Jump to content

Ring of Regeneration


Recommended Posts

Anything can work if you put special notes on it. "Note: sword is actually a well-trained poodle held by its tail" works. Another question would be, how would this be priced in a VPP that focuses on making magical items? You can, of course, deliberately overcost things, but that's not generally how Hero System works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Read "Inaccessible" again:  you _can_ remove inaccessible foci; you just can't simply snatch it away with a grab.    

But it isn't UBO. it's a focus and applies it to the wearer. but the focus can be  passed to, or stolen from the original wearer. The regeneration does not continue to grant the original wearer  if so

I'm really not trying to beat a dead horse here; I swear you you I'm not.  I would like to point out that UAA (or UAO, depending on what 6e calls it) is _not_ UBO, and it _will_ let you regenerate oth

17 minutes ago, pawsplay said:

 

I'm looking specifically for something that can't simply be Grabbed, but doesn't take an entire Turn to remove from an overpowered or helpless target.

 

 

Maybe it's me:  I've always viewed "can be removed in a Turn from an unresisting target" to be an upper limit.  A magic amulet worn as a necklace on a chain, for example, is typically an accessible focus.  There is no way to realistically justify that it would take a full turn to remove a necklace from an unconscious or otherwise subdued victim.  Rings seem quite similar: if the owner is not actively fighting the removal, they come right off.  Well, if he _is_ fighting the removal of a ring, it will still come right off, but there is a nasty side effect called "degloving" that I wouldn't google anywhere near meal time).

 

Same with magic wands, etc.  Those things all being what they are, it never occurred to me to view "one Turn" as more than an upper limit-- a defense against the their without a lot of time, if you will.  There's no reason -- I think the books commonly refer to "dramatic sense," but I tend to think that was chosen as an inoffensive way to say "if common sense tells you otherwise, then go with that."

 

Just my two cents worth; feel free to give it another blood arrow.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like a ring could be taken away (or taken with Sleight of Hand). But it would be really difficult to take one off someone who is clenching their fist and resisting. So I think you would be able to remove one from a Grabbed foe, but not an actively resisting one. I don't think you can just take a ring off the finger of a greatsword-wielding warlord. But if you grabbed his arm, maybe.

EDIT: Batman taking a ring from Green Lantern could be an "extraordinary skill use" at -10.  But Gollum taking Frodo's ring is harder to Hero-ify.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been up too late this evening attempting to find something to assuage your concerns-- I am not terribly familiar with 6e (I assume you are playing 6e; if not, please specify what you are playing), and I have come to an interesting conclusion:

 

Based wholly on the personal opinion that an index so vast cannot possibly be useless, I have to believe that 6e does not specify a particular length of time-- minimum or maximum-- for removing a focus from an opponent who is not resisting that removal.  

 

I have read everything on Focus (including all the individual power-specific bits: If a character buys power X through a focus, then this; etc.  Amusingly, Steve goes into detail on using Transform against a focus-- tells you how it would be done; how to defend against it, etc-- but makes no mention if the focus is still useful as a focus for your power or not.  :lol:   I would assume "no," but he doesn't say either way in spite of all the verbiage dedicated to it), and Accessible only specifies that the focus can be removed from a target who is not resisting.  There wasn't even much on how "resisting" affects the removal.  Presumably, dramatic sense, etc-- much harder to pull a ring from a clenched fist and all that

 

I have read everything on Disarm-- more amusement there: if you are successful in your disarm maneuver, the weapon goes flying; no mention on if accessible or inaccessible affects this in any way.

 

I have read everything on Grab-- there is a section on _grabbing_ a Focus, but not actually removing it, accessible or otherwise.  There are sections on _breaking_ it, but again-- no mention of a time period requirement for removing an accessible focus.

 

This leads me to believe that if such a time limit did make it into 6e, it's in the "optional" supplemental rules via the Player's Guides or perhaps the Gadgets book itself.

 

Forgive me, but it's touching midnight here, and four-thirty will be here before I know it; I'm going to pass on chasing this further, mostly because, in spite of Steve's regular referral to these additional books as "the way do this" or "do that," the popular lip service is that these additional books are "optional material," so I must conclude that 6e puts forth no _official_ time minimum or maximum for the removal of a ring from a non-resisting opponent, meaning that it is squarely between player and GM to work out what seems appropriate, likely case-by-case.  I'm fine with that. Remember:  if you take Physical Limitation: severe arthritis, it can take _hours_ to get that ring off!  :lol:

 

Beyond that, let "dramatic sense" be your guide.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pawsplay said:

Champions Complete says that an Inaccessible Focus can be removed in one Turn if the target is defenseless.

 

Yes.  I put up the CC entry on accessible before digging into the core rules last night.   You seemed less than pleased with that.  Related, I find it a bit. Amusing how much more  information CC  has on the subject than do the core rules, and in vastly fewer words. 

 

Is CC the rules set you are using? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, pawsplay said:

 

How would you note that on a character sheet? I can certainly spell 30 charges. I feel like that by just laconically posting these two posts, you feel like you are addressing what I said but you're really not. Just saying "close enough" does not mean there couldn't be a better approach. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of cases in 6e that exist precisely because somewhere between 3e and 6e, there was a perception something could be better defined.

"Some but not all of a limitation" is not the same thing as picking a lower or intermediate value. It really isn't. If you really feel like this isn't an issue which doesn't need to be addressed, definitely feel free to not address it.

 

It is Inaccessible.  It cannot be removed while the owner actively opposes that removal.  It can be removed from a helpless opponent, in no more than one turn.  If that opponent is handcuffed, but still clenching a fist, it might take a turn to pry his fingers open and get the ring off.  If he is unconcious, it may well take less time. 

 

Unless we want to move limitations (or advantages) to six decimal places, there will be gradations within the same limitation (or advantage) value.   Of course, then rounding will result in 748 charges costing no less than 753 charges, so we will have to move CP to eight decimal places.  That will certainly help with the "Hero is too math-intensive" issue ;) 

 

It is worth less than Accessible and more than Not a Focus at All.

 

Iron Man's armor cannot be removed in a turn or so.  It is not a Focus at all.  It is OIHID.  Could it be removed, with the right equipment and enough time?  Sure.  But not quickly enough to make it a Focus, even an Inaccessible focus.

 

11 hours ago, pawsplay said:

Anything can work if you put special notes on it. "Note: sword is actually a well-trained poodle held by its tail" works. Another question would be, how would this be priced in a VPP that focuses on making magical items? You can, of course, deliberately overcost things, but that's not generally how Hero System works.

 

You put special notes to indicate the ability - special effects and all - which the mechanics are intended to simulate.  The mechanic is "OIF".  The special effect is "ring". 

 

8 hours ago, pawsplay said:

Champions Complete says that an Inaccessible Focus can be removed in one Turn if the target is defenseless.

 

I guess this is why we need the Encyclopedia Heroica, so that we can explain more precisely how every possible corner case functions in the game, and provide every detailed issue, however minute, fully spelled out.

 

The ring cannot simply be snatched away in combat, so it is not accessible.  It can be removed in one turn if the target is defenseless.  It can also be removed in less than one turn if the target is defenseless.  If you play with Impairing and Disabling wounds, it could also be removed if the character's hand is severed.  None of these change the fact that the ring is not accessible (it cannot be snatched away in combat) but is inaccessible (it can be removed in a turn if the target is defenseless).  If it can be removed in 9 seconds instead of 12, it remains inaccessible - it still cannot be snatched away in combat. 

 

I would guess that, somewhere in CC, there is a discussion of points between the limits of various advantages and limitations.  I know one of Derek's goals when he wrote it was to state such general issues once, not repeat variations on the theme numerous times in numerous places.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I guess this is why we need the Encyclopedia Heroica, so that we can explain every single term in the game, and provide every detailed issue, however minute, fully spelled out.

 

Except that in this case,  it didn't. 

I expected it to: two large books and a detailed index, and lots of words on the subject, but if there is something in the two core books, it's well-hidden, even from the index. 

It's downright

 

Inaccessible. 

 

 

;)

 

Though CC was considerably helpful.  I should have looked in Basic, just for kicks. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Except that in this case,  it didn't. 

I expected it to: two large books and a detailed index, and lots of words on the subject, but if there is something in the two core books, it's well-hidden, even from the index. 

It's downright

 

That's only two measley books.  We need the full Encyclopedia.  Bring on the 48-volume 7th Ed  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I found the source of the consternation!

 

Before turning in, I figured I'd cruise through Basic and check.  While I like Basic as a rulebook _way_ more than the Encyclopedia, I confess that the wording here was _terrible_:

 

To quote:

 

"Obvious, Inaccessible Focus (-1⁄2): Anyone looking at the character knows the power comes from the Focus, but taking it away from him requires 1 Turn out of combat. Examples include armor, rings, and clothing."

 

Here it does not say "can be removed in one Turn, but specifically says "_requires_ 1 Turn."  Not "can take" or "a Turn" or even "up to one Turn," but _requires 1 Turn_"  :/

 

If our friend Pawsplay is using Basic as his guide, he is getting bad info.  

 

Honestly, what with him being a lawyer, I wouldn't have expected this from Steve:  when you are making an effort to limit your words, careful selection of each word is _critical_, as you have no long diatribes with which to explain the intent behind your words.  Shame, because now I am suspect of the whole stinking book, and I won't have time to reread it for months yet-- Time I was saving to read Narosia.  :(

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get where the "up to a turn" thing comes from. CC and other sources imply at least 1 Turn. Further, Inaccessible Foci are said to not be removable in combat at all. I checked, 6e volume 1 uses the same language.

Yet rings are given as an example, and it's easy to imagine how a ring can be removed in combat. Gollum can take the ring right from Frodo's hand. Magneto can surely pull a metal ring off a normal human's finger. If Spider-Man grabbed your arm, I imagine Black Widow could pry a ring off your finger.

Generally speaking, I think of a ring that could be pulled off a grabbed limb, as a Phase action, at some difficulty. It's certainly NOT in the same category as a suit of armor, the other example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2020 at 10:14 PM, pawsplay said:

Rings do seem generally more like inaccessible foci. However, I am struggling to think of magic rings that don't get stolen. Frodo's gets taken from him, and Batman notoriously took the Green Lantern's ring in the New 52. It seems like there ought to be an intermediate level, for something which can be taken from a target that has been rendered helpless but can't be casually Grabbed.

Well Frodo’s example might be attack. Gollum says “wait I can’t grab it? Ok the I bite off the finger!”. Perhaps a good modifier would be -3/4 OIF? Can be grabbed in combat but perhaps +5 STR to resist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duke this argument over OIF and OAF reminds me of a thread awhile back where instead of rings, it was parachute builds. Specifically  I argued about  the scene in the Bond film where he had to wrestle in mid-air the parachute off the villain and put it on. For context some people were arguing that parachutes must be built as OIF cause that have belts and I pointed out that in that case according to the rules-Bond was dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

"Obvious, Inaccessible Focus (-1⁄2): Anyone looking at the character knows the power comes from the Focus, but taking it away from him requires 1 Turn out of combat. Examples include armor, rings, and clothing."

 

The practical answer, to me, is that "out of combat" is the most important phrase here.  Who cares if it takes 6 seconds or 60 out of combat?  If we are out of combat and the target is unable to offer much in the way of resistance, the focus can be removed by pretty much anyone in a trivial amount of time.

 

You can still attack the focus.  In a game with impairing and disabling wounds, you can attack the extremity on which the focus is worn, a la Gollum biting off Frodo's finger.

 

In the 75+ years of publication of various Green Lanterns, how often has his ring been removed from him in combat? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 8:41 PM, pawsplay said:

I don't get where the "up to a turn" thing comes from. CC and other sources imply at least 1 Turn. Further, Inaccessible Foci are said to not be removable in combat at all. I checked, 6e volume 1 uses the same language.

Yet rings are given as an example, and it's easy to imagine how a ring can be removed in combat. Gollum can take the ring right from Frodo's hand. Magneto can surely pull a metal ring off a normal human's finger. If Spider-Man grabbed your arm, I imagine Black Widow could pry a ring off your finger.

Generally speaking, I think of a ring that could be pulled off a grabbed limb, as a Phase action, at some difficulty. It's certainly NOT in the same category as a suit of armor, the other example.

 

Hero grognards tend to rely on a simpler rule set, dramatic license, and common sense. Not everything has to be calculated in game mechanics, and some things probably shouldn't be. The One Ring falls into this category for me--there's really no way to use it without negative consequences, and just carrying it is a risk. I'd treat it more as a plot device, a way to move the story forward, and to add complexity to encounters. As a GM, I would be willing to use dramatic license to allow the cases you've described, even if it's not rules as written. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dsatow said:

 

Though, that was actually out of combat. ;)

 

 

It's also Batman.  And it had no actual meaningful effect.  Did anyone else yank off his ring in the source material?  Did it result in a significant disadvantage?  Or was this a one-off so we could all go "wow-Bats is so cool!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

It's also Batman.  And it had no actual meaningful effect.  Did anyone else yank off his ring in the source material?  Did it result in a significant disadvantage?  Or was this a one-off so we could all go "wow-Bats is so cool!"

As you know Hugh it is all depends on what source material you are using to base your characters on, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

It's also Batman.  And it had no actual meaningful effect.  Did anyone else yank off his ring in the source material?  Did it result in a significant disadvantage?  Or was this a one-off so we could all go "wow-Bats is so cool!"

 

I wish it were a one-off...

 

https://youtu.be/IcCGjQ4pUO0?t=183

 

Now let me be blunt: I can't stand this scene! At least with Hal, you could see how Bats could get the ring off his finger (Hal was out-of-combat, had his hands wide open, no forcefield, and he's being written as a fearless fool, so he wouldn't think that Bats would try to slip it off his finger). John, on the other hand, despite being rather stupid (I have the most powerful ranged weapon in the universe, so naturally I should fly in to fistfight a completely unknown enemy) for a former marine, has his forcefield up and his fists balled up and punching (and connecting too). And despite all that, Batman is able to get that ring off his finger like he's filching an extra donut from the JL commissary. I can't believe the GL Corps lasted as long as it did if it was that easy to get a ring off in combat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Oruncrest said:

 

I wish it were a one-off...

 

https://youtu.be/IcCGjQ4pUO0?t=183

 

Now let me be blunt: I can't stand this scene! At least with Hal, you could see how Bats could get the ring off his finger (Hal was out-of-combat, had his hands wide open, no forcefield, and he's being written as a fearless fool, so he wouldn't think that Bats would try to slip it off his finger). John, on the other hand, despite being rather stupid (I have the most powerful ranged weapon in the universe, so naturally I should fly in to fistfight a completely unknown enemy) for a former marine, has his forcefield up and his fists balled up and punching (and connecting too). And despite all that, Batman is able to get that ring off his finger like he's filching an extra donut from the JL commissary. I can't believe the GL Corps lasted as long as it did if it was that easy to get a ring off in combat.

 

Its just bad writing.  Originally, the ring couldn't be removed unless it was done by an Oan, a Green Lantern, or programmed by the ring.  In the comic, there were scenes where they would try to pull the ring off Hal's finger with machines designed with the Strength of Superman to no avail.  Some time I think in the 90s or early 2K, this seemed to change.

Link to post
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
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...