OIF: Items of Opportunity

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OIF: Items of Opportunity

 

Bat guano may not be a good example of Object of Oppertunity' date=' however according to 5ER page 293, it should be an expendable OIF unless the character has access to an infinite amount at any given time.[/quote']

 

If the wizard has been searched, and all spell components removed, but happens across a lair of bats, would he or would he not be able to use the spell for which is Focus component is bat guano? I say it would. That makes it akin to a focus of opportunity. If he's never ging to carry guano, just rely on finding lots of bats with messy lairs, it's worth a lot more than -1/2. However, the precedent that components could be located by environment, not just by having them prepared, is set with many of the Focus: Component abilities.

[GAZZA]

Re: OIF: Items of Opportunity

 

That is not necicarily the case. A while back in one of the Champions games I play there was a PC wizard. 90% of his spells required Genstures' date=' Incantations, and OIF: "specific component used for this spell". He didn't keep all of his components in a pouch. He kept them in the pockets of his long-coat.[/quote']

Actually, if you rewrite the focus as "pockets in whatever coat I'm currently wearing", that becomes perhaps the most justifiable "transient focus" I've seen. It fits all the normal rules:

• Can be taken away out of combat. But it can be replaced with a little effort (you get another coat, and fill it with the appropriate components).
  
• It can be targetted and destroyed in combat. The components just have to be considered reasonable fragile - that's often going to be appropriate.

[ghost-angel]

Re: OIF: Items of Opportunity

 

Actually, if you rewrite the focus as "pockets in whatever coat I'm currently wearing", that becomes perhaps the most justifiable "transient focus" I've seen. It fits all the normal rules:

• Can be taken away out of combat. But it can be replaced with a little effort (you get another coat, and fill it with the appropriate components).
  
• It can be targetted and destroyed in combat. The components just have to be considered reasonable fragile - that's often going to be appropriate.

 

Gideon's orignal wording fits all the normal rules of Focus as well. Both 4e and 5e I might add. Focus hasn't magically changed with the new edition.

 

So either you don't like how Focus has worked for years, or you're nitpicking.

[GAZZA]

Re: OIF: Items of Opportunity

 

If the wizard has been searched' date=' and all spell components removed, but happens across a lair of bats, would he or would he not be able to use the spell for which is Focus component is bat guano? I say it would. That makes it akin to a focus of opportunity.[/quote']

If you do it "the D&D way", generally his focus is the spell component pouch, with the special effect that it carries an appropriate amount of bat guano. Certainly in the case where he'd had his pouch removed but happened to come across a cave of bats I'd allow him to cast the spell, but I would say that this was a rare enough occurrence that it wasn't worth a lesser limitation. If it was a PC who decided to set up shop in the bat cave to try and exploit this, then at that point I'd revisit the situation (the same way I wouldn't charge points for someone nicking the evil's wizards wand in combat and using it against them, but I'd charge them if they wanted to carry it around afterwards).

 

If you do it the "Expendable Focus" way instead, then it's not an item of opportunity at all - it's a standard everyday focus that is "hard to replenish" (but if you luck out on a bat cave, good for you!).

 

the precedent that components could be located by environment, not just by having them prepared, is set with many of the Focus: Component abilities.

I assume you're referring to some of the spells in Fantasy Hero (specifically those with "The Gift" magic variant)? These tend not to use "foci of opportunity" but rather honest to goodness actual Foci (often Expendable Foci).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OIF: Items of Opportunity

 

If you do it "the D&D way"' date=' generally his focus is the spell component pouch, with the special effect that it carries an appropriate amount of bat guano. Certainly in the case where he'd had his pouch removed but happened to come across a cave of bats I'd allow him to cast the spell, but I would say that this was a rare enough occurrence that it wasn't worth a lesser limitation.[/quote']

 

And I would agree.

 

f it was a PC who decided to set up shop in the bat cave to try and exploit this' date=' then at that point I'd revisit the situation (the same way I wouldn't charge points for someone nicking the evil's wizards wand in combat and using it against them, but I'd charge them if they wanted to carry it around afterwards).[/quote']

 

I'd probably be OK with setting up in the Batcave. He'll be missing a lot of adventures if he just sits in his cave and waits for the action to come to him.

 

If you do it the "Expendable Focus" way instead' date=' then it's not an item of opportunity at all - it's a standard everyday focus that is "hard to replenish" (but if you luck out on a bat cave, good for you!).[/quote']

 

It shares characteristics in common with the item of opportunity. The major differences are that the Object of Opportunity is understood not to bve carried around by the character, and should be reasonably common in the environment to justfy the -1/2 limitation (Red Ruby of Raggador of Opportunity reasonably being a much greater limitation).

 

If you happen to find half a dozen items you use as expendable foci in the environment, bully for you - you can cast your spell six times more.

[GAZZA]

Re: OIF: Items of Opportunity

 

And I would agree.

I'm confused - aren't we enemies?

 

I'd probably be OK with setting up in the Batcave. He'll be missing a lot of adventures if he just sits in his cave and waits for the action to come to him.

Yes, good point.

 

It shares characteristics in common with the item of opportunity. The major differences are that the Object of Opportunity is understood not to bve carried around by the character, and should be reasonably common in the environment to justfy the -1/2 limitation (Red Ruby of Raggador of Opportunity reasonably being a much greater limitation).

In some cases yes, not in others. I've seen "object of opportunity" used to justify someone like the knife dude in Desperado (or was it the sequel with Johnny Depp?) - basically, someone who carries so many of a focus that it is not practical to disarm him completely in combat.

 

And that's one of the reasons I don't think it really works as a focus, by the way - by turning a bunch of OAFs into a single OIF, you alter the "destroy" requirement from frying lots of foci to frying one focus. It's not the cost that is at issue - I've no reason to suppose that -1/2 isn't exactly right - but the fact that from a special effects perspective it just looks like nonsense to me.

 

I suppose this comes down to "some things that look like a focus aren't actually a focus" note - in my opinion, items of opportunity only look like foci. They have enough differences, and the concept is universal enough, that there is a case to be made for saying that there ought to be a separate "items of opportunity" category of limitation - or, at the very least, that the Focus limitation should spell out what the differences are for these items of opportunity. For example - can they be broken? I'm honestly curious. If Fire Girl fries my boulder of opportunity, does this I can't instantly grab and hurl another one? If I can't, how long do I have to wait before I can? 1 Phase? Most OIFs take more than 1 Phase to fix (at least by implication).

 

Are there some items of opportunity that are worth more or less than -1/2? Can items of opportunity be Fragile? Bulky? Immobile?

 

I think these are legitimate questions if we're calling them a focus. I can guess at the answers, of course, but I'm not sure my guess will be the same as anyone else.

[Gideon]

Re: OIF: Items of Opportunity

 

Actually, if you rewrite the focus as "pockets in whatever coat I'm currently wearing", that becomes perhaps the most justifiable "transient focus" I've seen. It fits all the normal rules:

• Can be taken away out of combat. But it can be replaced with a little effort (you get another coat, and fill it with the appropriate components).
  
• It can be targetted and destroyed in combat. The components just have to be considered reasonable fragile - that's often going to be appropriate.

I think you missed the point of what I was saying. The point is the coat, pouch, pants, shirt, kitchen, backpack, or pocket book where the spell components are kept is NOT the focus.

 

The "spell component pouch" however it is defined (say for today its my jeans pocket) is SFX more than anything, especially considering that I could easily justify having upwards of 10 "component pouches" on me at any given time.

 

Also there is nothing to stop me from saying that my eye-glasses, necklace, ring, earing, nose-ring, or anything else I carry on me outside of said "component pouch" is what I need to have on me to cast my spells. Heck I do that in D&D (especially if it follows their definition of focus, meaning non-expendable). I mean please 99% of the D&D clerics I have seen played where their holy symbol (a focus for most of their spells) as a necklace. Some even carry a spare.

In some cases yes, not in others. I've seen "object of opportunity" used to justify someone like the knife dude in Desperado (or was it the sequel with Johnny Depp?) - basically, someone who carries so many of a focus that it is not practical to disarm him completely in combat.

My only thought on this is: the GM who allowed that didn't know what a focus is.

 

Please, if the character's concept is: I-carry-150,000,000,000-knives-on-me-at-all-times-hidden-in-various-places-accross-my-body-in-such-a-way-that-NOBODY-could-ever-find-them-all, then the power not only doesn't have focus, but it doesn't even qualify as having charges. The knives are simply speciall effect.

 

And that's one of the reasons I don't think it really works as a focus, by the way - by turning a bunch of OAFs into a single OIF, you alter the "destroy" requirement from frying lots of foci to frying one focus. It's not the cost that is at issue - I've no reason to suppose that -1/2 isn't exactly right - but the fact that from a special effects perspective it just looks like nonsense to me.

I am not sure I follow this idea. Could you elaborate what you mean by this.

 

I suppose this comes down to "some things that look like a focus aren't actually a focus" note - in my opinion, items of opportunity only look like foci. They have enough differences, and the concept is universal enough, that there is a case to be made for saying that there ought to be a separate "items of opportunity" category of limitation - or, at the very least, that the Focus limitation should spell out what the differences are for these items of opportunity. For example - can they be broken? I'm honestly curious. If Fire Girl fries my boulder of opportunity, does this I can't instantly grab and hurl another one? If I can't, how long do I have to wait before I can? 1 Phase? Most OIFs take more than 1 Phase to fix (at least by implication).

 

Can they be broken: GM call on the specific object. If the boulder you pick up is actuall a chunck of indesrtuctable nonexistite, then no, but if its just a hunk of shale then sure blow it away.

 

If it is blown up can I instatly grab and hurl another: Simple answer... NO. It works the same way as disarming someone. You were in the middle of an attack action when you were interupted. Attacking ends your phase, so you don't get to do anying else until your next phase. Sorry.

 

How long do I have to wait before I can get a new focus: GM descression, but at minimum I would say you need to wait until your next phase because picking up your focus of oppertunity is generally (from my experiance) considered a part of the attack action for which it is being used.

 

 

Are there some items of opportunity that are worth more or less than -1/2? Can items of opportunity be Fragile? Bulky? Immobile?

 

Yes, but there are also items of opportuity that are worth less than -1/2, so it all balances out.

 

Remember, since it is an object of opportunity, there may be any number of the correct items available at any given time. This means that while sometimes it may feel like you have infinite uses of the power, sometimes you will have ZERO.

 

My skater-dude for example was stuck fighting henchmen in a bare abandoned lot. He inches of running and inches of leaping defined as: OIF object of opportunity. His OIF is normally the skateboard he keeps with him, but it was blasted to bits by a lazer gun. Since the lot contained not a single wheeled (or even cylindricle) object, I was unable to use either power for the durration of the fight. Had the fight taken place in a sporting goods store the exact opposit would have been the case, FOCI galore.

[GAZZA]

Re: OIF: Items of Opportunity

 

I think you missed the point of what I was saying. The point is the coat' date=' pouch, pants, shirt, kitchen, backpack, or pocket book where the spell components are kept is NOT the focus. [/quote']

I didn't misunderstand you; I was simply saying that IMHO defining it as the pockets would be the way that I would have defined it.

 

The "spell component pouch" however it is defined (say for today its my jeans pocket) is SFX more than anything, especially considering that I could easily justify having upwards of 10 "component pouches" on me at any given time.

And there's where it starts to get tricky, again, because Foci can be destroyed, and by the rules once they are destroyed you have to repair them.

 

Once you start to define someone who has lots of component pouches, it starts to look like there's no real limitation at all (perhaps "only in Hero Id" at best).

 

Also there is nothing to stop me from saying that my eye-glasses, necklace, ring, earing, nose-ring, or anything else I carry on me outside of said "component pouch" is what I need to have on me to cast my spells. Heck I do that in D&D (especially if it follows their definition of focus, meaning non-expendable). I mean please 99% of the D&D clerics I have seen played where their holy symbol (a focus for most of their spells) as a necklace. Some even carry a spare.

D&D doesn't exactly match here, because (as far as I am aware) you are not permitted to score a focus limitation twice on the same power (many D&D spells require both a focus and another material component). Carrying two holy symbols would also technically be suspicious in Hero, at least assuming that they haven't bought the powers separately.

 

I do understand where you're coming from, and I agree that a holy symbol certainly looks like a focus, but then again so does Green Lantern's ring or Thor's Mjollnir. As a general rule, to qualify as a focus, it should be possible to take that focus away - and this simply isn't the case with an item of opportunity (that's the whole point of them - they can't be effectively removed because there are almost always duplicates).

 

Please, if the character's concept is: I-carry-150,000,000,000-knives-on-me-at-all-times-hidden-in-various-places-accross-my-body-in-such-a-way-that-NOBODY-could-ever-find-them-all, then the power not only doesn't have focus, but it doesn't even qualify as having charges. The knives are simply special effect.

Curious.

 

From my perspective I do not see what the fundamental difference is between "a whole bunch of things that I carry" and "a whole bunch of things that I can pick up from the environment". In both cases you've got someone who is effectively impossible to disarm in combat. The "carrying" version is a lot easier to disarm out of combat, though - his knives aren't hidden in any way (that would make the focus Inobvious), there's just too many of them to feasibly disarm in combat. (And the fact that it isn't built with charges is no different to simulating movies where you can fire your guns forever without reloading - it's a cinematic effect, simulated by using 0 END instead of charges), while if you can literally "throw anything" you need to be stripped naked and placed in a featureless cell to disarm you.

 

Perhaps you could elaborate one why "knife dude" is wrong and "chuck stuff dude" is not, because they seem to be variations on a theme to me.

 

(referring to my suggestion that OIF is being used to "group" OAFs)

I am not sure I follow this idea. Could you elaborate what you mean by this.

I can surely try.

 

Let us begin with a character who has the power to project Blasts of Energy from his staff, defined as an Obvious Accessible Focus. This staff can be grabbed (thereby disarming him in combat), and it can be targetted and broken (thereby disarming him until he gets another staff or fixes it - I would suggest, disarming him for at least the duration of the combat).

 

Let us now consider another character who has the same power built into a ring that glows brightly when used - an Obvious Inaccessible Focus. The ring cannot be grabbed (but it can be removed out of combat), but it can still be targetted and broken. Assuming the AP of the staff and the ring EB is the same, it requires precisely the same level of damage to destroy each.

 

Now we move on to a character who can turn loose pieces of wood into Blasts of Energy, and this is defined as OIF: sticks of opportunity. What this does, in effect, is give the character a near infinite number of OAFs - despite the fact that it is defined as Inaccessible, it has more in common with the staff example than the ring (for a start they're both made of wood ). This focus cannot be broken - or at least not in the same way. You seem to be suggesting that any individual stick can be broken (presumably with the same level of damage as the staff or the ring), but then instantly "repaired" by just picking up another one. Unless it is considered reasonable to repair a suit of power armour or a ring in a single phase - and I've never heard anyone suggest that it was - then why is it reasonable to repair any other OIF with a single phase?

 

Again, I'm not saying that "items of opportunity" isn't fairly costed at -1/2. But it just doesn't work the way that "focus" implies it should (IMHO).

 

If it is blown up can I instantly grab and hurl another: Simple answer... NO. It works the same way as disarming someone. You were in the middle of an attack action when you were interrupted. Attacking ends your phase, so you don't get to do anything else until your next phase. Sorry.

Unfortunately the focus rules don't really back you up on that. You cannot disarm someone with an OIF - that's why it's Inaccessible.

 

Now fair enough, perhaps "items of opportunity" OIFs should be exceptions to this, but that's two exceptions we have now: firstly, they can't be effectively destroyed, and secondly they can be temporarily interrupted. Neither of these exceptions are listed under "Focus". At a bare minimum I submit that this is an omission.

 

Remember, since it is an object of opportunity, there may be any number of the correct items available at any given time. This means that while sometimes it may feel like you have infinite uses of the power, sometimes you will have ZERO.

By the writeup under "Focus", the only time you will ever not have infinite uses is if you have been "stripped bare".

 

Now, stripping someone of all their foci will disarm any focus, regardless of whether it's Accessible, Inaccessible, Item of Opportunity, or otherwise. But uniquely that is the only way that you can disarm Item of Opportunity (you can break other foci, or at least steal them).

 

My skater-dude for example was stuck fighting henchmen in a bare abandoned lot. He inches of running and inches of leaping defined as: OIF object of opportunity. His OIF is normally the skateboard he keeps with him, but it was blasted to bits by a lazer gun. Since the lot contained not a single wheeled (or even cylindricle) object, I was unable to use either power for the durration of the fight. Had the fight taken place in a sporting goods store the exact opposite would have been the case, FOCI galore.

Here again, I'm not suggesting "items of opportunity" is not a valid limitation - it's perfectly appropriate for some situations - I just don't think the Focus rules work for it.

 

However, what you describe above is arguably not an items of opportunity situation at all. If you defined "my skateboard" as the focus, and it got blasted, then you can't use any of the skateboard related powers unless you fix it or replace it. Going to a sporting goods store is an excellent way to replace it - just like if you had an OAF Uzi and happened to be in a gun store it would be easy enough for you to replace your gun if it got broken. Not all foci are "special" and irreplaceable - most aren't, in fact.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OIF: Items of Opportunity

 

And there's where it starts to get tricky' date=' again, because Foci can be destroyed, and by the rules once they are destroyed you have to repair them.[/quote']

 

Or obtain a new one. Or can Hawkeye the Archer not head back to the base for another bow and a restiocked quiver?

 

Once you start to define someone who has lots of component pouches' date=' it starts to look like there's no real limitation at all (perhaps "only in Hero Id" at best).[/quote']

 

Perhaps. Many things that look like foci are OIHID. There has certainly been a tendency to increase the variance in foci rather than maintain them as one clear type of limitation, and use "limited power" instead of "focus" for some of the newer constructs (like Object of Opportunity).

 

D&D doesn't exactly match here' date=' because (as far as I am aware) you are not permitted to score a focus limitation twice on the same power (many D&D spells require both a focus and another material component). Carrying two holy symbols would also technically be suspicious in Hero, at least assuming that they haven't bought the powers separately.[/quote']

 

I think a focus can be multiple objects (that rule is out there somewhere, I think). You just don't get the same limitation over again because the second focus doesn't add the same limits as the first.

 

I do understand where you're coming from' date=' and I agree that a holy symbol certainly [b']looks[/b] like a focus, but then again so does Green Lantern's ring or Thor's Mjollnir. As a general rule, to qualify as a focus, it should be possible to take that focus away - and this simply isn't the case with an item of opportunity (that's the whole point of them - they can't be effectively removed because there are almost always duplicates).

 

But the character can be placed in, or find himself in, an environment where no such objects are available. My bigger concern with the item of oportunity is that there should be some recognotion that some such items are more common than others, so the limitation should vary with the likeliness of the item being around. That's probably an argument for "Limited Power" rather than "OIF".

 

From my perspective I do not see what the fundamental difference is between "a whole bunch of things that I carry" and "a whole bunch of things that I can pick up from the environment". In both cases you've got someone who is effectively impossible to disarm in combat.

 

Which is a large part of the difference between OAF and OIF.

 

The "carrying" version is a lot easier to disarm out of combat' date=' though - his knives aren't hidden in any way (that would make the focus [i']In[/i]obvious), there's just too many of them to feasibly disarm in combat. (And the fact that it isn't built with charges is no different to simulating movies where you can fire your guns forever without reloading - it's a cinematic effect, simulated by using 0 END instead of charges), while if you can literally "throw anything" you need to be stripped naked and placed in a featureless cell to disarm you.

 

To be limiting, the item of opportunity needs to be more restrictive than "throw anything", though I suppose -1/4 might be reasonable (another case for "Limited Power" rather than "Focus"). "Carry Anything" can be easily disarmed and have difficulty regaining foci. But he will virtually always have his focus until or unless disarmed. "Item of Opportunity" is tougher to disarm, but may not have his "focus" available at any time in the scenario. But then, the argument isn't really "are they equally limiting" as much as "is Focus the right catchall to put this under".

 

Now we move on to a character who can turn loose pieces of wood into Blasts of Energy' date=' and this is defined as OIF: sticks of opportunity. What this does, in effect, is give the character a near infinite number of OAFs - despite the fact that it is defined as [i']In[/i]accessible, it has more in common with the staff example than the ring (for a start they're both made of wood ). This focus cannot be broken - or at least not in the same way. You seem to be suggesting that any individual stick can be broken (presumably with the same level of damage as the staff or the ring), but then instantly "repaired" by just picking up another one. Unless it is considered reasonable to repair a suit of power armour or a ring in a single phase - and I've never heard anyone suggest that it was - then why is it reasonable to repair any other OIF with a single phase?

 

But it is possible to define that ring or suit as "unbreakable". That suit of powered armor, and any other focus that provides material defensive powers, may well also be functionally unbreakable.

 

That stick looks a lot like a Physical Manifestation, come to think of it. Again, a tradeoff. The stick is easier to replace than a traditional OIF, but also easier to remove in combat because he holds it like an OAF.

 

Again' date=' I'm [b']not[/b] saying that "items of opportunity" isn't fairly costed at -1/2. But it just doesn't work the way that "focus" implies it should (IMHO).

 

Foci don't disappear when used - until, of course, someone added "expendable". They don't impede movement - until someone added "bulky". hey can be used by anyone - untuil personal and universal were statted out. The system changes to meet the various power effects it needs to simulate.

 

Whether the system should have evolved Objects of Opportuunity as yet another Focus variant, rather than a Limited Power of a different colour, iscertainly a matter of debate, and I sympathize with the "limited power" proponents.

[Gideon]

Re: OIF: Items of Opportunity

 

I didn't misunderstand you; I was simply saying that IMHO defining it as the pockets would be the way that I would have defined it.

 

And there's where it starts to get tricky, again, because Foci can be destroyed, and by the rules once they are destroyed you have to repair them.

 

Once you start to define someone who has lots of component pouches, it starts to look like there's no real limitation at all (perhaps "only in Hero Id" at best).

 

Again, I need to say I think you missed something here (Sorry).

 

My point is the pouches, pockets, or containers the foci are carried in don't matter. The foci themselved are the thing that matters.

 

For example:

 

Jimmy plays Magester, a wizard super-hero. Magester is build to be as close in feel as possible to a D&D wizard with some small exceptions. Magester doesn't look like a fantasy wizard. He dresses more like a 1940's mystery man character than a traditional super hero: Button Down shirt with cufflinks, vest, tie with a tie tac, jacket, pants, dress shoes, trench coat, fadora, and a domino mask. (He looks like a mix between the Crimson Avernger and Dr Occult).

 

All of Magester's spells have some combination of Gestures, Incantations, Charges, OAF, or OIF.

 

One of the spells is: Mind control: 10d6, Guestures, Incantations, OIF: Pocket Watch.

 

Another spell is: Flash: 10d6 Sight group, Guestures, Incantations, OIF hand held mirror.

 

He keeps the Pocket Watch in his front vest pocket, and the mirror in his inside coat pocket. He also uses the cuff links and tie tac as spell components as well as other various items all kept in different pockets and other variuos areas of his outfit (and I will note in real life that outfit would have at least 14 pockets).

 

Having items spread out over the costume does not validate OHID. There is no transformation that occurs at all (difficult or otherwise), and the character doesn't need the outfit to use the powers, just the focus for the specific spell.

 

D&D doesn't exactly match here, because (as far as I am aware) you are not permitted to score a focus limitation twice on the same power (many D&D spells require both a focus and another material component). Carrying two holy symbols would also technically be suspicious in Hero, at least assuming that they haven't bought the powers separately.

 

I do understand where you're coming from, and I agree that a holy symbol certainly looks like a focus, but then again so does Green Lantern's ring or Thor's Mjollnir. As a general rule, to qualify as a focus, it should be possible to take that focus away - and this simply isn't the case with an item of opportunity (that's the whole point of them - they can't be effectively removed because there are almost always duplicates).

 

First: please read 5ER page 295: Multiple Foci. You can have a power that requires more than 1 focus in order to work.

 

Second: How is having 2 holy symbols suspicious? I know numerous chatholics who do so every day: They wear a cross as a pendant and carry a rosary in their pocket or pocket book.

 

And I'm sorry, but I would still count both as Foci. If the power requires the character to brandish the holy smbol, or alternately grasp it in his hand, then it counts. And since both a cross on a chain and a rosary can be grabed or destroyed, they seem to fit your criteria also.

 

Curious.

 

From my perspective I do not see what the fundamental difference is between "a whole bunch of things that I carry" and "a whole bunch of things that I can pick up from the environment". In both cases you've got someone who is effectively impossible to disarm in combat. The "carrying" version is a lot easier to disarm out of combat, though - his knives aren't hidden in any way (that would make the focus Inobvious), there's just too many of them to feasibly disarm in combat. (And the fact that it isn't built with charges is no different to simulating movies where you can fire your guns forever without reloading - it's a cinematic effect, simulated by using 0 END instead of charges), while if you can literally "throw anything" you need to be stripped naked and placed in a featureless cell to disarm you.

 

Perhaps you could elaborate one why "knife dude" is wrong and "chuck stuff dude" is not, because they seem to be variations on a theme to me.

 

The problem with this is that they ARE a variation on the same theme. Or at least they can be.

 

What it comes down to is purely mechanics. And some versions are simply abusive if allowed to take a focus limitation. Remember the first rule of limitations: if the power isn't actually limited in some way then the limitation is worth nothing

 

Throws anything dude: Character can literally pick up and throw ANY object, throw it accurately and deal damage with it.

 

This character would be built with:

 

Chuck Stuff: 10d6 EB physical.

 

(note: The power could have either Restrainable, or Range Based on Strength, but neither are needed.)

 

Since Throws anything dude could throw a pebble, a tee-shirt, or a bouy knife and deal the exact same amout of damage delivered at the same range with zero penelties, the objects thrown are simply considered SFX. The only way to disarm this character is to strip him nude and put him in an empty room, but then he could (if he wanted to) simply throw his hair or teeth at you and still get use from his EB.

 

Also built this way interrupting his attack, or destroying the object he is going to throw at you are almost impossible. The only way to stop one of his shots is to use missle deflection.

 

Now if the character can only throw knives, then the power might be justified having OIF, but not always.

 

If Knife Dude carries so many knives on him (and possibly in him) that it would be effectivly impossible to disarm him, even out of combat then the knives are simply SFX.

 

If however, he only carries say 10 knives on him at a time, and the knives can be destroyed, disarmed, or lost then Focus is definately an option. But Recoverable Charges would probably fit better (possibly with costs end).

 

Lastly you have the character who can throw anything "appropriate". This character is usually a brick. And "appropriate" means any large, heavy object (even if that objects DEF+BODY is less than the total dice of the attack).

 

We will say for math purposes that the attack is:

 

Hurling Objects: EB, 18d6, OIF objects of oppurtunity.

 

Now, this attack uses OIF instead of simply SFX or Charges, because of several things...

 

1. The character cannot carry apropriate objects on him
   
2. The character may not be able to find appropiate objects to qualify as the OIF of his attack
   
3. There is no set number of times a day (or scene) the power can be used
   
4. The object can almost always be destroyed causing the attack to be inturrupted
   

 

You may ask what the difference is between an appropriate object for the "hurling objects" attack and the "chuck stuff" attack if the DEF+BODY of the object doesn't matter. Well thats where things get hard and GM discression factors in. The reason I say things get hard is because the actuall DEF+BODY of the object is not the only factor that determins if it appropriate to be used as the OIF for the power, the actuall nature of the object and the SFX of the power need to be considered also.

 

Here are some examples though:

 

Appropriate objects to be uses as OIF for "Hurling Objects"

 

• Mini-Cooper (3 DEF, 13 BODY)
  
• Police Car (3 DEF, 14 BODY)
  
• Boeing 747 (5 DEF, 25 BODY)
  
• Manhole Cover (9 DEF, 5 BODY)
  
• I Beam (9 DEF, 8 BODY)
  

 

Inappropriate objects to be used as OIF for "Hurling Objects"

 

• Glass of Water (1 DEF, 1 BODY)
  
• Padlock (4 DEF, 3 BODY)
  
• Credit Card (- DEF, - BODY)
  
• Button Down Shirt (- DEF, - BODY)
  
• Button From Button Down Shirt (- DEF, - BODY)
  
• Pistol (4 DEF, 4 BODY)
  

 

All of the listed items whether considered appropriate to be used as the OIF for the power "Hurling Objects" or not, could be defined as the SFX for the power "Chucking Stuff"

 

I can surely try.

 

Let us begin with a character who has the power to project Blasts of Energy from his staff, defined as an Obvious Accessible Focus. This staff can be grabbed (thereby disarming him in combat), and it can be targetted and broken (thereby disarming him until he gets another staff or fixes it - I would suggest, disarming him for at least the duration of the combat).

 

Let us now consider another character who has the same power built into a ring that glows brightly when used - an Obvious Inaccessible Focus. The ring cannot be grabbed (but it can be removed out of combat), but it can still be targetted and broken. Assuming the AP of the staff and the ring EB is the same, it requires precisely the same level of damage to destroy each.

 

Now we move on to a character who can turn loose pieces of wood into Blasts of Energy, and this is defined as OIF: sticks of opportunity. What this does, in effect, is give the character a near infinite number of OAFs - despite the fact that it is defined as Inaccessible, it has more in common with the staff example than the ring (for a start they're both made of wood ). This focus cannot be broken - or at least not in the same way. You seem to be suggesting that any individual stick can be broken (presumably with the same level of damage as the staff or the ring), but then instantly "repaired" by just picking up another one. Unless it is considered reasonable to repair a suit of power armour or a ring in a single phase - and I've never heard anyone suggest that it was - then why is it reasonable to repair any other OIF with a single phase?

 

Again, I'm not saying that "items of opportunity" isn't fairly costed at -1/2. But it just doesn't work the way that "focus" implies it should (IMHO).

 

Loose pieces of wood could count as OIF the same way "Any ball" could count as OIF. As opposed to previous comments on this thread, sometimes having OIF: appropriate object of opportunity on your power means that you will actually have less opportunities to find and use said object.

 

If my power is defined as I levitate pieces of wood and hurl them at you with the force of a bullet, than yes I would say Inaccessable does in fact work. Even if you have to first pick up the stick, it still works.

 

But accessability isn't the whole issue here. You are saying that because the power can use any stick the focus is essentially unbreakable. That isn't true. The sticks could be destroyed by any means, and if the character is in an area with no trees (say in a building or underground) then there is no access to more sticks and the power can't be used again in that combat.

 

Unfortunately the focus rules don't really back you up on that. You cannot disarm someone with an OIF - that's why it's Inaccessible.

 

You missed what I said.

 

What I said was: "It works the same way as disarming someone."

 

I know that an inaccessable focus cannot be disarmed. But destroying a focus functions in essentially the same manner.

 

 

However, what you describe above is arguably not an items of opportunity situation at all. If you defined "my skateboard" as the focus, and it got blasted, then you can't use any of the skateboard related powers unless you fix it or replace it. Going to a sporting goods store is an excellent way to replace it - just like if you had an OAF Uzi and happened to be in a gun store it would be easy enough for you to replace your gun if it got broken. Not all foci are "special" and irreplaceable - most aren't, in fact.

 

The thing is the power isn't defined as "my skateboard" it is defined as object of opportunity. This is because the character could just as easliy use a bike, dolly, unicycle, pogo-stick, or even an empty mettle drum or spare tire to "trick off of" and get the use of his inches of running and leaping. Essentially the way the character is defined is: "if I can use it as a vehicle, even through improvisation, I can ride it and trick off of it."