Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

So I'm clear here:

 

is this any single attack, or a cumulative value of damage totaling BODYx2?

 

The answer is not clear. Foci do not have Body and so we're sort of extrapolating from the 'of you do 2x Body you completely kill it/destroy it' and applying that to defences for foci as they are as close to Body as we get. It would be nice to have some way to calculate the Body of a focus. Perhaps AP/10 of the largest power (AP/5 if it is defensive) +1 Body for each additonal power.

 

Maybe.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

It would be nice to have some way to calculate the Body of a focus. Perhaps AP/10 of the largest power (AP/5 if it is defensive) +1 Body for each additonal power.

 

Sean, see if any of this helps you:

 

Champions, 2e; p 33:

 

Replaceable Foci are breakable an have 1 BODY and 1 DEF for every 10 active points through the Focus. Foci that are not replaceable should not be breakable.

 

Nothing in Champions II or III, and I can't find my Almanacs right now; there may have been something in there, but I don't think so.

 

Champions, 4e (Big Blue Book); p 105

 

A Breakable Focus has a DEF equal to the (Active Points/5) of the largest Power bought through the Focus; the minimum DEF is 3. For instance, a gun with a 10d6 Energy Blast has a DEF of 10; if the gun also had 50 points in Flight and 20 points in Life Support, it's DEF would still be 10. A Breakable Focus that provides PD or ED o the character (through Armor, Force Field, etc) can use whichever defense is higher (its own or the one it gives the character) to protect itself from damage; the defenses never add.

 

When a Breakable Focus is hit by an attack, each attack which penetrates the Defense of the Focus destroys one of the Powers bought through the Focus. The amount of Body done is unimportant-- one Power is destroyed whether the attack did 1 BODY or 15.

 

HERO System, 5e; p 189

 

Essentially the same as 4th ed, only spread across many, many pages:

 

DEF equal to the (Active Points/5) of the largest Power ... minimum DEF is 3.

 

A Breakable Focus does not generally provide exotic defenses such as Power Defense or Lack of Weakness, though it does if it provides such a defense or the defense is bought specifically for it.

 

Any Focus which provides defenses to a character is automatically hit by any attack which hits the character ... (To speed game play, and avoid breaking Foci on a regular basis, the GM may choose to ignore this rule. In such cases, Foci are only hit and damaged by attacks which specifically target them.)

 

I don't have 6e, or even 5er,

 

but it seems Foci _did_ have Body once upon a time. Evidently, either 3e or 4e decided to exchange Body for stripping away Powers.

 

Given that our group still plays 2e, I really hadn't noticed that the BODY score for Foci no longer existed....

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

5ER p294 (5E p190); A focus is broken when it loses all of it's powers, or when a single attack does 2X it's Defense.

 

At minimum a Focus has 1 Body per Power, if you want to look at it in terms of Body instead of how much utility is left in it.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

I'm pretty sure the Focus rules were designed more for ease of play than for any kind of verisimilitude. At the least, they don't really survive the kind of scrutiny we're putting them under.

 

They haven't changed substantially since 3E, and almost not at all since 4E.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

The only change at all seems to have been from 2e to 3e: swapping a BODY score for "lose one power" and effectively doubling the amount of DEF.

 

Considering that in 2e the Body and DEF were the same, doubling the DEF effectively lets them take roughly the same punishment (I know: BODY ablates; DEF doesn't-- I'm talking over-all results, not turn-by-turn damage) that they could before while still retaining some functionality (which they could not do before). And considering that it takes double the initial damage to achieve any effect, there's a fair case to be made that they are now perhaps a bit stronger than they used to be.

 

But, as you noted, there's not a lot of backbone or layering to the rules. I suspect that more than playability it is because when everything is said and done, Focus is a limitation, a mechanic, a special effect

 

more than it is actually crucial architecture for the game overall. But as a GM for a group that predominantly does _not_ play supers, I would like to see it fleshed out a bit more: guns, equipment, etc-- everything that supers can do with Cosmic Power, Heroic level folk have to do with Foci, after all.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

I'm pretty sure the Focus rules were designed more for ease of play than for any kind of verisimilitude. At the least, they don't really survive the kind of scrutiny we're putting them under.

 

They haven't changed substantially since 3E, and almost not at all since 4E.

 

True.

 

My issue here is that it is nonsensical for a piece of body armour (assuming that it is built as a focus and that is its only power) to be completely destroyed if the armour is penetrated by Body damage, but if you do not apply that rule then you are substantially reducing the limitation that focus comes with.

 

Something ought to be done!

 

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

The only change at all seems to have been from 2e to 3e: swapping a BODY score for "lose one power" and effectively doubling the amount of DEF.

 

Considering that in 2e the Body and DEF were the same, doubling the DEF effectively lets them take roughly the same punishment (I know: BODY ablates; DEF doesn't-- I'm talking over-all results, not turn-by-turn damage) that they could before while still retaining some functionality (which they could not do before). And considering that it takes double the initial damage to achieve any effect, there's a fair case to be made that they are now perhaps a bit stronger than they used to be.

 

But, as you noted, there's not a lot of backbone or layering to the rules. I suspect that more than playability it is because when everything is said and done, Focus is a limitation, a mechanic, a special effect

 

more than it is actually crucial architecture for the game overall. But as a GM for a group that predominantly does _not_ play supers, I would like to see it fleshed out a bit more: guns, equipment, etc-- everything that supers can do with Cosmic Power, Heroic level folk have to do with Foci, after all.

 

The focus limitation is a popular one because it works OK in practice and appears straightforward and easily understood, well, it works OK because we tend not to use it for all we can. If someone presented me with a power armour character who has all his powers in the power armour focus, and it was built like the team brick but with 50% more STR, protection etc, I'd tell them where to get off. There is an unwritten rule that you use all those extra points EITHER for scientist skills (which you won't be using much) OR enhanced senses, loudspeakers and a few exotic defences (that you won't be using much). I've never known a power armour character to be called to battle and not have access to his armour, at least in a game where there is more than one player.

 

In other words I think we have lived with Focus for so long that we subconsciously correct for its problems, not even seeing them any more. That leads me to think that, perhaps, the whole concept needs to be overhauled. There is other evidence for this: the rules for focus are over 4 pages long. That's a lot of rules for a pretty straightforward and easily understood limitation. The thing is is isn't straightforward and easily understood - we just don't read and apply the rules when we use it.

[ideasmith]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

(I don't have 6E yet but my 5ER comments maybe relevant.)

 

I only allow the Focus Limitation if the object actually gets taken away (as strongly implied in 5ER pages 292 and 295). Non-Focus power armor that is part of the hero costume would be Only In Heroic Identity (5ER page 302). Non-Focus power armor that gets broken would Physical Manifestation. (Alas, a version which is not in the book. I hope that Physical Manifestation (5ER page 302) got greatly expanded in 6E.)

 

I still think that calling the Limitation 'Gets Taken Away' rather than 'Focus' would add much clarity.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

When we started playing, we had the majority of the power armor characters building their suits as Foci. In fact, it wasn't really until the arrival of 4e that anyone in our group questioned the appropriateness of the build. But remember, we had cannon characters who used that same build. Of course, we also had cannon characters using things like "Elemental Control: Alien Physiology" and other things that today simply would not fly.

 

After 4e had been out for a while, we picked up a couple of players that had been taught the game via 4e at other tables, and the discussions started. Since then, we've sort of gone two ways with it:

 

Only in Hero ID and the by-then-traditional OIF. Oh, and we had one guy who built it as a vehicle, which was a bit cumbersome what with the Driving rules at the time.

 

The problem with the "taken away" or "inaccessible" arguments is that they can be applied to either Limitation: ultimately, few characters are going to be firmly denied access to their super suit within a reasonable time frame more than once or twice across a story arc. But even if they were denied access twice a day, the problem is that the rationalization applies equally to both constructs:

 

What's the value of OIF? Going by the newest rules I have access to (5e), it's -1/2.

The value of Only in Hero ID is -1/4.

 

There is a suggested difference in the rules of Only in Hero ID in 5e, p 197, that offers a justification:

 

OIHID can be used to simulate characters who seem to have a focus but somehow never lose it. For example, the powered armor character described above never seems to lose his suit for long or have it taken away from him while he's wearing it. Therefore, it isn't really a Focus, since if he bought the armor as a Focus, he could lose the armor.

 

So clearly then, an argument can be made that the traditional metal man of comic books has bought his suit OIHID, paying "extra" points via the lower value of the Limitation specifically so that he can't be deprived of it.

 

Moreover, OIHID has no option for breaking the super suit (or any other OIHID item) or for someone stealing it and using it for themselves.

 

Because 4e had similar views on the subject of OIF vs OIHID, I usually make sure the players clearly understand the differences between the two and let them select according to their concept and the type of challenge / adventure they are looking for. If they select OIF, then they can expect more than once to be separated from their technopowers, and may spend a night or two at the lab having repairs made. They might even find an object stolen or replicated at some point.

 

I really think, after having reread this thread that this is not an issue that is going to be fixed in any realistic way through legislation. The Focus rules don't really appear to be broken or in need of something, at least not with regard to Supers. It's a matter of the GM doing his job and running the universe in such a way that there _is_ a difference between the two Limitations, and letting it come up every now and again the same way that a DNPC or a Hunted does.

 

The character with OIF gained an additional -1/4 Limitation in exchange for being more limited. Given that, I don't mind the idea that he might be up late tonight fixing his rocket pack or unpacking his spare infragoggles. I don't even mind, after fixing my mind to this, the idea that he might have to make a few PS rolls to repair the BODY damage done to his suit. After all, he could have used those points he saved to make the suit self-regenerating

 

 

 

Ideasmith: can you explain "Physical Manifestation" to me? I don't have 5er, and am hoarding my cash for 6e.

[tesuji]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

The focus limitation is a popular one because it works OK in practice and appears straightforward and easily understood, well, it works OK because we tend not to use it for all we can. If someone presented me with a power armour character who has all his powers in the power armour focus, and it was built like the team brick but with 50% more STR, protection etc, I'd tell them where to get off. There is an unwritten rule that you use all those extra points EITHER for scientist skills (which you won't be using much) OR enhanced senses, loudspeakers and a few exotic defences (that you won't be using much). I've never known a power armour character to be called to battle and not have access to his armour, at least in a game where there is more than one player.

.

 

your experiences are different than mine. i have had many powered armor guys in games under me over the years. most followed the book examples of oif. some had oaf on some weapons.

 

here is how it played.

 

the typical oif armor powered armor guy spent his extra points on MORE powers not MORE POWER. no he didn't get 18d6 attacks in a 12d6 game but he did get a 12d6 energy blast AND a 12d6 strength punch and so on. Like iron man, he was a brick and a projector and at times fast etc. the more creative had additional stealth suits and so forth.

 

in other words they became a "wonder tool" characater who was always applicable.

 

this was due to campaign restrictions. i wouldn't let them spend the points on more potent attacks, so they spent it on alternatives so they ar always "one of the guys".

 

however it was not a free ride.

 

i enforced damage to their armor and so power failed as they got hit and hurt. since te suits contained literally a dozen or more powers it was easy to have something valuable fail and so it was frequent that they had someting offline during a combat. this provided not only an in game deficit, not every power all at once but any power frequently, it also gave them a drain on their "downtime" as they were constantly in lab making repairs.

 

secondly, it was also not infrequent that they had a delay as a sudden encounter went awry so while the others just turned on powers and went at it, the pa guys spent a few actions getting suited up... delaying their arrival until say end of turn 1.

 

this one was used more sparingly but when it occurred it was a rational outgrowth of the scenario.

 

i never had a problem with pa oif guys feeling they were being too abused nor other players feeling the oif guys got a free ride.

 

however dont take that to mean i like focus. most of my handling was handwaving, based on my upfront general descriptions of "i will afflict problems commensurate to the lim you choose". i think focus should be less specific with more generic lists of possible problems .

 

then again IMO limitations should be defined more generically...

 

name a frequency in sessions per 10 the problem occurs

name a severity as in how much of the power is lost... say minor, then half then total. then list flavors... as in "player list three sample problems, gm list two."

 

For example

 

POWERED ARMOR - Gendarm Suit

Frequency 3 sessions in 10

Severity - MAJOR (50% or more)

come up with a figure

Player list

sometimes damage causes systems to fail

sometimes not in suit and takes a turn to get involved

strong em fields cause unreliability of systems - occasional activation rolls

 

gm list

sometimes subject to hacking/hidden viruses

sometimes shortage of parts for repairs/reloads/operations

 

armoed with the above, both player and gm have the same understanding - how often problems will arise, how serious they will be in terms of how much power loss, and also five example flavors the problems will take. sounds to me like a good recipe for collaboration.

 

of course imo this works for most limitations.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

"i will afflict problems commensurate to the lim you choose".

 

Precisely perfect, I think

 

 

Though for the sake of something to do, having resolved my earlier Hit Chart by simply re-defining two hit locations, I am considering running a test with a couple armored suits on the idea of assigning BODY scores to each power in the armor.

 

While I will stick with picking powers at random for the purpose of this test, the plan is something like this:

 

Assuming that the armor provides DEF for all OIF or IIF powers the armor provides.

 

Body that makes it through the DEF is applied to the character as normal, but is _also_ applied to a randomly chosen power.

 

All Powers have a BODY of AP/10 for this test. If there is enough body to destroy that power, then it is destroyed. If not, it is reduced by the appropriate number. Any remaining BODY will not be allocated to a second power (for the purposes of this test).

 

Powers that have taken BODY damage will be reduced in effectiveness by the same percentage as the BODY damage they have received. END costs are not similarly reduced, as the damaged equipment is being "taxed."

 

BODY damage assignation to Powers will remain random, guided by the nature of the strike. Thus, it is possible to have multiple powers reduced, but none completely deprived. When BODY damage from multiple attacks totals enough to remove the power, it is removed.

 

Repair of the Power is assumed to take one turn for one Body, and moved one step on the time chart for each 10 (for this initial test) BODY damage done to the Power. Access to labs and equipment can affect this time. At no time will any single power require more than one "shift" in the character's own lab or an equivalent. Obviously, when he's home, he can pop in the spare Gizmometer and get back in action, or build one from scratch in a lab sufficiently like his own tech-and-tool wise.

 

Yes; I suspect there will be a bit of added book keeping, but I also suspect that "front loading" it -- generating a list of Powers and their Body scores as part of the character record-- will greatly minimize the effects that the bookkeeping may have on the game. I don't foresee any negative effects on gameplay, but that's why I plan to run a test. Just to be sure.

 

I feel that this might add some amount of flavor the game, and that it might even be a desirable challenge for the player who has chosen his Power Armor to be OIF instead of OIHID. I also feel that the potential to note lose a power entirely with a single shot might serve as minor benefit to the player as compensation for any additional bookkeeping.

 

Thoughts?

 

I'll post back when the initial testing is done. I've got to make a couple of calls and round up some play testers

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

Though for the sake of something to do' date=' having resolved my earlier Hit Chart by simply re-defining two hit locations, I am considering running a test with a couple armored suits on the idea of assigning BODY scores to each power in the armor.[/quote']

 

I'm considering doing something like this. In my Never Ending Quest for the Perfect Mecha Rules (reg. US pat. off.) I'm thinking of using the Object BODY table (6E2 172) with a twist You decide how much BODY a Focus has, but its weight is based on that. There's probably a rule lurking about in there somewhere about how a you have to be able to lift a Focus with your casual STR in order to use it as a carried (i.e. hand) weapon under most circumstances (which would probably NOT be applicable for superheroic games).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

your experiences are different than mine. i have had many powered armor guys in games under me over the years. most followed the book examples of oif. some had oaf on some weapons.

 

here is how it played.

 

the typical oif armor powered armor guy spent his extra points on MORE powers not MORE POWER. no he didn't get 18d6 attacks in a 12d6 game but he did get a 12d6 energy blast AND a 12d6 strength punch and so on. Like iron man, he was a brick and a projector and at times fast etc. the more creative had additional stealth suits and so forth.

 

in other words they became a "wonder tool" characater who was always applicable.

 

That's my experience too - like I said I wouldn't allow +50% on everything just to soak up the points. What I'm trying to say though is that the points have to go somewhere - and we self regulate where they go, so, no, focus is not a problem - because we avoid its consequences.

 

this was due to campaign restrictions. i wouldn't let them spend the points on more potent attacks, so they spent it on alternatives so they ar always "one of the guys".

 

however it was not a free ride.

 

i enforced damage to their armor and so power failed as they got hit and hurt. since te suits contained literally a dozen or more powers it was easy to have something valuable fail and so it was frequent that they had someting offline during a combat. this provided not only an in game deficit, not every power all at once but any power frequently, it also gave them a drain on their "downtime" as they were constantly in lab making repairs.

 

How valuable is a power if it is one of a dozen? Much less valuable than if it were the main power someone had to rely on. You could lose 3/4 of your powers and still have a decent selection to chose from. I'm not sure how much of a limitation that really is. It is akin to losing slots from a multipower with a dozen slots: you only REALLY miss them when the last few go. You're losing a bit of power until the end, then you lose a lot. It is a limitation but is is -1/2?

 

secondly, it was also not infrequent that they had a delay as a sudden encounter went awry so while the others just turned on powers and went at it, the pa guys spent a few actions getting suited up... delaying their arrival until say end of turn 1.

 

this one was used more sparingly but when it occurred it was a rational outgrowth of the scenario.

 

That is more of a limitation, but I doubt it happens that much, and I doubt if it ever happens for much longer than that. If you think about it it is a limitation on the PLAYER (you don't get to play) and on the other CHARACTERS (they don't have backup). Not sure how much of a limitation it is on the character though. If the villain turns up and they are not suited and get beaten half to death THAT is a limitation on the character.

 

 

i never had a problem with pa oif guys feeling they were being too abused nor other players feeling the oif guys got a free ride.

 

however dont take that to mean i like focus. most of my handling was handwaving, based on my upfront general descriptions of "i will afflict problems commensurate to the lim you choose". i think focus should be less specific with more generic lists of possible problems .

 

We agree here, I think. We adapt the limitation to use it. Also, whilst I applaud the philosophy that the actual limitation and value do not matter - you'll find a way to make it 'worth' the right amount, it would be a very short section if you were writing it

 

then again IMO limitations should be defined more generically...

 

name a frequency in sessions per 10 the problem occurs

name a severity as in how much of the power is lost... say minor, then half then total. then list flavors... as in "player list three sample problems, gm list two."

 

For example

 

POWERED ARMOR - Gendarm Suit

Frequency 3 sessions in 10

Severity - MAJOR (50% or more)

come up with a figure

Player list

sometimes damage causes systems to fail

sometimes not in suit and takes a turn to get involved

strong em fields cause unreliability of systems - occasional activation rolls

 

gm list

sometimes subject to hacking/hidden viruses

sometimes shortage of parts for repairs/reloads/operations

 

armoed with the above, both player and gm have the same understanding - how often problems will arise, how serious they will be in terms of how much power loss, and also five example flavors the problems will take. sounds to me like a good recipe for collaboration.

 

of course imo this works for most limitations.

 

 

...I rest my case That is not a criticism - I think limitations could do with a lot more structure, and a more coherent approach, and this sounds like a very good basis to do that

[phookz]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

In other words I think we have lived with Focus for so long that we subconsciously correct for its problems' date=' not even seeing them any more. That leads me to think that, perhaps, the whole concept needs to be overhauled. There is other evidence for this: the rules for focus are over 4 pages long. That's a lot of rules for a pretty straightforward and easily understood limitation. The thing is is isn't straightforward and easily understood - we just don't read and apply the rules when we use it.[/quote']

 

Another possibility is that the issues with Focus are minor enough to not be a real issue at all for most players. I'll agree that the rules for damaging a focus could use some work, but I'd be surprised if the rules could be more clear with a lower page count. Overall, I think the Focus rules have served us well and could use some minor tweaking for the rules related to damaging them, but don't need an overhaul.

 

I really think, after having reread this thread that this is not an issue that is going to be fixed in any realistic way through legislation. The Focus rules don't really appear to be broken or in need of something, at least not with regard to Supers. It's a matter of the GM doing his job and running the universe in such a way that there _is_ a difference between the two Limitations, and letting it come up every now and again the same way that a DNPC or a Hunted does.

 

Well said. I'd rep you but I have to spread it around first.

 

Ideasmith: can you explain "Physical Manifestation" to me? I don't have 5er' date=' and am hoarding my cash for 6e.[/quote']

 

Physical manifestation is for powers that are not built as a Focus but that have some physical manifestation that could be attacked. Examples include Flight bought to simulate riding a column of force or skating on an ice-slide.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

The first test is over; I'll try to get the results up as soon as I can streamline them a bit. Looks promising, but it could bear a bit more tweaking.

 

 

In my Never Ending Quest for the Perfect Mecha Rules

 

Oh wow; you too?! I've been trying to cypher such a rule set for twenty years. So far, the only thing that works reasonably well is to combine automaton and vehicle rules, then apply them to a device built more or less like a separate character. Still, it's lacking something in terms of feel....

 

I'm thinking of using the Object BODY table (6E2 172) with a twist You decide how much BODY a Focus has, but its weight is based on that.

 

If you're interested, I'll see if I can hunt down our house rules on mechs from an old campaign, type them up, and message them to you. Given my workload right now, it'll likely be a week or two, but if you're interested (and be aware that they aren't perfect), I'll be glad to get it worked in.

 

Options to try regarding weight:

 

The rules I used in test today assigned BODY based on the 2e rules: AP/10 = BODY of Focus. You might stat out each component that way:

 

Gatling Gun = 9 Body; Missile Rack = 12 Body; Sensor Array = 4 Body. That sort of thing. One of the tweaks from today's test suggests that for Heroic (or mech) type games, I'll probably make Focus Body = AP/5.

 

 

Further, I'd disregard any rule about being able to lift the Focus for a mech, simply because it has it's own STR rating (at least, ours do). Just make sure that the mech itself can lift the Foci casually, and you're golden.

 

And if you're doing supers or super-science, you might consider altering the formulas for Body-to-weight in the name of advanced alloys, polymers, etc.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

If you're interested' date=' I'll see if I can hunt down our house rules on mechs from an old campaign, type them up, and message them to you. Given my workload right now, it'll likely be a week or two, but if you're interested (and be aware that they aren't perfect), I'll be glad to get it worked in.[/quote']

 

I'd love to see them!

 

And if you're doing supers or super-science' date=' you might consider altering the formulas for Body-to-weight in the name of advanced alloys, polymers, etc.[/quote']

 

I think differences in construction and tech level would probably represent DEF more than BODY. We have three columns on the table (Living/Vehicle, Nonliving, and Complex). I'm perfectly okay with the notion that, for instance, a 100 kilogram wooden grandfather clock and a 100 kilogram computer have the same BODY score. Though if someone (other than me) came up with something good I'd be game to look at it.

[ideasmith]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

Ideasmith: can you explain "Physical Manifestation" to me? I don't have 5er, and am hoarding my cash for 6e.

 

Physical Manifestation as currently written works as follows: When the power is turned on, an object appears which has the DEF and BODY of a Breakable Focus and DCV equal to the character's base DCV. When the object is broken, the power turns off.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

Thanks to both of you.

 

I'm a bit confused, though: an "ice slide"-- which I would assume sort of sits there for a bit, particularly if you're riding it across a river or something-- has the same DCV as the character? Wouldn't a large immobile object have a DCV of 0? Certainly no more than 3....

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

Thanks to both of you.

 

I'm a bit confused, though: an "ice slide"-- which I would assume sort of sits there for a bit, particularly if you're riding it across a river or something-- has the same DCV as the character?

 

"...unless the GM rules otherwise based on the size or nature of the manifestation." I have a feeling that's more likely for most Physical Manifestations.

[ideasmith]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

Thanks to both of you.

 

I'm a bit confused, though: an "ice slide"-- which I would assume sort of sits there for a bit, particularly if you're riding it across a river or something-- has the same DCV as the character? Wouldn't a large immobile object have a DCV of 0? Certainly no more than 3....

 

The ice slide is being formed as the character moves (as per Ice Man of the X-Men), and breaking an old piece of ice slide would have no effect on the power. The portion of ice slide which one needs to hit is moving with the character. (And it's the characters base DCV, not the characters DCV.) Not that stationary objects shouldn't be a possibility, but Ice Man style ice slides aren't effectively stationary, since the portion to be hit keeps moving, even though the ice slides per se are stationary once created.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

Gotcha, thanks. I assume the Limitation aspect will be those occasions like ice-ramping straight up or something, when you could simply cut the beanstalk out from under him?

 

Or does having a Physical Manifestation successfully target turn the power off for a period of time?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

Just thinking aloud...

 

Virus: (Total: 21 Active Cost, 14 Real Cost) Drain BODY 1 point, Constant (+1/2), Uncontrolled (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1), Autofire (5 shots; +1/2), Non-Standard Attack Power (+1) (13 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Only works v technological armour; -1) (Real Cost: 6) PLUS +4 with any single attack (Real Cost: 8)

 

Non-living things do not recover from drains...so unless this has power defence (military grade electronic hardening - and adding 2 levels of penetrating only costs 2 more real points) this should take out most devices - even ones with MANY powers in short order. Only works against tech, but for 14 points that is not a bad price.

 

On the question of re-writing focus, I think we have most of the tools already. I think we could re-write focus in much more compact form and add clarity. Off the top of my head...

 

Focus: -0 or more

 

Your power works through a device or object external to you, which means it can be taken from you, or you can be denied access to it.

 

At the 1/4 level the focus can be taken from you if you are helpless, stolen from you if you are not paying attention or may otherwise be occasionally unavailable (perhaps it requires recharging and is non-functional during the recharge cycle), so expect there to be times when you are denied the use of this power. Details should be agreed with the GM. A focus that is always available (say you can summon the Sword of Mystery from a pocket dimension) starts off at a base value of -0. You may take 'extra time to activate' or a similar limitation (concentration, gestures, incantations etc) with your focus if it is hard to power up or initially activate. Once you have it though, you can use all powers normally without having to go through the preparation again.

 

For +1/4 the focus can be taken away from you in combat with a grab or, if targeted by an attack, any KB x2.5 is treated as the Body of an opposed STR roll. Targeting a focus usually uses the current DCV of the character +2. A focus that can be taken away cannot simply be re-summoned, even if the base level of the power is -0: it has to be recovered or remade.

 

A focus is considered able to withstand the rigour of combat without damage, although a concerted or major attack may, at the GM's discretion, damage or destroy a focus, it should be considered unaffected by most attacks that do not kill the user.

 

If a focus can be destroyed in combat then that is worth an additional -1/4. A focus is considered to have a PD and ED equal to the campaign average DC. Although it does not have Power Defence, or any other defence, you can re-distribute the PD and ED to other defences on a 1 point for 1 point basis. A focus that provides a defence may use that defence instead of the allocated defence, if it would be better. For each 2 full points of Body that penetrate through the defences of a focus, the GM may remove access to one power (or more than one if they are linked, unified, or in a framework together) or apply an activation roll (or make any current activation roll worse). Activation starts at 14- and goes down in steps of 2 (14-, 12-, 10-, 8-, 6-). If something has a 6- activation roll and is further damaged it is destroyed. Activation roll, as opposed to destruction, is usually only used for defences, but it is up to the GM - he may chose, for example, to give several powers an activation roll rather than destroying any one of them. The GM can also impose equivalent limitations instead of removing access or imposing activation, but this should not be overused. A focus that can be damaged or destroyed cannot simply be re-summoned, even if the base level of the power is -0: it has to be repaired or remade.

 

For -1/4 a focus can be fragile: it has no defences, even if it provides defences.

 

A focus with all of its powers beyond access may, at the GM's discretion, be beyond repair and require that it be re-built.

 

A damaged focus can be repaired out of combat with an appropriate skill roll and sufficient time, but field repairs rarely succeed in repairing all damage unless it is minor. Generally to completely repair a focus requires appropriate powers or a lab/workbench and considerable time (at least an hour).

 

Many powers built as 'focus' also have the 'real' limitation, meaning they require maintenance and can occasionally malfunction.

 

Hmm. That covers most of it, I think. Could add in 'bulky' and 'immobile', but otherwise that does everything I think a focus should do. Comments?

[ideasmith]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

Gotcha, thanks. I assume the Limitation aspect will be those occasions like ice-ramping straight up or something, when you could simply cut the beanstalk out from under him?

 

Or does having a Physical Manifestation successfully target turn the power off for a period of time?

 

I an enemy hits the ice slide and gets through the ice slides defense, the ice the characters 'Running Usable as Gliding' is turned off until the character turns it back on. Since Running and Gliding are Movement Powers, this would be a Half Phase movement action.

 

As written, Physical Manifestation turns the power off. It does not prevent the power from being turned on again.

 

This seems a good time to repeat that I do not have 6E yet, and my comments refer to 5ER.

[phookz]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

On the question of re-writing focus, I think we have most of the tools already. I think we could re-write focus in much more compact form and add clarity. Off the top of my head...

 

...

 

At the 1/4 level the focus can be taken from you if you are helpless, stolen from you if you are not paying attention or may otherwise be occasionally unavailable (perhaps it requires recharging and is non-functional during the recharge cycle), so expect there to be times when you are denied the use of this power. Details should be agreed with the GM. A focus that is always available (say you can summon the Sword of Mystery from a pocket dimension) starts off at a base value of -0. You may take 'extra time to activate' or a similar limitation (concentration, gestures, incantations etc) with your focus if it is hard to power up or initially activate. Once you have it though, you can use all powers normally without having to go through the preparation again.

 

The same limitation as OIAI and the current IIF. Seems appropriate.

 

For +1/4 the focus can be taken away from you in combat with a grab or' date=' if targeted by an attack, any KB x2.5 is treated as the Body of an opposed STR roll. Targeting a focus usually uses the current DCV of the character +2. A focus that can be taken away cannot simply be re-summoned, even if the base level of the power is -0: it has to be recovered or remade.[/quote']

 

I'm curious as to why have a multiplier on the KB of an attack? Wouldn't it be simpler to use the BODY of the attack (which is how it's done for Accessible now)? Since KB is based on BODY anyway, using a multiplier may work well for some ranges, but won't scale well for larger attacks. Is the idea to try and account for the reduced KB from KA?

 

A focus is considered able to withstand the rigour of combat without damage' date=' although a concerted or major attack may, at the GM's discretion, damage or destroy a focus, it should be considered unaffected by most attacks that do not kill the user.[/quote']

 

I like this, but I think it's most appropriate for supers. I think it might be better to have a bit of expansion on this about different campaign/genre types and what would be appropriate.

 

If a focus can be destroyed in combat then that is worth an additional -1/4. A focus is considered to have a PD and ED equal to the campaign average DC. Although it does not have Power Defence' date=' or any other defence, you can re-distribute the PD and ED to other defences on a 1 point for 1 point basis. A focus that provides a defence may use that defence instead of the allocated defence, if it would be better. For each 2 full points of Body that penetrate through the defences of a focus, the GM may remove access to one power (or more than one if they are linked, unified, or in a framework together) or apply an activation roll (or make any current activation roll worse). Activation starts at 14- and goes down in steps of 2 (14-, 12-, 10-, 8-, 6-). If something has a 6- activation roll and is further damaged it is destroyed. Activation roll, as opposed to destruction, is usually only used for defences, but it is up to the GM - he may chose, for example, to give several powers an activation roll rather than destroying any one of them. The GM can also impose equivalent limitations instead of removing access or imposing activation, but this should not be overused. A focus that can be damaged or destroyed cannot simply be re-summoned, even if the base level of the power is -0: it has to be repaired or remade.[/quote']

 

I like the idea, but haven't given it enough thought yet as to how well this works out. A think a brief explanation for Focus that already has Activation is in order - any attack that hits the character and fails the Activation roll shouldn't damage the focus, should it? This is different from the Activation roll you suggest, I'm talking about if the character takes the Activation limitation.

 

I like your proposed rules for damaging a focus. Your suggestion states that if an attack lets 10 BODY through the Focus will now have an Activation of 6-, and 12 BODY destroys the focus (or a power) outright; pretty severe, but not as severe as the RAW, and 10 BODY will drop most Normals, so maybe that's appropriate. I could see a whole set of optional rules for this type of stuff.

 

I think your proposed Focus damage rules are superior to the RAW.

 

Just noodling around, off the top of my head and at the risk of overly complicating things, maybe there should be an Activation roll to damage the Focus, with modifiers based on the amount of BODY that get's through? What if any BODY through a Focus has an 11- chance to damage the Focus, with a +1 for every BODY that get's through. The damage applied is then as you suggest - giving Activation rolls of 14-, 12-, etc. Hmm, it's a lot of Activation rolls, but I'm a bit troubled by the notion that any damage through damages the Focus, but maybe that's the point of the limitation anyway. Like I said, just noodling here, throwing out some thoughts to see what people think.

 

Hmm. That covers most of it' date=' I think. Could add in 'bulky' and 'immobile', but otherwise that does everything I think a focus should do. Comments?[/quote']

 

I think it's an interesting start. As I've stated before, I'm not sure the Focus rules are broken, but I would like to see something better for the Focus damaging rules; I'm not sure the rest of it needs to really change. I'm not convinced your costing is appropriate. I like the -1 for OAF, and I think it's a fair cost. Think of all the thugs that have their guns taken away - it's easy to do and it severely limits that power. I think you could argue that -1 is too much (personally I think it's about right), but I think that -1/2 is too little. Perhaps if your rules covered Obviousness that would help.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

 

There's already a rule in place that says that a machine (usually a complex item such as a car engine) acquires an Activation Roll when damaged.