Limitations: gaining in the course of a campaign

[Stagliano]

My wife is playing a sorceress (Kali) in our Fantasy Hero campaign. Kali has an enchanted staff (OAF) which must be tapped on the ground (Gestures) for a spell to work. When we built the spell, she was always either on foot or on horseback, from both of which she could reach the staff to the ground to activate the spell. Therefore, we didn't take a Limitation "must be able to reach the staff to the ground (-½)." However, in the course of the campaign, she recently acquired a magic necklace that enables her to fly. (We know, and play, that Complications gained during play are not worth any points, but Limitations are a different breed.) Our GM (@nlubofsky2) is on the fence as whether or not to give her the Limitation now (it would mean gaining back 3XP). He's agreed to post this query here on the forums for your feedback. What say you?

Edited June 11 by Stagliano
added GM's handle

[Sketchpad]

If the Gestures is defined as "has to tap the staff on the ground," there's no need for another Limitation, as she already has it. 

[Grailknight]

This is more a case of powers not synching perfectly than a Limitation. She didn't lose any ability; she just can't optimize the newly acquired Flight. 

 

As a GM, I'd lean toward having her buy off the Gestures (especially if her spells are bought in a Multipower or VPP) or perhaps trade the item to another range-based PC.

[LoneWolf]

From the sound of it I would not consider must be able to reach the ground a valid limitation to begin with.   I could see an attack spell that requires both the target and the caster to be touching the ground as being a valid limitation. Even if this is counted as a limitation there is no reason she cannot simply fly down to be within reach of the ground. 

 

The actions that a character controls are usually not a limitation.  If the character has desolidification do you allow them to take not while desolid on all their attack spells?  
 

[Gauntlet]

17 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

From the sound of it I would not consider must be able to reach the ground a valid limitation to begin with.   I could see an attack spell that requires both the target and the caster to be touching the ground as being a valid limitation. Even if this is counted as a limitation there is no reason she cannot simply fly down to be within reach of the ground. 

 

The actions that a character controls are usually not a limitation.  If the character has desolidification do you allow them to take not while desolid on all their attack spells?  
 

 

I'm not so sure. While I definitely agree with you concerning taking not while desolid for attack spells, I could definitely see a limitation to an attack that cannot be done when not on the ground as there can be a number of reasons why a flying character would not be able to go back to the ground. One big one could be that he/she is flying over a bunch of HTH Combat masters, another could be that the ground could be causing problems with people there (ranging from being on fire to being very slippery. I could definitely see a 1/4 limitation being allowed.

[Stagliano]

Here is the current build of the Spell:

 

Spell of the Shock Wave:  (Total: 201 Active Cost, 28 Real Cost)

Blast 9d6,

Does Knockdown (+1/4),

Area Of Effect Accurate (8m Radius; +3/4),

Selective (+1/4)

(101 Active Points);

Damage only affects parts of the target's body (typically feet) that are touching the ground (-2),

3 Charges (-1 1/4),

Expendable (Material Components; Easy to obtain new Focus; dirt; -1),

OAF: Staff (-1),

Only affects targets on the ground (-1/2),

No Range (-1/2),

Gestures (-1/4),

Incantations ("Bam Bam"; -1/4) (Real Cost: 13)

plus

Entangle 4d6, 3 PD/3 ED (Dismissible),

Takes No Damage From Attacks All Attacks (+1/2),

Area Of Effect Accurate (8m Radius; +3/4),

Selective (+1/4) (100 Active Points);

3 Charges (-1 1/4),

Only targets effected by initial shockwave Power loses about half of its effectiveness (-1),

Material Components (Expendable; dirt; -1),

Linked (The Wave; Lesser Power can only be used when character uses greater Power at full value; -3/4),

No Range (-1/2),

Gestures (-1/4),

Incantations ("Bam Bam"; -1/4)

(Real Cost: 15)

Edited June 11 by Stagliano
corrected

[Stagliano]

I provided the breakdown of the spell, for those of you curious.

 

HOWEVER, I think you're missing the point of the question. Regardless of what the limitations should be, our question is should Kali add the limitation "Must be able to reach the ground with the staff (-½)" and thus get the 3XP back, now that she would have to fly down to the ground (and potentially in harms way) in order to be able to cast the spell.

[Sketchpad]

8 minutes ago, Stagliano said:

HOWEVER, I think you're missing the point of the question. Regardless of what the limitations should be, our question is should Kali add the limitation "Must be able to reach the ground with the staff (-½)" and thus get the 3XP back, now that she would have to fly down to the ground (and potentially in harms way) in order to be able to cast the spell.

 

The simple answer is No. It would be like having an OAF: Staff and also having "Needs to have staff to use" as limitations. It's already been defined as such, so there's no need to take it again. Hope this helps.

[LoneWolf]

The breakdown of the spell shows that must be touching the ground is not a valid limitation.  You already have No Range and only along the ground.  Those two in combination mean you have to be within reach of the ground already.  If the GM wanted to be strict that could be taken that the caster has to be touching the ground, but allowing someone within reach of the ground is not a big deal.

 

In all honesty this spell has a lot of problems.  You have multiple duplicate limitations.  Damage only affects parts of the body that are touching the ground and only affects targets on the ground should not be on the same spell.  You have two focus limitations on the spell (Expendable material component is an OAF).  When using multiple foci, you don’t get the full value twice you add a -1/4 to the limitation.  So, the limitation should be -1 ¼ not -2.  

 

This spell should be reworked completely.   
 

[Stagliano]

Y'all are STILL missing the point. It's not about the build. It's about whether or not a character can take a new limitation on a power after it was initially developed to reflect changes in the campaign.

[LoneWolf]

As sketchpad said the answer is NO.  

 

In regard to what I posted that limitation should not be placed on the on this spell under any circumstances because it is not limiting the spell any more than it already is.  One of the basic foundations of the Hero System is that a limitation that does not limit the power is not a limitation.  The restrictions of must be within reach of the ground does not limit the spell more than it already is.  NO range means the spell starts in your hex, that includes elevation.   Combine that with the only along the ground means you have to be near enough to the ground where the ground is in your hex. 
 

[Grailknight]

25 minutes ago, Stagliano said:

Y'all are STILL missing the point. It's not about the build. It's about whether or not a character can take a new limitation on a power after it was initially developed to reflect changes in the campaign.

 

My short answer is no. The spell was accepted as viable with all the Limitations. I' ll assume it was used in play effectively. Given that, why should it become cheaper when the character gains an option that does not perfectly synergize with it? The Flight comes from a separate source and is in no way hindered by the Blast.

 

The Blast has not lost any of its functionality, it just clashes with the Flight in extremely minor ways.  You can still use them together if you fly at the same elevation that being on horseback would give you and that will work in plenty of places where you can't take a horse. You couldn't use the spell if you were standing on a wall overlooking a battle of hanging from a rope and those are baked into the Limitations. "Not while flying out of reach of the ground" is already a part of the spell's writeup even if it's not stated specifically.

Edited June 11 by Grailknight

[Stagliano]

Thank you, Grailknight.

 

Edited June 11 by Stagliano
fixed typo

[Sketchpad]

19 hours ago, Stagliano said:

Y'all are STILL missing the point. It's not about the build. It's about whether or not a character can take a new limitation on a power after it was initially developed to reflect changes in the campaign.

 

Could a player take a new limitation after it's been used? Honestly, that's a GM call. Some tables will allow it, some won't. That said, it may also be dependent on the build itself. In my campaigns, I may allow a new limitation to be added, so long as it a) makes sense for the build, b) make sense for the character, and c) is a legal build for my game. Everyone's game is different, so if your GM is looking here to see how others would handle things, there are plenty of viable answers. If it were my game, I would be looking at the build itself. 

[Gauntlet]

I would also have to say that it depends a lot of the time on the actual limitation. I have had characters learn how to perform spells faster as they become better at casting it.