General Discussion Thread II

[Rystil Arden]

I'm not sure "NPCs with Magic or Magical powers" would be appropriate, since I don't think "NPC" should be a factor in Restricted. (Plus, with GM Fiat, most any NPC could use it anyway.)

Hmm...If the design of the power feat wasn't meant to stop enemies from using captured gear, why else would it cost the player points to restrict it? After all, it eliminates the ability to lend the device to allies. I'm assuming that the purpose of charging for Restricted must be to prevent enemies from using it, then.

They can?

*checks and re-checks books*

Hunh, so they can... though, by the RAW, so can worn armor (though it would require the target to be grappled and the defender would get a +4 bonus to the opposed check since it is secured).

Heh, I know I'm no expert in M&M, but in D&D, I am strong

I trust in the folks at the ATT (well, some of them), and prefer giving too much info than not enough.

Maybe--my worry is that they'll say things that, while fully correct, are unrelated to your question. I admit I haven't surfed that forum much, so I may be wrong in thinking it will be like posting things over here on ENWorld. Also, it's worth noting that circumstantial evidence can sway even the best of us into inconsistent rulings. I've seen a few mentions of even Steve Kenson (whose rules-fu is quite obviously phenomenal) seeming to contradict himself in forum rulings, and it's also led to some really weird rulings. For instance, someone with a leading question about Morph and Disguise got him to rule that Disguise ranks do nothing without spending lots of time using a Disguise kit (Huh? what if I just want to be a generic guard and so put on a guard uniform but don't even change my appearance, then use mastery of Disguise to act the part? Shouldn't the guy with 15 ranks get a bonus to that check?)

 

[Salix]

Salix, Raylis and I have voted on some of those.

That's why I posted the list that way. Consider it good practice. There is a pretty big back log of unapproved stuff. I think some of it isn't on the list yet.

 

[rgordona]

Devices etc:

I have just got around to reading Gun Monkeys Character sheet and that looks very wrong to me.

I think I would have tried doing it a different way, something like "must be successfully disarmed twice" which might be a one point feat or "immunity to disarm limited to once per adventure"

I belive the canonical way to do that sort of thing is to have a hard to lose device "Gun Belt" which contains many APs of different guns, if a gun is disarmed you can just pull another from the belt.

Of course then I went to read the rule book and the closest thing I could find is the utility belt example in equipment, where different pieces of equipment are APed off each other. Of course it does not really explain what happens if someone steals the brass knuckles or the cutting torch breaks. (But if you can AP equipment you should certainly be allowed to ap devices). I might ask at ATT what happens if a piece of arrayed equipment breaks.

[Edit] I have thought about this some more and am now less sure of myself. Perhaps having two device APs should make a character harder to disarm.

 

[Asmor]

Just a thought...

Everything in MM is based on the results, the descriptions are just fluff, essentially. You could make a character with a vulnerability to wiener schnitzel that's been soaked in irradiated water on the surface of mars for thirty years and then somehow managed to survive the fall from space into the atmosphere of the earth... And if you make it a common drawback, it's going to be pretty damn common for your character to encounter it. Similarly, you could make a character who's allergic to oxygen, but make it a rare drawback, and it wouldn't come up that often.

So if someone pays for a hard-to-lose device, it's hard to lose regardless. Ditto for an easy-to-lose device.

BTW, HoV, I got your email, but I've got a busy couple of days so I don't have time to look over him for a bit. Also, Velmont emailed me and apparently I double-dipped on drawbacks, counting the negative points twice, which I think I did (counted them in the powers' costs and also counted them in the final tally down below), so I do need to make some changes to him.

 

[Rystil Arden]

HoV--

Well, some interesting responses from ATT. A lot of them don't like the build (I thought that might be possible, which is another reason I thought you might want to take it down so people wouldn't give biased answers), but they've agreed that you are indeed allowed to have devices as alts now, though some say they wouldn't. The guy at the end who's new to the ruleset is a good example of someone who got off track. You should let him know that his thoughts on Continuous (Lasting) powers are incorrect, and point him to page 70 of the core book where it says "A Continuous Lasting power does not allow new saves against it at all; it lasts until the power's effect is countered or reversed in some way, even if you switch to an Alternate Power."

 

[Hand of Vecna]

Devices etc:

I have just got around to reading Gun Monkeys Character sheet and that looks very wrong to me.

I think I would have tried doing it a different way, something like "must be successfully disarmed twice" which might be a one point feat or "immunity to disarm limited to once per adventure"

I belive the canonical way to do that sort of thing is to have a hard to lose device "Gun Belt" which contains many APs of different guns, if a gun is disarmed you can just pull another from the belt.

I'm 99% certain that would be a Hard to Lose Device (Gun-Belt Array). You can take one gun, but since the array/power is actually Hard to Lose, disarming doesn't really do anything. Only by removing the whole belt/arsenal (which should be difficult to do) can he be truly disarmed.

Of course then I went to read the rule book and the closest thing I could find is the utility belt example in equipment, where different pieces of equipment are APed off each other. Of course it does not really explain what happens if someone steals the brass knuckles or the cutting torch breaks. (But if you can AP equipment you should certainly be allowed to ap devices). I might ask at ATT what happens if a piece of arrayed equipment breaks.

[Edit] I have thought about this some more and am now less sure of myself. Perhaps having two device APs should make a character harder to disarm.

Here is a quick search for "Equipment Utility Belt Array," which hopefully will be of help.
Do note, though, that Equipment doesn't differentiate between Hard to Lose and Easy to Lose (i.e., you just use Equipment Points to buy powers/bonuses), so rules for it may not fully apply to Devices.

Hmm...If the design of the power feat wasn't meant to stop enemies from using captured gear, why else would it cost the player points to restrict it? After all, it eliminates the ability to lend the device to allies. I'm assuming that the purpose of charging for Restricted must be to prevent enemies from using it, then.

Because "NPC" isn't enough of a restriction, IMO. If it's just "NPC," then you can pass it to any player and let them use it, or in this case any PC with Magic. "Having magical powers" should be enough of a Restriction in and of itself.
IMO, a Restriction has to limit the Device in some non-metagame fashion, soemthign that could be measured by the characters themselves, be it strength, intelligence, proficiency with some skill, sex, blood type/bloodline, or so forth. PC-ness and NPC-ness are very much Meta-Distinctions (no amount of testing will let your character know whether or not Bob the Builder is a PC or an NPC).

Heh, I know I'm no expert in M&M, but in D&D, I am strong

M&M is not D&D.
So in your D&D games you let folks disarm foes of their armor in one round once grappled (and succeed at a disarm check)?
If so, you' be saying Armor is not a Hard to Lose Device... and if that's the case, I wonder what you would consider to be a Hard to Lose Device.

And getting back to the original Ring thing, ULTIMATE POWER lists rings (and suits of armor) as the example of Hard to Lose Devices.

Maybe--my worry is that they'll say things that, while fully correct, are unrelated to your question. I admit I haven't surfed that forum much, so I may be wrong in thinking it will be like posting things over here on ENWorld. Also, it's worth noting that circumstantial evidence can sway even the best of us into inconsistent rulings. I've seen a few mentions of even Steve Kenson (whose rules-fu is quite obviously phenomenal) seeming to contradict himself in forum rulings, and it's also led to some really weird rulings. For instance, someone with a leading question about Morph and Disguise got him to rule that Disguise ranks do nothing without spending lots of time using a Disguise kit (Huh? what if I just want to be a generic guard and so put on a guard uniform but don't even change my appearance, then use mastery of Disguise to act the part? Shouldn't the guy with 15 ranks get a bonus to that check?)

Kenson's said his answers change based on his experiences. Which reinforces the fact he is, in truth, mortal

The Disguise thing actually makes perfect sense to me. Tools/a kit and time are needed for some skills, and Disguise is one of them. (And I believe Disguise is more than just "putting on someone else's clothes.") If you don't take the time to use it properly, all you get is our Morph bonus (which specifically gets around the time/kit thing).

HoV--

Well, some interesting responses from ATT. A lot of them don't like the build (I thought that might be possible, which is another reason I thought you might want to take it down so people wouldn't give biased answers), but they've agreed that you are indeed allowed to have devices as alts now, though some say they wouldn't. The guy at the end who's new to the ruleset is a good example of someone who got off track. You should let him know that his thoughts on Continuous (Lasting) powers are incorrect, and point him to page 70 of the core book where it says "A Continuous Lasting power does not allow new saves against it at all; it lasts until the power's effect is countered or reversed in some way, even if you switch to an Alternate Power."

Actually, some have disagreed on allowing it, since by the Core rules Devices are Permanent, and you cannot have Permanent things as an AP (though the Duration of Device got changed with ULTIMATE POWER). (At the very least, this does mean that the Immunities offered by the Ring will need to be switched to a Sustained Duration [no change in cost], since Immunity is still Permanent by default and so cannot be in an Array.) And some have also pointed out that the "wizard regalia" reasoning you claimed is best done either as Power Loss drawback or as a Device with Boost (which I'd sorta mentioned earlier), and questioning how you can lose a Device that is an AP (which has also been brought up here).

And, as Character Judge, I actually am interested in getting other people's view on the powerset as a whole, especially the experienced folks from the ATT. (Personally, I actually have no problem at all with having multiple powers in a single "slot," as long as it all makes thematic sense, of course)



(Apologies in advance if I sound angry or to be making personal attacks, such is not my intent. Lots going on IRL, and I prefer to have my RPGs be a place where I can escape and unwind for a brief time, not inappropriately vent.)

 

[Rystil Arden]

Because "NPC" isn't enough of a restriction, IMO. If it's just "NPC," then you can pass it to any player and let them use it, or in this case any PC with Magic. "Having magical powers" should be enough of a Restriction in and of itself.
IMO, a Restriction has to limit the Device in some non-metagame fashion, soemthign that could be measured by the characters themselves, be it strength, intelligence, proficiency with some skill, sex, blood type/bloodline, or so forth. PC-ness and NPC-ness are very much Meta-Distinctions (no amount of testing will let your character know whether or not Bob the Builder is a PC or an NPC).

Hmmm...I think you misunderstand me. Let me try to explain a different way (no worries about seeming angry or making personal attacks--I never thought you were. Similarly, please don't think I'm trying to patronise you with the following: I'm curious that I'm being misunderstood). M&M is an effect-based system, right? Letting other PCs borrow the Device is actually a benefit of having devices, yes? It makes them more versatile. So if other PCs can't use it, it actually makes the device weaker. Thus, if we ignore everything else, restricting the device so other PCs can't use it should either be a Drawback and give back points or (more likely I think) cost nothing. But then you have to factor in the bad guys grabbing the Device and using it against the party. Because of that, they charge you points for Restricted--Restricted prevents the bad guys from using your own power against you. So if I say I don't mind the bad guys using it against me, in the end, then, the only thing Restricted does is prevent allies from using the Device, thus making it weaker. Because of that, I think the net effect of the Restricted is not a benefit for the character in any way and thus shouldn't really cost points. Do you get what I'm saying? It might be worth considering it as a 2 point Restricted offset by a 2 point Drawback of "can be used by any enemy at GM's discretion". Honestly I could see a player asking for an extra point or two instead of a break even, since it is strictly weaker than just letting others use it, but I don't want an extra point because I actually want to limit it away from other players just to make the game more fun, since sharing with other PCs would be too gimmicky.

M&M is not D&D.
So in your D&D games you let folks disarm foes of their armor in one round once grappled (and succeed at a disarm check)?
If so, you' be saying Armor is not a Hard to Lose Device... and if that's the case, I wonder what you would consider to be a Hard to Lose Device.

And getting back to the original Ring thing, ULTIMATE POWER lists rings (and suits of armor) as the example of Hard to Lose Devices.

Granted. But M&M is also an effect-based system. An easy to lose device is easy to lose because the player says it is and pays for it, not because of its shape. Someone else might have a hard to lose ring that is harder to disarm than Sierra's, while Sierra's comes off more easily. Maybe though most heroes have hard to lose armour, one guy pays for an easy to lose armour and so it has a button on the front that removes it and contracts the armour into a little ball in the hand of the button presser (usually used by the hero to take it off quickly, but villains can activate it with a disarm check). The point is, the effect matters, not the flavour text. Here the effect is easy to disarm. The flavour text is ring.

Kenson's said his answers change based on his experiences. Which reinforces the fact he is, in truth, mortal

The Disguise thing actually makes perfect sense to me. Tools/a kit and time are needed for some skills, and Disguise is one of them. (And I believe Disguise is more than just "putting on someone else's clothes.") If you don't take the time to use it properly, all you get is our Morph bonus (which specifically gets around the time/kit thing).

Disguise is also the ability to pull off a Disguise, whether or not you have make-up. You didn't answer my example of why his ruling is extremely odd--what if the Disguise does not require any sort of make-up because you aren't pretending to be a specific person and your personal features are fairly plain, and the whole of the Disguise is donning a guard uniform and then being good at staying in character? (in other words, the disguise is just you in a guard uniform). Disguise is definitely the skill you use in that situation. Are you telling me that A guy with +30 to Disguise is identical to the guy with +0 and that putting on the makeup for ten minutes will change that? I'll bet that if someone phrased the question that way, they'd get a different answer.

And some have also pointed out that the "wizard regalia" reasoning you claimed is best done either as Power Loss drawback or as a Device with Boost (which I'd sorta mentioned earlier), and questioning how you can lose a Device that is an AP (which has also been brought up here).

Of course, someone else said that it's definitely allowable and pointed out their character that has exactly that build...plus the Boost, as often the case with Boost, seems much more abusive to me than just doing it my way in a "Hey, let's make everyone on our team into master Wizards by Boosting them all with Total Fade" kind of way. Despite what some people on ATT think (and I'm glad to see you don't seem to agree with them on this), I just want the game to be fun for everyone. That's why most of her stuff is utility powers to let everyone else shine--Sierra can help figure out where to go and then get you there, plus befuddle some minions and maybe protect the group if she's lucky, but the others have to be around to do the real hero stuff (real villains don't fail DC 20 Will saves often ).

 

[Hand of Vecna]

Granted. But M&M is also an effect-based system. An easy to lose device is easy to lose because the player says it is and pays for it, not because of its shape. Someone else might have a hard to lose ring that is harder to disarm than Sierra's, while Sierra's comes off more easily. Maybe though most heroes have hard to lose armour, one guy pays for an easy to lose armour and so it has a button on the front that removes it and contracts the armour into a little ball in the hand of the button presser (usually used by the hero to take it off quickly, but villains can activate it with a disarm check). The point is, the effect matters, not the flavour text. Here the effect is easy to disarm. The flavour text is ring.

You're absolutely, 100% right on that. Sorry.

So, Sierra's few-sizes-too-big-for-her Ring is an Easy to Lose Device. I'm cool with that aspect of it. (Still not cool with it being an AP of her inherent powers, though.)

Disguise is also the ability to pull off a Disguise, whether or not you have make-up. You didn't answer my example of why his ruling is extremely odd--what if the Disguise does not require any sort of make-up because you aren't pretending to be a specific person and your personal features are fairly plain, and the whole of the Disguise is donning a guard uniform and then being good at staying in character? (in other words, the disguise is just you in a guard uniform). Disguise is definitely the skill you use in that situation.

I don't find it an odd ruling, though (and, yes, I do see where Disguise =/= makeup, but it does require tools of some sort). Some skills take time to properly use, and Disguise is one of them. For the guard example, unless you've got lots of experience wearing that guard's particular style of uniform, you're going to need to take time to make sure all the buckles and snaps and zippers and whatnot are in the right position, if you want it to look authentic and not like you just threw it on.

Also, staying in character would be more of a Bluff or Perform (acting) thing, not Disguise (as explained under the Disguise skill description).

Are you telling me that A guy with +30 to Disguise is identical to the guy with +0 and that putting on the makeup for ten minutes will change that? I'll bet that if someone phrased the question that way, they'd get a different answer.

I'd wager they'd not. I'd wager that they'd say, as I have been, that if part of that +30 comes from ranks in the Disguise skill, he'll need to take ten minutes to use them to get that full bonus.
(I don't see how you get I'm saying +30 = +0.)


(I'll have to wait 'till later to get to the other parts, those two are just what immediately jumped to my mind.)

 

[Rystil Arden]

I don't find it an odd ruling, though (and, yes, I do see where Disguise =/= makeup, but it does require tools of some sort). Some skills take time to properly use, and Disguise is one of them. For the guard example, unless you've got lots of experience wearing that guard's particular style of uniform, you're going to need to take time to make sure all the buckles and snaps and zippers and whatnot are in the right position, if you want it to look authentic and not like you just threw it on.

Also, staying in character would be more of a Bluff or Perform (acting) thing, not Disguise (as explained under the Disguise skill description).


I'd wager they'd not. I'd wager that they'd say, as I have been, that if part of that +30 comes from ranks in the Disguise skill, he'll need to take ten minutes to use them to get that full bonus.
(I don't see how you get I'm saying +30 = +0.)


(I'll have to wait 'till later to get to the other parts, those two are just what immediately jumped to my mind.)

Ironically, this little side discussion is actually apropos of nothing, except for Someone's poor character in Daylight Robbery, but I like discussions

I'm saying that the +30 bonus is all from Disguise. Disguise is a Charisma-based skill. It thus absolutely must come from the innate charismatic ability to pull off the impersonation, since if it all had to do with meticulous eye for detail, in would be Int-based. Also, 10 minutes is really pushing it for putting on a uniform right. And what if it was a uniform that the person actually did know how to wear?

Here's a good example--let's say that one of our young Japanese supers wanted to pretend to be a Japanese schoolgirl using Disguise. She knows how to wear a Japanese schoolgirl uniform--she's worn it before all the time, although she isn't technically a schoolgirl right now. She has very high disguise, 15 ranks and 40 Charisma for a +30 to Disguise. Are you going to tell her that she has the same chance of disguising as a Japanese schoolgirl as Joan Schome with +0 Disguise (10 Charisma, and no ranks) unless she has 10 minutes to do something unspecified?

 

[rgordona]

I belive the canonical way to do that sort of thing is to have a hard to lose device "Gun Belt" which contains many APs of different guns, if a gun is disarmed you can just pull another from the belt.

I'm 99% certain that would be a Hard to Lose Device (Gun-Belt Array). You can take one gun, but since the array/power is actually Hard to Lose, disarming doesn't really do anything. Only by removing the whole belt/arsenal (which should be difficult to do) can he be truly disarmed.

See my post :>

Here is a quick search for "Equipment Utility Belt Array," which hopefully will be of help.
Do note, though, that Equipment doesn't differentiate between Hard to Lose and Easy to Lose (i.e., you just use Equipment Points to buy powers/bonuses), so rules for it may not fully apply to Devices.

Broken link :< but the fact you posted one suggests there is stuff to find so i will go looking.

(My computer room has just be taken apart for decorating so I can only post from work which means no books. For now. Taking out a brightly coloured A4 hard back is just a little to obvious.)