Discussion of 5-point Gadget Doublings

[Derek Hiemforth]

I view this mechanic similarly to MegaScale. Meaning, I think it's most useful for allowing GMs to build masterminds and such without throwing ludicrous numbers of points at them. For players, there is the potential for abuse, and the GM must be prepared to Just Say No if necessary.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by GamePhil

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.

 

But I paid my points to have extra suits, didn't I? Either having extra suits is possible, or it isn't. Either they are universal, or they are not. If the character had instead invested the extra points in a slow fade rate Aid, would he be prevented from beefing up the other characters?

 

The difference is that 10 or 15 points don't buy much aid. And they shouldn't buy an extra four suits of powered armor either.

 

[Now, the same character also has no right to complain when the extra suits get stolen and used against the team - you got the point break for OIF, and making the foci universal was YOUR choice!]

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

I view this mechanic similarly to MegaScale. Meaning, I think it's most useful for allowing GMs to build masterminds and such without throwing ludicrous numbers of points at them. For players, there is the potential for abuse, and the GM must be prepared to Just Say No if necessary.

 

How many people have worried about point balancing a master villain? How many have statted out the cost of his base (perhaps its an entire universe)? How about making the charismatic group leader pay for those devoted followers, his teammates? The robot guards? The killer satellite?

 

This never gets statted out into the villain's powers - most GM's balance their villains based on effectiveness and chalk up the extras needed to move the game forward as

plot device - plus infinity limitation"

[Vondy]

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!

 

GMing hero requires common sense. I have never met a competent gamemaster who would allow that construct. Of course, not all game masters are competent. If you don't know how to evaluate a character design or say "no" then you aren't competent to run the Hero system.

 

And whats more, all the GM has to do is rule the focus isn't universal and the problem dissapears.

 

Just because a rule has potential for abuse doesn't mean the gamemaster has to be spineless and let his players walk all over him, and more importantly, it doesn't mean the rule is without legitimate uses.

 

If you can't manage the possibilities you should stick with DeeUnDee.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

But I paid my points to have extra suits, didn't I? Either having extra suits is possible, or it isn't. Either they are universal, or they are not. If the character had instead invested the extra points in a slow fade rate Aid, would he be prevented from beefing up the other characters?

 

You paid to have spare suits. You did not pay to have suits to hand out to your compatriots. There are other ways to do this in the system. Ways which may be used without regard to Foci, and ways which are valid, in that they are designed for this use.

 

Now, even if I considered this method valid, there are other means of doing what you are saying which are equally valid. And they are all more expensive, and are therefore the correct way of buying this ability. So, according to the rule book, I should not allow this usage of doubling.

 

I know, I know, people complain about that rule. I used to. However, this is a perfect example of why it exists.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

But I paid my points to have extra suits, didn't I? Either having extra suits is possible, or it isn't. Either they are universal, or they are not. If the character had instead invested the extra points in a slow fade rate Aid, would he be prevented from beefing up the other characters?

 

 

In a competent GMs game you'd be told he wouldn't admit the character insofar as the foci were universal and the problem would end.

 

So in other words: no, you didn't spend the points that way because the GM ruled you couldn't.

 

And further -- the text says universal is generally applied to mundane gear, which power armor is not.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by D-Man

And further -- the text says universal is generally applied to mundane gear, which power armor is not.

 

"Most realistic Foci like guns, other weapons, and common technological devices are Universal Foci."

 

I am interpreting that differently: Mundane Gear is Universal, not Universal is Mundane (generally), if you see my meaning.

 

If not, I'll have to figure out a better way of saying it.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by GamePhil

"Most realistic Foci like guns, other weapons, and common technological devices are Universal Foci."

 

I am interpreting that differently: Mundane Gear is Universal, not Universal is Mundane (generally), if you see my meaning.

 

If not, I'll have to figure out a better way of saying it.

 

It really doesn't matter which way you want to say it. The meaning of the text is clear enough. Universal only applies to items the GM rules are mundane.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by D-Man

It really doesn't matter which way you want to say it. The meaning of the text is clear enough. Universal only applies to items the GM rules are mundane.

 

That's the point I was trying, unsuccessfully, to make: it does matter which way it is said. I'll give you an example. I tell you that it is daytime, and therefore it is light in my house. If I tell you it is light in my house, then, does it mean that it is daytime? No, it does not, because while daytime is sufficient for it to be light (assuming no other factors), daytime is not necessary for there to be light.

 

I just have a lamp on.

 

Sorry. Back on the subject, and returning to the actual text:

 

"Most realistic Foci like guns, other weapons, and common technological devices are Universal Foci."

 

This does, in fact, say that most mundane Foci are Universal. Nowhere does it say that to be Universal they must be mundane.

 

Not that I would ever object to someone doing it that way, just trying to be understood.

[Markdoc]

Given that mundane foci can easily be replaced "out of game" ie: between sessions, paying extra for a replacement seems a bit pointless.

 

In general, carrying two guns or two swords is just special effect: Chow Yun Fat is just as effective with one gun as two - or even four.

 

IIRC, the first time I saw the "+X points for an extra" rule was in the revised version of Seeker published in an old AC. It struck me then as a rule without a point, and it still does.

 

Yes, letting players have two guns that have to be disarmed gives them a minor edge over the guy with one, just as being able to shoot energy beams from your two hands rather than just your eyes does. But in general, the difference is so small that it's pointless to quibble over.

 

If he want to carry 6, then he needs to buy OIF instead of OAF. At that point who cares if he carries 6 or 26?

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by GamePhil

 

You paid to have spare suits. You did not pay to have suits to hand out to your compatriots. There are other ways to do this in the system. Ways which may be used without regard to Foci, and ways which are valid, in that they are designed for this use.

[/b]

 

Yet, based on the initial comments at the start of the thread, it is perfectly legitimate to pay 5 points to have a SPARE gun/sword/what have you, and use both your "pruimary" and your "spare" weapon at the same time, a maneuver which cannot be equalled at the same point effectiveness by a character who does not have a focus for his powers, and consequently paid more points.

 

One character buys a 12d6 Energy Blast. 0 END (90 points). The other buys a 12d6 Laser Blast, 64 charges, OAF Gun (45 points), pays 5 points for a duplicate gun and buys up the two weapon fighting skills, plus some levels to offset the penalties.

 

The first character gets to fire once in a phase. The second gets to fire twice per phase, with no CV penalties, and, even after the skills, doubtless spent less points.

 

Granted, the second guy can "only" do this for 64 phases - how often do you fire off 64 attacks at full power before your charges can recover? He can be disarmed, but he's still getting a huge point break. To get the effect of a second shot per phase, my naturally powered character needs to double his speed. Another EB won't do it - his multi-power attack can only hit one target. Autofire doesn't work - he's restricted in target choice - and would carry an even greater cost by doubling his "0 end".

 

The argument that "a competent GM would disallow abuses" is reasonable, but one could also argue "a competent GM" should be able to run the game without the benefits of any rules whatsoever - he can just make up fair and equitable rulings on the fly (or just make characters with no point-based system). Then we don't need to pay points for powers at all.

 

The rule should either be that the duplicate devices cannot be used simultaneously ever (you want two attacks, buy them the expensive way), or that all duplicate devices can be used - after all, the character paid the points. Obviously, my call is the former - to spend 15 points for 4 duplicate Power Armor suits and then outfit all your teammates just means every superteam will have Captain Armorer or be squashed by those that do.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by D-Man

It really doesn't matter which way you want to say it. The meaning of the text is clear enough. Universal only applies to items the GM rules are mundane.

 

As GamePhil notes, the rule is "mundane generally means universal", not "universal generally means mundane".

 

Adopting your interpretation deals with the "lend it to my friends" problem, but how many "genre bits" do we lose? Lazer's unique lazer pistol can't be grabbed by the hero and fired - it's not mundane. Now we know why Armadillo and Ankylosaur found power armor in storage - it wouldn't work for anyone else.

 

Magic rings, wands, swords, etc. work only for the person who paid the points for them, which pretty much blows the ability to "loot the bodies", or recover and use ancient mystic artifacts two staples of fantasy games.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Markdoc

In general, carrying two guns or two swords is just special effect: Chow Yun Fat is just as effective with one gun as two - or even four.

 

The two problems raised are "use both at once to double your attacks" and "extra guns = extra charges". The easy solution is to rule that the 5 point duplicate is a backup only. Charges are for all duplicates in aggregate, and you can't use more than one at a time. If you wantb these extra advantages, buy the weapon again at full cost or simulate it with other powers (eg. autofire, extra dice only to spread and hit two targets, what have you).

 

Yes, letting players have two guns that have to be disarmed gives them a minor edge over the guy with one, just as being able to shoot energy beams from your two hands rather than just your eyes does. But in general, the difference is so small that it's pointless to quibble over.

 

And if it's truly only a backup weapon, only used when the "main weapon" is disarmed, fair enough. At this point, maybe a 5 point cost is reasonable on the basis he only has to draw the new weapon and he's back in action.

 

If he want to carry 6, then he needs to buy OIF instead of OAF. At that point who cares if he carries 6 or 26?

 

He can have an unlimited number - just make them "restrainable" instead of "focus". Same cost as OIF, so no real difference. One could argue he always has one, so even after being strip searched, he still has guns somewhere on his person, but SFX justify the removal of the weapons in such a case (ie they have been "restrained" until you can get them back).

 

So now we have three schools of thought:

 

- 5 points for a duplicate device is too cheap

- 5 points for a duplicate device is just right

- 5 points for a duplicate device is too much

 

Of course, which view one takes depends on what one believes the duplicate device can be used for.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Yet, based on the initial comments at the start of the thread, it is perfectly legitimate to pay 5 points to have a SPARE gun/sword/what have you, and use both your "pruimary" and your "spare" weapon at the same time, a maneuver which cannot be equalled at the same point effectiveness by a character who does not have a focus for his powers, and consequently paid more points.

 

The initial comments on this thread said that they could be used for TWF and MPA's. I mentioned earlier that I would allow it for TWF: this is not even an advantage over Rapid Fire/Sweep unless you also have Two Weapon Fighting, and even then it is only a slight advantage, probably worth the points paid. I probably wouldn't allow it for MPA's, myself, for reasons already mentioned, but that's arguable..

 

No initial comment says that I should have to allow it to be handed out and make everyone in the party 100 points more effective for 10 points, even if I were to allow everything Steve said: it is for having spare weapons for your use, not for outfitting an army. There are other ways to do that, they are both more valid and more expensive, and are therefore the correct ways of doing these things by the rules.

 

It may be obscure and need to be clarified, but by the book what you said should be disallowed. Anyway, enough of that.

[Guest Keneton]

A lot of Champions style debate takes place about what something costs. Lets set aside whether or not 5 points is worth or not worth the double and see wht the double really allows.

 

With or without two seperate guns (one bought fully and the other bought +5) I can still sweep. Penalties are not negated from the two foci, but from Two weapon fighting or PSL's. (Leave this out of the debate right now its a fringe topic) Therefore having a two or four foci has nothing to do with sweep.

 

Regular attack actions are also not effected.

 

Multiple Power Attacks: I posted my issue with this earlier in the thread. Per rule you COULD in fact MPA with both guns, but IMHO this is wrong as the powers are not in fact ditinguishable at all as they are completely indentical. This disqualifies MPA.

 

So as to what can be done in a phase we have a few small advantages as to what this really allows.

 

1. Free charges (or less expensive charges at 5 points for +x)

2. An extra focus.

 

Besides this is the charcter any more effective for the 5 points.

 

By my rule, unless the charcter wants to be at -2 OCV and 1/2 DCV he is not more effective from phase to phase. This is what wins fights.

 

Who cares about the rest?

[Dr. Anomaly]

Originally posted by GamePhil

Now, even if I considered this method valid, there are other means of doing what you are saying which are equally valid. And they are all more expensive, and are therefore the correct way of buying this ability.

 

Y'know, it's a slight drift in topic, but I've got to comment on this. This "rule" has annoyed me ever since it first made its appearance, and it's one of those things that I STRONGLY disagree with Steve about.

 

Say, for example, I want to buy a 3d6 EB that will, on average, do about 10 STUN to a target (this is before defenses, mind you). 15 points, you say? Nope...someone else points out that you can do the same thing with Drain vs. STUN (and maybe a smaller Drain vs. BODY linked to the Drain vs. STUN) and since this is more than 15 points, it's the more expensive way and therefore the way it MUST be done. Someone else points out you should use Transform instead, as that can be even more expensive. Yet another person points out you should use Extra-D Movement, Usable As Attack, Ranged, Related Group of Dimensions: Target Moves To Identical World Where Target Has Taken a 10 STUN, 3 BODY Attack -- this is clearly the most expensive yet, so MUST be the way to do it...etc.

 

There's ALWAYS a way to do something a more expensive way, and that's why this "rule" makes absolutely no sense. I'm sure that Steve (or supporters of this "rule") will chime in with words like "common sense", but that doesn't wash. If it's common sense, then why not just leave it to the GM's common sense whether or not to allow a certain power construct into his game or not? Why have an unneccesary meta-rule that breaks down so easily?

 

This is one of MY (admittedly very few) MAJOR PEEVES with Hero.

 

YMMV.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Dr. Anomaly

Y'know, it's a slight drift in topic, but I've got to comment on this. This "rule" has annoyed me ever since it first made its appearance, and it's one of those things that I STRONGLY disagree with Steve about.

 

I apologize for the quick de-railing, and will start a new topic on this (it has been brought up before, but some people haven't seen the various sides):

 

2 things. One, this has been true since at least 4th Edition, and it wasn't Steve that said it originally (I believe it was Bruce Harlick, but it could have been one of several of the original crowd). It just wasn't in the book at the time, but was a suggestion much bandied.

 

Secondly, like many people you are leaving out one important part of the rule: for two equally valid powers, you choose the more expensive one. In the example you gave, the more valid power to do an energy blast is Energy Blast, not Drain. The problem with every example I have ever seen, in fact, is that they present an absurd use of Powers to try to demonstrate the flaw in the rule, forgetting that by definition an absurd use of Powers is going to be less valid, or perhaps forgetting that validity is an integral part of the rule.

 

Back on topic: In this case, I probably shouldn't have opened the can of worms, because the 5 point Doubling method isn't valid in the first place. It is well defined in what it is for: spare weapons for the character. The ability to give others a usable suit is in the Usable By Others Advantage, and should stay there.

[GamePhil]

Re: Discussion of 5-point Gadget Doublings

 

Originally posted by JMHammer

I asked Steve about the referenced rule. I won't repeat my (probably inanely) detailed question here,

 

Actually, please do: without knowing what question he was answering, we can't judge the answer. At least post a link to or the title of the query.

[JMHammer]

Original Question to Steve

 

GamePhil,

 

First Question to Steve

 

Followup Question to Steve

 

John H

[GamePhil]

Thanks.

 

All right, I essentially agree with Mr. Long on all points of his response. They could be used as spares, or for Two Weapon Fighting or MPA's or what have you. However, that's where it ends. I don't see too much trouble with this, or with not allowing it for natural powers.

 

However, summing up my views on the subject:

 

1. While I think the MPA is technically legal, such attacks specifically need control by the GM (it is mentioned in their description somewhere), and I wouldn't allow them for reasons already stated.

 

2. TWF is a minor enough advantage (little "a") that the cost for it seems right to me.

 

3. As just spares, they aren't a problem, and if you have enough of them that it should be an OIF only very expensive Powers will benefit from not just taking the lower Limitation. For a 60 point Power with just OAF, you lose point benefit from just having 4 weapons.

 

4. Any Limitation overcome cheaply by having a bunch of the items is no longer a Limitation. We all know what that means.

 

5. Other uses of the doubling are more correctly modeled in other ways, and these ways also happen to be more expensive and applicable to natural Powers as well as Foci.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Dr. Anomaly

Y'know, it's a slight drift in topic, but I've got to comment on this. This "rule" has annoyed me ever since it first made its appearance, and it's one of those things that I STRONGLY disagree with Steve about.

 

LOVE your example.

 

To me, a subset of this issue is, if there is a cheaper way to do it and a more expensive way to do it, yet you get the same net effect, something must be wrong with the pricing in one of the alternatives.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by GamePhil

Thanks.

 

All right, I essentially agree with Mr. Long on all points of his response. They could be used as spares, or for Two Weapon Fighting or MPA's or what have you. However, that's where it ends. I don't see too much trouble with this, or with not allowing it for natural powers.

 

Two weapon fighting is probably legit - the character paid 5 points to have the two foci, so he's entitled to some benefit, and a "natural" powered character can use Sweeps or simlair maneuvers. MPA's, however, is sleay. If you can do that with two guns, why can't FlameBoy achieve the same effect with two hands? Charge him 5 points for the benefit to be equivalent, but a focus should not mean getting a very economical method of making an extra attack.

 

However, summing up my views on the subject:

 

1. While I think the MPA is technically legal, such attacks specifically need control by the GM (it is mentioned in their description somewhere), and I wouldn't allow them for reasons already stated.

 

I concur with the "this is the same power" interpretation. If you want MPA, buy a second, different weapon (even if it's identical in every way, that's OK, but 5 points doesn't buy a second attack with no penalties).

 

2. TWF is a minor enough advantage (little "a") that the cost for it seems right to me.

 

TWF isn't that big a deal, and can be simulated by natural powers easily, at similar cost, so no big deal.

 

3. As just spares, they aren't a problem, and if you have enough of them that it should be an OIF only very expensive Powers will benefit from not just taking the lower Limitation. For a 60 point Power with just OAF, you lose point benefit from just having 4 weapons.

 

And there's no little point taking it for OIF - if they get one hidden device, they probably took all of them.

 

4. Any Limitation overcome cheaply by having a bunch of the items is no longer a Limitation. We all know what that means.

 

5. Other uses of the doubling are more correctly modeled in other ways, and these ways also happen to be more expensive and applicable to natural Powers as well as Foci.

 

In addition to being more expensive, the benefits justify the costs, so I agree.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

LOVE your example.

 

*sigh* But the example is wrong... Oh, nevermind.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

5. Other uses of the doubling are more correctly modeled in other ways, and these ways also happen to be more expensive and applicable to natural Powers as well as Foci.

 

In addition to being more expensive, the benefits justify the costs, so I agree.

 

Really, I should have said, "More balanced". That probably would have gone over better.