How do I build a . . . ?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

Alright, gonna chime in real quick.

 

You find a sword (or any magic item really). Obviously, someone spent points to create the thing as an independant focus.

 

No. No one had to spend points to create it as a Focus.

 

Go at it a different way: You find a Focus. Did someone spend points to create the thing?

 

No. It doesn't matter what genre you're playing in. Someone spent points to buy the thing, if you're in a genre where characters do that. The fact that it exists doesn't mean someone spent points to create it.

 

There is nothing inherent to magic that requires that points be spent in order to create a Focus. The only thing you need to know -- regardless of genre -- is that if the character wants to keep it, he has to pay the points for it.

[prestidigitator]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

If the wand being taken away limits your ability to use your powers, then you take it as a Focus. If you can replace the Focus without paying character points, it isn't a Focus.

 

You might be able to do something with Charges, though. SFX "solid object"?

Not at all. Foci can normally be replaced without spending points. Independent powers, whether bought through a Focus or not, cannot (well, except potentially by winning them back through story, but that's the GM's call).

[Vurbal]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

I'm going off of an example in play from McCoy's game. It was' date=' as I recall, a flying surfboard that was snatched out of the air by an enemy, and Number Two Son asked if he could get it back by using the power pool. I only recall the word "Focus" being used, but it's entirely possible that I forgot the somewhat less common word "Independent", or even that they were alluding to concepts they didn't need to directly name because they were all experienced players.[/quote'] As others have indicated, as long as the focus isn't independent you will get it back - eventually. One interesting aspect of a focus is that you may have to go through some trouble and spend a fair amount of time without the focus. It might get stolen, requiring the hero to find the villain who has it or the place he has it hidden. It might be destroyed and the hero has to have another one made or go on a quest to get a replacement. The possibilities are endless.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

I prefer to treat Foci of all kinds consistently throughout genres: if you keep a Focus' date=' whether you have found it or built it, you pay the points for it. [/quote']

Technically, a non-magic sword is an HKA Independant OIF; so do you make your fighters pay points for non-magic weapons? If one character has a non-magical 2d6K sword, and another character has a magical 2d6K dagger, does the latter have to pay character points while the former gets his for free? Not trying to be snarky, just taking the extreme case to make the point that in this case "magic" is just an sfx, not a game mechanic per se.

 

To me it depends entirely on the genre and the campaign world. In modern or sci-fi campaigns, I almost never make character pay points for commonly available equipment. Similarly in fantasy campaigns, the key point is how common the item is in your campaign -- which is entirely up to the GM and players.

 

I'm not saying there's anything "wrong" with making players pay points for magic items, if that's how you want your campaign to work. Personally, I tend to prefer games where magic items are rare and wonderous... so as a GM I just don't hand out that many. And if Wally the Warrior gets a magic sword this week, then I make sure Winky the Wizard gets a magic wand next week. It's all about the balance; paying points is only one tool in the toolkit.

 

As long as you've established the object is 1) Common 2) Easy to obtain and 3) See 1 and 2 then take that "ruling" of "You Must Pay The Points" (But I can't pay the point!) and toss it. Just flat out ignore it. Bye bye.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ghost-angel again."

[Robyn]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

If one character has a non-magical 2d6K sword' date=' and another character has a magical 2d6K dagger, does the latter have to pay character points while the former gets his for free? Not trying to be snarky, just taking the extreme case to make the point that in this case "magic" is just an sfx, not a game mechanic per se.[/quote']

 

I would give them the "magical" 2d6K dagger at 0 points, concealing from them the fact that it was 30 real points of a "cursed" Dagger of Healing . . .

 

Remember, "slicing them up" is just an SFX, not a game mechanic per se. They're really feeling much better every time your STR and damage levels are converted to healing power

[bigdamnhero]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

I would give them the "magical" 2d6K dagger at 0 points' date=' concealing from them the fact that it was 30 real points of a "cursed" Dagger of [i']Healing[/i] . . .

 

Remember, "slicing them up" is just an SFX, not a game mechanic per se. They're really feeling much better every time your STR and damage levels are converted to healing power

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

Technically, a non-magic sword is an HKA Independant OIF; so do you make your fighters pay points for non-magic weapons? If one character has a non-magical 2d6K sword, and another character has a magical 2d6K dagger, does the latter have to pay character points while the former gets his for free? Not trying to be snarky, just taking the extreme case to make the point that in this case "magic" is just an sfx, not a game mechanic per se.

 

Not at all. The first character's non-magical 2d6K sword doesn't get any "script immunity" or "game protection", while the dagger would. If the fighter wanted to pay points for his non-magical 2d6K sword, then it would get every bit as much protection; I wouldn't insist that it's all of a sudden magical just because he paid points for it. (It would, however, be special in some way. It might be his great-grandfather's sword, passed down through the ages, and it might have a name, reputation, and even mystique, even though it might not possess a shred of magical power. Or it could even have some non-magical special abilities, such as being extra sharp (Armor Piercing), extra durable (+2 DEF), etc., if he's paid for those.)

 

(Also: I wouldn't say it was Independent. I don't use Independent, period. It's kinda like the Highlander II of Hero System rules.)

[ghost-angel]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

(Also: I wouldn't say it was Independent. I don't use Independent' date=' period. It's kinda like the Highlander II of Hero System rules.)[/quote']

 

I feel the same way. On one hand I'm glad it's there Just In Case, on the other I would never ever use it.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

Not at all. The first character's non-magical 2d6K sword doesn't get any "script immunity" or "game protection"' date=' while the dagger would. [/quote']

Ah, that's where we differ. In my heroic games, no equipment gets "script immunity." (Tho I like the term!) It's all just gear. If the situation calls for them to lose it, they do. If they can get it back, great; if not, too bad. I can see a case for handling it differently; just saying that I prefer not to. To me, it becomes too arbitrary to draw a line between protected and non-protected items.

 

(Also: I wouldn't say it was Independent. I don't use Independent' date=' period. It's kinda like the Highlander II of Hero System rules.)[/quote']

Well, if magic items get script immunity then they're not really Independant, so you don't need the limitation. OTOH, if no gear gets script immunity, then all gear is Independant by default and again there's no need for the limitation. To me, it's only useful when you're drawing a distinction between protected and non-protected items, such as in superhero games.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

Well' date=' if magic items get script immunity then they're not really Independant, so you don't need the limitation. OTOH, if [u']no[/u] gear gets script immunity, then all gear is Independant by default and again there's no need for the limitation. To me, it's only useful when you're drawing a distinction between protected and non-protected items, such as in superhero games.

 

There're plenty of examples in fantasy fiction of characters with signature weapons that they're never without; King Arthur and Excalibur, Corwin and Greyswandir, Roy Greenhilt with his namesake blade, Joe the Barbarian and his great sword Irving, etc. Paying points for it (and making it non-Independent) suggests that the owner is attuned to it in some way, or that the destinies of the owner and the sword are entwined somehow (a la Excalibur).

[bigdamnhero]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

There're plenty of examples in fantasy fiction of characters with signature weapons that they're never without; King Arthur and Excalibur' date=' Corwin and Greyswandir, Roy Greenhilt with his namesake blade, Joe the Barbarian and his great sword Irving, etc. Paying points for it (and making it non-Independent) suggests that the owner is attuned to it in some way, or that the destinies of the owner and the sword are entwined somehow (a la Excalibur).[/quote']

Sure. I'm just saying I prefer not to handle it that way; not saying you can't.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

OK, a little more explanation why I feel the way I do.

 

Two characters get captured, stripped of their gear, and thrown in the dungeon. PC#1 paid points for his sword; PC#2 did not. The characters soon escape because they are, after all, Heroes. So as a GM, I am now obligated to let PC#1 get his sword back because he paid points for it. OK, fine. But PC#2 is out of luck, because he didn't pay points for his. As a game mechanic, that makes sense. But from a narrative standpoint, there may be no logical in-game reason for Sword #1 to be easily recovered while Sword #2 is lost for all time. (It's not like the Bad Guys know one was paid-in-points and the other wasn't.) Yet if I do let PC#2 get his sword back, then he's getting the same benefit as PC#1, even tho he didn't pay any points for it. So it draws a (to me) very artificial line that interferes with my narrative. Anytime I come up against a situation that I can only justify to the players interms of game mechanics (ie - "Sorry, he paid points for his sword and you didn't."), that is usually my definition of a bad mechanic.

 

So to me, it works best if you either make ALL items Independant as a campaign-default, or NO items Independant. Personally, I prefer the former, but that's just my opinion. But either way, you don't really need the Limitation, because it's a campaign assumption.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

OK, a little more explanation why I feel the way I do.

 

Two characters get captured, stripped of their gear, and thrown in the dungeon. PC#1 paid points for his sword; PC#2 did not. The characters soon escape because they are, after all, Heroes. So as a GM, I am now obligated to let PC#1 get his sword back because he paid points for it. OK, fine. But PC#2 is out of luck, because he didn't pay points for his. As a game mechanic, that makes sense. But from a narrative standpoint, there may be no logical in-game reason for Sword #1 to be easily recovered while Sword #2 is lost for all time. (It's not like the Bad Guys know one was paid-in-points and the other wasn't.) Yet if I do let PC#2 get his sword back, then he's getting the same benefit as PC#1, even tho he didn't pay any points for it. So it draws a (to me) very artificial line that interferes with my narrative. Anytime I come up against a situation that I can only justify to the players interms of game mechanics (ie - "Sorry, he paid points for his sword and you didn't."), that is usually my definition of a bad mechanic.

 

So to me, it works best if you either make ALL items Independant as a campaign-default, or NO items Independant. Personally, I prefer the former, but that's just my opinion. But either way, you don't really need the Limitation, because it's a campaign assumption.

 

 

The character who paid points for the item can, without question, "eventually" get the original item or a functionally identical item during down time between adventures. The character that did not pay points "might" be able to retrieve the original 'special' item with good roleplaying but there are no guarantees. The points are just insurance.

 

The character who paid for a 'magical' item that is tied to him but is otherwise independantly magical is a somewhat rare thing.

 

Corwin and his sword Greyswander from the Amber novels is a good example. Other characters could get a magical sword but if they lost it they could use shadow walking to just get a replacement 'normal' sword. Corwin could effectively make his sword appear just around the corner while shadow walking.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

OK, a little more explanation why I feel the way I do.

 

Two characters get captured, stripped of their gear, and thrown in the dungeon. PC#1 paid points for his sword; PC#2 did not. The characters soon escape because they are, after all, Heroes. So as a GM, I am now obligated to let PC#1 get his sword back because he paid points for it. OK, fine. But PC#2 is out of luck, because he didn't pay points for his. As a game mechanic, that makes sense. But from a narrative standpoint, there may be no logical in-game reason for Sword #1 to be easily recovered while Sword #2 is lost for all time. (It's not like the Bad Guys know one was paid-in-points and the other wasn't.) Yet if I do let PC#2 get his sword back, then he's getting the same benefit as PC#1, even tho he didn't pay any points for it. So it draws a (to me) very artificial line that interferes with my narrative. Anytime I come up against a situation that I can only justify to the players interms of game mechanics (ie - "Sorry, he paid points for his sword and you didn't."), that is usually my definition of a bad mechanic.

 

On the other hand, you're not obligated to not let PC#2 get his sword back in that particular instance. (OTOH, there's plenty of other ways you can take PC#2's sword away.)

[Robyn]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

So it draws a (to me) very artificial line that interferes with my narrative. Anytime I come up against a situation that I can only justify to the players interms of game mechanics (ie - "Sorry' date=' he paid points for his sword and you didn't."), that is usually my definition of a bad mechanic.[/quote']

 

Congratulations, you now share the reasoning behind my desire to match in-character explanations to game mechanics!

[Rapier]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

OK, a little more explanation why I feel the way I do.

 

Two characters get captured, stripped of their gear, and thrown in the dungeon. PC#1 paid points for his sword; PC#2 did not. The characters soon escape because they are, after all, Heroes. So as a GM, I am now obligated to let PC#1 get his sword back because he paid points for it. OK, fine. But PC#2 is out of luck, because he didn't pay points for his. As a game mechanic, that makes sense. But from a narrative standpoint, there may be no logical in-game reason for Sword #1 to be easily recovered while Sword #2 is lost for all time. (It's not like the Bad Guys know one was paid-in-points and the other wasn't.) Yet if I do let PC#2 get his sword back, then he's getting the same benefit as PC#1, even tho he didn't pay any points for it. So it draws a (to me) very artificial line that interferes with my narrative. Anytime I come up against a situation that I can only justify to the players interms of game mechanics (ie - "Sorry, he paid points for his sword and you didn't."), that is usually my definition of a bad mechanic.

 

So to me, it works best if you either make ALL items Independant as a campaign-default, or NO items Independant. Personally, I prefer the former, but that's just my opinion. But either way, you don't really need the Limitation, because it's a campaign assumption.

 

Well, you are simplifying quite a bit. Just because someone has a focus does NOT necessarily mean that they are always going to lose their focus. Just because someone paid points for an item and one person didn't doesn't mean that one sword is going to get lost in the shuffle and not another.

[Vurbal]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

OK, a little more explanation why I feel the way I do.

 

Two characters get captured, stripped of their gear, and thrown in the dungeon. PC#1 paid points for his sword; PC#2 did not. The characters soon escape because they are, after all, Heroes. So as a GM, I am now obligated to let PC#1 get his sword back because he paid points for it. OK, fine. But PC#2 is out of luck, because he didn't pay points for his. As a game mechanic, that makes sense. But from a narrative standpoint, there may be no logical in-game reason for Sword #1 to be easily recovered while Sword #2 is lost for all time. (It's not like the Bad Guys know one was paid-in-points and the other wasn't.) Yet if I do let PC#2 get his sword back, then he's getting the same benefit as PC#1, even tho he didn't pay any points for it. So it draws a (to me) very artificial line that interferes with my narrative. Anytime I come up against a situation that I can only justify to the players interms of game mechanics (ie - "Sorry, he paid points for his sword and you didn't."), that is usually my definition of a bad mechanic.

 

So to me, it works best if you either make ALL items Independant as a campaign-default, or NO items Independant. Personally, I prefer the former, but that's just my opinion. But either way, you don't really need the Limitation, because it's a campaign assumption.

If the reason the character paid points for the item was something like "it's a family heirloom" or "it's a one of a kind item" it makes sense within the framework of that character's story for them to make getting it back a priority. I don't see that as spoiling the narrative, but if you think it will be an issue I can see your point.

 

However, just because it's a focus doesn't have to mean that the character will get the same item, or even one that's funtionally the same back. There's the approach I mentioned before of getting a replacement - obviously not always feasible. It's also possible the character may spend those points a different way. You can look at independent as a limitation of the points instead of the item. Points spent on an Independent item can be lost. Points spend on a focus that's not Independent won't be lost, but the GM doesn't have to feel obligated to allow the focus to be recovered or replaced by an identical one.

 

Once again, I understand your approach (and it wouldn't bother me if I were one of your players) but I think you're making it more limiting (from the GM's perspective) than it has to be.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

Not at all. The first character's non-magical 2d6K sword doesn't get any "script immunity" or "game protection"' date=' while the dagger would. If the fighter [i']wanted[/i] to pay points for his non-magical 2d6K sword, then it would get every bit as much protection; I wouldn't insist that it's all of a sudden magical just because he paid points for it. (It would, however, be special in some way. It might be his great-grandfather's sword, passed down through the ages, and it might have a name, reputation, and even mystique, even though it might not possess a shred of magical power. Or it could even have some non-magical special abilities, such as being extra sharp (Armor Piercing), extra durable (+2 DEF), etc., if he's paid for those.)

 

(Also: I wouldn't say it was Independent. I don't use Independent, period. It's kinda like the Highlander II of Hero System rules.)

 

It might, in fact, be a perfectly ordinary sword, remarkable for it's utter lack of magical enchantment and being very good at cutting things...

[Lucius]

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

 

It might' date=' in fact, be a perfectly ordinary sword, remarkable for it's utter lack of magical enchantment and being very good at cutting things...[/quote']

 

But of course, it couldn't possibly be the Royal Sword, handed down secretly from father to son all these generations since the days when the last king was killed by the commander of the city watch....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that THAT sword hasn't been heard of since, after all.