Physical Manifestation

[Sean Waters]

I have been looking at Physical Manifestation (PM) as it has been discussed on a recent thread: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/88786-Demonic-Swarm

 

Looking at it, there seem to be some issues that could do with discussing.

 

Physical Manifestation gives an opponent the ability to 'break' a power. The first problem is that it seems to work pretty much like a focus in terms of toughness, but you are never without it. So that is issue one: no cost differentiation between PM and a, inaccessible, inobvious focus (IIF), even though the latter if far more of a limitation (e.g. it can be taken off you, depriving you of access to the power)

 

If you have (say) a power like this: limitation Stonewall: Barrier 12 PD/12 ED, 0 BODY (up to 16m long, 6m tall, and 1m thick) 60 active and real points, then you save 12 points if you tack PM on to it BUT there is no actual disadvantage: the toughness of the PM would greater than the defence of the barrier, and any damage through defence would shatter the whole barrier anyway.

 

Perhaps the toughness of PM is too high: if you made it (at most) 1 point per 10 active points in the power, that would differentiate from IIF and also make it more worth the -1/4 you get for it.

 

Another issue is that the DCV of the PM is based on the character's DCV (it still says in 6e 'i.e. as calculated from DEX'), which means that it is much less of a problem for high DCV characters to take this limitation than low DCV characters. To give it more universal applicability it should have either a fixed value (perhaps agreed with the GM as an average value for the campaign) or be automatically hit if targeted.

 

Part of the issue I have with the limitation is one that I have with a lot of powers: how is someone going to know that what they are seeing is a PM and not a simple SFX? One of the example powers in 6e is Running (useable as flight) with PM - ice slides. The problem is that someone looking at this power will not KNOW that they can blow the ice slides apart to stop the power. If someone tried that and it was just sfx, I would probably have ruled that an ice slide could be targeted anyway as part of the sfx (and perhaps allow the slider to tow another character or two 'for free). It does not seem to add anything, and this is a book example. Moreover, it is only ever really going to be a problem when you are using it in flight mode: if someone stops your running between phases, you just start it up again with no penalty.

 

I would probably have to rule that PM can only be used where there is no other way of stopping a power (for example a constant attack). Otherwise it really does not seem to add a lot to the power.

 

Finally the description in the book specifically mentions that re-activating a power should take a lot of time or effort, or similar BUT does not define what that means: is a delayed phase enough, or should it be at least a turn. I know the GM has discretion but it would be nice to have a place to start from. Given that an opponent has to spend an attack to deactivate the power, I would suggest that it should take at least an extra phase, possibly a full turn to switch a power on before you get a limitation value for PM.

 

Thoughts?

[Neverway]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

I generally don't reply to rules discussions for the same reason I generally don't reply to most threads (the less I talk, the less I look like and idiot), but moreso. However, I've been thinking about PM a bit myself though I've come to different conclusions. I hope you don't mind that I've cut your post appart to slip in my thoughts

 

I have been looking at Physical Manifestation (PM) as it has been discussed on a recent thread: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/88786-Demonic-Swarm

 

Looking at it, there seem to be some issues that could do with discussing.

 

Physical Manifestation gives an opponent the ability to 'break' a power. The first problem is that it seems to work pretty much like a focus in terms of toughness, but you are never without it. So that is issue one: no cost differentiation between PM and a, inaccessible, inobvious focus (IIF), even though the latter if far more of a limitation (e.g. it can be taken off you, depriving you of access to the power)

 

Since there's nothing about PM that makes the power or its source invisible, I think OIF would be a better comparison in which case it comes out looking to be about the right cost. Given that an inaccessible focus generally won't be taken away from you in battle, PM on most powers should play out exactly as OIF until someone gets captured/defeated.

 

If you have (say) a power like this: limitation Stonewall: Barrier 12 PD/12 ED, 0 BODY (up to 16m long, 6m tall, and 1m thick) 60 active and real points, then you save 12 points if you tack PM on to it BUT there is no actual disadvantage: the toughness of the PM would greater than the defence of the barrier, and any damage through defence would shatter the whole barrier anyway.

 

Perhaps the toughness of PM is too high: if you made it (at most) 1 point per 10 active points in the power, that would differentiate from IIF and also make it more worth the -1/4 you get for it.

 

This is one of the reasons we have GMs, to stomp on ideas like this; PM shouldn't be allowed for powers that already have a physical componant any more than "Costs End" should be allowed for powers that already cost end. I'm not married to any particualr scheme for toughness so have no particular objection to your sugestion other than prefering to use already extant rules rather than making up new ones for every case.

 

Another issue is that the DCV of the PM is based on the character's DCV (it still says in 6e 'i.e. as calculated from DEX')' date=' which means that it is much less of a problem for high DCV characters to take this limitation than low DCV characters. To give it more universal applicability it should have either a fixed value (perhaps agreed with the GM as an average value for the campaign) or be automatically hit if targeted.[/quote']

 

The power I tend to think of when looking at PM is TK and I think that such a power (TK w/PM) would logically benefit from the charater's DCV. On the other hand, the book's example of ice slides as + Running, PM looks more like it ought to be DCV 3, the ice slide being stationary. Perhaps allowing an aditional -1/4 of a disadvantage for using DCV 3 instead of the character's DCV when appropriate? You run into granularity issues with that though, is DCV 3 really worth an entire -1/4? What if the character's DCV is 3 or 4 like a Fantasy Hero Wizard?

 

Part of the issue I have with the limitation is one that I have with a lot of powers: how is someone going to know that what they are seeing is a PM and not a simple SFX? One of the example powers in 6e is Running (useable as flight) with PM - ice slides. The problem is that someone looking at this power will not KNOW that they can blow the ice slides apart to stop the power. If someone tried that and it was just sfx, I would probably have ruled that an ice slide could be targeted anyway as part of the sfx (and perhaps allow the slider to tow another character or two 'for free). It does not seem to add anything, and this is a book example. Moreover, it is only ever really going to be a problem when you are using it in flight mode: if someone stops your running between phases, you just start it up again with no penalty.

 

I would probably have to rule that PM can only be used where there is no other way of stopping a power (for example a constant attack). Otherwise it really does not seem to add a lot to the power.

 

This comes down to the GM again, if the power has a disadvantage on it, it should be described in a way that makes it clear that the disavantage exists (except for inobvious focii where it's less of a disadvantage to not be noticed). Back when I read comic books, no one seemed to have trouble picking out when attacking a power would have any effect or not; or at least that's how I view it since comic books don't have to follow game rules.

 

Finally the description in the book specifically mentions that re-activating a power should take a lot of time or effort, or similar BUT does not define what that means: is a delayed phase enough, or should it be at least a turn. I know the GM has discretion but it would be nice to have a place to start from. Given that an opponent has to spend an attack to deactivate the power, I would suggest that it should take at least an extra phase, possibly a full turn to switch a power on before you get a limitation value for PM.

 

Thoughts?

 

The language seems in line with Only In Alternate ID, but I see your point here. Extra Phase seems to be about right.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

The idea behind physical manifestation is simple; it is an attempt to address a chicken-egg problem. Does the egg make the chicken or does the chicken make the egg?

 

So, concretely, some effects require a physical focus to activate, which the Focus limitation addresses. However some effects CREATE a physical "focus" when you activate them, not the other way around.

 

There was no good way to cleanly do that previously. Focus would often get used to model such abilities _anyway_ as other than the activation issue it made sense to do so. It wasn't technically valid however.

 

 

Physical manifestation works particularly well with the LINGERING advantage, which it was introduced along with in FH 5e if memory serves. It allowed you to do things like summon a magical sword which basically gives you a temporary weapon that behaves like a Focus while it exists and can be disarmed or destroyed, and otherwise ceases to exist when the lingering runs out.

 

The Limitation has a lot of uses in a spell context and allows "magical constructs" to be put into play pretty expediently without a lot of rules weight.

 

It has some usage in other contexts, but like anything else allows some adjudication.

 

For the ice slide example, I haven't looked at that write up for many years, but as I recollect the implicit downside to using Physical Manifestation there is that if the ice slide gets destroyed you fall with circumstantial consequences depending on how high up you were.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

I see PM as a nice way to represent something like TK where the sfx is appropriate. I don't think it is necessarily a good way to represent a continuous attack. Since any continuous attack requires some reasonable way for the target to shut it off, there should be no extra limitation for saying the attack can be ended by destroying some physical manifestation.

 

In my mind PM is really a limitation that says "You can dispel this power with an attack that can destroy it instead of having to purchase Dispel", which makes the power a little more fragile. For cases where there is confusion about what is a PM and what is a sfx, the GM can either gently let the player know an sfx can't be targeted ("the imp that is flying around with the talisman is impossibly quick; you don't think you could ever hit it") or play along and let the player make a Power Skill trick roll or such to accomplish a mechanically nonstandard manuever. Personally I would go with the latter because it encourages players to be more creative usually.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

Part of the issue I have with the limitation is one that I have with a lot of powers: how is someone going to know that what they are seeing is a PM and not a simple SFX?

 

I think this is an issue but one that the GM should be able to address. Some characters might not be aware, others might blast away at any physical manifestation be it really PM or just SFX. However, the GM should be able to provide clues and, to those characters with some insight, then free hints or relevant rolls might just be appropriate.

 

Doc

[Tom Carman]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

I have a 5th Ed wizard character with an EC of wind powers, mainly flight and forcefield. The EC has a common limitation of Physical Manifestation: an air elemental appears whenever any power is active. Attacking the elemental can shut down everything, including the normally persistent FF.

[Christopher]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

Physical Manifestation gives an opponent the ability to 'break' a power. The first problem is that it seems to work pretty much like a focus in terms of toughness' date=' but you are never without it. So that is issue one: no cost differentiation between PM and a, inaccessible, inobvious focus (IIF), even though the latter if far more of a limitation (e.g. it can be taken off you, depriving you of access to the power)[/quote']

Actuall I it closer to an acccessible focus: You might be deprived of it's use by Entangle or Grab. The power becomes obvious. I would even say it is vulnerable to disarm.

But it might actually be a good idea to tone it down to -1/4, but encourage the use of "Restrainable" where applicable (kind of how 5E did it).

 

If you have (say) a power like this: limitation Stonewall: Barrier 12 PD/12 ED' date=' 0 BODY (up to 16m long, 6m tall, and 1m thick) 60 active and real points, then you save 12 points if you tack PM on to it BUT there is no actual disadvantage: the toughness of the PM would greater than the defence of the barrier, and any damage through defence would shatter the whole barrier anyway.[/quote']

The stonewall is indeed a cheesy example. So the GM says no. That is what common sense and the first rule of Limitations is there for.

 

Perhaps the toughness of PM is too high: if you made it (at most) 1 point per 10 active points in the power, that would differentiate from IIF and also make it more worth the -1/4 you get for it.

 

Another issue is that the DCV of the PM is based on the character's DCV (it still says in 6e 'i.e. as calculated from DEX'), which means that it is much less of a problem for high DCV characters to take this limitation than low DCV characters. To give it more universal applicability it should have either a fixed value (perhaps agreed with the GM as an average value for the campaign) or be automatically hit if targeted.

 

Part of the issue I have with the limitation is one that I have with a lot of powers: how is someone going to know that what they are seeing is a PM and not a simple SFX? One of the example powers in 6e is Running (useable as flight) with PM - ice slides. The problem is that someone looking at this power will not KNOW that they can blow the ice slides apart to stop the power. If someone tried that and it was just sfx, I would probably have ruled that an ice slide could be targeted anyway as part of the sfx (and perhaps allow the slider to tow another character or two 'for free). It does not seem to add anything, and this is a book example. Moreover, it is only ever really going to be a problem when you are using it in flight mode: if someone stops your running between phases, you just start it up again with no penalty.

Each of this is true with either Focus or any other Special Effect.

Foci are hit the same way PM is.

I can make a Power Armor as "Only in alternate identity" (if fact the books mentions that option), making it indestructible (and propably unhakable and unstealable).

Or define my HKA's special effect as "I summon a indestructible sword from nowhere".

I think there are simply cases where the GM should communicate rules. Or at least allow the character some roll to indentify what it is (KS: Magic Roll: "Ah, that is Teneseurs Sword, it can be broken"). In eiher chase it shouldn't be much harder than to spot that the beam rilfe is the source of an energy beam.

 

How I used it:

One power armor user that could "grow" weapon and armor. Not all of the stuff had PM, because a lot of it also had pretty fast self-regen. But any weapon had. Was in 5E, combined with Restrainable (if applicable).

If I ever make a Green Lantern homage, powers like Telekinesis will propably have PM on it (in fact I can do msot of his stuff with TK and some decent description).

 

Regarding the ice slide guy:

I don't think the DCV should drop here. After all the target is in movement and propably bright enough to create some supporting pillars every once in a while, so you have to hit it where you actually cause a fall. Keep in mind that travelling noncombat speed drops your DCV considerably and that Movement PM's aren't very durable (thanks to low AP).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

Excellent points and thought fodder. The big advantage of PM over a focus is that PM can not be taken away from you: you can always re-create it, which is why it is arguably inaccessible if you compare it to a focus (like an object of opportunity) but I accept that it should be obvious (even though I don't think that the power specifies that).

 

Say, for example, you have a character with a Barrier power (which does not have PM) and an indirect attack defined as a summoned imp that spits fireballs (built as an indirect killing attack). There would be nothing to stop the imp sitting behind the barrier, thus negating most of the limitation of PM.

 

I accept that this is one for the GM, and that power synergy is always a difficult issue, but it is one of those things worth thinking about.

 

As to the obviousness, well, I do struggle to hint at things sometimes without actually coming out and saying it. For example you could build a 2d6 RKA with PM defined as a Fire Elemental that flies over to a target and burns it. The Fire Elemental would remain between phases and can be attacked.

 

The same perceived effect could be built as a continuous RKA: the Fire Elemental would stick around between phases and attacking it would do no good at all.

 

Without simply telling the players that one is built with PM, they may well not realise that they can stop the burning with a swift punch. That makes the power, despite its obvious SFX, more inobvious: the players do not know that they can target the PM.

 

On the PM DCV = character DCV point, what I'm saying is that if SuperSpeedster, with her 12 DCV takes a PM power, it is going to be far less limited than UltraBrick with his 4 DCV taking a PM power. Again this is a synergy problem, but one worth mentioning as SS's PM power will almost never get hit, whereas UB's gets hit all the time and is no tougher. I mean, if you are going to say we take the character's DCV, why not say we take the character's defences too?

 

Just to be clear I like the idea of PM (you would never know, would you?) but I think it needs a bit more thought. It definitely has a niche that it fills. This discussion is really useful as it helps to refine my (and hopefully your) ideas about the modifier.

[Christopher]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

Excellent points and thought fodder. The big advantage of PM over a focus is that PM can not be taken away from you: you can always re-create it' date=' which is why it is arguably inaccessible if you compare it to a focus (like an object of opportunity) but I accept that it should be obvious (even though I don't think that the power specifies that).[/quote']

It's even better than an inobviosu one, because you can even deny objects of opportunity. On the otehr hand you shouldn't forget that PM also needs some downside on the activation part. So my 5E character who had PM (-1/4) and half Phase to Activate (-1/4) had effectively a power that is "extremely easy to dispel" (by anything doing at least AP/5+1 in Body), and with a time to turn on (so unlike a Focus gun, she could not just "draw" it as 0-phase action).

 

Say, for example, you have a character with a Barrier power (which does not have PM) and an indirect attack defined as a summoned imp that spits fireballs (built as an indirect killing attack). There would be nothing to stop the imp sitting behind the barrier, thus negating most of the limitation of PM.

 

I accept that this is one for the GM, and that power synergy is always a difficult issue, but it is one of those things worth thinking about.

That is effective use, if the environment allow it. You will hardly buy the barrier with that specific effect, and even if it's still worser than buyin extra Defense, Only for IMP (-2) - because you need two Attack Actions to pull of the combination.

 

As to the obviousness, well, I do struggle to hint at things sometimes without actually coming out and saying it. For example you could build a 2d6 RKA with PM defined as a Fire Elemental that flies over to a target and burns it. The Fire Elemental would remain between phases and can be attacked.

 

The same perceived effect could be built as a continuous RKA: the Fire Elemental would stick around between phases and attacking it would do no good at all.

 

Without simply telling the players that one is built with PM, they may well not realise that they can stop the burning with a swift punch. That makes the power, despite its obvious SFX, more inobvious: the players do not know that they can target the PM.

Simple solution: Tell them.

Make a easy roll for them to see if they know. (or a normal/difficulty one on KS: Superhuman world) At the latest, let them know once the attacked (even if they missed or didn't overcome the defenses, the djinn will still react).

The information should not harder to get than "Zatana can't cast when she can't speak (backwards)", wich in the worst can be simply an INT roll.

 

While I like descriptive combat, I think the Players should given all the rule-technical information they could aquire. If they miss more because of luck than ability, let them know "he managed to avoid your attack, but that was luck. He is clearly not as fast as you". Any decent warrior should be able to tell if your OCV with a sword is 0 (3-3 for no WF) or 9.

A lot of the cool combat from Comibooks can be done if the players just get informed that hitting is unlikely or that they won't overcoem the defense - because then the player can choose some of the dozen different options the game system gives him or her to twart the enemy. Be it hitting the foci, using AOE (against high DCV guy), or using grab and choke (against Strong Def, low STR guy)

 

On the PM DCV = character DCV point' date=' what I'm saying is that if SuperSpeedster, with her 12 DCV takes a PM power, it is going to be far less limited than UltraBrick with his 4 DCV taking a PM power. Again this is a synergy problem, but one worth mentioning as SS's PM power will almost never get hit, whereas UB's gets hit all the time and is no tougher. I mean, if you are going to say we take the character's DCV, why not say we take the character's defences too?[/quote']

Again, the same would apply to an Inaccessible Focus, with the added advantag that you can steal it once you have him K.O. Wich is hardly worth much more than the PM.

[Christopher]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

It's even better than an inobviosu one, because you can even deny objects of opportunity.

[...]

Again, the same would apply to an Inaccessible Focus, with the added advantag that you can steal it once you have him K.O. Wich is hardly worth much more than the PM.

I just realised the question shouldn't be "is PM as limiting is OIF"? but rather, "OIF so much more limiting than PM that it should be worth more?".

[Sean Waters]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

I just realised the question shouldn't be "is PM as limiting is OIF"? but rather' date=' "OIF so much more limiting than PM that it should be worth more?".[/quote']

 

That way lies only madness, my friend

[Sean Waters]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

It's even better than an inobviosu one' date=' because you can even deny objects of opportunity. On the otehr hand you shouldn't forget that PM also needs some downside on the activation part. So my 5E character who had PM (-1/4) and half Phase to Activate (-1/4) had effectively a power that is "extremely easy to dispel" (by anything doing at least AP/5+1 in Body), and with a time to turn on (so unlike a Focus gun, she could not just "draw" it as 0-phase action).[/quote']

 

Well....extremely easy to dispel may depend on the power. A 60 point power will require a hit that does 13 body to get rid off. That, I suppose is another issue: higher active point powers are harder to get rid of and so PM is less of a limitation for them. This is especially the case if you run a game where you do not limit active points: a high active point power with a few limitations might produce an almost indestructible PM (of course there is the Device Zapper: 1 pip KA penetrating indirect constant AoE (only vs Foci and PMs) which can make such limitations massively useless - as it ignores the problem with high DCV and defences). The other thing, using your example - if you only have to wait a half phase to activate it you, I do not think that is enough of a problem: to get rid of your PM, an opponent has to use an attack action, so you can tie them up in an infinite loop, even if they do, somehow, manage to hit it every time. I would argue that the minimum 'extra time' should be an extra phase.

 

 

That is effective use, if the environment allow it. You will hardly buy the barrier with that specific effect, and even if it's still worser than buyin extra Defense, Only for IMP (-2) - because you need two Attack Actions to pull of the combination.

 

I would be very wary of allowing extra defences for a PM as that is circumventing the limitation, just as I would not allow someone with a forcefield that could cover objects to have that protect the PM. If you have a PM power that already takes a 10+ Body hit to turn off and cover it with a 20PD/ED Force Field, it is no longer really limited.

 

 

Simple solution: Tell them.

Make a easy roll for them to see if they know. (or a normal/difficulty one on KS: Superhuman world) At the latest, let them know once the attacked (even if they missed or didn't overcome the defenses, the djinn will still react).

The information should not harder to get than "Zatana can't cast when she can't speak (backwards)", wich in the worst can be simply an INT roll.

 

While I like descriptive combat, I think the Players should given all the rule-technical information they could aquire. If they miss more because of luck than ability, let them know "he managed to avoid your attack, but that was luck. He is clearly not as fast as you". Any decent warrior should be able to tell if your OCV with a sword is 0 (3-3 for no WF) or 9.

A lot of the cool combat from Comibooks can be done if the players just get informed that hitting is unlikely or that they won't overcoem the defense - because then the player can choose some of the dozen different options the game system gives him or her to twart the enemy. Be it hitting the foci, using AOE (against high DCV guy), or using grab and choke (against Strong Def, low STR guy)

 

True, true. I think that is one of the issues with a 'SFX can be anything' approach - you could define your constant fire attack as a 'real' elemental that attacks but that 'instantly regenerates' if hit (it may not LIKE being hit so would react to the attack). The only solution is then to actually tell the players how the Villain's power is built (at least in part), which can be jarring to the old 'suspension of disbelief'.

 

 

Again' date=' the same would apply to an Inaccessible Focus, with the added advantag that you can steal it once you have him K.O. Wich is hardly worth much more than the PM.[/quote']

 

Hmm. It is a problem if you want to keep the bloody PCs quiescent whilst the villain who has captured them rants at how helpless they are and gives away half the plot in exposition.

 

The PC checklist often runs:

Conscious?

Target?

Attack!

 

I jest, I jest.

[Lucius]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

The same perceived effect could be built as a continuous RKA: the Fire Elemental would stick around between phases and attacking it would do no good at all.

.

 

Unless attacking and damaging it is the defined way to "turn off" the continuous power

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary turns off a power: "You're a stupid power and you have ugly special effects. Only a loser has a power like you."

[Sean Waters]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

Unless attacking and damaging it is the defined way to "turn off" the continuous power

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary turns off a power: "You're a stupid power and you have ugly special effects. Only a loser has a power like you."

 

You could do that (and take a limitation) but the rules do not require that a continuous power be turn-off-able. Again I stress I am not against PM in principle, as I think it fills a niche I would use 'Limited Power' to fill otherwise, but I have issues with the mechanics and such.

[Christopher]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

A 60 point power will require a hit that does 13 body to get rid off. That' date=' I suppose is another issue: higher active point powers are harder to get rid of and so PM is less of a limitation for them. This is especially the case if you run a game where you do not limit active points: a high active point power with a few limitations might produce an almost indestructible PM (of course there is the Device Zapper: 1 pip KA penetrating indirect constant AoE (only vs Foci and PMs) which can make such limitations massively useless - as it ignores the problem with high DCV and defences). The other thing, using your example - if you only have to wait a half phase to activate it you, I do not think that is enough of a problem: to get rid of your PM, an opponent has to use an attack action, so you can tie them up in an infinite loop, even if they do, somehow, manage to hit it every time. I would argue that the minimum 'extra time' should be an extra phase.[/quote']

AS for the body: Breaking Foci, Barriers and Entangles is what Killing Attack are for in Superheroic games. In fact most of my heroes tug along a KA (propably Armor Piercing or even Penetrating) in their Multipower, just for this occasion.

As for the extra phase: each of the guns was in a Multipower and the extra phase affect her not only when "restoring" the gun, but also when activating it in the first place. And she would never let it gwo to an endless loop. If an enemy was in HTH-Range, she propably would simply fly up. Ativating the Gun and getting out of range are her full phase (actiation + half move). Standing up and getting out of range was her full phase. Activating the Flight Multipower and getting out of range was her full phase.

 

I would be very wary of allowing extra defences for a PM as that is circumventing the limitation' date=' just as I would not allow someone with a forcefield that could cover objects to have that protect the PM. If you have a PM power that already takes a 10+ Body hit to turn off and cover it with a 20PD/ED Force Field, it is no longer really limited.[/quote']

What if that Forcefield ties up your Multipower? And/Or cost you endurance? To protect your times, that force-field needs a +10 Adder (wich adds to the end cost/mp reserve cost) or you have to buy the extra defense seperately, with Linked and "Only for specific Focus" (-2) or "Only for Foci" -1.

So while it is possible, it will hardly be cost effective to cheat the rules here.

 

True' date=' true. I think that is one of the issues with a 'SFX can be anything' approach - you could define your constant fire attack as a 'real' elemental that attacks but that 'instantly regenerates' if hit (it may not LIKE being hit so would react to the attack). The only solution is then to actually tell the players how the Villain's power is built (at least in part), which can be jarring to the old 'suspension of disbelief'.[/quote']

Take a look at 6E1 125. Among the things that are percieved are: Target, Source, Path, Special Effect, Intensity, the effect it has on the target (after defenses), and even Limitaitions like side effects or that the power costs endurance.

So it's nos so hard to say that iron man can figure after a simple INT roll: "Nice Gun with quite some stopping power, but from the size of the battery pack I would say you only have about 3 more shoots left." - simply figure out that attack just had a 4 Charges Limitation, with one beign used.

 

Hmm. It is a problem if you want to keep the bloody PCs quiescent whilst the villain who has captured them rants at how helpless they are and gives away half the plot in exposition.

Chains/Bounds. 1-2 mooks per player, wich make the Cover maneuver with Blasters* "Do you want to interupt his speech?"

 

*At least until they are put into their deathtrap. Nobody would want to watch that, after all.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

What if that Forcefield ties up your Multipower? And/Or cost you endurance? To protect your times, that force-field needs a +10 Adder (wich adds to the end cost/mp reserve cost) or you have to buy the extra defense seperately, with Linked and "Only for specific Focus" (-2) or "Only for Foci" -1.

So while it is possible, it will hardly be cost effective to cheat the rules here.

 

True, but what if the character has a force field that covers held object anyways? Than it DOES make sense to buy other powers with PM. the point is though that doing that circumvents the limitation that PM imposes: the manifestation becomes virtually indestructible, barring a specialist attack.

 

The other thing about a focus is that once it is broken there is unlikely to be another lying around you can just grab, whereas with a PM you can have it back pretty quickly even if it is 'destroyed'. Destroying a PM only prevents you from using a power for a very short period of time and takes up an enemy attack action.

 

 

*At least until they are put into their deathtrap. Nobody would want to watch that, after all.

 

No...nobody would watch that? What would be the point? They are clearly doomed anyway!

[Christopher]

Re: Physical Manifestation

 

True, but what if the character has a force field that covers held object anyways? Than it DOES make sense to buy other powers with PM. the point is though that doing that circumvents the limitation that PM imposes: the manifestation becomes virtually indestructible, barring a specialist attack.

 

The other thing about a focus is that once it is broken there is unlikely to be another lying around you can just grab, whereas with a PM you can have it back pretty quickly even if it is 'destroyed'. Destroying a PM only prevents you from using a power for a very short period of time and takes up an enemy attack action.

One of the reasons OAF is a whopin -1.