Jump to content

Focus = Too Great a Price Break?


RDU Neil

Recommended Posts

There has been a lot of discussion, and I feel a good consensus, on the topic of Limitations, and the fact that they are not created equal. One -1/2 Limitation is not nearly as limiting as another "canon" -1/2 limitation. (Say IAF vs. 14 or less activation as an example IMO).

 

To this point, I have two questions:

 

First, Has anyone out there "rewritten" the standard limitations in the book to better reflect the actual worth of the limitation in their games?

 

Second, specifically, does anyone but me feel that Focus is WAY too much of a price break? I mean, it may be my style of play, but the benefits of extra points to spend tends to FAR outweigh the occasional nuissance of not having access to a power. Again, this is anecdotal... but really bugs me.

 

My main thought is this. A Focus is really only a limitation if it can be taken away/lost in combat. It is not, in any way, worth cutting the price in HALF, most of the time.

 

To better reflect the relative worth of the limitation, I think you need to do away with the OAF, OIF, IAF, IIF break down and go with.

 

Obvious Focus -1/2

Inobvious Focus -1/4

 

Focus is defined as inherently something that can be taken away or lost in combat. None of this "Inaccessible" stuff.

 

My reasons for this are following.

 

If a character is knocked out or otherwise rendered incapacitated... they are at GM's mercy. If they have a standard issue OIF... it can be taken away to "remove the power"... but heck, as GM I can also have the character shot up with a "Genetic inhibitor" that temporarily inhibits their mutant powers... or implanted with a "mental command" that makes them not use their powers... or WHATEVER GM fiat I see fit. Whether you have a focus or not really doesn't factor into it. Maybe it makes it more "story likely" that the focus is taken... but that really doesn't rate the extra savings derived from a -1 limitation.

 

I'm sure others will disagree... but I wondered if anyone else had changed the focus limitation in their games. How did it work out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 365
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Actually, I think I have to disagree with you, RDU Neil. Here's an example why:

 

Say the power is in a suit of powered armor. Out of combat (assuming the wearer is knocked out) all that's generally necessary to keep him under restraint is to take his armor off him then use some perfectly ordinary rope, handcuffs, or a simple locked door.

 

For someone with innate powers, you have to resort to mind control, "power damper" cuffs, an anti-mutant nanobot injection, or whatever. That takes all kinds of special resources. Granted, those are "standard things" from a comic book standpoint, but not everybody in comic books has access to those.

 

For a guy in a powered armor suit, or whose powers all come from his Staff of the Cosmos or whatever, the Little Old Lady From Pasadena or a reasonably competent 10-year-old can set things up while he's unconcious to keep him restrained.

 

In other words, for someone whose powers come primarily from a focus, everybody in the world is a potential threat in that they have a way to keep him from using his powers once he's knocked out. For someone whose powers are innate, you need another metahuman or high-tech organization to do that.

 

I think that's more potentially limiting that your take on things indicates.

 

YMMV. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

...To better reflect the relative worth of the limitation, I think you need to do away with the OAF, OIF, IAF, IIF break down and go with.

 

Obvious Focus -1/2

Inobvious Focus -1/4

 

Focus is defined as inherently something that can be taken away or lost in combat. None of this "Inaccessible" stuff...

 

I think it should be the other way around, actually. I think the obviousness should be ditched while accessability stays as the determining factor. I do agree that the limits should be reduced. I've just seen far too many battlesuits and powered armors where the limit never comes into play. Just like an OIHID character that never turns normal. Very annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I'm inclined to agree that focus gives too much of a benefit (assuming that the focus must be specifically targetted to take damage, as the majority of GMs seem to rule). I'd probably go with something like this:

 

IIF = 0

IAF/OIF = -1/4

OAF = -1/2

 

However, if any random area effect attack can destroy your 5 Flash Def goggles (1 Def), or any chest shot destroy your 8 Def kevlar, I'd give the full book value for focus. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I think it should be the other way around' date=' actually. I think the obviousness should be ditched while accessability stays as the determining factor. I do agree that the limits should be reduced. I've just seen far too many battlesuits and powered armors where the limit never comes into play. Just like an OIHID character that never turns normal. Very annoying.[/quote']

Basic Law of Limitations: A Limitation that does not limit the character isn't worth any bonus!

 

I mess with focus-based and OIHID characters all the time as a GM. If battlesuits and OIHID are never affecting the player characters then that is the fault of the GM and player(s) in question, not of those Limitations in and of themselves. Properly applied they are perfectly valid; improperly applied they are no worse than any other improperly applied Limitation. The rules exist to provide structure to the game, not to save us from our own inadequacies as players or as GMs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Basic Law of Limitations: A Limitation that does not limit the character isn't worth any bonus!

Yes, I think we're all aware of this.

I mess with focus-based and OIHID characters all the time as a GM. If battlesuits and OIHID are never affecting the player characters then that is the fault of the GM and player(s) in question, not of those Limitations in and of themselves. Properly applied they are perfectly valid; improperly applied they are no worse than any other improperly applied Limitation. The rules exist to provide structure to the game, not to save us from our own inadequacies as players or as GMs.

While I agree that it takes proper application by the GM and the players, I still think that the limitations are too large. Let me just ask this, and I'm genuinely curious-not trying to be snippy: Do your PCs lose their OAFs a full 50% of the time? Do they lose their battlesuits 33% of the time? If they do, do you feel like you are going out of your way to do it, or does it happen naturally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Basic Law of Limitations: A Limitation that does not limit the character isn't worth any bonus!

 

I mess with focus-based and OIHID characters all the time as a GM. If battlesuits and OIHID are never affecting the player characters then that is the fault of the GM and player(s) in question, not of those Limitations in and of themselves. Properly applied they are perfectly valid; improperly applied they are no worse than any other improperly applied Limitation. The rules exist to provide structure to the game, not to save us from our own inadequacies as players or as GMs.

 

No need to be snarky. It isn't about inadequacies... but that I feel that to really penalize the character adequately for the price break they get... that would really make me as GM have to go above and beyond good story telling and dramatic effect. Essentially, the organic flow of the story being told doesn't tend to really bring the Focus limitation into effect as much as a -1 cost break should warrant.

 

Again... this is subjective, of course... but it goes to the point of indicating that FOR MY GAME... and OAF really doesn't warrant getting half off all powers! The character concept might call for an OAF... that's fine... but it is a pain in the ass to have to argue "Yeah, I don't care what the book says... it's only worth -1/2 in my game"

 

And again, I was just asking if others felt the same way. Not right or wrong, here... just wondering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

There has been a lot of discussion, and I feel a good consensus, on the topic of Limitations, and the fact that they are not created equal. One -1/2 Limitation is not nearly as limiting as another "canon" -1/2 limitation. (Say IAF vs. 14 or less activation as an example IMO).

 

To this point, I have two questions:

 

First, Has anyone out there "rewritten" the standard limitations in the book to better reflect the actual worth of the limitation in their games?

 

Second, specifically, does anyone but me feel that Focus is WAY too much of a price break?

Oh yeah. Definitely.

 

I've never played with anyone face to face who didn't change the focus rules to give less of a bonus - and I've never seen big focus-based characters be less than abusive anyway. Everyone says they will enforce the focus disadvantage, but over and over that turns out to be a bluff, because enforcement is an excessive hassle for the gamemaster.

 

Sure it's possible to do a "quest" to repair someone's focus or get it back if it's stolen, but how often? I can run a story about restoring almost any hero's fading or corrupted powers, regardless of any limitations they took or didn't take. (Like Spider-Man. Or Iron Fist at one time. Or Dracula. Etc..) I don't need Powered Armoured Guy, whose every third story should be like that, or else he's getting free points.

 

And "focus" is often quite a convenient special effect for powers. To pick a petty example: hard ear coverings. Gadgets and power suits are also handy when you want to upgrade your powers of develop new ones. So there's no inherent drawback to the focus route, on average.

 

Personally, I got to the point where I won't even try to enforce the focus limitation. It gets in the way of scenarios too much. Therefore, with me, "focus" is a special effect, not a limitation. If you really want a limitation, and have a secret identity to protect, and can't use the focus in your secret identity (no invisible slots in your power ring multipower, for example), and can convince me that this secret identity is active enough to matter, take a +1/4 limitation: only in hero identity. Even so, I'll question it. I've seen player characters whose "only in hero identity" comes up as often as the She-Hulk's, and for the same reason.

 

(You build a Don Blake with bought-down characteristics and a handicap or two, and a godlike hero ID with everything bought with a +1/4 limitation. This is known as "Orion syndrome" - named after a player character, not the Jack Kirby New Gods character. Of course if allowed you also take a focus for everything, and a "god" elemental control, at which point the character becomes mighty. As I suppose a god should be.)

 

What makes "focus" especially annoying is that while characters that abuse it get rewards, those who play fair can get shorted. Everything a Punisher clone carts around, including his low-defence armour, is universal/breakable, and gets chewed up by area effect attacks, while the Amulet of Orion-ness is indestructible. I'd rather just have the character pay for a gimmick pool, and then say the gimmicks - including guns - work unless there's a story reason why not, at which point non-focus abilities might also be unavailable.

 

RDU Neil, if I try giving a limitation for foci again, I might try it your way, because it seems to make some sense.

 

But I don't see treating "focus" as a limitation worth a bonus in my near future. Or my medium future, for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

It is incumbent on the GM to exploit the lim. The focus lim is fine the way it is. If the GM doesn't target foci, attempt disarms, and play on it situationally (You were required to check the X-9 Discombobulator in with the coat-check girl) its the GMs fault. I don't begrudge my players the points they save when its up to me to extract the value of the lim. If I don't, its my fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

In other words' date=' for someone whose powers come primarily from a focus, [b']everybody in the world[/b] is a potential threat in that they have a way to keep him from using his powers once he's knocked out. For someone whose powers are innate, you need another metahuman or high-tech organization to do that.

 

I think that's more potentially limiting that your take on things indicates.

 

YMMV. :)

My mileage does vary. (Which doesn't mean either of is wrong.)

 

In an Iron Age context, which I have spent some time playing in, there are basically three kinds of non-player characters after you are knocked out (at referee's discretion):

1. Friendly ones with paramedic. That's very good.

2. Friendly ones without paramedic. That's good unless you're dying.

3. Unfriendly ones. Any of these can shove a tennis ball halfway down your throat (or kill the unconscious character in whatever way is most usual in your game). Little Old Lady from Pasadena or Mechanon makes no difference. Except possibly that a higher-powered hostile captor has more options that will seem to keep you from bothering them in future, which is actually good, though it may let you in for torture etc..

 

In a Silver Age and probably in a Bronze Age there are two more options:

4. "Deathtrap."

5. Villain restrained by some other convention. Then it depends on the convention. He might just wander off and let you recover to lick your wounds.

 

None of this has anything to do with foci. Tennis-ball=dead, whether you have foci or not. Deathtraps put you at a great disadvantage, whether the setup includes loss of foci or the "bit" is something else. Paramedic/non-paramedic, friendly or unfriendly, it's all unaffected by foci.

 

What the "focus" bonus does is make you immensely harder to take down in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I'm not that concered. As Foci go...

 

OAf's--heck of a limit. The Pc's strip them from NPC's with glee, and the same is done to the characters who happen to have them.

 

OIf's, well, if you can't steal them, break them. Power armor guy's been caught in a painful situation with out access to retrieve is focus, or put it on, damage to it. You know what to try and drain, studying the focus may give ytou clues to a weakness or vulnerability it has. A good period without the focus more than balances the annoyance of the 14- activation.

 

IAF--this is the one I really don't allow. Either the enemies never notice it, and rarely is it taken away, basically being a 1/4th HIDO, or once the enemy discovers the source, they always try to take it, and its really more of a limit. Once the cat is out of the bag, the Pc is soon to change the character, going to OIF, having reaped the benefit of IAF and now wanting to avoid the disadvantage.

 

IIF--heck, basically indistinguisable in effects from the HIDO limitation-- sometimes annoying, occasionally notably restrictive, rarey incapacitating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Yes, I think we're all aware of this.

 

While I agree that it takes proper application by the GM and the players, I still think that the limitations are too large. Let me just ask this, and I'm genuinely curious-not trying to be snippy: Do your PCs lose their OAFs a full 50% of the time? Do they lose their battlesuits 33% of the time? If they do, do you feel like you are going out of your way to do it, or does it happen naturally?

 

The strict percentage of time is not the only measure of the disadvantage.

 

14- Activation roll: sometimes the power works, sometimes it doesn't. Who knows for sure.

 

OIF focus: A intelligent enemy knows where the power comes from, and can take actions to remove/destroy the focus when it suits HIS plan.

 

Big difference right there. Surem the 14- EB might fail a greater percentage of the time, but the focus use can be rendered powerless at a really, inopportune moment. Having you eb fail its activation roll a few times vs agents is annoying. Having your force field belt batteries drained by some trap that Utility has lured you into can realy ruin your day.

 

In the end, the GM has to decide how limiting the way he will play out the disadvntage will be. If the GM feels OIF isn't that much of a limit, he needs to make sure that the restrictions are indeed not that great. Ony 1/2 for an OAF, then there shouldn't be grabs/takeaways that often. If HIDO guy can't have his powers away when captured, what do you do to OIF Man who you only gave a -1/4th disad to when he is captured?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

A few points from the less of a believer guy...

 

To make the points work, you must work FOR them. You need for most advantages and limitations and disadvantages play an active rolle in using scripting to make them worth their points and no more and no less. there is no "organic flow" assumed in the rules, but rather a guess at what some Gm might do.

 

this is NOT just with limitations but with SFX. If you decide a game with a cabal of vampires as a big bad primary nemesis and that vamps have resistance vs cold anbd vulnerability to fire, then you have probably just made the "same cost for 12d6 cold eb and 12d6 fire eb" a LIE, a scam, a shaft for one.

 

once you hand your players costs, its then beholden on you to make those costs play out in play as "the right price". if you decide thats not your job, then you are going to reap the benefits and the problems.

 

So... set the costs the closest to what you feel you will SHOW THEM AS WORTH for your game, then do your best to prove yourself right with scripting.

 

Side note: for me limitation value was never about POTENTIAL but about PROBLEMS. Its not that it MIGHT affect you but that it WILL. if you wanna play "potential" games then try and avoid them, go right ahead, but i got no issues with a future self of you or your successor using a time snatch device to yank your armor right off you. I did not give you POTENTIAL POINTS for the flaw but gave you ACTUAL POINTS, so you better be expecting ACTUAL PROBLEMS not POTENTIAL PROBLEMS.

 

*************

 

Some other related points...

 

1. A good argument can be made for looking at most costs and SFX before beginning a game. Your water breathing and +10" swimming has likely a much bigger "value in play" (VIP) in a new york game where you plan on using an atlantean invasion than a phoenix game or one set in space.

 

***************

 

2. In running your game FOR THE POINTS, i think you need to be flexible. Don't let focus be narrowed down to "hit in combat or a turn out of combat" since devices in the comics have all sorts more issues. Make a story out of it and you can get creative.

 

Example: i had a guy with a magic amulet in one of my games and a house with tons of magical wards. The system we used listed for the device flaw not "hit in combat or a turn ooc" but four general examples of device flaws in the comics "malfunction, break, run out of juice, and get stolen."

 

So about 1/3 of the way thru a session a wave of "chaos magic" swept over the entire city, nauseating mages for a few seconds and tainting all "unliving magic" like items and static spells. The mage realized immediately his amulet was unsafe to use.

 

tracking the source, he found a botched summoning and a loosed demon that had to be handled, and he went in hoping he could avoid using the amulet. He got a cell call from his butler letting him know that the spirit servants and mansions defensive spells were gone wild and he was under siege.

 

So, all thru that session and next, i got to take occasional pauses to show the butler in "die hard moments" as the mage's mansion ran amok at every scene change. Everyone loved it, especially the mage player who cringed well when the poltergeists got to his wine cellar and his occult library.

 

During the fights, over two sessions against the demon and then the bozos who botched the summons, he did finally have to use his amulet once and got away with just some side effects due to a GOOD ROLL on his part. Another wasn't so lucky and got blasted when her heal backfired.

 

Even turned out the botch in the summons was sabotage by another mage, who they later hunted down as even more story.

 

All started as a "hmmm... ought to have a flaw moment for the mage" and a liberal set of "what the device flaw means to you" criteria.

 

So, it might be as simple as you adding a house rule of "Add "and other problems as decided by Gm" to every limitation and disad, and SFX."

 

Definitely warn them if you do this, cuz i know last time i posted this example round here i got a heapin' helpin' dose of how i was just screwing the player and abusing his limitations and so forth... which btw the player found worth laughing out loud over as he thought it was beautiful during and after the event.

 

******************

 

3. If you want to use a flaw system that fits to the "organic feel" of your game, one in which the points "work for you" instead of you "work for them" consider going to a pay-as-you-pain system.

 

this is one where you don't give price breaks for flaws up front but instead every time a flaw plays a role and provides problems, the character is rewarded with bonus Xp or some other carrot when the scenario is over. You can think of this as "due to his flaw kicking in, he had to overcome a bigger challenge and so gets more xp" if you want.

 

The beauty of this type of system is that it automatically fits to what you run.

 

if his "fire hurt more" flaw comes up five sessions in a row because of your script, thats fine since he gets xp when it shows up. if it shows up hardly ever, thats fine cause he gets no extra points for it. You aren't in need of policing the "what points i gave him already" vs "how much has it hurt him" as the system polices itself.

 

you run whatever script you want and the system works for you filling in the "rewards" as you go along.

 

Even better, hindsight (so what did the flaw do to him last night?) is a lot more accurate than foresight (how many times and how seriously will this affect him in my future sessions?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Second, specifically, does anyone but me feel that Focus is WAY too much of a price break? I mean, it may be my style of play, but the benefits of extra points to spend tends to FAR outweigh the occasional nuissance of not having access to a power. Again, this is anecdotal... but really bugs me.

 

My main thought is this. A Focus is really only a limitation if it can be taken away/lost in combat. It is not, in any way, worth cutting the price in HALF, most of the time.

 

To better reflect the relative worth of the limitation, I think you need to do away with the OAF, OIF, IAF, IIF break down and go with.

 

Obvious Focus -1/2

Inobvious Focus -1/4

 

Focus is defined as inherently something that can be taken away or lost in combat. None of this "Inaccessible" stuff.

 

I've been re-reading FRED as bed-time reading (going to need to go to bed a lot more often to get through it this year...!), and I've had a lot of similar thoughts myself about different limitations and constructs, and Focus was one. Firstly, yes I do think a -1 Limitation for OAF is damned good value. Does it seriously halve the effectiveness of the power? Only if it is grabbed literally 50% of the time! However, my thoughts werent to do with Accessibility, they were to do with Obviousness.

 

After all, there is this nice little advantage called 'Invisible Power Effects'. This costs points. So, unless you take IPE, your power can be seen. It is, to all intents and purposes, 'Obvious'. There's also a small degree of confusion over Foci and OIHID, that I believe can be rationalised. After all, OIHID has to have some restrainable way of preventing characters entering Hero ID, just as inaccessible foci can be restrained out of combat.

 

I'd do away with both and just have Accessible and Inaccessible Foci, and define OIHID either as a variant of Accessible Foci (or Gestures or Incantations or just Limited Power as appropriate).

 

It's not that Foci is necessarily abusive or disproportionate on its own, but when OAF is so frequently combined with MP frameworks, you're getting some serious cost breaks for a benefit that is disproportionate. After all, even those of you who believe it is appropriate, and who are better than me at remembering to take advantage of Lims and Disads, can you honestly say that Foci reduce the effectiveness of the power in question by 33-50%? If so, then I guess you're right and it's appropriately costed for your campaign. It certainly aint for mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Big difference right there. Surem the 14- EB might fail a greater percentage of the time' date=' but the focus use can be rendered powerless at a really, inopportune moment. Having you eb fail its activation roll a few times vs agents is annoying. Having your force field belt batteries drained by some trap that Utility has lured you into can realy ruin your day.[/quote']

 

Except that Inaccessible means it cant be restrained, removed or grabbed in combat. Which means it can be taken away or limited in inbetween time, but if you havent dealt with it by the time of the big battle, you're stuck with it. And as has been pointed out, if it's OIF, you should be getting rid of it one adventure in three, or one scene in three. (You start enforcing that, I think you'll see Foci dropping like flies from character sheets!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Champsguy

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Except that Inaccessible means it cant be restrained' date=' removed or grabbed in combat. Which means it can be taken away or limited in inbetween time, but if you havent dealt with it by the time of the big battle, you're stuck with it. And as has been pointed out, if it's OIF, you should be getting rid of it one adventure in three, or one scene in three. (You start enforcing that, I think you'll see Foci dropping like flies from character sheets!!)[/quote']

 

You can still break it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Except that Inaccessible means it cant be restrained' date=' removed or grabbed in combat. Which means it can be taken away or limited in inbetween time, but if you havent dealt with it by the time of the big battle, you're stuck with it. And as has been pointed out, if it's OIF, you should be getting rid of it one adventure in three, or one scene in three. (You start enforcing that, I think you'll see Foci dropping like flies from character sheets!!)[/quote']

 

If its not unbreakable though, it can be targeted to destroy it. Depending on the FX, certain things will pose a challenge. AAPistol bought OIF isn't going to help a character who is entangled, while an the activation based EB's is going to be blasting away--again, hindered by the activation roll, but not rendefed unable to use the power until he breaks free.

 

I will note that I'm very careful about unbreakable foci.

 

There are ample means to make focus chadacters 'pay their dues'. If a GM won't do it, then yes, indeed, they should acknowledge that and make corrections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Speaking as someone whose character relies almost entirely on foci (gadgeteer + sorceror) I can tell you the limitation does in fact limit my character fairly frequently. Almost every tech gadget the character creates has, in addition to the focus lim, an Activation roll. These do fail from time to time, and I've had my gadgets taken off me in combat (they're almost always OAF). My magic pool is pretty small (35 pts) so I generally make one-charge potions or scrolls with it, things like that. Those don't require Activation rolls (usually) but they do require Extra Time -- usually 5+ hours -- to prepare them. Since the potions & oils are Universal (drink it or splash it on yourself) there have been occassions when someone on "the other side" has ended up benefiting from them. (I still shudder thinking about the time I was tossing a magical +30 STR ointment to another team-mate and it was intercepted by the other side's brick... :shock: )

 

If I use them up and don't have time to prepare more before the next problem crops up, well...I've got a problem. Though I can cast spells directly with my magic pool, 35 points doesn't go a long way. ;)

 

The worst it inconvenienced me was the time we'd just got back to our base after a long, hard mission -- in which I'd expended all my magic items and my gadgets all had dead batteries (Fuel Charges) -- only to find the base had been ransacked by a VIPER team, and they had just left so we had a chance to catch them. My character was left with his INT of 40 and a single 4 Real point magical item from his lab to use in the ensuing combat...

 

Reluctantly, he did use it...reluctantly because it was an item of dark magic (the "Soul Rend" talisman). It ended up saving the life of a couple of team-mates, though it gave my character nightmares for months afterwards, as well as getting him hauled in for review by the council of mages to whom he owes alliegance (Disad: Watched) because he used an item of dark magic.

 

My experience may be atypical, but I've found foci to be as limiting as their official value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Actually, playing a character with OIHID, in the same game as a battlesuit guy, our GM is making us pay for all those points. Though given his way is "Oh, yeah, your enemy can track you through the battlesuit energy signature" or "The enemy spots you by such." And playing the OIHID character that does spend a fair bit of time out of it, there's an awareness there of how vunerable you can be. Knowing VIPER is hunting you is sobering for someone who can't soak bullets all the time.

 

*shrugs* Differing gaming styles. I honestly think the points saved weren't worth the limitation, but the limitation is part of the concept of the character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Actually' date=' playing a character with OIHID, in the same game as a battlesuit guy, our GM is making us pay for all those points. Though given his way is "Oh, yeah, your enemy can track you through the battlesuit energy signature" or "The enemy spots you by such." And playing the OIHID character that does spend a fair bit of time out of it, there's an awareness there of how vunerable you can be. Knowing VIPER is hunting you is sobering for someone who [i']can't[/i] soak bullets all the time.

 

*shrugs* Differing gaming styles. I honestly think the points saved weren't worth the limitation, but the limitation is part of the concept of the character.

 

You see, I like this approach: rather than thinking in the linear: the battlesuit must be out of commission every third combat, it provides other limitations (which might, admitedly shade into the area of disadvantages, but so what?). A limitation should be exploited, or the value reduced, so I huess everyone is right :):)

 

One point I would make is that most PowerArmourCharacters (PACs) tend not to simply be the most powerful in the party as they have the most points, but rather spend those points on stuff the group might not otherwise have access to, like sensors and so on. As a GM, having a character in the group with access to HRRH can be really useful for plot devices and so on.

 

I tend to judge these things on an individual rather than a policy basis: of course it is possible for a PAC to overshadow everyone else, but it is either a poor GM, or a very skillful one that lets a character through at the start of a game who is likely to dominate.

 

Does it unbalance the game? It can, but it doesn't have to.

 

On the limitation value I think that obvious/inobvious is a limitation. I mean if Killer King gets his powers from his crown, but it simply is not obvious that he does (it doesn't glow or anything - he just wears it) then noone might think to snatch it off in combat.

 

I do, however, think that accessible is a more important limitation, so I'd be inclined to go with maybe

 

Accessible: -1/2

Obvious: -1/4

 

With a minimum of -1/4 if there is any kind of focus: after all if you capture an opponent there is a good chance you'll take anything off them that might be equipment. If the character has, for instance, IIF underwear that just seems to be underwear, then no limitation. If it is an amulet or other piece of reasonable obvious jewellry, it is probably worth some limitation: basically if the police would take it off you if you were arrested, it is worth something, if not, it isn't.

 

So:

IIF would be -1/4 or -0

OIF would also be -1/4

IAF would be -1/2, and

OAF would be -3/4

 

Or you could call it:

 

Lose out of combat -1/4

Loseable in combat (requires special knowledge or senses) -1/2

Loseable in combat (requires no special knowledge or senses) -3/4

 

Mind you, having said all that, I don't actually plan to change the limitations in my game, I just thought that presented a logical basis for doing so if you wanted to. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I mean if Killer King gets his powers from his crown' date=' but it simply is not obvious that he does (it doesn't glow or anything - he just wears it) then noone might think to snatch it off in combat.[/quote']

 

But for most powers, that is actually an *advantange*: Invisible Power Effects. A Focus should always be obvious, unless you buy IPE. At least, that's my understanding of it, unless Foci use some strange alternate rule :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

While I agree that it takes proper application by the GM and the players' date=' I still think that the limitations are too large. Let me just ask this, and I'm genuinely curious-not trying to be snippy: Do your PCs lose their OAFs a full 50% of the time? Do they lose their battlesuits 33% of the time? If they do, do you feel like you are going out of your way to do it, or does it happen naturally?[/quote']We have only one PC with an OAF in our campaign, and yes, it has been both broken and taken away. Ditto for our powered-armor character with OIF.

 

Considering that the Limitation bonus for an OIF battlesuit (-½) is the same for a 14- Activation roll (with better than a 90% chance of Activation), speaking of battlesuit characters being without their suit 33% of the time is absurd. The -½ penalty means the Power will suffer some type of difficulty approximately 1/3 of the time. That might mean such a character is attacked without his costume, or that it fails in some manner, or that he simply must find a hidden place to put it on in order to protect his Secret ID. It doesn't mean it dissolves into a puddle of goo every third adventure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

 

Considering that the Limitation bonus for an OIF battlesuit (-½) is the same for a 14- Activation roll (with better than a 90% chance of Activation), speaking of battlesuit characters being without their suit 33% of the time is absurd. The -½ penalty means the Power will suffer some type of difficulty approximately 1/3 of the time.

 

No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Check out limitations, specifically Limited Powers. The value of Conditional Limited Powers is totally dependent on how often the power doesnt work. Sure, it's only one way of measuring effectiveness, but it lays down the general principle for what all those -1/4s and 1-2s actually mean.

 

A -1 power works at 100% effectiveness 50% of the time. A valid alternative is that it is 50% less effective 100% of the time. Every other option should fit somewhere between these two extremes. Saying that a power should have 'some type of difficulty' means that anyone with a Conditional Power is suddenly getting sold short: while their power fails to work entirely, other people just get 'some type of difficulty'. It's one thing to disagree with the view point that Foci are costed over generously, but your assertion here runs totally in the face of the underpinning mathematics (flawed though it certainly is) to HERO Advantages and Limitations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

...Considering that the Limitation bonus for an OIF battlesuit (-½) is the same for a 14- Activation roll (with better than a 90% chance of Activation)' date=' speaking of battlesuit characters being without their suit 33% of the time is absurd. The -½ penalty means the Power will suffer some type of difficulty approximately 1/3 of the time. That might mean such a character is attacked without his costume, or that it fails in some manner, or that he simply must find a hidden place to put it on in order to protect his Secret ID. It doesn't mean it dissolves into a puddle of goo every third adventure.[/quote']

Ok, we seem to have trouble communicating here. Perhaps saying do they "lose" it implied "dissolves into a puddle of goo" but that is not what I meant. Being caught in normal ID counts absolutely. Anytime they don't have access, whether it is taken away, neutralized, unavailable, elsewhere, or dissolved into goo are all viable ways of attacking the limitation. I acknowledge that. I was just wondering how often it came into play, whether it was really worth the points saved. That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...