Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BoneDaddy

Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

Recommended Posts

Strong Guy 1 has a STR of 60 and throws a car through the goalposts at the local football field for laughs. He spent 50 active points to do that. He does 10d6 damage to two hexes of the bleachers.

 

Strong Guy 2 has a STR of 60 and a power in his Brick Tricks multipower: EB 8d6, AOE 1 hex, range limited by STR, Focus: OIF of opportunity, requires a Brick Tricks roll. He spent 50 active points for the STR, 40 points for the Multipower, and another 2 (I think) for the power, and 13 for the Brick Tricks Power Skill, for a total of 105 points. He misses his Brick Tricks roll (16-, -6 for the AP of the power) and the car tumbles to a stop on the thirty yard line.

 

So, what about it? While you COULD buy this Brick Trick, why the heck would you? Generally, if you are going to do something, you should pay for the privilege, but don't you pay for that privilege of throwing stuff when you buy the STR in the first place? I understand the logic for the more abstract Brick Tricks, like Clinging by virtue of squeezing handholds into any surface, but this particular instance bothered me.

 

What say you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

I say that the guy who buys STR can do it if the GM says that a car is available.

 

A guy who buys the brick tricks will always find a car or something else suitable to do the attack...

 

 

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

For a simple lift & throw ability, I probably wouldn't require a skill roll on it. And what Doc said about objects of opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

Yep. Long ago, we had a couple GMs that would basically penalize you for having extra skills.

 

We came up with "Roll until you fail" after one martial artist was forced to roll acrobatics to hop over a fence. Once for take-off, once for clearing the fence, and once on landing.

 

If you paid points for something, you get an advantage most times, but you're never worse off than if you hadn't bought it. (Unless it's got massive side effects)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

I say that the guy who buys STR can do it if the GM says that a car is available.

 

A guy who buys the brick tricks will always find a car or something else suitable to do the attack...

 

 

Doc

 

I agree...Sit. #1 is you can toss a car when the GM says you can, sit. #2 is I payed points to always be able to do this....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

Focus: OIF of opportunity

 

A guy who buys the brick tricks will always find a car or something else suitable to do the attack...
Not if he takes that Limitation, he won't. If he can always find something to throw, then "I need something to throw" isn't a Limitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

As built, SM1 has to go to the curb, find a car with no one in it (we hope), grab it, schlep it someplace that can withstand having a car tossed from it (with a 3" radius clearance, so he can get some language into it), and throw it, taking an OCV penalty based on throwing, and a DCV penalty for grabbing the vehicle. This might take up to a turn.

 

SM2 is in a location it's reasonable to have a car, and no one's gone to any trouble to clear the area of car-like objects for a turn while SM2 wasn't resisting. He blasts his target with a car, with decent accuracy, and can bounce it if he chooses and has a CSL that applies. This is a half phase action.

 

I see the difference. Do you see the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

As built, SM1 has to go to the curb, find a car with no one in it (we hope), grab it, schlep it someplace that can withstand having a car tossed from it (with a 3" radius clearance, so he can get some language into it), and throw it, taking an OCV penalty based on throwing, and a DCV penalty for grabbing the vehicle. This might take up to a turn.

 

SM2 is in a location it's reasonable to have a car, and no one's gone to any trouble to clear the area of car-like objects for a turn while SM2 wasn't resisting. He blasts his target with a car, with decent accuracy, and can bounce it if he chooses and has a CSL that applies. This is a half phase action.

 

I see the difference. Do you see the difference?

Not sure whether you're addressing the original poster or me (since I posted last). But if it's me, then yes I see the difference. :) I'm not saying that a character with an EB with OIF: Object of Opportunity will have just as much trouble finding (and using) something to throw as a character with STR alone would. I'm just saying that the EB with OIF: Object of Opportunity won't always have something handy to throw. The Limitation has to come in to play sometimes, or it's not a Limitation. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

Not if he takes that Limitation' date=' he won't. If he can always find something to throw, then "I need something to throw" isn't a Limitation.[/quote']

 

I would disagree (and part of that is because of the problems with STR). With just STR the GM has control over whether he can find something to throw (at all). With the focus limitation (in this case) I would rule that the GM has control over what focus he finds to throw which may have impact on accuracy or distance or damage. But he will always have something he can throw.

 

If not then the power is valueless and he might as well stick with STR and pester the GM for things to throw.

 

OIF does limit him in that he is telegraphing his intent to others by what he picks up etc and the focus could be targetted and destroyed in a way that non-focus based powers could not.

 

IMO obviously.

 

 

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

As built, SM1 has to go to the curb, find a car with no one in it (we hope), grab it, schlep it someplace that can withstand having a car tossed from it (with a 3" radius clearance, so he can get some language into it), and throw it, taking an OCV penalty based on throwing, and a DCV penalty for grabbing the vehicle. This might take up to a turn.

 

SM2 is in a location it's reasonable to have a car, and no one's gone to any trouble to clear the area of car-like objects for a turn while SM2 wasn't resisting. He blasts his target with a car, with decent accuracy, and can bounce it if he chooses and has a CSL that applies. This is a half phase action.

 

I see the difference. Do you see the difference?

 

Good point. Another reason way for the GM to limit the seemingly endless benefits of simply buying STR over other powers.

 

 

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

As built, SM1 has to go to the curb, find a car with no one in it (we hope), grab it, schlep it someplace that can withstand having a car tossed from it (with a 3" radius clearance, so he can get some language into it), and throw it, taking an OCV penalty based on throwing, and a DCV penalty for grabbing the vehicle. This might take up to a turn.

 

SM2 is in a location it's reasonable to have a car, and no one's gone to any trouble to clear the area of car-like objects for a turn while SM2 wasn't resisting. He blasts his target with a car, with decent accuracy, and can bounce it if he chooses and has a CSL that applies. This is a half phase action.

 

I see the difference. Do you see the difference?

If I saw the difference right away I wouldn't have asked - if I wanted to show off how smart I was I'd post somewhere dumber.

 

I think you're assuming a lot about SM2's location. Why isn't he penalized for the lack of balance/ aerodynamics of the vehicle he's tossing? I guess because he paid the points for the EB, so rather than the car being a car, it's a special effect. In contrast SM1 is tossing a car with all the inherent penalties.

 

That makes pretty good sense. Thanks for the input.

 

Do you think that the added outlay of points means that SM2 doesn't have to take the time to acquire the focus before heaving it? If he dropped his gun he'd have to take the time to pick it up. I'm not sure I agree with you on the time savings, unless he took Fast Draw with cars (an idea so crazy it borders on genius), and I think SM1 could do that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

Well' date=' not [i']always[/i]. It is OIF after all. More often, certainly.

SM2 lives in a universe with more opportune cars because he bought the EB? That's kind of deep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

If I saw the difference right away I wouldn't have asked - if I wanted to show off how smart I was I'd post somewhere dumber.

 

I think you're assuming a lot about SM2's location. Why isn't he penalized for the lack of balance/ aerodynamics of the vehicle he's tossing? I guess because he paid the points for the EB, so rather than the car being a car, it's a special effect. In contrast SM1 is tossing a car with all the inherent penalties.

 

That makes pretty good sense. Thanks for the input.

 

Some of this is that we're too easy on "grab and throw" maneuvers. Take a look at the FAQ - I think the question is still there. The Q was whether I can grab and throw at another target as a single phase attack action. The answer was that you can grab and toss the target, but not throw him accurately at a second target. Throwing him at another target is a second attack action, so it will require another phase. So one phase to pick up the car, another to throw it at someone. That extra phase is more time than a Haymaker. It should be enforced.

 

The car is not balanced or aerodynamic. That's -4 OCV.

 

Moving beyond the rules as written, I would also eliminate the "automatic area effect" of a thrown object. Characters larger than 1 hex don't get targeted as hexes, they take a DCV penalty. Objects larger than one hex should not target hexes, but get OCV bonuses, and possibly an automatic non-selective AoE if they are large enough. Maybe this should be a tradeoff - you get the bonus OCV on the target you're aiiming at, or normal OCV against all in the area.

 

Do you think that the added outlay of points means that SM2 doesn't have to take the time to acquire the focus before heaving it? If he dropped his gun he'd have to take the time to pick it up. I'm not sure I agree with you on the time savings' date=' unless he took Fast Draw with cars (an idea so crazy it borders on genius), and I think SM1 could do that too.[/quote']

 

The rules are oddly silent on the time required to collect a dropped focus. Even if I required a half phase to pick up the car, it would not have the "extra attack to target and throw" issue, or any OCV penalties. And he paid for AoE so he gets AoE.

 

SM2 lives in a universe with more opportune cars because he bought the EB? That's kind of deep.

 

If I'm going to make that OIF less frequent than any other OIF, he should get a greater limitation. He paid for a power that is no more, and no less, resricted than any other OIF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

SM2 lives in a universe with more opportune cars because he bought the EB? That's kind of deep.

 

Cars, dumpsters, sections of sidewalk or street... It's bought 'object of opportunity', not 'automobile of opportunity'.

 

Comic said it best here. Review his post because he's right on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

SM2 lives in a universe with more opportune cars because he bought the EB? That's kind of deep.

 

To me, that's what points are all about - the ability to skew the story in the favour of the player character. If you spend points on something then it is yours to use (unless you limit that use).

 

If you indicate that you want to grab opponents and smash them into the ground then you might try that using STR and opposing etc. You might also buy it as a large hand attack to represent that extra damage that comes from driving people into the ground....

 

You take control of the narrative agenda by having spent points on something....so if the points are spent to represent opportune cars then that is what you get.

 

:)

 

 

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

This is one area I've thought about a lot. There are others.

 

Whilst I can certainly see the ultility gained from having a 'throw a car' brick trick, I'm quite sure it is not worth the cost. That depends, of course, what else is in your multipower, but bear with me on this.

 

Why Throw A Car as a brick trick?

 

Well, because you get a better chance of hitting and some range on your strength and you can do it more quickly.

 

Well, you can get the range anyway - it is part of the build for strength (I think when I started musing on this - I may even have posted about it ages ago - I was thinking that we ought to pay for using STR at range too). The brick trick gives you an improved ability to hit (but a naked advantage on your STR could do that for 37 points, if you make it one hex AoE 0 END), and allows you to grab and throw in a single action (well, if you start at SPD 5 you could buy 5 extra SPD only for throwing stuff you've grabbed -1 1/2 for 20 points)

 

Now the costs I quote don't have any of this silly 'brick tricks' roll nonsense: RSR is an advantage that should be tortured to death, or, for that matter, the 'object of opportunity thing (and personally I believe that 'object of opportunity', being a limitation and giving you a cost break, does not make it any easier to find an appropriate object IT IS A LIMITATION. it also does not guarantee the object of opportunity you grab is unoccupied), so you could make it cheaper yet. In fact you could buy a bunch of limited skill levels with OCV (5 point levels, requires object of opportunity -1/2, only for STR based attacks -1/2) and spend 20 points for +8 to hit (which you can convert into a sweep if you want to hit lots of people, to simulate, perhaps, the car skidding along the ground a bit).

 

Bottom line is that this sort of brick trick DOES have its advantages, but you can get them a lot cheaper elsewhere, and this sort of build is only worth it if it is in a MP. Of course if it IS in a MP then the benefit of adding limitations is minimal as you are probably not going to be able to manage common limitations (object of opportunity, maybe), so you might as well not bother limiting yourself any more than you absolutely need to - it is not a cost efficient way of doing it.

 

Now before someone pricks my conscience about being a damn munchkin:

 

1. I haven't GOT a conscience, at least about that sort of thing

2. Why do you say 'munchkin' as if it is a bad thing?

 

Grr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

This is one area I've thought about a lot. There are others.

 

Whilst I can certainly see the ultility gained from having a 'throw a car' brick trick, I'm quite sure it is not worth the cost. That depends, of course, what else is in your multipower, but bear with me on this....

 

LOL. That's almost the same point I think I made in another thread about...hmm, handcuffs, I think it was. In a sense this is rebuilding (perhaps with a few little tweaks and differences) something you can do with basic Str and--SURPRISE!--it comes out to be more expensive when you recreate it. Likewise rebuilding a piece of Everyman equipment like handcuffs, lampposts and even toasters is probably not going to be worth the points. So what if you want a lamppost with a camera on it, or a toaster that works twice as fast as any normal toaster? Do we need to recreate the lamppost/toaster in order to add something to it? Idonknow. ;):P:cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

the 'object of opportunity thing (and personally I believe that 'object of opportunity'' date=' being a limitation and giving you a cost break, does not make it any easier to find an appropriate object IT IS A LIMITATION. it also does not guarantee the object of opportunity you grab is unoccupied), so you could make it cheaper yet. [/quote']

 

 

OK.

 

Three characters.

 

One has bought STR

 

One has STR and brick tricks with OIF

 

One has STR and brick tricks no OIF limitation used.

 

 

As a player I would expect increasing utility of picking up objects and gaiing some effect from them. Yes OIF is a limitation and it will limit the availability of objects - it should not however limit it more than the person who has not spent any points at all on picking things up and throwing them. The last person should always have something that can be picked up and thrown - no limits on the power...that would be even more unrealistic.

 

You know where arguments like this take me though don't you - no characteristics and we know where that leads! :D

 

 

Doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

LOL. That's almost the same point I think I made in another thread about...hmm' date=' handcuffs, I think it was. In a sense this is rebuilding (perhaps with a few little tweaks and differences) something you can do with basic Str and--SURPRISE!--it comes out to be more expensive when you recreate it. Likewise rebuilding a piece of Everyman equipment like handcuffs, lampposts and even toasters is probably not going to be worth the points. So what if you want a lamppost with a camera on it, or a toaster that works twice as fast as any normal toaster? Do we need to recreate the lamppost/toaster in order to add something to it? Idonknow. ;):P:cool:[/quote']

 

My ethics and logic are highly situational :D

 

Personally I think some OAF Independent STR is an excellent way to model handcuffs (although you probably need a trigger to simulate the key - or you could even buy the key as anaked trigger advantage...) but I'm not sure entangle IS a good way to do it.

 

STR is astonishingly useful. In this instance the problem is that you are paying to do something a bit better, but something you can already do - you can find a large object and, if you are strong enough - you can pick it up and throw it, and expect to effectively add range to your strength damage and get either an AoE effect or a substantial OCV bonus.

 

That's why buying it as a seperate power is a very long winded (and expensive) way of going about it: you are better off just buying stuff to give you the bonuses you want: you already have range based on STR and AoE/+OCV so you just need more speed (to grab and throw accurately) or a naked trigger on your STR (so you can throw after a grab and not take any longer doing it) and maybe a few levels to compensate for throwing unbalanced bulky objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

OK.

 

Three characters.

 

One has bought STR

 

One has STR and brick tricks with OIF

 

One has STR and brick tricks no OIF limitation used.

 

 

As a player I would expect increasing utility of picking up objects and gaiing some effect from them. Yes OIF is a limitation and it will limit the availability of objects - it should not however limit it more than the person who has not spent any points at all on picking things up and throwing them. The last person should always have something that can be picked up and thrown - no limits on the power...that would be even more unrealistic.

 

You know where arguments like this take me though don't you - no characteristics and we know where that leads! :D

 

 

Doc

Well, it may just be a waste of points for that attack. For a HKA (range based on STR) or a RKA (same) the OIF may make good sense, and represent the brick's ability to hit you with a car really hard.

 

Not all power builds make good sense, and I'm inclined to believe this is one of them. I'm having similar suspicions about Rope Reach, from The Ultimate Brick.

 

And a Naked Trigger on STR - sounds dirty but it looks pretty smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest steamteck

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

I'll just be the party pooper here and say the "brick tricks" seems like an insane complication myself. Maybe ( but maybe not I dislike the mindset behind it.) for stuff that STR doesn't normally allow but for throwing cars and stuff. Nawwwww.

 

OK, you can continue now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

I'll just be the party pooper here and say the "brick tricks" seems like an insane complication myself. Maybe ( but maybe not I dislike the mindset behind it.) for stuff that STR doesn't normally allow but for throwing cars and stuff. Nawwwww.

 

OK, you can continue now.

 

 

Gawd Dammit! I'm the party pooper!

 

I'd like to second the above post...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Logical Consequences vs. Conscientious Point Allocation

 

I'll just be the party pooper here and say the "brick tricks" seems like an insane complication myself. Maybe ( but maybe not I dislike the mindset behind it.) for stuff that STR doesn't normally allow but for throwing cars and stuff. Nawwwww.

 

I have to agree there. I'm okay with the Power skill doing some of that on its own (allowing you to apply Str in interesting and unusual ways), even without complimentary power builds. In my mind it should be good for SOMETHING other than just being used for RSR rolls.

 

On the other hand I guess maybe it can get boring playing a brick at times, which maybe is why the interesting little Multipowers often spring up. I don't know. I'm not sure I've ever actually tried it, except with NPCs.... :nonp:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...