I wonder how many have stopped using Champions/HERO for similar reasons to this?

[Hyper-Man]

An 'Iron-Man'-like suite of powered armor built with the OIF Limitation arguably already has Unified-like drawbacks built in.

 

See this except from Hero System 6e1 page 379

 

When an attack hits a Breakable Focus, each attack that penetrates the PD/ED of the Focus and does BODY damage destroys one of the powers bought through the Focus. The amount of BODY done is unimportant — one power is destroyed whether the attack did 1 BODY or 15. The GM should determine which power is destroyed; usually it’s the largest one in the Focus or one chosen randomly.

 

[Hyper-Man]

A combination of OIHID and Unified has a different set of consequences than OIF.  Are they equivalently bad for the character? Yes, if the GM is using Drains and scenarios that start out of heroic id with as much frequency as villains with attacks that can regularly do body vs. the OIF Armor PC.

[esampson]

An 'Iron-Man'-like suite of powered armor built with the OIF Limitation arguably already has Unified-like drawbacks built in.

 

See this except from Hero System 6e1 page 379

 

 

Very arguably. That's really not a Unified-like drawback. That's breakable focus thing. If powers in a focus got drained together then you could argue that the OIF limitation is behaving in a Unified Power fashion (additionally I believe that for the purpose of a breakable foci all unified powers count as a single 'power' for the purpose of losing them when the focus takes body).

[esampson]

In Super Agents, all of the agents armor is bought OAF. The reason is that agent armor is quick to put on in an emergency.

Which is really silly because OAF has nothing to do with how fast something can be put on. It has to do with how rapidly it can be taken away (and how obvious it is).

[Ninja-Bear]

SHIELD agents putting on a Kevlar vest is not the same as Tony Stark putting on Iron Man.

Umm this is Champions so it is the same. Unless you pay for it differently - of course.

[Ninja-Bear]

Which is really silly because OAF has nothing to do with how fast something can be put on. It has to do with how rapidly it can be taken away (and how obvious it is).

You missed the point. Quick -on armor is the special effect of why the agent armor was OAF and hence could be removed in combat by super strong people.

[esampson]

You missed the point. Quick -on armor is the special effect of why the agent armor was OAF and hence could be removed in combat by super strong people.

If you needed to be superstrong to take it away like that it still wasn't Accessible. That's would just have been attacking the armor and overwhelming the defenses (something covered under the foci rules). To be accessible anyone needed to be able to take it off of the agents by making a successful grab action (remember, this was written before there was a Strength vs. Strength roll when grabbing foci).

[Tigereye]

If you needed to be superstrong to take it away like that it still wasn't Accessible. That's would just have been attacking the armor and overwhelming the defenses (something covered under the foci rules). To be accessible anyone needed to be able to take it off of the agents by making a successful grab action (remember, this was written before there was a Strength vs. Strength roll when grabbing foci).

That's what I was to understand too, if it can be "shot out of your hands", or taken away in a fight, it's Accessible. Unless the armor was held on by a single narrow strip of Velcro, and could be removed in a few seconds, I'd rule it was Inaccessible. Now, add two 1/4 Limitations, like Real Armor and Somewhat Bulky, and you've basically taken the same level of Limitations, described the armor better, and gave it something the characters must deal with occasionally out-of-combat ("Not tonight, love, I've got to take my armor to the cleaners..." "Jeeze Louise, Russell, could they put a fan or something in these things? I feel like I'm in a Boil-In-Bag here!"

[Greywind]

Umm this is Champions so it is the same. Unless you pay for it differently - of course.

 

[esampson]

Again, that's 'removing armor quickly', not 'having armor grabbed away'.  Very strictly in accordance with the rules unless there's some kind of limitation or complication preventing him Tony Stark can change into and out of his armor in 1 phase and he doesn't require any extra help, but that doesn't make his armor 'accessible'. Accessible means anyone can take it away with a simple grab manuever (so again, Thor popping off the face plate doesn't really count as accessible since super strength was required).

 

If you were to really pin me down on how to do it in game terms I would probably look at some sort of partial multiform. Depending on where he is in the storyline of the four movies (Iron Man I-III and Avengers) he would have certain limitations on the multiform that regulated when he could change and how long it would take (in  the last movie he could just walk into and out of complete suits of armor with no additional equipment while in the first movie he almost certainly had some limitation such as extra time that made changing take more than 1 phase in addition to the fact that he could only change at certain locations).

[Bodkins Odds]

I like unified power for tight concept groups and related powers, like "fire elemental powers" so if its drained, the whole thing gets weakened, not just the single power.  It works well for a lot of concepts such as powers that are essentially one power used in different ways (but not in a multipower), or combined powers that should all be weakened proportionally at the same time.

 

It's even good for such powers in a Mutlipower. Or do you House Rule it so that the reserve gets drained when any of it's slots do? Because that could break utility belt Multipowers.

 

And a Powered Armor could easily be a Focus, OIAID, or a Multiform. Any of which could be combined with Unified Power. What if it was an organic powered armor instead of a machine with discreet systems, like Guyver? Whether it's a Powered Armor isn't the important factor here; whether draining one power should logically drain the other is. I could even see a discreet systems PA have Unified Power on, for instance, a Blast and an RKA If those are merely two different settings for one energy beam projector.

[Ninja-Bear]

Esampson I didnt point out before but Aaron Allston did recognize that typically armor is bought OIF but for his supplement, everyrhing is OAF. I was merely pointig out originally that you could by armor as OAF. I know I've bought villian's belts tthat's way-so its easier for the heroes to take away.

 

And what is the problem if anyone can grab it? Just cause its grabbed doesn't mean its automatically removed.

[Christopher R Taylor]

OAF presumes that the focus can be easily restrained and removed from the character, even used against them.  Like a pistol, not a backpack.

[Ninja-Bear]

OAF presumes that the focus can be easily restrained and removed from the character, even used against them. Like a pistol, not a backpack.

Then how do you explain power pack (END Battery) defined as OAF by Steve Long? Because OAF as you said in your first point referes to how it can be removed in combat not how it xan be used against you. Just like I've seen a magical sword bought as OIF cause it magical t-ports in the owners hand if its disarmed (upto 10").

[Tigereye]

This is actually easy, and although you guys have swung this thread a bit OT, it's actually a good example of how bad GMing can ruin a good game like the Hero System.

 

An endurance battery can be bought IAF, OAF, IIF or OIF. So can a gun, for that matter. What the difference is is a) how noticeable they are and how accessible they are. Accessibility is not "how easy it is to put on" or access in your closet or kit bag; it's "how easy is it to take away". Noticeability is different than invisible power usage; you can think of it as "invisible until you use it".

 

Let's take a pistol as an example:

 

OAF: A pistol as we normally know it. Looks like a pistol and can be grabbed from someone.

IAF: A pistol that doesn't look like one - it could be disguised as a cigarette case or a small computer tablet. However, it can still be taken away in combat from even a conscious and fully functioning person.

OIF: A pistol with a nylon wrist strap or the like linking it to its user. Still clearly looks like a weapon of some kind, but cannot be taken away without knocking out the wielder or doing them some serious bodily harm (like dismembering their hand).

IIF: A device that may do the same damage as a pistol but does not look like a firearm and cannot be taken away in a combat situation. For example, a belt buckle or a prosthetic finger ("The Fickle Finger of Fate!"). A power ring with the power of a .454 Casull.

 

OK, an Endurance Battery. As END can take many forms, we can morph a Focus likewise.

OAF: An exposed lantern battery, with wires that can be easily disconnected or broken. A reservoir of liquid goo attached by a vacuum cleaner hose.

IAF: A battery that forms part of a backpack (and is thereby hidden) but still is connected by a spring terminal or can be slid out easily. A magical pendant that feeds life energy to the wearer; it doesn't glow but must be worn outside of the body to be used and can be snapped off the neck.

OIF: A car battery (technically OIF Bulky); you know it's there because the car starts and can use its lights and radio but you can't get to it unless the driver is not in the vehicle or is knocked out and won't interfere with you removing it. Most electronic devices have this. Can you take it off in a split second, even if the user is an evasive target? No? Then it's Inaccessible.

IIF: A Power Ring that doesn't look like anything and can't be removed unless the finger is (or at least is not capable of being taken away with a Grab). A pendant that can be worn inside clothing. A battery that doesn't look like a battery and is not easily removed. I knew a guy who had a multipurpose particle weapon in Champions; the weapon looked like a nondescript box, and his off hand was holding an attache case shackled to his wrist secure-courier style. It was his END Reserve. The GM Ruled it was IIF Bulky because he needed his off hand to always carry it; I would have ruled that the weapon technically needed two hands to use, too.

 

Armor?

OAF: An easily removed quilted cape that looks like it could stop bullets. A chain mail metal bikini top that can somehow give its wearer 20 PD and ED (but can still be removed with a Grab maneuver- "Maybe if you'd stopped wearing them, the swelling would go down." )

IAF: As above, but not obvious - they're just a cape and a bikini top, although both can be pulled off. ("There's something I'd like you to get off your chest.")

OIF: The classic flak jacket and helmet getup.

IIF:A business suit with armor underneath, or clothing made of Resistweave^TM.

[Balabanto]

Very arguably. That's really not a Unified-like drawback. That's breakable focus thing. If powers in a focus got drained together then you could argue that the OIF limitation is behaving in a Unified Power fashion (additionally I believe that for the purpose of a breakable foci all unified powers count as a single 'power' for the purpose of losing them when the focus takes body).

 

 The drawback is written up under the limitation "Focus," not the limitation "Unified Power." Nowhere in Unified Power does it say that a power can be broken, it only says that it can be drained. The problem comes in interpreting that all powers that come from a single device constitute "unified," no matter how loose the concept.

 

Champions is meant to be played with common sense, not "Justify Anything." That's probably the real point of this statement.

 

Plus, there's another problem. Frequency of the use of the Drain power. In campaigns where maybe one in every twenty characters has a drain power, Unified Power is an incredible cost break. In a campaign where everyone has drains, this limitation isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[Ninja-Bear]

 

Plus, there's another problem. Frequency of the use of the Drain power. In campaigns where maybe one in every twenty characters has a drain power, Unified Power is an incredible cost break. In a campaign where everyone has drains, this limitation isn't worth the paper it's printed on.[/

quote]

 

But that's true with any limitation is is not?

[Ninja-Bear]

This is actually easy, and although you guys have swung this thread a bit OT, it's actually a good example of how bad GMing can ruin a good game like the Hero System.

 

What the difference is is a) how noticeable they are and how accessible they are. Accessibility is not "how easy it is to put on" or access in your closet or kit bag; it's "how easy is it to take away". [/sup].

I noticed that people are getting hung-up with the quick-on armor and accessibility. I always took the meaning for Super Agents that because it is easy to put on therefore it was easy to remove and hence a OAF limitation.

[esampson]

Then how do you explain power pack (END Battery) defined as OAF by Steve Long? Because OAF as you said in your first point referes to how it can be removed in combat not how it xan be used against you. Just like I've seen a magical sword bought as OIF cause it magical t-ports in the owners hand if its disarmed (upto 10").

I can't really comment on why Steve Long listed that as OAF. Perhaps for some reason he thought the jet pack could easily be torn off someone's back. Accessible actually doesn't have anything to do with whether the focus can be used against you. That is a completely different kettle of fish with whether the focus is personal or universal. Due to the advantages and limitations of the two sort of cancelling one another out (you can lend a universal focus to a friend, but run the danger of it being used against you) there's no cost difference between the two, however it is something that is suppose to be specified when you design a focus just like you have to specify if it is breakable and replacable or unbreakable.

 

I'm confused by the reference to the OIF sword. You're right that it can't be taken away and used against you, but that is because it is Inaccessible and so it is a smaller limitation than a comparable (Obvious or Inobvious) Accessible focus. Since the discussion is about what it means for a focus to be Accessible I can't figure out what mentioning an Inaccessible focus does (unless it is perhaps to illustrate that something that might look Accessible doesn't neccessarily have to be).

 

 The drawback is written up under the limitation "Focus," not the limitation "Unified Power." Nowhere in Unified Power does it say that a power can be broken, it only says that it can be drained. The problem comes in interpreting that all powers that come from a single device constitute "unified," no matter how loose the concept.

 

Champions is meant to be played with common sense, not "Justify Anything." That's probably the real point of this statement.

 

Plus, there's another problem. Frequency of the use of the Drain power. In campaigns where maybe one in every twenty characters has a drain power, Unified Power is an incredible cost break. In a campaign where everyone has drains, this limitation isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Yes, it is written up under Focus and not Unified power but you could just as easily place it under Unified Power and not Focus. It's the result of the two limitations acting together.

 

I agree though on Unified Power and the frequency of Drain. One thing that I am not overly fond of with the later editions of Champions is that I think many of the limitations that were added don't really need to be added. I think more than a few of them could quite easily have found themselves a place in the Limited Power limitation rather than getting a special category all their own. It is probably a bit Grognardy of me to think that, I realize, but sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't make it a little easier for some new players.

 

Anyway, there's always a certain element with limitations that should be based on the campaign. Defenses that don't shield against sorcery? Probably not worth as much in a campaign set along an interstellar adventurers setup than a campaign set with characters walking back and forth between the Here and Now and the Court of Faeries. In most cases limitations probably won't really vary in value from campaign to campaign but yeah, in the case of Unified Power there probably should have been some expansion in there regarding how common Drains are.

[Ninja-Bear]

Esampson the power pack as an OAF is an example for christopher taylor who implied it should be OIF. And related to this, I brought up the sword ad an example of how things that seem to be an OAF could be bought differently-hence the magical sword being OIF.

 

Im sure James Bond was glad the villians parachute was bought OAF when he had to free fall after the villian to wrestle away the parachute in free fall so he wouldnt die. (Can picture the scene but not the name of the movie)

[esampson]

Esampson the power pack as an OAF is an example for christopher taylor who implied it should be OIF. And related to this, I brought up the sword ad an example of how things that seem to be an OAF could be bought differently-hence the magical sword being OIF.

 

Im sure James Bond was glad the villians parachute was bought OAF when he had to free fall after the villian to wrestle away the parachute in free fall so he wouldnt die. (Can picture the scene but not the name of the movie)

Doh! I misread that it was a power pack. For some reason I was reading that as a jet pack (and wondering why someone would have a device to help them fly so loosely attached to their body).

 

I think you're referring to Moonraker for the fight scene. I might be off on the movie. The issue, though, is that I'm not completely convinced that the parachute should be considered an OAF. The fight scene between Bond and the unnamed henchman is a little bit more involved than a simple 'got your parachute' grab manuever.

 

On the other hand the guy is also clearly concious the entire time, which I suppose leads to the fact that not everything that occurs in comic book/movies can be completely and accurately reconstructed in the Hero Games system*. There's going to be times when those lines get blurry. This is usually a bigger issue with Obvious and Inobvious in my experience (is a gun cane Obvious or Inobvious? Clearly it is the 'source' of the ability when it is in use but before that it is not clear at all) but it can certainly extend to other things like Accessible and Inaccesible foci.

 

*While this is an absolute truth because all you need is one thing that cannot be completely and accurately reconstructed the statement is slightly misleading. It possible to more accurately model certain events from movies and comic books by doing things like taking:

 

-1/2: OIF - Parachute, -1/4: Parachute can be taken away while character is still concious. Opponent must make a grab roll at which point both characters will begin to roll strength vs strength. When someone succeeds by more than 5 points they win the parachute. If people succeed by less than the amount of successes carry over to the next round of combat. Characters may elect to only hold on with one hand. This gives them a -2 penalty to their strength roll but allows them to attack instead of making the strength vs. strength roll on their action. A stunned character is at a -3 on the strength vs. strength roll.

However, that way lies inevitable madness.

[Tigereye]

Back to the main topic - and illustrating the point. Hero can be chock-a-block with rules arguments like the ones above. (What constitutes Accessible? If Grond can take it away from me with Casual Strength, is it Accessible? What if someone tries to steal my parachute? Is it Invisible SFX to Hearing Group because you can't hear it when it's in use? And what color is it - is that a SFX?) That can be a big turn-off to players who don't like rules arguments from other players, and to GMs who are used to tight control of their players.

 

My experience as a GM says the KISS principle should be applied. "The simpler, the better - if it can be built with points, you can have it, but then you'd better have a good reason for it. If it exists in real life, you can have it, even without points - but just be aware that even some things in real life cost points, unless you can buy them cheaply at a local hardware store. So flashlights, duct tape, and kitchen knives are free. But if you want to buy Skill Levels in it, you'll want to spend those points to buy them as a power as well."

 

What I do in my games is give all characters a floating-value VPP for free (about 10-15 points, Foci or Vehicles only) depending on the device wielded) as a sort of "Everyman Powers". This covers things like their car, their flashlight, the roll of duct tape they used to wrap up Foxbat (and put a generous length over his mouth!). This stops a lot of problems with the players, as even superheroes can then use ordinary objects (in fact, I like to give points for creative thinking). It costs no points, as Aunt May has the same ability.

[Scott Baker]

Im sure James Bond was glad the villians parachute was bought OAF when he had to free fall after the villian to wrestle away the parachute in free fall so he wouldnt die. (Can picture the scene but not the name of the movie)

That was Moonraker.

[Ninja-Bear]

Thanks everyone for the movie reference. : )

[Balabanto]

That was Moonraker.

That's OIF. Bond had 12 seconds to remove it.