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

[Guest Black Lotus]

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

 

No worries, I dropped this, and the tone, about a week ago. I was simply getting agitated by the fact that people believed Defense vs. a single SFX was only worth -1/2 or so. I still don't believe, even considering all dramatic and game balance considerations, that it's a fair price; however, I pretty much just decided to take it as-is, since other Power Modifiers don't go strictly by math, either.

 

The reason I have a problem with the way it works is this: I'd rather assign weaknesses to a Defense than remove almost all of its utility. For example, the Disadvantages "Susceptibility" and "Vulnerability" detail specific circumstances under which a character can be dealt extra damage in combat due to a single weakness. I'd like to assign something to the tune of "Vulnerability: Fire SFX" to the armor in my games, which will mainly be hard sct-fi and post-apocalyptic exploration.

 

So you see, it's frustrating for me, since the rules aproach the issue from the opposite direction. Therefore, I have to make up my own little system if I want to have specific "weaknesses" in a Defense.

 

One thing I DID realize was that, in the case of Armor, for example, you never have to pay full-price for, say, Armor (Only vs. Fire). Because you only have to buy ED. So instead of buying Armor (10 PD/ 10 ED), "Only vs. Fire", you can buy Armor (10 ED), "Only vs. Fire".

 

That makes it a little better since the game divides every attack into "energy" and "physical".

[AmadanNaBriona]

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.

 

.

I like this, a lot.

This fits in well with a half formed Idea I'm stewing around in my head.

Mind if I steal it?

[zornwil]

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

 

No worries, I dropped this, and the tone, about a week ago. I was simply getting agitated by the fact that people believed Defense vs. a single SFX was only worth -1/2 or so. I still don't believe, even considering all dramatic and game balance considerations, that it's a fair price; however, I pretty much just decided to take it as-is, since other Power Modifiers don't go strictly by math, either.

 

The reason I have a problem with the way it works is this: I'd rather assign weaknesses to a Defense than remove almost all of its utility. For example, the Disadvantages "Susceptibility" and "Vulnerability" detail specific circumstances under which a character can be dealt extra damage in combat due to a single weakness. I'd like to assign something to the tune of "Vulnerability: Fire SFX" to the armor in my games, which will mainly be hard sct-fi and post-apocalyptic exploration.

 

So you see, it's frustrating for me, since the rules aproach the issue from the opposite direction. Therefore, I have to make up my own little system if I want to have specific "weaknesses" in a Defense.

 

One thing I DID realize was that, in the case of Armor, for example, you never have to pay full-price for, say, Armor (Only vs. Fire). Because you only have to buy ED. So instead of buying Armor (10 PD/ 10 ED), "Only vs. Fire", you can buy Armor (10 ED), "Only vs. Fire".

 

That makes it a little better since the game divides every attack into "energy" and "physical".

I certainly agree, and I personally think "everyone should" (just to be modest! ) that the idea that -1/2 is "one size fits all" is ludicrous. Now, whether fire fits that or whatever...yeah, much more detailed argument. Anyway, I did notice you dropped the tone, sorry to bring that part up again. Hope the rest of my commentary made sense, even if you disagree.

[Guest Black Lotus]

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

 

I certainly agree' date=' and I personally think "everyone should" (just to be modest! ) that the idea that -1/2 is "one size fits all" is ludicrous. Now, whether fire fits that or whatever...yeah, much more detailed argument. Anyway, I did notice you dropped the tone, sorry to bring that part up again. Hope the rest of my commentary made sense, even if you disagree.[/quote']

 

No worries. As I've said on the HERO board before, I've been lurking about on many a bulletin board in my time, and the silliest thing to do on them is get emotional, upset, or vindictive over exchanges on a message board. And after all, the HERO boards are an ENLIGHTENED place to be.

 

And yes, everyone's opinion made sense to me, at least in part, but somehow I still felt a tinge of "that's not quite fair"... but after I realized you only had to buy ED for Fire, I calmed down quite a bit. (New guys, who needs em? Well, actually HERO Games welcomes all new players, of course. Expand the fan base! Then all your base are belong to us!)

[AmadanNaBriona]

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

 

Hmmm.... this might be another place besides Adjustment powers where a Meta SFX list could be useful.....

hmmmmm

[Guest Black Lotus]

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

 

Hmmm.... this might be another place besides Adjustment powers where a Meta SFX list could be useful.....

hmmmmm

 

Indeed.

 

I think I'll use your Meta SFX idea as a springboard for my own use... it won't be quite the same, but the categorization idea is a good one.

[tesuji]

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

 

IMnsHO...

 

the price one is charged for the defense by the Gm should be related to the utility the GM plans to make the defense in his game.

 

If he plans to have a major villain group, the focus of many arcs, be commonly fire using or commonly poison (vs PD/ED poison?) using or commonly lightning using... then that lim should be rather minimal and the defense cost most of its original value. If those are going to be very rare, so that most of the time this power is meaningless, the lim should be high and the power cost a small fraction of its original cost.

 

Then again, IMO, nearly every cost needs to be viewed through the lenses of "my campaign and whats going to happen" anyway. Adversaries and challenges are IMG primarily chosen to spotlight the PC traits and "make it look like the costs i gave were right".

 

However you do it, the only "problem" will likely come when your original cost (estimate of effectiveness) and actual value (shown effectiveness in play) are way out of whack. That type of problem is easily handled by scripting adjustment.

 

The points work if yjr GM works for the points when he scripts.

[Killer Shrike]

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

 

I agree, the Only vs X SFX Lim is generally shortchanged, whether you have set SFX or not. In fact, the more SFX there are in a campaign, the more inefficient it is.

 

Personally, I just set the value of the Lim to whatever I think is fair, considering the campaign, on a shifting scale based on commonality.

 

Doing things like taking "Damage Reduction 75% Resistant Energy; ONLY VS FIRE" for a fire character is flavorful and makes sense; the player shouldnt be punished for taking a concept driven ability by making them pay too much for it. That kind of thinking simply encourages metagaming thinking by players -- a player looks at his Defense that only works vs 1 SFX and realizes that, from a mathematical standpoint, for twice the cost he gets much more than twice as much effectiveness from the ability. It becomes a case of the player having to accept that if they stick to their flavorful SFX-conscious concept, they are basically paying too much.

 

 

 

I don't see where that would be grounds for an argument either. Defenses clearly lose a disproportionate amount of their effectiveness when limited by SFX, mathematically and practically. Luckily, individual GM's can adjust the Lim up or down as they see fit, so it's not a major issue.

[Mike W]

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

 

Here's my $.02 on the only vs. SFX limits.

 

1. This is one of the reasons why I don't like a formula for limitations where "a limit of value A should reduce the power's effectiveness by B%". I've yet to see one that can even incorporate the larger limits, and it really does vary. Let's face it, not all -1/2 limits are created equal. And limits like this are very much a judgement call. Probably not even the GM knows how often a limit like this will come into play. You might have 4 or 5 characters with a given special effect, but not use them very much, so the limit never really comes into play. On the other hand, if Dark Seraph is going to show up every other week, then it doesn't matter if he's the only character in your campaign world with "unholy" powers, the limit will still come into play a lot.

 

2.One of the other things that I think needs to factor into the equation for "Only vs. SFX", or its counterpart "Not vs. SFX"(such as werewolves not regenerating damage from silver) is how obvious the limit is and how common knowledge it is. Silver weapons aren't that common, but everybody knows that's what you kill a lycanthrope with, so someone who has time can make or acquire them because they know to bring them with. That makes it more of a limit, even if the group isn't as common.

[zornwil]

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

 

I agree, the Only vs X SFX Lim is generally shortchanged, whether you have set SFX or not. In fact, the more SFX there are in a campaign, the more inefficient it is.

 

Personally, I just set the value of the Lim to whatever I think is fair, considering the campaign, on a shifting scale based on commonality.

 

Doing things like taking "Damage Reduction 75% Resistant Energy; ONLY VS FIRE" for a fire character is flavorful and makes sense; the player shouldnt be punished for taking a concept driven ability by making them pay too much for it. That kind of thinking simply encourages metagaming thinking by players -- a player looks at his Defense that only works vs 1 SFX and realizes that, from a mathematical standpoint, for twice the cost he gets much more than twice as much effectiveness from the ability. It becomes a case of the player having to accept that if they stick to their flavorful SFX-conscious concept, they are basically paying too much.

 

 

 

I don't see where that would be grounds for an argument either. Defenses clearly lose a disproportionate amount of their effectiveness when limited by SFX, mathematically and practically. Luckily, individual GM's can adjust the Lim up or down as they see fit, so it's not a major issue.

Well said, thanks! I'm out of rep but it's on the backlog...you are severely owed rep, anyhow, sorry...

[tesuji]

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

 

 

Let's face it, not all -1/2 limits are created equal.

they are in terms of their point savings!

 

And limits like this are very much a judgement call. Probably not even the GM knows how often a limit like this will come into play. You might have 4 or 5 characters with a given special effect, but not use them very much, so the limit never really comes into play. On the other hand, if Dark Seraph is going to show up every other week, then it doesn't matter if he's the only character in your campaign world with "unholy" powers, the limit will still come into play a lot.

Ok, all of those decisions are made BY THE GM. He is the one who decides which vilains with which traits will get used when and how often.

 

if he is not the one best suited to make that call on how valuable a given "only one SFX" lim is for his game, who is then? certainly its not HERO games who have none of his inside knowledge.

 

Thats the reason behind my suggestion that the focus shift from handing the Gm some FACTORY-SET values and instead handing him a range of values and tips and examples of what conditions and circumstances make each value appropriate or inappropriate.

 

In short, handing him a FACTORY-SEt value is handing the hungry Gm a fish. Handing him a range and advice on how to pick the right one is TEACHING him to fish.

2.One of the other things that I think needs to factor into the equation for "Only vs. SFX", or its counterpart "Not vs. SFX"(such as werewolves not regenerating damage from silver) is how obvious the limit is and how common knowledge it is. Silver weapons aren't that common, but everybody knows that's what you kill a lycanthrope with, so someone who has time can make or acquire them because they know to bring them with. That makes it more of a limit, even if the group isn't as common.

 

There are lots of different flavors that add into the mix of "how often is this an issue and how big of an issue is it?" That is just one more. maybe in addition to some ranges and examples within the powers themselves, a chapter on the broader stuff like "scripting for frequency" and "building for severity.

 

.

[zornwil]

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

 

(snip) In short, handing him a FACTORY-SEt value is handing the hungry Gm a fish. Handing him a range and advice on how to pick the right one is TEACHING him to fish.

 

Very well said, sir!

[Guest Black Lotus]

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

 

Very well said' date=' sir![/quote']

 

 

I concur!

[Black Rose]

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

 

I have to give tesuji Rep for this one. Now that Limitations in FREd has such a nice little chart as the Limited Power, giving a prototype list for frequency, it's time for a creator-written discussion on "scripting for frequency" and "building for severity". I can't remember where I read it (prolly someone's House Rules), but remembering that Limitations not only save you-the-player points, but help the GM script frequency and severity in their games is important. The more you get back, the more the GM has free license to hose you hard.

[Dust Raven]

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

 

I concur!

 

Me three!

 

While I happily agree with the book's fish on this one, I never ingore the fishing lessons at the begining or end of such menus. What I like about the offered examples and lists is that I can just accept the fish that's been offered if I don't feel like fishing that day.

[Guest Black Lotus]

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

 

Me three!

 

While I happily agree with the book's fish on this one, I never ingore the fishing lessons at the begining or end of such menus. What I like about the offered examples and lists is that I can just accept the fish that's been offered if I don't feel like fishing that day.

 

Well-put, but have you had your coffee yet? You sound extremely perky this morning!