Inherent: SFX, any?

[lensman]

A player came to me and said that his Luck powers/Skills should all be Inherenent, they can not be taken away.

 

His Luck is just that, it exists like his ability to see, his ability to breath, and like his arms and legs, it is Inherent to the characters existence.

 

Now does this meet the definition and if not why not?

 

I ca think of ways to use probability Magic, Super intelligent(leaving nothing to chance) planning, Someone with a Luck God etc.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

If he feels they should all be Inherent, then he should buy them with Inherent. Then you don't have to choose between rewarding certain SFX or Power choices over others by giving them something for free. Simple as that.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Exactly.

 

Can Scarlet Witch's powers be taken away? (by somebody like Rogue)

If so they aren't inherent.

 

Inherent suggests karma of a higher order (even gods can't mess with the abilities).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

A player came to me and said that his Luck powers/Skills should all be Inherenent, they can not be taken away.

 

His Luck is just that, it exists like his ability to see, his ability to breath, and like his arms and legs, it is Inherent to the characters existence.

 

His arms have STR which can be drained. It is not mechanically Inherent. His Running and Leaping can be drained or suppressed, so they are also not Inherent.

 

His ability to breathe is a limitation he can buy off with Life Support. I like an old suggestion that a Suffocate power be based on Suppress Life Support: Breathe in Oxygen/Nitrogen atmosphere. Sight can't be Drained or Suppressed, but I have no idea why not. I don't expect it would be much cheaper than Transforming the target to a person who cannot see, especially if the Transformation only lasts as long as END is paid (like Suppress) or recovers every turn (like Drain) rather than having a less common shutdown condition or recovering like BOD.

 

Very little is truly Inherent, and powers that are can still be stripped away by Transform.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

I actually have no problem if someone feels their concept justifies Inherent on some or most of their powers. They'll just have to pay for it.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Sight can't be Drained or Suppressed' date=' but I have no idea why not. [/quote']

 

I suspect that this is a tiny bit of Metarules to balance things out with Darkness. Besides, going from the "suffocate by removing a power build" model would suggest costing out Sight before being able to suppress it. First there's the matter of getting everyone at the table to agree on what it costs (based on what details folks think should or should not be included)....

 

Actually, that's usually the biggest hurdle.

 

And most certainly, if he thinks they should _be_ Inherent, then (with your approval) he should _buy_ them Inherent.

 

Then of course there's "the other way," but I don' think there's a reasonable GM on earth who is going to let someone get a Power or a Talent as a Disadvantage.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

I suspect that this is a tiny bit of Metarules to balance things out with Darkness. Besides' date=' going from the "suffocate by removing a power build" model would suggest costing out Sight before being able to suppress it. First there's the matter of getting everyone at the table to agree on what it costs (based on what details folks think should or should not be included)....[/quote']

 

6e says sight costs 35 points. The cost of each sense is listed for purposes of sellbacks, IIRC under the Enhanced Senses section.

 

Darkness that affects one hex costs a lot less than it would take to suppress 35 points of Sight - 10d6 on an average roll.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

6e says sight costs 35 points. The cost of each sense is listed for purposes of sellbacks, IIRC under the Enhanced Senses section.

 

Darkness that affects one hex costs a lot less than it would take to suppress 35 points of Sight - 10d6 on an average roll.

First, we didn't have the point values of senses until 6E, so there wouldn't have even been an option to suppress them until now. Also, what stops the person from simply walking out of the one hex of Darkness? So you need the UAA Advantage to make it stick to the person which is a +1 Advantage (at least that’s how it was done in 5ER). Now that’s still only what? 20 points I think? But the target is, arguably, depending on SFX and how the GM rules it, in the middle of a whole hex full of Darkness making it harder to target the victim of the Darkness.

 

I'm not really sure what my point here is other than you can't compare apples to oranges, you have to make the Powers actually acheive the same (or at least similar) things to compare pricing.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Drain/Suppress on Senses steps on the toes of Flash more than it does Darkness. And Flash was totally nerfed starting in 5E, so using another power construct that would actually be remotely effective could possibly be construed as cheating the system.

[Vulcan]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

If the player in the OP wants Inherent for free... my opinion is that he is out of luck. He certainly would be in my games. If he wants his Luck to be Inherent, then he needs to pony up the points along with giving me the reason it should be Inherent.

 

I don't use Inherent a lot. But when I do, it is because it is necessary to the character. I usually buy Extra Limbs as Inherent. After all, removing it pretty much means lopping it off, and that isn't exactly covered by Drain - that falls under Killing Attack. Likewise, Golem is a statue magically given intellect and will. His PD/ED are Inherent, because that is a property of the stone he is made of. Under 5E I would buy Gliding Inherent for winged charcters - unless you lop off his wings, he can at the very least still glide.

 

Although I note that I have been known to waive the 'undrainable' nature of Inherent powers when it made dramatic sense... say, Gravitar Drains Flight/Gliding by increasing the force of gravity by 10 times. Then it just makes sense.

 

(Of course, I would hope that since I spent the points the GM wouldn't pull this too often...)

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

6e says sight costs 35 points. The cost of each sense is listed for purposes of sellbacks, IIRC under the Enhanced Senses section.

 

Darkness that affects one hex costs a lot less than it would take to suppress 35 points of Sight - 10d6 on an average roll.

And that's just for a normal person's sight. If he's spent more points on various enhancements to his vision, you'll need to suppress even more points to blind him.

[Naanomi]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Inherent luck is fine... its one of the powers I've seen as working ok inherent in general. If your luck comes from something psychic or mutant or magic... sure, dispel that! If your luck is just 'luck', totally inexplicable... or from the hand of some universal/divine power, good luck getting rid of that.... except for transforming it off I guess.

 

Automaton powers are usually inherent... how do you suppress something's lack of stun?

 

Desolid occasionally is inherent (can't 'dispel' the ghost back into the physical world), likewise some SFX for regeneration are good for inherent (the giant blob doesn't heal so much as it just sticks back together).

 

Duplication, for duplicants that 'cannot recombine' are almost all 'inherent'... you can dispel the heads of a hydra, or your psychically linked twin.

[Lucius]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

If your luck is just 'luck', totally inexplicable... or from the hand of some universal/divine power, good luck getting rid of that.... .

 

Good luck getting rid of that....so I can Dispel someone else's good Luck with my own good Luck?

 

Automaton powers are usually inherent... how do you suppress something's lack of stun?

 

If you managed to do so, it would be Stunning News for the Robot

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38961&highlight=stunning+news+for+robots

 

We should probably make undead Life Support (Undeath Support?) Inherent too...

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Inherent Palindromedary

[Naanomi]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Life Support is a good one for Inherent... Dispel my Gas Mask: no problem... Dispel my gills? Less entertaining.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Life Support is a good one for Inherent... Dispel my Gas Mask: no problem... Dispel my gills? Less entertaining.

 

Less entertaining but perfectly justifiable.

 

The thing i ask when someone wants 'inherent' is this: why can't it be taken away?

 

'Because it is part of what I am' is usually not a good reason IMO. Luck powers that can not be taken away? What if the sfx of the drain are that it makes the target increasingly unlucky? At some point the luck and unluck will cancel out. Even if you've still 'got' your luck powers the surrounding unluck cloud cancels their use.

 

To a large extent I don't care, of course: 'inherent' on a 60 point power costs 15 points - if you'd spent that on Power Defence all your powers would be hard to drain (of course they would still be relatively easy to suppress....grrr). If you bought 15 character points worth of Power Defence with the limitation 'Only to Prevent Luck Powers being negatively adjusted', assuming you don;t have all your powers in 'Luck sfx' that might be worth -1: that is 30 points of power defence, which is a lot.

 

No, when I think of inherent, I allow it usually only on things that rare meaningless to the character, for example 'LS: Self Contained Breathing on a character whose metabolic process has nothing to do with breathing: logically you can not take away his ability to not breathe because it is more like an amendment of the basic character template - this is someone to whom breathing is meaningless.

 

The other thing to bear in mind is that something that is inherent can not be adjusted at all - even aided. Is it logical that the Luck God can not be made luckier with a Luck Spell? If not - no inherent.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

If the player in the OP wants Inherent for free... my opinion is that he is out of luck. He certainly would be in my games. If he wants his Luck to be Inherent' date=' then he needs to pony up the points along with giving me the reason it should be Inherent.[/quote']

 

Yup - it's not free. In fact, it's generallly more effective to buy Power Defense than pay the freight for the extra +1/4 advantage, unless the power is trivial. Power Defense has the added advantage of defending against "Transform - someone without luck".

 

I don't use Inherent a lot. But when I do' date=' it is because it is necessary to the character. I usually buy Extra Limbs as Inherent. After all, removing it pretty much means lopping it off, and that isn't exactly covered by Drain - that falls under Killing Attack. [/quote']

 

Is that a problem for the Extra Limbs power (ie it needs to be inherent) or the Drain (ie you need to tell me how your Drain temporarily removes the Extra Limbs)? Both abilities need SFX.

 

Likewise' date=' Golem is a statue magically given intellect and will. His PD/ED are Inherent, because that is a property of the stone he is made of. [/quote']

 

Most defense adjustments I see rely on reducing the toughness of the object. Why should a character made of stone have inherent defenses if the stone wall he's standing beside doesn't? Again, we're back to the SFX of the adjustment power.

 

Under 5E I would buy Gliding Inherent for winged charcters - unless you lop off his wings' date=' he can at the very least still glide.[/quote']

 

Really? Even through my Gravity Augmentation Field ("suppress movement modes that travel through the air")?

 

Although I note that I have been known to waive the 'undrainable' nature of Inherent powers when it made dramatic sense... say' date=' Gravitar Drains Flight/Gliding by increasing the force of gravity by 10 times. Then it just makes sense.[/quote']

 

But now the character, who paid an extra 10 points for his 20" Flight to be "undrainable" isn't getting what he paid for. Should have bought Power Defense, only to protect flight! Gravitar has a power that justifies Draining flight and gliding, not a power that justifies overriding advantages.

 

Good luck getting rid of that....so I can Dispel someone else's good Luck with my own good Luck?

 

Reasonable SFX. Or maybe my goodluck is powered by taking away luck others would access instead.

 

If you managed to do so' date=' it would be Stunning News for the Robot[/quote']

 

The Blue Fairy changes him into a Real Boy (either Drain all automaton powers or a Transform, only one of which is prevented by Inherent anyway).

 

We should probably make undead Life Support (Undeath Support?) Inherent too...

 

What SFX justify draining/suppressing Life Support and would not justify draining AfterLife Support?

 

Life Support is a good one for Inherent... Dispel my Gas Mask: no problem... Dispel my gills? Less entertaining.

 

Both Sub-Mariner and Aquaman have had their ability to breathe underwater removed at various points in their history. Namor has also encountered scenarios where his ability to breathe air was compromised. So the source material does support these abilities not being inherent, although adjustment powers versus life support are quite rare.

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Frankly

 

I use inherent for things like "i am naturally large so my growth is inherent." or "i am naturally small so my shrinking is inherent" (these might be 5e style i think 6e has templates?) So for instance my elephant cannot be dispelled back to human size.

 

I also use it for things like some forms of life support - a golem for instance cannot have his "does not need to breath" drained or dispelled. Similar for an android who has no lungs.

 

those are the kind of things i use inherent for.

 

For things like "my power comes from higher source" I tend to apply "difficult to dispel" and not inherent. This can usually work to show its "tougher to reduce" but frankly, if we are in a polytheistic environment, why can your god's gifts not be disrupted by another god?

 

But generally, since inherent is an absolute - and one of heroes tenets is "no absolutes" - I tend to only use it when it is unquestionable - a case of ""the power is less a power than a natural state.

 

So i don't just allow inherent for anyone who is willing to pay points - you gotta have good reason to get an absolute, especially one so cheap, when i run hero.

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

 

But now the character, who paid an extra 10 points for his 20" Flight to be "undrainable" isn't getting what he paid for. Should have bought Power Defense, only to protect flight! Gravitar has a power that justifies Draining flight and gliding, not a power that justifies overriding advantages.

this is IMo a problem with the broad uses adjustment powers get.

 

Gravity vs flight is better, IMO, tho maybe more expensively, bought as an actual opposing force, say a tk. neither power defense nor inherent then play a role and it becomes simply a matter of force vs force.

 

The Blue Fairy changes him into a Real Boy (either Drain all automaton powers or a Transform, only one of which is prevented by Inherent anyway).

transform can alter the powers of anyone regardless of inherent. change the powersand the issue is moot. might as well change him into a snail.

 

hat SFX justify draining/suppressing Life Support and would not justify draining AfterLife Support?

here we disagree somewhat. The life support for say a skeleton isn't a "power" thats keeping him from breathing but an utter lack of breathing apparatus. Sure he could be transformed to need to breath but thats not draining his life support is it?

Both Sub-Mariner and Aquaman have had their ability to breathe underwater removed at various points in their history. Namor has also encountered scenarios where his ability to breathe air was compromised. So the source material does support these abilities not being inherent, although adjustment powers versus life support are quite rare.

 

In a previous game i whipped up a "gill clogger" area spray that worked vs the "life support breath water' over a large area. It worked great when we did the undersea atlantean thingy. 3d6 std effect drain ranged area etc - fairly cheap for a cloud of nanites that clogged gills.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Less entertaining but perfectly justifiable.

 

The thing i ask when someone wants 'inherent' is this: why can't it be taken away?

 

Depends on if it should be reduced or if it has to be Transformed.

 

You can't Dispel someone's arms, but you can Transform them into an armless person.

 

And there's always Damage to remove a body part. "Inherent Body Parts" like Gills, like Naanomi said, are good candidates for Inherent. It's an undeniable aspect of their physiology - like with a fish.

 

There are plenty of examples you could likely come up with all over the place where it doesn't make sense to "turn off" a Power with Dispel due to the nature of the SFX (and thus requiring the purchase of Inherent).

 

I think at the meta-level we get stuck with the idea that if it doesn't come with the default template it should be able to get "turned off" in some manner. Or we assume the Player is just trying to get away with something by adding it. Which is a bad way to approach the situation.

 

Instead of requiring them to justify it just look at the SFX and if it feels like it's an aspect of the characters Being, that's good enough for me. Or you could take the angle "player paid the points, player gets the benefit."

[Naanomi]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

I tried to build a 'wonder twins' style character... a character with an identical duplicant who 'could not recombine', permanently mind linked, yadda yadda.

 

Dispelling the psychic link, sure... dispelling my twin sister... huh? If the duplicant cannot recombine, where does it go? If I have to struggle more to come up with SFX about my power when dispelled than I did to create it in the first place... good candidate for Inherent.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Frankly

 

I use inherent for things like "i am naturally large so my growth is inherent." or "i am naturally small so my shrinking is inherent" (these might be 5e style i think 6e has templates?) So for instance my elephant cannot be dispelled back to human size.

5E uses templates as well. While many people ignore it, 5E basically forbids using Growth or Shrinking for making large or small characters, so you are basically saying you mostly use Inherent to interact with your house rules.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Depends on if it should be reduced or if it has to be Transformed.

 

You can't Dispel someone's arms, but you can Transform them into an armless person.

 

And there's always Damage to remove a body part. "Inherent Body Parts" like Gills, like Naanomi said, are good candidates for Inherent. It's an undeniable aspect of their physiology - like with a fish.

 

There are plenty of examples you could likely come up with all over the place where it doesn't make sense to "turn off" a Power with Dispel due to the nature of the SFX (and thus requiring the purchase of Inherent).

 

I think at the meta-level we get stuck with the idea that if it doesn't come with the default template it should be able to get "turned off" in some manner. Or we assume the Player is just trying to get away with something by adding it. Which is a bad way to approach the situation.

 

Instead of requiring them to justify it just look at the SFX and if it feels like it's an aspect of the characters Being, that's good enough for me. Or you could take the angle "player paid the points, player gets the benefit."

 

 

I look at it this way: 'Arms' is not a power: strength is. 'Gills' is not a power: LS: breathe underwater is.

 

Dispelling/draining your ability to breathe underwater can be accomplished because that is a power, and there is a logical way to explain how it happens: you might, for example, use some sort of gel that coats the surface of your gills, preventing oxygen exchange. The gills are still there, they just don't work.

 

Transform works differently and would generally not be appropriate for this sort of effect: you could transform someone into a gill-less person or to a person whose gills did not work, but Transform is a catch all and shouldn't be used for stuff other powers do. You shouldn't be using it for 'transform target into same person but just after they've been hit by an energy blast.

 

A sentient rock is different because, whilst it may well be built with LS: self contained breathing, that's not quite right: the breathing is not self contained - it just doesn't need to breathe. It is not a different way of breathing (which could be taken away) it is the absence of a need to breathe - which can't.

 

Similarly with 'arms' - no, you can not dispel/drain them, because they are not a power - they are an sfx of STR. Arguably if you drained STR down to nothing* the sfx could be that you remove all muscles and limbs: they just become a blob of jelly - but generally, removing limbs is not something adjustment powers do.

 

Tesuji mentioned not being able to drain the naturally large or small - absolutely but not because they are built with growth or shrinking - that is not how Hero does permanently large or small characters - size is just an sfx of increased characteristics, and you can drain them.

 

So I disagree about gills - sure you don't take them away with drain, they are still there looking freaky, but you can take away what they do, perfectly logically, so there is no sense in making them (or rather the LS they represent) inherent. It is like saying your self contained breathing (oxygen creation) should be inherent because drain can't remove your lungs: no - it can't - but it can sure stop you using them, even though they are an aspect of that character's being. Same power - different sfx - a character who simply does not have any lungs or other breathing apparatus because that is not how their metabolism works - no problemo.

 

In fact I think there is a lot of confusion because you have to be able to justify the build fromt he sfx you have chosen. The real test is this: is it logical, from concept, that the effects of the power can not be adjusted?

 

If the answer is 'yes' then inherent is what you are looking for.

 

Incidentally a 350 point character, everything inherent, is a 280 point character with 70 points spent on the advantage (probably - depends on build, but that is about right). For those points you could have 46 points of double hardened power defence: not much is getting through that.

 

My point is that this is NOT a cost issue: you can be as or more protected only much cheaper, in all likelihood buying PowD instead of inherent BUT there are just some things inherent is RIGHT for - which all comes back to the proper application of concept.

 

 

 

*which, obviously, is impossible under 6e. Storming.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Automaton powers are usually inherent... how do you suppress something's lack of stun?

 

Why,

 

you teach him a valuable lesson about lying, and then you make him a _real_ boy!

 

Of course, with Suppress, it would wear off and he'd be a puppet again in no time.... Reckon that won't do it...

 

 

I know that this conversation is about a mechanic, but ultimately, what qualifies for Inherent comes down to a mixture of GM approval and SFX. For example, I wouldn't allow "Monstro, the shape-changing boy" to buy his Growth as Inherent, but I've got no problem with Hill Giant having an Inherent level or two simply because, for them, it's not "Growth," it's who they actually are: they don't get any smaller.

 

 

The biggest problem I've ever found with a universal rule for what is or is not fundamentally Inherent is that ultimately, the same results can be gotten with a Physical Limitation: "Phys Lim: fifteen feet tall."

 

I know: counter this idea with "well I can buy an energy blast as Inherent; that's not a phys lim." But then the whole circle starts again: why is your EB Inherent? Why can't I drain it?"

 

Which leads in most cases to a discussion of SFX v SFX of what should or should not be Inherent----

 

which suggests that Inherent itself might be a bit redundant, as clearly-defined SFX tend to resolve the issue case-by-case anyway.

 

GM approval, etc....

 

Though Sean:

 

I rather like the "can it be Aided" angle. That's intriguingly fresh.

[Naanomi]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Dispelling/draining your ability to breathe underwater can be accomplished because that is a power, and there is a logical way to explain how it happens: you might, for example, use some sort of gel that coats the surface of your gills, preventing oxygen exchange. The gills are still there, they just don't work.

 

I can make a gel that coats the inside of your lungs so you can't breathe... they are still there, they just don't work for oxygen exchange. Clearly this means I should be able to drain your normal breathing.

 

Or... The gel doesn't work on Fish because it is the only environment they can breathe in?

 

Gills are just as much a part of some thing's anatomy as lungs are (or, for that matter, lack of oxygen needs all together)... unless they are not, like they are mechanical or something.

 

My water breathing gills can't be aided either

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

I can make a gel that coats the inside of your lungs so you can't breathe... they are still there, they just don't work for oxygen exchange. Clearly this means I should be able to drain your normal breathing.

 

Or... The gel doesn't work on Fish because it is the only environment they can breathe in?

 

Gills are just as much a part of some thing's anatomy as lungs are (or, for that matter, lack of oxygen needs all together)... unless they are not, like they are mechanical or something.

 

My water breathing gills can't be aided either

 

There's a difference between 'I turn off your Gills power' and 'I'm choking you'. Wrapping my hands around someone's throat and strangling them is definitely not draining their 'inherent ability to breathe'. In your example, I would say the power is best built as an NND, not a power drain.