PSL in a maguy item...?

[Alcamtar]

Can you put PSLs in a magic item? If so, do the OAF, STR min and similar limitations apply or are those only on the damage part?

A player added +8 to offset hit location penalties, effectively doubling weapon damage for only 2 CP. This seems like it should be illegal! I thought you had to use at least 5 pt CSLs in a power, but Hero Designer allowed 1 pt PSLs without complaint.

 

Edit: oops, posted from phone and messed up subject line, apparently I cannot edit it. (shrug)

[Hyper-Man]

From 6e1 page 84
 

OFFENSIVE PENALTY SKILL LEVELS
With the GM’s permission, characters can put Limitations on OPSLs. The GM may restrict which types of OPSLs a character can Limit; for example he might rule that only 3-point OPSLs can have Limitations.

 

 

HM

[Hyper-Man]

You might find some useful insights from this thread about building real world weapons as well:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/91883-building-weapons-and-armor-or-how-i-suck-at-it-and-came-to-the-forum-for-help/

 

HM

[Hyper-Man]

If the player is wanting to use PSL's to take advantage of Hit Locations to increase damage I would strongly consider using CSL's Limited to only increasing damage instead (this is how the Deadly Blow and Weaponmaster Talents are constructed).  This is especially faster at the game table if you don't normally use Hit Locations.  Be warned that mixing this and Hit Location modifiers can quickly produce crazy damage totals.

 

HM

[Hyper-Man]

These issues are why I always consider an Advantage approach for Targeting special effects via AOE Accurate (the way I have built Heat Vision and Magic Missile in the past).

 

HM

[eepjr24]

Yes, they can be added, but I generally would put some restrictions on them as a GM. First I would probably make them use 3 point PSL's and second I would likely cap them at half the OCV cap for the campaign ground rules. So if the OCV cap is 10, at most 5 PSL unless previously approved.

 

- E

[Kesedrith]

You know, if you as the GM don't think something looks right, then don't allow it.  Period.  That's what you're being "paid" for: making sure everyone has fun (including yourself), and no one just runs away with the game and is the superstar.

 

Addressing the particular situation, this sounds like someone may be trying to recreate a "vorpal" sword, and remove heads with it.  Snickety-snack.  Not an entirely awful idea, but I think I'd make them use 3-pt. PSL's, and put an activation roll on those bad boys.  You don't get to call the shot, but occasionally the sword does indeed take a head.  Snickety-snack.  I can think of a lot of other ways for making such a weapon though.

 

Of course when players start making magic items, I also remind them that I require Independent on that item, and hence those points, and make sure they understand that that means that sooner or later those hard won experience points -WILL- be lost forever with no refund.  Usually that takes the wind right out of those sails.

[eepjr24]

Independent does not exist in 6e. But to your point, it is still a focus. If it is a Universal focus, it will be used against the character at some point. If it is Personal, it will be removed somehow for some period. And I don't just allow wily nilly creation of magic items and they generally don't turn out to be exactly what the player is after unless they are duplicating a proven and tested design.

 

- E

[Kesedrith]

I can see why they removed Independent.  I've seen some horrible abuses of that limitation because people didn't understand what it really entailed, and gotten into some huge arguments that led to that particular session disintegrating because I did point out the fact that it means those CP's can, and should be, lost at some point, as well as other issues with it being an inherently universal focus.  People definitely seem to prefer the idea that they get a x3 multiple on their CP's for nothing more than saying it's "independent."  They don't like you holding their feet to the fire of what it really means.

[Outsider]

"Independent, huh?   That's the same -2 limitation as a 8-activation, you know, so it should come up about as often.   Each session, I will (secretly) roll 3D6.  If I roll an 8-, you will lose it.  Permanently.  Are you sure you don't want to just take Focus, so if you lose it or it is destroyed,if can be replaced without spending CP again?"

[Alcamtar]

You know, if you as the GM don't think something looks right, then don't allow it.

 

That's not the difficulty, and I already addressed that with the player. (We're probably going to reduce it to +2 or +4). My question was more whether this was a legal way to build it, and whether I was calculating the points correctly. It seems clear that it is the correct power (per the thread Hyper-Man linked), but I am allowing too many limitations on it.

 

I suspect that the 1 point PSL is the correct one, since "offset hit location with a specific weapon" is the explicit example given in the book for it. Nothing stops the player from just taking these PSLs directly instead of attached to the item. But I think that allowing OAF on a PSL that is already designed to use a specific weapon is doubling up. It doesn't add any further limitation to what is already built into the PSL.

 

So that would give me:

 

PSL +8 to offset hit location, real weapon (-1/4), cost: 6

 

The real weapon is still a limitation in that if the weapon is not maintained, the PSL could be reduced or lost.

[Kesedrith]

"Independent, huh?   That's the same -2 limitation as a 8-activation, you know, so it should come up about as often.   Each session, I will (secretly) roll 3D6.  If I roll an 8-, you will lose it.  Permanently.  Are you sure you don't want to just take Focus, so if you lose it or it is destroyed,if can be replaced without spending CP again?"

I'd not thought of that method, Outsider, so thanks, that's a good idea.  I usually just let it happen through storyline events, which does work as well, but can also lend itself to the limitation's disadvantage never coming up.  In general though, I have always tried to discourage players from taking that lim., but some are just bound and determined to take it, and then still, after all the warning, get butt hurt over losing those CP's.  I still like the lim. in its own way, but I can see it being dropped in 6e.  It really is crazy for a PC to put that lim. on something they're spending points for.  (I've been known to still do it, but as character flare and RP hook for the GM to use, not as something truly important and inherent to the character.)

 

And Acamtar, I apologize for the sidebar then.  I misunderstood your point.

[eepjr24]

Edit to add quote, since others posted between me starting and finishing my post. =)

 

 

So that would give me:

 

PSL +8 to offset hit location, real weapon (-1/4), cost: 6

 

The real weapon is still a limitation in that if the weapon is not maintained, the PSL could be reduced or lost.

 

That is certainly a valid interpretation. You can also look to 6e1 pg 84 as HM quoted above. 1 point PSL's are already fairly limited in their original build, so I prefer to start form the 3 point ones:

 

7 RP - OPSL: Targeting +8 (24 Active Points), OAF: Vorpal Sword (-1), Real Weapon (-1/4), Only for Strike (-1)

 

This makes it more explicit exactly what the limitations are. You can modify to taste, Only for Strike could easily be -1 1/2 (either -1 or -1 1/2 would take the PSL from 3 to 1 alone), which would make the final cost 6, same as yours.

 

The player might want to note that in BOTH (mine and yours) versions they are explicitly offsetting the penalties for one maneuver, so these do not apply if they try to use the sword with a haymaker, martial arts, for a move by, move through, etc etc etc. You can be as lenient in that respect as you choose, but per RAW it is only paying for a single one.

 

- E

[Alcamtar]

I think that interpretation of Independent is kind of extreme. It's like a GM punishing a player for using a wish by deliberately twisting it. If it's the same as an 8- activation roll (and that is a clever observation!), then it should be equivalent to not having access 75% of the time... that's not the same as permanent. If I keep it for a session and then you take it away, you should give it back around the fifth session, or refund me the points I spent at that time. (yes I refund points in some situations, or replace in kind)

 

My interpretation is thus: an independent item means you CAN lose it, not that you WILL. In all likelihood it will be stolen, lost, and otherwise removed, but that doesn't mean you can't get it back with some effort, nor that you can't prevent such loss with care. A big part of independent is the paranoia factor as well: ti is said that a rich man is never truly free or relaxed, because he is worried about losing this wealth. Likewise the owner of an artifact is constantly worried about loss: keeping it safe, not flashing it around, never letting it out of his sight. The player can create his own hell in this regard. Similarly, if I send assassins to kill you and take your shiny stuff, now I'm treating Independent as a hunted with deadly force. Hunted doesn't mean I absolutely WILL kill you, it just means I'm going to make your life difficult in certain ways. As far as I'm concerned, if it is complicating your life and negatively affecting your choice of actions then you are getting value for the limitation.

 

An item that is NOT independent is part of the character: you can never lose it. Even if it if stolen or lost or destroyed, you will get it back, guaranteed. Wonder woman never (permanently) loses her lasso, and you will similarly never lose your non-independent magic sword.

 

I consider that all equipment purchased with money or given gratis as treasure is Independent. It is all fair game. If as GM I feel you have too much magic, I am free to take or destroy any and all of your independent items, and you cannot complain. Independent means they don't belong to you, and you only keep them as long as I permit it.

 

Likewise if I give you points-as-treasure (for example 10 CP worth of dragon hide) then any item you create with it MUST be independent. Easy come, easy go, you do NOT get to add those points to your character sheet. This is my preferred way of paying for magic items, not actual character points.

 

If you spend points on an Independent item and then I remove it permanently, I will replace it with similar-value item at some point or maybe refund the points after a time. Sort of like a "floating mystery item" that you only sometimes have access to. You will get the use of your points, just not always when or how you'd choose.

 

In short, I love Independent. It is a complex and useful limitation, is properly valued, creates proper expectations for players (similar to all other fantasy games, and in contrast to superhero games), and takes away the players' right to complain about the GM taking away or shuffling his magic. That latter is really a nice feature, unlike some games where players feel attached and entitled to their items. If it's really a signature item you never want to lose, then pony up and buy off the limitation.

[Alcamtar]

The player might want to note that in BOTH (mine and yours) versions they are explicitly offsetting the penalties for one maneuver, so these do not apply if they try to use the sword with a haymaker, martial arts, for a move by, move through, etc etc etc. You can be as lenient in that respect as you choose, but per RAW it is only paying for a single one.

 

Ah, thanks for that, I wasn't understanding the reason for the 3 pt. The player IS using these with martial arts and creative tactics, and could also throw the weapon. I agree, 3 pt is the way to go here.

 

I don't understand your use of "only for strike" -- isn't that implied in the Offsensive PSL?

[Kesedrith]

I think that interpretation of Independent is kind of extreme. It's like a GM punishing a player for using a wish by deliberately twisting it. If it's the same as an 8- activation roll (and that is a clever observation!), then it should be equivalent to not having access 75% of the time... that's not the same as permanent. If I keep it for a session and then you take it away, you should give it back around the fifth session, or refund me the points I spent at that time. (yes I refund points in some situations, or replace in kind)

 

My interpretation is thus: an independent item means you CAN lose it, not that you WILL. In all likelihood it will be stolen, lost, and otherwise removed, but that doesn't mean you can't get it back with some effort, nor that you can't prevent such loss with care. A big part of independent is the paranoia factor as well: ti is said that a rich man is never truly free or relaxed, because he is worried about losing this wealth. Likewise the owner of an artifact is constantly worried about loss: keeping it safe, not flashing it around, never letting it out of his sight. The player can create his own hell in this regard. Similarly, if I send assassins to kill you and take your shiny stuff, now I'm treating Independent as a hunted with deadly force. Hunted doesn't mean I absolutely WILL kill you, it just means I'm going to make your life difficult in certain ways. As far as I'm concerned, if it is complicating your life and negatively affecting your choice of actions then you are getting value for the limitation.

 

An item that is NOT independent is part of the character: you can never lose it. Even if it if stolen or lost or destroyed, you will get it back, guaranteed. Wonder woman never (permanently) loses her lasso, and you will similarly never lose your non-independent magic sword.

 

I consider that all equipment purchased with money or given gratis as treasure is Independent. It is all fair game. If as GM I feel you have too much magic, I am free to take or destroy any and all of your independent items, and you cannot complain. Independent means they don't belong to you, and you only keep them as long as I permit it.

 

Likewise if I give you points-as-treasure (for example 10 CP worth of dragon hide) then any item you create with it MUST be independent. Easy come, easy go, you do NOT get to add those points to your character sheet. This is my preferred way of paying for magic items, not actual character points.

 

If you spend points on an Independent item and then I remove it permanently, I will replace it with similar-value item at some point or maybe refund the points after a time. Sort of like a "floating mystery item" that you only sometimes have access to. You will get the use of your points, just not always when or how you'd choose.

 

In short, I love Independent. It is a complex and useful limitation, is properly valued, creates proper expectations for players (similar to all other fantasy games, and in contrast to superhero games), and takes away the players' right to complain about the GM taking away or shuffling his magic. That latter is really a nice feature, unlike some games where players feel attached and entitled to their items. If it's really a signature item you never want to lose, then pony up and buy off the limitation.

Okay, you're right.  I'm not quite as heartless as I'm sounding.  I always give them a chance to recover the item.  I don't use it as a "something invisible chews your character" sort of thing, but most don't seem to understand that they might not recover those points.  The item may be broken or dispelled or they simply can't catch up to the thief.  Stuff happens.  I just try to make sure that players understand that, and have had issues when I wasn't just going to let them "build another" without investing more CP's.  Again, it isn't a common occurrence.  I can count on one hand the number of times I've ever had anyone actually keep with the idea of the Independent lim., just as I can those that have taken an 8- activation roll.  I just don't see either even come up all that often, much less players follow through with it.  As for my taking that a bit too seriously and harshly?  They're getting a x3 multiplier on those points for those -2 limitations.  That better be really limiting and, yes, painful.

 

I'll also admit that if a player really wanted to start with that magic item, they can sell me on it.  I've never permanently removed a magic sword from someone that gave them +2 CV that they started with.  I've also allowed one player to not put Independent on a "family heirloom" weapon that would do the fantasy schtick of not cutting the rightful heir.  ("I have nothing to fear from my father's sword!), and used it to that purpose in the storylines.  I love it when players give me creative ideas that hook stories into the ebb and flow of the game.  I reward that as a matter of fact, so stick your neck out once in awhile.  Go out on a limb.  Sure you may lose that specific item you came in with, but give me a story I can weave and bring everyone in with, and you'll likely get something better in the end when it is removed.  I just do like letting people know what they -could- be signing up for, and then them's the breaks.

[eepjr24]

Ah, thanks for that, I wasn't understanding the reason for the 3 pt. The player IS using these with martial arts and creative tactics, and could also throw the weapon. I agree, 3 pt is the way to go here.

 

I don't understand your use of "only for strike" -- isn't that implied in the Offsensive PSL?

 

No, it is explicit for the 1 point PSL. The 3 point says "+1 to offset a specific negative OCV modifier with all attacks", so that would be a targeting penalty with ANY weapon and any maneuver. 1 point is limited to a single maneuver, single weapon. 2 point is any 3 maneuvers or small group (swords, crossbows, axes, etc). So a 3 point level bought "Only for Strike" and "Single Weapon" would essentially be a 1 point PSL. That's why I build them from 3 point with limitations, because the 1 point you are getting the limitations on a prefigured real points value. This does happen other places in Hero, like limits on talents or perks or other prebuilt effects, but I prefer to avoid it in player constructions because of the larger potential for abuse.

 

If the player wants to use these for other maneuvers I would build it like this:

 

11 RP - OPSL: Targeting +8 (24 Active Points), OAF: Magical Sword (-1), Real Weapon (-1/4)

 

And if he decides the Focus is unbreakable, I would ditch the Real Weapon and make it a straight 12 RP. If he wants / needs it to be cheaper for some reason I would suggest he look to some other limitations, maybe Extra Time: Full Phase or Costs End might be appropriate if it takes effort to use the PSL's.

 

- E 

[NuSoardGraphite]

Can you put PSLs in a magic item? If so, do the OAF, STR min and similar limitations apply or are those only on the damage part?

 

A player added +8 to offset hit location penalties, effectively doubling weapon damage for only 2 CP. This seems like it should be illegal! I thought you had to use at least 5 pt CSLs in a power, but Hero Designer allowed 1 pt PSLs without complaint.

 

Edit: oops, posted from phone and messed up subject line, apparently I cannot edit it. (shrug)

Yes, PSLs can be added to magic items

 

Yes, +8 vs hit location penalties is excessive and abusive. The GM has every right to veto this.

 

This writeup with a few adjustments would be perfect to create a Vorpal Blade magic item. Put an additional limitation that it only occurs during a critical hit. Rare but happens occasionally. Which then automatically turns into a head hit on a Crit. Max damage, minus defenses, times two.

 

Ouch!

[Kesedrith]

Yes, PSLs can be added to magic items

 

Yes, +8 vs hit location penalties is excessive and abusive. The GM has every right to veto this.

 

This writeup with a few adjustments would be perfect to create a Vorpal Blade magic item. Put an additional limitation that it only occurs during a critical hit. Rare but happens occasionally. Which then automatically turns into a head hit on a Crit. Max damage, minus defenses, times two.

 

Ouch!

See?  This is exactly where I figured this discussion was going.  This sort of mechanic just smacks of "vorpal blade" or a stiletto named "Heartseeker."  Or a much more potent blade that screams its rage for vengeance across the world, seeking the heart of someone who's wronged the wielder!  Anyway, glad to know it wasn't just me.