Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

[Sean Waters]

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

 

 

Some of the points I make here have been made buy others as I am slow out of the blocks, but I make them anyway for completeness sake.

 

Your solution requires a level of responsible gaming that you will rarely see and an approach tot eh philosophy of the game that simply does not exist.

 

If I understand you right, you are suggesting, in terms, that all defensive powers should be bought 'generically' defined only by sfx, and that all attack powers should have appropriate limtiations, whether in terms of capital 'L' Limitations or sfx limtiations to define when they are not effective. OK, I'm paraphrasing, but that seems to be the gist.

 

Let us look at your 'close gills' suggestion.

 

First off the attack power has to be built with a limtiation 'only against targets using gills to breathe'. Depending on setting that might be anywhere from -1/4 to -2, and then, yes, it would prevent the attack working on anything using an aqualung.

 

However, I would not say that LS: extended breathing, defined as having gills, should be bought as inherent - I can see how that ability could be drained. You are not draining the physical reality of the gills, necessarily (and if you were I'd want you to build it as a transform), but the ability of the gills to extract oxygen from water.

 

Now what if you have built a character that is a piece of sentient rock and does not breathe i.e. is, in effect, NOT an offshoot of the assumed human template? There is nothing to drain. The LS: extended breathing simply reflectts the reality that rocks do not breathe. No amount of adjustment power is ever going to MAKE a rock have to breathe. That would be a perfectly legitimate use of the 'inherent' advantage, IMO.

 

I appreciate that you do not like the 'inherent' advantage but I do feel that is because you are only looking at construction of characters from a limitied perspective. Moreover you are assuming that I, like this newbie GM, would use 'inherent' for everything. I wouldn't. I'd just use it when it is the right way to build the concept I have in mind. Now if you want to argue that 'inherent' is overused, or misused, fine, but to argue that it shouldn't be used is just not sensible.

 

Equally I am not a fan of simply handing out goodies based on sfx: I'm a sentient rock so you can't drain my ability to breathe in vacuum. Buy the ability to not be drained, and pay the points for it. It does not cost much. It is not difficult to work out that is a consequence of being a sentient rock, when you first create the character. Moreover, if you do come up against a logical inconsistency after starting play, speak to the GM - it is not unreasonable to either have a character re-design or take an XP mortgate to have 'always had' the power. Saying 'it is al in the sfx' and not thinking about it until it comes up (and thus making the GM's job a lot harder) is just abdicating responsibility.

 

Finally, if you really don't like inherent, you can ban it from your games, and require power defence to be used instead. Now if you want a discussion about a power that makes almost no sense at all unless you define it properly, let's talk about power defence....

[Sean Waters]

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.

 

I agree, although, for the record, I think overusing 'inherent' is non-sensical rather than munchkinny, and so I don't really care unless I'm required to play a character built that way.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Let us look at your 'close gills' suggestion.

 

First off the attack power has to be built with a limtiation 'only against targets using gills to breathe'. Depending on setting that might be anywhere from -1/4 to -2, and then, yes, it would prevent the attack working on anything using an aqualung.

 

However, I would not say that LS: extended breathing, defined as having gills, should be bought as inherent - I can see how that ability could be drained. You are not draining the physical reality of the gills, necessarily (and if you were I'd want you to build it as a transform), but the ability of the gills to extract oxygen from water.

 

By this same logic, Lucius' question of why we can drain FishMan's ability to extract oxygen through his gills, but not NormalMan's ability to process oxygen using his lungs. There are certainly SFX which would support this - "My character causes atrophy of the diaphragm, so characters reliant on the ordinary mechanics of breathing can no longer breathe." There is no logical reason you can drain one and not the other. From a balance perspective, it is just as cheap, and just as deadly, to drain the ability to breathe water when you're 60' down as it is to drain the ability to breathe oxygen when you're walking down the street.

 

Of course, I'm biased in that I believe the absence of an ability to prevent another character from breathing and achieve the same precise effects of suffocation which arise when the character is removed from his default environment - not a 6d6 "You're Drowning" NND - is a hole in the system.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

By this same logic, Lucius' question of why we can drain FishMan's ability to extract oxygen through his gills, but not NormalMan's ability to process oxygen using his lungs. There are certainly SFX which would support this - "My character causes atrophy of the diaphragm, so characters reliant on the ordinary mechanics of breathing can no longer breathe." There is no logical reason you can drain one and not the other. From a balance perspective, it is just as cheap, and just as deadly, to drain the ability to breathe water when you're 60' down as it is to drain the ability to breathe oxygen when you're walking down the street.

 

Of course, I'm biased in that I believe the absence of an ability to prevent another character from breathing and achieve the same precise effects of suffocation which arise when the character is removed from his default environment - not a 6d6 "You're Drowning" NND - is a hole in the system.

 

 

And I agree with you on that last point. The 'official' way to do it is with change environment, I belive, but this really is a cop out.

 

As to Lucius' contention that you cannot drain the ability to breathe, well, it doesn't say in the rules that you can't, but your description of what you want the power to do is fluff, or as many seem to like to call it sfx

 

There are several strands coming together here, from different threads.

 

First off, Hero does not define itself in game terms: the suffocation rules are a seperate mechanic, not defined in terms of a 'power build' and not really replicateable with the power build rules, without a lot of handwaving. Gravity manipulation might be another example.

 

Second, the system assumes a human base template, and assumes that is where everyone starts, making the more unusual builds disproportionately complex (but probably making the more usual builds more straightforward)

 

Third, the system does not really discuss whether basic assumed abilites (like breathing, seeing etc) can be affected, although I think that the clear assumption is that the cannot (other wise you would not beed powers like flash and darkness)

 

Now Hero does not use a system of self reference in building itself, but this is not Unified Field theory - you can't build a game system entirely from basic building blocks, not if you want it to be playable, but you CAN perhaps make the underlying assumptions and mechanics more transparent. At present the paper over the cracks tends to be sfx - they do serve a useful purpose. I would like to see the balance shift a little though sot hat there is less need for the papering over because the cracks are less evident.

[Lucius]

Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

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.

 

In other words -

 

 

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

 

For what it’s worth, Trebuchet, the more I think of it, the more I think you’re right. Drain just normally should not be allowed against Life Support. Buy it as an attack power.

 

Mind you, I was never actually in favor of Draining Life Support. Well, okay, there are a few individuals whose Life Support I’d like to see Drained, but they’re exceptions…

 

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

 

Good one, but does that mean if I have character with a natural innate ability to breathe and survive in two or more environments, does Lungfish Man get to have two “default environments” with no powers involved?

 

This is a little bit like arguing that normal Human senses aren’t a power, or that Running isn’t a power.

 

 

However, I would not say that LS: extended breathing, defined as having gills, should be bought as inherent - I can see how that ability could be drained. You are not draining the physical reality of the gills, necessarily (and if you were I'd want you to build it as a transform), but the ability of the gills to extract oxygen from water.

 

Now what if you have built a character that is a piece of sentient rock and does not breathe i.e. is, in effect, NOT an offshoot of the assumed human template? There is nothing to drain. The LS: extended breathing simply reflectts the reality that rocks do not breathe. No amount of adjustment power is ever going to MAKE a rock have to breathe. That would be a perfectly legitimate use of the 'inherent' advantage, IMO.

 

....

 

Right. And I’m not draining the physical reality of your lungs, just their ability to extract oxygen from air.

 

I agree' date=' although, for the record, I think overusing 'inherent' is non-sensical rather than munchkinny, and so I don't really care unless I'm required to play a character built that way.[/quote']

 

It’s munchkiny in that it’s a cheap way to avoid adjustment powers being used against a given power. Consider that + ¼ buys only one level of Difficult to Dispel.

 

Of course, I'm biased in that I believe the absence of an ability to prevent another character from breathing and achieve the same precise effects of suffocation which arise when the character is removed from his default environment - not a 6d6 "You're Drowning" NND - is a hole in the system.

 

You have a point, in so far as it would be a challenge to create an attack that exactly mimics the rules for suffocation. Unless you allow a Drain vs Life Support – which I think most of us regard as having way too much “bang for the buck” to be permissible.

 

Of course, the drowning rules look like they kill pretty slowly (as I remember – haven’t looked at them recently.) Then again, the assumption is you’ll be rescued before you’re dead, or find a way out of the deathtrap.

 

And I agree with you on that last point. The 'official' way to do it is with change environment, I belive, but this really is a cop out.

 

As to Lucius' contention that you cannot drain the ability to breathe, well, it doesn't say in the rules that you can't.

 

That may be about to change, if you consider answers to Hero System Fifth Edition Rules Questions to be officially “rules.” I posted my question.

 

Of course, we’re Hero Gamers – Rome can speak, but the debate rage on.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Palindromedaries is objecting to my use of a Suppress Palindromedary power….

[Ghost Archer]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

I like Steve's answer to Lucius' question over in Hero System 5th Edition Rules Questions!

 

Originally Posted by Steve Long

Life Support is Persistent, not Inherent.

 

What's keeping you from, say, Draining it should be your own common and dramatic sense. If those are lacking, hopefully the GM's are working.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Sadly I can't Rep Steve for that at the moment.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Sadly I can't Rep Steve for that at the moment.

No worries, mate, I got him for you.

[Robyn]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

No worries' date=' mate, I got him for you. [/quote']

 

Me three (my first stop after PM ).

[zornwil]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Got him also!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

I think we can all agree that to drain the ability to breathe is pretty daft. Mind you, I'm not sure how much that would actually cost.

 

There are different ways to build it, of course, but one way to look at it is that it is built in such a way that it is limited, so that characters can normally breathe, except in certain quite rare situations i.e. the normal restrictions on breathing are worth perhaps -1/4, Now the ability not to breathe, bought as LS (extended breathing/self contained) is worth 10 points. if that represents 'plugging the gap' in the normal ability to breathe, it is the reduction for a -1/4 limitation, and so the full cost power must cost an additonal 40 points. That's quite a bit to drain, not the point or two we seem to be assuming Whatever ther build, the full cost of breathing is 50 points. Cool.

 

Anyway, we are not doing it that way, are we?

 

Although I have recently repped Steve for something else recently and so cannot do so for his comments in any event, I have to be the voice of dissention.

 

I mean, the reason this common and dramatic sense need to be excercised at all (if only on low weight and low reps) is because breathing and suffocation are opaque mechanics in Hero and it is not at all straightforward to build a 'suffocation/O2 removal/vacuum power. it would have been nice to see that fixed by now in an official way.

 

All of this, whilst fascinating, is a little off topic in any event.

 

Inherent.

 

OK, is there a difference between the basic ability to breathe and the power 'LS: SCB 10 points' conceptually or actually?

 

Well, yes. The LS can specifically be drained according to the rules, so there is an actual difference, so I assume there must be a conceptual one too. It is at this stage that I'm going to saunter back and subtly indicate my killer point.

 

If LS: EB SCB is built into a character that has it not because they have a power that enables them to not need air, but because they have no use for it. They have no lungs or method of processing oxygen or any other respiratory gas or liquid. They are indeed the sentient rock of the previous example, or an entirely mechanical robot character with a positronic brain, or whatever.

 

Now in this instance 'inherent' is just right, is it not? Power Defence is useless for this kind of thing - there should be absolutely no way (barring the use of 'transform to a character that does need to breathe!') that any LS adjustment power could make the character suffer in any breathing related way. None at all.

 

So in answer to the question: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Yes, and see above.

[Robyn]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

There are different ways to build it' date=' of course, but one way to look at it is that it is built in such a way that it is limited, so that characters can normally breathe, except in certain quite rare situations i.e. the normal restrictions on breathing are worth perhaps -1/4, Now the ability not to breathe, bought as LS (extended breathing/self contained) is worth 10 points. if that represents 'plugging the gap' in the normal ability to breathe, it is the reduction for a -1/4 limitation, and so the full cost power must cost an additonal 40 points. That's quite a bit to drain, not the point or two we seem to be assuming Whatever ther build, the full cost of breathing is 50 points. Cool.[/quote']

 

This is certainly a different way of looking at it. I would Rep you, but apparently I have done so too recently.

[Wolfgar]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Personally I think Inherent is a perfectly fine modifier.

 

Largely I think it works best for things that are mostly on/off affairs: Desolidification, Enhanced Senses, Extra Limbs, Life Support and the like. Damage Reduction may fall into that category. For most of those if you really want to mess with them, you should buy Transform, KA for LS, or Flash for Enhanced Senses; Draining them is kind of silly.

 

Things that have a scale and can be partially reduced without being eliminated entirely should stay subject to Drain. Pretty much all your Defense powers fall into this category, except possibly Damage Reduction.

[Wolfgar]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

 

So in answer to the question: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Yes, and see above.

 

Ghosts and Spirits would have Inherent Desolidification. A magician might have the ability to become desolified, and that can be subject to Drain, Dispel, or Suppress normally.

 

Air Elementals would be inherently Invisible to Sight Group. Being Invisible is just part of what the elemental is.

 

Likewise a fire elemental is made of living fire, and cannot be completely drained of its RKA Damage Shield, or it's Defenses against fire damage. Part of that may be purchased Inherent and part not, to allow for mild Suppresion effects, but you just can't snuff it out completely without killing it.

 

Undead and Robots may have Inherent Life Support powers versus poisons and Disease. They don't have any biological system, so therefore there really is just no way to make a poison or disease affect them, outside of an Attack power. By contrst a magician could have temporary LS granted by a spell, or a gadgeteer could have LS granted by some fiddley gidget. A Dispel, Drain, or Suppress that targeted Magic or Fiddley Gidgets might very well be able to affect those.

 

A Slime has Inherent Physical Damage Reduction. Boy, that's a mouthful. Eww, mouthful of slime. Anyway, The Damage Reduction is based on the physical make-up of the slime. You could theoretically describe the Drain as changing the slime into a substance easier to hit, but doesn't that sound more like a transform? Conversely, someone who just has the Protection of the Gods or has cast Bufshnu's Adamantine Skin could be theoretically Drained.

 

I think my examples go to show it's mostly useful for non-human types.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

....................

 

I think my examples go to show it's mostly useful for non-human types.

 

B-b-b-bingo! The hidden template once more reveals itself by the shadows it makes in the water!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

You have a point, in so far as it would be a challenge to create an attack that exactly mimics the rules for suffocation. Unless you allow a Drain vs Life Support – which I think most of us regard as having way too much “bang for the buck” to be permissible.

 

Of course, the drowning rules look like they kill pretty slowly (as I remember – haven’t looked at them recently.) Then again, the assumption is you’ll be rescued before you’re dead, or find a way out of the deathtrap.

 

Suffocation means you spend 1 END per phase and cannot take recoveries. If you run out of END, you use STUN instead. Once all STUN is gone, you move on to BOD. As you say, it's a slow process. I'd peg the ability to remove someone's ability to breathe at 10 or 15 points on a gut feel.

 

Reasonable? Well, a 1d6 NND (+1) Does BOD (+1) (defense is appropriate life support) 0 END (+1/2), Continuous (+1?), Uncontrolled (+1/2?) costs 25 points and will kill the same target quite a bit faster.

[Silbeg]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

My shapeshifting character has a form that is a Ghost. Two Powers were bought Always On and Inherent (plus all the other needed Advantages) to simulate their ethereal nature: Desolid and Flight.

 

You can't make this shape Solid by Supressing/Draining/Dispeling their Desolid Nature. It's just a fact that they are that way all the time in that shape. A Transform and forcing a Shapeshift are the only ways to not make this character a ghost in this shape.

 

There is as good a logical use for the Inherent Advantage as I can give you.

GA, I was going to use the same example (well, perhaps without the flight)!

[Trebuchet]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

B-b-b-bingo! The hidden template once more reveals itself by the shadows it makes in the water!

You say that like it's a bad thing. There had to be some kind of basic template; and given that 98% of characters are human (or a minor modification thereof) "human" is the obvious and logical choice as a template.

[Robyn]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

There had to be some kind of basic template; and given that 98% of characters are human (or a minor modification thereof) "human" is the obvious and logical choice as a template.

 

It's easiest (for most players) to determine how much the template is in accordance with "common sense", too.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

You say that like it's a bad thing. There had to be some kind of basic template; and given that 98% of characters are human (or a minor modification thereof) "human" is the obvious and logical choice as a template.

 

No, I say that like it is something that the Hero System does not acknowledge and that the lack of discussion over the fundamental principles underpinning the system is a bad thing.

 

'B-b-b-bingo' just seemed so much more concise.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Suffocation means you spend 1 END per phase and cannot take recoveries. If you run out of END, you use STUN instead. Once all STUN is gone, you move on to BOD. As you say, it's a slow process. I'd peg the ability to remove someone's ability to breathe at 10 or 15 points on a gut feel.

 

Reasonable? Well, a 1d6 NND (+1) Does BOD (+1) (defense is appropriate life support) 0 END (+1/2), Continuous (+1?), Uncontrolled (+1/2?) costs 25 points and will kill the same target quite a bit faster.

 

OTOH removing all REC instantly and keeping it gone while the power is up would be built as cheaply as possible as:

 

Supress REC 10d6 (which at standard effect is 30 points, or 15 REC - probebly reasonable in a superhero game), which would cost 50 points and will never kill the target on its own.

 

Don't you just love Hero?

[Robyn]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

No' date=' I say that like it is something that the Hero System does not acknowledge and that the lack of discussion over the fundamental principles underpinning the system is a bad thing.[/quote']

 

Maybe if I avoided all mention of any possible practical application of learning/knowing such principles . . . ?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Maybe if I avoided all mention of any possible practical application of learning/knowing such principles . . . ?

 

Maybe

[Robyn]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Maybe

 

Zornwil was asking something recently about moving to more practical discussions - this would be an intriguing possibility for why we prefer the theoretical questions so much.

 

Some things are all very well and good as an abstract, in pure theory - but if we're uncomfortable thinking of their likely applications, we may shy away from those.

 

To get things done around here, the HERO forums then could have evolved a defensive measure of isolating an abstract principle which supported the practical application you desired, then presenting it alone (omitting the purpose for it) to elicit discussion.

 

This strikes me as sneaky, though, and not in a good way either (though perhaps this is one of the areas subject to situational ethics; key to getting something from the boards), so even if this were the case I wouldn't adopt its practice.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

 

Some of the points I make here have been made buy others as I am slow out of the blocks, but I make them anyway for completeness sake.

 

Your solution requires a level of responsible gaming that you will rarely see

I might be phenomenally lucky, but the gamers I have gamed with have by and large been easily this responsible. YMMV

and an approach tot eh philosophy of the game that simply does not exist.

see below

 

If I understand you right, you are suggesting, in terms, that all defensive powers should be bought 'generically' defined only by sfx, and that all attack powers should have appropriate limtiations, whether in terms of capital 'L' Limitations or sfx limtiations to define when they are not effective. OK, I'm paraphrasing, but that seems to be the gist.

Not at all. I advocate the simplest build which requires the least number of characters to be whacked for extra points. For example. Turrn Undead. I dislike clerics having to buy a clunky Extra PRE only to send away undead. Buy the Undead with a VULN to PRE attacks from holy people or symbols. Don't buy a church with some weird invisible forcefield that only affects undead. Buy your undead with a PHYS LIM: Cannot enter hallowed ground. Both of these require an alteration to defenses or limitations, not an attack power. In short, Keep it Simple.

 

Let us look at your 'close gills' suggestion.

 

First off the attack power has to be built with a limtiation 'only against targets using gills to breathe'. Depending on setting that might be anywhere from -1/4 to -2, and then, yes, it would prevent the attack working on anything using an aqualung.

 

However, I would not say that LS: extended breathing, defined as having gills, should be bought as inherent - I can see how that ability could be drained. You are not draining the physical reality of the gills, necessarily (and if you were I'd want you to build it as a transform), but the ability of the gills to extract oxygen from water.

We agree here, if I read you correctly

 

Now what if you have built a character that is a piece of sentient rock and does not breathe i.e. is, in effect, NOT an offshoot of the assumed human template?

Well from a rules standpoint, everything is an offshoot of the human template to some degree. Even vehicles and robots. They have to buy abilities that humans do not have. There are exceptions, but this is the general philosophy.

There is nothing to drain. The LS: extended breathing simply reflectts the reality that rocks do not breathe. No amount of adjustment power is ever going to MAKE a rock have to breathe. That would be a perfectly legitimate use of the 'inherent' advantage' date=' IMO.[/quote']For some campaigns, yes. I'll grant that it does have some use. One thing I didn't say earlier was that I felt the entire Drain power to be cheesy to begin with, but that was the example provided. I would never build it that way, but instead use an appropriate NND. This would circumvent the requirement for inherent in this case. I am sure that we could find one that I would agre is legitimate, but it's likely a vanishingly small number of cases.

 

I appreciate that you do not like the 'inherent' advantage but I do feel that is because you are only looking at construction of characters from a limitied perspective. Moreover you are assuming that I, like this newbie GM, would use 'inherent' for everything. I wouldn't. I'd just use it when it is the right way to build the concept I have in mind. Now if you want to argue that 'inherent' is overused, or misused, fine, but to argue that it shouldn't be used is just not sensible.

You are assuming a lot here. I never said that I assume anyone uses Inherent for everything. Merely that I find it generally superfluous and clunky. I'm paraphrasing myself here, for brevity.

 

Equally I am not a fan of simply handing out goodies based on sfx: I'm a sentient rock so you can't drain my ability to breathe in vacuum. Buy the ability to not be drained, and pay the points for it. It does not cost much. It is not difficult to work out that is a consequence of being a sentient rock, when you first create the character. Moreover, if you do come up against a logical inconsistency after starting play, speak to the GM - it is not unreasonable to either have a character re-design or take an XP mortgate to have 'always had' the power. Saying 'it is al in the sfx' and not thinking about it until it comes up (and thus making the GM's job a lot harder) is just abdicating responsibility.

I never advocated letting SFX replace the rules. I said they should dictate a logical build. I do modify some interactions based on SFX, but not often or by much, depending on the genre. I would als argue that buying all of the Life Supports inherent to a sentient rock with the Inherent Advantage is expensive in the extreme in fifth edition.

Finally, if you really don't like inherent, you can ban it from your games,

Don't need to ban it. We just don't use it. It has literally never, ever come up.

 

and require power defence to be used instead. Now if you want a discussion about a power that makes almost no sense at all unless you define it properly, let's talk about power defence....

I can point you to numerous post on this board upon which I have stated my dislike for universal Power Defense. Here we can easily agree.

 

Keith "Setting it straight" Curtis