Inherent Discussion: How do you interpret it?

[Watchman Mk. IV]

It's a bit more organic process for me, though I've GM'ed the game for so long it could just be that it's become second nature.  My general rule of thumb when designing characters, at least as far as translating conception to the character sheet, is whether I'd allow a power, special effect, or application that I use myself from a player in my game.  Conception is king, but you can damn well bet I'm going to squeeze every ounce of utility I can from the points available.  (Also, I build exclusively 250-point PC's; I tend to prefer a lesser power level to Giants in the Earth type heroes.  That imposes certain limits on what I'll use; for instance, VPP's are generally verboten unless you're talking about a small pool because they're either too damned expensive or too limited in terms of time to change.  I'm not a big fan of gadgeteers anyway.)

 

I've been told I rely too heavily on foci, but especially for Normal Characteristic Maxima types it seems the most logical and common way to go, unless you start trying to jump through hoops by twisting the conception.  Another relatively common trick for me is activation time on defensive or utility powers and, of course, ultra-slotted MP's for attack powers, unless I have an overriding reason to make the slots variable.

 

Back to conception, though, I always try to come up with at least one unique or different power for a toon; otherwise playing generic Joe Blaster or Jane Brick is boring.  Sometimes that becomes the starting point for the conception, at other times it's the name, and occasionally the  character comes to me basically fully-formed.  (It's occasional because I've done so many of these things that it's tough to come up with a unique conception.)  Case in point, the character I posted in Cassandra's design thread, Flatline.  I created him some years ago in case someone didn't show up one week or if the team needed bolstering for certain missions.  I didn't want him stealing fire from the PC's, so I figured a support hero would work best.  Which led to a healer, refined to a doctor, which gave me the name.  That then led to his unique power: suspended animation, and I was off and running.  So I had a niche that needed to be filled, and that's the process I followed.

 

I look at it more as a sculpture or a shrub than a house.  I create a 'first draft,' and then I prune until it takes the final shape that will work in the game.  However, since I'm a GM far more than a player, I have considerations involved that a player wouldn't.  So the 'draft' has some built-in specifications.  I like to think I've struck some kind of balance between the two styles.

[Ninja-Bear]

Also another criteria for me is, how much mileage am I going to get out of this hassle? I have limited play time so if I use rare optional rules or house rules, I’d it worth it? Nothing against some of the rules/builds people design. If they enjoy it great! 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Inherent is a useful element of the toolkit because of the way Adjustment Powers were written, and how they can be used in a VPP.

Making it act like the second suggestion I gave (double active points to dispel) would leave it in the game with a function, but reduce its absolute nature and allow certain concepts to be built.

[dsatow]

I was just looking at the description of inherent on 6e1p334.  To be honest, I wonder why its under duration advantages.  The advantage doesn't really affect time/duration.  In fact, just about everything related to duration is suggested to in other advantages and limitations in the description.  Its more of a difficult to dispel advantage.  Comparing it to difficult to dispel, it really should be a +1 or higher advantage.

 

Given all of that, I haven't had a problem with inherent, but if there is a mythical 7th ed., I'll put in my vote for changing it to be listed under difficult to dispel and increasing the advantage to say +1.

[Surrealone]

I believe the reason Inherent is not a +1 is because it requires the power to cost no END, be Persistent, and be Always On (or function in a similar fashion).  This means unless the power is Persistent and costs 0 END by its nature, there's already an implied (+3/4) Advantage cost that Difficult To Dispel doesn't require -- raising the overall cost to (+1) total ... comprised of @0 END for +1/2, Persistent for +1/4, and Inherent for another +1/4.

 

 

[Cantriped]

20 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Making it act like the second suggestion I gave (double active points to dispel) would leave it in the game with a function, but reduce its absolute nature and allow certain concepts to be built.

It has a function, to make powers Immune to Adjustment (good or bad). Which isn't an absolute, as the powers are still susceptible to those Effects which can change a character's inherent nature, Transform. Plus there are already extant (and functional) mechanics for reducing the effects of an Adjustment Power (Power Defense) or increasing a Power's APs for the purpose of resisting Dispel and Suppress (Difficult To Dispel). So why not just require Difficult To Dispel (CC 103; FHC 122; 6e1 333), or some limited form of Power Defense as a campaign ground rule instead?

...Or, if you must make House-Rules, why not just define a new modifier entirely Difficult To Adjust (functions as Difficult To Dispel, but also applies to Aid, Boost, and Drain), so that you don't have to risking having to explain over and over again that in your campaigns (and only your campaigns) Inherent works entirely differently from how it is described in the rulebook.

 

Also I'm not sure where you get this misimpression that HERO doesn't have any absolute mechanics. 6e1 11 explicitly notes that there are exceptions to the general principle. The Absolute Effect Rule on page 133 is a prime example; But besides that:

Cannot Be Stunned, Life Support (especially in regard to their ability to protect you from NND Attacks), and Shape Shift are all fairly absolute powers. Inherent, Personal Immunity, and Invisible Power Effects are fairly absolute Advantages. Absolute (if infrequently applicable) Limitations and Complications abound (more of them strike me as absolute than otherwise.

 

I say fairly absolute in most of these cases because even though their effects are absolute in function (you simply can't Stun a character with Cannot Be Stunned, or starve someone with Life Support (Does Not Eat))... Adjustment Powers can play easily counter all of them (except Inherent, for the obvious reason that it is the absolute defense against Adjustment). Then there is Transform which nothing is safe from, not even a ghost's Inherent Desolidification and Flight. Even Inherent Power Defense can eventually be removed using a Penetrating or NND Transform.

 

An Automaton's immunity to Mental Combat is one of the most absolute rules I can think of... with the glaring exception that Fantasy HERO Campaigns are assumed to ignore that immunity entirely so that Undead built as Automatons can still be controlled using Mental Powers and Presence Attacks.

 

is at least as absolute a rule as Inherent, as is every form of . An Automaton's immunity to Mental Powers and Presence Attacks is an absolute effect (you just can't role high enough to Mind Control or Scare a "Heavy Machine Gun Rigged To A Motion Sensor" defined as an Automaton). IIRC, there is a version of 100% Damage Reduction priced out in Fantasy HERO explicitly for the rare instances where Absolute Immunity to thing is actually appropo. Total Psychological and Physical Complications are also pretty damn absolute (getting to roll against a Total Psych Comp is at the GM's option). The fact that 3s always succeed and 18s always fail is an absolute effect built into core mechanics.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Also I'm not sure where you get this misimpression that HERO doesn't have any absolute mechanics.

 

Possibly from the repeated insistence in the rules through the years saying exactly that.  I'm silly that way.

[Cantriped]

Really? Because none of the rules I've read are saying that.

 

If by repeated insistence do you mean: "With a few minor exceptions, the HERO System doesn’t have any “absolutes.”..." (6e1 11; also CC 7 and FHC 10 with minor differences)? Or maybe: "Whenever possible, Powers and other game constructions should be open-ended, rather than absolute or fixed." and "Similarly, there should be very few absolutes in the HERO System." (5eR 559)? Because to me, qualifiers like "With a few minor exceptions" means that the HERO System does in fact have at least "a few" "absolutes" by necessity; even if you don't use the Absolute Effect Rules (6e1 133). I didn't find anything about Absolute Effects at all in my copies of Champions: The Superhero Roleplaying (4th ed), Robot Warriors (3rd Ed) or Danger International (3rd Ed)... but I might have just missed them.

[dsatow]

20 hours ago, Surrealone said:

I believe the reason Inherent is not a +1 is because it requires the power to cost no END, be Persistent, and be Always On (or function in a similar fashion).  This means unless the power is Persistent and costs 0 END by its nature, there's already an implied (+3/4) Advantage cost that Difficult To Dispel doesn't require -- raising the overall cost to (+1) total ... comprised of @0 END for +1/2, Persistent for +1/4, and Inherent for another +1/4.

 

 

 

I thought about that, but not all powers require you to buy all those things like life support or extra limbs.  I suggested +1 because it's an equivalent to x16 difficult to dispel which to be honest I haven't seen anyone do.  

 

Note that I am not saying that the other required advantages and limitations have to be removed.  It just syncs to me as mostly a cannot drain advantage so placing it under difficult to dispel and possibly raising the cost is more appropriate in my opinion.  Opinions vary and I'm not religiously attached to the idea, so I'd go with the majority rules if a 7th edition came out.

[Surrealone]

9 minutes ago, dsatow said:

 

I thought about that, but not all powers require you to buy all those things like life support or extra limbs.  I suggested +1 because it's an equivalent to x16 difficult to dispel which to be honest I haven't seen anyone do.  

 

Note that I am not saying that the other required advantages and limitations have to be removed.  It just syncs to me as mostly a cannot drain advantage so placing it under difficult to dispel and possibly raising the cost is more appropriate in my opinion.  Opinions vary and I'm not religiously attached to the idea, so I'd go with the majority rules if a 7th edition came out.

I can see placement of it under a Difficult To Dispel type categorization.  However, I think the proposed +1 cost is entirely too high on top of powers that would also require @0 END and Persistent advantages, as that's +1 3/4 in advantages ... for not much in the way of benefit, at all.  (Let's be serious: how often does Inherent actually come into relevant game play?)  Now, if you took away the @0 END and Persistent requirements ... then I think +1 begins to make some sense.  But only if you did that... and only for powers that would normally require those things.  (i.e. I think it should still be cheaper than +1 ... for powers that are natively @0 END and Persistent ... such as Duplication.  

 

I mean, seriously, if you have 2 duplicates of the primary character that cannot recombine (to represent identical triplet clones, like Esme from The Gifted)... and you take it as Inherent like you should (since the duplicates shouldn't be able to be drained away) ... +1 would be prohibitively expensive, yet necessary, for the concept.  +1/4 seems right for that...

[Ninja-Bear]

Dsatow I don’t know about a 7th ed but maybe it could make its way into the 3rd APG.

[Hugh Neilson]

5 hours ago, Surrealone said:

I can see placement of it under a Difficult To Dispel type categorization.  However, I think the proposed +1 cost is entirely too high on top of powers that would also require @0 END and Persistent advantages, as that's +1 3/4 in advantages ... for not much in the way of benefit, at all.  (Let's be serious: how often does Inherent actually come into relevant game play?) 

 

Why shouldn't Difficult to Dispel be eliminated in favour of a limited version of Inherent?  Or, if we want no absolutes, why should the character not be required to buy Power Defense, this power (or these powers) only, or some other Defense that only protects the desired powers?

[Christopher R Taylor]

I believe that the limited value of inherent makes it not worth more than +¼ even with the difficult to dispel alternate.  Its just ¼ right now, and nobody has had the slightest problem with its function which makes powers utterly immune to drain, making it less so is certainly not worth more of a limitation.

[Surrealone]

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Why shouldn't Difficult to Dispel be eliminated in favour of a limited version of Inherent?  Or, if we want no absolutes, why should the character not be required to buy Power Defense, this power (or these powers) only, or some other Defense that only protects the desired powers?

I never said it shouldn't.  Since you're asking why it shouldn't, perhaps you could paint me a picture of what you think taking Difficult To Dispel and making it a limited version of Inherent would look like in terms of advantage value -- so I can contemplate it?

[Hugh Neilson]

13 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I believe that the limited value of inherent makes it not worth more than +¼ even with the difficult to dispel alternate.  Its just ¼ right now, and nobody has had the slightest problem with its function which makes powers utterly immune to drain, making it less so is certainly not worth more of a limitation.

 

My question is more around the relative costs.  If Inherent (which defends 100% against all adjustment powers) is only worth +1/4, if that, then it seems like Difficult to Dispel (which only impacts Suppress and Dispel) is overpriced at +1/4.  We could also question the cost of Difficult to Dispel as compared to limited Damage Reduction.

 

The value of both Inherent and Difficult to Dispel depends on the frequency of adjustment powers (so does Power Defense, for that matter).  Difficult to Dispel was folded into the system from Fantasy Hero, where Dispel and Suppress Magic are pretty common, relative to similar powers in other genres.  They're probably also worth more in that Mutant campaign above  where suppression and drain of mutant powers is common.  But we set "one size fits all" costs, which we have to if there is to be a rulebook at all, which requires setting some baseline assumptions, and mispricing in some situations.

 

That's the crux of the view that Inherent at +1/4 is OK or even overpriced - it just does not come up all that often.  If Power Suppressors were common, with pretty much every game session having them appear, Inherent (and Power Defense, and maybe Difficult to Dispel) would seem like much better deals, and perhaps even too cheap.

 

Water Breathing is a lot less useful if we are in a Desert campaign than a Sailing campaign, and imperative if we are playing in Atlantis.  "Summon Specific Person" is not, in my view, an advantage at all if you Summon a generic guard (who shows up with all the wounds inflicted on him last time, instead of getting a new, hale and hearty, guard each time), but is much more useful with the right "Specific Person".

 

For that matter, try rebuilding Mental Blast from Blast - it (and other mental powers) get a bunch of freebies tossed in.  Blast, AVAD (+1), Uses OMCV vs DMCV (+1/4), IPE (Invisible to 1 sense group, +1/2), Line of Sight range (+1/2) suggests 1d6 should be over 15 AP, but we price it at 10.

 

To some extent, the problem arises because of the increased granularity of the system over several editions.  When every gradation of advantage costs an extra +1/4, they add up rapidly.  Flash Defense suffers from similar bloat.  At 1e, Flash Defense protected all senses for 1 point.  Now, all senses costs what, 4 or 5 points?  Maybe we should have had a limitation for "Sight only" (and :"other sense only", and "these combinations", etc.)  but then we get the reverse where every player limits Flash Defense "not vs smell and taste:".

 

11 hours ago, Surrealone said:

I never said it shouldn't.  Since you're asking why it shouldn't, perhaps you could paint me a picture of what you think taking Difficult To Dispel and making it a limited version of Inherent would look like in terms of advantage value -- so I can contemplate it?

 

I think we'd have to make a huge array of assumptions to get there, as we have to add the ability to defend against other adjustment powers, and offset the loss of ability to be affected by positive adjustment powers (which really isn't limiting for Extra Limbs or Life Support anyway, is it?).  If we were to remove Inherent, perhaps the better replacement would be limited Power Defense (protects only this power) much like limited Defenses which only enhance the defenses of a Focus. Of course, it now costs the same to make Life Support or Desolid Inherent, as the cost does not vary with the cost of the protected power.

 

[Hugh Neilson]

22 hours ago, Surrealone said:

I can see placement of it under a Difficult To Dispel type categorization.  However, I think the proposed +1 cost is entirely too high on top of powers that would also require @0 END and Persistent advantages, as that's +1 3/4 in advantages ... for not much in the way of benefit, at all.  (Let's be serious: how often does Inherent actually come into relevant game play?)  Now, if you took away the @0 END and Persistent requirements ... then I think +1 begins to make some sense.  But only if you did that... and only for powers that would normally require those things.  (i.e. I think it should still be cheaper than +1 ... for powers that are natively @0 END and Persistent ... such as Duplication.  

 

I mean, seriously, if you have 2 duplicates of the primary character that cannot recombine (to represent identical triplet clones, like Esme from The Gifted)... and you take it as Inherent like you should (since the duplicates shouldn't be able to be drained away) ... +1 would be prohibitively expensive, yet necessary, for the concept.  +1/4 seems right for that...

 

We are effectively discussing the price for having three characters, instead of one.  The fair price for that seems pretty challenging.  D&D 3e and its variants have had plenty of discussion over the Leadership feat, allowing a second PC 2 levels lower than the primary PC, being the most overpowered, and most banned, feat in the game.  A second (or more) character seems pretty powerful.  I seldom see the drawback of having to spend the gold to equip two characters come up, despite the reality that gear is crucial to power level in that system.

 

Hmmm...triplets on TV (and in the comics now that two have been killed), quintuplets as they started in the comics (unless the two deaths were part of her/their backstory).  2x as many duplicates or 4x.  We'll never see quadruplets - that would cost the same as quintuplets, with no added benefit  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

My question is more around the relative costs.  If Inherent (which defends 100% against all adjustment powers) is only worth +1/4, if that, then it seems like Difficult to Dispel (which only impacts Suppress and Dispel) is overpriced at +1/4.

 

Yeah that's kind of what I came to as well, it seems super powerful until you reflect on how significant it is in the average game.