Inherent: SFX, any?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

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

 

By that logic... nothing should be able to take Inherent beyond the base template that you start with. What's the point?

 

Gills- LS: Breathe Underwater is an SFX that should take Inherent.

SCUBA- LS: Breath Underwater is an SFX that should not take Inherent.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

You can't Dispel someone's arms' date=' but you can Transform them into an armless person.[/quote']

 

Or, as Sean noted, Drain their STR.

 

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

 

My legs are an undeniable aspect of my physiology, but my Running and Leaping can still be Drained.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Yeah, sure whatever. It's bad logic in my book.

 

By all accounts of that thinking the Advantage shouldn't exist in the first place - so remove it from your games.

[Ice9]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Gills should be as inherent as lungs are. While it can certainly makes sense to create a gill-clogging substance, it equally makes sense to create a throat clogging substance. In either case, it's rather abusive for a Drain 2d6 to be an insta-kill.

 

That aside, there are plenty of cases where Inherent makes undeniable sense. Someone who is a sentient swarm of insects is going to be partially Desolid, and dispelling that makes no sense. See also: many senses, extra limbs, HKAs that represent claws or teeth, and a number of other things.

 

 

The bigger issue is that Suppress isn't one really one power, it's two related powers:

1) Block/weaken an ability someone has.

2) Cause someone to be hindered, such that they are worse in a specific area.

 

For the first form (anti-mutant serum, electromagnetic dampener, etc) it makes no sense to Suppress things like normal running, being naturally lighter than air, or wearing armor. For the second form (high-gravity field, molecular destabilizer, accelerated icing-up), whether a power is natural makes no difference (and often, Power Defense makes no difference, so they should really be AVAD).

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Also - a lot of these "Drains" could really be other Powers.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

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' date=' although adjustment powers versus life support are quite rare.[/quote']

 

If it actually removed the ability, it may possibly be constructed as Transform. as opposed to drain. Removing your lymphatic tissue doesn't drain your immune system as much as it "transforms" you into someone with a lousy immune system.

 

Similar with compromising an ability. Is it actually taking away the ability to breathe underwater-- that is, were the character taken instantly out of that situation, would he be able to breathe underwater again? Or is he instead being NND: Choked (does Body) or something along those lines.

 

While reading through the thread suggests that I've been wildly scooped while I was out today, there are several people raising a very valid point:

 

There are more ways to impeded an Ability than Drain or Suppress.

 

 

For example:

 

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.

 

Were this my game, I would rule this construct invalid. The defined SFX is that the gills are being clogged. They still function completely normally: exposed to oxygenated water in sufficient volume, the character can breathe. The basic "breathe underwater" ability isn't removed here; the water is removed.

 

Building it as an NND: Choke would be valid. In the end, the character can't breathe with either build, but the NND build (defense: filters; SCUBA, or method of breathing other than gills) more accurately portrays the fact that the nature of the gills are not affected in any way.

[Rapier]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

I'm sure that Inherent has many valid uses.

 

However, the only ones I can ever imagine off the top of my head are things like Extra Limbs and Wings.

 

Inherent is about taking what would normally be a power (eg something you get that is so useful that you should rightly pay points for it) and turning it into a facet of your being.

 

If your guy has 6 arms, they can't very well be Drained or Suppressed. He's got six freakin arms! But Extra Limbs isn't always that way. If you are AmoebaLad, maybe you can generate as many arms as you need on a temporary basis. Get hit with some kind of Cell Wall Rigidity Ray and you can't change your shape.

 

Does Inherent make sense for most powers? I hate to say no. It might seem like an easy out to take your Blast or your STR as Inherent so that you never lose it, but that is kind of why GM review is important.

 

'Just because you can build it, doesn't mean you should.' - Hero System Mantra

[Greywind]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

...or something so powerful, it can't be suppressed...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

There have been a number of references to STR or EB made inherent. Did I miss a change in 6e? I thought Inherent first required 0 END, Persistent and Always On. I don't see a lot of characters applying those modifiers to STR and EB's.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

IMO, The Inherent Advantage has caused more confusion and arguments than it has solve any problems or allowed concepts to be built. I don't use it at all, as an Advantage. In games I run, it's replaced by Common Sense: If it makes no sense for the ability to be Drained/Suppressed, then it can't be, and you get that "inherentness" for free. If it does make sense that something could Drain/Suppress it, then Inherent is simply not available.

 

Now I know it sounds like I'm giving away something for free just for having the right SFX, but I'm not. Inherent-ness is a very rare thing.

 

And just today, as I read this thread, I think of another way to think about it: What's inherent is really a lack of something:

 

You can't drain a robot's lack of need to breathe.

You can't drain a mouse's lack of being man-sized.

You can't drain a ghost's lack of a solid body.

You can't drain an alien's lack of human physiology.

[Naanomi]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

You can't drain a robot's lack of need to breathe.

You can't drain a mouse's lack of being man-sized.

You can't drain a ghost's lack of a solid body.

You can't drain an alien's lack of human physiology.

 

How about Wonder Twins? Can't drain their lack of being one person? hehe

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

The problem - as I see it - is that Drain should work vs SFX First and Mechanics Second.

 

I've never liked "Drain Energy Blast" as a build. On the rare occasions I GM a Supersgame (ok, that one time) I would never allow that. Drain Fire - yes.

 

So for me Drain Life Support is just as hinky a build. There are too many Life Support SFXs for just one measly Drain to rationally cover.

[casualplayer]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

The problem is not so much Inherent as Adjustment Powers, which are highly SFXed up. Plus the Adjustment Power defense, Power Defense , is pure SFX because it's almost impossible to come up with a justification for it other than "I don't want people messing with my Stats." Everytime you have dueling SFXs, the GM has to make a call that is going to upset someone. Makes for bad, arbitrary gaming.

 

Inherent is power insurance; the player wants the serenity that comes from knowing the GM can't mess with that aspect of his character. The advantage probably should be called "Immutable" and should probably just be a gentleman's agreement between player and GM that "Please don't mess with this."

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

And just today, as I read this thread, I think of another way to think about it: What's inherent is really a lack of something:

 

You can't drain a robot's lack of need to breathe.

That's why you buy it Inherent

You can't drain a mouse's lack of being man-sized.

By RAW you don't make a mouse small by using a Power so this statement has nothing to do with the conversation. You make a mouse small by puting the Char at the appropriate level and by giving it any appropriate Physical Complications as per the size chart.

You can't drain a ghost's lack of a solid body.

That's why you buy it with Inherent.

You can't drain an alien's lack of human physiology.

What Power are you using to define a lack of human physiology? Usually not having human physiology is a Disadvantage for medical things and such. It is often also an excuse for certain powers and stats. Why should Alien STR be harder to drain than Olympic Level Athlete STR? If Powers and Char aren't what makes "alien physiology" then what are you trying to Drain?

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

IMO' date=' The Inherent Advantage has caused more confusion and arguments than it has solve any problems or allowed concepts to be built. [/quote']

 

I disagree, but only mildly. The official acceptance of such an Advantage pointed out the indiscriminate and meta-mechanical nature of Drains and such. More than "what's inherent and what's not," the question to me has always been "why allow the complete universality of adjustment attacks?"

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Yeah, sure whatever. It's bad logic in my book.

 

By all accounts of that thinking the Advantage shouldn't exist in the first place - so remove it from your games.

 

If a ghost is an immaterial being, and you decide to buy that immateriality as 0 END persistent always on desolidification, it would make sense to have that inherent: becoming desolid is not something the character does, it is something the character is. You can not drain that aspect of the character*.

 

Inherent is not 'generally' useful, but it definitely has a niche that it fills.

 

 

 

*Or maybe you can - perhaps in that particular game world you can bring ghosts back to the material plane by draining desolid - but that is probably not a common concept.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

The problem - as I see it - is that Drain should work vs SFX First and Mechanics Second.

 

I've never liked "Drain Energy Blast" as a build. On the rare occasions I GM a Supersgame (ok, that one time) I would never allow that. Drain Fire - yes.

 

So for me Drain Life Support is just as hinky a build. There are too many Life Support SFXs for just one measly Drain to rationally cover.

 

Absolutely agree.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

IMO' date=' The Inherent Advantage has caused more confusion and arguments than it has solve any problems or allowed concepts to be built. I don't use it at all, as an Advantage. In games I run, it's replaced by Common Sense: If it makes no sense for the ability to be Drained/Suppressed, then it can't be, and you get that "inherentness" for free. If it does make sense that something could Drain/Suppress it, then Inherent is simply not available.[/quote']

 

To this, I would add that the power is already 0 END, Persistent and Always On. Those powers are starting to sound pretty Inherent to begin with. Should it be possible to shut them off? Maybe it depends on the nature of the power.

 

Now I know it sounds like I'm giving away something for free just for having the right SFX' date=' but I'm not. Inherent-ness is a very rare thing.[/quote']

 

As well, the adjustment powers that affect inherent powers seem very rare, so how much of an advantage is it, really? If there would never be a Drain Life Support or Drain Extra Limbs power in the game, then Inherent on those powers is not gaining the player any more than KS: Renaissance Italian Literature gains them in a typical Wild West game. It is background, and should not cost points. There might be a Drain Fish Powers, or a Drain Amoeba powers, and those might catch a character's water breathing or extra limbs. But they should, if the drains have SFX to match their build.

 

And just today, as I read this thread, I think of another way to think about it: What's inherent is really a lack of something:

 

You can't drain a robot's lack of need to breathe.

 

Neither can that Robot benefit from an inhaled gas that provides positive adjustments. That Inherent has benefits and drawbacks, both very rare. Sounds like SFX to me.

 

You can't drain a mouse's lack of being man-sized.

You can't drain a ghost's lack of a solid body.

 

These come down to game parameters.

 

Maybe our Ghost Hunter game does have a spell that forces a ghost to become solid. Of course, maybe that spell should be built as a Transform rather than a Drain or Suppress. Given the cost off the ghost's desolidification, the Transform is probably not much different in cost anyway. To Drain 40 points of Desolid on an average roll, I need a 12d6 Drain (120 AP). That would buy 8d6 Major Transform, averaging 28 points. How much BOD do ghosts have anyway?

 

 

You can't drain an alien's lack of human physiology.

 

Again, whatever that grants likely has positives and negatives.

 

Let's add another example. The character has a flaming Damage Aura, 0 END, persistent, always on. Maybe it can be drained, maybe it can't.

 

If it can, this is a drawback when he wants it in combat, and a benefit when he wants to investigate the fireworks factory. If it can't, then it is a benefit in combat and a drawback in investigations. Again, seems like it balances out.

 

Do we really need this advantage, or should Inherent be relegated to the arena of SFX? There are probably a few other +1/4's that could stand a similar analysis (I'm looking at YOU, Personal Immunity).

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Were this my game, I would rule this construct invalid. The defined SFX is that the gills are being clogged. They still function completely normally: exposed to oxygenated water in sufficient volume, the character can breathe. The basic "breathe underwater" ability isn't removed here; the water is removed.

 

Building it as an NND: Choke would be valid. In the end, the character can't breathe with either build, but the NND build (defense: filters; SCUBA, or method of breathing other than gills) more accurately portrays the fact that the nature of the gills are not affected in any way.

 

first issue: nnd does not allow you to define a lac as the defense. so i cannot define "doesnt need to breath water" as a valid nnd defense, tho that is precisely the counter for such an nnd attack. so your preferred build is illegal.

 

barring gm fiat of course but if invoking gm fiat one shouldn't be tossing around terms like invalid.

 

second: drains and suppresses are used frequently in published materials for effects which dont remove the ability but stop it from functioning.

 

i have seen itching powder writte up as drain dex even though the deterity is stilll there but the itching powder makes the character unable to use it.

dont ask for a cite, books packed up. and its a lot of books.

 

of course, in your game, whatever you say goes.

 

third issue effectiveness: a 3d6 nnd would have costed similarly and frankly would have been much more effective, knocking them out fairly quickly. and not actually making them choke at all.

 

fourth issue mechanics and sfx: by draining their water breathing, we actually got to invoke the suffocate rules - cannot recover, losde end, etc.

 

so the sfx is "they cannot breath" and were i a gm a mechanical effect which caused the actual suffocation rules to be applied to the victim as opposed to simply whacking off more stun would be the more valid build.

 

i am really curious as to why you think whacking off stun is a more valid mechanical build than invoking the choking/suffocation rules is for an sfx of clogged gills?

 

i do think many hero players would prefer the gm to let them use the 3d6 area continual nnd as it whacks off stun and is quicker to knock them down.

 

but as gm the ndd stops affecting you as soon as you leave, while the clogged gill drain clears slowly as you recover the points. that seems more appropriate.

 

but to each his own. some gms prefer to keep things in stun only effects.

 

i wanted the power that stopped them from breathing to actually invoke the "not breathing" rules - not just whack off stun.

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

...or something so powerful' date=' it can't be suppressed...[/quote']

 

even by the originator of the power?

 

i have rarely ran a monotheistic world. where there was one true god over powerful of all else who was actively involved and granting powers.

 

so even my really powerful sources had rivals and so a power so powerful even my "as powerful rivals" cannot drain it never made sense.

 

someone or something somewhere in the universe was "as powerful" and so being untouchable by anything never made sense.

 

if you want a powee thats tougher than normal, buy diff to dispel or the equivqlent.

 

but to get the absolute - absolutes are not just a "have a bigger stick"

 

some gms like absolutes more than i do, however.

[Greywind]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

I don't believe in absolutes either, but, let's say a FH god. There is no rational way that a mere mortal would be able, without outside assistance, to syphon the power of that god.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

first issue: nnd does not allow you to define a lac as the defense. so i cannot define "doesnt need to breath water" as a valid nnd defense' date=' tho that is precisely the counter for such an nnd attack. so your preferred build is illegal.[/quote']

 

Semantics. Go with "breathe something other than water." Same results.

 

barring gm fiat of course but if invoking gm fiat one shouldn't be tossing around terms like invalid.

 

I thought the precursor "were this my game" was not only specifically qualifying, but gut-wrenchingly obsequious. I'm sorry if I managed to offend you after all that, but really, we can only do so much and remain in a discussion that goes somewhere. If endless apologies are needed to keep something on focus, then consider them freely given before and after anything I post.

 

fourth issue mechanics and sfx: by draining their water breathing, we actually got to invoke the suffocate rules - cannot recover, losde end, etc.

 

Which you can also do by choking them. I dare say that ultimately, choking is what lead to suffocation rules. You can do it with any attack defined as choking, down to a wiry hand wrapped 'round the throat. You don't need a Drain for that.

 

and were i a gm

 

I'm not the only one who thinks this is an appropriate "I'm not picking on anyone; I'm joining the discussion" stipulation.

 

i am really curious as to why you think whacking off stun is a more valid mechanical build than invoking the choking/suffocation rules is for an sfx of clogged gills?

 

I don't. I think Draining END and REC are more appropriate. When you run out of END, start whacking off BODY.

 

However, the point I was discussing was "builds other than Drain," so I offered one.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Sorry for the requote, but for some reason I am having the devil's own time doing any editing this afternoon. This had me thinking:

 

first issue: nnd does not allow you to define a lac as the defense. so i cannot define "doesnt need to breath water" as a valid nnd defense

 

Then I assume that "Life Support: doesn't need to breathe" as an often-used defense against gas attacks works because of the positive requirement of a power purchase. Is that correct?

[Vulcan]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Are you agreeing with me, arguing with me, or just trying to pick a fight?

[Vulcan]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

The problem - as I see it - is that Drain should work vs SFX First and Mechanics Second.

 

I've never liked "Drain Energy Blast" as a build. On the rare occasions I GM a Supersgame (ok, that one time) I would never allow that. Drain Fire - yes.

 

So for me Drain Life Support is just as hinky a build. There are too many Life Support SFXs for just one measly Drain to rationally cover.

 

This is the single best point made in this thread. The problem isn't in "Inherent", it is in the abusively over-wide effectiveness of the Drain power.

 

For example: Drain Flight based on a 10x increase in the force of gravity. Sure, works well on most FX. But what about a blimp? Blimps fly by being lighter than air. Sure, it now weights 10x as much. But so does the air in the area! The blimp should continue to fly - it might be hampered a bit in maneuverability, but it shouldn't fall out of the sky!

 

And don't get me started on "Drain Superpower"...