Jump to content

Dispel vs Gadgets & Electronics (CC)


Ninja-Bear

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, mrinku said:

Damaging or destroying a gadget is just a possible special effect of a Dispel.

Yes, in the same way that "Dumb Luck" can be the special effect of gaining +20 OCV. But calling it Dumb-Luck doesn't make that +20 OCV to function as 20d6 of Luck just because the special effect is similar to an extant game mechanic. Game mechanics and special effects are entirely separate things, and never the twain shall meet. Fluffing a Dispel as "object destroying" simply doesn't make it function as an RKA for Objects. And as I've demonstrated in my earlier examples, any attempt to make it act as such results in a horrendously unbalanced construct that renders obsolete those powers which were specifically designed to serve that function.

 

Per the Rules as Written (which are the only rules I give a damn about). I can buy Dispel "Armor" (using Variable Effect) with the special effect of the armor being disassembed via telekinesis, and use it on a suit of armor. Mechanically, that armor remains completely undamaged (despite having been "disassembled"), and because nobody has ever bothered to put Extra Time (Only To Equip) on a suit of Armor, I can reactivate it as a Zero-Phase Action any time I want (and I suppose the armor just magically reassembles itself). Of course, there are not even any clauses in the rules for Dispel that deal with how the power works on things that cannot really be "turned off"; such as most equipment. You cannot realistically "turn off" a suit of mundane armor, or a broadsword for example, and mechanically speaking there isn't anything you can do to keep them turned off even if you do successfully use Dispel on them.

 

A fair GM might rule that a successful Dispel causes you to drop or unequip whatever equipment is Dispelled (classic examples of characters using TK to unbuckle peoples pants come to mind), since that is the most realistic way to "turn-off" a suit of armor. However, mechanically speaking, equipping an object, and activating an object are mechanically distinct actions, and Dispel can only affect the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

Well, give that both statements were from CC, I'll stick to that source.  Therefore, I'd point out the following statement (CC: 58) which states very explicitly:  "Dispel affects only Powers."

 

Powers.  Not Power Frameworks.  Therefore, Dispel would have no effect on a Multipower Pool itself, though one could still Dispel the individual Powers that make up each slot of the Multipower.

An accurate but irrelevant point that contradicts the very point you are trying to make. If Dispel can explicitly only target Powers (which I agree with BTW), than by definition it cannot target Objects or Foci (which are things that sometimes have Powers, or grant Powers, but are not Powers themselves). If Dispel cannot target Objects and Foci directly, than it cannot destroy them, and the references to Dispel having the ability to destroy objects are erroneous (or more accurately, it is a vestigial element of Dispel's Fantasy Hero roots; where magic items are assumed to be created by the activation of a separate Power based on the Differing Modifiers or using Delayed Effect rules, and therefore are things which can be Dispelled, like Barriers).

 

However if you start from the position that Dispel can target Objects or Foci (based upon the fact that it distinguishes between powers and objects when discussing things Dispel is effective against, and despite explicit rules to the contrary), than it also doesn't matter how many Powers were associated with the Object/Focus. All that matters is if I can beat the Highest Active Point value associated with the Object/Foci. If I can, than per the description of an example of Dispel, the object/foci was Destroyed, and per the definition of what it means to destroy a foci, that means that I've deprived the focus of all of it's Powers (until it can be "repaired, recharged, or rebuilt" whatever the GM thinks that means).

Some support for this interpretation can be found in the fact that in CC an Unbreakable Focus is Difficult To Dispel (the focus itself, not any powers bought through it). However I consider this another vestigial rules element, since we only have three sentences in the entire book which support the idea that Dispel can destroy Object and Foci, but no concrete rules for how that it supposed to actually work. All of the extant rules for Dispel in CC only pertain to how it functions when used against Powers: Making an Effect Roll against the APs of the Power to deactivate it, taking Variable Effects to target different Powers, taking Expanded Effects to target multiple Powers at once, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cantriped said:

Game mechanics and special effects are entirely separate things, and never the twain shall meet.

 

 

Only in the same way that the legs of a table don't meet.

 

Both are required components of a Power. You seem to be confusing Power Effects with the whole package. In fact, each informs the choice of the other. A special effect that makes no sense for the power effects chosen should be disallowed as much as power effects chosen to implement the desired special effect that don't fit.

 

Laser Vision: 5d6 Dispel vs Growth. Works by painting the target pink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

Well, give that both statements were from CC, I'll stick to that source.  Therefore, I'd point out the following statement (CC: 58) which states very explicitly:  "Dispel affects only Powers."

 

Powers.  Not Power Frameworks.  Therefore, Dispel would have no effect on a Multipower Pool itself, though one could still Dispel the individual Powers that make up each slot of the Multipower.  (And again, you'd need to do that either individually, or en masse with Expanded Effect.)  And once they were all Dispelled, presumably the Multipower would be useless.

 

Furthermore, you say yourself "a device isn't "destroyed" until all of it's powers are lost" (emphasis added) and then turn around and say "you only need to be able to beat the highest active point power bought through the focus (Defender's 60 APs Multipower) to destroy the entire focus (and every power bought through it) with Dispel." 

 

Sorry, but no.  You have to Dispel each and every power on the focus before it's destroyed.  That means each slot (Power) in his Mutlipower... as well as his Flight, radio, etc.

 

Unless the framework had the unified limitation.the 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, Cantriped, I happen to agree that Dispel is not the way (or at least, not the proper way IMO) to "destroy" gadgets / foci.  In my game, for example, an EMP blast is done with a Penetrating RKA, Only vs. foci / gadgets.  However, at this point I'm playing devil's advocate and discussing the RAW.

 

With that in mind, when you say, " All that matters is if I can beat the Highest Active Point value associated with the Object/Foci. If I can, than per the description of an example of Dispel, the object/foci was Destroyed, and per the definition of what it means to destroy a foci, that means that I've deprived the focus of all of it's Powers (until it can be "repaired, recharged, or rebuilt" whatever the GM thinks that means)." -- where do you get that all you need to do is beat the highest AP associated with an object/focus?  Which example are you pointing to?  Please cite a book / page.  I see lots of places in both CC and 6E1 where it says you have to deprive a focus of all Powers, but nowhere that it says you just have to beat the highest.  I've gone so far as to check each instance of the word "highest" and "largest" in both CC and 6E1, and I don't see where you get that.  The closest I see is in Focus where mention is made about the PD / ED of the focus being based off the largest power on the focus, but that's for doing BODY damage to the focus, not Dispelling the powers on it.

 

As to your statement:

Quote

If Dispel can explicitly only target Powers (which I agree with BTW), than by definition it cannot target Objects or Foci (which are things that sometimes have Powers, or grant Powers, but are not Powers themselves).

To be pedantic, Dispel doesn't explicitly only target Powers.  It only explicitly affects Powers.  If you're going to Dispel Grey Ghost's Desolidification, you still target GG to do it.  Likewise, if you're going to Dispel Defender's Flight, you would target Defender (or more properly, Defender's Jet Boots).  And since his Flight is on a focus (Jet Boots), a successful Dispel would render that Power inoperative until the boots are repaired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wonder about the interaction between Dispel and a consumable Focus (e.g., "Power Pills"), where the act of activating the power(s) destroys that instance of the Focus.  That makes it clearer that the Dispel has to operate on the power(s) not the Focus.

 

EDIT: FWIW, the power with the Focus is a Transform; this is the character, alluded to in a different recent thread, based on the old 1966 TV series "Mr. Terrific".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cantriped to answer your question on how to deal with broken things with the rules is clear. You handle it based on (ok gang all together) common sense, dramatic sense and game balance. Let’s look at your sword example, if I cast a spell called the spell of rusty doom on your sword (say a normal ninja sword-oaf) , then it falls apart. You as a player can get a new one next scene or two. Now of course if the sword was defined differently say Excalibur-oaf unbreakable, well the rules are already in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Bolo it is mentioned in CC under focus that attacks that do Body only need to destroy the highest power in a framework or unified. Though if an Armor is bought through it, the object gets the Armor’s defense. Look at pg 105 CC under durability.

 

Yep.  And completely inapplicable in respect to Dispel, because Dispel doesn't do BODY.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

You handle it based on (ok gang all together) common sense, dramatic sense and game balance.

 

Yep, the Hero Golden Rule.

 

5 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Let’s look at your sword example, if I cast a spell called the spell of rusty doom on your sword (say a normal ninja sword-oaf) , then it falls apart.

 

Personally, I'd say that it's dulled and covered with rust, so it can't work as a HKA.  Outside of combat, you could give it some TLC and restore the sword to its former glory. 

 

Same idea with, say, powered armor.  If a cyberkinetic successfully uses Dispel against, say, Defender's Resistant Protection, then the bad guy has activated the powered armor's emergency release catches.  So the chest and back plates fall off, the flex-metal sleeves and leggings retract, and he's standing there with his helmet, boots, gauntlets, and (most importantly, to satisfy the Comics Code) his metal shorts.  So he can still use his radio and IR, his boot jets, and his gauntlet-based attacks (since none of them were Dispelled) but otherwise he's effectively a sitting duck.  He'd have to spend some time outside combat disabling the emergency release system before he can put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

Yep.  And completely inapplicable in respect to Dispel, because Dispel doesn't do BODY.

 

 

Yup, I agree with that. Sorry I thought that you didn’t think that that rule was applicable at all. Btw I was looking at Drain and it might be better because Foci unless it has Power Defense, doesn’t have any so Drain is an auto AVLD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Cantriped Dispel description says that they are more effective against objects which must be repaired, recharged or replaced. So back to Defender’s  Armor, it’s OIF, Defender isn’t putting back on as a 0 phase action.

 

 

While he has to take the time to don the armor (the focus part), the powers within the armor all have specific activation times.  So the resistant protection, if dispelled, would probably mean he has to put the suit back on.  ITs always on, but the focus is what makes it "on" so he has to do that.  But his other abilities have their own activation time, and you'd use that to start them up again is how I understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

where do you get that all you need to do is beat the highest AP associated with an object/focus?  Which example are you pointing to?  Please cite a book / page.  I see lots of places in both CC and 6E1 where it says you have to deprive a focus of all Powers, but nowhere that it says you just have to beat the highest.  I've gone so far as to check each instance of the word "highest" and "largest" in both CC and 6E1, and I don't see where you get that. 

 

To be pedantic, Dispel doesn't explicitly only target Powers.  It only explicitly affects Powers.  If you're going to Dispel Grey Ghost's Desolidification, you still target GG to do it.  Likewise, if you're going to Dispel Defender's Flight, you would target Defender (or more properly, Defender's Jet Boots).  And since his Flight is on a focus (Jet Boots), a successful Dispel would render that Power inoperative until the boots are repaired.

My precise issue with using Dispel to destroy devices is that there aren't any explicit rules governing how it works. All we have in CC is three sentences supporting the concept, two of which are explanatory text and contain no actual rules. That argument took what information is available on the concept to it's ultimate logical conclusion using the terms they used exactly as they are described by the ruleset.

 

If you use certain optional rules, such as the optional rule for Summoning Bases & Vehicles, or the Alternate Item Creation rules from Fantasy Hero, or are running a campaign where Alchemists make 'potions' using Delayed Effect. Than such references make sense because, for example we have mechanics for determining the APs of the "Power" that created Defender's suit of Powered Armor, mechanics for how long it takes to craft a replacement (and how much LTE that costs), and also rules for how much it costs to be able to craft a suit of Defender Armor, versus the cost of being a Superhero wearing Defender Armor.

 

However, to be pedantic, barring one of those optional rules Dispel explicitly only allows a character to "turn off another character's Power". Objects are not Characters (except when built as them...), so per RAW you can only Dispel them if they were created by a Power that a character you can target used (barring exceptions like when Summon explicitly allows you to target the Summoned Being in order to banish it).

 

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

While he has to take the time to don the armor (the focus part), the powers within the armor all have specific activation times.  So the resistant protection, if dispelled, would probably mean he has to put the suit back on.  ITs always on, but the focus is what makes it "on" so he has to do that.  But his other abilities have their own activation time, and you'd use that to start them up again is how I understand it.

Nay. Equipping a Focus, and Turning it's powers On or Off have nothing to do with one another. As evidenced by the fact that "Changing Clothes", "Drawing A Weapon", and "Turning On" or "Turning Off A Power" are all separate entries in the Actions Table (CC 138). How long it takes to equip a focus is determined by the Focus and Real Armor/Weapon modifiers; OIF sets the minimum at 1 Turn, Real Weapon sets the minimum at 1/2 Phase. Those are the only stipulations in CC regarding how long it takes to equip a focus.

How long it takes to activate a foci's power(s) is determined by the type of power, and modifiers such as Extra Time, and Trigger. However by default most powers can be activated as a Zero-Phase Action, and characters can activate as many as they wish at once. Finally, nothing in the sixth edition ruleset even hints at the idea that deactivating a foci's powers is the same as unequipping the focus. Case in point, drawing a Longsword doesn't have anything to do with Activating the HKA it grants you, the HKA doesn't activate (and thus cannot be Dispelled) until you try to make an Attack with it. So even if you Dispel every power associated with a suit of Powered Armor, nothing actually prevents Defender from turning all those powers back on next phase (or Aborting An Action to do so) because his Powered Armor isn't an object created by the activation of a power that can be Banished, and none of it's elements require Extra Time to activate.

 

For the record, I am of the opinion that allowing a successful Dispel to disarm/strip characters of equipment is probably a reasonably fair house rule. Likewise I've got no problem with characters using Dispel on "Potions" or other such items created using the Alternate Magic Item Creation Rules or prepared using Delayed Effect, and Summoned Vehicles/Bases. However I'm also of the opinion that mundane weapons and armor should be required to take Extra Time (only to equip) when appropriate to represent that in some cases equipping the item is realistically how you activate it. For example: Common sense says that you cannot "turn-off" a suit of mundane armor without removing it, but you I don't see a problem with being able to turn off a Force-Field Belt without removing it (the former would take Extra Time (only to equip), the Latter would not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Nay. Equipping a Focus, and Turning it's powers On or Off have nothing to do with one another. 

 

Sure but my thoughts are what it takes to turn on or off powers.  Resistant Protection built as a suit of armor in a focus, what happens when its dispelled?  It shuts off until re-activated.  now that exact special effect can be a lot of different things but in the end, what does it take to turn armor back on?  I mean, if the special effect can be to blow the armor all over the place, so its off his body, then does it just magically pop back on when he activates the armor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Resistant Protection built as a suit of armor in a focus, what happens when its dispelled?

Per RAW: The armor is still equipped, but provides no Resistant Protection until it's wearer takes a Zero-Phase Action to reactivate it (something they can Abort to if they haven't already acted that segment). The special effect of the Dispel Resistant Protection is irrelevant, rules as written all it allows the character to do is deactivate the Resistant Protection power. Removing the armor or Destroying it require different powers (such as UAA Teleportation or Penetrating RKA).

So yes, if the GM allows "the Armor falls off" as an SFX for the Dispel, than I imagine it would have to "magically pop-back on" when the character reactivated it, since it still only requires a Zero-Phase action to reactivate. But such a GM should also require armor take Extra Time (only to equip) so that removing someone's armor means something, and so that armor gets the discount it deserves for that SFX being mechanically more susceptible to Dispel than other forms of Resistant Protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cantriped said:

Per RAW: The armor is still equipped, but provides no Resistant Protection until it's wearer takes a Zero-Phase Action to reactivate it (something they can Abort to if they haven't already acted that segment). The special effect of the Dispel Resistant Protection is irrelevant, rules as written all it allows the character to do is deactivate the Resistant Protection power. Removing the armor or Destroying it require different powers (such as UAA Teleportation or Penetrating RKA).

So yes, if the GM allows "the Armor falls off" as an SFX for the Dispel, than I imagine it would have to "magically pop-back on" when the character reactivated it, since it still only requires a Zero-Phase action to reactivate. But such a GM should also require armor take Extra Time (only to equip) so that removing someone's armor means something, and so that armor gets the discount it deserves for that SFX being mechanically more susceptible to Dispel than other forms of Resistant Protection.

 

Yes, but you still need to justify HOW the Dispel Resistant Protection works. The special effects are NOT irrelevant

 

As with any power, if the description makes no sense (even in comic book terms), it should be disallowed. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mrinku said:

 

Yes, but you still need to justify HOW the Dispel Resistant Protection works. The special effects are NOT irrelevant

 

As with any power, if the description makes no sense (even in comic book terms), it should be disallowed. 

 

It's Special Effects are irrelevant to the game mechanics of Dispel Resistant Protection; unless the character/power is more Vulnerable to that particular SFX of Dispel somehow. However choice of special effects are/should be relevant to whether or not you are allowed to purchase the power at all. A good GM should strictly control the creation of Dispels to avoid nonsense like Armor that "pops back on" next phase when reactivated. However that statement applies to almost every potential abuse or nonsensicality players can come up with and are legal per the rules as written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cantriped said:

It's Special Effects are irrelevant to the game mechanics of Dispel Resistant Protection; unless the character/power is more Vulnerable to that particular SFX of Dispel somehow. However choice of special effects are/should be relevant to whether or not you are allowed to purchase the power at all. A good GM should strictly control the creation of Dispels to avoid nonsense like Armor that "pops back on" next phase when reactivated. However that statement applies to almost every potential abuse or nonsensicality players can come up with and are legal per the rules as written.

 

I thought that's what I just said? Maybe I wasn't crystal clear there.

 

And we agree that the game mechanics themselves aren't affected. It's more along the lines of the GM disallowing the use of a particular Dispel  against a particular power, because of circumstances (which definitely can include special effects). Ideally, major cases are worked out and inform modifiers taken, but that isn't always possible in advance, so GM judgements have to be made.

 

And getting back to the OP's question... all Dispel does is turn a power off. THAT is your pure game effect. There is no requirement for it to damage or destroy a device and THAT is a special effects choice, informed by How It Works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I just have a hard time working out what special effects mean if they defy logic and reason just to fit a narrow reading of the rules.  Either you have to make people take longer to reequip stuff like that, or deny the ability to define special effects which turn the game into a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cantriped said:

My precise issue with using Dispel to destroy devices is that there aren't any explicit rules governing how it works. All we have in CC is three sentences supporting the concept, two of which are explanatory text and contain no actual rules. That argument took what information is available on the concept to it's ultimate logical conclusion using the terms they used exactly as they are described by the ruleset.

Your remark is precisely why I prefer using Transform (Object->Broken/Unusable Rendition of Object).

  1. It's explicit/well-defined ... as is the body of all foci (even unbreakable ones).
  2. The chosen Transform level (Minor, Major, Severe) helps further define just how broken the object can be (once transformed).

As most of us know, Dispel originated as a means of turning off a power ... and was later expanded to try to do more than that ... without adequate clarity/granularity emplaced regarding precisely HOW to do some of those things (like disassemble/break foci, for example -- i.e. what, exactly does that mean?).  Most GMs I've gamed with have steered clear of the expanded Dispel capabilities (such as object disassembly/breakage) for precisely this lack of clarity/granularity ... in favour of better-defined vehicles for object disassembly/breakage. 

 

I'm sure Dispel is great for players and GMs who like handwaving things, but it's been my experience that most Champions/Hero Games players aren't all that into handwaving.  (I know I'm not.)

 

YMMV

 

P.S. This is also why I think Change Environment is a pretty terrible power. Certain people try to make it do all kinds of things where it sorta fits ... but where there's often a different and clearer path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yeah I just have a hard time working out what special effects mean if they defy logic and reason just to fit a narrow reading of the rules.  Either you have to make people take longer to reequip stuff like that, or deny the ability to define special effects which turn the game into a joke.

You have me scratching my head. How is it a “narrow” reading of the rules to break something? And then special effect to defy logic? In a game where I can fly and shoot energy bolts from my eyes? Though theirs be told, when I first saw this as an example of breaking Flash Def - Motor Cycle Helmet, I too was like, that wasn’t realistic. But hey in a super powered game?  Yeah that ship sailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...