Discussion of 5-point Gadget Doublings

[JMHammer]

Steve Long wrote:

The rule is on 5E 309; it only applies to equipment. As multiple pieces of equipment, such weapons could be used for Two-Weapon Fighting, multiple-Power attacks, or the like. Shugoshin's character sheet is correct.

 

Howdy, heroes!

 

I asked Steve about the referenced rule. I won't repeat my (probably inanely) detailed question here, but I have some questions / discussion starters for all of you:

 

Foci are supposed to limit the character in some way. However, if this 5-point doubling rule only applies to equipment, that appears to provide a bonus to characters using foci, especially weapons. For instance, Blasto The Blast Gunner can make up some huge, powerful gun or other weapon with a real cost of 100 or even more, and then get a second one for only 5 points (105 points total); but Zappo The Electric Man has to build his big 100 real point energy blast twice if he wants to have it twice for purposes of two-weapon fighting or multiple-power attacks (200 real points). Given this, how do you maintain balance between gadget-using characters and those who rely on innate abilities?

 

Another real concern is Power-Armor-Guy purchasing a decent energy blast or somesuch for his OIF armor and then using the 5-point doubling rule to get 2 blasters. It gets worse if he spends 10 to get 4, or spends 15 to get 8 such blasters built into his armor. It greatly increases the number of charges for a very low cost (assuming charges are being used) and permits multiple-power attacks that are both less expensive than but more effective than applying the Autofire advantage.

 

However, this also applies to gadget-using characters who aren't consciously abusing the rule but just want a second gun. It still gives such characters double the number of shots (charges) for a very low price and the ability to perform multiple-power attacks in a manner that is both less expensive than yet in some cases more effective than a simple two-shot Autofire advantage.

 

All comments appreciated!

John H

[Yamo]

Foci are supposed to limit the character in some way. However, if this 5-point doubling rule only applies to equipment, that appears to provide a bonus to characters using foci, especially weapons. For instance, Blasto The Blast Gunner can make up some huge, powerful gun or other weapon with a real cost of 100 or even more, and then get a second one for only 5 points (105 points total); but Zappo The Electric Man has to build his big 100 real point energy blast twice if he wants to have it twice for purposes of two-weapon fighting or multiple-power attacks (200 real points). Given this, how do you maintain balance between gadget-using characters and those who rely on innate abilities?

 

Just make sure your bad guys are smart enough to pack fancy high tech of their own. Like maybe some EMP pulse guns (20+d6 Dispel Versus All Technology Powers Simultaneously).

 

Evil, but a GM's gotta do what a GM's gotta do.

[Guest Keneton]

Mianly this ability is usable with sweeps or multi-power attacks. Since a charcter with a power can trigger a sweep without 2 of the object, it is already equal in some ways so the differance is fine.

[Monolith]

I believe the intent of the original rule was to allow characters to have back-up equipment for 5 points per doubling. Thus if you lost your pistol you had another to use until that one was lost as well or you recovered the original. Apparently Steve has decided to change that rule (probably because of the way weapons have since been purchased for vehicles in TE, STK, and TUV). I do not agree with this new ruling by Steve because it makes it sometimes possible for characters with a Limitation on their powers to be more powerful that characters without it. I will continue to use the original concept and only allow the doubling to be used as back-up gear, not main use gear.

[Hugh Neilson]

Let's take this one step further - I buy a 16 charge EB through a gun. Let's make it a 12d6 EB I spend 15 points to get 8 guns instead. Then, I buy extra limbs - so I have 8 arms.

 

Using the multiple power attack rule, I fire all 8 guns at my opponent. I get one, unmodified ton hit roll. If it hits, I hit him 8 times with my 8 guns.

 

I didn't buy any autofire skills, take the autofire advantage or pay an advantage for having 128 charges available. I get all the benefits of these abilities, plus I hit with ALL attacks assuming I make my to hit roll, instead of one for every 2 I make the roll by.

 

If this is the case, why should Human Flame Man not be allowed to fire flame bolts from each eye, each hand, each foot, his chest, ad infinitum, as a "multiple power" attack?

[Alibear]

Monolith talks rules sense yet again.

[JmOz]

I vote as MOnolith does...

 

 

I even have some problems on using the doubling for charge based equipment...

 

But have no problem with it being used for vehicular equipment...

 

GO figure

[Monolith]

Originally posted by JmOz

But have no problem with it being used for vehicular equipment...

I have no real problem with using it for vehicle equipment either, but I have no problem having vehicles buy each additional weapon system either; especially when vehicles already get a 5/1 cost break. I just do not like it for player characters. It seems like they are getting too much for nearly no cost (not to mention the whole Limitation giving a rules advantage thing).

[Guest Keneton]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Let's take this one step further - I buy a 16 charge EB through a gun. Let's make it a 12d6 EB I spend 15 points to get 8 guns instead. Then, I buy extra limbs - so I have 8 arms.

 

Using the multiple power attack rule, I fire all 8 guns at my opponent. I get one, unmodified ton hit roll. If it hits, I hit him 8 times with my 8 guns.

 

I

 

Although you could read the rules this way I would say that these items were not distinquishably different powers and hence not available as a multiple power attack. (this is in my campaign)

 

By verbatim rule you would be correct although and hence this is an issue. You make a good point, but this is easily corrected by eliminating the abuse with MPA's as a house rule. The 2x for 5 equipment issue has too many good uses to make it illegal because of abuse.

[Trebuchet]

I view this as more a matter of special effect. Nothing in the rules requires attacks to come from particular parts of the body. Iron Manâ„¢ has Repulsorsâ„¢ in both gauntlets. If Titanium Manâ„¢ breaks his left gauntlet then he can still use the right one. That's the definition of special effect: He can fire from either, and he's paid the extra points to have both. (I would probably require spending the whole 5 points without any discount from Limitations on the spare).

 

The same thing would apply in Champions. Carrying a "backup" sword or pistol is largely genre-specific; and would seldom apply to superheroes anyway. If the device is a focus then something that takes out that focus will quite likely take out the spare. (Sure, you've got your spare pistol but no extra ammo, etc.). I'd just take this on a case by case basis, but I see no reason to preemptively ban it.

 

No way does Green Lanternâ„¢ get to pack a spare power ring.

[Killer Shrike]

Im uncomfortable with the 5 point item doubling as well as it does give an artificial discount to characters taking a limitation, or limitations plural (OIF & Charges).

 

Personally I also think Vehicles should pay full points to double up on the weapons; 5 to 1 is already in place on a vehicle so using this rule basically means you can double every weapon on a vehicle for 1 Real point each.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

I view this as more a matter of special effect. Nothing in the rules requires attacks to come from particular parts of the body. Iron Manâ„¢ has Repulsorsâ„¢ in both gauntlets.

 

Actually, the rules do require a named origin point. I dont have my book with me, but its prolly under SFX. You have to pick an origin point for every emitted power, such as (Hands, or Eyes, or Mouth, etc). To project from any part of the body is a +1/4 version of Indirect IIRC.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Actually, the rules do require a named origin point. I dont have my book with me, but its prolly under SFX. You have to pick an origin point for every emitted power, such as (Hands, or Eyes, or Mouth, etc). To project from any part of the body is a +1/4 version of Indirect IIRC.

True, but a beam originating from the left hand has a different field of fire than one from the right hand, chest, or eyes. Common sense tells you that Superman can't use his heat vision on someone holding him from behind in a full nelson unless he comes up with a clever way to bounce the attack, and that's the essence of role-playing. That's the limitation such specified origin points provide. It all balances out in the end as long as you use common sense and some dramatic license.

 

It still largely comes down to special effect. For example, if a speedster has an EB defined as throwing small objects hyperfast, I'd allow them to use either hand or maybe even kick the object (perhaps at a small OCV penalty) to use the attack. Heck, depending on the situation I might permit them to spit something small enough to do some reduced damage or flip a switch on a deathtrap. As long as the player is role playing I'll cut them a lot of slack. When they start loading up on cheese then my cutoff point drops precipitously.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

No way does Green Lanternâ„¢ get to pack a spare power ring.

 

Why not? If 5 points gets a backup, 5 points should get a backup

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

True, but a beam originating from the left hand has a different field of fire than one from the right hand, chest, or eyes. Common sense tells you that Superman can't use his heat vision on someone holding him from behind in a full nelson unless he comes up with a clever way to bounce the attack, and that's the essence of role-playing. That's the limitation such specified origin points provide. It all balances out in the end as long as you use common sense and some dramatic license.

IIRC you dont have to declare it down to the exact hand; IIRC "Hands" is sufficient, meaning usable from either. Also a good target for Restrainable if it requires something more than a simple point or Gestures if it requires some complex movement.

 

It still largely comes down to special effect. For example, if a speedster has an EB defined as throwing small objects hyperfast, I'd allow them to use either hand or maybe even kick the object (perhaps at a small OCV penalty) to use the attack. Heck, depending on the situation I might permit them to spit something small enough to do some reduced damage or flip a switch on a deathtrap. As long as the player is role playing I'll cut them a lot of slack. When they start loading up on cheese then my cutoff point drops precipitously.

This is true -- common sense should apply. On the other hand, consistency is desirable too, as well as fairness to all. In the speedsters case a broader origin point should be counterbalanced by some other factor; in this case while he can hit or kick or headbut or whatever, with the point of origin defined as "The point at which his body impacts an object", a fair balance would be to say that the speedster must be able to move enough to work up some English -- ie, apply a light version of Restrainable effectively for no limitation to balance out the effectively +1/4 Indirect advantage. A more hard ass GM would be within thier rights to make the character take both, a more lenient may allow them to be taken in conjunction as a -0 "Common Sense" Modifier .

[Snarf]

I totally agree that the 5 point rule abusable and largely unecessary. If someone wants a bunch of spares, just define the item as an obvious inaccesible focus. If someone wants a lot of attacks, it's more balanced to force them to buy autofire.

 

None of this works for extra vehicles or vehicle equipment, but I still see some potential problems. It would be better to buy extras based on the cost of the power instead of this flat adder sort of effect. Maybe buying a duplicate could cost 1/5 the cost of the original vehicle or equipment, with a minimum cost of five points.

[MisterD]

After reading some of the posts in this thread, an idea on DOC OC ccomes to mind.

 

Have two MP's

 

1 MP is for what the extra arms can do together.

and

1 MP is what an arm can do by itself.

Then just double the Solo Arm Multi-Power.

 

How would that be?

[GamePhil]

I must agree with the earlier poster: you can't get a Multiple Power Attack using these multiple weapons. It's the same Power. To back this up, look at the Two Weapon Fighting skill: it does not allow you to make an MPA, it allows you to make a Rapid Fire or Sweep attack.

 

If I wanted to buy my attack twice, though, I'd get some DCV Levels, Only When Rapid Firing; some 2 point levels with the Rapid Fire Maneuver; and Rapid Attack. I certainly wouldn't buy the Power twice.

 

The Charges thing is not as much of a problem as it may seem. If the multiple weapons are being used to get around the Charges Limitation, it is no longer a Limitation and the benefits are removed. (16 Charges will cost END if Reduced END is not bought, etc. etc. etc.). If they are being used to get "around" the Advantage, in many cases points are actually being wasted or a rough parity is being achieved.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by MisterD

After reading some of the posts in this thread, an idea on DOC OC ccomes to mind.

 

Have two MP's

 

1 MP is for what the extra arms can do together.

and

1 MP is what an arm can do by itself.

Then just double the Solo Arm Multi-Power.

 

It's probably unnecessary. Most everything Doc Ock does can be done with Sweeps, levels, probably Martial Arts, and Extra Limbs.

[Vondy]

I like it. And its not as cheap as it sounds. To use two weapons effectively the character also needs 2 weapon fighting, and maybe rapid attack for the attack type. Penalty skill levels doesn't hurt, either, and they're half DCV.

 

Yes, it can be abused, but it does work really well for certain character concepts, like mssr. two gun fu, mssr. two sword guy, and their ilk (or my character "paranoid" who tends to walk in with 6 guns on). In general its good to limit this to foci that are either OAF (for the same number of points you can buy the skill levels needed to offset the pens for a sweep disarm), or just junk that doesn't make the character.

 

Managing things like power armor is pretty easy. You want 2 suits of power armor? Okay, Iron man's got plenty. You can wear one at a time. It takes at least an extra phase to get out of one, and then an extra phase to get into the other enjoy. If the player pulls the "but my armor has two blaster gauntlets" routine the GM merely needs to rule that the armor is one focus.

 

Power rings are more problamatic, but I don't have an issue with it insofar as 1) the player has 2 weapon fighting (or takes huge pens), 2) understands using both incurs a 1/2 DCV penalty, 3) understands they only get one power skill roll per turn, but take penalties from both rings on it.... ouch. Suddenly 5 extra character points for two foci isn't so cheap!

[Talon]

My personal opinion / house rule is that the 2x for 5 points rule only applies to "normal" equipment. Shugoshin gets it on the sword because it's just a normal sword, but has to buy the funky powers that apply to the sword twice. Similarly, if someone wanted a backup pistol they could use the +5 points rule, but if they wanted a backup for their super-tech energy blast they'd have to pay full cost.

[Blue]

Haven't had this issue yet. But here's how I'd ajudicate it in my campaign...

• You can get a "backup" weapon for 5 pts.
  
• You still only have the same total number of charges. In other words, if you had 8 charges, that's 8 charges between all copies of the weapon. That way if you lose one/have it stolen you still have a few charges in the other one, and if you use all your charges you can't just run to the other gun to get reloads.
  
• You wouldn't get any extra attacks as a result of having a second weapon. I don't need a rationale, I'm the GM, and it's unbalancing to allow someone to do multiple full attacks. You want more attacks, buy up your SPD.

Short and sweet.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by D-Man

Managing things like power armor is pretty easy. You want 2 suits of power armor? Okay, Iron man's got plenty. You can wear one at a time. It takes at least an extra phase to get out of one, and then an extra phase to get into the other enjoy. If the player pulls the "but my armor has two blaster gauntlets" routine the GM merely needs to rule that the armor is one focus.

 

I'll buy four. By the way, they're Universal Foci...my buddies will wear the other three today. No abuse there, right? They each spent 3 points to buy "Drive Armored Suit" skill!

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Blue

Haven't had this issue yet. But here's how I'd ajudicate it in my campaign...

• You can get a "backup" weapon for 5 pts.
  
• You still only have the same total number of charges. In other words, if you had 8 charges, that's 8 charges between all copies of the weapon. That way if you lose one/have it stolen you still have a few charges in the other one, and if you use all your charges you can't just run to the other gun to get reloads.
  
• You wouldn't get any extra attacks as a result of having a second weapon. I don't need a rationale, I'm the GM, and it's unbalancing to allow someone to do multiple full attacks. You want more attacks, buy up your SPD.

Short and sweet.

 

I always like to add "This rule also applies to NPC's" This makes it a bit clearer that, if you persuade me to change my rule, it can and will be used against you.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I'll buy four. By the way, they're Universal Foci...my buddies will wear the other three today. No abuse there, right? They each spent 3 points to buy "Drive Armored Suit" skill!

 

None whatsoever, because I'd only allow it as long as this is done under some extreme circumstances. If they're going to be going off like this on a regular basis, they have to buy it like good characters. The rule is for "carrying lots of back ups or having a fleet of vehicles", not a cheap way to increase the power of the entire group.

 

Plus, when a specific rule goes out of its way to point out, "At the GM's option" (see page 309), a statement that is true of all rules, you ignore it at your own risk.