Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

[keithcurtis]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

I just want to know what would be the logical justification for Drain: Desolidification or Drain: Extra limb? I think the whole inherent question can be eliminated in nearly every case by a gm who enforces reasonable Drains.

 

Keith "common sense-er" Curtis

[Lucius]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Power Defense. Isn't that what it's for?

 

How much Power Defense do you need to stop any concieveable Drain etc. from working?

 

 

Consider the alien's infrared vision in the movie Predator 2. The government agents filled a room with a gas that prevented the predator from using its IR Vision' date=' so you might consider that a Suppress.[/quote']

 

No, it’s Darkness VS the Infravision.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wonders if Inherent is inherently inherent?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

I just want to know what would be the logical justification for Drain: Desolidification or Drain: Extra limb? I think the whole inherent question can be eliminated in nearly every case by a gm who enforces reasonable Drains.

 

Keith "common sense-er" Curtis

 

If you've defined many effects as Magic and have Dispel Magic Powers wandering around, there may be some Inherent Magic effects that can't be Dispeled.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

I just mention the Life Support' date=' and its LS vs. all Toxins, as an example. She also wants Inherent on Damage Resistance, Mental Defense and Regeneration. All of whichs she also wanted to add Always On. Is this just paranoia?[/quote']

 

Well she can't have 'always on' on life support, damage resistance et al: there is no disadvantage to being unable to turn off a defence, or such esoteric disadvantage that it is not worth a limtiation value. Bear in mind that to make a 350 point character completely inherent is going to make that character, even under optimum conditions, a 255 point character, being drained will be the least of her worries: being beaten by every opponent every time is going to be her problem.

 

She has probably had a bad experience with drain. Give her a bad experience with normal combat and that will help to re-focus her perceptions

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

I just want to know what would be the logical justification for Drain: Desolidification or Drain: Extra limb? I think the whole inherent question can be eliminated in nearly every case by a gm who enforces reasonable Drains.

 

Keith "common sense-er" Curtis

 

Realistically you are not going to ancounter a 'drain extra limbs' power, but you (as ghost-angel points out) going to have broad sfx drains that cover the sfx of the extra limb now and then.

 

However, as a GM, if you really think that an extra limb cannot under any circumstances be drained, buy it as inherent. Applying common sense is rarely a good idea, because no two people seem to stock the same variety and, frankly it is the start of the rot: if your mutated tail cannot be drained, then it makes little sense that your life support, based on mutated lungs, can be drained, and your armour, based on mutated skin and...

 

The point is none of this actually makes sense, so applying 'common sense' is never going to work - it will just create a series of arbitrary exceptions. A GM never has to justify forgetting to buy inherent anyway - it is not as if you will be handing out villain character sheets - just remember to add it in and re-cost it later. A player with the same problem (the 'I forgot' problem) can get inherent for free as far as I am concerned, but has to devote their next X character points to covering the cost.

[Vondy]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Well she can't have 'always on' on life support' date=' damage resistance et al: there is no disadvantage to being unable to turn off a defence, or such esoteric disadvantage that it is not worth a limtiation value. [/quote']

 

/snark on!

 

What if the only counter to a lethal non-terrestrial disease built as a power is a strain of the common cold?

 

/snark off!

[keithcurtis]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Realistically you are not going to ancounter a 'drain extra limbs' power, but you (as ghost-angel points out) going to have broad sfx drains that cover the sfx of the extra limb now and then.

 

However, as a GM, if you really think that an extra limb cannot under any circumstances be drained, buy it as inherent. Applying common sense is rarely a good idea, because no two people seem to stock the same variety and, frankly it is the start of the rot: if your mutated tail cannot be drained, then it makes little sense that your life support, based on mutated lungs, can be drained, and your armour, based on mutated skin and...

 

The point is none of this actually makes sense, so applying 'common sense' is never going to work - it will just create a series of arbitrary exceptions. A GM never has to justify forgetting to buy inherent anyway - it is not as if you will be handing out villain character sheets - just remember to add it in and re-cost it later. A player with the same problem (the 'I forgot' problem) can get inherent for free as far as I am concerned, but has to devote their next X character points to covering the cost.

 

Let's look at this from a game world perspective, since that's where the justification for a power build comes from.

 

If a spell is a Drain: Life Support, with the intention of causing someone who would normally be able to breathe underwater to drown, then I can easily see it working against mutated lungs. It's magic. It makes you drown. The Spell isn't called "close gills", it's called "make you drown". If the SFX is closing gills, and the target is using an aqualung, it shouldn't work. But the character with the aqualung or the mutated lungs shouldn't bear the onus of building to suit whatever wonky power might come along. That would lead to needless point inflation and likely never come into play anyway. The wonky power should bear the onus. In the "Make you drown" spell, it should be a straight out Drain: Life Support. For the "Close Gills" spell, it should be Drain: Life Support, -1/2 only vs. life support that comes from gills. If it's a "Remove Air Supply" Spell, should be Drain: Life Support, -1/2 only vs. life support that comes from carrying around extra air.

 

I dislike "inherent" because it is not broadly applicable. If a spell is "Remove Tail", you should be able to remove a tail, regardless of whether a creature naturally (inherently) has one or not.

 

It should fall upon the builder of the Drain to define the conditions under which their power will work. If one character in a campaign has a "Remove Armor" spell (Drain: Armor), are you going to penalize every character in a campaign who has natural armor to buy the "Inherent" advantage on their armor? What if no one builds that spell, do you still require the Inherent when it will never be used? What if three years into the campaign someone builds the spell; do you force everyone who should have non-artificial armor to scrape up the points for Inherent?

I say no. The spell-caster should either build "Remove Armor" (Drain: Armor, -1/2 only versus worn armor) or "Make Vulnerable" (Drain: Armor, no limitations).

 

To require Inherent is to needlessly complicate a campaign with endless what-ifs (I'm an Ogre. Ogres are strong. Should my Strength be Inherent?). To build logically limited powers is to build the resolution of any power usage into the power itself. Far more elegant to my thinking.

 

Keith "Inherently right on this ;)" Curtis

[Ghost Archer]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

I totally agree with "Keith "Inherently right on this " Curtis". I wish I had been as eloquent.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

While I'm pretty much in agreement with Keith, I don't think Inherent is as quite as bad as it's been made out to be.

 

Drain: Energy Blast defined as "Magical Disarm" vs a Damage Shield built using Energy Blast (a Fire Nimbus on an Efreet let's say). Should it work? What if the Damage Shield is built as Inherent because it's an intergral part of the creature involved and a Magical Disarm can't simply remove the Fire Nimbus.

 

Beyond common sense the Mechanics do have to back things up, as Sean Waters points out everyone uses a different version of Common Sense. If we're going with Common Sense as the only measure then why have specific Powers at all. Attack, Defend, Move, Adjust, Perceive should be all we need and Common Sense will mitigate the rest.

 

The original question was not "Justify Inherent on Life Support" it was "Give me a reason to use Inherent."

 

On Life Support itself it's a silly construct, has no place there IMO. On many other constructs I see it's use and believe it should be there.

 

And also: maybe your Remove Tail spell is built wrong, not the other way around. There are plenty of things that get past Inherent: Transform, Damage, Resrtaints, Images, Shapeshift.

[TheRavenIs]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

I use Inherent on those powers that I see should be, with that said ..... sometimes/many times ...... I can see that it can be over used.

 

The C's that I do it for usually have a few abilities that are racial ones or the build works better even if it costs more to use it.

[Lucius]

Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

I got rep once for something I said in a thread regarding Drain and Life Support.

 

Someone asked "Why can't I drain the Life Support for a character's free default environment (usually "oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere.")"

 

I responded "Because it's inherent."

 

I'm not sure that's true; I'll ask Mr. Long.

 

But if I'm right, it seems to imply that other Life Supports can be Inherent too.

 

And if I'm wrong - the original question stands, why can't I drain your "Life Support: Oxygen-Nitrogen Atmosphere?"

 

You COULD answer that, I suppose, by saying no one can Drain, Dispel, etc. Life Support, making it always automatically Inherent.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Dispel Palindromedary: Sator Arepo Tenet Opera Rotas

[Vondy]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

I tend to agree with Keith on this. It adds needless complexity to the system, as well as increased costs without much increased utility.

[Robyn]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

It should fall upon the builder of the Drain to define the conditions under which their power will work.

 

This is, after all, the "book-legal" build for invulnerability.

 

If one character in a campaign has a "Remove Armor" spell (Drain: Armor)' date=' are you going to penalize every character in a campaign who has natural armor to buy the "Inherent" advantage on their armor? What if no one builds that spell, do you still require the Inherent when it will never be used? What if three years into the campaign someone builds the spell; do you force everyone who should have non-artificial armor to scrape up the points for Inherent?[/quote']

 

This is where consistency, in advance, is valuable for the GM to enforce: it prevents questions of who should include an effect in the writeup for their character. It also prevents inconsistencies from arising later on, during game play.

 

To prevent questions of how much the defense costs, or how much the appropriate dice would cost, I think that immunities/resistances should be built as part of the attack power and extra dice of effect should be built as Susceptibility for the characters in question. Depending on where the line is drawn for "what makes it into the actual writeup for a character sheet", this may be inflicted with VPP's or Naked Modifiers (gravity may slam a character into the ground, but surely there is some sort of Susceptibility that states they take damage proportionate to the impact?) instead of included in the main writeup for that power, but the effect is the same.

 

If a player says "Hey, my fire EB could destroy that Continuous paper cut HKA, does it burn?", the GM could insist on statting this out as a Dispel and Linking it to the fire attack, but if the effect were deemed consistent to all paper, and not just a quality of that fire attack, the villain would get some points back for taking Physical Manifestation on their HKA (if they hadn't already) or a similar custom Limitation (such as collapsing if intersected with fire SFX), and everyone else with paper SFX would be required to do the same. That's consistency.

 

If you aren't careful to do this (from the beginning), you end up with odd cases like one PC having the Dispel with their EB and another having Physical Manifestation on their HKA; what happens then? If the interaction should only take place in reaction to fire attacks from the EB, what is the other character receiving points for? Conversely, if the interaction should only take place for the paper cut power, what is the other character paying points for? The GM needs to figure out which of the described effects would be common to all such SFX, and (from there) whether to apply it globally (as per "common sense") or let it be a power/Disadvantage/Advantage/Limitation for only that character.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

I wonder what would happen [he mused aloud] if you allowed the player in question to spend the points on Inherent, and then left a power writeup laying around like:

 

"Alter Natural State: 6d6 Minor Transform: Person with Inherent powers to person lacking Inherent powers"

 

[Trebuchet]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

And if I'm wrong - the original question stands' date=' why can't I drain your "Life Support: Oxygen-Nitrogen Atmosphere?"[/quote']Because that would in effect be an NND Does BODY attack which will kill. Why not just Drain BODY and take the more direct route? Sure, it's clever, but this isn't a game about clever - it's a role-playing game.

 

As a more practical approach, I'd observe that since Life Support is very inexpensive, Drains against it would be far too effective to be balanced. I'm not going to allow a PC to easily kill a villain using a mere 10 point attack which has a very uncomon defense; that would be blatant munchkinism and therrefore a hanging offense. I'm darn sure not going to build a villain that way either. If he's going to suffocate a hero, he's going to build it properly as a Killing Attack or a Drain on BODY with appropriate Advantages, Limitations, and sfx.

 

No amount of number crunching and fast talking by players removes the ultimate responsibility of the GM to enforce game balance in his campaign. If it's unbalancing, it doesn't get the stamp of approval.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Also, you don't have a "Life Support: Oxygen-Nitrogen Atmosphere". That is your default environment. There is no power involved. You buy Life Support to cover environments beyond your default.

 

Keith "It's like buying Drain: Physical Body" Curtis

[zornwil]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Let's look at this from a game world perspective, since that's where the justification for a power build comes from.

 

If a spell is a Drain: Life Support, with the intention of causing someone who would normally be able to breathe underwater to drown, then I can easily see it working against mutated lungs. It's magic. It makes you drown. The Spell isn't called "close gills", it's called "make you drown". If the SFX is closing gills, and the target is using an aqualung, it shouldn't work. But the character with the aqualung or the mutated lungs shouldn't bear the onus of building to suit whatever wonky power might come along. That would lead to needless point inflation and likely never come into play anyway. The wonky power should bear the onus. In the "Make you drown" spell, it should be a straight out Drain: Life Support. For the "Close Gills" spell, it should be Drain: Life Support, -1/2 only vs. life support that comes from gills. If it's a "Remove Air Supply" Spell, should be Drain: Life Support, -1/2 only vs. life support that comes from carrying around extra air.

 

I dislike "inherent" because it is not broadly applicable. If a spell is "Remove Tail", you should be able to remove a tail, regardless of whether a creature naturally (inherently) has one or not.

 

It should fall upon the builder of the Drain to define the conditions under which their power will work. If one character in a campaign has a "Remove Armor" spell (Drain: Armor), are you going to penalize every character in a campaign who has natural armor to buy the "Inherent" advantage on their armor? What if no one builds that spell, do you still require the Inherent when it will never be used? What if three years into the campaign someone builds the spell; do you force everyone who should have non-artificial armor to scrape up the points for Inherent?

I say no. The spell-caster should either build "Remove Armor" (Drain: Armor, -1/2 only versus worn armor) or "Make Vulnerable" (Drain: Armor, no limitations).

 

To require Inherent is to needlessly complicate a campaign with endless what-ifs (I'm an Ogre. Ogres are strong. Should my Strength be Inherent?). To build logically limited powers is to build the resolution of any power usage into the power itself. Far more elegant to my thinking.

 

Keith "Inherently right on this ;)" Curtis

Exactly.

 

But here we are into the entire realm of problems created when HERO first took on Adjustment powers, the confluence of SFX and mechanics in a way that still hasn't quite meshed. So I can understand how Inherent can come up, as a way of trying to "mechanize" in a way that tries to be again agnostic of SFX - but thus trips up on exactly the SFX issues you raise. What I do not understand, though, about Inherent is why yet another absolute has been introduced into a system demonstrably troubled by them (consider, there is no counter to Inherent, it's a basic invulnerability), this could have been avoided with some simple counter-Advantage or such, and, second, and more importantly, what in fact drove this need in terms of why give such a basically cheap discount to avoiding Adjustments for a power. I mean, that alone is an interesting system point which begs for an explanation.

 

PS - in short, Ghost Archer, I agree Inherent doesn't work well for many of us, the only "issue" I perceive in not following it is the issue of how SFX and mechanics could be seen as arbitrarily interplaying into or against a character's favor. But I don't think that should throw one's GMing out the window.

[zornwil]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

I wonder what would happen [he mused aloud] if you allowed the player in question to spend the points on Inherent, and then left a power writeup laying around like:

 

"Alter Natural State: 6d6 Minor Transform: Person with Inherent powers to person lacking Inherent powers"

 

I have to call out, as I have repped it also, that this really is a rather clever statement as well as being funny.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Exactly.

 

But here we are into the entire realm of problems created when HERO first took on Adjustment powers, the confluence of SFX and mechanics in a way that still hasn't quite meshed. So I can understand how Inherent can come up, as a way of trying to "mechanize" in a way that tries to be again agnostic of SFX - but thus trips up on exactly the SFX issues you raise. What I do not understand, though, about Inherent is why yet another absolute has been introduced into a system demonstrably troubled by them (consider, there is no counter to Inherent, it's a basic invulnerability), this could have been avoided with some simple counter-Advantage or such, and, second, and more importantly, what in fact drove this need in terms of why give such a basically cheap discount to avoiding Adjustments for a power. I mean, that alone is an interesting system point which begs for an explanation.

 

PS - in short, Ghost Archer, I agree Inherent doesn't work well for many of us, the only "issue" I perceive in not following it is the issue of how SFX and mechanics could be seen as arbitrarily interplaying into or against a character's favor. But I don't think that should throw one's GMing out the window.

 

I wouldn't say there's no "counter" to Inherent. Transform is, after all, a rather permanent solution to many issues.

 

They way I look at Inherent is you're saying "this is as integral to the base character as the base stuff that comes with the character: arms, legs, perception points" all of which can be reduced, blocked, removed or otherwise prevented from being used to their full function - just not by Drain, Supress or Dispel.

[zornwil]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

I wouldn't say there's no "counter" to Inherent. Transform is, after all, a rather permanent solution to many issues.

 

They way I look at Inherent is you're saying "this is as integral to the base character as the base stuff that comes with the character: arms, legs, perception points" all of which can be reduced, blocked, removed or otherwise prevented from being used to their full function - just not by Drain, Supress or Dispel.

Sure, but that doesn't answer why it's priced as it is, the 2nd of my points in a purely-mechanics-related objection (the SFX-related objection being a whole different argument, unrelated to either your last post or the 2 points I brought up in the last couple sentences).

 

It does however speak to why it might be built as an absolute, since HERO bows to practicality over consistency in design.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Sure, but that doesn't answer why it's priced as it is, the 2nd of my points in a purely-mechanics-related objection (the SFX-related objection being a whole different argument, unrelated to either your last post or the 2 points I brought up in the last couple sentences).

 

It does however speak to why it might be built as an absolute, since HERO bows to practicality over consistency in design.

 

The only reason I can think for cheapness in cost is two fold.

First, it shouldn't be used that often to begin with and in the long run doesn't provide that much benefit.

Second the Power already has to be Persistant; and in the case of many Powers that are targeted for what Inherent protects against (face it we just don't see Drain Extra Limbs or Drain Life Support with any real frequency) also need 0END/Persistant making the total +1 1/4.

 

But as I said, I'm mostly in agreance with Keith "instert tagling here" Curtis. It's supurfluous in most cases that people try to use it in. Or just silly. If you're buying Inherent just to protect against Adjustments then you're using it incorrectly, have firmly entered in Munchkin Land and should be stomped appropriately.

[zornwil]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

I understand your general agreement, and as I share it must admit this line of discussion is rather academic.

 

But anyway (since I enjoy academic discussions), I can see your point in particular to the Persistent issue. Very good points.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Pertaining to the original question/request; since we are in an academic discussion around the subject.

 

I think it's been proven that Inherent does have it's uses in the system. But they are limited to a Right Time/Right Place situations. In a properly defined game, with set constructs for various SFX Inherent can certainly have a place.

 

In a more broad and open ended game where an SFX can be represented in multiple ways Inherent starts to muddy up, becoming either a useless waste of points, a nonsensical use of points, or a munchkiny use of points.

[Robyn]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Keith "It's like buying Drain: Physical Body" Curtis

 

Would that be anything like buying "Transform: solid PC to ghost PC"?

 

Or would that be an EDM (adjacent dimension only), UAA . . . ?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

/snark on!

 

What if the only counter to a lethal non-terrestrial disease built as a power is a strain of the common cold?

 

/snark off!

 

This is only going to happen if the GM is determined to get you, and if the GM is determined to get you, nothing you can do or buy is going to save you. Anyway:

 

1. Life support only stops you suffering the harmful effects of disease: does not mean you cannot be a carrier, and so immune to the alien disease anyway.

 

2. Realistically if the life support was some sort of cunning immune response (as opposed to conscious magic or a technoliogical fix) you are unlikely to be able to turn it off voluntarily anyway - can you turn off your acquired immunity to chicken pox?

 

No, you don't get 'always on' here. Do feel free to snark away though, if I'm wrong