A limitation that does not limit

[Sean Waters]

Something I’d like to discuss is the well-worn axiom that a limitation that does not limit the character is not worth a cost break.

I think we can all agree that a limitation like ‘Does not work in outer space’ is not worth anything in a campaign that never has and never will take the characters into outer space. I hope we can all agree on that anyway…

No, the problems arise when the character has two powers that ‘compliment’ each other, like Damage Reduction (only v STUN) and 20 PD/20ED armour, or an EB that can only work by intensifying and directing existing fire and another ability that allows the production of fire.

My view is that you should take the limitation into consideration only in regard to the campaign setting not the character, so if you have enough armour that you are never realistically going to take BODY damage you can still get the cost break for ‘Only v STUN’ on your damage reduction.

My reasoning is that:

• You’ve paid for the armour ability – you shouldn’t be point penalised for having done so.
  
• You might lose the armour to a drain or other adjustment power so the limitation could still bite
  

Now I know there are differing views on this so I thought it might be nice to have a little discussion so we can set out our stalls and maybe come to a common consensus.

Hell, it COULD happen J

So, what do you all think – should you get a cost break for a limitation when you have bought a power that means it is far less limiting, and should it be the same as the limitation would be if you didn’t have that compensating power?

[JmOz]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

I agree with you

 

I think the same logic applies to Disads, where I first started thinking about it

 

I make a Daredevil Clone, I pay 15 points for my Active Sonar, then I only get to basicaly*take color blind because I have spent my points on Active Sonar. So my ability to perceive is not greater than most of my peers (Admitingly I "see" differently, but net gain is marginal to non existant), I have spent points and I dont get much compensation... Does not seem fair to me

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

I think the question to ask is, does the Limitation limit the Power or does it limit the character?

 

I'm not going to answer it for you, but the answer to that question will lead you to where you want to go.

 

Hint: A character has a Ranged Killing Attack Power of his own. He carries an RKA gun around. Does the gun still get OAF?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

Sean - I know I asked if the boards were quiet but come on!

 

People, start talking - if we dont then Sean feels the need to bring up topics of discussion!

[sbarron]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

My gut reaction is that the whether the limit limits the character is the question. But I could go either way with this. So long as it was consistant.

 

Personally, I think there is little question that the Stun only limit would not actually reduce the effectiveness of damage reduction 95% of the time in a supers game. 99% in any other type. So is that really a limit? I don't see how. Maybe if drains were really common attacks...but they almost never are.

 

On the one hand, you could argue your point penalizing the character. On the other hand, you could say that he shouldn't waste points buying 20pd/20ed if he's buying damage reduction.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

My gut reaction is that the whether the limit limits the character is the question. But I could go either way with this. So long as it was consistant.

 

Personally, I think there is little question that the Stun only limit would not actually reduce the effectiveness of damage reduction 95% of the time in a supers game. 99% in any other type. So is that really a limit? I don't see how. Maybe if drains were really common attacks...but they almost never are.

 

On the one hand, you could argue your point penalizing the character. On the other hand, you could say that he shouldn't waste points buying 20pd/20ed if he's buying damage reduction.

 

 

 

...then your head explodes...

[Sean Waters]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

Sean - I know I asked if the boards were quiet but come on!

 

People, start talking - if we dont then Sean feels the need to bring up topics of discussion!

 

What's your point, Democracy?

 

I'm just trying to start a friendly little fight here.

[NestorDRod]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

This reminds me of a player I knew way back in college with a well-deserved reputation for munchkinness.

 

He claimed that having a character with "EB, Works only in Darkness" and "Darkness, 0 END, Always On" was a perfectly valid build (mind you, this was way back with Champions 2nd edition). Oh, and the target didn't have to be in the Darkness field to be hit by the EB.

 

I argued that it wasn't valid since having Darkness meant that the EB was not limited. In hindsight, I guess I would've suggested Linked as a Limitation on the EB instead, but hey, those were younger, stupider days.

 

Generally, I'll take concept over rules so it's hard for me to establish an ironclad rule. I evaluate the concept and apply a Limitation value that I feel reflects how limiting it actually is, regardless of what the books say the value should be.

[sbarron]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

...then your head explodes...

Ok, I deserved that. Let me translate for the rest of you...

 

My gut reaction is that the question is whether the limit limits the character. But I could go either way with this. So long as it was consistant.

 

Personally, the Stun only limit would not be a limit to damage reduction 95% of the time in a supers game. 99% in any other type. So is that really a limit? I don't see how. Maybe if drains were really common attacks...but they almost never are.

 

On the one hand, you could argue the character is being penalized for the powers he purchased. On the other hand, you could say that he shouldn't waste points buying 20pd/20ed if he's also buying damage reduction.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

Ok, I deserved that. Let me translate for the rest of you...

 

My gut reaction is that the question is whether the limit limits the character. But I could go either way with this. So long as it was consistant.

 

Personally, the Stun only limit would not be a limit to damage reduction 95% of the time in a supers game. 99% in any other type. So is that really a limit? I don't see how. Maybe if drains were really common attacks...but they almost never are.

 

On the one hand, you could argue the character is being penalized for the powers he purchased. On the other hand, you could say that he shouldn't waste points buying 20pd/20ed if he's also buying damage reduction.

 

OK, I deserved that

 

Here's the problem though: several characters have bought physical damage reduction (stun only) in a game where 60 point attacks are capped.

 

Character one has bought all of his 10 PD with the limitation that it doesn't stop Body damage, so even normal attacks leave him a bloody mess.

 

Character two has 10 normal pd but no resistant defences.

 

Character three has 10 normal pd and 6 resistant pd, bought as armour.

 

Character four has 10 pd, all bought with damage resistance.

 

Character five has 16 pd all bought with damage resistance.

 

Character six has 10 normal pd and 10 resistant pd bought as armour.

 

Character seven has 8 normal pd and 8 pd bought as force field.

 

Character eight has 6 normal pd but eight extra levels in DCV, so he's hardly ever hit.

 

Character nine has desolidification, 12 normal pd and one of those points are made resistant by damage reduction.

 

Character ten has invisibility, 7 normal pd and 3 resistant pd bought as combat luck.

 

Character eleven has four times as much Body as any of the other characters and has regeneration.

 

Character twelve has a team mate with healing.

 

Character thirteen has a team mate with force wall.

 

What limitation value does each of the characters get for 'Stun only' on their damage reduction?

 

(head in a helmet to stop it exploding, or at least to prevent any mess when it does)

[Hyper-Man]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

...

 

I think we can all agree that a limitation like ‘Does not work in outer space’ is not worth anything in a campaign that never has and never will take the characters into outer space. I hope we can all agree on that anyway…

 

 

Actually, it depends on what aspect of being in "outer space" affects the powers since it happens to be a BIG bucket of various sfx.

 

vacuum (low to non-existent air pressure)

radiation (that does not normally reach the surface of the earth)

temperature (extreme high or low depending on whether in direct sunlight)

...

 

I'm sure I have missed other effects but these 3 are all fairly common in a supers game. The point is that each of these effects individually could be created by another character's powers. It could just be 1 of these conditions that cause the character's powers to not work.

 

So even if the affected character has no chance of going into outer space he still has a chance of encountering the condition that negatively affects his powers.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

actually, it depends on what aspect of being in "outer space" affects the powers since it happens to be a big bucket of various sfx.

 

Vacuum (low to non-existent air pressure)

radiation (that does not normally reach the surface of the earth)

temperature (extreme high or low depending on whether in direct sunlight)

...

 

I'm sure i have missed other effects but these 3 are all fairly common in a supers game. The point is that each of these effects individually could be created by another character's powers. It could just be 1 of these conditions that cause the character's powers to not work.

 

So even if the affected character has no chance of going into outer space he still has a chance of encountering the condition that negatively affects his powers.

 

 

You must spread some reputation before giving it to hyper-man again...

[Hyper-Man]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

re: Damage Reduction combined with some type of Limited static defense (Armor, FF, etc..)

 

I wouldn't normally* allow a character to have the combination of Limited static defenses PLUS Damage Reduction unless it also had the same Limitations. I might allow the combo in a situation where the Limited static defense is a personal power and the DRed is built into a focus.

 

As pointed out already, The unlimited DRed can almost completely negate some static defense Limitations (like vs. BODY only). I would allow the reverse combination (unlimited static + limited DRed).

[ghost-angel]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

Also, you have to take into account that Damage Reduction works vs NND and AVLD. So you also have to consider will you ever had NND or AVLD attacks with Does Body in the campaign? Then the Damage Reduction;Stun Only is Limited there too.

 

Sean is on the right track - you can't Just consider weather a Limitation is Limited within the context of the Character Sheet, but also within the context of the Campaign. The Character Sheet may reduce the value of the Limitation when combinations are considered, but the Campaign may not reduce is all the way to 0, or might even bring it back up to full value.

[Istaran]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

I think in this case we're looking at a more complicated topic than people are acknowledging. The price of Damage Reduction is balanced on the assumption that it is a defense that protects from both STUN and BODY damage. In this case you are not buying that full package deal. You are buying only the defense versus STUN aspect of the power. The other aspect of the power will only be missed when the GM acts to make it missed, it's true. However, the player is not purchasing the full power, only one half of it. The fact that the limitation is 'not limiting' in this case is because the power is already reduced in usefulness for this character, and therefore worth less points for him than it would be for a character that regularly takes BODY damage.

 

I guess in a more general sense I would say that the limitations that cause a power to give only part of the package deal (STUN only or BODY only for DR, Not to avoid damage or Not to pass through solid objects for Desolid, Not to form Barriers for Entangle, etc) should always be allowed, even if they wouldn't be a serious impediment to the character. Whatever makes the neglected part of the power worthless to the character means the power is less valuable for that character and therefore worth less points.

[tesuji]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

Well two issues -

 

First i fall solidly on the case of "no" to the initial question - if the campaign specs are such thattaking body beyond the value listed wont occur then i wont credit him with gaining any value for "stun only" on his DR. it does not limit the character and wont ever have an impact so why cut points. I would not assess "stun only" as half the value of DR either, its more like 1/3 to 1/4.

 

But consider this - would you allow every character for instance, if you are on the side of "i limited the power - only gaining half the effect" to buy "only vs stun" on his PD/ED force fields too? What about on half his force field? I mean in most cases most of every defense stops stunn and the body damage is rarely half that.

 

So take a typical brick at 25/10r pd would you allow him to cut the price of say defenses above 15 that last 10 pd by saying "only vs stun"?

 

sounds like just a mechanics point shaving for "you know mostly we just take stun so lets be cheap"

 

DR "only vs stun" for me would gain points ONLY when considering how often attacks against that character would get body thru. if its half the time then i credit it at that level, if its occasional, then likely -1/4, etc.

 

thats my take at least.

 

to be clear, the lim is allowed but the value of the lim will be different depending on how much it will affect the character.

[Istaran]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

So, to you "DR, only versus STUN" is a more valuable thing to have on a character that does not typically take BODY damage than on a character that does?

 

To me: DR vs STUN has a value, DR vs BODY has a value, and DR vs STUN and BODY has a value (though I'm not convinced that -1 is appropriate for both STUN only and BODY only; to be fair I think DR does more vs STUN than BODY any way you slice it) and these values should be not be priced based on what your defenses are.

 

(Though as I've discussed in another thread, under 6e I think, it probably should be scaled based on how much STUN/BODY you are protecting with it.)

[Istaran]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

So take a typical brick at 25/10r pd would you allow him to cut the price of say defenses above 15 that last 10 pd by saying "only vs stun"?

 

Yes, and then I would poke him with armor piercing attacks. What's that, only 8 pd vs my BODY damage?

[Vondy]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

If it limits the power its a limitation.

 

If it limits the character its a disadvantage.

 

I.e., A character with radar may have targeting sense, but he still can't see.

 

What's the problem, again?

[jtelson]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

If it limits the power its a limitation.

 

If it limits the character its a disadvantage.

 

I.e., A character with radar may have targeting sense, but he still can't see.

 

What's the problem, again?

 

The question/problem is, 'How much is not being able to see worth at that point?'

 

There's a line in the description of Physical Limits that something like 'If the character has a power that counteracts his physical limit, the GM may want to consider reducing the value.' I think it even goes on to suggest that in some cases the value may be 0.

 

So I guess at least part of the problem is deciding if that passage has merit.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

The question/problem is, 'How much is not being able to see worth at that point?'

 

There's a line in the description of Physical Limits that something like 'If the character has a power that counteracts his physical limit, the GM may want to consider reducing the value.' I think it even goes on to suggest that in some cases the value may be 0.

 

So I guess at least part of the problem is deciding if that passage has merit.

 

I think the issue is that this passage is an example of an issue I see in Hero too often. We chant the mantra "A limitation that does not limit is worth no points. A disadvantage that is not disadvantageous is worth no points."

 

We should be equally quick to advise that "An ability that provides no incremental benefit costs no points." If I'm not going to use "KS: Medieval Italian Literature 17-" from the character's skill list any more often than "short-cropped brown hair" from his description, then the cost of both should be the same - NIL. They are background elements. And if the character can't see, but has a compensatory radar sense that reduces the drawbacks of blindness to 10 points of value instead of 25, and provides no additional benefits, it seems to me that character should either:

 

- have "Sees by Radar" as a 10 point physical limitation and get the radar sense for free, or

 

- pay 15 points for Radar Sense and get the full 25 points for Blindness.

 

We agree that the character has lost 10 points' worth of benefits in total. Why is he paying 5 points, net, for a 10 point net loss?

[Blue Jogger]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

Something I’d like to discuss is the well-worn axiom that a limitation that does not limit the character is not worth a cost break.

 

Ok, let's make it really simple.

 

We'll start with the typical 300 point energy projector, called unimaginately Hero1.

 

I now buy all my END-using powers with an additional legitimate limitation, "Costs x2 END". So everything has a -1/2 limitation because all my non-natural powers take twice as much energy as they should.

 

Ok, now I double my natural REC and END. Hero2 now created, should be cheaper than Hero1.

 

Hero2 also has effectively a 50% resistance to END Drains than Hero1 (which seems backwards, but Hero2 has twice as much END).

 

Hero2 can do everything Hero1 can do, plus a little more (natural STR and natural Running costs normal END).

 

Hero2 is cheaper, and yet is oddly superior to Hero1.

[Vondy]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

The question/problem is, 'How much is not being able to see worth at that point?'

 

There's a line in the description of Physical Limits that something like 'If the character has a power that counteracts his physical limit, the GM may want to consider reducing the value.' I think it even goes on to suggest that in some cases the value may be 0.

 

So I guess at least part of the problem is deciding if that passage has merit.

 

If your game is combat-monger-city and it all boils down to "targeting," probably 0. If you actually need sight to accomplish other tasks in the game - quite a bit. But that's self evident in the underlying principles that drive rules, isn't it? That's why I don't get the question.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

If your game is combat-monger-city and it all boils down to "targeting' date='" probably 0. If you actually need sight to accomplish other tasks in the game - quite a bit. But that's self evident in the underlying principles that drive rules, isn't it? That's why I don't get the question.[/quote']

 

Hey DareDevil:

 

- pull the red wire quick or it will explode. The other 999 wires will set it off immediately if you pull any of them.

 

- can't you read that sign over there? It says "radioactivity - do not enter"

 

He has GAINED other senses (for which the rules say he must pay)

and LOST his sight (so why no point break for the loss?)

[Marcus]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

This kind of thing is not uncommon in Hero. We mostly handle it hearabouts with house rules and handwavium.

 

The point about 'sees with radio instead of vision' is a good one... I think a limitation (for however much functionality is lost) is appropriate, combined with points paid for any advantage (such as it is).

 

Ultimately, we work from the baseline-human template, taking limitations for anything given up, paying points for anything gained, but this is -somewhat- undermined when one considers that the limitation points will be taken anyway, whereas the points that can be spent are finite (which is why it hurts to buy a 25 point sense to replace vision, even IF you gain 25 points of disad for blindness...)

 

Associated question: Only at Night, -1. (half cost, half the time its night)

Only During the Day, -1 (see above)

 

Only Versus Fire... -1/2 (2/3 cost... are 2/3 of ED attacks fire? Really?)

 

Similarly, if DR vs. Stun is -1/2, is DR vs Body -2?

 

Or why is IPE+0END+Persistent so much more advantage than Costs End is in limitation?

 

Etc...