More comfortable in fire than out

[Thia Halmades]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

IDHMBIFOM, but I know that one of my players is Desolid, "Only versus incoming ranged attacks." That's it; he's not really desolidified; I have a bunch of spells that use the same 'side-step' to generate effects that I otherwise can't get. I'll double check the rules when I get home, but this is HERO, so I can't really say that it wouldn't be legal; you've limited what you're "desolid" towards. I know that it works because Chris was actually quite specific that any NPC could just waltz up and punch him in the head.

 

What was really funny was the look on the faces of the three heavies that unloaded autocannon fire into him... from six hexes away, and he was totally unscathed. That bothered and confused them.

[nexus]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

IDHMBIFOM' date=' but I know that one of my players is Desolid, "Only versus incoming ranged attacks." That's it; he's not [i']really[/i] desolidified; I have a bunch of spells that use the same 'side-step' to generate effects that I otherwise can't get. I'll double check the rules when I get home, but this is HERO, so I can't really say that it wouldn't be legal; you've limited what you're "desolid" towards. I know that it works because Chris was actually quite specific that any NPC could just waltz up and punch him in the head.

 

What was really funny was the look on the faces of the three heavies that unloaded autocannon fire into him... from six hexes away, and he was totally unscathed. That bothered and confused them.

 

Technically, if you have Desolidification in any form and want to affect the real world with a "Attack" you have to get Affects Real World on that ability even if you Desol is limited. I know quite a few that house rule that and I've done it myself.

[Sean Waters]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

File this as the only time I might not roll my eyes. Sean used to pull this all the time, and I've never agreed with it, but in this ONE CASE it might be accurate. Doubtful. But more possible than the other times I've seen it.

 

666d6 needs desolid. Only versus HellFire and Associated Special Effects, Always On, 0 END, and there's a thing in Desolid that specifies you aren't actually 'desolid,' not unlike the "must pass through intervening space" lim on Teleport.

 

 

WHAT?

 

In a case where there are no hard coded rules (i.e. where the GM is making up the whole 'afterlife' thing anyway, then it is a pretty good way to go. I promise I won't mention it this time as I know how it upsets you* (If it is any consolation I get just as upset about desolid being used for invulnerability )

 

BTW I recall getting really excited once, a long time ago, when I got DR the wrong way around and thought that defences works after DR rather than before: true invulnerablity was in reach: then the bubble burst. The answer has already been given, but that is what I meant. Thanks to Outsider on that one

 

 

 

*...and it has already been mentioned

[Vestnik]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

Why not just get Personal Immunity on his attacks? Would that work?

[Vanguard]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

Technically' date=' if you have Desolidification in any form and want to affect the real world with a "Attack" you have to get Affects Real World on that ability even if you Desol is limited. I know quite a few that house rule that and I've done it myself.[/quote']

 

Don't have access to my books currently but I do believe that if you have an extremely limited form of Desol (as in this case) then, at the GM's option, you don't have to buy Affects Real World on your other powers.

 

I also believe this was stated earlier so if it was, I apologize for repeating it.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

Don't have access to my books currently but I do believe that if you have an extremely limited form of Desol (as in this case) then, at the GM's option, you don't have to buy Affects Real World on your other powers.

 

I also believe this was stated earlier so if it was, I apologize for repeating it.

 

It's my understanding of the rule, actually, but I'll look it up when I get home. And send Louis a ton of H:CE material. And write up a Red Dragon. And maybe, possibly, get to bed before 2am.

 

G-d I'm such a junkie.

[Sean Waters]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

Affects desol: limited sfx = invulnerability, and you don't need to buy 'affects real world'.

 

Silliness, as far as I can see. It is not desolid, it is not following the rules for desolid, why call it desolid? So that anyone with 'fire that affects desolid' can hit you with it? Does that make sense? If someone points a fire atatck at you does it pass through, as if you are desolid, or do you stop it?

 

Why, in short, do we need this poorly thought out rule? It comes with such a startling lack of clarification that, were I anyone else, I'd be speechless.

 

I'm not going to go on about the possible fixes, because this is not a thread on invulnerability (yet), but I'll re-iterate; if all you want to do is withstand normal living room fires in a superhero game, I'd let you get away with Life Support.

[ghost-angel]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

There's a specific option of Desolid that if you buy it so limited it only works vs a single SFX (essentially reverse the Desolid model) that you don't need the requisite "Affects Real World" on any of your other powers.

 

After that your only other option for Full Immunity is the Absolute Effects Optional Rule, which states if you buy enough of a single Resistant Defense to a specific SFX you are immune to it (I forget the exact proposed number, it might be 30, or 60 or somewhere in between - or left up to the GM).

 

Both options require GM Permission as both options bypass the general Hero System aversion to Absolutes.

[nexus]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

Don't have access to my books currently but I do believe that if you have an extremely limited form of Desol (as in this case) then, at the GM's option, you don't have to buy Affects Real World on your other powers.

 

Yep, it's a GM's Option, not a hard rule so it might not fly in every campaign. "Book legal", IMO, means that it barring GM fiat, it would be legal in any game. I use that option myself and haven't had any problem with it. I even allow characters with Desol that doesn't protect them from attack.

 

Normally, because the character is still technically

solid and able to interact with the solid world

freely, he must buy Aff ects Physical World for his

STR and all Powers that can aff ect physical objects

(unless the GM gives permission otherwise). Th is

makes Desolidifi cation a very expensive form of

defense. However, at the GM’s option, a character

with a limited form of Desolidifi cation doesn’t have

to buy Aff ects Physical World; he can touch and

aff ect the solid world automatically.

[Sean Waters]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

Book legal, in this instance, means, as far as I can see, it has just been made up. That may sound daft: it has all been made up. Mind you most of it has grown from the kernel of consistent concepts. This, well, this is just (is there a profanity filter on this site? I never know). Just because it actually IS in the book doesn't mean it has any place there.

[archermoo]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

Yep' date=' it's a GM's Option, not a hard rule so it might not fly in every campaign. "Book legal", IMO, means that it barring GM fiat, it would be legal in any game. I use that option myself and haven't had any problem with it. I even allow characters with Desol that doesn't protect them from attack.[/quote']

 

Personally I don't see "At GM's discretion" stuff as being an less "legal" than abilities with a Stop Sign on them. But I suppose each to their own. Not having to take "Affects Real World" on all your stuff if you take a very limited form of Desolid is part of the Rules As Written as far as I'm concerned. With a Stop Sign, but it is still in there.

[archermoo]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

Book legal' date=' in this instance, means, as far as I can see, it has just been made up. That may sound daft: it has all been made up. Mind you most of it has grown from the kernel of consistent concepts. This, well, this is just (is there a profanity filter on this site? I never know). Just because it actually IS in the book doesn't mean it has any place there.[/quote']

 

As a moderator: No there isn't a profanity filter on the Hero boards any longer. Instead of an automatic filter we simply expect our members to not use profanity. The use of profanity can result in a warning or even an infraction.

[archermoo]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

Book legal' date=' in this instance, means, as far as I can see, it has just been made up. That may sound daft: it has all been made up. Mind you most of it has grown from the kernel of consistent concepts. This, well, this is just (is there a profanity filter on this site? I never know). Just because it actually IS in the book doesn't mean it has any place there.[/quote']

 

[Mod hat off]

 

Okay, we get it Sean. You don't like it. But to some (I think rather large) percentage of us it makes perfect sense, seems perfectly consistant with the rules, and so certainly has a place in them.

[Sean Waters]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

As a moderator: No there isn't a profanity filter on the Hero boards any longer. Instead of an automatic filter we simply expect our members to not use profanity. The use of profanity can result in a warning or even an infraction.

 

Thank goodness I didn't say what I was thinking then.

[nexus]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

Book legal' date=' in this instance, means, as far as I can see, it has just been made up. That may sound daft: it has all been made up. Mind you most of it has grown from the kernel of consistent concepts. This, well, this is just (is there a profanity filter on this site? I never know). Just because it actually IS in the book doesn't mean it has any place there.[/quote']

 

wtf? I didn't -write- it.

 

Personally I don't see "At GM's discretion" stuff as being an less "legal" than abilities with a Stop Sign on them. But I suppose each to their own. Not having to take "Affects Real World" on all your stuff if you take a very limited form of Desolid is part of the Rules As Written as far as I'm concerned. With a Stop Sign' date=' but it is still in there.[/quote']

 

Perfectly understanble. I just felt it was honest to state that having to effect Affects Real World is an Option not nessecarily RAW, essentially a suggested House rule. Even the book points out that normally you would you have too purchase Effects Real World on anything you wanted to effect real world while you were desolid but that's it's an expensive effect, probably too expensive for what it does and suggests an option.

[Sean Waters]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

[Mod hat off]

 

Okay, we get it Sean. You don't like it. But to some (I think rather large) percentage of us it makes perfect sense, seems perfectly consistant with the rules, and so certainly has a place in them.

 

I think this is a place where we will never have a meeting of minds. To me, everything about desolid that makes it desolid is changed utterly to create limited invulnerability. I would not mind, at least nowhere near so much, if the exact same mechanic appeared under a different heading, as a different power. that is just throwing a cost at a concept.

 

However, cramming the desolid idea into this concept is (sorry, what did you say about the profanity filter?).

 

I appreciate that is just a difference in perspective. What bugs the hell out of me though is that, well, it is just so ill considered. Looking at the book, tell me:

 

1. If you are (say) invulnerable to bullets, and someone shoots you, does it bounce off your chest, or hit the guy behind you?

2. How in the name of all that is holy does this mechanic interact with the 'affects desolid' advantage?

 

if we are going to stick 'invulnerability' in the system, go for it. But do it properly. Don't hide it behind a stop sign and a 'GM permission' warning. That just isn't good enough. Think it through, all the way, before it hits print.

 

Sorry, it is just that Hero is so consistent and, well, logical, by and large that this kind of OFFICIAL kludging really gets my goat, and probably does something profane to it. It is simply not necessary....**sigh** I guess the Rant switch got flicked again without me noticing, huh?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

I completely agree with Sean that the "Desolid as Invulnerability" rule is a poorly thought-out kludge that doesn't even work completely.

 

I prefer the 100% Damage Reduction method. It's more consistant and makes more sense, and it works better, even though it's not in the book. 80 points for Physical or Energy, 120 points for resistant (P or E). Then limit with the appropriate SFX. "Only vs. Fire and Heat" would probably be about -1/2 to -1, depending on campaign considerations.

[Sean Waters]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

wtf? I didn't -write- it.

 

 

 

I'm sorry if I offended. I just don't think that just because something is written down in the rules we have to accept it, and you were using book legal as a reason why we should. At least that is how I read your post.

[archermoo]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

I think this is a place where we will never have a meeting of minds. To me, everything about desolid that makes it desolid is changed utterly to create limited invulnerability. I would not mind, at least nowhere near so much, if the exact same mechanic appeared under a different heading, as a different power. that is just throwing a cost at a concept.

 

However, cramming the desolid idea into this concept is (sorry, what did you say about the profanity filter?).

 

I appreciate that is just a difference in perspective. What bugs the hell out of me though is that, well, it is just so ill considered. Looking at the book, tell me:

 

1. If you are (say) invulnerable to bullets, and someone shoots you, does it bounce off your chest, or hit the guy behind you?

2. How in the name of all that is holy does this mechanic interact with the 'affects desolid' advantage?

 

if we are going to stick 'invulnerability' in the system, go for it. But do it properly. Don't hide it behind a stop sign and a 'GM permission' warning. That just isn't good enough. Think it through, all the way, before it hits print.

 

Sorry, it is just that Hero is so consistent and, well, logical, by and large that this kind of OFFICIAL kludging really gets my goat, and probably does something profane to it. It is simply not necessary....**sigh** I guess the Rant switch got flicked again without me noticing, huh?

 

Personally, I don't see anything more wrong with it than buying a Killing Attack NND and not buying Does Body for it. But as I said, obviously you don't like it. In my experience when people feel the need to stack up derisive language on a topic whenever they talk about it there probably isn't any chance of having a productive conversation with them on that topic. So I guess we should leave it at "Yup, I don't see us having a meeting of minds on this one".

[Sean Waters]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

Personally' date=' I don't see anything more wrong with it than buying a Killing Attack NND and not buying Does Body for it. But as I said, obviously you don't like it. In my experience when people feel the need to stack up derisive language on a topic whenever they talk about it there probably isn't any chance of having a productive conversation with them on that topic. So I guess we should leave it at "Yup, I don't see us having a meeting of minds on this one". [/quote']

 

 

I have issues with KAs too, but they are of a very different order entirely.

 

And, with respect, I deliberately and I thought, humourously, avoided using derisive language. But I have to admit the thought was there.

 

Mind you, sly linguistic backhanders is not my only line of argument - I've also made some points that have not been addressed by the yea-sayers: they boil down to this: how does this work then?

 

I am not simply reacting viscerally. This is a genuine point of concern for me in a system that is generally so well thought out.

[archermoo]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

I have issues with KAs too, but they are of a very different order entirely.

 

And, with respect, I deliberately and I thought, humourously, avoided using derisive language. But I have to admit the thought was there.

 

Mind you, sly linguistic backhanders is not my only line of argument - I've also made some points that have not been addressed by the yea-sayers: they boil down to this: how does this work then?

 

I am not simply reacting viscerally. This is a genuine point of concern for me in a system that is generally so well thought out.

 

You avoided using profane language. That isn't the same as avoiding using derisive language.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

You avoided using profane language. That isn't the same as avoiding using derisive language.

His "derisive" language was not directed against any person, but against a specific concept in the game.

[Sean Waters]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

You avoided using profane language. That isn't the same as avoiding using derisive language.

 

No, you're right. I notice you're avoiding answering the questions I asked. Hang on, I'm getting a premonition...it's up to the...no, it's gone.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

I dunno. I find the rule to be incredibly useful, especially in limited conditions to simulate (to an extent) invulnerability; or super luck, or some other SFX. I appreciate your position, but my point originally was that it is in the rules, and it is.

 

It's your game, Sean, you don't have to use the rules you don't want.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: More comfortable in fire than out

 

Ah, good, it fixed itself. That was... nuts.