Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Equipment limitations Power Attack?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Equipment limitations Power Attack?

    Originally posted by Tommiec21 View Post
    Thats a risk they are willing to take, If you buy it to be removable then The GM has every right to Take advantage of that. I have a Bounty hunter who has a SERIOUS grudge against one of the Players and when he shows up he will be taking advantage of their Battle suits Weakness...It can be dismantled, Since they wanted to build it as each piece of the suit is essentially a Plug and play piece then it can come off if they work it that way. And I already know how they will react but if its over the top they will be told it's the risk you run for buying it this way.
    Here's the problem: not every battlesuit has such a Weakness. That's a Complication the player has to adopt. Per the RAW, an 80-point Battlesuit would have a Toughness 16. Good luck getting through that. The only thing the player has done is make them open to the possibility of being affected by the technological descriptor, but they get their full defenses as per any other effect.

    The 80 battlesuit is starting with an additional 16 points over every other character in the game for effects they fully get to use without restriction as per RAW. There is no set schedule for how and when they lose Features, access to various effects, etc. No thresholds for when array entries go off line, etc. Not even suggestions.

    I've played in many games where GM's never did anything additional to a battlesuit PC beyond accounting for basic damage conditions. Only once, did I ever player in a game where I had a scenario in which my Device was taken from me--and it was part of a solo interlude and not part of the overarching plot--in which I full access to all my effects at all times.
    Penny's Build Party - Playable builds - M&M 2.5 featuring Damage Roll combat

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Equipment limitations Power Attack?

      Originally posted by badpenny View Post
      Here's the problem: not every battlesuit has such a Weakness. That's a Complication the player has to adopt. Per the RAW, an 80-point Battlesuit would have a Toughness 16. Good luck getting through that. The only thing the player has done is make them open to the possibility of being affected by the technological descriptor, but they get their full defenses as per any other effect.

      The 80 battlesuit is starting with an additional 16 points over every other character in the game for effects they fully get to use without restriction as per RAW. There is no set schedule for how and when they lose Features, access to various effects, etc. No thresholds for when array entries go off line, etc. Not even suggestions.

      I've played in many games where GM's never did anything additional to a battlesuit PC beyond accounting for basic damage conditions. Only once, did I ever player in a game where I had a scenario in which my Device was taken from me--and it was part of a solo interlude and not part of the overarching plot--in which I full access to all my effects at all times.
      Then thats something that has to be adopted, My player never told me that was a complication, Its just the way she build it. And I will be taking advantage of it. I don't need to hurt the suit I just need to Paralyze them then Remove them from the suit. When I make Player arcs I am sure to bring up every issue they can handle because it's about the struggle (IMO anyway)

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Equipment limitations Power Attack?

        You certainly can't assume that every robot is Vulnerable to electronic attacks. While that might be a staple of the source material, nothing's a given when it comes to character creation. This is my entire point about the Removable Flaw. Some players get away with a huge point bonus because the rules are poorly written about how the Removable Flaw should be adjudicated.

        The giant YMMV nature when it comes to Removable is annoying to me. All of these things were discussed coming up on ten years ago now and still there's no representation in 3e. IMO, it's time for 4e where these things finally get addressed.
        Penny's Build Party - Playable builds - M&M 2.5 featuring Damage Roll combat

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Equipment limitations Power Attack?

          Originally posted by Tommiec21 View Post
          I see what you mean yes, But to always just throw any issue off on complications instead of Built in Limitations or Flaws is just making your player Cut more and more off of their build concept.
          Or, just change the number of points in the game. The limitations of the "standard" points scale are well-acknowledged. Just change it. Notice how almost none of the most famous comic book characters come in under those points.

          Originally posted by Tommiec21 View Post
          I've seen on the forum where Water Manipulation/Control was always suggested to be a complication and not a Limitation because "Water is everywhere" which isn't really a good excuse because You can be put in bad situations with no water without the use of a Hero Point or Plot or for that matter Flight with the flaws that are offered has been resented to be complications. I just firmly believe that not EVERYTHING thats detrimental has to be a complication because at that point you'll be handing out Hero points like candy.
          This is obviously true. But, there is a fairly easy way to think this through. Treating it as an all or nothing claim about Complications vs. Flaws is not what anyone to my knowledge is suggesting.

          Losing a battlesuit is essentially a Power Loss complication. The effects of Tony being without his powered armor or Hal being without his ring -- both devices by RAW -- is very similar to Superman being without yellow sunlight or Hal's ring running out of a charge.

          The other cases of limited function differently. They aren't reliant on essentially a story conceit -- i.e., the plot is pretty much geared towards it -- to happen. Being away from water happens a lot. Daylight or shadows aren't always present and can be "taken away" by opponents. Wings represent a vulnerability that nearly any enemy can attempt to exploit. Stuff like that.

          Originally posted by Tommiec21 View Post
          I feel like Complications should start off at being Very personal Character flaws or issues and as the campaign progresses you gain more and More complications based on your actions. Batman and Superman only have like 3-4 complications on their sheet, but realistically as their careers unfolded they gained Dozens maybe hundreds of complications.
          You're free to run things however you like, but this is a very idiosyncratic take on the Complications mechanic. Wolverine's bones being metal is a complication after all.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Equipment limitations Power Attack?

            Originally posted by Unbeliever View Post
            Or, just change the number of points in the game. The limitations of the "standard" points scale are well-acknowledged. Just change it. Notice how almost none of the most famous comic book characters come in under those points.


            This is obviously true. But, there is a fairly easy way to think this through. Treating it as an all or nothing claim about Complications vs. Flaws is not what anyone to my knowledge is suggesting.

            Losing a battlesuit is essentially a Power Loss complication. The effects of Tony being without his powered armor or Hal being without his ring -- both devices by RAW -- is very similar to Superman being without yellow sunlight or Hal's ring running out of a charge.

            The other cases of limited function differently. They aren't reliant on essentially a story conceit -- i.e., the plot is pretty much geared towards it -- to happen. Being away from water happens a lot. Daylight or shadows aren't always present and can be "taken away" by opponents. Wings represent a vulnerability that nearly any enemy can attempt to exploit. Stuff like that.


            You're free to run things however you like, but this is a very idiosyncratic take on the Complications mechanic. Wolverine's bones being metal is a complication after all.
            But to write every minor issue off as a Complication also disallows the gm to take advantage of a particular combat or Skill based deficiency that a player has placed upon themselves. Oh Your attack is limited to 5 uses? sure. after a battle is drawn out enough to make them expend those 5 uses the player has to get creative.

            The Player wants to fly on a Disk like platform? sure, Be careful for the Villain who will try to snatch you off with a Lasso or rope. leaving you helpless in the sky and most likely taking fall damage because you can't keep yourself afloat.

            All your attacks make you Distracted? Sure, the Enemy takes notice of this and Hits you with a few heavy doses of some Heavy Toxin, Gas, or Something for a full +5 Power attack, forcing you to pray you can get over it.

            Oh Your in a removable power suit with no written weakness? sure, I'm gonna hit you with a Major EMP Bomb when you face a villain smart enough to do so. Oh? You say your suit isn't electronic in nature? since when? oh, You though You told me? but it's not on your sheet? you should fix that, Until then your affected.

            Oh You have dual Pistol and You bought them using EP? cool. You said you used Multi attack cause you have that feature attached to all Your Ballistic weapons? cool, Well You now just ran out of ammo, You just wasted a whole Clip, It's gonna take a Move action to reload. Ah Man You wanna spend a hero point to Push your guns to the limits? Sure, They explode afterwards because of the strain they have on them, if you want more guns your gonna have to go get some more in your down time, but right now, You facing off against Mr.BigBad, Hope you got another idea in mind.


            Idk, I just don't like the idea of a Powersuit that is shown in just about every Book as being a Device should suddenly be shifted to being powers that Realistically cannot be stolen or taken away from me since it a non removable powerset, and can only be taken from me at a GM's whim. I feel better if it feels more organic, My suit was heavily damaged in the previous battle so I have to remove it and work on it until I can fix it (Makes Tech Roll: 20+) Okay so It's gonna take me a few days worth of work sure. So then we skip ahead to the last day of me working on it, and some crisis happens, As a Hero I cannot just let this pass, I'm gonna have to figure it out as I go, Maybe I can take just the blasters off my Suit and hopefully thats all I need. the team can make up for my shortcomings.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Equipment limitations Power Attack?

              Originally posted by Tommiec21 View Post
              But to write every minor issue off as a Complication also disallows the gm to take advantage of a particular combat or Skill based deficiency that a player has placed upon themselves. Oh Your attack is limited to 5 uses? sure. after a battle is drawn out enough to make them expend those 5 uses the player has to get creative.
              I wrote 3 paragraphs about how not all flaws should be rolled into complications, explaining which ones should and shoudn't be. You kind of just ignored all that. I'm wrong all the time, but for me to be wrong I need to at least hear a response to the things I said. You've written 2 posts that have characterized a fairly reasonable position as a straw man hyperbolic one.

              Also, your examples are problematic. Nobody said anything about getting rid of Platform, Distracted, and so on. As noted again in the above paragraph. Your examples also ignore descriptors, aka, a key, bedrock idea of the M&M game. The EMP absolutely shouldn't affect the Jon Stewart's ring, nor should it affect the Guyver's organic battlesuit. But, it would, of course, affect Tony Stark and Rhodey, and Steel. An M&M character without reasonably well-defined descriptors isn't a complete character. It's a draft.

              Originally posted by Tommiec21 View Post
              Idk, I just don't like the idea of a Powersuit that is shown in just about every Book as being a Device should suddenly be shifted to being powers that Realistically cannot be stolen or taken away from me since it a non removable powerset, and can only be taken from me at a GM's whim. I feel better if it feels more organic, My suit was heavily damaged in the previous battle so I have to remove it and work on it until I can fix it (Makes Tech Roll: 20+) Okay so It's gonna take me a few days worth of work sure. So then we skip ahead to the last day of me working on it, and some crisis happens, As a Hero I cannot just let this pass, I'm gonna have to figure it out as I go, Maybe I can take just the blasters off my Suit and hopefully thats all I need. the team can make up for my shortcomings.
              A lot of this paragraph is completely not in the rules. There's no good set time for how long it takes to repair Devices, it's explicitly left as a GM call and story conceit. Furthermore, in a traditional Battlesuit build (i.e., it's all one device) there's no mechanic for taking parts of it off and using some of the powers.

              Which, and I want to be clear here, is not to say it's not impossibly cool and exactly the sort of thing that I think a player of a battlesuit type character wants to happen. At least I hope so b/c I've done it to my players before.

              But, you seem to be wanting it both ways. You want some real defined mechanics, that are set across all sorts of Devices it seems (remember Green Lantern rings are devices, Mjolnir is a device*, Stormbringer is a device, the Eye of Agamotto is a device -- they all have the Removable flaw), but then you also want to depart from them for the purposes of storytelling.

              Both in practice and conceptually (and obviously run things the way you want in your games, I take these conversations to be discussions and working out how the best way to go about doing that is) making Devices a complication makes the most sense to me. The core of the argument is what makes a Device any different from Superman's issues with red sunlight or Billy Batson being unable to speak. Both have very similar effects (to wit, making powers unavailable), but the game treats them very differently.

              *Probably? I can't remember if Thor can teleport it back to his/her hand nowadays.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Equipment limitations Power Attack?

                None of this is going to work if in the discussion there's a conflation between what happens in the source material and in an RPG.

                When you're playing in the SHRPG genre, you have to address the limitations as they actually are--not how you want them. Which means for everyone to be reasonably happy, you have to have ground rules--a basis from which everyone can operate. The problem with the Removable Flaw is that it's not like any other Flaw.

                The player can self-administer all other Flaws, but for Removable. The player doesn't disarm him/herself. It happens when the GM has an NPC attempt it. The player doesn't decide that they no longer have access to slot A of their array. And since the RAW doesn't call for it, and if the GM doesn't call for it, then the player gets the discount and none of the FLAW.

                You lose your gear when the plot demands it. Since Easily Removable can be addressed in combat, it's worth a -1 Flaw. Removable should be a Complication because it happens when the GM decides it's going to happen. And that really is not like any other Flaw.
                Penny's Build Party - Playable builds - M&M 2.5 featuring Damage Roll combat

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Equipment limitations Power Attack?

                  Originally posted by Unbeliever View Post
                  I wrote 3 paragraphs about how not all flaws should be rolled into complications, explaining which ones should and shoudn't be. You kind of just ignored all that. I'm wrong all the time, but for me to be wrong I need to at least hear a response to the things I said. You've written 2 posts that have characterized a fairly reasonable position as a straw man hyperbolic one.

                  Also, your examples are problematic. Nobody said anything about getting rid of Platform, Distracted, and so on. As noted again in the above paragraph. Your examples also ignore descriptors, aka, a key, bedrock idea of the M&M game. The EMP absolutely shouldn't affect the Jon Stewart's ring, nor should it affect the Guyver's organic battlesuit. But, it would, of course, affect Tony Stark and Rhodey, and Steel. An M&M character without reasonably well-defined descriptors isn't a complete character. It's a draft.
                  I apologize, for that, maybe I just felt realllllllly strongly about the topic and I don't mean to pick and choose arguments.

                  First and foremost, Regarding the comic book characters who don't fall under the PP limitations of their levels, isn't tat because they themselves are drastically more experienced? or exponentially more so? The way they built batman all of his equipment can be taken destroyed and don't really count as a complication to him and his Belt works just as well if not better than a Power suit, and in theory it should cost MORE than a Power suit. But I think there are a few other examples that isn't Batman Like Steel who is DC's primer Power suit user. Changing the scale of the Current point system i think would end up being a complicated deal in my opinion, But thats just me I Guess.

                  Originally posted by Unbeliever View Post
                  A lot of this paragraph is completely not in the rules. There's no good set time for how long it takes to repair Devices, it's explicitly left as a GM call and story conceit. Furthermore, in a traditional Battlesuit build (i.e., it's all one device) there's no mechanic for taking parts of it off and using some of the powers.

                  Which, and I want to be clear here, is not to say it's not impossibly cool and exactly the sort of thing that I think a player of a battlesuit type character wants to happen. At least I hope so b/c I've done it to my players before.

                  But, you seem to be wanting it both ways. You want some real defined mechanics, that are set across all sorts of Devices it seems (remember Green Lantern rings are devices, Mjolnir is a device*, Stormbringer is a device, the Eye of Agamotto is a device -- they all have the Removable flaw), but then you also want to depart from them for the purposes of storytelling.

                  Both in practice and conceptually (and obviously run things the way you want in your games, I take these conversations to be discussions and working out how the best way to go about doing that is) making Devices a complication makes the most sense to me. The core of the argument is what makes a Device any different from Superman's issues with red sunlight or Billy Batson being unable to speak. Both have very similar effects (to wit, making powers unavailable), but the game treats them very differently.

                  *Probably? I can't remember if Thor can teleport it back to his/her hand nowadays.
                  Dealing with the power loss complications and countering players Abilities, I've always seen them as both Mechanical and Story based elements that go hand in hand with one another, Maybe it's the writer in me, maybe it's the game designer in me, but I always look at something dealing with the players past, history, complication, or powerset, and build some form of new unique interacting power or character that would pose a direct challenge to them. It's not something that alot of people do maybe, but it's just the way i work, I might be twisting the topic by going on like this. But...Yeah.


                  My point is, Let them Have Equipment! Let them maneuver from it! Sometimes it's the only way to build their concept while not going overboard trying to build their starter character. Maybe let them shift their points around later to buy "Permanent" Guns as a Device thats hard to remove.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Equipment limitations Power Attack?

                    Originally posted by Tommiec21 View Post
                    I apologize, for that, maybe I just felt realllllllly strongly about the topic and I don't mean to pick and choose arguments.
                    Thanks, and the passion is great and cool and fun, especially on these boards. And, tone is nigh impossible to read on internet forums (viz., I worry that my first sentence comes off condescending, which absolutely isn't my intention ...).

                    Originally posted by Tommiec21 View Post
                    First and foremost, Regarding the comic book characters who don't fall under the PP limitations of their levels, isn't tat because they themselves are drastically more experienced? or exponentially more so? The way they built batman all of his equipment can be taken destroyed and don't really count as a complication to him and his Belt works just as well if not better than a Power suit, and in theory it should cost MORE than a Power suit. But I think there are a few other examples that isn't Batman Like Steel who is DC's primer Power suit user. Changing the scale of the Current point system i think would end up being a complicated deal in my opinion, But thats just me I Guess.
                    Tangent: This is tangential, and totally opinionated. I think a superhero game where I can't play Batman or whatever my favorite example du jour is, with a couple of caveats, out of the blocks is a frustrating one. Like I said, a couple of caveats. The first is power level, which is a campaign decision. I don't get to play the vastly powerful Kal-El in the PL 6 street game, obviously. It doesn't fit in a similar fashion that J'onn J'onnz doesn't fit in an X-Men inspired campaign. The second is allowances for troupe play. Solo heroes, like Batman, tend to be great at a ton of things, wreaking havoc on the small bit of niche protection that should exist.

                    But, with a bit of flex for caveats like that, I think it should be possible to build reasonable analogues of your favorite heroes with whatever the guideline points, levels, etc. the game gives you are. I don't think M&M does this well in 3E, and it's one of the game's failings in my estimation. I feel the same way in a Star Wars game: if I can't play a version of Han Solo when we start, I'm pretty annoyed.

                    There is a particular kind of story, one kind of baked into games like D&D, where you start at a low level and work your way up. A Hero's Journey type of game, where you're Bilbo or Merry or Pippin and start off as essentially some random person, a diamond in the rough, and then develop into a great Wizard, Warrior, Rogue, Sage, etc. That's a fine type of game, and a fine arc. But, I don't think it should be the only or the baseline one. That might go double for a game like M&M, given the genres that inspire it, but it's also true with D&D. When we meet most of the characters in fantasy media they are all usually quite capable.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Equipment limitations Power Attack?

                      Originally posted by Unbeliever View Post
                      Thanks, and the passion is great and cool and fun, especially on these boards. And, tone is nigh impossible to read on internet forums (viz., I worry that my first sentence comes off condescending, which absolutely isn't my intention ...).


                      Tangent: This is tangential, and totally opinionated. I think a superhero game where I can't play Batman or whatever my favorite example du jour is, with a couple of caveats, out of the blocks is a frustrating one. Like I said, a couple of caveats. The first is power level, which is a campaign decision. I don't get to play the vastly powerful Kal-El in the PL 6 street game, obviously. It doesn't fit in a similar fashion that J'onn J'onnz doesn't fit in an X-Men inspired campaign. The second is allowances for troupe play. Solo heroes, like Batman, tend to be great at a ton of things, wreaking havoc on the small bit of niche protection that should exist.

                      But, with a bit of flex for caveats like that, I think it should be possible to build reasonable analogues of your favorite heroes with whatever the guideline points, levels, etc. the game gives you are. I don't think M&M does this well in 3E, and it's one of the game's failings in my estimation. I feel the same way in a Star Wars game: if I can't play a version of Han Solo when we start, I'm pretty annoyed.

                      There is a particular kind of story, one kind of baked into games like D&D, where you start at a low level and work your way up. A Hero's Journey type of game, where you're Bilbo or Merry or Pippin and start off as essentially some random person, a diamond in the rough, and then develop into a great Wizard, Warrior, Rogue, Sage, etc. That's a fine type of game, and a fine arc. But, I don't think it should be the only or the baseline one. That might go double for a game like M&M, given the genres that inspire it, but it's also true with D&D. When we meet most of the characters in fantasy media they are all usually quite capable.
                      I mean i understand what you mean, With 150pp I've built both inexperienced and Wholly experienced characters who fulfill the rolls I give them. With PL10 And with the Deluxe book you could Literally build Batman or Superman with no issue at all and they would end up being slightly less so but they can specialize in what they do. I usually say that my heroes are a Year or so Experienced but not so much so that they arelesser than what I describe them.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Equipment limitations Power Attack?

                        Originally posted by Unbeliever View Post
                        Both in practice and conceptually (and obviously run things the way you want in your games, I take these conversations to be discussions and working out how the best way to go about doing that is) making Devices a complication makes the most sense to me. The core of the argument is what makes a Device any different from Superman's issues with red sunlight or Billy Batson being unable to speak. Both have very similar effects (to wit, making powers unavailable), but the game treats them very differently.
                        I'm not sold on the argument that a battlesuit being removed is anything like Superman and kryptonite, or other power loss complications. Battlesuits can be destroyed by Transform, Smash attacks, Weaken Toughness, being defeated and having it taken from them, etc. There are well-established mechanics for all of these and they're not dependent on player or GM to enforce. Flaws depending on the GM to want them to be relevant aren't new (see Uncontrolled) in any case. I will say that 3e added the line that Removable powers "can't be taken away during action time", which I felt was a step backwards, and encourage GMs to ignore, so that they can use Teleport Attack to remove them.

                        I do like the idea of increasing the default pp/PL, though. At least you acknowledge that the reason battlesuits are granted Removable is to help pay for their concept tax, and if you make Removable a complication, then something must be done about the unfair costs they must pay, so kudos for being fair and reasonable. Most other people who argue that Removable should be a complication don't seem to see the problems this would cause -- probably because they've never actually played a battlesuit without the Removable discount before.
                        Last edited by Ysariel; 06-20-2016, 05:23 AM.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X