Inherent: SFX, any?

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

I don't believe in absolutes either' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

ph so ok so you aren't suggesting using inherent but rather a limited form of inherent...

 

inherent -s (not drainable by mortals)

 

where s is a value appropriate for the campaign - depends on how many times godlike beings take such direct involvement.

 

we are on the same page except that to represent this in my games, first godlike powers are frequently extremely high ap anyway as to make pc level drains rather useless but also, i tend to use dif to dispel or variants thereof to make the drains even more obviously ineffective.

 

thus the power is practically unassailable by being well powerful, not by being rendered immune.

 

but either way we both agree it seems on not using inherent as is to represent these. you use a limited form - only vs mortals - while i use other means.

[tesuji]

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:

 

 

 

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?

 

yes... target has an immunity, in this case, immunity to breathing in essense.

 

nnd defeated by power purchased - good.

[Vulcan]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Why should Alien STR be harder to drain than Olympic Level Athlete STR?

 

Perhaps the alien equivalent of muscles work more like hydraulic cylinders than elastic bands?

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

As a GM, I'd rule on a case-by-case basis. I see no reason for making Extra Limbs any less Inherent than, say, the Usual Number of Limbs*. A movement power, for example, would probably not default to Inherent, and would have to pay extra for it to be so. Inherent =/= naturally occurring. Inherent is a defense against certain types of attack. As such it should cost something.

 

*It's the player who wants to buy "Supress Extra Limbs" who I'd have my quibble with.

[Greywind]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

You don't believe in player's being disarming?

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

 

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

one man's semantics is another man;s rulebook emphasis. they go to special trouble to tell you not to use "lack of" as a key for nnds, so to them it isnt semantics.

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.

i am not sure where this comes from. i dont think i asked for anapology. are you perhaps confusing my post with someone elses?

 

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.

well, first, i cannot invoke the suffocation rules except by doing something which mechanically does so. i cannot choke someone - causing inability to recover and loss of end etc - with an eb. or an rka. or a flash - mechanically they all do their own thing but they do not choke.

 

sure i can build an eb and call it "choking damage" with nnd. it will work mechanically much like a meson burst nnd eb or a taser nnd eb.

 

thats why i bought this one as a drain, even though an effective nnd would cost a little less and frankly be more debilitating. instead of just blasting stunnoff under another label i want to actually get the suffocation drowning rules in effect.

 

its more of a purist "make the mechanics match the effect" thing.

 

 

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

by the book, drain doesn't work that way. drain all the end and then it stops draining. are you suggesting a third drain for body? thats now a very very expensive attack, whose cost seems way out of whack compared to its effectiveness. with typical rec scores in the 8-10 you need about 6 dice of drain to get it first go round - that means the power weighs in at about 225 cp instead of 75 after advantages.

 

lims may reduce it some. but its still going to weigh in at the low hundreds, for a power less debilitating and less likely to knock them out quickly than the 3d6 eb you mentioned earlier.

 

how is that cost appropriate for the effect?

 

showing my math

 

2d6 drain ls: breath water standard effect 6 cp

+1 continuous

+1 aoe4" rad

+1/2 x4 radius 16"r

+1/4 fade 1 cp per turn

75 ap

 

3d6 eb

+1 nnd "some variant of lack of reath water"

+1 continuous

+1 aoe4" rad

+1/2 x4 radius 16"r

67 ap

 

6d6 drain recovery std effect 9 pts of recovery

+1 nnd "some variant of lack of reath water"

+1 continuous

+1 aoe 18" rad

240 ap

apply lim for water breathing only which varies by campaign.

 

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

 

absolutely, didnt i say something about how many gms like to just whack off stun and players too, its usually the most effective and quickest and often cost effective way to take down an enemy.

 

i think writing up a choking cloud as a whack off stun will keep you in line with many many players and gms.

 

myself, i preferred actually having the choking cloud invoke the drowning rules.

 

different strokes.

 

neither invalid.

 

well, at least to my way of thinking.

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

one more question duke bushido

 

why is it more appropriate to drain his purchased ability recovery, end and body and inappropriate to drain his purchased ability life support?

 

is life support more a "natural part of him" or somesuch than his recovery, end and body?

[Naanomi]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

one more question duke bushido

 

why is it more appropriate to drain his purchased ability recovery, end and body and inappropriate to drain his purchased ability life support?

 

is life support more a "natural part of him" or somesuch than his recovery, end and body?

 

Because the game does not let you 'turn off' some aspects of a character. Their ability to breathe in a normal environment, for example. As cited in your own examples, it is far easier to drain someone's breathing than to try and simulate the effects of suffocation... and I see this as a good thing. This isn't the style of game where building 'power attacks' is really the best way to go.

 

If you really want a gill-clogger, and really want to get rid of the LS... Transform exists with rules for just that reason (and totally bypasses Inherent). Go ahead and suffocate people away with it, and at least then you spent some reasonable amount of points to do so.

 

From a balance perspective: LS powers are cheap and thus 'too easy' to drain. Like Skills are cheap and thus 'too easy' to drain, no matter how fun it would be to drain someone's language skills for a long time.

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

 

Because the game does not let you 'turn off' some aspects of a character. Their ability to breathe in a normal environment, for example. As cited in your own examples, it is far easier to drain someone's breathing than to try and simulate the effects of suffocation... and I see this as a good thing. This isn't the style of game where building 'power attacks' is really the best way to go.

i have no idea what type of game you are referring to but did you read the same example powers i wrote?

 

the most effective attack in terms of getting rid of enemies as quickly as possible was the eb nnd like db suggested as valid. it will clear the area of atlanteans a lot quicker than the drowning "lose an end and cannot take recoveries" does. yet it is cheaper.

 

sure the hokey drain recovery build is a lot more expensive but thats because it is trying to achieve the same effect in a more round about way.

 

the cost is in line with its effectiveness, this drain ls, as opposed to the massive cost of the drain recovery then drain end them drain body.

 

or would you compare drain recovery to 6d6 nnd?

 

If you really want a gill-clogger, and really want to get rid of the LS... Transform exists with rules for just that reason (and totally bypasses Inherent). Go ahead and suffocate people away with it, and at least then you spent some reasonable amount of points to do so.

so its ok to get rid of ls and drown someone but only if you use transform to do it? it has to cost a whoe lot more than an eb approach that would take out the character in less time?

 

why?

 

but we come back to the basic question i agree the game disallows certain things from being drained, but you do realize life support isn;t one of them, right?

 

a gm might decide "this form of life support is not drainable" and allow it to be bought inherent but barring that, ls is drainable by the rules.

 

no transform required.

From a balance perspective: LS powers are cheap and thus 'too easy' to drain. Like Skills are cheap and thus 'too easy' to drain, no matter how fun it would be to drain someone's language skills for a long time.

 

you do understand that the core rules do not agree with yopu. they allow ls to be drained. right?

 

certainly it is within a gm purview to declare gills an "innate part of character" or somesuch and undrainable by inherent or by fiat. itsw just not the defult position of the rulebook.

 

just curious tho, if we were in space and i had a power defined as loosening seals on space suits or some such would you also disallow me buying ls vs self contained breathing or vs immune to vacuum?

 

would ls bought sfx space suit also be immune to loss by say damage from rka?

 

how far does the "must protect life support from attack" thing extend?

 

as for cost, imx characters often have more points invested in ls than they do in recovery, many even including the 5e freebie recovery.

 

so depending on the scope of ls, it might not be cheaper than drain recovery but certainly would be cheaper than the other complex drain build.

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

[quote=Naanomi;19271

From a balance perspective: LS powers are cheap and thus 'too easy' to drain. Like Skills are cheap and thus 'too easy' to drain, no matter how fun it would be to drain someone's language skills for a long time.

 

fwiw

 

drain int is pretty cheap for most characters and draining int for a long time again seeems to be perfectly legal. draining int will effectively shut down both perception and int based skills.

 

should int also get the life support protection clause?

 

what other powers and traits should get this exemption?

 

PRE is cheap easily drained and feeds lots of skill that losing for a long time would be bad. is pre protected?

 

i mean saying "skills are protected" but allowing the characteristics that make the skills useful easily drained seems rather short sighted? like saying "its wrong to have a 4d6 drain ls sc breathing plus vacuum" but allowing the same power to be shredded by a 1d6 rka that shreds the spacesuit, wiping out a power per attack.

 

but seriously can you provide a list of all the things legally allowed to be drained that you feel derserve exemption due to this protection clause? i am curious as to how far it goes.

 

thanks

[Naanomi]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

I would buy inherent for my gills, which is what this is all about...

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

one more question duke bushido

 

("Duke" is fine. It's actually my name. )

 

why is it more appropriate to drain his purchased ability recovery, end and body and inappropriate to drain his purchased ability life support?

 

is life support more a "natural part of him" or somesuch than his recovery, end and body?

 

Reasoning from effects, in this instance. Looking at what actual strangulation does to a person. It's very brutal, and those who have been choked long enough to actually lose consciousness (which I looked at as a total loss of END rather than STUN) do not spring back from it as they do when knocked silly from a blow to the head or other "STUN" type damage. Even the blow to the head takes time to shake off, but choking really seems take a massive toll on their ability to recover.

 

And of course, BODY because -- well, no reason to go into that one, I don't suppose.

[Greywind]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Gills can be clogged or otherwise rendered inoperable.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

The problem here, I suppose, is that the ability to breathe is not specifically costed in Hero and so can not be drained. The invisible template for characters specifies that characters have to breathe (physical limitation/dependence: has to breathe appropriate oxygen nitrogen atmosphere, or near equivalent or take damage) OR that all characters take damage constantly unless they have a form of LS that allows then to breathe and then both that complication and the LS: normal o2/n form part of the invisible template.

 

I prefer that because then a 5 point LS: normal atmosphere would allow you to suffocate someone.

 

I do appreciate the point that if you can not drain normal breathing then you should not be able to drain LS(specialist breathing) - it makes a lot of sense. I also think that the whole area needs a bit more of a look at. The need to eat/sleep/drink/breathe and ageing are all 'invisible complications' on the hidden template of a base character. Maybe they shouldn't be.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

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.

 

Fifth ed rev. pg 351 gives the cost for sight 25 pts. This is equal to phy lim all the time, fully impairing. Just thought you ought to know.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Gills can be clogged or otherwise rendered inoperable.

 

that has nothing to do with "turning off the power" and everything to do with some form of attack, or impairment. I say it has nothing to do with Drain and Suppress or Aid and Succor.

 

Transform, Attacks, and other non-adjustment powers handle that just fine.

 

you don't Drain someone's ability to breathe or not breathe. You either change the medium (air:chlorine) or attack the appartus (disable the lungs with an attack or such).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

I don't believe in absolutes either' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Similarly, the mortal would presumably be unable to cause physical damage to the god. The god buys enough PD and ED that mere mortals cannot harm him, and enough power defense that they cannot siphon his powers. Depending on the powers, and the caps on mere mortal adjustment powers, that may be more or less expensive than slapping "Inherent" on everything.

 

Of course, the God might just have some powers that are not 0 END, Persistent, Always On, and cannot be made inherent in any case.

 

Are you agreeing with me' date=' arguing with me, or just trying to pick a fight?[/quote']

 

Probably some each of the first two. None of the latter. Your suggestion was anyone who has wings should have Inherent gliding, because nothing could drain the gliding. Mine was that a gravity-based gliding drain seemed reasonably capable of draining the gliding.

 

You then indicated you would ignore Inherent for an appropriate special effect. That seems to mean Inherent only protects my powers from adjustment powers that shouldn't have affected them in the first place. Why not police the SFX of the adjustment powers instead? If the character with Drain Gliding has SFX that should not reduce Gliding with wings, then his power should be limited to not reduce gliding provided by wings.

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

you don't Drain someone's ability to breathe or not breathe. You either change the medium (air:chlorine) or attack the appartus (disable the lungs with an attack or such).

 

so are you suggesting that a mage moving underwater with a water breathing spell cannot have his water breathing spell (LS breath water) dispelled or drained by a dispel/drain/suppress magic?

 

or are you saying that some sfx of LS water breathing get this "cannot be drained" for free by dint of their sfx (natural vs magic)?

 

Why is LS so protected?

 

take clinging.

 

a character can have clinging by dint of a spell.

a character can have clinging by dint of natural ability.

 

Would you object to a "drain clinging" spell whose sfx was "covers hands and feet and other appendages with coating that makes clinging impossible?

 

Would you insist that in order to stop gecko man from wall crawling i had to transform him or disable his hands and feet?

 

if i cannot drain someone's ls water breathing, why can i drain their int or their pre or their jumping or their running?

 

what is the criteria beyond "what i feel like at the moment" for dividing these by-the-book drainable traits or sfx catehories of traits into safe and not safe for free?

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Here is something else which has me befudled with inherent. I get that it is appropriate for extra limbs i.e. tail, I get that it could be used for desolid, i.e. ghost body. but what confuses me is that one person said claws should be inherent, yet because of cost end rule - it shouldn't be.

 

Also Ij justed got to say, that I've been a lurker on these boards for a loooong time. And I don't recall drain extra limbs as being an issue before. Its seems to me that Steve came up with a solution to a (at best) trivial problem. But with the limited explanation of the new defense, opened up a bigger problem than its creation solved.

 

Anyways my 2 cents also

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

My viewpoint...

 

Lets say i have a pc - smart guy.

 

I start his concept and i quickly realize "hey, smart guy can get really messed up by int drains. Int drains are pretty cheap. I wouldn't like it if he got drained of int. So what do i do about it?"

 

Option 1: LOBBYIST APPROACH

 

I go to the gm and try and make the case that int drains are too cheap and that he should simply not permit them or maybe not permit them in my case for free because of my sfx which is some form of "something that i dont want drained".

 

OPTION 2: BUILDER APPROACH

 

I sit down and see how many different ways i can make it not a problem.

 

2a - power defense "only to protect int" which ought to weigh in at -2 or so. So for 5 cp i got 15 powdef to block transforms and drains and dispels against my int. That coupled with a reqsonably high int should be sufficient.

 

2b: Very high int. I buy int like 50 and dont worry about drains too much. Now maybe you might think int 50 is excessive because people rarely buy really superhuman int scores, but hey, are you tougher or smarter? if smarter is more important to this character then why is your stun higher than your int?

 

2c - I buy a very good int and i buy +3 with int based skills for like 15 cp. Now even if i get drained to int 0 i have 12- with int based skills.

 

2d - some combo of the above options.

 

either way using option 2, i can BUILD INTO THE CHARACTER the very protection option 1 is trying to get for free by having the gm ban the attacks.

 

Now, maybe its me, it definitely is me, but they way i run things when i gm hero and the way i play hero when i play - option 2 is more in keeping with the game as i understand it.

 

granting invulnerability for free is not to me in keeping with hero's design.

 

if drain ls automatically killed a character, i could see having balance concerns. but at its base form, it doesn't. it will incapacitate them after a while but not for a while. it may shorten the combat but not end it abruptly.

 

if hero 6 or 5 had wanted to protect ls, they could have made them defense powers and granted them double cost for draining. they didn't

if hero 6 or hero 5 had wanted to make ls default inherent, they could have. they didn't.

 

if they had wanted to make some sfx of ls specifically inherent and undrainable they could have, they didn't.

 

so to my way of thinking - making some sfx of ls undrainable by default is a house rule, not "how the system works" and that is fine as long as you recognize it as such. But as a house rule, the way i design house rules, it needs more structure than "these few things i picked arbitrarily".

 

The question of "why int drain or running drain if not ls?" and "if i am not allowed to stop gills from working except by actual damage, then why can i drain running without smashing legs?" need answering or my house rule degenerates into "cu i said so".

 

which is fine if thats how you want your rules to go.

 

 

but definietly not to my tastes.

 

I see no reason an atlantean who has ls water breathing and swimming and strength should be able to have his swimming drained or his strength drained but his water breathing be immune, either by rule, by common sense, by dramatic sense or by sense of balance.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

...

but what confuses me is that one person said claws should be inherent, yet because of cost end rule - it shouldn't be.

 

If you're referring to Wolverine-like claws you would be better off using the Difficult To Dispel Advantage instead. Inherent can only be applied to abilities which are Persistent. Persistent is not legal on the following build because of the CSL's on 2 of the slots (which have the same justification as CSL's built as part of published weapons). Even if you removed the CSL's, Persistent would have to be added to the slots individually (at least within HeroDesigner) and would be a total (+3/4) vs. (+1/4) for DTD.

 

63 I've Got Claws! v2: Multipower, 75-point reserve, all slots Difficult To Dispel (x2 Active Points; +1/4) (94 Active Points); all slots Restrainable (-1/2)

[Notes: Figured damage totals assume a character with 20 STR.]

5u 1) Slash!: (Total: 75 Active Cost, 50 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Armor Piercing (x2; +1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (70 Active Points) (Real Cost: 47) plus +1 with HTH Combat (5 Active Points) (Real Cost: 3) - END=0

5u 2) Thrust!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 3d6+1 (4d6+1 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (75 Active Points) - END=0

5u 3) Slash! v2: (Total: 75 Active Cost, 50 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), No Normal Defense ([Force Field or Force Wall]; +1), Does BODY (+1) (70 Active Points) (Real Cost: 47) plus +1 with HTH Combat (5 Active Points) (Real Cost: 3) - END=0

 

60 I've Got Claws! v3: Multipower, 90-point reserve, (90 Active Points); all slots Restrainable (-1/2)

[Notes: Figured damage totals assume a character with 20 STR.]

6u 1) Slash!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Armor Piercing (x2; +1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (85 Active Points) - END=0

6u 2) Thrust!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 3d6-1 (3d6+1 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) (90 Active Points) - END=0

6u 3) Slash! v2: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), No Normal Defense ([Force Field or Force Wall]; +1), Does BODY (+1) (85 Active Points) - END=0

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

If you're referring to Wolverine-like claws you would be better off using the Difficult To Dispel Advantage instead. Inherent can only be applied to abilities which are Persistent. Persistent is not legal on the following build because of the CSL's on 2 of the slots (which have the same justification as CSL's built as part of published weapons). Even if you removed the CSL's, Persistent would have to be added to the slots individually (at least within HeroDesigner) and would be a total (+3/4) vs. (+1/4) for DTD.

 

63 I've Got Claws! v2: Multipower, 75-point reserve, all slots Difficult To Dispel (x2 Active Points; +1/4) (94 Active Points); all slots Restrainable (-1/2)

[Notes: Figured damage totals assume a character with 20 STR.]

5u 1) Slash!: (Total: 75 Active Cost, 50 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Armor Piercing (x2; +1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (70 Active Points) (Real Cost: 47) plus +1 with HTH Combat (5 Active Points) (Real Cost: 3) - END=0

5u 2) Thrust!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 3d6+1 (4d6+1 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (75 Active Points) - END=0

5u 3) Slash! v2: (Total: 75 Active Cost, 50 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), No Normal Defense ([Force Field or Force Wall]; +1), Does BODY (+1) (70 Active Points) (Real Cost: 47) plus +1 with HTH Combat (5 Active Points) (Real Cost: 3) - END=0

 

60 I've Got Claws! v3: Multipower, 90-point reserve, (90 Active Points); all slots Restrainable (-1/2)

[Notes: Figured damage totals assume a character with 20 STR.]

6u 1) Slash!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Armor Piercing (x2; +1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (85 Active Points) - END=0

6u 2) Thrust!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 3d6-1 (3d6+1 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) (90 Active Points) - END=0

6u 3) Slash! v2: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), No Normal Defense ([Force Field or Force Wall]; +1), Does BODY (+1) (85 Active Points) - END=0

 

Thanks Hyper-man, but what confused me is the term "inherent". Claws on a bear is inherent to the bear, but mechanically speaking, they cannot be because they cost end. Unless of course you bought them 0 end . So to be clear, I think one reason this is confusing is the term itself.

 

P.S. It may be just me, but I would have never have thought of draining someone's tail or claws until this issue of inherent came up.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

that has nothing to do with "turning off the power" and everything to do with some form of attack, or impairment. I say it has nothing to do with Drain and Suppress or Aid and Succor.

 

Transform, Attacks, and other non-adjustment powers handle that just fine.

 

you don't Drain someone's ability to breathe or not breathe. You either change the medium (air:chlorine) or attack the appartus (disable the lungs with an attack or such).

 

You never used to be able to drain someone's ability to see.

 

The thing is being able to breathe is NOT an ability - that is looking at it back to front. What we have here is someone who NEEDS to breathe or rapidly die - it is a disadvantage/complication. THAT is why you can not drain it, logically, at least 'system logically'.

 

You can not drain it because the system does not attribute a value to breathing, because the system is humanocentric and only really thinks in terms of characters as a series of changes to a basic human template. That is a self limiting starting point.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Also, I think wings are mentioned in the text as a canidate of inherent, yet I see no examples of it being used.

[torchwolf]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

If you're referring to Wolverine-like claws you would be better off using the Difficult To Dispel Advantage instead. Inherent can only be applied to abilities which are Persistent. Persistent is not legal on the following build because of the CSL's on 2 of the slots (which have the same justification as CSL's built as part of published weapons). Even if you removed the CSL's, Persistent would have to be added to the slots individually (at least within HeroDesigner) and would be a total (+3/4) vs. (+1/4) for DTD.

 

63 I've Got Claws! v2: Multipower, 75-point reserve, all slots Difficult To Dispel (x2 Active Points; +1/4) (94 Active Points); all slots Restrainable (-1/2)

[Notes: Figured damage totals assume a character with 20 STR.]

5u 1) Slash!: (Total: 75 Active Cost, 50 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Armor Piercing (x2; +1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (70 Active Points) (Real Cost: 47) plus +1 with HTH Combat (5 Active Points) (Real Cost: 3) - END=0

5u 2) Thrust!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 3d6+1 (4d6+1 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (75 Active Points) - END=0

5u 3) Slash! v2: (Total: 75 Active Cost, 50 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), No Normal Defense ([Force Field or Force Wall]; +1), Does BODY (+1) (70 Active Points) (Real Cost: 47) plus +1 with HTH Combat (5 Active Points) (Real Cost: 3) - END=0

 

60 I've Got Claws! v3: Multipower, 90-point reserve, (90 Active Points); all slots Restrainable (-1/2)

[Notes: Figured damage totals assume a character with 20 STR.]

6u 1) Slash!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Armor Piercing (x2; +1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (85 Active Points) - END=0

6u 2) Thrust!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 3d6-1 (3d6+1 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) (90 Active Points) - END=0

6u 3) Slash! v2: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), No Normal Defense ([Force Field or Force Wall]; +1), Does BODY (+1) (85 Active Points) - END=0

Meta-game-phorically speaking, reasoning from SFX or Difficult to Dispel would probably be how Logan bought them (and his skeleton), since Magneto sometimes had a field day doing funky stuff with his metal skeleton and claws, bending the claws and even Draining the whole thing once.

On that note, Wolverine might now be more reasonably built in 6E, since buying a bit of his BODY and some Resistant Defense as Powers would work reasonably. Other similar builds could be made with superhuman-powers boosted CHAR bought as powers (not necessarily limited) in a campaign where some kind of "superpower neutralizer" might exist. This might be easier than deciding afterwards...

"Hm, I guess about 7 points of DEX comes from my superpowers, as I think my character should have had about DEX 11 without his powers..."

Just deciding that a character without powers have their CHAR reduced by a Normal Characteristic Maxima recosting becomes just silly under any edition, and declaring every character who becomes depowered is at base starting DEX of 10 etc. becomes equally silly.