone's disputing that. That's why I keep saying to compare the build to the rest of the group, which is the point of steps 3, 4 & 5. I've been talking about comparing him to the rest of the group all this time because PC creation should not be taking place in a void, nor should the evaluation of said PC builds. Especially when it comes to things like, "Will he be over/under powered a significant portion of the time?" You need to have the rest of the group in order to define 'over/under powered' in the first place.

 

Logically, the character wouldn't go on any adventures vs villains if his OIHID was lost. He'll only be as good as an average agent, even if he picks up an unpaid for gun and kevlar armor. Would you insist that the player bring him on that Mechanon showdown if his armor was lost?

 

You're assuming that the player knows ahead of time that his OIHID is going to be lost. That's a lot different than knowing if it's daylight out. You're not actually talking about the same thing I am.

 

Forget OIHID for a moment. Let's go back to the example of the 'Only in Darkness' character. That included the player regularly asking if this adventure was going to be taking place at night or not. That's the kind of behavior I'm talking about.

 

If I suspect that Mr. OIHID is going to constantly ask, "Am I going to be taken out of my Hero ID tonight?" and refuse to play the character when the answer is "yes", then that's a failure of Step 6. Similarly, if I expect that the player will constantly pout, complain or demand to play a different character every time he suffers from his OIHID unexpectedly, then that's a violation of Step 6. Likewise, if he has the Psyche Lim "Protective of Innocents" and I have an expectation that he'll refuse to even try to save someone just because he's not in Hero ID, then we've got a violation of Step 6.

 

As currently written, what changes would you ask of Stalwart when you send him back?

 

Off the top of my head? I'd say that he needs to make his non-heroic ID more viable (that should fix the violation Step 4; assuming the other characters are more capable when not suffering from their Lims).

 

I've given you more info than that. I don't want to post the entire character because it's copywrited.

 

Nope, your first post to me about him was 374. You haven't expanded upon that since. You never even mentioned what the other thread's name was. Fortunately, H-Man has given me the link, but I haven't had a chance to go over it yet. If you're really curious about my opinion, then you'll be able to find it over there some time in the next few days.

 

As a side note, out of curiosity, why do you keep putting up various characters in counter to my list of steps to test for Lims that are "too sweeping"? You practically act like it's a bad idea. Do you think the test is somehow flawed? If so, how?

 

Stats for any adventuring type eat up a good chunk of their points. A stay at home NPC type can get away with fewer points in stats.

 

You're ignoring the first sentence entirely, "Depends on how many of his spells pump up his stats or give him additional skills." You're also contending that it's impossible to build a viable PC (much less powerful) that doesn't spend "a good chunk of their points" on stats. Just so we're clear, define "a good chunk" for me.

 

Yes. See page 144 of UMA which strongly suggests that the attacker can choose any limbs he wants. And if the target takes Gestures, that implies that it be an actual limitation and subject to grabs.

 

Okay, the example on UMA 144 does pretty strongly imply the attacker gets to select their targets. It's not an idea that I like, which is probably why I don't use it and didn't remember it, but it's there. In any case, what you're saying is that an enforced Limitation isn't going to be a problem. Of course, what I originally asked, when bringing up Gestures and Incantations was, "Should we also get rid of Gestures & Incantations since not all GMs faithfully enforce those?" (msg 373). You haven't actually answered that question since you started off assuming a GM that would enforce them.

 

Well, if every character has OIHID, there is no problem. If some have it while others don't, you may have balance issues.

 

Actually, that is a problem. That would suggest that OIHID is so good that every player wants to take it, which is something the core book warns against in the "Meta-Rules of the Hero System" (HSR 348). Still, it's a slightly different issue.

 

Not 150 pts worth. OTOH, if a character spends 150 pts on skills like PS Video Games, KS Pornography, and PS Tiddlywinks, I will withdraw any balance objections.

 

Ah, so you do agree that it's not just points percentage that defines a Limitation as a problem. That's one of the points I've been trying to get across for a while now that you seem to keep challenging me on.

 

You've just described a whole series of 'house rules'. You just haven't formalized them.

Actually, I haven't described any such thing. They're a paraphrase of the ideas in the "too sweeping" paragraph on pgs 194 & 195. I brought that up when I first posted them in message 355.

 

Besides that, if you're definition of house rules includes checking a character for balance issues, then you're got a lot broader definition of the term than I've ever seen before. After all, page 338 of the core rules states that the GM needs to check characters for balance.

 

Yes, I don't know where I stated otherwise.

 

You never stated otherwise, but you also never answered the question any of the other times I asked it. Now that we've established this, why are you so concerned with other people enforcing a -1/4 Lim only 5-10% of the time? Or 25% of the time? After all, one of your main complaints about OIHID is that some people don't enforce it enough and that others enforce it too often, thus causing 'Limitation Burnout'. If these levels work for other people in their campaigns, why do you argue with them on that?

 

If Disads were unlimited, I would agree with you. However, since a character usually has a fixed limit (150 is standard), the character's power level isn't increased. (Don't take that to mean that I endorse not bringing in a character's Disads). Limitations are a whole different ballgame. Limitations actually increase the character's power level directly by effectively adding points to his character sheet.

 

One character takes 100 points in Dissads for a total of 300 CPs. A second character takes 150, for a total of 350. A third character also takes 150. The GM enforces Character 2's Dissads, but not Character 3's. As a result, Character 3 has gained the power level of a 350pt character while only suffering the in-game penalties of a 300 pt character. Character 1 is being shorted 50 points. Character 2 has the same points as Char 3, but he's suffering greater penalties.

 

With retconning, you can make up anything you want. Since you never brought up the hunters during actual play, you can declare anything you want that the character's may not have seen.

 

Well, anything that makes sense given the Hunter's motivations & capabilities and the target character's abilities to have spotted them or heard about it. With OIHID, you have to make something up within the confines defined by the OIHID's special effects. Doesn't seem like a big difference to me.

 

And you can do it offscreen. With OIHID, anything that makes it a limitation must be done onscreen, and you can't make things up later.

 

The Hunter's actions will eventually have an on-screen effect. Otherwise, what's the point? So, the impact of anything you make up after the fact will need to be taken into account in future developments. Basically, in one case, you're asking "How will Hunter X's spying on SuperDude's last battle effect him down the road?" In the other, you're asking "How will SuperDude's OIHID effect him down the road?" I still don’t see the big difference.

 

A character with 300 pts of -1/4 vs a character with 50 pts of -1/4 is benefitting from a low frequency, even if they were the exact same frequency. And he benefits even more compared to the person with no limitations.

 

If Mr. 300 is in a group with these other two, why did the GM approve Mr. 300 in the first place? (Remember Step 5?) Simply requesting a revision during character creation would have avoided this whole issue. Now, assuming the characters were balanced against each other to begin with, so long as the -1/4 Lims are being enforced with equal frequency, who's getting screwed here?

 

Nighthawk isn't a 'sweeping' limitation. He has it on a relatively small percentage of his points. Defender is, but I've already explained why I thought it was ok for him since a good chunk of his points are spent in a mandatorily inefficient way. And as I said, I wouldn't approve Defender if that mandatory limitation wasn't there.

 

That still doesn't prove: "Often foci are placed on only a power here and a power there. On a small fraction of a character's points."

 

If I haven't convinced you by now, I never will. At the end, we must agree to disagree.

 

Convince me of what? I assumed that your point in starting this thread was to get feedback on your idea of turning OIHID into a Dissad. Are you trying, instead, to get me to adopt that idea?

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

It's a one paragraph house rule.

 

See my responce in another message.

 

And why have any house rules at all if the GM can just say no?

 

To do things that the Hero System doesn't do, like randomize Turn Order, break Desolid down into Defensive & Movement components, or somethings similar. Of course, these are just examples and not neccessarily anything I condone (though I've thought about each from time to time).

 

Creating a house rule for every possible rules abuse would be silly. The time involved would probably be greater than the time spent playing the game. Plus the page count would probably rival if not exceed that of the core rulebook. Simply saying "no" saves you a lot of time and paper. Think of the trees man, think of the trees!

[Netzilla]

Re: Oihid

 

Not if my 350 point character buys Transform: Powered Armor to Leisure Suit.

 

JUst to make sure, it will be AE Radius, with enough Megascale to cover the solar system. It will only be one slot in his MP.

 

Now this was funny. I'd rep you for it if I weren't tapped out at the moment.