Can I use independent here?

[archermoo]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

I have personally decided to never again (or at least very, very rarely) allow Independent in superheroic games. FYI this is because I played in a rotating GM supers game in which one of the characters bought all of his Powers except for some Skill Levels in a power suit with the Focus and Independent Limitations. When I was GM, I made the plot revolve around his losing his suit (which I could perfectly well have done were it just a Focus), but found in the end that there was no way I could really take it away from him. I just don't have the heart to make a character permenently drop from a powerful super to a moderate hero.

 

Ick. I generally let people know that if they buy Independant on a power that that means that at some point they WILL lose it, and will thereafter be out the points they spent on it. That way when they lose it I don't feel at all bad about it. If someone spent a significant number of points on Independant stuff, I'd just disallow the character.

 

But then again, I also do the same when people take other stupid limitations or disads. Buying all your powers (including all defenses) "Doesn't work at night" doesn't mean that I'll only run games during the day. I actually had someone in a game once that wanted to play two different PCs, only one at a time though. They were twins. Identical powers, but one had the limitation "Doesn't work at night" on all points spent, the other had "Only works at night" on all points spent. They were very hurt that I wouldn't allow it.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

Actually not. 5ER, P297 "Independant powers are normally items (i.e., they're built with the Focus Limitation; the Focus must be Universal).

 

It also states elsewhere in the text several times that the power is in no way tied to the character, and that anyone else can use it.

Hmm. Well, screw that. I'd allow it. Why such artificial restrictions? Just to make it so there are game effects that you cannot create in the system? Joy. That's the kind of Hero I want.

[nharwell]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

I actually had someone in a game once that wanted to play two different PCs' date=' only one at a time though. They were twins. Identical powers, but one had the limitation "Doesn't work at night" on all points spent, the other had "Only works at night" on all points spent. They were very hurt that I wouldn't allow it.[/quote']

 

I'd allow it -- but each character could only be built on 1/2 the points (maybe 2/3, if I were feeling generous) of the the other pcs

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

Hmm. Well' date=' screw that. I'd allow it. Why such artificial restrictions? Just to make it so there are game effects that you cannot create in the system? Joy. That's the kind of Hero [i']I[/i] want.

 

Probably because Independent is a -2 Limitation. -2 is the "pretty please, hose me" level.

[archermoo]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

Hmm. Well' date=' screw that. I'd allow it. Why such artificial restrictions? Just to make it so there are game effects that you cannot create in the system? Joy. That's the kind of Hero [i']I[/i] want.

 

Artificial restrictions? The whole point of Independant is that the power isn't tied to the character in any way. If it is a personal focus, it is by definition tied to the character, so it cannot be Independant.

 

The game mechanic of Independant is that the points are invested in the item and not the character. But that doesn't change what in game effects that you can create.

 

I'm curious what in game effect you think that disallowing personal focuses that are Independant doesn't let you build.

[archermoo]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

I'd allow it -- but each character could only be built on 1/2 the points (maybe 2/3' date=' if I were feeling generous) of the the other pcs [/quote']

 

 

I told her that she could do the character concept if she wanted, but just build it as one character with a special effect that the character was twins who only functioned during the day/night. That way she could still do the character concept without the whole cheezing the points thing...

[prestidigitator]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

To me, Independent represents purely that you can lose a Power. Permenantly! That seems to me to be worth a pretty huge reduction in cost. Whether someone else can then obtain said Power and use it for themselves depends on what kind of Focus it might have, SFX, story, and the GM's say-so. I will agree that most Independent Powers should be usable (and obtainable) by anyone, but that does not necessarily mean that they all must work this way.

 

Not that you really need to figure out the mechanics of building it, but how would you build a piece of equipment in a Sci-Fi heroic game, for example, that keys itself to one person and can ever-after be used only by him/her? The character can certainly lose the equipment, but without specific Skills/story coming into play no one else can use it, even if they were to steal it and keep it for good.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

I thought of another example. If you wanted to build D&D's notion of a paladin, his/her Powers may well be Independent (but have no Focus). The character may loose them temporarily in some circumstances, but there are also circumstances where the character might loose the Powers for good (and such circumstances may not be all that hard to come by). Does that mean that another character gets them, or can get them? NO!

[Guyon]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

But if you have a magic sword with independent and you get knocked out and a villain takes it. You must either make a new one building it with character points or you can go on a quest, beat up the bad guy (assuming he did not break it) and take it back. In this case the independent power is not lost for ever. See the rules V4.

The other way to buy this wand is as a Power with a focus

and with the Independent Limitation. If the wand is Independent,

it means that the ability to throw Energy Blasts is

part of the wand, not the wizard. Anyone who picks up the

wand, should the wizard lose it, can use it to throw Energy

Blasts. The wizard can’t use the Power again unless he finds

the wand or makes a new one. And making a new wand

that’s Independent will cost him the same amount of Character

Points he paid for it the first time!

See, make a new one OR go and find it. If you find it you do not have to build it with character points again.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

Rewound:

 

I have a magic sword that has powers and beefs my character up. I bought it as a Obvious Accessible focus. No questions so far

 

One of the guys suggested if I want to make it cheaper I can add independent. In that case if someone captured it they could use it to it's fullest extent, otherwise it is only a sword to others as is.

 

True?

 

To add to what has already been discussed:

 

You don't have to define all of the Powers bought through a Focus as all being Personal or all Universal. You can make some one and some the other. For your example, you have have a magic sword, and have the sword part (HKA 1 1/2d6, 0 END, OAF, STR Min 11, Real Weapon, 1 Handed) universal, but have the other parts (Flaming: RKA 1d6+1, 0 END, OAF, No Range, Linked to HKA, or whatever magical abilities you actually have) Personal. So anyone can pick up the sword and cut and thrust, but only your character knows how to make it sparkle.

 

Officially, when you put Independent on a Power with Focus, it must be Universal. Not all Powers need have the Independant Limitation though, so you can make the sword part Independent but keep the magic stuff for the character (meaning he could theoretically use it with any identical sword, not just that one). If that's not how you see things working, I'd advise tossing this rule out the window and allowing Independent Foci to have Personal powers in it, so long as the "primary" ability is still Universal. The catch is that anyone can eventualy learn how to use the Personal powers, essentially attuning themselves to the focus. Technically, it is all Universal, but some powers don't become available until the new owner figures out how to use them (perhaps a command word, or a certain length of time while the innate mystical spirit of the focus merges with the new owner).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

If that's not how you see things working' date=' I'd advise tossing this rule out the window and allowing Independent Foci to have Personal powers in it, so long as the "primary" ability is still Universal. The catch is that anyone can eventualy learn how to use the Personal powers, essentially attuning themselves to the focus. Technically, it is all Universal, but some powers don't become available until the new owner figures out how to use them (perhaps a command word, or a certain length of time while the innate mystical spirit of the focus merges with the new owner).[/quote']

 

I'd allow this. As well, I'd allow an Independent item which requires special training or skills to use. For example, a magic wand that can be used only by someone with magical skills (or even some defined level of magical skill). The Wand of Fireballs works every time, but only for weilders who have Magic Skill 14- wouldn't bother me provided the setting was appropriate.

[Tywyll]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

I thought of another example. If you wanted to build D&D's notion of a paladin' date=' his/her Powers may well be Independent (but have no Focus). The character may loose them temporarily in some circumstances, but there are also circumstances where the character might loose the Powers [i']for good[/i] (and such circumstances may not be all that hard to come by). Does that mean that another character gets them, or can get them? NO!

 

That's a very good example of a way to use Independent. Granted, you can also use the "Only in Service to Your God" from FH, because an angry god can deny powers for forever. But yes, a player who wants "removable" powers could buy them this way.

[archermoo]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

I thought of another example. If you wanted to build D&D's notion of a paladin' date=' his/her Powers may well be Independent (but have no Focus). The character may loose them temporarily in some circumstances, but there are also circumstances where the character might loose the Powers [i']for good[/i] (and such circumstances may not be all that hard to come by). Does that mean that another character gets them, or can get them? NO!

 

Well, it makes sense that if you consider Independant to be purely "They can lose the points permanently" rather than "The power is unconnected to the character in any way" that you don't like they way it is written.

 

As far as Independant for a Paladin type, it can make perfect sense. The powers are granted by their deity, and therefore aren't really connected to the Paladin himself. If the Paladin does something to annoy his deity, the deity might temporarily take the powers away. If he annoys hid deity enough, the powers might be given to someone else.

 

Your first example could potentially be appropriate as well. The high-tech item might have bonded to the character, but some uber-hacker might be able to reset it so that it can now be bonded with someone else.

 

Or you can obviously continue to use Independant the way you do. Just because you aren't using the rules straight "by the book" doesn't mean you have to change anything. The only reason that I said anything was that someone was asking how Independant works, and since the answer you gave wasn't correct by the book I felt I needed to point out what the rules say.

 

Personally, I don't thing that an item that you can lose the points for but also don't have to worry about someone using against you isn't limiting enough to qualify for a -2 limitation. Obviously YMMV...

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

Don't forget, Independent means when it is lost, it is lost for good.

[Guest C--]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

Don't forget' date=' Independent means when it is lost, it is lost for good.[/quote']

 

Unless you go and get it back. If you steal my Independant sword, and I sneak into your house and steal it back, it's mine again. After all, the new guy can lose the points, too.

[archermoo]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

Unless you go and get it back. If you steal my Independant sword' date=' and I sneak into your house and steal it back, it's mine again. After all, the new guy can lose the points, too.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I've always looked at it that once you buy an Independant power, you've already lost the points. They now belong to the item/power/whatever. Whoever's got it gets to use the points, but they aren't really theirs since by definition an Independant power isn't tied to the character that bought it.

[Guest C--]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

Yeah' date=' I've always looked at it that once you buy an Independant power, you've already lost the points. They now belong to the item/power/whatever. Whoever's got it gets to use the points, but they aren't really theirs since by definition an Independant power isn't tied to the character that bought it.[/quote']

 

I thought about having a character who went around stealing other people's Independant Foci, up until he had lots of them, and then... he'd have a radiation accident and get all the points transferred to him! Hahahahaha!!!

[archermoo]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

I thought about having a character who went around stealing other people's Independant Foci' date=' up until he had lots of them, and then... he'd have a radiation accident and get all the points transferred to him! Hahahahaha!!![/quote']

 

*chuckle*

[Ndreare]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

I thought about having a character who went around stealing other people's Independant Foci' date=' up until he had lots of them, and then... he'd have a radiation accident and get all the points transferred to him! Hahahahaha!!![/quote']

 

Some peoples players...

 

[Tywyll]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

Here is a different take on the whole issue.

ONe of my players in FH wants to build a Resurrection spell. Now, in my setting, Resurrection is mondo magic, rarely seen and even more rarely experienced. The player basically is trying to sell me the idea based on the fact that it would be an ability that they would have to rebuy each time they use it (ie they won't simply raise every party member that dies all the time).

 

I'm down with that idea. At first we were going with Independent, however she has said she thinks it should be one non-recoverable charge. Independent spells, she argues, are things like curses or permenant effects that linger forever. Meanwhile this resurrection spell is actually instant, so there is no advantage to it being Independent (in the sense as explained in FH, where independent spells are virtually non-dispellable, etc).

 

So what do you think? In both cases the player is having to buy the ability again in order to be able to use it. The example they give of ONRC don't really fit this concept, but then neither do the Independent examples.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

Here is a different take on the whole issue.

ONe of my players in FH wants to build a Resurrection spell. Now, in my setting, Resurrection is mondo magic, rarely seen and even more rarely experienced. The player basically is trying to sell me the idea based on the fact that it would be an ability that they would have to rebuy each time they use it (ie they won't simply raise every party member that dies all the time).

 

I'm down with that idea. At first we were going with Independent, however she has said she thinks it should be one non-recoverable charge. Independent spells, she argues, are things like curses or permenant effects that linger forever. Meanwhile this resurrection spell is actually instant, so there is no advantage to it being Independent (in the sense as explained in FH, where independent spells are virtually non-dispellable, etc).

 

So what do you think? In both cases the player is having to buy the ability again in order to be able to use it. The example they give of ONRC don't really fit this concept, but then neither do the Independent examples.

 

Generally I'd agree with the One non-recoverable charge approach, but it does kinda depend on the flavor and feel you want. Perhaps a case could be made for Independent if you're picturing ressurections in a more greek myths permenant spell kinda way, where the shadow of death hangs over the raised character, and if the spell is somehow removed, the character dies again.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Can I use independent here?

 

I'd use one non-recoverable charge. Independent is, to my mind, for an ability which can be "stolen", or "stolen back". The player with an independent item will almost certainly get to use it more than once.

 

One non-recoverable charge is a total -4 limitation, but the character will have to spend the points for every use of the spell, so a significant limitation is warranted.

 

[by extrapolation, I guess 16 uses should be the expectation from an Independent power, since 16 non-recoverable charges would be a -2 limitation.]