Better Robots through SCIENCE!!! (and immunities)

[calonnau]

Murkglow I like the idea of the 20-point immunity and with your permission I'm definitely going to pilfer it for a house-rule.

I did think about adding a -1 quirk to the sort of life support that say the battlesuit type characters have to say that it only protects you from exposure to it e.g. it would protect you from a knockout gas grenade but not from a perception ranged affliction where the descriptor was 'someone magically turns the air *inside* your battlesuit into knockout gas'. I'd be interested to hear whether people with more experience with the system thought that this was workable/sensible.

[Scrollreader]

I don't think the quirk is necessary, since device users are already getting a discount.

[saint_matthew]

I suspect that the best way to handle this is that the continuing effects get ignored by the Immunity, but the extant infection/damage/etc stays.

I would agree... I mean immunity to bullets is really helpful, but it would have been more herlpful to have it before you got plugged with 100 rounds of cop killers. Suddenly becoming immune isn't going to heal that damage, its already been done.

Of course this would come down to descriptor, but generally speaking i would agree with your surmation.

[Murkglow]

Murkglow I like the idea of the 20-point immunity and with your permission I'm definitely going to pilfer it for a house-rule.

Ummm sure, you're welcome to it (though to be honest I didn't really do much). As for the other question, I'd agree with Scrollreader that the removeable discount probably already covers device based quirks like that (that you can fill the inside of the suit/their lungs/bloodstream with poison and they wouldn't be immune because it's not an innate power of theirs, it's part of the suit/device which you bypassed).

[calonnau]

Ah, maybe that's the issue. The house-rule that I'm planning on running with is that removable is a power loss complication and easily removable gives a -1 for every 5 points (I didn't think I'd be taking the PC's devices away often enough for it to be anything other than a complication).

[Scrollreader]

The house-rule that I'm planning on running with is that removable is a power loss complication and easily removable gives a -1 for every 5 points

I am increasingly in favor of this myself. I just don't see the justification for Iron Man to get the price break, when Captain Marvel doesn't.

I'm less certain about easily removable devices. And, just like last edition, there is the problem of devices that fall in the middle, like Bane's Venom dispenser. At the moment, I'm leaning toward making them like complications in reverse, where someone can spend a hero point (or fiat) to be able to smash or disarm them. How big a value would you give that, quirk-wise, compared to a battlesuit?

[FuzzyBoots]

I'm less certain about easily removable devices. And, just like last edition, there is the problem of devices that fall in the middle, like Bane's Venom dispenser. At the moment, I'm leaning toward making them like complications in reverse, where someone can spend a hero point (or fiat) to be able to smash or disarm them. How big a value would you give that, quirk-wise, compared to a battlesuit?

To me, it seems like a bit too powerful, especially since one of the issues at hand is putting too many points in the Device, thus making it debilitation in one hit. Disarming I think works OK (although I agree that it's only worth a -1 Flaw). Complication or minor Power Loss works for the hard-to-lose.

[Murkglow]

I am increasingly in favor of this myself. I just don't see the justification for Iron Man to get the price break, when Captain Marvel doesn't.

It depends on the version of Ironman you're talking about. Billy Batson always has Marvel as an option (even if he doesn't want to use it due to Secret Identity) but Ironman might not have his suit. Either because it's destroyed/stolen (Marvel can't really be destroyed/stolen like that) or he just doesn't have it on/near him (especially if the Ironman in question is the kind that needs a platform with robot arms to put his suit on him and bolt it and all that). That's why he gets the discount and Marvel doesn't.

Now if we're talking about an Ironman who's suit is in a suitcase he always has with him and can just put on instantly or under his skin or flies to him from anywhere in the world then that could be a power loss complication and not a removable device (depending on the setting/game). Of course if you never take the suit away from him then you shouldn't allow the Removable flaw in the first place.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

The problem is the best information we have to go on on how to tell when something is enough of a -1pp/rank Flaw is one of the designers once stating something like "it must affect use of the power 50% of the time". Does Ironman happen to be without his suit 50% of the time? If no then by that metric it's not worth -1pp/rank.

[FuzzyBoots]

The problem is the best information we have to go on on how to tell when something is enough of a -1pp/rank Flaw is one of the designers once stating something like "it must affect use of the power 50% of the time". Does Ironman happen to be without his suit 50% of the time? If no then by that metric it's not worth -1pp/rank.

Personally, I think that part of the problem was that they didn't keep the standard D&D situation where all worn/carried objects had to make saving throws the same as the rest of you. I know some of it's reduction of bookkeeping, but doesn't it make sense that every time Iron Man gets walloped across the landscape, his armor would have to make a Toughness check as well? Especially given the rules that allow for damage to instead reduce capability rather than adding an Injured status to the Device, this would justify the cost break in my mind. While we're at it, we'd have to cap the Toughness score. I think capping it at PL would probably work. Defense shifted characters will see an "advantage" in that their Devices would have an average Defense/Toughness higher than PL, but given all of the other perils of trying to be Defense shifted, I don't see a problem with that.

[Murkglow]

The problem is the best information we have to go on on how to tell when something is enough of a -1pp/rank Flaw is one of the designers once stating something like "it must affect use of the power 50% of the time". Does Ironman happen to be without his suit 50% of the time? If no then by that metric it's not worth -1pp/rank.

Of course Removeable isn't a -1 per rank flaw, it's -1 per 5 points flaw (which might be better or worse depending on the power, still most powers are 1 or 2 point per rank which means -1 per 5 is worse then a -1 per rank). Anyway my metric is the 1 in 5. If your Ironman isn't without his suit (for whatever reason, be it stolen, destroyed, sabatoged, just not on hand, whatever) at least once every 5 fights then it's not worth the flaw.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Plus there would finally be a reason for the Indestructible feat.

Though using those rules it would probably be overpowered.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Of course Removeable isn't a -1 per rank flaw, it's -1 per 5 points flaw (which might be better or worse depending on the power, still most powers are 1 or 2 point per rank which means -1 per 5 is worse then a -1 per rank).

That's because in 2e that was equivalent to a Device which was built as a power with 5 pp/rank having a -1 pp/rank flaw applied to it. Removable is the same thing except sometimes it doesn't give you a break for those final 1-4 points.

[Murkglow]

That's because in 2e that was equivalent to a Device which was built as a power with 5 pp/rank having a -1 pp/rank flaw applied to it. Removable is the same thing except sometimes it doesn't give you a break for those final 1-4 points.

Indeed, I was simply pointing out that the "50% rule" isn't an issue here (more like a 20% rule in this case).

[FuzzyBoots]

Plus there would finally be a reason for the Indestructible feat.

Though using those rules it would probably be overpowered.

^_^ Easier would be to let the Indestructible feat give you a fixed bonus, say +10, over PL. At PL+10, versus standard PL-level hits, there will be no damage 80% of the time and it's practically impossible for your device to be shattered in one blow. Now someone doing a Power Attack 5 who also scores a crit, that raises the chance of some damage to 70% of the time and a 20% chance of your device being disabled with that hit. So in the case of The Hulk swinging as hard as he can and landing a lucky hit on Captain America, there's about a 1-in-5 chance of the shield getting dented beyond use, 1-in-100 including the Critical Hit chance.