Inverting Limitations

[Steve]

When a character takes a Limitation, the power is only able to be used when the Limitation is satisfied. Example, an OIF is a -1/2 Limitation, and the power only works when the OIF is there.

 

What would the inversion of this be, an ability that only works when the OIF is NOT present? Looking at the chart for Limited Power guidelines (6E1 pg 382), a power losing a third of its effectiveness is a -1/2 Limitation. So the inverse would be a power losing two-thirds of its effectiveness, a -1 1/2 Limitation.

 

If I can't use an ability while wearing the example OIF, then it seems like that Limitation is -1 1/2.

 

Does that seem like a reasonable way to look at it?

[Ice9]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

Not unless it's very difficult for you NOT to wear the OIF - for example, you need it to survive. Even an either/or condition (you have other powers of equal or greater strength that rely on the OIF) probably wouldn't be worth that much (in the -1/2 to -1 range, IMO).

If it's literally something like: "Strength, Only while not wearing a tie", then I'd call that a -0.

[Christopher]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

OIAID can be used for Heroic ID or Normal ID. In either chase, it's a -1/2. So perhaps in either chase the -1/2 is better choice, even if we talk about an OAF.

This is close to a Lockout: You can't use one power, when you use the other.

 

From a balacing aspect:

When the power in question were two 60 AP that have no other limitation, you'd get 2 Powers for 40+24 = 64 Real Cost. Nearly the price for one.

But when those powers had excluding Lockouts or OIAID (both -1/2), you get to pay: 40+40 = 80 Real Cost.

So having two exlusive powers, still means you have to pay 2/3 of the costs for those two powers, not only 1/2.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

Figure it out the same way you would any other Limitation - how often will it likely affect the character, how easy is it for them to be affected by the condition.

 

Just because it's the opposite conceptually doesn't mean it'll be the opposite numerically.

[Steve]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

The question came up on one character in my Icons campaign, a powered armor user. The armor is not form-fitting, so you can't tell the character is female while wearing it. She has a few minor abilities based on her appearance, so they don't work while wearing the armor. In this case, I thought the Limitation of wearing the armor would be the inverse of the Limitation on other abilities that are only available while wearing it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

No, I'd just base the Limitation of "Not While Wearing Armor" as a basis of how often you expect the character to not be in the armor. It could very well be the inverse, if you're expect the character to be in armor for 2/3 of the time.

[Naanomi]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

Unless the armor is Life Support in a space campaign (or something similar that it is actually dangerous to remove), I would call it OIHI (or is it... OINotHI?) or equivalent

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

From a balacing aspect:

When the power in question were two 60 AP that have no other limitation, you'd get 2 Powers for 40+24 = 64 Real Cost. Nearly the price for one.

But when those powers had excluding Lockouts or OIAID (both -1/2), you get to pay: 40+40 = 80 Real Cost.

So having two exlusive powers, still means you have to pay 2/3 of the costs for those two powers, not only 1/2.

 

You could purchase the two powers in a Multipower for 72 points (60 point pool + 2 6 point slots) and freely choose between them. Why should it cost more to have the same efect with more limited ability to select between the powers? 64 points seems a more reasonable price than 80 points.

[Starcloud]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

"Only in heroic ID" might also be "Only while NOT in heroic ID".

Depending on which more time is spent in. If she spends most of her time in the armor, then OWNIHI would be a bigger modifier.

If she spends most of her time out of the armor, OWNIHI might only be a -1/4 modifier.

[Christopher]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

The question came up on one character in my Icons campaign' date=' a powered armor user. The armor is not form-fitting, so you can't tell the character is female while wearing it. She has a few minor abilities based on her appearance, so they don't work while wearing the armor. In this case, I thought the Limitation of wearing the armor would be the inverse of the Limitation on other abilities that are only available while wearing it.[/quote']

 

No' date=' I'd just base the Limitation of "Not While Wearing Armor" as a basis of how often you expect the character to not be in the armor. It could very well be the inverse, if you're expect the character to be in armor for 2/3 of the time.[/quote']

One of my concepts is similar. Usually she can use her "Beatifull Blue Eyes" (Striking Apereance, +2/2d6). Unless she uses the Visor (part of the LS, the Flash Defense and maybe enchanced senses).

I consider just applying a -1/2 to the Eyes, and nothing to the Rest (inverted Lockout). It can also be a question of how powerfull the Striking Apereance/Female Body Powers are compared to the Power Armor powers.

 

@Hugh:

Putting the two Powers as Fixed Slots in a Multipower, costs:

60 Poitns for the Multipower + 6 Points for each Slort

72 Points (of course, it get's better the more you put in it).

 

So, while it would be nice to pay less for the same game effect I think the inverted limitation/64 Point Model is totally illegal with vanilla Hero Rules.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

@Hugh:

Putting the two Powers as Fixed Slots in a Multipower, costs:

60 Poitns for the Multipower + 6 Points for each Slort

72 Points (of course, it get's better the more you put in it).

 

So, while it would be nice to pay less for the same game effect I think the inverted limitation/64 Point Model is totally illegal with vanilla Hero Rules.

 

I think it sets a reasonable baseline. Why should a character have to pay the 80 points you suggest for one power only usable while in their armor and another not usable while in the armor if a second can pay 72 points and have either power available at their full discretion?

 

I think one power with "only when wearing armor" and a second "not when wearing armor" is perfectly legal. They are simply two limited powers. The only question is the costing. Perhaps a -1 1/4 limitation for "not in armor" might be more appropriate, or a -1. These would lead to a total cost of 67 or 70, respectively.

 

That said, I could certainly buy a power only usable in armor (let's say that's 60 AP of resistant defenses) and another only usable out of armor (assumed 60 AP as well), and limit both powers to require 20 minutes to activate (ie it takes 20 minutes to don, or remove, my armor). Each now gets a limitation of - 1 1/4, so they each cost 27 points for a total of 54 points, even less than the 64 suggested by the OP - and neither power has an OIF (my armor is hackproof - you can't remove it).

 

I'd say that's way more limiting that the Multipower, though - I can Abort to armor up with a Multipower.

[Christopher]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

I think one power with "only when wearing armor" and a second "not when wearing armor" is perfectly legal. They are simply two limited powers. The only question is the costing. Perhaps a -1 1/4 limitation for "not in armor" might be more appropriate' date=' or a -1. These would lead to a total cost of 67 or 70, respectively.[/quote']

Only works in Daylight is a -1/4

Only works in Darkness is a -1/2

And that asumes there is more daylight than darkness availible, so I say for a 50/50 relation between the two power conditions everything beyond 1/2 for both is not really legal.

And she either wears the armor, or she doesn't so it's a pretty clear 50/50 thing (remember, this is only about gametime).

Since it's an OIF, there will be times when she doesn't has it at all. And one of the first things you should do as Power Armor user, is learning skills/having powers that work when you are not in your armor (just compare how often Tony Stark runs around in his armor and outside of it).

 

Also, Multipower is a bad example. It get's better the more powers you put into it. 5 variable slot 60 AP powers in a 60 AP Multipower only cost's as much as two unlimited 60 AP powers: 120 Real Cost.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

Only works in Daylight is a -1/4

Only works in Darkness is a -1/2

And that asumes there is more daylight than darkness availible

 

No, it assumes adventures will take place in daylight conditions more than they will is night/darkness condition.

 

If you're in a Vampire Hunter campaign then "Only in Daylight" probably shifts all the way to a -1 or -2.

[Steve]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

Hugh raises good points. I'd rep him for his comments, but I need to spread rep some more.

 

My initial decision on the limitation for "not while wearing armor" was -1, and that seems reasonable from the comments. I thought maybe I was being a little too stingy.

 

The comment on extra time taken to armor up instead of doing it as an OIF was interesting. I'd never even thought of building powered armor that way.

[Christopher]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

No, it assumes adventures will take place in daylight conditions more than they will is night/darkness condition.

 

If you're in a Vampire Hunter campaign then "Only in Daylight" probably shifts all the way to a -1 or -2.

Yes, wich is exaclty what I said.

Those Limitation values asume there is more Daylight than darkness availible. When you are a vampire or in a vampire hunter campaign, that is of course no longer the chase. In fact "only in Darkness" could become a -0 there.

 

But just to get this straight:

You thinkg only in Armor/only Out of Armor is more limitation than "only in daylight" despite the player having nearly full controll over the circustances?

Okay, he can't switch in a fight. But in a standart superhero game, what are the chances to be caught outside of his armor? I'd say it's the same as for a PA guy who build his armor with OIAID or OIF. And would you allow them a -1 Limitation on any Folower or Contact they can't access in Heroic ID? Or would this be more like a -1/2?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

Only works in Daylight is a -1/4

Only works in Darkness is a -1/2

And that asumes there is more daylight than darkness availible, so I say for a 50/50 relation between the two power conditions everything beyond 1/2 for both is not really legal.

 

I would say that all circumstantial limitations need to be assessed for their relevance in the game in question. If my power which only works in daylight gets a -1/4 limitation, I expect it will be daylight most of the time. I should be able to use that power as frequently as a character with IIF or OIAID has access to his powers. If the power is unavailable every third combat, however, I would expect a higher limitation, as the condition under which my power is unavailable is happening more frequently that the limitation value assigned to it.

 

And she either wears the armor, or she doesn't so it's a pretty clear 50/50 thing (remember, this is only about gametime).

Since it's an OIF, there will be times when she doesn't has it at all. And one of the first things you should do as Power Armor user, is learning skills/having powers that work when you are not in your armor (just compare how often Tony Stark runs around in his armor and outside of it).

 

A lot depends on the powers. Let's assume the armor is the character's primary defensive ability (normally the case). If the second power is, say, a potent attack power, it's a pretty significant drawback to have to shut down your defenses to access that attack power. You normally will want both at the same time, so the "lockout" is very significant. If the second power is more of an investigative or interaction ability (the Striking Appearance, for example), having acces to it only out of combat is much less limiting, and therefore the limitation should be valued lower.

 

You seem to be reading rules examples as hard and fast rules. Hero is a game that requires significant application of judgement, and the value of limitations based on circumstances is one of these.

 

Also' date=' Multipower is a bad example. It get's better the more powers you put into it. 5 variable slot 60 AP powers in a 60 AP Multipower only cost's as much as two unlimited 60 AP powers: 120 Real Cost.[/quote']

 

Multipower is a construct which allows access to multiple powers on a restricted basis. If Character A can choose between any two attacks, at any time, but can only use one in any given phase, I submit he is less limited than Character B, who has the exact same two attacks, one of which only works in the daytime where the other only works in the nighttime. The first character design is easy - a two slot multipower, with the cost of 72 points noted previously. Since the second character is more limited, he should pay a lower cost. The simplest means of doing so, by the way, is for him to buy his attacks in a Multipower as well and then limit each slot.

 

But just to get this straight:

You thinkg only in Armor/only Out of Armor is more limitation than "only in daylight" despite the player having nearly full controll over the circustances?

 

Okay, he can't switch in a fight. But in a standart superhero game, what are the chances to be caught outside of his armor? I'd say it's the same as for a PA guy who build his armor with OIAID or OIF. And would you allow them a -1 Limitation on any Folower or Contact they can't access in Heroic ID? Or would this be more like a -1/2?

 

Depends. What does that Follower do? Moving away from Supers, let's say that the Paladin can only access his Trusty Warhorse if he's not wearing his armor. That seems a pretty significant limitation, especially if he generally wants to use his Lance in combat. Much more significant than, say, being unable to use an ability designed for large-scale noncombat movement while in combat. If the limitation is more significant, its value should be higher.

[Christopher]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

Just to remind you that we are not talking about an attack, but in fact investigation powers:

The question came up on one character in my Icons campaign' date=' a powered armor user. The armor is not form-fitting, so you can't tell the character is female while wearing it. She has a few minor abilities based on her appearance, so they don't work while wearing the armor. In this case, I thought the Limitation of wearing the armor would be the inverse of the Limitation on other abilities that are only available while wearing it.[/quote']

 

I would say that all circumstantial limitations need to be assessed for their relevance in the game in question. If my power which only works in daylight gets a -1/4 limitation' date=' I expect it will be daylight most of the time. I should be able to use that power as frequently as a character with IIF or OIAID has access to his powers. If the power is unavailable every third combat, however, I would expect a higher limitation, as the condition under which my power is unavailable is happening more frequently that the limitation value assigned to it.[/quote']

Yes, this is again exactly what I said already.

The standart values for only on daylight and only in Darkness asume Standart Distribution (about 2 parts Light and 1 Part Darkness) during the game sessions. I hope I don't have to clarifiy that a thrid time.

 

I this chase I don't think there is much Interpretion of the rules nessesary.

First of, it is a player choice Limitation, those are always less worth. Down to the point where then can become -0 Limitations.

Second, when the power is minor even a -1/2 is a lot saving. If the power is big, even a -1/2 saving is a lot of saving. 33% already.

 

About the paladin:

The paladin will most likely buy his armor with money, not points. So i'd say it a Level 1 or 2 Side Effect on the armor, making it a lot cheaper (double the Limitation for always active). If he paid for both with points, I would point out the obvious inefficiency in his build and that this may make the character unfit for some combats.

 

Limitations have two mayor uses:

- make using a Power less vaible, due to build in flaws (extra END, extra Time, Side effect, etc....)

- give the GM a tool in the hand to disable one power, if the story demands someone not at 100% efficiency

 

In the concrete example we have neither. It's mostly player decision if he want's to come prepped for interaction or prepped for battle. And not being able to use Striking Apereance/Charm in Battle is very seldom a true limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

Just to remind you that we are not talking about an attack' date=' but in fact investigation powers:[/quote']

 

Actually, we are talking about limitations. Of at least I am, and most of the other posters appear to be.

 

Yes' date=' this is [i']again[/i] exactly what I said already.

The standard values for only on daylight and only in Darkness asume Standart Distribution (about 2 parts Light and 1 Part Darkness) during the game sessions. I hope I don't have to clarifiy that a thrid time.

 

To me, the value of -1/4 for "only during daylight" assumes it will virtually always be daylight when this ability will be useful. The by the book "only in darkness" limitation indicates that it will be dark more often than not when the power is useful. I'm not clear where you are getting your definition for "standard values" from (as opposed to the standard values, which are in the book), but it is not consistent with the definitions provided for limited powers.

 

The chart at page 382 is pretty clear that a -1/4 limitation indicates the character is limited about a quarter of the time. If the standard is 2/3 daylight, then the power is unavailable, and the character is limited, about 1/3 of the time, which is the definition of a -1/2 limitation. If he can only use the power 1/3 of the time, that sounds a lot like he is limited over half the time, the definition applied to a -1 1/2 limitation. How often he can use a power that is usable only in daylight, or only in darkness, depends substantially on the actual game.

 

I also note the "by the books" limitations indicate that "only in daylight" is -1/4, and "only in darkness" is -1/2. So what should the limitation be for "not in daylight" or "not in darkness"?

 

If a power usable only in daylight is limited about 1/4 of the time, and one usable only in darkness is limited about 1/3 of the time, a power which is not usable in darkness or daylight must be usable over half the time. I don't see any way one can reasonably arrive at that conclusion.

 

I this chase I don't think there is much Interpretion of the rules nessesary.

First of, it is a player choice Limitation, those are always less worth. Down to the point where then can become -0 Limitations.

Second, when the power is minor even a -1/2 is a lot saving. If the power is big, even a -1/2 saving is a lot of saving. 33% already.

 

The savings should be commensurate with the limitation. A more limited power should carry a reduced cost. Saving 1/3 of the cost when the power is useful 2/3 of the time seems like the appropriate result. If it is only usable half the time, or 1/3 of the time, a greater savings, and thus a greater cost reduction, seems apporpriate.

 

It also seems appropriate that the total cost of a power usable only in darkness and one not usable in darkness would be the cost of a power usable either in or outside of darkness.

About the paladin:

The paladin will most likely buy his armor with money, not points. So i'd say it a Level 1 or 2 Side Effect on the armor, making it a lot cheaper (double the Limitation for always active). If he paid for both with points, I would point out the obvious inefficiency in his build and that this may make the character unfit for some combats.

 

Limitations have two mayor uses:

- make using a Power less vaible, due to build in flaws (extra END, extra Time, Side effect, etc....)

- give the GM a tool in the hand to disable one power, if the story demands someone not at 100% efficiency

 

In the concrete example we have neither. It's mostly player decision if he want's to come prepped for interaction or prepped for battle. And not being able to use Striking Apereance/Charm in Battle is very seldom a true limitation.

 

I don't recall the character possessing sufficient precognition to know whether interaction or battle is upcoming. It is possible to be attacked while interacting or investigating, or to wish to use interaction or investogative skills immediately before or right after a battle. PRE atacks in battle are not uncommon, and striking appearance can enhance those PRE attacks - but not if the character cannot use their Striking Appearance in battle.

 

I'm amazed how quickly we jump on the "limitations that don't limit should save no points" bandwagon, but aren't nearly as open to suggesting that abilities that lose a portion of their utility should be reduced in price accordingly. These are simply two sides of the same coin, in my opinion.

[Christopher]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

To me' date=' the value of -1/4 for "only during daylight" assumes it will virtually always be daylight when this ability will be useful. The by the book "only in darkness" limitation indicates that it will be dark more often than not when the power is useful. I'm not clear where you are getting your definition for "standard values" from (as opposed to the standard values, which are in the book), but it is not consistent with the definitions provided for limited powers.[/quote']

"Virtually always" is a -0. Ceraintly, this isn't the chase here.

 

The chart at page 382 is pretty clear that a -1/4 limitation indicates the character is limited about a quarter of the time. If the standard is 2/3 daylight' date=' then the power is unavailable, and the character is limited, about 1/3 of the time, which is the definition of a -1/2 limitation.[/quote']

So you asume Daylight is 18 hours of the day? Or is it that more games play in Daylight and when in doubt the examples overall go for the lesser Limitation value?

 

I also note the "by the books" limitations indicate that "only in daylight" is -1/4' date=' and "only in darkness" is -1/2. So what should the limitation be for "not in daylight" or "not in darkness"?[/quote']

Only in Darkness -1/2

Not in darkness -1/2

Both are in the list on 6E1 383. Perhaps you should first define where "not in Daylight" Ends/Starts, or "Only in daylight" starts/Ends. And where to the shadows of mountains, being the basement or similar thigns count.

 

I don't recall the character possessing sufficient precognition to know whether interaction or battle is upcoming. It is possible to be attacked while interacting or investigating' date=' or to wish to use interaction or investogative skills immediately before or right after a battle.[/quote']

Same is true for the PA Guy with just OIF or OIAID. Yet neither recieves a -1 here, do they? Normal players have a bit of intelligence and when called to an emergency the heroes usually have their metal trousers on. Likewise the concept in question will know she investigating and if you have a long switch and no backup ready, you really should invest more in INT. So in doubt, for most parts players can deduce when investigation mode and when battle mode is required.

Of course when your GM always makes surpise attacks (every bar you investigate in get's stormed by random viper/buglar attack) you should really ask for a higher discount or start using a Holo Disguse/Shapeshift based power.

 

I'm amazed how quickly we jump on the "limitations that don't limit should save no points" bandwagon' date=' but aren't nearly as open to suggesting that abilities that lose a portion of their utility should be reduced in price accordingly. These are simply two sides of the same coin, in my opinion.[/quote']

Giving two exlcuding power the equivalent of a -1 limtiation for each, means the character has two powers for the price of one. You still have two different, usefull powers. Plus you have controll over the Condition so you can just switch if it suits you. For most parts, you can't choose if it is daylight or night. So this should never be worth more than -1/2 for both.

[Christopher]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

Okay, let's get back to the point:

I think the SA only get's 1/4 Limitation. Reasons:

- you have full controll over the condition (so comparsion to daylight don't work that well)

- your enemys can't deprive you of it's use, once activated

- the enemys can deprive you from activating it (you know there is going to be a battle, the environment requires your Steel Trousers, etc...)

 

Comparable Limitations:

OIAID is only a -1/4. The enemy can only stop you from activating it (by preventing the transformation), but no way to stop you from using it.

Unbreakable OIF a little bit undefined, but I would put it a -1/4 (half Limitation). Like OIAID the only chance the enemy get's to deprive you is to steal it before you use it.

Physical manifestation (-1/4): This is an Breakable Focus that only appears after using the Power. So the enemy can't prevent you from activating the power through stealing, but he can stop you from using it (it may require other limitations that make reactivation in combat impossible, but that is counted into their Limitation Values).

OIF (-1/2): It's a littlebite Like Unbreakable OIF/OIAID + Physical Manifestation. The enemy can deprive you of it's use before you active the power and while you use it.

IIF (-1/4): The reason for the worse value is, that the enemy has to find/identify the item first. So he's a lot less like to deprive you of it before you activate it or while you use it, despite them still being able to.

Gesture/Incantations/Concentration: Another good example of depriving you. When bought at the lowest level, the enemy can only stop you from activating it. When bought with the x2 Multiplier constant throug use (it get's a -1/2 at least), the enemy can stop you from activating and using it.

Lockout: Personally I think that one is overrated a little bit, it can be less than a hinderance than the -1/2 Linked. Especially since the standart chase are Multipower Slots that already have some intrinsic Lockouts (in the form of AP-Management) and recieved a lot of discount for them.

 

That's why I said:

- you have full controll over the condition

- your enemys can't deprive you of it's use, once activated

- the enemys can deprive you from activating it

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

Only in Darkness -1/2

Not in darkness -1/2

Both are in the list on 6E1 383. Perhaps you should first define where "not in Daylight" Ends/Starts, or "Only in daylight" starts/Ends. And where to the shadows of mountains, being the basement or similar thigns count.

 

Yup. Does "only in darkness" mean "so dark no one can see through it", or "any time the sun is down", or something else? The definition is part of determining the frequency and setting the limitation value. This can't be done in a vacuum.

 

Same is true for the PA Guy with just OIF or OIAID. Yet neither recieves a -1 here' date=' do they? Normal players have a bit of intelligence and when called to an emergency the heroes usually have their metal trousers on. Likewise the concept in question will know she investigating and if you have a long switch and no backup ready, you really should invest more in INT. So in doubt, for most parts players can deduce when investigation mode and when battle mode is required.[/quote']

 

Typically, PA character loses nothing by showing up in his armor, and it is generally equivalent to showing up in costume for other characters. Perhaps your games feature announcers to give a warning some time before combat begins so the heroes can return to base and get their battle gear. Mine flow somewhat more organically, and don't allow for the heroes to so readily predict what will come next. Now, if Armor Girl can Abort to have her armor appear around her in a split second, limiting some powers to be available only when armored, and others only when not armored, is much less limiting. However, if she doesn't carry her armor in a rucksack with her wherever she goes, abilities she only has access to when not wearing the armor become much more limited in their utility.

 

Of course when your GM always makes surpise attacks (every bar you investigate in get's stormed by random viper/buglar attack) you should really ask for a higher discount or start using a Holo Disguse/Shapeshift based power.

 

Or you should get a discount through the limitation system adequate to reflect the limitation in the utility in your power. I also think there's a lot of room between the extremes of "every investigation features a surprise attack" and "the hero always knows combat is imminent with enough advance warning to return to base, don their battle gear and come back before combat starts".

 

Giving two exlcuding power the equivalent of a -1 limtiation for each' date=' means the character has two powers for the price of one. You still have two different, usefull powers. Plus you have controll over the Condition so you can just switch if it suits you. For most parts, you can't choose if it is daylight or night. So this should never be worth more than -1/2 for both.[/quote']

 

You don't have control over which ability would be most suitable at any given time, or when one may be a better selection. And, again, I come back to the Multipower comparison. You may not like it, but a Multipower is the plain vanilla build for powers which are mutually exclusive, especially in a Supers game.

 

Now, if you want the Striking Appearance really cheap, build the Powered Armor as a Multiform paid for by the character with Striking Appearance. My best guess is that she will be much lower points out of armor, freeing up more than sufficient points to buy the Armored Form as currently constructed, and allow her to get Striking Appearance plus a whole lot more that can only be used when not armored. That's an approach that smells, but if the GM isn't going to set limitation values in a manner that reasonably discounts abilities for loss of utility, citing the "rules as written" limitation levels, then the player may as well use a "rules as written" build that avoids paying an excessive price for the ability in question.

 

Okay, let's get back to the point:

I think the SA only get's 1/4 Limitation. Reasons:

- you have full controll over the condition (so comparsion to daylight don't work that well)

 

To me, "full control" implies you can activate and deactivate it at will. The need to switch out of the armor constrains the ability to activate and deactivate the ability in question.

 

- your enemys can't deprive you of it's use, once activated

- the enemys can deprive you from activating it (you know there is going to be a battle, the environment requires your Steel Trousers, etc...)

 

How often will the game structure deny use of the power? That is the real test. If the character is pretty much always going to be armored up, then this power will rarely be available, mandating a high limitation. If the character can change into armor in a single phase, and always has the armor available, it's much less limiting.

 

Comparable Limitations:

OIAID is only a -1/4. The enemy can only stop you from activating it (by preventing the transformation), but no way to stop you from using it.

Unbreakable OIF a little bit undefined, but I would put it a -1/4 (half Limitation). Like OIAID the only chance the enemy get's to deprive you is to steal it before you use it.

 

The rules put it at -1/2. The tradeoff is that an unbreakable focus is unique so you can't replace it by returning to base and grabbing another one - you need to retrieve it if it is stolen. Hawkeye loses his bow? Back to base and get another one. Cap doesn't have a relacement shield in the closet.

 

Physical manifestation (-1/4): This is an Breakable Focus that only appears after using the Power. So the enemy can't prevent you from activating the power through stealing' date=' but he can stop you from using it (it may require other limitations that make reactivation in combat impossible, but that is counted into their Limitation Values).[/quote']

 

No, he can break the Manifestation and you can reactivate the power in a few seconds (ie on your next phase). Having the Manifestation broken once in no way precludes re-use of the power.

 

Lockout: Personally I think that one is overrated a little bit' date=' it can be less than a hinderance than the -1/2 Linked. Especially since the standart chase are Multipower Slots that already have some intrinsic Lockouts (in the form of AP-Management) and recieved a lot of discount for them.[/quote']

 

So why shouldn't non-multipower abilities that face the same restriction fail to qualify for a similar limitation? If my character has to choose between armor and SA with no easy way to swap between them, and a second character has to choose between the two, but can switch back and forth as a zero phase action (ie they are Multipower slots), I believe my character is more limited. The more limited character should pay less points for the abilities, at least in my view.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

Unbreakable OIF a little bit undefined' date=' but I would put it a -1/4 (half Limitation). Like OIAID the only chance the enemy get's to deprive you is to steal it before you use it.[/quote']

 

Arbitrarily altering the value of a Limitation to validate your argument automatically invalidates the argument completely.

 

Have you played the game, or have you just read the rules? I'm getting the distinct impression all your knowledge is theoretical with no application to back it up.

[Tasha]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

Also complications can dictate how available a power is. So PA girl has her SA only when out of armor, has instant on armor. If she also has Social Complicaion (Secret ID).

That means that while she COULD turn off her armor in an instant she can and will be in situations that render that impossible due to that Secret ID. It means that over 80% of the time the Character is being played she is in said Armor. So the limitation will be much higher than if she has instant on/off armor and a Public ID. With a Public ID the Limitation would be worth -1/4, With a secret ID it's as high as -1 1/2 to perhaps even a -2 if she's never out of the armor during play.

 

When it comes right down to it Hero could ditch all but Limited power and Conditional Power, all other limits are just Steve saving us time by giving us canned values for common power limitations.

 

Tasha

[ghost-angel]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

Also complications can dictate how available a power is. So PA girl has her SA only when out of armor, has instant on armor. If she also has Social Complicaion (Secret ID).

That means that while she COULD turn off her armor in an instant she can and will be in situations that render that impossible due to that Secret ID. It means that over 80% of the time the Character is being played she is in said Armor. So the limitation will be much higher than if she has instant on/off armor and a Public ID. With a Public ID the Limitation would be worth -1/4, With a secret ID it's as high as -1 1/2 to perhaps even a -2 if she's never out of the armor during play.

 

When it comes right down to it Hero could ditch all but Limited power and Conditional Power, all other limits are just Steve saving us time by giving us canned values for common power limitations.

 

Tasha

 

Good point, alas I must spread rep... I need to rep more often.

[Christopher]

Re: Inverting Limitations

 

I still think you are overrating Limitation values.

You still think I am underrating them.

 

Looks like our points of view are clear.