Inherent: SFX, any?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

The simple fact is none of us are ever really going to come up a logical reason for any adjustment power, at least in its basic form, to work: they only ever make 'sense' in a meta game context: you can drain RKAs can you? Whether they are caused by magic or technology or mutant powers or simply a pointy stick? But you can't drain magic, or technology or mutant powers or points sticks? And it doesn't work on Blasts created by magic or technology or mutant powers or pointy sticks (you may have to use the other end)?

 

Why?

 

Seriously: you're never going to be able to explain it because - and here's the thing - it makes no in-game sense. It has already been said, and I know how abhorrent this may be to some: this is a power concept that HAS to be based on sfx.

 

Sort out an in-game logical structure for adjustment powers and all your 'inherent' worries will vanish like morning mist.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

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.

 

re: animal claws

I just checked the Bestiary and you're right. Most claws are built without 0 END or any other Advantages.

 

I think that has more to do with the sheer volume of the book and decision to not make the builds even more complex. However, I think most cat owners would agree that claws are sharp whether the cat is actively trying to use them or not and would be more accurately modeled as 0 END. Inherent is less likely because natural claws can at least be trimmed. Similarly, the detail for the real weapon write ups in the main rules also fail to account for many 'assumed' ideas we all have about firearms (IPE sight as an example; who has ever actually seen a bullet in flight?).

 

Re: Draining Tails

I think it's more of a disconnect that sometimes exists with adjustment powers in general. To work effectively in a game they first must have a coherently described SFX that the player (& GM) then use the Hero rules to describe mechanically. We shouldn't be trying to reverse engineer a sfx that fits the mechanic (this is true for everything in HERO but far more important in regards to adjustment powers).

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

... 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.

 

I used this concept with my version of Flash for the exact reasons you point out.

[Vulcan]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

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.

 

Ah. Now I get it.

 

I agree that policing the SFX of adjustment powers makes much more sense. The reason I do it the way that I do on my characters is that the GM I play(ed) with doesn't see things that way. So it's more a matter of self-defense than a good build idea, I suppose.

 

Okay, feel free to ignore that suggestion.

[tarragon]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Seriously: you're never going to be able to explain it because - and here's the thing - it makes no in-game sense. It has already been said, and I know how abhorrent this may be to some: this is a power concept that HAS to be based on sfx.

 

Sort out an in-game logical structure for adjustment powers and all your 'inherent' worries will vanish like morning mist.

 

Yes! I can't rep again unfortunately.

 

For a while now every adjustment power I've written up has been any power of [some] SFX. It's hard in game logic to justify a drain EB that can drain a fire blast, lightning bolt, and thrown rock, but not a fire blast (RKA). I even argues that this should be the default in 6E.

 

There are some justifications for draining a single power, but even they break down. I can thicken water to drain swimming whether it's biological (fins and muscles), mechanical (diesel motor and prop), or elemental (water control), but what about the guy who bought TK based flying usable as. I can suppress running in an area with a sticky floor SFX, but not to that guy who has ground gliding (if that still exists in 6E).

 

Inherent is at the cross roads of SFX. I can't drain extra limbs with my bio stasis power but I can make them useless by draining their strength.

 

Next time I GM I plan to make adjusment powers work against a single SFX as the default.

[tarragon]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Claws on a bear is inherent to the bear' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Game effectwise you can find an SFX to make the claws do less damage without removing them from the bear. An energy dampening field as a suppress vs HKA should work here.

[torchwolf]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

The simple fact is none of us are ever really going to come up a logical reason for any adjustment power, at least in its basic form, to work: they only ever make 'sense' in a meta game context: you can drain RKAs can you? Whether they are caused by magic or technology or mutant powers or simply a pointy stick? But you can't drain magic, or technology or mutant powers or points sticks? And it doesn't work on Blasts created by magic or technology or mutant powers or pointy sticks (you may have to use the other end)?

 

Why?

 

Seriously: you're never going to be able to explain it because - and here's the thing - it makes no in-game sense. It has already been said, and I know how abhorrent this may be to some: this is a power concept that HAS to be based on sfx.

 

Sort out an in-game logical structure for adjustment powers and all your 'inherent' worries will vanish like morning mist.

Vaguely defined sfx can be especially devastating in this context - if the end result of defining an adjustment power as (bizarre and metaphysically iffy, but assuming the GM agrees to this in a specific campaign):

 

Enthusiastic & Munchkinny Theoretical Player: "My extra-dimensionally empowered sorcerer character Antiparallaxus can isolate superpowered individuals from the source of their powers, by interfering with their presence in the space-time continuum!"

Equally Theoretical Suspicious GM: "Um. OK, but I feel a little concerned with this character having a 12d6 Drain, any one Power of Earth-dimension derived Powers. How would this relate to, say, the power cells in Armor Man's powered suit?"

Less Enthusiastic Munchkinny Theoretical Player: "Dang."

 

And even reasoning from sfx might have unintended strange effects; while a Drain or Suppress might represent a character's power to de-age superpowered individual to a point before he had any powers, any mutant born with their powers would reasonably be less affected, and a robot might reasonably be reduced to a pile of unassembled parts.

 

The only way is the hard way: defining the power, working out the sfx, and thinking about the possible consequences within the GM's campaign, is the only solution that will likely hold water - not everything would need game stats, but a way to represent the effects within the context of the campaign is much, much easier to do beforehand, rather than when it comes up. Plus it might turn up a few reasonable Advantages and Limitations that noone had thought of.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

As with most things in HERO, you need to look at it from both the target side and the attacker side. It's like the old "absolute immunity" debate. If you buy 72 points of ED, Hardenedx3, only vs Fire, and you never encounter more than 12d6 APx3 Fire attacks in your game, then you are, for all intents and purposes, "absolutely immune" to fire.

 

IME, >80% of all Drains/Suppresses are against a characteristic (or multiple characteristics), >80% of the rest are bought against a particular SFX ("Any one fire power" or "Any 2 Mutant Powers" etc.), and >80% of the rest are against one or more Movement Powers. I've never seen a character with Drain/Suppress vs. Life Support or Extra Limbs.

 

If Drain Life Support or Suppress Extra Limbs never comes up in a game, then those powers are already effectively Inherent.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Game effectwise you can find an SFX to make the claws do less damage without removing them from the bear. An energy dampening field as a suppress vs HKA should work here.

 

My point about hte bear is that the way inherent is described, I think that certain things should then be included; i.e. claws. But mechanically speaking they cannot be made inherent. So now its messy. I think that if he would have called it a variation of hardened and stated that this causes the same effect and the sfx could be that it is intrinsic to the pc such as a ghost having desolid, then there would be less confusion. I think

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

As with most things in HERO, you need to look at it from both the target side and the attacker side. It's like the old "absolute immunity" debate. If you buy 72 points of ED, Hardenedx3, only vs Fire, and you never encounter more than 12d6 APx3 Fire attacks in your game, then you are, for all intents and purposes, "absolutely immune" to fire.

 

IME, >80% of all Drains/Suppresses are against a characteristic (or multiple characteristics), >80% of the rest are bought against a particular SFX ("Any one fire power" or "Any 2 Mutant Powers" etc.), and >80% of the rest are against one or more Movement Powers. I've never seen a character with Drain/Suppress vs. Life Support or Extra Limbs.

 

If Drain Life Support or Suppress Extra Limbs never comes up in a game, then those powers are already effectively Inherent.

 

imx most of the obscure drains and suppresses come about as part of vpp.

 

i have seen life support dispelled when a dispel magic was used to eliminate a groups water breathing spells.

 

i have seen a suppress extra limbs used in a vpp to create an emp nillifier to temporarily nullify render useless a doc oct clone villain's extra limbs. this actually made his limitation of "str only with limbs" play a role. his allies immediately moved to eliminate the nullifier but it provided lots of drama for a moment.

 

the suppress life support area gill clogger was also in a vpp, the same vpp that bought self contained breathing gadgets so we could even do the underwater adventure and the swimming boost gadgets.

 

and once again for all the balance hounds, a 3d6 area nnd costs less and disables the same guys as quickly or faster. this is a case of paying more to get the mechanics to match the effect. only a little more.

 

in a game with options like vpps, hoping the issue never comes up seems like less than optimal design.

[tarragon]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

 

i have seen life support dispelled when a dispel magic...

 

i have seen a suppress extra limbs used in a vpp to create an emp nillifier to temporarily nullify render useless a doc oct clone villain's extra limbs.

 

the suppress life support area gill clogger

 

These are all examples of adjustment powers based on SFX. This goes back to my point that adjustments should typically be based on SFX rather than power.

 

These are all a VPP being used to target a specific thing, but if they were bought powers you logically should have been able to

• dispel any spell, not just the water breathing
  
• suppress and electrical power, not just the extra limbs
  
• suppress only gills and similar things, not LS based on super breath holding or a sealed diving suit.
  

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

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?

 

Couldn't tell you what the book has to say about it. As far as published samples, I'm not that interested in those, either. As you yourself pointed out, I can a +10 STR pill as an OAF "by the book."

 

I can't speak for everyone on the water breathing thing. Personally, I don't have an issue with Draining it. My issue was that a Drain should somehow _remove_ the ability, and not merely interfere with it.

 

For example: "Drain gills" should somehow _remove_ gills. Barring that, it should fundamentally alter the way the gills actually work as opposed to simply preventing them from working.

 

 

The problem there is that this will, for many people, step all over Transform's front porch. After all, that can also be turning someone into a person with no gills.

 

Now going back to your original "cloud of nanites" build, I have _no_ issues with seeing that built as a "Suppress." By my own interpretations, Drain actually ... well, it gets rid of something; "drains it away." Suppress strikes me as active opposition. The same way you might suppress an uprising with opposing force, or suppress pain and keep playing, or suppress the urge to choke to death that guy in the next office who sings off key and won't stop with the ballads.

 

 

In a nutshell, for me, Adjustment powers take heavy supervision simply because in an otherwise SFX-driven game, they are not by-the-book held to SFX. "Drain Flight" drains telekinetic powers, gravity powers, rocket packs, born-under-an-alien-sun powers, and natural-born wings. Short of "it's magic" or "you have pulled on the strings and girders that hold the universe together, and the resulting tear in the backdrop has revealed a bit of the metaverse," it's a glaring contrast.

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Couldn't tell you what the book has to say about it. As far as published samples, I'm not that interested in those, either. As you yourself pointed out, I can a +10 STR pill as an OAF "by the book."

 

I can't speak for everyone on the water breathing thing. Personally, I don't have an issue with Draining it. My issue was that a Drain should somehow _remove_ the ability, and not merely interfere with it.

 

For example: "Drain gills" should somehow _remove_ gills. Barring that, it should fundamentally alter the way the gills actually work as opposed to simply preventing them from working.

 

 

The problem there is that this will, for many people, step all over Transform's front porch. After all, that can also be turning someone into a person with no gills.

 

Now going back to your original "cloud of nanites" build, I have _no_ issues with seeing that built as a "Suppress." By my own interpretations, Drain actually ... well, it gets rid of something; "drains it away." Suppress strikes me as active opposition. The same way you might suppress an uprising with opposing force, or suppress pain and keep playing, or suppress the urge to choke to death that guy in the next office who sings off key and won't stop with the ballads.

 

 

In a nutshell, for me, Adjustment powers take heavy supervision simply because in an otherwise SFX-driven game, they are not by-the-book held to SFX. "Drain Flight" drains telekinetic powers, gravity powers, rocket packs, born-under-an-alien-sun powers, and natural-born wings. Short of "it's magic" or "you have pulled on the strings and girders that hold the universe together, and the resulting tear in the backdrop has revealed a bit of the metaverse," it's a glaring contrast.

 

so, if i read you correctly, in your view, drain strength must actually get rid of muscle? drain int must get rid of brain cells?

 

for example, you would be just as objecting to a "spell of confusion" defined as an int drain based on "the target is unable to think clearly" and would require the target to be transformed into a lower int person?

 

interesting take.

 

round here, the usual bias is to protect the other powers from being tromped over BY TRANSFORm not the other way around.

 

basically if an effect can be achieved by any other power, it should be done that way in preference to transform.

 

period.

 

only use transform when npthing else will do.

 

simply because transform doesn't need defense, it can already do anything.

 

at one point i even think they put that in the books.

 

so to me, if you wantto make someone dumber - drain int. dont transform them into a dumber person.

 

if you want someone weaker, drain strength, dont transform them to someone weaker.

 

if you want them to no longer breath water, drain ls.

 

as for drain vs suppress, we dont see any inherent sfx difference. one is simply the constant version of the other. if it can be drained, it can be suppressed and vice versa. deciding power by power that some can be drained and some can be suppressed and not vice versa ia... unique in my experience.

 

first time for everything.

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

These are all examples of adjustment powers based on SFX. This goes back to my point that adjustments should typically be based on SFX rather than power.

 

These are all a VPP being used to target a specific thing, but if they were bought powers you logically should have been able to

• dispel any spell, not just the water breathing
  
• suppress and electrical power, not just the extra limbs
  
• suppress only gills and similar things, not LS based on super breath holding or a sealed diving suit.
  

 

almost all my adj powers have sfx defined as part of them. indeed the sfx of the powers could lend them to do other things.

 

but had my gm ruled "extra limbs cannot be drained" it wouldn't have been possible. same with ls.

 

to me it still comes down to "there are multiple cheap ways to protect against drains and such" so if your concept supports and requires such protection, pay for it. lobbying for bans is usually more problematic.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

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)?

 

No I'm saying that's a good reason to buy Inherent. I'll leave it at that at let you go your merry way.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

so' date=' if i read you correctly, in your view, drain strength must actually get rid of muscle? drain int must get rid of brain cells?[/quote']

 

Not necessarily. First, there are more components to STR than muscle fibers. Second, there isn't a link between a number of brain cells and intelligence.

 

[--other odd attributions and interpretations of what I said removed here--]

 

 

basically if an effect can be achieved by any other power, it should be done that way in preference to transform.

 

Absolutely not. You will find, if you feel like going back through my history here, that I despise Transform perhaps more than any other person alive.

 

 

 

Now I had set here to actually discuss this; I was mistakenly under the impression that you were looking for discussion, and I'm always up for bantering around ideas.

 

Clearly, you prefer springboards from which to leap to increasingly higher soap boxes. I find no point in continuing to offer answers to your questions.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

OK: OP - how does the luck work?

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Not necessarily. First, there are more components to STR than muscle fibers. Second, there isn't a link between a number of brain cells and intelligence.

.

 

Well OK... then perhaps you could provide examples of how your requirement that draining an ability actually remove something applies to things like drain str and drain int. If i have it wrong and some sort of physical loss isn't required, then what is?

 

and what about the specific example I asked about.

 

Spell of confusion - drain INT SFX target finds it hard to think straight.

 

is this an inappropriate drain in your book? Should it be a transform to lower int person?

 

 

 

 

Absolutely not. You will find, if you feel like going back through my history here, that I despise Transform perhaps more than any other person alive.

 

 

Ok so good, we are in agreement here. I wasn't clear on your position. You referenced how some felt it tromped on transform but it wasn't made clear where you stand.

 

you may find this surprising but i don't know squat about your history here. I have a hard enough time remembering my own posts. :-)

 

 

Clearly, you prefer springboards from which to leap to increasingly higher soap boxes. I find no point in continuing to offer answers to your questions.

 

actually i find your positions here very intriguing. they differ very much from the way we do things around here, and as such finding out the ins and outs of them is fascinating.

 

like i said, no one around here ever thought of treating suppress and drain differently except as mechanics goes. No one ever suggested that (separate from the costs end conmstant vs instant kind of things) those two have some kinds of "lowering traits" locked into one and not the other.

 

FYI as an aside... the suppress option would have been cheaper but it did not match the sfx. If the target leaves the area of an area suppress the effect vanishes. with a drain when they leave there is the delay before the points return. That seemed more in keeping with the gill clogger. However, the real answer might be even simpler. this was early BBB days and right now i dont even know if suppress as a drain option were around in early bbb days. :-)

 

Similarly, no one around here ever insisted that reducing a trait or ability by drain should be mandatorily followed by an actual removal of something. We were fine with a reasonable sfx description of what the lowering resulted from.

 

The confusion spell described above for instance would be perfectly acceptable to us, even though it doesn't actually remove anything physical (or mental for that matter) and it clearly does represent interfering with rather than removing.

 

See, around here, drain was just the HERO POWER, the mechanical representation of the result, the effect, not an actual description of the in game world echanism for making the change. Just like +10" running might actuall represent running or it might represent skateboarding and how teleport might represent teleport or it might represent really fast running... so drain ls might represent physically removing gills or it might represent clogging them.

 

By the way - just as a clarification which might be part of our confusion...

 

the power would not have been in my game written as "drain gills" as you wrote it. Thats combining the game mechanic and the sfx in a sort of mixed up mishmash.

 

It would have been written as

 

"Gill clogger" 2d6 drain life support: water breathing etc etc... the game mechanic power drain linked to the game mechanic target, not the sfx. the sfx helps determine whch powers and lims we use, but don't get mixed up into the mechanics write up. just like i don't write "jet pack +10""

 

for some, i imagine writing "drain gills" would indeed conjure images of "removing gils" and that could be confusing.

[tesuji]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

No I'm saying that's a good reason to buy Inherent. I'll leave it at that at let you go your merry way.

 

then you and i are (we find out) mostly on the same page. If you feel sfx warrants being hard to or impervious to drains and suppresses, then pay for the protection.

 

I normally avoid inherent when possible, since i tend to just not like absolutes in HERO, but to me whether or not the protection is given for free or not (and to which powers and what the criteria for selection are) is more pivotal than "of the various options for protection which do you prefer?"

 

thanks.

[Naanomi]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Of course, buy the inherent as appropriate... I wouldn't advocate giving it away free, just to buy it when appropriate. Life Support powers are cheap, which makes dispelling them dangerous... but also makes inherent an inexpensive option.

 

The only exception is, as often stated in the books, the power that fundamentally alters your character sheet: Take No Stun.

 

The mechanics behind not having a stun value, then suddenly (maybe?) having it again, and trying to figure out how to do that and what it really means, seems to indicate that this is a good fit to always be inherent.

 

One could take a -1/4 'dispellable' if you have some bizarre build that would make it that way (though I would be hard pressed to think of one, some power that takes you from normal person to person without Stun Value is probably a (non-inherent!) multiform type power in almost all cases).

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Afternoon, folks---

 

just stopped in to apologize to all. As I was playing away here last night, I became increasingly agitated. I wrongly attributed it to the nature of the discussion, diagreements, hard-headedness all around (and no; I did not exempt myself. I'm fifty, and I know who I am ).

 

As the evening progressed, I became more and more jittery, and it culminated in a migraine. I checked my blood pressure, and then went to the ER.

 

For those who don't know: I suffer from a permanent spinal injury that resulted, amongst other things, in chronic pain. One of the joys of years and years of chronic pain is the stress associated with it. After a decade of living like this, I suffer from uncontrollable malignant hypertension. (One of the reason I try to go out of my way to be extremely courteous is to avoid raising my own ire. High BP makes the temper rather short ).

 

At any rate, when I signed off last night, my BP was 206 / 170. This is _not_ conducive to life. In fact, I'm told it's conducive to death. A few hours and three nitro tabs later, my headache was better Though I was sort of surprised at how few people in the ER had any practical experience with malignant hypertension. Evidently, they were really expecting that second tab to make me loopy, and were convinced that the third one would knock me out cold.

 

Instead, I relaxed a little. At any rate, I'm in better spirits, and wanted to apologize to all for any untoward behavior I may have exhibited. If it's still active, I will try to rejoin this thread later this weekend. For now, I'm a bit too ashamed of myself.

[lensman]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

OK: OP - how does the luck work?

 

So I have seen the debate rage to and fro over the terrain of SFX, mechanics, alt.mechanics, and trespass into the whimsy.alt.humor.HERO.

 

The Luck was born of a background for a Fantasy Hero character that is a gambler/Rogue/swashbuckler whose father had been rewarded with a Blessing from a Demi-God of Chance, a product of the Union of a Godees of Love and a mortal . That Blessing lasts for seven generations, the PC is second generation.

 

Now the Player buys all sorts of Luck powers, as I mentioned in the first post.

The problem, along come s a charcater who is a Duelist but is a Master Duelist, he has crazy NCSL he puts on opponents, suppresses, Drains v Running, Dispels v Combat tricks and loads of Naked moodifiers, talents for doing damage.

 

Well now the Luck player is expecting to enetr into a Duel with the Blade Master and wants to buy all his Luck powers, esp his Luck 'Armor' as Inherent, planning to thwart the Suppress' and Dispels in advance.

 

I see no reason why he can't buy Inherent, except that I am not a strict 'black letter' rules guy. The Player can spend the points, he has them. I see how Inherent could be applied to Luck SFX, but I also see how a Blade Master through skill can alter his tactics and adjust and overwhelm Luck with Skill and awesime combat awareness.

 

That is my dilemma.

 

Oops, edited instead of quoted, will post to bump

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

What is OP? I do not see any one poster with those initials.

 

"Original Poster" - the fellow who started the thread. I believe you will see him if you look in the mirror

[lensman]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

So I have seen the debate rage to and fro over the terrain of SFX, mechanics, alt.mechanics, and trespass into the whimsy.alt.humor.HERO.

 

The Luck was born of a background for a Fantasy Hero character that is a gambler/Rogue/swashbuckler whose father had been rewarded with a Blessing from a Demi-God of Chance, a product of the Union of a Godees of Love and a mortal . That Blessing lasts for seven generations, the PC is second generation.

 

Now the Player buys all sorts of Luck powers, as I mentioned in the first post.

The problem, along comes a character who is a Duelist but is a Master Duelist, he has crazy NCSL he puts on opponents, suppresses, Drains v Running, Dispels v Combat tricks and loads of Naked moodifiers, talents for doing damage.

 

Well now the Luck player is expecting to enetr into a Duel with the Blade Master and wants to buy all his Luck powers, esp his Luck 'Armor' as Inherent, planning to thwart the Suppress' and Dispels in advance.

 

I see no reason why he can't buy Inherent, except that I am not a strict 'black letter' rules guy. The Player can spend the points, he has them. I see how Inherent could be applied to Luck SFX, but I also see how a Blade Master through skill can alter his tactics and adjust and overwhelm Luck with Skill and awesime combat awareness.

 

That is my dilemma.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Inherent: SFX, any?

 

Luck is always a problem power because it is the ultimate 'get out of jail free card': some players expect luck to work, no matter what. I can see no problem with making the luck inherent int his case, and it will neutralise some of the BladeMaster's abilities - but only the ones that rely on adjustment powers: it is going to do nothing against his own abilities, like high OCV and all those skill levels he probably has: luck does not counter or wipe out skill - it works in a different way.

 

A lucky character may slip and fall in combat - but that slip was unexpected and meant that he avoided what would otherwise have been a fatal blow - although he may now have other problems. Similarly a particularly lucky character might have an opponent slip and fall: luck can not reduce the opponent's DCV directly - but it can certainly lay the opponent prone, which might have the same effect (and which he may counter with a successful Breakfall roll).

 

Bear in mind also that 'luck based defences' don't always work - even when they are active: you get a -1/2 limitation for combat luck - and to me that means there are a significant number of situations in which your luck doesn't help. In a situation where luck can not really play a part then you bleed: the trouble is some players think that Luck can ALWAYS play a part. Fine: don't buy the power with a limitation then.

 

Personally I am not keen on the 'luck based' limitation on combat luck: it requires a GM call and a GM call may well be interpreted as being unfair to the player (or unfair to the other players!) - if it really is luck based buy it with an activation roll.

 

Ultimately I would not worry too much about it in advance: you're not there to decide how it WILL go - just adjudicate on what happens. If the character marches up to the opponent with a 'Ha! My Luck will protect me!' attitude, it probably serves him right when he gets stabbed in the guts.

 

Even if the character's luck is inherent, his running and combat levels won't be - most of the Master Duelist's abilities will work fine against him. Make sure he knows that (even if it is a vision from the Luck God).

 

Also bear in mind that Luck can work in odd ways. Maybe on the dfay of the duel, he comes down with food poisoning and the Master Duellist's honour will not let him fight a sick opponent - and then, when he's better, the Orcs are invading and all hands are needed to save the town, and then....

 

The thing is, from one point of view, the food poisoning and the Orc invasion are LUCKY for the character - they stop him getting cut up by the Master Duellist. Luck is more likely to stop the duel taking place at all, because of some intervening occurrence, than it is to turn every stroke of the sword IN the duel.

 

Luck is not controllable - that is the very essence of luck - and something can be lucky for you (i.e. it might save your life) but not be what you wanted to happen - it depends what 'luck's priorities are - they may not be the same as yours! If the character, knowing he has food poisoning, decides to fight anyway, perhaps after the first few blows he feels a clutch in his guts and suffers diarrohea: the Master Duellist - and the crowd - break down in fits of laughter at the situation. He could take advantage and stab the Master Duellist when he is thus distracted - earning the enmity of the crowd and gaining a poor reputation - or use the situation to back down from the duel.

 

Either way his luck has saved him - just not quite how he might have wanted it to!