Roll to avoid side effect w/ loophole

[mhd]

Quick question: How would you price a limitation, where the power itself always is activated, but there's a required skill roll that's only used for avoiding a nasty side effect and there's a specific component that can totally remedy the need for this roll (the component is destroyed by this).

 

Major Side Effect tied to a RSR is -1/2.

OAF Expendable, difficult is -1 1/4

 

Variable Side Effects doesn't seem necessary, as there's no real wide choice between options and the pricing for either varies quite a lot.

 

Due to the much higher price for the OAF, I would probably stick to the -1/2 instead of weakening it further. Anyone who vehemently disagrees?

[Lucius]

Basically, you do not put "Requires a Skill Roll" on the Power. It doesn't, it always happens.

 

Under Side Effects, do not choose "occurs automatically."  In comments or notes, note that the Side Effect is: Consumes X quantity of Y valuable substance if available, otherwise, must make Z Skill roll or else A Terrible Consequence befalls.

 

Fill in XYZ and A as appropriate.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Feeding the palindromedary alphabet soup

[Christopher]

I thought a bit about "limited Side Effects".

The best rule I could come up with: Build a side effect with Limitations*. But instead of measuring the AP against what is required for a that "level of Side Effect", measure the Real Points.

Here you have a case where the Side Effect is limited with "RSR or Charges**". So either use a varriable Limitation or just handwave the value.

 

*Of course you have to measure those Limitatons from a Side Effects point of view. "Does no BODY" might be a -0 for attack powers in most superheroic games, but it is surely not one for a Side Effeect.

 

**You gave us no other information so I asume it is charges.

[bigbywolfe]

Why on earth would you assume Charges?

Without the OP mentioning Charges I would assume the spells ran off of personal END (or an END Reserve if it was that sort of magic system) and that the Expendable Focus was just that, an Expendable Focus...

[The Weapon]

I'd say "Major Side Effect" always happen = -1

So a variable limitation (OAF expendable focus -5/4 or Major Side Effect, always -1) = -1/2

Calculate the points you save by this limitation and pay them as a power, modified by the -1/2 RSR.

E.g.

Fireball, 9d6 Blast (or energy blast if you're in fifth ed.) 45 Active points variable lim. (OAF expend or Major SFX) -1/2 =30 real points

Remove var. lim. on FB 15 points base , RSR -1/2 = 10 points

 

30 +10 = 40 points for the combination.

Basically I'm treating removing limitation on a power as another power, subject to limitations.  Not part of the rules but no reason you can't houserule it. 

[Hyper-Man]

This sounds like a variation on the question of how to model Marvel's Cyclops and his ruby lens visor.

[Christopher]

Why on earth would you assume Charges?

 

Without the OP mentioning Charges I would assume the spells ran off of personal END (or an END Reserve if it was that sort of magic system) and that the Expendable Focus was just that, an Expendable Focus...

1) I said that I might be wrong with Charges. And Charges and Expendable Focus are easily repalceable.

2) Did you had a point other then saying "Christopher, you are wrong"? Because that is the only thing I read there and it won't really help with the Problem.

 

This sounds like a variation on the question of how to model Marvel's Cyclops and his ruby lens visor.

Never considered naked Buyoff here. I guess there are two problems:

1) Making a Side Effect that only happens on a failed roll, with the roll having no effect on the actuall pwoer itself (this is not RSR).

2) Making a Naked Buyoff with Charges, Expendable Focus or whatever.

 

2) is the easy one. But how do we value 1)?

Gamble with Fate: 60 AP of Attack Power, Side Effect (Make a 11- Roll or suffer 15 AP of Negative Powers; -?).

 

Minor Side Effect that Always occours would be -1/2.

RSR (11-) and Minor Side effect would be -1/2 and -1/4 for a total of -3/4. And in this case failing the Roll would ruin the spell effect.

 

But here we have a effect that always occurs, with a side effect that only sometimes occurs.

 

We would need more information, especially:

Severity of the Side Effect/AP of the power this is applied too.

What the Roll is and if it is a skill Roll, wich penalties apply? Also the Cap for skill in this campaign might be helpfull.

 

 

I'll give it a try, using what I wrote above:

Gamble with Fate: 60 AP of Attack Power, Minor Side Effect (Always occurs; Suffer Fates Answer; -1/2), 40 Real Points

 

Fates Answer: 30 AP of Attack Power, RSR (11-; -1/2); 20 Real Points

Note: Due to being limited, the Real Points of Fates Answer are compared against what is required for Side effect. So despite being 30 AP it only counts as Minor Side Effect.

 

Bargain with Fate: Naked Buyoff for Minor Side Effect on Gamble With Fate, 20 Base Points; 8 Charges (-1/2), 13 Real.

[bigbywolfe]

2) Did you had a point other then saying "Christopher, you are wrong"? Because that is the only thing I read there and it won't really help with the Problem.

 

My point was that I was asking a question.  I guess my question wasn't as clear as I thought it was.  I'm trying to think of a better way to ask "why would you assume Charges?".  It makes no sense to me at all.  I explained what my assumption would have been.  I suppose I could have explained why my assumptions differed from yours, mainly I have never seen someone present a Charge based magic system without having a very specific flavor/reason in mind and explicitly saying so.  This didn't seem the case to me.

 

I am still curious why you would assume Charges.

 

 

[Christopher]

My point was that I was asking a question.  I guess my question wasn't as clear as I thought it was.  I'm trying to think of a better way to ask "why would you assume Charges?".  It makes no sense to me at all.  I explained what my assumption would have been.  I suppose I could have explained why my assumptions differed from yours, mainly I have never seen someone present a Charge based magic system without having a very specific flavor/reason in mind and explicitly saying so.  This didn't seem the case to me.

 

I am still curious why you would assume Charges.

 

 

1) D&D has a Charge based Magic system. D&D 4.0 partically pointed a bigger finger at it/allowed some more at will power.

I would asume that at some point somebody made a Charge based Magic System in Hero too. But I never even talked about a Charge based magic system (see 2).

2) Charges were for the buyoff/alternative Limitation of the Varriable Limitation.

[Lucius]

 I guess there are two problems:

1) Making a Side Effect that only happens on a failed roll, with the roll having no effect on the actuall pwoer itself (this is not RSR).

 

 

I never even saw this as a problem. The Side Effects Limitation has an option: Side Effect Always Occurs. Just DON'T take that option, and obviously, the Side Effect does not always occur.

 

Unless I'm missing something, the question "Is  a roll required for the Power to activate?" is answered by "Did you put the Requires a Roll Limitation on the Power?" The question "Is a roll required for Side Effects?" is answered by "Did you define the Side Effects Limitation (assuming you took it, otherwise Side Effects NEVER occur) as 'Always Occurs' or not?"

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Side Effect: Palindromedary tagline, Always Occurs when Lucius Alexander posts

[Hyper-Man]

If the Requires a Roll only effects whether the Side Effect occurs (not whether the base power works or not) then I think the Side Effect would technically need built as a Naked Limitation that then takes the Requires a Roll Limitation to further diminish the amount of Real Points subtracted from the base power.

 

Example:

Base Power before Side Effect = 15 Real Points

When Side Effect applied = 10 Real Points

 

Naked Side Effect before Req Roll = -5 points

If Req Roll is worth -1/4 then final cost = -4 points

 

This would most easily be applied in HD as an negative adder within the base power.  Then just add the full description in the notes.

[Christopher]

I never even saw this as a problem. The Side Effects Limitation has an option: Side Effect Always Occurs. Just DON'T take that option, and obviously, the Side Effect does not always occur.

Except then Side Effect is priced right for a Side Effect Power wich also has RSR (read the first two paragraphs, it's clearly spelled out what that option means).

You cannot take a Side Effect without RSR, unless the Side Effect also qualifies for "Always Occurs". Or reduce the Limiation Value (wich could end up at -0).

 

If the Requires a Roll only effects whether the Side Effect occurs (not whether the base power works or not) then I think the Side Effect would technically need built as a Naked Limitation that then takes the Requires a Roll Limitation to further diminish the amount of Real Points subtracted from the base power.

Gargh, of course. I have been blind with this one. One last version with one Naked Buysoff:

The power Fate does not like: 60 AP of Attack Power, Minor Side Effect (Always occurs; Suffer 3d6 Normal Damage; -1/2), 40 Real Points

 

Gamble or Bargain with Fate: Naked Buyoff for Minor Side Effect on "The power Fate does not like", 20 Base Points; Varriable Limitation (RSR 11- or 8 Charges); 16 Real

END Cost: Up to GM. Buyoffs generally work like Naked Advantages, wich would mean 2 END. Those 2 END might still be waved if the Charges version of the Varriable Limitation are used.

 

So the whole Side Effect has so many loopholes you end up only saving 4 Real Points in this writeup (wich is about the best saving you can get) and you might also have to pay 2 extra End.

[mhd]

Except then Side Effect is priced right for a Side Effect Power wich also has RSR (read the first two paragraphs, it's clearly spelled out what that option means).

You cannot take a Side Effect without RSR, unless the Side Effect also qualifies for "Always Occurs". Or reduce the Limiation Value (wich could end up at -0).

I don't see why RSR(only for Side Effect; -0) wouldn't be sufficient here. In this scenario, the SR is used for two things: Seeing if the power works and checking whether the Side Effect is triggered. You get your cost benefit for both separately anyway...

 

A Naked Buyoff with Charges seems like a good idea for someone who wouldn't want to mess with components in detail, something like a "mage's guild component bag", probably with a expensive recharge.

[bigbywolfe]

Except then Side Effect is priced right for a Side Effect Power wich also has RSR (read the first two paragraphs, it's clearly spelled out what that option means).

You cannot take a Side Effect without RSR, unless the Side Effect also qualifies for "Always Occurs". Or reduce the Limiation Value (wich could end up at -0).

 

If the Requires a Roll only effects whether the Side Effect occurs (not whether the base power works or not) then I think the Side Effect would technically need built as a Naked Limitation that then takes the Requires a Roll Limitation to further diminish the amount of Real Points subtracted from the base power.

 

Example:

Base Power before Side Effect = 15 Real Points

When Side Effect applied = 10 Real Points

 

Naked Side Effect before Req Roll = -5 points

If Req Roll is worth -1/4 then final cost = -4 points

 

This would most easily be applied in HD as an negative adder within the base power.  Then just add the full description in the notes.

 

I see no problem having a -0 RSR that only affects the Side Effect, not the activation of the Power and a Side Effect priced normally.  They aren't getting a discount from the RSR, why should the Side Effect also be worth less?  The Side Effect is no less limiting than if a normal RSR was present.  If you fail X roll then Y happens.  The only difference with this Power is that failing X roll does not also cause the Power to fail, and the Power failing is not a function of Side Effect, it is a function of RSR, which is -0 in this case.

 

You cannot take a Side Effect without RSR, unless the Side Effect also qualifies for "Always Occurs"

Just be nitpicking, there is also "Side Effect always occurs whenever the character does some specific act" although that does lower the value.

[Christopher]

 I see no problem having a -0 RSR that only affects the Side Effect, not the activation of the Power and a Side Effect priced normally.  They aren't getting a discount from the RSR, why should the Side Effect also be worth less?

Another way I had not thought off.

But the main cost/lack-of-saving factor has always been the buyoff anyway.

 

It depends on what the roll is effectively, of course

"11- Roll only for Side Effects to Occur (-0), Side Effect (Minor, -1/4)"

and

"17- Roll only for Side Effects to Occur (-0), Side Effect (Minor, -1/4)"

Are two very different cases.

[mhd]

Well, that's certainly not peculiar to this construction, but a general issue with RSR. Power skills tend to be maximized...

 

Apart from the skill level, the applicability is also a balancing matter. Just going by the rules, there'd be no difference between requiring a "Magic", a "Necromancy" or a "Create Zombie" skill roll.