A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

[Guest Black Lotus]

While there are several other threads concerning the "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitation, I feel that I have enough to say about this issue to warrant a new thread. Here, I will examine a number of scenarios concerning "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations, and I will draw factual conclusions from said scenarios as scientifically as possible, from an unbiased point of view.

 

For the purposes of this exercise, let us define one dozen concrete examples of Power SFX: "Bullets"; "Lasers"; "Fire"; "Electricity"; "Cold"; "Sonic"; "Darkness"; "Holy"; "Gravity"; "Particle Beam"; "Poison"; and "Acid". Also for the purposes of this experiment, we will assume that all offensive Powers and game obstacles/ hazards in our imaginary campaign are based upon one of the above twelve SFX.

 

John Hancock is designing a character named Scorpio, and part of his character concept is that Scorpio has scorpion-like Powers and abilities. Therefore, John decides to buy the Power Armor (10 PD/ 10 ED) for Scorpio, which costs 30 Character Points, along with the Limitation "Only vs. Poison", which is worth -1/2. So, [30 / (1 + 1/2)] = 20. Thanks to the Limitation, John saves 10 Character Points on this Power, or 1/3 (33.33%).

 

However, since there are 12 different SFX which can apply to attacks in this campaign, the utility of this Armor is reduced by 91.66%! [100 {percentile} / 12 {number of SFX}] = 8.33, or 8.33%; each type of SFX constitutes 8.33% of the total number of SFX in the campaign.

 

Conclusion: 33.33% Character Point savings in return for a loss of 91.66% of the Power's utility.

 

Now, if we applied the SAME PERCENTAGE by which the Power's utility is reduced to the number of points the Limited Power costs, we get a much more reasonable cost: [30 {Active Points} - (30 x 91.66%)] = 2.5 Character Points, which rounds to 2.

 

If you subtract the same percentage of points from the Active Cost of the Power as the percentage of utility lost by taking the "only vs." Limitation, in this case, "Armor (PD 10/ ED 10), Only vs. Poison" costs 2 Character Points.

 

More to come later. ((prepares for flaming))

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

I see where you're going with this, and to some extent I agree -- I usually use a value of -1 for the Limitation "Only vs. XXXXX", and even then I often feel it's overpriced and should be cheaper.

 

In your example, though, you're treating all SFX with equal weight. Surely some of them are more common than others, and thus shouldn't merit as big a discount?

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

I see where you're going with this, and to some extent I agree -- I usually use a value of -1 for the Limitation "Only vs. XXXXX", and even then I often feel it's overpriced and should be cheaper.

 

In your example, though, you're treating all SFX with equal weight. Surely some of them are more common than others, and thus shouldn't merit as big a discount?

 

AHA! But POSION is VERY uncommon in many campaigns. So, I used Poison as an example, giving it the benefit of the doubt of being average in frequency, rather than at the bottom of the list.

 

In the above example, if we factor in FREQUENCY with which the SFX appear in the campaign, "Only vs. Poison" would probably reduce the total Character Point cost to... 1.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

what would a pure poision attack be? i thought poison was best represented by a drain ability

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

what would a pure poision attack be? i thought poison was best represented by a drain ability

 

You can use any word you want as the SFX for a Power, with the GM's approval. Think of "Poison" as the designation for an uncommon SFX. The actual NAMES of the SFX aren't terribly important. I could describe a pure Energy Blast 6d6 as having the SFX "Poison".

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

oh, ok

[Dust Raven]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

Don't we have enough of these nearly identical discussions going on already?

 

If the general concensus among all of you is to make the Limitation a -1 or more, fine, do that. Whatever makes you all happy. Just promise me you'll let me play in your games because you have cheap defense.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

Don't we have enough of these nearly identical discussions going on already?

 

If the general concensus among all of you is to make the Limitation a -1 or more, fine, do that. Whatever makes you all happy. Just promise me you'll let me play in your games because you have cheap defense.

 

Dust Raven, if you are going to post a reply, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain how you get off telling me that I advocate "cheap Defense". Would you read my first post again, please? What part of what I said isn't valid? DAMN RIGHT it should be cheap. If a Limited Power only gives 1/12 the protection of the normal Power, it should only cost 1/12 the points. Right? How is that unbalanced? That's math for you, always getting in the way of throwing points down the toilet.

 

Here's a metaphor for you: a store sells packs of 12 hot dog buns, $3.00 a pack. But today, they're having a special! You can pay only $2.00, and get one hot dog bun! What a deal!

 

Do. The. Math. And stop snapping out comments about how I have "cheap Defense" in my games. It's NOT cheap, it just costs what it should for what it does.

[prestidigitator]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

Dust Raven, if you are going to post a reply, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain how you get off telling me that I advocate "cheap Defense". Would you read my first post again, please? What part of what I said isn't valid? DAMN RIGHT it should be cheap. If a Limited Power only gives 1/12 the protection of the normal Power, it should only cost 1/12 the points. Right? How is that unbalanced? That's math for you, always getting in the way of throwing points down the toilet.

 

Here's a metaphor for you: a store sells packs of 12 hot dog buns, $3.00 a pack. But today, they're having a special! You can pay only $2.00, and get one hot dog bun! What a deal!

 

Do. The. Math. And stop snapping out comments about how I have "cheap Defense" in my games. It's NOT cheap, it just costs what it should for what it does.

I'll throw in a wrench then, and hopefully one that you will agree goes with, "factual conclusions from said scenarios as scientifically as possible, from an unbiased point of view."

 

Each enemy is likely to have attacks that can span more than one of the Special Effects you mentioned. Each enemy team is likely to have several enemies, each with non-identical sets of attack SFX. So the likelihood in any particular encounter that the Power could be of use is probably much higher than 1/12.

 

Also, never underestimate the ability of players to utilize something creatively where it normally would not be effective. For example: so the opponents don't use poison? We can still take advantage of our defenses. Let's create a huge area of effect poison cloud. We don't even have to buy Personal Immunity. We can thus even create it from our environment. How about spraying nicotine over the battlefield? Poison isn't the easiest to do this kind of thing with, but it can be done. This would tend to increase the frequency of situations in which a defense (or other Power) will be useful.

 

BTW, SFX aren't mutually exclusive, nor do they have to be one-word. They are the story behind the effect, and can overlap in any manner. Nothing has to fit into categories, and it is very much a common sense thing whether and how a SFX-limited Power does or not interact with another Power's SFX. For example, does, "a sword conjured by magic," classify as magical SFX, as, "sword," SFX, both, or neither? The answer isn't necessarily all-or-nothing, and it isn't always easy; it must be decided upon on a case-by-caes basis (probably by the GM, but possibly also with the consensus or negotiation from players).

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

You know, I know all of that. The point is, it's still way too much of a rip-off, no matter WHAT kind of spin you put on it. Let's say you have a group of four enemies who are using 4 different weapons. Or two enemies who are using two weapons each. Or one enemy using four weapons at once. ONE of these weapons is a flamethrower, and the player has Armor (PD 10/ ED 10), Only vs. Fire. Well, he'll be protected from the flamethrower, but his Limited Defense won't protect him from the other 3 attackers. That's a 75% loss of efficacy. Also, the very minute enemies realize that your extra Armor only works against Fire, they'll quit using the flamethrower for the rest of the battle, unless they're very stupid.

 

Now, if he'd paid 33.33% more for the full Defense, that Defense would work against ALL of the weapons, not just the flamethrower.

 

I am all for "Only vs." Limitations. I truly am. It's just horribly costly for something with such limited use.

 

Also' date=' never underestimate the ability of players to utilize something creatively where it normally would not be effective. For example: so the opponents don't use poison? We can still take advantage of our defenses. Let's create a huge area of effect poison cloud. We don't even have to buy Personal Immunity. We can thus even create it from our environment. How about spraying nicotine over the battlefield? Poison isn't the easiest to do this kind of thing with, but it can be done. This would tend to increase the frequency of situations in which a defense (or other Power) will be useful.[/quote']

 

Using a "well, we COULD use it this way" approach to justifying the cost of this power is a bad way to go about it. I don't WANT my players to have to do something silly like that -- just to take advantage of their Defense. How about if I just buy full Defense, and fill the field not only with Poison, but Fire, Cold, Radiation, and Electricity as well? You see where I am going with this? "Only vs. Poison", in your example, allows the players to create a cloud of poison around themselves; by the same token, FULL Defense would allow the players to saturate the field with ANY kind of SFX.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

Here's a visual example i cooked up to illustrate the point of protecting against damage types.

 

FULL DEFENSE

 

Automatically protects against all SFX, which, in this campaign, is equal to 8 SFX.

 

 

 

ONLY vs. FIRE DEFENSE

 

This defense lost all ability to protect against any damage except for Fire.

 

[prestidigitator]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

You know, I know all of that. The point is, it's still way too much of a rip-off, no matter WHAT kind of spin you put on it. Let's say you have a group of four enemies who are using 4 different weapons. Or two enemies who are using two weapons each. Or one enemy using four weapons at once. ONE of these weapons is a flamethrower, and the player has Armor (PD 10/ ED 10), Only vs. Fire. Well, he'll be protected from the flamethrower, but his Limited Defense won't protect him from the other 3 attackers. That's a 75% loss of efficacy. Also, the very minute enemies realize that your extra Armor only works against Fire, they'll quit using the flamethrower for the rest of the battle, unless they're very stupid.

 

Now, if he'd paid 33.33% more for the full Defense, that Defense would work against ALL of the weapons, not just the flamethrower.

 

I am all for "Only vs." Limitations. I truly am. It's just horribly costly for something with such limited use.

 

 

 

Using a "well, we COULD use it this way" approach to justifying the cost of this power is a bad way to go about it. I don't WANT my players to have to do something silly like that -- just to take advantage of their Defense. How about if I just buy full Defense, and fill the field not only with Poison, but Fire, Cold, Radiation, and Electricity as well? You see where I am going with this? "Only vs. Poison", in your example, allows the players to create a cloud of poison around themselves; by the same token, FULL Defense would allow the players to saturate the field with ANY kind of SFX.

I'll give you an example using your own scenario. Why don't I smack that guy's flamethrower with all I have and see what happens? I don't have to worry about the consequences myself, so as long as my teammates are decently out of harm's way.... And I payed only 2 points for that!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

I'll give you an example using your own scenario. Why don't I smack that guy's flamethrower with all I have and see what happens? I don't have to worry about the consequences myself' date=' so as long as my teammates are decently out of harm's way.... And I payed only 2 points for that![/quote']

 

And now that villain only has ONE attack - whatever will he and his four comrades, each with two attacks, do now?

 

To reiterate, if the character had purchased the same ED, with no limitations, he could take out ANY weapon, with ANY special effect the same way. Is the value of being effectively immune to fire REALLY 2/3 the value of being effectively immune to ALL FORMS OF ENERGY?

[MorpheousXO]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

You know what, I totally agree with you. The price should vary depending on the campaign setting. Anyways, I'm not one for speeches, so that's all I have for now!

[MorpheousXO]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

Oh, I just thought of something though. If it's a modern setting, then Ballistics should definitely cost more than the others. So, at least -1 for it, possibly more depending on other factors.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

Why not a typical -2, -1, -1/2, -1/4, breakdown.

 

-1/4: everything but 1 SFX

-1/2: only 1 common (kinetic, fire, etc.); everything but 2 related SFXs

-1: only 1 common (ice, electricity, etc.)

-2: only 1 rare (poison, vacuum, etc.)

 

Or something like that. When the SFXs are defined, that's when you can define their commonality. Limitations have never been a 1:1 ratio of frequency/commonality, and especially with other limitations they become worth even less.

 

If you implement a "fair odds" approach to such value, then you should also rework Activation Roll, Requires Skill Roll, to name a couple to be more appropriately priced. Not saying that isn't without merit, just that I think the system as is works.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

And now that villain only has ONE attack - whatever will he and his four comrades, each with two attacks, do now?

 

To reiterate, if the character had purchased the same ED, with no limitations, he could take out ANY weapon, with ANY special effect the same way. Is the value of being effectively immune to fire REALLY 2/3 the value of being effectively immune to ALL FORMS OF ENERGY?

 

Thank you, Hugh. You win a medal for a.) being able to do math, and b.) seeing the irrefutable -- IRREFUTABLE -- logic in what I've been saying.

 

FACT: Pure Defenses automatically protect against EVERY TYPE OF SFX in the campaign.

 

FACT: "Only vs." Defenses only protect against ONE SFX in the game.

 

EVEN IF there are only 2 types of SFX in the game... taking "only vs." still removes 50% of the Defenses efficacy for only a 33% point rebate!

 

And normally there are many types of SFX in the game.

 

I'm not going to argue with anyone about this anymore. I am right, and if you think -1/2 is reasonable for an "only vs." Limitation, you are wrong, because you are refusing to abide by logic and simple mathematics.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

Wow, I'll take the bait on that one.

 

It is not irrefutable for the exact reasons I stated above. I agree that logically it makes sense that all limitations should accord their true value as a reduction to the price. However, that isn't how the system is set up. The system is accomodating the reduced value but not in a true sense. Since it is consistent in how it does this, I don't see how it is any less valid than saying an Ogre has 50 STUN because I think that's what it should be.

 

If however standing on a soap box and shouting at the moon helps your self-esteem and validates your ego, good on ya.

[prestidigitator]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

What the heck happened to that, "Bad Post," button?

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

What the heck happened to that' date=' "Bad Post," button?[/quote']

 

Like I said, I'm not going to argue about it anymore. You can do as you please.

[Dust Raven]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

Dust Raven, if you are going to post a reply, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain how you get off telling me that I advocate "cheap Defense". Would you read my first post again, please? What part of what I said isn't valid? DAMN RIGHT it should be cheap. If a Limited Power only gives 1/12 the protection of the normal Power, it should only cost 1/12 the points. Right? How is that unbalanced? That's math for you, always getting in the way of throwing points down the toilet.

 

Here's a metaphor for you: a store sells packs of 12 hot dog buns, $3.00 a pack. But today, they're having a special! You can pay only $2.00, and get one hot dog bun! What a deal!

 

Do. The. Math. And stop snapping out comments about how I have "cheap Defense" in my games. It's NOT cheap, it just costs what it should for what it does.

 

I could have sworn I saw you posting on the OTHER TWO threads, so I'm fairly certain you've read my responses to such an arguement. I'm merely wondering why you have to have yet another thread about it. I'm really sorry if you feel insulted at such a question. You certainly have a lot of nerve (or are just a hypocrite) to go off on my like this about something you asked when you completely ignored the question I had in my post. It wasn't rhetorical. It was criticis at flinging the same discussion all over the boards. It's unsightly, annoying and, dare I say, rude. At least what Hugh was attempting was a poll, and didn't intend the thread for discussion on the topic. This is ridiculous.

 

Now if it's really important to you what my opinion is, go read it in the thread where I posted it. I hate to repeat myself, expecially just for one person's benifit.

 

EDIT: Sorry if I'm coming off a bit too abbrasive. Since it looks like the original thread is burried, I've made my reply to your do the math badgering in Hugh's poll thread.

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

EDIT: Sorry if I'm coming off a bit too abbrasive. Since it looks like the original thread is burried' date=' I've made my reply to your do the math badgering in Hugh's poll thread.[/quote']

 

This is why I'm dropping the argument completely. Obviously, I'm not going to budge from my opinion. (Let the record show that, before I gave it some careful thought, I also agreed that -1/2 was a fair price for this Limitation. Other peoples' posts convinced me otherwise.) Obviously, you are not going to budge from your opinion.

 

It boils down to this: I believe that the character point cost for a Defense should cost proportionately less as its utility decreases. You believe that it should still cost a significant amount, since the loss of utility isn't the issue. I disagree with you for a good reason, you disagree with me for a good reason (although I swear, I haven't been able to see it that way, no matter how much I try).

 

So, I'm bowing out of this, because, as you have seen, I become ridiculously vehement when I'm trying to convince someone that they're seeing something the wrong way. I'm not going to force anyone to agree with me, and I've said all I need to, so... I'm done.

[JTesla]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

In my opinion good points were made. I may not have agreed, but the discussion overall is a part of what these boards are for. It’s good that we can explore the most detailed aspects of the system, we learn, we disagree, and thanks to the high class nature of the participants, we don’t come away with a bitter taste in our mouths (at least I hope “we†don’t.)

[Guest Black Lotus]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

In my opinion good points were made. I may not have agreed' date=' but the discussion overall is a part of what these boards are for. It’s good that we can explore the most detailed aspects of the system, we learn, we disagree, and thanks to the high class nature of the participants, we don’t come away with a bitter taste in our mouths (at least I hope “we†don’t.)[/quote']

 

Nah, I've been a member of so many boards over the years, it's pretty hard to offend me. I NEVER get offended. We're on a bulletin board, for Pete's sake. If it sounds like I'm upset, I'm just being passionate.

 

However, some people DO get upset, and I don't want to be the cause of that by "badgering" people, so I'm going to lay off.

[zornwil]

Re: A Treatise On "Only vs. (X) SFX" Limitations

 

Thank you, Hugh. You win a medal for a.) being able to do math, and b.) seeing the irrefutable -- IRREFUTABLE -- logic in what I've been saying.

 

FACT: Pure Defenses automatically protect against EVERY TYPE OF SFX in the campaign.

 

FACT: "Only vs." Defenses only protect against ONE SFX in the game.

 

EVEN IF there are only 2 types of SFX in the game... taking "only vs." still removes 50% of the Defenses efficacy for only a 33% point rebate!

 

And normally there are many types of SFX in the game.

 

I'm not going to argue with anyone about this anymore. I am right, and if you think -1/2 is reasonable for an "only vs." Limitation, you are wrong, because you are refusing to abide by logic and simple mathematics.

You're ignoring GM input, the effects of having a known strength, and other variables. I don't think it's so simple as you say, and I think the tone is unnecessary. However, of course, you have a point. It just isn't so simple as you make it out ot be since gaming is not a mathematical exercise. GMs will tend to tailor these things accordingly, so "only vs poison" is more likely to stand out simply because someone purchased it. However, again, this is campaign-specific of course. An extreme Simulationist GM won't tend to make that differentiation, and where I agree with you is that I tend towards Simulationist and therefore tend to not JUST artificially produce bad guys to suit the PCs, rather mixing it up between that as an influencer but also looking to the overall environment as to what's "realistic", as establishing verisimillitude is important and that can't be done if "Dr. Poison" conveniently pops up just to justify a Limitation. But an extreme Narrativist will simply make the Limitation fit the storyline as appropriate, making the Lim more cost-effective, if you will, while an extreme Gamist GM will match everything and make the Lim cost-effective period.

 

Therefore I argue that ultimately you cannot and should not reduce this to a simplistic level that you seem to be doing. All that being said, I do support Mudpyr8's take on it, and in fact I have an Invulnerability power which is costed much more cheaply than many that I have seen (15 points for Uncommon/Very Specific, examples include "Earthquake Attacks", "Gravitic Attacks", "Acid Rain Attacks", 20 points for Common/Specific, examples include "Bazooka Attacks", "Nuclear/Radioactive Attacks", "Water Attacks", "Chemical Attacks", "Laser Attacks", "Sonic Attacks", and 30 points for Very Common/General, examples include "Wand-based Attacks", "Common Bullets", "Heat Attacks", "Pointed Attacks"). I would tend to support Mudpyr8's as the orthodox set of Lim advantages for HERO, but not entirely sure as we can see on these boards that groups function in many ways and I also tend to think it's better to keep the rulebook a bit more restrictive and let players/GMs liberalize rather than vice-versa.