How to Teleport a target out of armor?

[dsatow]

1 hour ago, zslane said:

 

Yes, you could make an attack with an area the size of the universe, and you'd hit everything in it no matter what (due to the area). But the rules do not guarantee you'll hit your target hex, after all you could always roll an 18 right? Whether or not that matters (contextually) is a separate issue.

Depends on the GM.  If an 18 always misses and a 3 always hits is really up to the GM.  But the chance to roll an 18 is less than 0.5%.  

I thought about selective, but accurate is already single target.

I thought about indirect, but that's less about hitting the target and more about getting past defenses or blocking of the attack.

[zslane]

AFAICT, In 6E, the treatment of a natural 3/18 isn't optional. 6E2 pp 35-36 just states the rule outright. Am I missing something?

 

When you roll an 18, you automatically miss your intended target hex, but then you roll to determine which hex you hit instead. With an area the size of the universe, who cares which hex you hit as long as your target is inside the area (the universe).

[mrinku]

I'd run that scatter distance should also scale up, however scatter is also capped at half the distance to the target, which would effectively deal with megascale scatter at non-megascale ranges.  

[Cassandra]

Dispel seems to be the way to go. 

[Lucius]

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 8:54 AM, Doc Democracy said:

To be fair to zslane, while your build there has the appearance of someone having more than 12 phases in a turn, the power introduces another body with phases all of its own....

 

Ah. Being literal. "No BODY gets more than 12 phases."

 

Setting aside the fact that my power construct gives one PLAYER more than 12 phases, look at the design again. It's still one body, just acting twice each phase. Thus, not able to recombine - nor to truly separate.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

How many palindromedaries per tagline?

[bigdamnhero]

Interesting idea, Knightgoblin. And not one that I remember coming up before, so props there.

 

I agree using Teleport UAA for the Power doesn't seem like a good approach, because the only defense against it would be to build the armor with Blocks Teleportation. Among other problems, I dislike "I win unless you took this specific defense" attacks. You see that a lot in the comics & shows, but players hate them. (Justifiably IMO.) I thought about Desolid UAA, but that has the same problems as Teleport UAA. Tunneling UAA is no better, and RAW specifically forbids using Tunneling against vehicles, which IMO goes double for using it against a Foci.

 

Dispel seems like it ought to be the right approach. The defense is Power Def, and the effect roll needed is based on the suit's AP, which is a reasonable proxy for how powerful/advanced the suit is. But 6e1 p195 specifically states that Dispelling one power in a multiple-power Focus does not affect the other powers. So mechanically, Dispelling Defender's Resistant Protection doesn't prevent him from using his weapons array, which really doesn't fit the concept. (Unless he can control the suit remotely, which could be entertaining.) So BTB you'd have to buy it with Variable Effect (+1/2) and Expanded Effect x8 (+3.5) to affect the whole suit, which puts you at 15 AP per 1d6. So the 18 dice you'll need to affect Defender's 60 AP with one shot is  going to run you 270 AP! Maybe instead slap Cumulative on there, so it requires multiple Phases? For 103 AP, you could get 6d6 with Cumulative at +1 Level (+3/4, 72 points max) which means it'll take ~3 rolls to pop the man out of the can. If you're trying to stay within a 60 AP cap or Framework, the best you could do is 3d6 with Cumulative at +2 (+1, 72 AP), but it'll take you ~6 Phases.

 

I don't see Drain working any better. The only advantage is it works as Cumulative by default, but even without that it's going to cost 50 AP per 1d6!

 

Maybe Transform is the way to go after all. I would call "Person in power armor to squishy unarmored person without all their best powers" a Major Transform. Power Def is a defense, which is good. The effect roll is against the target's BODY, but unless they bought a lot of additional BODY for the suit that's normally only going to be the character's base BODY, regardless of how tough/advanced/expensive the suit is. Not crazy about that part myself, but it depends on how you see the sfx working. Defender only has 10 BODY (in the CC writeup anyway), so for 60 AP you could get 6d6 of Major Transform, which means an average roll of 21 will take Defender out of the fight with one shot, not to mention probably revealing his SID to boot. That seems a tad overpowered IMO. Maybe toss on a Limitation stipulating that the armor's BODY (calculated as an Object, not as a Focus) adds to target's effective BODY?

 

(And yes, per the letter of the rules, Transforming the suit from an OIF to an OAF and then hitting it with a TK Grab or something would probably be cheaper; but there's a little too much cheese on that one for my taste.)

[bigdamnhero]

On 11/28/2017 at 3:54 PM, Cantriped said:

The wording on that section is a little janky in 6e1. But you appear to be correct. CC also stipulates that "When granting abilities with Transform, (CP Granted)/5 is added to the targets BODY..." (It omits the bit about Complications, but the important part is that it never mentions Removing abilities). I must have misread it earlier. Thanks!

Thinking about this some more, this might actually be the best way to go, even tho RAW says you don't need to when removing abilities. Defender has a total of 163 RP in his suit powers, which is a decent proxy for your powerful the suit is (and therefore how hard it is to "bypass" it). That works out to +33 BODY, giving him an effective 43 BODY. You'd need around 13d6 (potentially over multiple rolls) to beat that, but I agree since the armor is already OIF, a Minor Transform would be appropriate, so you can get 13d6 for only 65 AP.

 

Edit: OK, it would be a bit more than that; I missed that Defender's suit-enhanced CHARs aren't included in the 163 points I cited. So add another ~86 RP which is another +17 BODY, which gets him up to 60 BODY total. That's going to take 17d6 worth of effect so you'll probably need two rolls.

[bigdamnhero]

On 11/25/2017 at 11:30 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

No Cantriped as per CC an object which is Dispelled can be considered broken And no longer functioning until repaired or replaced. Therefore logic states that it would take Defender longer than a zero phase action to turn it on.

 

I'm with N-B on this one. CC p58 states (emphasis added):

 

Quote

Dispel is more effective against powers that are difficult to turn on or take a long time to activate, or against objects (which must be repaired, recharged, or rebuilt).

 

631 p195 goes into more detail and gives possible examples:

 

Quote

If a character Dispels a power in a Breakable Focus, look at the special effects involved to determine what happens. For example, if the Dispel is defined as “breaking small objects,” the Focus probably needs some repairs — maybe just quick field jury-rigging, maybe something more — before it will work again. If the Dispel involves sucking all the battery power out of the Focus, the Focus needs recharging.

 

While specifics vary by sfx, the common thread is that when a Power in a Focus is Dispelled, it can't just be immediately turned back on again - that's one of the main points of the Focus Limitation. The object/power isn't destroyed outright, but it will take more than a 0-Phase action to get it working again. In some cases, I've just required the PC to make a 1/2 or Full Phase Mechanics Roll. In the case of an OIF suit, since it takes a Turn to take it away from the character, saying it takes a Turn to put the suit back on doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Shoulda bought Instant Change...

[mrinku]

The key difference between breaking the focus with an attack and disabling it with a Dispel is that you can expect to have the Dispelled focus back up and running in short order, possibly even in that combat, assuming the right skills and circumstances.

 

It's also not a REQUIREMENT that a Dispel breaks anything. By defining it that way you're making it more effective against Breakable Foci, but ineffective against Unbreakable ones and non-focus powers. Most likely a "breaks small objects" Dispel is going to need a scope limitation (i.e only vs Breakable Foci). A more general Dispel special effect (i.e. magically switching off powers) is more generally useful.

[IndianaJoe3]

5 hours ago, bigdamnhero said:

So BTB you'd have to buy it with Variable Effect (+1/2) and Expanded Effect x8 (+3.5) to affect the whole suit, which puts you at 15 AP per 1d6. So the 18 dice you'll need to affect Defender's 60 AP with one shot is  going to run you 270 AP!

 

It's not one 60 AP power - it's a suite of powers that are over 150 AP. It's pretty much all of his combat abilities. And if you want to (effectively) 1-shot him, it should be expensive.

[massey]

5 hours ago, bigdamnhero said:

Thinking about this some more, this might actually be the best way to go, even tho RAW says you don't need to when removing abilities. Defender has a total of 163 RP in his suit powers, which is a decent proxy for your powerful the suit is (and therefore how hard it is to "bypass" it). That works out to +33 BODY, giving him an effective 43 BODY. You'd need around 13d6 (potentially over multiple rolls) to beat that, but I agree since the armor is already OIF, a Minor Transform would be appropriate, so you can get 13d6 for only 65 AP.

 

Edit: OK, it would be a bit more than that; I missed that Defender's suit-enhanced CHARs aren't included in the 163 points I cited. So add another ~86 RP which is another +17 BODY, which gets him up to 60 BODY total. That's going to take 17d6 worth of effect so you'll probably need two rolls.

 

Or you could Major Transform him to glass and then shatter him.

 

When looking at optional rules, you need to keep in mind that you shouldn't make a lesser effect more expensive than a more powerful effect.

[bigdamnhero]

13 hours ago, massey said:

Or you could Major Transform him to glass and then shatter him.

 

When looking at optional rules, you need to keep in mind that you shouldn't make a lesser effect more expensive than a more powerful effect.

Fair point. 90 AP buys you 6d6 of Severe Transform, which is enough to turn him to glass, stone, etc. Dude needs some Power Defense.

[zslane]

21 hours ago, mrinku said:

I'd run that scatter distance should also scale up, however scatter is also capped at half the distance to the target, which would effectively deal with megascale scatter at non-megascale ranges.  

 

Well, the target (hex) doesn't have to be very far away, in fact, it could be the hex adjacent to the attacker. Just because the area is Megascale doesn't mean the range to the target (the hex) is (or has to be).

 

In any event, I sort of categorize that power build as one of those "How could you break the Hero System with a 1000 points?" things. It either takes a lot of contorted design effort (as in that example) to subvert the game's design axioms, or the GM must put in campaign-specific limits that make it then possible to achieve "always" and "never" effects by simply surpassing those limits in special circumstances (e.g., gods who wield Primal Power). I'd like to think, however, that everyone is nevertheless capable of recognizing, understanding, and respecting the game's design axioms just the same.

[dsatow]

On 12/1/2017 at 1:42 PM, zslane said:

AFAICT, In 6E, the treatment of a natural 3/18 isn't optional. 6E2 pp 35-36 just states the rule outright. Am I missing something?

 

When you roll an 18, you automatically miss your intended target hex, but then you roll to determine which hex you hit instead. With an area the size of the universe, who cares which hex you hit as long as your target is inside the area (the universe).

 

A GM can always override the rules and I have seen some GMs play where a 18 can still hit if its mathematically impossible to miss.  Though I agree, a 3 should always hit, a 18 should always miss.

 

I probably should have added NRM to the power on second thought too.

[Ninja-Bear]

I meant to point out way earlier that this question and really any build, there are two key points that need to be considered. First is, how can a Power be built by the game? Second although implied usually is should a Power be allowed? And how should it be modified if needed to be allowed?

[Ninja-Bear]

On 12/2/2017 at 4:35 PM, bigdamnhero said:

Interesting idea, Knightgoblin. And not one that I remember coming up before, so props there.

 

I agree using Teleport UAA for the Power doesn't seem like a good approach, because the only defense against it would be to build the armor with Blocks Teleportation. Among other problems, I dislike "I win unless you took this specific defense" attacks. You see that a lot in the comics & shows, but players hate them. (Justifiably IMO.) I thought about Desolid UAA, but that has the same problems as Teleport UAA. Tunneling UAA is no better, and RAW specifically forbids using Tunneling against vehicles, which IMO goes double for using it against a Foci.

 

Dispel seems like it ought to be the right approach. The defense is Power Def, and the effect roll needed is based on the suit's AP, which is a reasonable proxy for how powerful/advanced the suit is. But 6e1 p195 specifically states that Dispelling one power in a multiple-power Focus does not affect the other powers. So mechanically, Dispelling Defender's Resistant Protection doesn't prevent him from using his weapons array, which really doesn't fit the concept. (Unless he can control the suit remotely, which could be entertaining.) So BTB you'd have to buy it with Variable Effect (+1/2) and Expanded Effect x8 (+3.5) to affect the whole suit, which puts you at 15 AP per 1d6. So the 18 dice you'll need to affect Defender's 60 AP with one shot is  going to run you 270 AP! Maybe instead slap Cumulative on there, so it requires multiple Phases? For 103 AP, you could get 6d6 with Cumulative at +1 Level (+3/4, 72 points max) which means it'll take ~3 rolls to pop the man out of the can. If you're trying to stay within a 60 AP cap or Framework, the best you could do is 3d6 with Cumulative at +2 (+1, 72 AP), but it'll take you ~6 Phases.

 

I don't see Drain working any better. The only advantage is it works as Cumulative by default, but even without that it's going to cost 50 AP per 1d6!

 

Maybe Transform is the way to go after all. I would call "Person in power armor to squishy unarmored person without all their best powers" a Major Transform. Power Def is a defense, which is good. The effect roll is against the target's BODY, but unless they bought a lot of additional BODY for the suit that's normally only going to be the character's base BODY, regardless of how tough/advanced/expensive the suit is. Not crazy about that part myself, but it depends on how you see the sfx working. Defender only has 10 BODY (in the CC writeup anyway), so for 60 AP you could get 6d6 of Major Transform, which means an average roll of 21 will take Defender out of the fight with one shot, not to mention probably revealing his SID to boot. That seems a tad overpowered IMO. Maybe toss on a Limitation stipulating that the armor's BODY (calculated as an Object, not as a Focus) adds to target's effective BODY?

 

(And yes, per the letter of the rules, Transforming the suit from an OIF to an OAF and then hitting it with a TK Grab or something would probably be cheaper; but there's a little too much cheese on that one for my taste.)

Finally somebody is throwing out hard numbers! Now there are several limitations which could be put on the power to reduce its effectiveness. How about minimim reduce by range? I would even go with no range. Plus concentration 1/2 DCV. You can reduce the dice say 3D6 with cumulative so it will take several phases to remove the Armor.

[Ninja-Bear]

And let’s not forget that even at 60 pts that’s 60 pts for a narrow selection of targets. Those 60 pts could be spend on more speed, CV or csl, Dex,  a general combat ability, etc.

[dmjalund]

what is the Logical defense for teleporting someone out of armor?

 

what makes sense due to the special affect of the power?

 

[mrinku]

10 hours ago, zslane said:

 

Well, the target (hex) doesn't have to be very far away, in fact, it could be the hex adjacent to the attacker. Just because the area is Megascale doesn't mean the range to the target (the hex) is (or has to be).

 

 

Yeah, Mega Range is a separate purchase to Mega Area... what's less clear is the scale of an AoE scatter (normally 2m per point missed by). Should that scale up with the range or the area? Either? Neither? I tend to go with it using the same scale as the area, otherwise Mega Area is a little *too* accurate.

 

at close range it doesn't much matter because of the cap on scatter being half the distance. Whether a 1km radius AoE scatters 2m or 2km per point missed by, if you're 100m away from the target the maximum scatter distance is still going to be 50m and everyone is going to be within the area of effect.

[zslane]

The scatter distance has never been a function of the area size. As far as I'm aware, Megascale does not change how scatter works. If there is a rule in the book that says otherwise, I'm not aware of it. But then, I confess I don't know the full extent of the cruft 6E has added to the system.

[dsatow]

3 hours ago, dmjalund said:

what is the Logical defense for teleporting someone out of armor?

 

what makes sense due to the special affect of the power?

 

It used to be, you could use teleport to cancel out teleport on an inch per inch basis.

[Zephrosyne]

Mechanically, it seems the way to go is Teleportation with Usable As Attack.  Reading the rules for both Teleportation and the Advantage, Usable As Attack, has me convinced that it is the best (perhaps only) option.  Of course, the person in the armor (PC or NPC) did take the Focus Limitation.  I have no sympathy for the argument about how many points the Focus cost.  You took the Limitation and by doing so, you agreed to have access to your Focus denied (within reason), whether the Focus cost 1 point or 1000 points. 

 

That being said, as a gm, I realize that the construct that I am advocating is pretty cheap for what it does and can be a bit of a game wrecker if a player has this.  Frankly, I think this is an example of just one of many abilities, powers, etc. that exists in fiction but doesn't translate well in a game.  As we all know, in fiction one writer controls everything, unlike a gaming table.  While I appreciate the effort put into coming up with balanced constructs using Dispel, Drain, Mind Control, Teleportation, Transform, or whatever else I missed, sometimes the gm just has to say "no."  I think that is just a better option that coming up with quirky, odd, clumsy constructs in the name of creating a balanced cost for the power.  Just my opinion.

[Doc Democracy]

Our biggest problem with issues like this one is that we are firmly in the land of make-believe.  More so than in many other cases as we have nothing that equates even remotely to teleportation.

 

As such, we have no real-world analogues to lean on or to equate things with, no idea of what the problems that might be associated or anything else.  All we have is fiction and we know how (un)reliable that might be for finding anything close to game balance.  

When it comes down to it, I have sympathy for what Zephrosyne is saying about a simple approach - low cost power or simply saying no - but this discussion is very much about how you accomplish something in the game without breaking it.  The game is not about the SFX (which is all that popping someone out of their armour actually is) but about the mechanics of that (important that doing it is fun in some way) and how much it should cost.

 

I think it is a cool power, it leverages the Focus limitation and makes it worth the discount that someone took when designing the character.  

 

The biggest questions the GM would have to tackle would be the inconsistency of how things are bought in HERO and making sure that the player understands the limitations.  If the power armour character did not actually take focus as a limitation (and so did not take the discount), which of these suggested powers still works and still honours the design pact at the start of the game for both the teleporter and the powersuit guy AND makes some kind of narrative sense.

 

To memory, I think that Transform is possibly the one, happy to hear others...

 

:-)

Doc

[Zephrosyne]

I agree with you Doc Democracy as far as the intent of the thread: finding a balanced way to create the desired effect using game mechanics (assuming I am reading it correctly).  I respect that, which is why I tried to word my post carefully so that I did not come across as trying to tell people how they should do something in their games. From the point of view of thread's original intent, Transform is probably the best option in my opinion.  I just wanted to add another perspective to the debate. 

 

The above being said, you touched on something that I found interesting.  You brought up the example of someone creating a power suit  guy who did not take the Focus Limitation and the "inconsistency of how things are bought in Hero."  I don't want to get too tangential and deviate from the initial intent of this thread but I think your point brings up another issue: how should things be built.  I guess I have a very different idea in using the Hero System toolkit than most.  From my observation over the years a lot people see it as means to build anything you want in a vast number of ways however way you want.  I see it more as create any type of campaign that you want in a vast number of ways.  What I mean by "campaign" isn't simply a setting (as in fluff) but also the reality of how thing work mechanically as in what mechanics apply to what special effects.  I don't believe that just because the rules say you can create something ten different ways, all ten different ways are valid and/or appropriate to the setting.  To me part of a creating a campaign setting is creating certain mechanical (as in the rules) standards.  Using your example of the power suit guy without the Focus: why does he not have the Focus Limitation or at least Only In Alternate ID or Restrainable?  A power suit that doesn't have one of those Limitations sounds like something grafted onto (or into) the guy in such as way that it can't be teleported off without harming him such as tearing him apart (e.g. Teleportational Rending via RKA w/AVAD perhaps).  Don't get me wrong, I am not arrogant enough to assume that just because I can't think of a power suit that doesn't require one of the above Limitations no one else can.  I'm just not sure what. 

 

Maybe I am just stricter than most gms but the mechanics and special effects have to make sense in concert with one another and how they blend with the reality of the game world itself.  Just because there is a rulebook way to do something doesn't mean that particular way is a good choice, let alone the best one.  I think establishing a set of standards (mechanical, special effects, and game world reality) as a gm avoids the problems that originate from the "inconsistency" created by how things "are bought in Hero."  Once those parameters are set, one can just build away.  Just my opinion.      

[Doc Democracy]

I have two types of response to this:  :-)

 

1 - There are ALWAYS reasons why something that looks like a focus is not.  For the powersuit idea the two that immediately come to mind are that the armour simply cannot be removed by other people, it is mage armour and only the bearer can don or remove it; it is nano-tech and immediately reforms itself if removed.  In neither case would teleporting the man out of the armour work in SFX considerations.

 

2 - the player has a right to decide whether his/her powers may be removed without his consent (outside of game-mechanical things like drain etc).  It is not for the GM to say that it is impossible to have a powersuit character without at some point losing access to all the powers granted by that powersuit.  If the player thinks the powersuit is cool then why not allow it, and simply not choose to remove it from him at points where those characters who did take the discount would lose their's.

 

 

Doc