Obvious/Inobvious

[wylodmayer]

I had a thought that turned into a discussion that was threatening to drag another thread quite far afield, so I figured I'd start a new thread for it.

 

I'm having a little trouble parsing the definitions of "obvious" and "inobvious" for foci. Before anyone starts quoting rules, let me state that I've been over them thoroughly - the problem does not result from not knowing what the rules say. It's a matter of feeling that they are perhaps unclear or, maybe, unnuanced.

 

Okay, so, the rules say that a ring which glows while being used - that is, which is obviously a source of power - is an Obvious focus. That seems fair. Likewise, a ring which does not is Inobvious. Again, fair.

 

What I am concerned about is that a ring which glows while being used does not seem equally as Obvious as some other Obvious foci, like a gun for instance. A ring which glows while being used cannot be easily identified as something to worry about until it is used. A gun, on the other hand, can be. It can be singled out as a focus before you ever fire it, and taken away from you. The "obvious" ring focus cannot be, at least without involving Detects, and that's not what we're talking about here. Commonly used senses cannot detect the ring, but can detect the gun, ahead of use.

 

That seems a pretty clear disparity in usefulness of the foci. The ring seems like it should have less of a limitation than the gun. But in terms of obviousness at least (accessibility is not at issue), it does not.

 

What makes this more complicated to me is that an example given of an Inobvious focus - the gun cane - seems like the main reason for making it Inobvious is that it is not clearly a focus for a killing attack; in other words, its categorization as an inobvious focus seems more based on obviousness ahead of use, not during use. The assumption would be that it would be at least reasonably obvious during use. Of course, as ghost-angel suggests, maybe it's not. I suppose an Inobvious gun cane could have such flash and sound suppression systems that it is not clearly a KA even when fired.

 

I don't think that was what was intended when it was made Inobvious, and even if it were, we are left with the original problem, but more sharply defined now: should a gun be "just as obvious" in game terms as a gun-cane, even one without such flash and sound suppression systems? It seems crazy that it should be so. The whole point of a gun-cane is its clandestine nature; if the party is searched for guns, the pistols will be confiscated and the cane left in the hands of its owner. But if Obviousness is predicated solely on Obviousness during use, it would be, well, Obvious.

 

The rules seem unclear on this issue. In the ring examples, obviousness seems wholly predicated on obviousness during use. In the gun cane example, it seems predicated on obviousness ahead of use. I'm inclined to say that we should be more concerned with the latter, but I'm half tempted to suggest we establish another category of obviousness, for three total:

 

1) Obvious before (and presumably during) use

2) Obvious during use but not before

3) Not Obvious during use or before

 

Unfortunately, there's no 3/8 Limitation for that middle one.

 

Thoughts? Which should we be rightfully more concerned about? Obviousness during use? Obviousness before use? Neither? Does anyone care?

[MitchellS]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

1) Obvious before (and presumably during) use

2) Obvious during use but not before

The reason Obvious is only determined by use is because part of the equation is expectation and experience. If you've never seen a gun before then it's not obvious what it does until someone shoots it [we've all seen the movies where the primitive man or animal is playing with the pistol not knowing it's dangerous]. Once it's been shot you have an expectation of what will occur the next time the trigger is pulled.

 

To put it another way, when you first encounter the Penguin his umbrella is just an umbrella [and not obviously a weapon] until you see him shoot electricity out of it an then glide off a building holding it. Once you know the Penguin uses trick umbrellas then you have an expectation that the umbrella is going to do something, even though you don't know what.

 

So an obvious focus is always inobvious until your very first encounter with it when it's used. After that you have an expectation that the item is going to do something but that doesn't make it obvious to someone else who has no experience with the item.

[feralucce]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

my take... inobvious on both rings...

 

unglowy one... invisible power effects

 

but I could be wrong

[wylodmayer]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

So an obvious focus is always inobvious until your very first encounter with it when it's used. After that you have an expectation that the item is going to do something but that doesn't make it obvious to someone else who has no experience with the item.

 

Well, that doesn't seem to be entirely true. I mean, sure, culture is part of the story, but we can make some assumptions about what is and isn't obvious based on the dominant culture of the campaign. Again, I refer you to the gun cane example. Unless we assume it has elaborate flash and sound suppression systems, a gun cane's "inobviousness" is based entirely on it not loooking like a gun when it's not in use as one. And it does seem that the gun cane therefore has some advantage over the gun in that case - I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with allowing someone to buy a gun cane as an Obvious focus.

 

my take... inobvious on both rings...

 

unglowy one... invisible power effects

 

but I could be wrong

 

I think that's probably the way it *should* be done, but the rules appear to pull in two different directions on this.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

my take... inobvious on both rings...

 

unglowy one... invisible power effects

 

but I could be wrong

 

Not wrong... but perhaps outside the recommended range.

 

The "unglowly" one is the only one that would technically qualify for the Inobvious rating, as the rules stand now. If the ring were a Ring of Protection, when a blow came an energy shield would appear, crackle, and create a smell of ozone. Obvious power in use, Inobvious source, three senses are used to detect it. If it were built with IPEs, then the blow would come and impact with the person, and seem to do no harm for no apparent reason. No sound, no light, no smell, no glowy ring, nada.

[OddHat]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

I'd say that you could assign different limit values for Obvious/Inobvious Before And During Use, but as the Inobvious Before Use advantage is lost on something like Green Lantern's Power Ring or the Penguin's Umbrella's pretty much immediately at the start of the character's career it would be worth less than -1/4. As the smallest Limitation increment used in HERO is -1/4, that falls pretty solidly into special effects territory.

 

IOW, to echo Mitchell S, it may well be that the first time a bad guy sees Green Lantern's ring he won't suspect it's a weapon, so long as Green Lantern isn't using the ring for anything. As soon as Green Lantern does use the ring for something, it will be Obvious that the power came from the ring, and as GL is always using the ring in combat, as far as the fine distinctions HERO is able to make he might as well be spotted the trivial advantage that someone who has never seen a power ring before won't suspect it's nature until he first uses it. If he accepted the lesser limitation of IIF, effectively paying more points for his powers, he would have the advantage that even in combat no one without special knowledge or senses would recognize the ring as the source of his powers.

 

As to the Gun Cane, I'd write it up as an OAF; as soon as it's in use, it's obvious what the thing is, and anyone expecting a gun cane will keep an eye out for it. However, if the player did come in with it as an IAF, he is accepting a lesser limitation, effectively paying more points, in exchange for the benefit of knowing that only those with special knowledge or senses will recognize his gun cane in combat as a weapon before he brings it into play. Or, Gun Cane Guy could define his 2d6RKA IAF as a "magic cane", and have the 2d6 RKA fly from his eyes, never giving away that the cane was the power source. The difference in utility is too small to be worth points in most campaigns.

 

So, yeah, Magic Ring Guy may be getting trivially more bang for his buck than Gun Cane Guy, due to a difference in SFX. If the difference is not trivial in your campaign, you can change the pricing.

[wylodmayer]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

So' date=' yeah, Magic Ring Guy may be getting trivially more bang for his buck than Gun Cane Guy, due to a difference in SFX. If the difference is not trivial in your campaign, you can change the pricing.[/quote']

 

Good points, all. Hm. Yeah, I'm with you on GL's ring. I was mostly concerned about non-trademark foci, like the gun cane. But I definitely see your point of how the focus that is not obvious before use can be said to lose any advantage it has over the focus that is fairly quickly. Whether that is a trivial advantage, then, is a good question. Is it a trivial advantage to be able to carry your gun cane past bodyguards, but not your gun? I don't think it is.

 

The GL point is well taken, but of course, I have to wonder about even that. In his secret ID, the ring is clearly non obvious as a focus. I mean, once he uses it it's obvious, but he wears it around all the time and no one says, "Dude, is that a Variable Power Pool on your hand?"

 

I'm teerting on the edge here; your argument is persuasive. If it were the case that the advantage the gun cane gets over the gun is a trivial one, then I could chalk it up to special effects and rest easy. I'm just not sure it is? Convince me one way or the other, someone?

[OddHat]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

Good points' date=' all. Hm. Yeah, I'm with you on GL's ring. I was mostly concerned about non-trademark foci, like the gun cane. But I definitely see your point of how the focus that is not obvious before use can be said to lose any advantage it has over the focus that is fairly quickly. Whether that is a trivial advantage, then, is a good question. Is it a trivial advantage to be able to carry your gun cane past bodyguards, but not your gun? I don't think it is.[/quote']

A better comparison might be an OAF Gun versus an OAF Gun Cane Cane versus an OIF Magic Ring or similar. The OAF Gun Cane or OIF Magic Ring user is getting a small advantage out of combat when compared with the OAF Gun user; the bodyguards are aware that the OAF Gun is a threat, and stop the user, but might let the OAF Gun Cane or OIF Magic Ring user past, unless they know there's a Gun Cain or Magic Ring threat around. In combat, all three weapons are equally obvious, which is where the pricing was aimed.

 

The player who really might have a right to complain is the IAF Gun Cain user. Is his Gun Cain as obvious out of combat as the OAF Gun Cain User's, or can he slip it past even suspicious guards? After all, he did pay more points. In combat, he has paid for an IAF, just as the user of a magic amulet might; should he be allowed to shoot his gun cane is a weapon, just as the amulet user could cast spells without anyone (without special knowledge or senses) realizing the amulet was the power source? I'd say that the IAF Gun Cane user should be given more leeway out of combat than the OAF Gun Cane user out of respect for the points he sunk into the item, but in combat he's going, due to special effects, be getting less benefit than the IAF Magic Amulet user. I'd rule that this falls under minor advantages and limits granted by SFX (i.e., worth less than +/- 1/4), but I could see someone else ruling differently.

 

The GL point is well taken, but of course, I have to wonder about even that. In his secret ID, the ring is clearly non obvious as a focus. I mean, once he uses it it's obvious, but he wears it around all the time and no one says, "Dude, is that a Variable Power Pool on your hand?"

 

Anyone who knows what the Green Lantern's ring looks like should be able to recognize the ring, even out of combat; however, the pricing reflects the in combat value of Obvious versus Inobvious, not the out of combat value. Out of combat, the GM can always use a character's habit of constantly wearing an OIF as a plot hook. "You wear your OIF to work? OK. Your co-worker, a big Green Lantern fan, recognizes the ring, and takes pictures. How do you handle it?"

[ghost-angel]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

Everyone has pretty much said what I would have.

 

MitchelS put it best IMO.

[wylodmayer]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

OddHat -

 

I see it. Those make sense, and I agree, the IAF Gun Cane guy is getting shafted a bit by special effects in comparison to the IAF Magic Amulet guy. The solution you proposed for the OIF GL Ring is great. The amount of fidgeting and leeway that needs to be done to accomodate the out-of-combat advantages accruing to the OAF Gun Cane guy over the OAF Gun guy definitely show that it's a borderline question whether the out-of-combat obviousness is worth any points or not.

 

I think this one would have to come down to campaign focus. If you play fast and loose with noncom situations, then it would make sense for the GM to call the gun and the gun cane both Obvious, because they are both equivalently obvious in the dominant situation for that game - combat. But if the game focuses a lot on noncom stuff, and/or there's a high degree of realism in such interactions, I can see erring to the Inobvious side, and making players buy even gun canes which are obvious in use as Inobvious to account for the freedom with which someone can carry the focus.

 

I tell ya, though, in my campaign, I think I may switch to:

 

1) Obvious even when not being used -3/4

2) Obvious when in use -1/2

3) Not obvious even when in use -1/4

 

Frankly, though, after one player I had who really abused the IIFs, I'm tempted to go:

 

1) Obvious even when not in use -1/2

2) Obvious only when in use -1/4

3) Not obvious even in use -0

 

That seems more fair to me, really. I mean, looking at it not from the rules as they stand but just from common sense, if no one can tell it's the source of a power even when it's being used, then there's really no Limitation it's getting in terms of Obviousness, right? Getting a -0 for that seems logical. If it's a Magic Amulet thing then it still gets a -1/4 because it could be Inaccessible. But, I think this establishes parity with accessibility - if something is accessible only in principle, like surgically implanted items, then there's really no accessibility limitation.

 

Same thing for obviousness - if it's not obvious even when you're using it, then there's really no obviousness limitation. It's on par with Only in Hero ID, then, and honestly still sounds like you get off paying less points for more usefulness, to me at least.

[casualplayer]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

First off, everything is obvious, meaning onlookers get a PER Roll to put two and two together, when in use unless it has IPE, the right kind of Indirect or the perceiver's senses are somehow hampered (by Flash, Darkness, Surprise, Images, etc.) Even the archetypal Invisibility Ring. Concealment, Stealth, Sleight of Hand and Cover can modify onlooker's PER rolls but they still get to make them.

 

Now Obvious and Inobvious only apply before the exercise of power. This is entirely cultural and really breaks down across time and genre barriers. Guns are Obvious to anyone familiar with the concepts of trigger-causes-projectile-to-fly and primitive, alien or futuristic people may not make that connection. Societies not steeped in legends and lore about magical Rings of Power may not ever make the connection to the wellspring of Green Lantern's power.

 

Try this example. A brunette in a tiara, bracers and metal-accented swimsuit with a glowing length of rope on her hip comes flying at you. What is she capable of doing with her foci?

 

Most societies know what a rope is good for (Obvious) but nothing visible to the human eye says the rope can make you spill your guts if she ties you up and asks you questions (Inobvious.) The bracers look decorative til she swats attacks away with them (Inobvious) and likewise the tiara looks decorative til she flings it through the air and it carves a path before returning to her hand (Inobvious.) The metal on her swimsuit is decorative and not even a focus at all.

 

However just about everyone above the age of four in the DC Universe knows what Wonder Woman's gear can do. Did most of her gear get cheaper as her fame revealed the tricks up her sleeve and the Inobvious became Obvious?

 

This is why I think Obvious/Inobvious should go, and be replaced for foci with power-specific Distinctive Features or something similar. DF has the structure in place to account for who can readily perceive the capability of the power and also what their reaction most likely will be.

[OddHat]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

Same thing for obviousness - if it's not obvious even when you're using it, then there's really no obviousness limitation. It's on par with Only in Hero ID, then, and honestly still sounds like you get off paying less points for more usefulness, to me at least.

 

If it's not obvious even when you're using it, and it's inaccessible, it's priced exactly like Only in Hero ID under the current rules at -1/4.* Magic Amulet (IAF) guy is getting -1/2 rather than -1/4 because those people who do know about his magic amulet (those with the right special senses or knowledge) can take it away from him pretty easily in combat. You can take away IIF man's magic ring pretty easily out of combat (and should once in a while), but in combat you'd have trouble.

 

* In my home campaign, I've always ruled that OIHID requires a relatively simple way of preventing the character from assuming his Heroic ID, or of forcing him to switch back. You can cover Billy Batson's mouth or tranquilize Bruce Banner.

[wylodmayer]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

If it's not obvious even when you're using it, and it's inaccessible, it's priced exactly like Only in Hero ID under the current rules at -1/4.* Magic Amulet (IAF) guy is getting -1/2 rather than -1/4 because those people who do know about his magic amulet (those with the right special senses or knowledge) can take it away from him pretty easily in combat. You can take away IIF man's magic ring pretty easily out of combat (and should once in a while), but in combat you'd have trouble.

 

* In my home campaign, I've always ruled that OIHID requires a relatively simple way of preventing the character from assuming his Heroic ID, or of forcing him to switch back. You can cover Billy Batson's mouth or tranquilize Bruce Banner.

 

I think we're agreeing here. My point is that *as the rules currently stand* IIF Ring guy gets a total Limitation of -1/2, while OIHID guy gets a total limitation of -1/4. I think those two situations are roughly the same and should get the same limitation. Although I've never explicitly formulated it, I've likewise always assumed that if OIHID is to be a Limitation worth anything, there must be some way to prevent someone from getting into hero ID in the first place. In other words, out of combat and if you know about the Limitation, you can deprive the hero of his powers, more or less. This seems to be the situation for both IIF Magic Ring guy and for OIHID. In neither case is the Limitation obvious without special knowledge. It's not at all obvious from seeing Captain Marvel lift things, fly, and bounce tank shells that he needs to utter a magic word to gain access to his strength, flight, and invulnerability. Likwise, from seeing IIF Magic Ring Man cause things to burst into flames it's not at all obvious that he needs his ring to do it. Figuring those things out requires extra knowledge.

 

But as it currently stands IIF Magic Ring Guy pays less for his powers, even though neither can be reasonably denied in combat and neither Limitation is obvious.

 

[several people below point out my mistake in pricing here, so if that's what you're about to reply to, it's been done and I gave my "oops" below. However, I still like my pricing scheme proposed below, since it doesn't change that particular issue.]

 

I'm inclined more and more to go with the latter scheme I proposed:

 

Obviousness

 

-1/2: Obvious before use

-1/4: Obvious during use

-0: Not obvious without special senses or knowledge

 

Accessibility

 

-1/2: Can take away during combat

-1/4: Can take away out of combat

-0: Can't take away without spec procedures or knowledge

 

And now an IIF has the same pricing as OIHID, which seems reasonable to me.

[OddHat]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

My point is that *as the rules currently stand* IIF Ring guy gets a total Limitation of -1/2' date=' while OIHID guy gets a total limitation of -1/4. I think those two situations are roughly the same and should get the same limitation.[/quote']

 

IIF is currently, by the book, worth only -1/4.

 

 

Although I've never explicitly formulated it, I've likewise always assumed that if OIHID is to be a Limitation worth anything, there must be some way to prevent someone from getting into hero ID in the first place. In other words, out of combat and if you know about the Limitation, you can deprive the hero of his powers, more or less.

 

Completely agreed on this point.

 

 

This seems to be the situation for both IIF Magic Ring guy and for OIHID. In neither case is the Limitation obvious without special knowledge. It's not at all obvious from seeing Captain Marvel lift things, fly, and bounce tank shells that he needs to utter a magic word to gain access to his strength, flight, and invulnerability. Likwise, from seeing IIF Magic Ring Man cause things to burst into flames it's not at all obvious that he needs his ring to do it. Figuring those things out requires extra knowledge.

 

Agreed here as well.

 

But as it currently stands IIF Magic Ring Guy pays less for his powers, even though neither can be reasonably denied in combat and neither Limitation is obvious.

 

This is incorrect. IIF and OIHID are both, currently, -1/4. OIF is -1/2, Magic-Ring-Makes-Me-Captain-Amazing-Guy gets -1/4; Glowy Magic Ring Guy gets -1/2.

 

I'm inclined more and more to go with the latter scheme I proposed:

 

Obviousness

 

-1/2: Obvious before use

-1/4: Obvious during use

-0: Not obvious without special senses or knowledge

 

Accessibility

 

-1/2: Can take away during combat

-1/4: Can take away out of combat

-0: Can't take away without spec procedures or knowledge

 

 

Looks fine, but gives Iron Man or other Power Armor users -3/4 where they are now only getting -1/2.

[archermoo]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

I think we're agreeing here. My point is that *as the rules currently stand* IIF Ring guy gets a total Limitation of -1/2' date=' while OIHID guy gets a total limitation of -1/4. [/quote']

 

As a note, IIF is -1/4, not -1/2. Making it the same limitation as OIHID.

[tesuji]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

or dispense with the written word and go with something more fluid.

 

LIMITED POWER: How many game sessions in 10 will my character be unable to use this power when he needs it due to **Insert wide variety of justifications for power becoming unavailable determined by mutual agreement between player and GM**

 

Less than one session isn 10 = -0 SFX

1 session out of 10 = -1/4

2-3 sessions out of 10 = -1/2

4-5 sessions out of 10 = -3/4

6-7 = -1

8-9 = -1.5

10 = -2

 

Note that being unavailable does not mean for the entire scenario, nor does it mean "for a split second". It means "for a noticeable and hindering amount of time."

 

Then you don't hae to worry about whether the lim is called focus or oihid or whatever but you do have to discuss with player and be on same page as to what sample "unavailabilities" might be like.

 

You might consider having the player suggest three examples and the Gm add one-two at chargen for a varied set of five sfx for failure.

 

net result is good understanding between player and Gm as to the frequency, severity and flavor the problems will see in actual play.

 

One of the main reasons i suggest this is that the important elements for limitations is three...

1. the value

2. agreement between player and Gm as to what it represents and the scenario flavor it will bring

3. that the gm makes the value commensurate with the in play problems in severity.

 

Having just read the thread where some people seem out of sorts over putting -1/4 IIF on cybernetics but are just fine with it having -1/4 restrainable instead when both are there to represent the focus can be removed or disabled... it seems sometimes we get too hung up on names and not too focused on what matters.

 

All IMO.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

I think we're agreeing here. My point is that *as the rules currently stand* IIF Ring guy gets a total Limitation of -1/2' date=' while OIHID guy gets a total limitation of -1/4. [/quote']

 

Others have noted your incorrect Limitation Pricing. This is not to be mean - but you may want to more thuroughly go over the Focus Limitation.

 

Pricing:

 

Inobvious Inaccessable (IIF): -1/4

Inobvious Accessable (IAF): -1/2

Obvious Inaccessable (OIF): -1/2

Obvious Accessable (OAF): -1

 

I have a feeling much of your issue comes from not knowing the correct level of Limitation each provides.

 

And as has been pointed out, a lot of the pricing comes from In Combat Function, not out of combat appearance. As a base level, Focus is correctly priced and works well.

 

Using the correct combination of Limitations (of any variety) is up to the GM Based On Campaign At Hand to correctly model what is being represented.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

By my interpretation (and recommendation):

 

Obvious:

 

>BANG!<

"Hey! That's not just a cane! It's a gun!"

 

Inobvious:

 

>BANG!<

"I thought I heard the shot came from that direction, but there's no one over there except some guy with a cane. He doesn't have a gun."

[wylodmayer]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

Okay, well, as to the incorrect pricing, it just goes to show you shouldn't post things without proper sleep.

 

But I still stand by my general point, which is the disparity between out of combat pricing. And yes, ghost-angel, individual campaign style of course matters, but I was attempting to show that there's a pretty broadly applicable difference for "obvious" that won't be too sensitive to individual campaign variances unless we assume some REALLY unusual practices for those GMs in question. I maintain that my pricing scheme is more fair to people who buy things that are clearly weapons vis-a-vis those who buy items which will become apparent once they are used.

 

The fact that I forgot that IIF and OIHID are the same price, though, does change the equation a bit.

 

However, in response to whoever it was that said that Power Armor people would be getting -3/4, I don't think they would. Although I didn't explicate this point, I was construing Inaccessible in the same way as in current use - that is, even out of combat, it can be removed by someone else in one turn if the owner isn't resisting. This seems false of most powered armor; I'd imagine if Iron Man were unconscious, it still might require special knowledge and/or effort to get the damned armor off of him. Powered Armor, I would say, gets no bonus for accessibility, making it an OUF - Obvious Unaccessible Focus, I guess. -1/2.

 

Anyway, just a thought.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

I think that the fact that a magic amulet is less obviously a weapon than a gun is simply due to player and character experiance. If you want people to reliably not recognize something is a foci, then it should be inobvious. Not being recognized before use the first time isnt' really that much of a bonus for an obvious foci. Plus the players can define their special effects anyway they want if they feel like they are being disenfranchised

[ghost-angel]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

I find the Focus Rules playable. Which is the ultimate test for anything. Ergo, I see no reason to change them.

[wylodmayer]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

I find the Focus Rules playable. Which is the ultimate test for anything. Ergo' date=' I see no reason to change them.[/quote']

 

Well, that's certainly true - I've never had any major problem in any of the games I've run over the years. But I thought I'd at least explore the issue. After some wrangling with it, it is indeed starting to look like, aside from the need to more precisely state a few things, there doesn't appear to be any changes necessary.

 

Ah, but such is the spirit of enquiry! Many projects will turn out to be dead ends. We cannot find those areas which do need change unless we are willing to scrutinize and be wrong about it. I appreciate all the comments.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

However' date=' in response to whoever it was that said that Power Armor people would be getting -3/4, I don't think they would. Although I didn't explicate this point, I was construing Inaccessible in the same way as in current use - that is, even out of combat, it can be removed by someone else in one turn if the owner isn't resisting. This seems false of most powered armor; I'd imagine if Iron Man were unconscious, it still might require special knowledge and/or effort to get the damned armor off of him. Powered Armor, I would say, gets no bonus for accessibility, making it an OUF - Obvious Unaccessible Focus, I guess. -1/2.[/quote']

 

Only In Hero ID -1/4.

[Blue]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

I've never had a problem with interpreting Obvious v. Inobvious. It's always been a pretty simple question to players: "Can I tell that your power is coming from the object."

 

Armor - Obvious.

Gun - Obvious.

Power Ring - "Does it glow or does energy emit directly from it?" - If so then Obvious.

 

If anything, I find "Only in Hero ID" to be fairly useless.

[OddHat]

Re: Obvious/Inobvious

 

If anything, I find "Only in Hero ID" to be fairly useless.

 

I dunno. Captain Marvel, Ultraman, Darna, early Thor, TV version of Wonder Woman, some versions of the Hulk, etc. You could build most of these guys as Multiforms or in other ways, but OIHID is a simple, direct way of representing the ability to make that kind of transformation. It can be abused, but so can most limits.