Lee

My take on it is, if you look at the Talent builds in 6E1, specifically for Danger Sense, you'll see a limitation "Only if Character Makes Half Roll (-1)". So, I'd use the same value. Lee

You're singing to the choir, my friend. I don't think it does, either. I don't think it _can_, and for the most part, I don't think it _should_! I agree with Duke and dsatow here. The quotes are for emphasis. Anytime you are creating a simulation (or model if you prefer), you must make some simplifying assumptions. If you could recreate reality without making some simplifying assumptions, you wouldn't be creating a simulation/model--you'd be creating...well...reality. The trick is to find out what you can simplify (or take out) and still create an accurate enough simulation. It reminds me of the old physics joke where a farmer goes to his physicist friend and asks them if they can find a solution so that his cows give more milk. The physicist goes away for a couple of days and comes back saying that they have a solution, but it only works for spherical cows in a vacuum. While the gist of the joke is that cows aren't spherical or live in a vacuum, the reality (pardon the pun) is that, if the shape of the cow and its respiration isn't important to how much milk it gives, then the model could be valid. (I realize a cow that can't breathe, like one in a vacuum, isn't likely to give milk, but if the breathing doesn't contribute to how much milk it produces (only keeping it alive), breathing can be removed from the model and being in a vacuum doesn't matter (in this case).) So, it seems to me that the crux of the problem is what simplifying assumptions you can or need to make regarding darkness and light and whether or not the model it produces is good enough for what you're trying to model. It's not likely we will ever find the perfect solution--just one that's good enough for an individual GM or their table. Lee

Just say his name three times. That'll stop him!

So, he's turned into a ostrich?

You're welcome. And, thanks for finding me. I hate being lost.

Did you mean 60 AP in the second sentence instead of 120 AP (I hope)? Or maybe "Four 30 AP attack powers..."? Otherwise, you've lost me.

Likewise, I could see Mark Twain saying it, too. But, a quick search seems to favor Groucho. Maybe he was quoting Twain when he said it?

"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens

Actually, that isn't the way I read the Linked Limitation: So, only the "lesser" power is limited. I think this is probably due to trying to prevent abuse, such as taking a very expensive power, linking it to something like a 2-3 AP power and get a (possibly huge) discount on the very expensive power. That's my take on it anyway. Lee

p71: The GM may restrict which types of CSLs can have Limit; for example he might rule that only 3-point or more expensive CSLs can have Limitations. Just below that reference on p71 it goes on to say: So, if we are talking about using CSL's to offset the DCV penalty for attacks from behind, it seems (if I am reading the RAW correctly) that you can't. That means, to me at any rate, that if we want to stat out what the offset "should" cost, it shouldn't be based on CSL's but on Limited DCV. That's assuming that I'm understanding what we're trying to accomplish here. And, I know what happens whenever I assume something... Lee

I really don't want to know how they do this. I know people can call it rain, but... Lee

Nothing about how defenses are used changes. Killing attacks have an advantage cost because you only get resistant defenses against the body of the attack, same as now. Body from normal attacks just go against normal defenses. Hence; less body damage dealt by normal attacks. Nothing has changed about how defenses are calculated. I think what he was getting at is that, assuming the target's defense is fully resistant (meaning it counts the same whether it is a KA or not), the KA will deal less BODY than the normal attack (since it uses fewer dice). Lee

Exactly the point I was trying to make by raising the questions I did. Agreed. But this doesn't have to happen immediately, or in my opinion any time soon. The player got to have the advantage of having a power greater than the others for a while (due to the Focus limitation). They will have to live without it for a while now, too. As I mentioned in another thread, this "problem" is exactly why I wouldn't allow (or be very reticent to allow) a character to start off with a magic item like that, in spite of a great character concept. I would want all the magic items to be "found" and have the equivalent of the Independent/Universal Focus, probably along with "Real <Equipment>". That way, not only can the item be lost/stolen/damaged/whatever, it can be that forever. For a player that has a great character concept, I'd try to work it out so that they didn't start the campaign with the item, but at some point along the way they would obtain it. That would allow me to, at various other points in the campaign, provide items for the other players, too, keeping things (mostly) "fair". But, it would also mean that if the first player decided to throw their nifty new character concept magic item into a bottomless pit to see if it makes a sound and thus prove the pit is not actually bottomless, they can do so, but if it is indeed bottomless, they lose that item forever and won't get it back. I also get the example of Captain America's shield--he never seems to lose it permanently. Using the MCU, in the Winter Soldier he throws it out of a crashing Helicarrier, yet somehow gets it back. In Endgame it's severely damaged by Thanos, but somehow "old Steve Rogers" has an intact one to "pass on". But, as a GM I'd rather arrange for something like that between me and the player and not (necessarily) be bound by game mechanics. It sounds more like a story/character/campaign plot point. I just see scenarios like the following in my head (in various forms): Player 1: "Elric throws Stormbringer into the maw of the burning pit fiend to see if it is hot enough to melt it. GM: <Shocked> "Um, well, it melts." Player 2: <To Player 1> "Why in the world would you do that!?" Player 1: "Don't worry, I paid points for it. I'll just get it back." GM: "Uh, no, you won't." Player 1: "Yeah huh, the rules say I do". GM: "No, it was a stupid thing to do with such a powerful item." Player 1: "Well, I'll just get my points back and make a new item that's just like Stormbringer". GM: "No, you're not getting those points back. It was a stupid thing to do." Player 1: "That's not fair!" The argument goes back and forth until either Player 1 or the GM leaves the table. If I'm the GM, it would be me leaving because I will not be rules lawyered into doing something I think is wrong. Now, if Player 1 and I had decided to make Stormbringer like Cap's shield (and perhaps it should have been), it would be a different story. It just seems to me that it is open for all kinds of player abuse, destroying all their various Foci, at whim, because they know they will always get them back. I'd rather try and nip that expectation in the bud, so to speak, and then in very special and specific circumstances allow it to happen. Just like, I try very hard not to kill the characters (and certainly not have a TPK). But if a character jumps naked into an erupting volcano for fun just because, "the GM won't kill my character", they might be surprised (actually they shouldn't) that their character will be utterly dead. No miraculous last second save, no resurrection, just dead. Now, if jumping naked into the volcano is the answer to stopping it from erupting onto the city below by placating the volcano god, I might be willing for something to happen where the character doesn't die (i.e. the honest intent was more important the actual act). But only in that very special and specific circumstance. Do it again somewhere else and you're toast. "Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." Lee

I found this in 6e2 page 18: That's how it is in 6e. I don't know about prior editions.

You might try something similar to what you see in some MMORPG's, where spells are "learned" from a trainer for coin, not points. The mage has a skill they pay points for, such as Magic, that allows them to cast any spell they have learned. The Magic skill is modified by how powerful the spell is: the more powerful the spell, the harder it is to cast. The trick is to try and make the modifier such that a low level spell (i.e. Magic Missile) that does 1d6RKA is about as easy to cast as a firing a bow that does 1d6RKA on average. That helps keep things balanced between magic users and non-magic users (but not perfect by any means). More powerful spells cost more coin, just as better weapons and armor do. You might also want to consider other balancing factors, such as weapons and armor can be taken away, but a spell can't. That could tip things against the Mage (increasing cost and/or the skill modifier). However, if you require all spells to have a focus then they can be taken away and the balance tips back. For instance, requiring the Magic Missile spell to use a wooden shaft the caster holds in their hand (like a wand) that flies out of their hand and turns to a magic arrow in flight. Then, it requires "arrows" just like a bow does. However, I like the idea of only a very few, special spells requiring a focus, but I'm probably the only one. A disadvantage to all this is, in addition to a list of weapons and armor, you now need a list of spells, too. No player made spells! (Unless approved by the GM, of course). That puts a huge burden on the GM, but I think gives them more control over balancing casters versus non-casters. For what it's worth, I've been working on just such a magic system and I like the way it is going. I just don't have anything yet to release into the wild. Lee

Great question. I'm sure we all have at one time or another--I know I have. It was certainly a mistake on my part.

But should those powers supposedly gained from those items be purchased with the Focus limitation? Isn't the entire purpose of Focus to create an item that can then be taken away or is it just a way to pay less points for the powers? If Stormbringer can never be taken from Elric, I would rather see it built without a Focus and simply use the sword as a special effect. I realize (although it has been a long time since I've read the Elric novels) that the powers of Stormbringer don't come from Elric, but from the sword itself. That screams Focus to me, too. But, if it cannot ever be taken from him it seems inherent (not the Advantage) to him.If it's a Focus that can never be taken away, it seems like a cheap points grab, to me. It's a Limitation that isn't a limitation, from my point of view.

Very much ths.

I couldn't find anything in either the FH source book or FH Complete (both 6e). But, there is a table (two, actually) in the Advanced Player's Guide I on page 7 (also 6e). I don't know about 5e or older. Lee

“The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests, and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.” ---Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect, and author (1743-1826)

Then you and I see eye-to-eye, now. Thanks for our discussion. It allowed me to see a different perspective and forced me to (more) carefully think things through, not unlike Bohr's discussions with Einstein. That's always a good thing! Lee

It isn't fair, which is why I wouldn't allow you to start the game with a magic sword (or anything else). Then every magic item obtained would either be found/purchased for currency (no CP cost) or created (CP cost). It's part of the GM's job (IMO) to try and be as fair as they can while telling a good story. Now, if you had stated you wanted a magic sword and it sounded really cool, I'd try to construct an adventure (or side adventure) where you could "find" one. That way, you and Bob are on a level playing field. BTW, if the sword Bob found was a finely crafted but mundane sword that was "worth" 20 points, how would that be any more fair if he didn't spend CP for it. To be fair, you'd have to charge Bob CP for the mundane sword and open the can of worms of when to charge and when not to as well as the case that Bob purchased the same sword from a blacksmith paying both currency and CP. Then it's not fair going the other way. You would eventually get your points back through EXP. No, you wouldn't be able to get those 20 points back by giving up the sword and use them to get the new item.You wouldn't need to because the new item that is found doesn't cost CP. You've illustrated quite well why I wouldn't let the character start the game with a magic sword anyway. As GM, I'd help you find it along the way (if it was interesting for the story). I'm not familiar with D&D 5th edition (I've not played D&D since 1st edition) so I can't speak to attunement. But, if it is a powerful item that Bob got from the villain, I'd fully expect the villain to try and claim it back. If it had the ability to let the villain spy on Bob, so be it. It sounds like a great story arc for the campaign. I honestly don't see a problem, but, again I'm not familiar with D&D 5e attunement. Cool! We have some common ground! 😉 I just find it arbitrary to charge sometimes and not charge other times. I suppose one might devise a way to make it non-arbitrary, like if it is more than X AP or RP you have to pay CP but if below you don't. But that would still be arbitrary since the "X" is decided upon by GM fiat. It also limits the ability of the GM to have "finely crafted", "masterpiece" or "heirloom" items that, while mundane, are significantly better than other mundane items. They'd need to charge CP for them and you're back to charging CP for some mundane items and not others. Although in this case it's not as arbitrary. I'm not sure I'd like that as either a player or GM. Ah, that wasn't clear, at least to me, from your original post. This seems much more fair to me than it originally did, especially the part about letting them "finance" their purchase of the sword over time. Just don't charge interest! I also like the idea of Bob being able to use more abilities of the sword as he spends points to "pay it off". I could get behind that idea. Lee

Can a character start the game with a magical sword? Yes and they would have to pay for it. What I was talking about, and inferred from the OP's initial post, was for magical items "found" or given out as a reward. If you find a magical item in the villain's lair, I don't think you should pay for it. If you start out with the item, I see it just as if you crafted one. Make sense? (I mean is it any clearer what I meant--it's probably still nonsensical, meaning I'm totally wrong) Yes, absolutely this is an issue. But, since the GM controls what items are found, they can control how evenly distributed they are. If in session one, the stuff is fighter-y, then in session two the GM should make the stuff mager-y and session three rouger-y. Or, make sure each character gets a little something of (nearly) equivalent value. Exactly. So, if the "magic" equipment is functionally equivalent to "non-magic" equipment (my magic chainmail vs. non-magic plate example), you'd charge points for the magic set but not the non-magic set (being "mundane")? And, if they go to the next town an buy a set "as mundane as the previous set", would you charge XP for it? If not, they why charge for the "magic" set if they are functionally equivalent? I agree, character points are pretty good at roughly comparing power levels and I would include the "cost" of any magic items (or items not paid for by points) in the total when comparing. That's what I was getting at when I mentioned using the XP the character's had gained as a guide to determine how powerful an item to give a character. I just don't think it is fair (or even makes any sense) that a character be charged XP for an item they "find". We agree, here. Lee