A limitation that does not limit

[Utech]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

I think it is very important that each character (and, of course, the value of all their Advantages, Limitations, Disadvantages, etc.) be evaluated on a game by game, case by case basis.

 

Not long ago I had a player submit a character that could fly, shrink, Martial Dodge, go Desolid to avoid damage, and had PSLs to counter range modifiers. The player explained that he planned to have the character stay at long range, fly, shrink, and fire off ranged attacks. He also wanted to take Restrainable on his Flight. I didn't think Restrainable rated a -1/2 Limitation for this character.

 

Another GM might have ruled otherwise. Another GM might have thought it fun to come up with villains and/or situations that would bring the Restrainable Limitation into play. It wasn't a challenge that appealed to me.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

I think the question to ask is' date=' does the Limitation limit the [i']Power[/i] 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?

 

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?

 

 

Some of you guys are harsh. I repped Chris and would have repped Vondy as well (if I hadn't done so too recently).

 

I think this encapsulates the rules well enough to use whenever you have problems. Anything else becomes an argument in relativity between player and GM and leads to acrimony - unnecessary acrimony as well.

 

Not long ago I had a player submit a character that could fly' date=' shrink, Martial Dodge, go Desolid to avoid damage, and had PSLs to counter range modifiers. The player explained that he planned to have the character stay at long range, fly, shrink, and fire off ranged attacks. He also wanted to take Restrainable on his Flight. I didn't think Restrainable rated a -1/2 Limitation for this character.[/quote']

 

So what is the message to the players? Yup - you might see rules written down in this huge book but dont rely on them when building your character to concept.

 

I'm not trying to criticise Utech here, I understand the decision. I might even have made it myself in one way or another. I just dont think it aids the impression made on players coming to the game.

 

It might be better if we also did as Hugh indicated:

 

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' date=' then the cost of both should be the same - NIL. They are background elements. [/quote']

 

Did you (Utech) go through the character sheet and give him limitations on all of the paid for face to face type powers and stuff that his tactics would make irrelevant. No? I'm not surprised - it would be a hugely tedious job.

 

I think that Chris and Vondy's meta-rule explanation makes sense and makes things clear and easy to understand.

 

Doc

 

PS: That was a really long - I agree with Chris and Vondy mail - I've been reading too many Sean posts. I've lost my brevity!!

[Sean Waters]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

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.

 

I'm being dim here because I'm not sure which side of the argument this supports and I'm not sure Hero2 is necessarily superior - they will both run out of END pretty quickly and Hero1 will have to burn a lot less stun to keep his powers running.

 

Hero1 has a 12d6 EB, 25 CON and 20 STR, 4 SPD, 50 END and 9 REC (basic figured). If he shoots off his EB every phase then he uses 24 END per turn and recovers 9, a net use of 15 END, so he can go for 2 full turns and runs out of END in the last phase of his third turn.

Hero2 has a 12d6 EB at 2x END (saving 20 points), 25 CON and 20 STR, 4 SPD, 100 END and 18 REC. He uses 48 END per turn with his EB every phase, and has a net use of 30. He costs 23 points more than Hero 1. Using EB every phase he can go 2 full turns and tuns out of END ont he last phase of turn 3.

If Hero2 also had a 20/20 FF at 2x END he's save another 13 points, and if he had 15" of flight at 2x END he'd save another 10, (and assuming that Hero 1 buys the same powers but didn't have the limitation) now costs the same as Hero 1.

Hero1 is using 13 END per phase, 52 per turn, 43 net, and can't go a full turn without burning stun. Hero 2 is using 26 END per phase, 104 per turn, 86 net, and also cannt go a full turn without burning stun.

Although Hero2 has a clear advantage in END and REC, which can be very helpful in some situations, in a straight fight, Hero1 will win any war of attrition simply because he has to burn less STUN to fuel his powers. Of course Hero2 is recovering his reduced STUN faster too (9 point per turn faster, which equates to about 6 extra END - not even enough for a single EB)

[Hugh Neilson]

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?)

 

I find this issue frustrating and believe it should be changed. It implies ED not vs fire should be -1 1/2 to -2 - if it isn't fire, that's the rest of the power [nb: -2 makes it add perfectly, but the whole commonly costs slightly less than the sum of the parts].

 

Similarly' date=' if DR vs. Stun is -1/2, is DR vs Body -2?[/quote']

 

That one adds perfectly. Most characters do have enough base defense to handle most BOD damage and are concerned with STUN damage from Reduction.

 

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

 

Because we didn't start the process with advantages for Persistent and deemed visibility rules based on END. This should also be fixed.

 

I think it is very important that each character (and, of course, the value of all their Advantages, Limitations, Disadvantages, etc.) be evaluated on a game by game, case by case basis.

 

Not long ago I had a player submit a character that could fly, shrink, Martial Dodge, go Desolid to avoid damage, and had PSLs to counter range modifiers. The player explained that he planned to have the character stay at long range, fly, shrink, and fire off ranged attacks. He also wanted to take Restrainable on his Flight. I didn't think Restrainable rated a -1/2 Limitation for this character.

 

1 hex AoE Entangle.

 

I agree with the comments below - this character is paying an awful lot for whatever benefit he gains from loss of resrainability. Should Restrainable not be a limitation for everyone who can go Desolid?

[tesuji]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

I think it also worth considering the notion of other characters as well, not just points paid by the given character or not.

 

the classic example is setting the value of "only in mag fields" when another pc just happens to generate magnetic fields.

 

but consider more reasonable examples, perhaps, like a AID to con/body/stun "only works on mutants" in a team with no mutant pcs except the one with the power, a team with several mutant pcs, a team with only one other mutant pc (happens to be the brick) or a team with all mutant pcs.

 

this is where my overall concept stays the same - its the overall effectiveness not the "myopic view of a single power" that matters.

 

I dont carewhether the utility is gained/lost due to "points spent elsewhere by that character", or "points spent by another character" or "non-point choices made by..." etc.

 

What matters is two things - "how often can i make use of this power" and "how much use is it".

 

Does this mean a "possible" build can include traits which add up inefficiently? sure - one can lose points off the "limitation" because one bought something else and wind up not so efficient, just like one can buy say running and flight and jumping and not get full benefit most of the time.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

I think it also worth considering the notion of other characters as well, not just points paid by the given character or not.

 

 

 

the classic example is setting the value of "only in mag fields" when another pc just happens to generate magnetic fields.

 

 

 

but consider more reasonable examples, perhaps, like a AID to con/body/stun "only works on mutants" in a team with no mutant pcs except the one with the power, a team with several mutant pcs, a team with only one other mutant pc (happens to be the brick) or a team with all mutant pcs.

 

 

 

this is where my overall concept stays the same - its the overall effectiveness not the "myopic view of a single power" that matters.

 

 

 

I dont carewhether the utility is gained/lost due to "points spent elsewhere by that character", or "points spent by another character" or "non-point choices made by..." etc.

 

 

 

What matters is two things - "how often can i make use of this power" and "how much use is it".

 

 

 

Does this mean a "possible" build can include traits which add up inefficiently? sure - one can lose points off the "limitation" because one bought something else and wind up not so efficient, just like one can buy say running and flight and jumping and not get full benefit most of the time.

 

 

Trouble is, well...

 

In a 4 person team, Character 1, Booster, has an Aid that only works on mutants.

 

What should the limitation be if:

 

There are no mutants on the team (including Booster)

 

Booster is the only mutant on the team

 

Two team members are mutants

 

Three team members are mutants

 

All four team members are mutants

 

Two team members are mutants but then, after some play, another PC joins the team and they are a mutant.

 

What happens is the game becomes unplayable. Characters can not be ported from one game to another because their very cost depends on where they are standing.

[Vulcan]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

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?

 

Buying the 'compensating power' becomes the disadvantage, because he's spent points on a 'concept power' and no longer has those points available for use on 'useful powers.' He should get the full 25 points for Blindness.

[Kdansky]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

I would say the problem is not the limitation, but the power: DR does more than one thing, and you can't buy only the part you want from it. It's like DEX: If you want to be a good figther, but a little clumsy, basically, the system won't take it well, as you will spend more points on your CV than the agile guy, and you won't be agile on top of that in the end.

 

I would like HS to have fewer package deals, as they are not very balanced anyway and lead to quite a mess sometimes.

[Vulcan]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

Trouble is, well...

 

In a 4 person team, Character 1, Booster, has an Aid that only works on mutants.

 

What should the limitation be if:

 

There are no mutants on the team (including Booster)

 

Booster is the only mutant on the team

 

Two team members are mutants

 

Three team members are mutants

 

All four team members are mutants

 

Two team members are mutants but then, after some play, another PC joins the team and they are a mutant.

 

What happens is the game becomes unplayable. Characters can not be ported from one game to another because their very cost depends on where they are standing.

 

True to a point. But it's not really as bad as making the game unplayable. Because in many games, certain limitations are a lot less limiting, and should be a lot less of a limitation.

 

Booster A (no mutants on team, including Booster) likely gets a -1.5 to -2 limitation because there are going to be lots of situations where the power won't work at all. Booster E (whole team is mutants) gets a -1/4 to -1/2 (if the GM is generous) becase there are going to be lots of situations where the power will work.

 

Compromising and making the 'only works on mutants' limitation a -1 takes too much from Booser A, and gives too much to Booster E, in my opinion.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

True to a point. But it's not really as bad as making the game unplayable. Because in many games' date=' certain limitations [i']are[/i] a lot less limiting, and should be a lot less of a limitation.

 

Booster A (no mutants on team, including Booster) likely gets a -1.5 to -2 limitation because there are going to be lots of situations where the power won't work at all. Booster E (whole team is mutants) gets a -1/4 to -1/2 (if the GM is generous) becase there are going to be lots of situations where the power will work.

 

Compromising and making the 'only works on mutants' limitation a -1 takes too much from Booser A, and gives too much to Booster E, in my opinion.

 

I might have been employing some hyperbole....

 

However, a GM can compensate for this to a large extent. If you have no mutants on the team at all then the GM can make darn sure you have allies who ARE mutants.

 

Anyway the discussion is somewhat academic in that I think it highly unlikely anyone would create a concept like that if they did not have someone they could use it on, and if they did then it would probably be part of a MP with drains as well as boosts, so any actual point discrimination would, in all likelihood, be miniscule.

 

Whilst that is irrelevant to the principle, it makes a lot of difference to the practice.

[tesuji]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

Well see to me - figuring the value of the limitation based on utility actually expected including what members make up the team and the impacts to playability that the ACCOUNTING issue creates are to me problems much less impactful than taking the reverse approach - assigning costs in a vacuum and thus having cost not be related to actual utility at all.

 

I would find as many or more problems to arise from me as Gm ignoring the "only vs mutants" varying between a one mutant team and an all mutant team

 

the former approach, the one i adopt, produces occasional accounting changes when teams evolve during play, while the former can result in day-to-day play balance impacts and imo undermines the tenuous faith in the point system.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

Well see to me - figuring the value of the limitation based on utility actually expected including what members make up the team and the impacts to playability that the ACCOUNTING issue creates are to me problems much less impactful than taking the reverse approach - assigning costs in a vacuum and thus having cost not be related to actual utility at all.

 

I would find as many or more problems to arise from me as Gm ignoring the "only vs mutants" varying between a one mutant team and an all mutant team

 

the former approach, the one i adopt, produces occasional accounting changes when teams evolve during play, while the former can result in day-to-day play balance impacts and imo undermines the tenuous faith in the point system.

 

I would not suggest the GM ignore it, but rather compensate for it in play to make the limitation turn out right.

 

However, harking back to the original post, I'd suggest that this sort of limitation is more of the 'not in outer space' type - i.e. it is using a limitation to try and get a price break by taking advantage of a campaign or external factor - if everyone is a mutant in the game, of course it is not worth a limitation. If hardly anyone is, then it is.

 

I still think that you have to look at it in the broad context of the genre as a whole, or at least the campaign as a whole because otherwise you do make characters that are difficult to transfer to other games AND you run the risk of having to (unfairly IMO) change point totals if something in the current game balance changes. I think the GM should be capable of some pretty large scale smoothing.

 

The problem occurs far more obviously though when you have a situation where a SINGLE character buys a power with a limitation and a compensating power. The difference there is that the character pays for both the limited power and the compensating power.

 

In that sort of case I am firmly of the opinion that you should not penalise the character by disallowing the limitation/disadvantage, simply as a matter of principle.

 

I can see how you might want to reduce the limitation in some cases.

 

So, for example, let me run a couple of examples past you:

 

1. Dracula has various power that only work in darkness (-1), and disadvantages if he is exposed to sunlight. He also has an unlimited 'Darkness Field' and bat sonar. Should he get the limitation/disadvantage?

 

2. The Toughness has 14/14 armour and another 14/14 armour bought with the limitation 'not v Body damage' (-1/2). Body damage in the campaign is very unlikely to exceed 12 points. Should she get the limitation?

 

3. Iron Grip has a 65 STR, which is campaign maximum, and several powers bought through an OAF. It is almost impossible to take the OAF off IronGrip because of his strength. Should he still get the full +1 limitation?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

1. Dracula has various power that only work in darkness (-1)' date=' and disadvantages if he is exposed to sunlight. He also has an unlimited 'Darkness Field' and bat sonar. Should he get the limitation/disadvantage?[/quote']

 

Assuming the "only in darkness" part works with his Darkness Power, they should at best get the equivalent of Linked to Darkness. -1/4 at most, or -0 if that's intended to include natural darkness as well. I'd also rule that, if his own Power protects against sunlight vis a vis the Disadvantages, then the Disadvantages' frequency should be reduced.

 

2. The Toughness has 14/14 armour and another 14/14 armour bought with the limitation 'not v Body damage' (-1/2). Body damage in the campaign is very unlikely to exceed 12 points. Should she get the limitation?

 

Probably -1/4 at most.

 

3. Iron Grip has a 65 STR, which is campaign maximum, and several powers bought through an OAF. It is almost impossible to take the OAF off IronGrip because of his strength. Should he still get the full +1 limitation?

 

Depends. You the GM can always define some other method for "removing" the OAF. For instance: tires on a vehicle can be defined as OAF because it's fairly easy to take them away (by shooting them).

 

If it's OAF, it has to be as easy to take away from him as defined under the rules for OAF. If it's not that easy then it's not an OAF.

 

In his particular case, you could rule any of several ways:

 

* He doesn't always use his full STR to hold onto the item (probably casual STR at best, possibly not even that much). Do you, when (for instance) you're talking on your cell phone, grip it with your full Strength? Ask your friendly neighborhood purse snatcher how this works.... Now if he's engaged in some kind of contest for holding onto it, then yeah, it's full STR vs. STR.

 

* There's always the "look over there" trick. "Hey, is that Elvis?" *snag*

 

* Something else I haven't thought of.

 

Make sure the player understands this before the first session of the game. If he's thinking that his great Strength is going to keep the OAF from being snagged, and you keep snagging it from him, he's going to be (in his own mind, at least) justifiably pissed.

 

As far back as 3rd edition, this has been a known issue. The advice really hasn't changed.

[Utech]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

So what is the message to the players? Yup - you might see rules written down in this huge book but don't rely on them when building your character to concept.

I'd say the message to players is that a Limitation that does not limit isn't worth any points.

 

Did you (Utech) go through the character sheet and give him limitations on all of the paid for face to face type powers and stuff that his tactics would make irrelevant. No? I'm not surprised - it would be a hugely tedious job.

A good question. No, I didn't.

 

My concern was with one Limitation on one Power. I did not feel that it would come up in my game. I felt pretty sure that none of the other things on his sheet would be irrelevant. Just the Restrainable on Flight.

[Utech]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

1 hex AoE Entangle.

Or any other AoE Entangle, of course.

 

But Restrainable is a Limitation because the power can be stopped by any Grab or Entangle (or other restraint) -- not just for AoE Entangles. Surely you'd agree that Restrainable was less of a limitation for this character than for a non-shinking front-line fighter with claws?

 

I agree with the comments below - this character is paying an awful lot for whatever benefit he gains from loss of resrainability.

What does that have to do with the value of the Limitation?

 

Should Restrainable not be a limitation for everyone who can go Desolid?

No. Many characters would clearly be limited by the fact that they're forced to go Desolid when they are restrained by a Grab, Engtangle or what-have-you.

[tesuji]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

1. Dracula has various power that only work in darkness (-1), and disadvantages if he is exposed to sunlight. He also has an unlimited 'Darkness Field' and bat sonar. Should he get the limitation/disadvantage?

 

2. The Toughness has 14/14 armour and another 14/14 armour bought with the limitation 'not v Body damage' (-1/2). Body damage in the campaign is very unlikely to exceed 12 points. Should she get the limitation?

 

3. Iron Grip has a 65 STR, which is campaign maximum, and several powers bought through an OAF. It is almost impossible to take the OAF off IronGrip because of his strength. Should he still get the full +1 limitation?

 

1. if his unlimited darkness counters his lim, then its more like at best linked to constant persistent power, which isn't worth much at all.

 

2. Taking into account things like AP etc, if the frequency of how often he would take body due to this is really low, he gets the lim but at no cost, otherwise, maybe at -1/4 but likely not much.

 

3. since "take away by grab" is but one of several ways to turn focus into "power i dont have right now" then I dont see an issue here sufficient to say "reduce the lim". Now if you add in maybe unbreakable to the pool then maybe. add in a public id so he always can carry the focus around town, and maybe police powers so he can go armed even when not allowed,then yeah we start reducing. But as long as "i cannot take sword with me" and "sword gets damaged" are both available to me, all his 65 strength does is change the flavor of "i do not have my focus" and not the frequency of " i dont have my focus" so no problem.

[Kdansky]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

1. Dracula has various power that only work in darkness (-1), and disadvantages if he is exposed to sunlight. He also has an unlimited 'Darkness Field' and bat sonar. Should he get the limitation/disadvantage?

 

2. The Toughness has 14/14 armour and another 14/14 armour bought with the limitation 'not v Body damage' (-1/2). Body damage in the campaign is very unlikely to exceed 12 points. Should she get the limitation?

 

3. Iron Grip has a 65 STR, which is campaign maximum, and several powers bought through an OAF. It is almost impossible to take the OAF off IronGrip because of his strength. Should he still get the full -1 limitation?

 

1. I would actually tell the player that he should not have a Darkness field in that case.

 

2. 14/14 Armour, +14/14 PD/ED. No need for weird constructs there. If you want to make that OIF, be my guest, nothing preventing you there.

 

3. Yes, it's still an OAF. NPCs may very well have 70 STR (not all of them all the time), Campaign maxima are for players.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

I'd say the message to players is that a Limitation that does not limit isn't worth any points.

 

And the player might argue that his wings are as restrainable as anyone else's.

 

You aren't honestly going to tell me that if the player had told you a different story about his planned tactics you'd have given him more of a cost break?

 

What if the tactics changed during gameplay, would you go back to the character sheet and take away points???

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

Interesting to note that the strongman with focus example tends to elicit responses that the GM can compensate, but other examples don't.

[Utech]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

And the player might argue that his wings are as restrainable as anyone else's.

But that would clearly not be true.

 

You aren't honestly going to tell me that if the player had told you a different story about his planned tactics you'd have given him more of a cost break?

I hadn't planned to, but now that you ask... I might have.

 

What if the tactics changed during gameplay' date=' would you go back to the character sheet and take away points???[/quote']

I'd talk to the player about it.

 

Are you telling me that you've never had to talk to a player about making changes to his character sheet because game play showed the character either over- or under-powered?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

Or any other AoE Entangle, of course.

 

But Restrainable is a Limitation because the power can be stopped by any Grab or Entangle (or other restraint) -- not just for AoE Entangles. Surely you'd agree that Restrainable was less of a limitation for this character than for a non-shinking front-line fighter with claws?

 

Surely you'd agree that Restrainable was more of a limitation for this character than NOT being prevented from flying if Grabbed or Entangled?

 

Let's assume several characters with Wings that the player feels should be Restrainable (in a standard Supers game) - what limitation do each of the following get:

 

(a) the Shrinking character

( a Brick with 60 STR and +60 STR only to escape Grabs and Entangles

© a Martial Artist with a 25 DCV

(d) a character who can turn Desolid, thereby escaping any Grab or Entangle

(e) a character with 10 STR who has no special abilities to escape a Grab

(f) a character with 10 STR who has no special abilities to escape a Grab who has a large Damage Shield and a Mind Control power, AoE, Persistent, no range, one command "grab me" that he plans to use constantly

 

If you're going to remove the limitation from that Shrinker, shouldn't Grab Me Guy get more than -1/2?

 

No. Many characters would clearly be limited by the fact that they're forced to go Desolid when they are restrained by a Grab' date=' Engtangle or what-have-you.[/quote']

 

But they escape the Grab/Entangle much more easily - just as that Shrinker is harder to Grab or Entangle in the first place. Should he really have the same limitation as Grab Me Guy?

[Istaran]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

Interesting to note that the strongman with focus example tends to elicit responses that the GM can compensate' date=' but other examples don't.[/quote']

 

The Vampire can get smacked down with his disads when he's fighting in his own bubble of shadow in the sun and someone dispels his Darkness field. I think it's probably fair to have a Vampire have to deal with being a target of a religiously motivated group with light-based powers that shut him down and force him to rely on his non-light-sensative allies. If he didn't want to deal with that sort of problem, maybe he shouldn't have taken that lim?

 

The armor example seems like a good reason to bring in armor piercing killing attacks on occasion.

 

The GM can compensate for anything you do, more so since he can review your character sheet before making the finalized versions of your opponents.

 

As for the Restrainable wings, nothing you've mentioned suggests any sort of defense against Mental Paralysis, which will have him dropping out of the sky like a small pebble. Also, you call out Shrinking as a reason he's not in danger from normal Entangles: does this give him higher DCV than everyone else? Does your campaign not have DCV limits?

 

Also, Desolid is a stop-sign power. Did you want to allow it in your campaign? Really? Then you need to compensate as a GM. If Desolid is allowed, then obviously Affects Desolid needs to be as well.

 

My GM excells at making Disads and Limitations 'worth their points'. It is something which requires some effort, not something that happens automatically. Even OAF doesn't become 'worth its points' unless you take the effort of removing the focus from time to time.

[Utech]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

Surely you'd agree that Restrainable was more of a limitation for this character than NOT being prevented from flying if Grabbed or Entangled?

I surely do agree. But not worth the full -1/2 Limitation.

 

Let's assume several characters with Wings that the player feels should be Restrainable (in a standard Supers game) - what limitation do each of the following get:

I'm afraid you just don't give enough information about them or the campaign for me to answer your question definitively. As the OP suggests, this is all relative.

 

If you're going to remove the limitation from that Shrinker' date=' shouldn't Grab Me Guy get more than -1/2?[/quote']

I wouldn't have Grab Me Guy in any campaign I've run to date.

 

But they escape the Grab/Entangle much more easily - just as that Shrinker is harder to Grab or Entangle in the first place. Should he really have the same limitation as Grab Me Guy?

Here you're referring to characters with the Desolid Power. Again, I can't answer your question definitively. It's all relative. The character might be fully limited by the Limitation and rate a -1/2. The character might be limited less than that and rate a -1/4. The character might not be limited enough to rate any Limitation point savings at all.

 

That's just following the RAW. Right?

[Sean Waters]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

..................

 

 

I'd talk to the player about it.

 

Are you telling me that you've never had to talk to a player about making changes to his character sheet because game play showed the character either over- or under-powered?

 

Isn't that rather like saying, 'If you play the character to maximise their abilities I'm going to dock some of your character points'?

 

I mean it follows logically that a character doesn't use their full tactical array they are going to generally come second to someone who does, but I can't see that changing their limtiation values is going to solve the problem or make for a better gaming experience.

 

As to changing under or over powered characters - no, not since I started playing Hero and didn;t know what I was doing. When I'm GMing I usually create the characeters and I try to recognise that some characters are better suited to one opponent than another and that allows you to adjust the level of challenge on the fly, so actual character auditing isn't necessary.

 

Ultimately we are all aiming for the same Nirvana - participation and enjoyment - we just differ on how to get there.

 

Which is as it should be

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: A limitation that does not limit

 

One thing that keeps popping into my head when looking at this thread, in specfic reference to the various defence permutations...

 

Campaign limits aren't the only thing to consider.

Sure more than 12 body isn't very common from most attacks in a 60 AP limit campaign, but you should remember that in every campaign I've ever played in (or ran) it's pretty easy to potentially be sucking up a 30d6 normal attack, so the "body only" limit still has value.

 

Of course, I suppose it's possible to have a campaign when there's no place a person could fall 105", but thus far I don't think I've been in one.

 

Environmental effects can be nastier than campaign limits.

Just sayin'