Adjustment Powers

[Hugh Neilson]

Flowing from some discussion in the Absorption thread.

We all know adjustment powers caused a lotof concern in 4e, especially in respect of Aid. However, I would suggest that 5th Ed goes too far the other way in some regards, with the result that some power constructs have become impossible to duplicate, and others are more efficiently constructed by building their component parts than using the specific power.

Looking at the history of adjustment powers, in 1e, we has Drain and Transfer, and they only worked on characteristics. 2e brought us actual Power drains and Transfers. The costs were much the same as they are now. 3e pretty much held the line on these

There were lots of supplements were released under 2e and 3e. Champions II brought us Absorption, but at that time it also reduced damage taken. Genre books tended to introduce new powers needed for the genre. Fantasy Hero brought us Aid, Dispel and (IIRC) Suppress.

4e went for the generic rules, so all the adjustment powers came under one roof. Defenses came out of absorption, and Aid, Dispel and Suppress found their way into the core rules. We didn't need Healing - Aid points only faded if they exceeded the character's normal value.

Aid, in particularm, was generally felt to be underpriced / overly effective. That was changed in 5e, and Aid also became 0 END at that time.

But 5e brings its own inconsistencies with adjustment powers. Why can't Heal (or any other adjustment power) have an unlimited maximum? Well, actually, they can. Regeneration is a specialized form of healing, and it isn't limited. You can get the same effect for other powers (transfer and absorption) by redirecting half the points gained to enhancing the ability itself to buy bonus max. points. But why not make it easy and intuitive - set an advantage for "no maximum".

We can base the cost on Regeneration. 1d6 Healing should heal 1.5 BOD (3 points), but heals 1 BOD in regeneration, so each 8 points only buys 2/3 of a die, effectively. 2 dice should heal 3 BOD if we don't account for the advantage. 3 BOD regen costs 24 points. 20 x 3/2.5 = 24, so "no maximum" must be a +1 advantage. This fits with the rationale of directing half of a Transfer or Absorb to increase the maximum point gain, so it makes intuitive sense.

CONCLUSION ONE: "no Maximum" should be a +1 advantage for Absorption, Healing and Transfer. It could also be used for Aid, but I'd be inclined to call that a "stop sign" at least. Mind you, extended fade rates should also be looked at pretty carefully.

Do Aid and Healing really need to be separated? They're really variations of each other. Heal has no fade rate up to starting maximum. Aid can raise stats above starting maximum. Aid, only to starting maximums (-1/2), costs END (-1/2) would cost 5 points per die. "No fade on restored points" would logically be a +1 advantage to Aid, if one wanted such a construct. Why shouldn't such a construct be available? This is a lot less cumbersome than using a Linked Aid and Healing.

CONCLUSION TWO: "No fade rate on restored points" should be a +1 advantage. It could be taken on Aid, Absroption and Transfer. Again, this one is open for abuse, and should be a "stop sign", but why should it be banned outright?

To my mind, the ability that really got shafted in 5e was Transfer. 30 points buys 2d6 of Transfer which, once the owner has boosted himself 12 points, does nothing. Now, I question whether we still need a Transfer power - it's just Drain and Aid together. What if we build the same power that way?

2d6 Drain + 2d6 Aid, Self Only (-1/2), Linked to Drain (-1/2), limited to points drained (-1/2) The last is debateable in value, but there is a definite limit here. The Aid won't work if the Drain misses its target, and will be reduced/eliminated if the opponent has power defense. For the sake of argument, let's say that it combines with the Aid affecting its owner, rather than the target, for a -0. The drain costs 20 points, ands the Aid another 10, for a total of 30, just like 2d6 Transfer. But Transfer costs 3 END, and this costs 2. And this drain will still work even if Aid has been maximized. No more expensive, maybe even cheaper, costs less END and more versatile. Is that reasonable?

CONCLUSION 3: Transfer should act as a drain even if the maximum points have been transferred. This one seems very clear - it hardly overbalances the power, at least in my opinion.

The above is my opinion, anyway. What does the rest of Herodom think? Have I missed some issues with Adjustment Powers? Would the above fix a concern, or create larger concerns?

The first two, to me, are just extrapolations to permit different power constructs not presently achievable, or at least readily achievable, under the rules as written. The third just "unhoses" Transfer.

[Grailknight]

I've always loved adjustment powers as a DM and as a player. A drainer can be very effective without being overbalanced in most AP limit games. The changes made in 4th and carried on for the most part to 5th made them viable but like every rule they could stand some tweaking.

So let's examine your conclusions:

Conclusion 1: No maximum as a +1 adv

Can't agree with this one totally. This would be better handled with Cumulative.

Conclusion 2: No fade rate as a +1 adv - restored pts only

Again can't totally agree with this. In my house rules Aid and Absorption are both 10pts/die and the no fade is free. Healing doesn't exist and Aid costs END. They also fade immediately if in an MP or VPP and the slots are switched out.
This is balanced for my game, YMMV.

Conclusion 3: Transfer should act as Drain after max reached

I agree totally with this one. I also allow Cumlative to increase the max but at 2x cost.

I personally eliminated the buying up the max mechanic for Cumulative. It prevents people from trying to build the infinite buff character.

[Hugh Neilson]

Grailknight raises an excellent point - why not dovetail Cumulative with adjuistment maximums? Whether this is done by using the +2/ point mechanic and only using Cumulative for powers that are generally all or nothing, or eliminating the +2/point advantage and making 2x Max a +1/4 advantage is a good question.

For +1, you get 16x maximum - how often will you hit that anyway?

[zornwil]

Generally, I felt the adjustment powers were (mostly) too weak in 4th. I added range as an intrinsic capability to them (to me, it seems like that is how it normally works in what I've read and it's fine). However, characters regain points at their REC rate.

From my house rules:

"Adjustment powers have changed significantly. Drain and Transfer go against SD unless of course otherwise defined by limitations or advantages. Power Defense has been eliminated as people can easily buy SD up (same rate as the other defenses, 1 point per). Also note that these power attacks may be used at range with the same rules as Energy Blast and that characters regain points back lost to these attacks at their REC rate. Dispel and Suppress are the same as they were in 4th ed. (note Suppress is not cumulative by default unlike in 5th edition) except by default they also are counted against SD. In both cases SD is subtracted from the Dispel/Suppress damage roll. Any power attack can be converted to go against PD or ED as a -1/2 limitation. For a +1/2 advantage they may be defined to work as an NND attack. Basing them on ECV is a normal +1 advantage.

Note that Aid does not necessarily end a turn as an attack does. So long as aid is performed on anyone compliant or out AND THEY ARE EASY TO REACH it's like practicing a skill, it's a half phase and you can move on. A ranged aid that requires "hitting" a target during combat counts like an attack as you have to aim or coordinate your action with the other person. Technically speaking I'm sure you could make a case that "casual DEX" would allow someone at distance to be "easy to reach" but I'm not going there. But yes this will be subject to interpretation - an area Aid that centers on the caster (as opposed to being cast at a hex) would count as "easy to reach". Of course if someone is resisting (whether by freaking out or actually not wanting Aid) then it takes the same time impact as an attack. Yes I understand this opens the door to the same idea with transforms or other "desired attacks", but I'm holding the line here despite the seeming logical contradictions. Basically the practice of skills opens this door, and given Aid's history I'm willing to keep the door open this crack."

So far this has worked for me.

As to Hugh's original proposals, I dunno, they seem reasonable enough. But my adjustment powers are sufficiently different (and always have been) such that it's rather hard for me to judge the orthodox rules and changes to them.