EC balance fix

[Gary]

The single biggest limitation currently of EC's is the drain one drain all aspect of it. Smart players if allowed by their GM, can easily buy lots of Power Defense to minimize most of the problems.

A easy fix to this without outright banning power defense for people with ECs is to utilize a variation of the automaton defense rules. Players who have ECs or powers that drain together as a separate limitation, simply pay triple cost for Power Defense. Nice simple and elegant, and maintains game balance.

[ghost-angel]

Actually, I would have gone the other way of Power Defense, Only to protect EC -1. Or simply Power Defense @ normal cost.

Think about it, you pay a lot of points for an EC "Fire" and someone comes along with a Drain of 2D6 paying 10 pts and they drain an average a 7pts a roll with that Drain that sucks ALL your powers out, where the Fire guy who didn't use an EC has his powers drained one at a time .. he'll last longer. Seems to balance out in the end to me really.

You get a point cost savings in the begining to get all your Fire powers but can have them Drained out all at once too. OR you don't get a savings but you won't lose all those powers in one drain, it'll take multiple drains. Imagine if the Drain had Continuous on it .. the EC guy will lose them all in one attack roll, the Non-EC guy will have multiple attack rolls (and thus multiple chances to avoid the Drain) to remove all his powers.

[Gary]

Actually, I would have gone the other way of Power Defense, Only to protect EC -1. Or simply Power Defense @ normal cost.

Think about it, you pay a lot of points for an EC "Fire" and someone comes along with a Drain of 2D6 paying 10 pts and they drain an average a 7pts a roll with that Drain that sucks ALL your powers out, where the Fire guy who didn't use an EC has his powers drained one at a time .. he'll last longer. Seems to balance out in the end to me really.

You get a point cost savings in the begining to get all your Fire powers but can have them Drained out all at once too. OR you don't get a savings but you won't lose all those powers in one drain, it'll take multiple drains. Imagine if the Drain had Continuous on it .. the EC guy will lose them all in one attack roll, the Non-EC guy will have multiple attack rolls (and thus multiple chances to avoid the Drain) to remove all his powers.


With a EC, you're saving a lot more points than the guy who buys them straight. 6 40 pt powers saves you 100 pts compared to the guy without the EC.

Is the drain one drain all aspect of ECs worth somewhere between a -1/2 and -1 overall limitation on those powers? I personally don't think so. And IMO it wouldn't even be worth a -1/4 if the character has lots of power defense.

Straight Power Dude can buy the 6 40 pt powers for 240 pts. Or he can buy the same 6 powers in a EC for 140 pts, and then buy 30 pts of hardened power defense for 37 pts. He's pretty much completely immune to normal drains, and still has 63 pts left over to play with.

[Vanguard00]

Without a darn good reason I don't think I'd allow Power Defense to be purchased for the EC only. I'd likely apply the "Inherent" advantage in spite of the recommendations.

[edit] Just checked it out and it still only costs 175 points for those same six powers. You're still ahead of the game and I think it preserves rules integrity better.

[Dust Raven]

So, instead of saving points by putting them into an EC, you can sepend those extra points on Power Defense, effectively negating the penalty versus Adustment Powers.

So, where's the drawback? All you're suggesting is that we get less Power Defense, and thus increasing the chance of being Drained, even if the target of the Drain is something outside the EC.

And who puts 6 Powers into an EC? You need six seperate constructs to simulate what is essentially a single power? That's all an EC is, a single, complex power with several practical uses. The average number of Powers I've seen in an EC is around 3-4. Occasionally I'll see something with 6 or more, but in my opinion it should have been built without the EC because all of those Power just don't fit.

[GamePhil]

The single biggest limitation currently of EC's is the drain one drain all aspect of it. Smart players if allowed by their GM, can easily buy lots of Power Defense to minimize most of the problems.


Actually, I generally don't use the Drain guideline in my Champions games (in other settings where I allow EC's, I do). I find EC's balance nicely with Strength, so rather than just allowing Bricks to get the cost breaks, I'll let anyone with a cohesive enough conception to get it.

[Kristopher]

That's all an EC is, a single, complex power with several practical uses.

That's not what I consider an EC to be.

[Vorsch]

An EC is and always has been a Metagame constuct to award players with a tight sfx based character to buy his powers at a reduced cost, ie fire, electricity, cold magnetism, Etc.

For drains etc to affect all powers at the same time would presupose that they were linked.

If i have not stated it clearly enough, EC is a purely game mechanic constuct, and should have no bearing on game play.

[Hugh Neilson]

The single biggest limitation currently of EC's is the drain one drain all aspect of it. Smart players if allowed by their GM, can easily buy lots of Power Defense to minimize most of the problems.

Seems to me it's a matter of opinion whether metagaming decisions like "EC is disadvantaged by adjustment powers, so I'll buy lots of power defense" are indicative of "smart players", as opposed to "Roll Players", "Metagamers" or "Poor Concept Players".

[Dust Raven]

That's not what I consider an EC to be.
What do you consider an EC to be? Based upon the game rules for them, this is basically what it is. You can't Drain one aspect of it any more than you an Drain one aspect of single Powers (such as removing the "does STUN" aspect of an EB, you either Drain the whole thing or not at all). Same thing with an EC. You can't Drain just one part, you Drain the entire EC, and can Drain it so long as there is only one Power involved in it that you can effect with the Drain.

Essentialy, it's just one, really complex Power, represented by the mechanics of several Powers but together.

[Dust Raven]

An EC is and always has been a Metagame constuct to award players with a tight sfx based character to buy his powers at a reduced cost, ie fire, electricity, cold magnetism, Etc.

For drains etc to affect all powers at the same time would presupose that they were linked.

If i have not stated it clearly enough, EC is a purely game mechanic constuct, and should have no bearing on game play.
You should reread FREd page 203. If you are actually playing with an EC but don't have any drawbacks from it, you're getting free points for doing absolutely nothing but writing up a character.

You might as well be saying that Limitations are just a metagame construct to award players who build their Powers to match SFX. They should save the points but the Limitations shouldn't ever come into play in game.

[Hawksmoor]

You should reread FREd page 203. If you are actually playing with an EC but don't have any drawbacks from it, you're getting free points for doing absolutely nothing but writing up a character.

You might as well be saying that Limitations are just a metagame construct to award players who build their Powers to match SFX. They should save the points but the Limitations shouldn't ever come into play in game.

I think Vorsh knows this. I certainly know it. I just don't care what the Rules say. I do not think of ECs as a strictly controlled thing. I think of them solely as constructs for tight SFX, not as elaborate single powers.

Fire Powers
Electricity Powers
Mental Powers

You build an EC for all the stuff you want but do not want to go in your MP like Flight, Defenses, Movement, nifty side power like stretching for the aforementioned SFX.

Points for free? Yes Please!

Drain -0 limitation. Steve? Hello? Steve? That was like the explaination to the Force. It did not need to be done. And it does not make its way into my games.

I am cool with this because I know the rules and decide to diverge, I am not uninformed about them.

Hawksmoor

[caris]

Essentialy, it's just one, really complex Power, represented by the mechanics of several Powers but together.

Dust Raven, I would say that it is your interpretation of what the rules for EC represent, but that the published examples of EC’s don’t agree with your interpretation. Really how in heck does Witchfire’s Helpful Witcheries EC represent a single power? Most of the examples of EC’s to be found in the books seem to be a continuation of the same old abusive construct philosophy. Multiple attack powers in a Multipower and major defenses and primary movement power in an EC. I find Multipower, even with the multiple power attack rule, to be more abusive due to the fact that I do not find the limitation on an all attack power MP vs. how much the powers are actually limited.

[Gary]

For those people who don't feel that ECs should all be drained together as an exchange for the point savings, my suggestion would obviously not be applicable. However, for those who play by the rules as written, it should be a good way to keep EC abusiveness in check without banning EC + Power Defense altogether.

[Gary]

Seems to me it's a matter of opinion whether metagaming decisions like "EC is disadvantaged by adjustment powers, so I'll buy lots of power defense" are indicative of "smart players", as opposed to "Roll Players", "Metagamers" or "Poor Concept Players".

There are many perfectly valid conceptions that allow for both EC and Power Defense. These conceptions just happen to have a huge advantage over the many perfectly valid conceptions that don't allow for both EC and Power Defense, or the conceptions that don't allow for ECs at all.

[Vorsch]

OK heres a couple of examples.

Hero 1

Flight
Force field
EB

Special effect telekinetic,

Hero 2
EC with flight, force field, EB

Special effect telekinetic,

Hero 2 saves points for having a tight concept driven powers but gets shafted by drains, hero 1 also with a tight sfx identical to hero 2 doesnt.

Its pure game mechanics/metarules whatever, conceptually identical characters. ECs were made to promote tight sfx driven characters and reward player with cheaper powers, i dont have a problem with that though it seems many do.

Hero 1 could just as well have 3 completely different sfx ( TK, magnetism and laser for example ) and a gm should allow it after all how exactly are supermans powers related?

Example 2

player submits character to GM, GM asks why do you have superhuman stats? player responds "because i have a superhuman physique " GM nods and approves character.

Later player is hit by 6d6 str drain, GM informs him "because all your Stats are based of the same sfx all your stats are affected even though the drain didnt have the +2 adv"

Players reply is unprintable

[Christougher]

One suggested 'fix' for EC's that I saw was the requirement to take a character disadvantage directly related to the EC, point value equal to the base EC cost. So the guy with a Fire EC usually had some type of cold/water weakness. The funniest one of those I recall seeing was the Psych Lim: Superstitious as the counterpoint to an EC of Luck powers.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm still in the camp that believes this is not a problem and doesn't need a fix. But to me, the easy fix would be a simple house rule that, in addition to EC's automatically being "drain one drain all", the character's power defense can never apply to anything draining his EC - an automatic -0 limitation.

FlameGuy 1 saved a bunch of points with his EC, and his power defense only protects powers outside the EC. FlameGuy 2 spent more points, has no EC and his power defense is full coverage. You want your power defense to cover your EC? Buy off the EC and pay the freight like FlameGuy 2 did.

[Dust Raven]

Vorsch, you are confusing me...

Are you saying it's okay for you to get free points becaue you're playing the Human Torch, but I can't because I'm playing Buckaroo Banzai? Exactly why do you think this is fair and/or balanced?

Like any other point saving/getting construct in the game (Limitations, Multipowers, Disadvantages, etc...) EC should only save points at the cost of something else, such as effectiveness or how those powers relate to the mechanics. So what if it's a metagame balance? How is that different from Rapid Fire versus buying Extra SPD (only to attack)? They do the same thing, but the free one doesn't let you move and halves your DCV. If I don't want my suite of Powers being affected simultaneously by Drains, I don't buy them in an EC.

[Dust Raven]

Dust Raven, I would say that it is your interpretation of what the rules for EC represent, but that the published examples of EC’s don’t agree with your interpretation. Really how in heck does Witchfire’s Helpful Witcheries EC represent a single power? Most of the examples of EC’s to be found in the books seem to be a continuation of the same old abusive construct philosophy.
Oh, I agree absolutely! I hate many of the published examples of EC and really wish the writers would think a bit more about the character conceptions before putting pen to paper (or finger to keyboard, as the case may be). I guess it just boils down to how lenient a GM is as to what to allow into a single EC. Apparently the writers are very lenient.

You're probably right that it's just done out of habit from previous editions of the rules. They still note Fixed and Flexible Multipower slots with m's and u's too (but I guess there's no help for it).

[Kristopher]

**shrug**

I don't apply the Drained Together -0 Limitation to ECs, and I don't think they represent one complex power. I think the Drained Together stuff is too complicated to bother with on the fly -- Adjustment Powers can be a pain to keep track of anyway.

ECs are just a tool for completing the character concept on the points available.

[tesuji]

ECs are just a tool for completing the character concept on the points available.

if that were the case, why wouldn't you (or they) just give more points and avoid the whole EC issue?

[mr_azrad]

Oh, I agree absolutely! I hate many of the published examples of EC and really wish the writers would think a bit more about the character conceptions before putting pen to paper (or finger to keyboard, as the case may be). I guess it just boils down to how lenient a GM is as to what to allow into a single EC. Apparently the writers are very lenient.

You're probably right that it's just done out of habit from previous editions of the rules. They still note Fixed and Flexible Multipower slots with m's and u's too (but I guess there's no help for it).

I see charcters in the Hero books all the time I would never allow. Heros that do not meet my standards (writeup with "non limiting limitations and disadvantages", horrible uses of "usable against others", and outrageous EC's).

Some of you feel that EC represtents a tight group of special effects and others think an EC represents a single power with multiple effects. I think you are both right, but I would like to add this: I think of EC's as a limitation as well.

#1 If a character is observer using some of the powers in the EC it should be reasonable for opponents to suspect or even predict other powers of the EC. An opponent witnessing a "human torch" style character that has a "fire shield" and fire based flight, would likely assume he has a fire based attack as well (and might be ready for it, even though he has never seen it).

#2 You used the EC "limitation" to save points so don't complain when the power is not as good as seperate powers that didn't save points (don't complain when someone drains the crap out of it).

[tesuji]

IMO, ECs began as simply a means of encouraging tight character designs. As such, it tends to promote characters more like the XMEN (where a character has one power used several different ways or maybe two closely related powers) as opposed to "collection of neat unrelated powers" like Martian MAnhunter or even SuperMan.

Are they good for a campaign or bad for it? It really depends on how close to XMen or Martian Manhunter you want to have your game. Should Manhunter be weaker than Cyclops for the same "points" because Cyclops got an Ec while Manhunter didn't?

The net result from play I have found is simple... ECs are not disruptive to a campaign when everyone uses them. When you are loose with ECs, allowing the "bad evil powers" normally not allowed in and not being too picky about how "tight"" tight concepts need to be, everyone uses them and everyone saves some points.

its really only a concern when some concepts are allowed to use them and others are not. As some have implied, the characteristic based guys already save points with figured characteristics, and so a brikc won't in play been seen as flawed if he has no EC. (as if plenty of bricks cannot work a move and defense into an ec for their share of the ec savings pie.) if manhunter is not allowed, however, to use an EC while spectral boy is... you might see some balance issues or more likely, some "i just wont play manhunter" issues.

with an experienced player, its not really an issue of playing a sub optimal character. Most experienced players have character ideas a plenty and are savvy enough to figure out "this one is an efficient build under this system" or "this one is an inefficient build under this GM" and simply put, they will play the ones that are NOT "working uphill" against the system mechanics or the Gms preferences.

"But what about poor batman, the gadgeteer, who doesn't really even come close and doesn't have a characteristics savings base?" you may ask... truth be told, the character saves enough off of focus lims, which are not enforced to the same magnitude, that he makes out OK.

"Nut what about the martial artists who is kinda like the bat but fewer gadgets?" you may ask... his concept requires him to dump lots into the single most effective bang-fer-buck there is...dexterity... and most of the time, the Gm will allow him a higher investment in dex than others... so he plays out well.

Sure, it would be nice to see some relationship between the "sfx" based ECs the rules prescribe and the "helpful witcheries" actually used by the game... but hey, you cannot get everything.

[Kristopher]

I find that characters who A) don't qualify for an EC and B) really need one to fit under the point cap are rare on the ground.

Skill Mongers typically get one or more of the skill enchancers. Martial Arts are scarey effective for the cost. Gadgeteers and the like get plenty of savings for the Foci, and sometimes even qualify for one of the frameworks.

[Vorsch]

Vorsch, you are confusing me...

Are you saying it's okay for you to get free points becaue you're playing the Human Torch, but I can't because I'm playing Buckaroo Banzai? Exactly why do you think this is fair and/or balanced?

Like any other point saving/getting construct in the game (Limitations, Multipowers, Disadvantages, etc...) EC should only save points at the cost of something else, such as effectiveness or how those powers relate to the mechanics. So what if it's a metagame balance? How is that different from Rapid Fire versus buying Extra SPD (only to attack)? They do the same thing, but the free one doesn't let you move and halves your DCV. If I don't want my suite of Powers being affected simultaneously by Drains, I don't buy them in an EC.

Dust raven, you are confusing me how does a MP save points at the cost of effectivness, one attack power at a time is its traditional use, as noted by yourself. If what you say is true just buy all the powers outside of a frame works if the saving of points is abusive by your estimation.

ECs are considered a reward for tight characters, hell it even said that explicitly in previous editions.

Because 5th decided that EC suffer from sfx drain, ie its the rules, does not mean that the rules are right.

[Dust Raven]

Dust raven, you are confusing me how does a MP save points at the cost of effectivness, one attack power at a time is its traditional use, as noted by yourself. If what you say is true just buy all the powers outside of a frame works if the saving of points is abusive by your estimation.
I didn't say anything about attack powers, just powers in general. Say I have a Multipower with an EB, Flight and FF. I can't use them all at full effectiveness at the same time, so I save points. It doesn't matter what powers go into an MP, it's the fact that you can't use them all at once at full power. You get a point break because of this. Of course, this leads many min-maxers to buy attack Multipowers, because they'd only use one type of attack at a time anyways.

ECs are considered a reward for tight characters, hell it even said that explicitly in previous editions.

Because 5th decided that EC suffer from sfx drain, ie its the rules, does not mean that the rules are right.
Just because a previous edition said you just get free points for having a tight character doesn't mean those rules were right either.

It seems you think it's fair to hand out free points to some characters and not to others based purely on concept, while I believe you should either hand out those points equally to all characters or not at all, regardless of concept.

I see EC as a point saver, but only at the cost of something, just like any point saver.

[Pattern Ghost]

I have one problem with the drains one, drains all approach, and that's the SFX of the adjustment power. Especially movement-affecting ones.

Fire Guy:

EC: Fire Powers
a) EB
b) FF
c) Flight

Gets drained by:

Wind Tunnel Guy: Drain Flight by creating wind shear effect. But now Fire Guy can't blast as much and his defense is lowered? Well, maybe if Wind Tunnel Guy's wind was strong enough to blow out some of the flame, but the SFX of wind shear have just been viloated.

Gravity Girl: Drain all Movement powers by increasing gravity. Same problem.

Pacifist Lad: Drains all Offensive Powers with a Linked Aid to all Defensive Powers: Heh, resolve that one.

Kind of a pain, really. I can see some balance being necessary, but IMO all adjustment powers should be strongly tied to their SFX, and the EC rule steps on that.

EDIT: Maybe it's enough that the GM simply makes note to occassionally throw Water Gun Dude at Fire Guy, where WGD has paid for his "vs. All Fire Powers" adder on a hefty drain/suppress. Or that the GM make the EC player take a susceptability, vulnerability, or dependance related to the EC's power source. Or a little of both.

[GamePhil]

However, for those who play by the rules as written, it should be a good way to keep EC abusiveness in check without banning EC + Power Defense altogether.

There is a certain irony to any statement that has in it "for those who play by the rules as written" when talking about how to change the rules. However, you have a point, so...

In a game where I was using all the guidelines for EC's, powers that would affect them would do so based on Special Effect. Water and ice would nullify fire based characters, Cyberkinesis or EMP's would affect Powered Armor and robotic characters, and so on. These are the only things that would do so, especially since I (almost) never allow Adjustment Powers against Powers, but only against Special Effects. Therefore, if buying Power Defense in this way started to be a problem, part of creating a tight conception would be that these appropriate Adjustment Powers would not be affected, or not be affected as much, by the character's Power Defense. Thus, I would require a Limitation about not protecting the EC against some appropriate Achilles Heal(s).

[Dust Raven]

I see where you guys are coming from. This is something that hasn't occured in my game yet, at least not using Adjustment Powers (I had a guy with a gravity power that used TK to grab everything in an area, rather than Drain all their movement).

I can understand that a Slow spell that Drains Movement Powers shouldn't also Drain an EB or FF, but the EC says it does by default. I guess in this case, and similar, SFX would win out, as it always seems to.

One thing that's always bugged me is what happens when you use a Drain all fire powers against a Fire Powers EC. I'm not sure if the FAQ covers this, but either the +1 or +2 Advantage was wasted, or you get double effect. Either way it's a nasty hit so somebody.

That's one of the reasons I rule ECs are just a single Power with multiple facets that can only be represented by several Powers. This cuts down on the number of ECs in my campaign, and most uses of Adjustment Powers against them have been straight forward.

[Kristopher]

I'd say that having a set of powers with the same SFX, thus making them vulnerable to the "Affects powers of _______ SFX" adjustment powers is a drawback in and of itself. Plus, there's a certain predictability to such a character that his foes can use against him.

[beauxdeigh]

I can understand that a Slow spell that Drains Movement Powers shouldn't also Drain an EB or FF, but the EC says it does by default. I guess in this case, and similar, SFX would win out, as it always seems to.

That, of course, would depend. If the SFX of the FF or EB in the EC were because of that character's movement abilities, then you bet I'd have it affect across the board in the EC.

Besides, if I were to do a Slow spell I would Drain SPD not movement. I'm very very hesitant to allow any adjustment powers that affect just an individual Power (like EB, or 'all movement') without some seriously good SFX descriptions that I can rule on. I much prefer characters that Drain Characteristics, since every character has them, or specific SFX like 'Fire EB' or 'Magnetic Force Fields' because, then, I feel more justified in trashing the EC of a character. That's just me.

Also (a little more on topic), the only way I'd alow any character, EC or no, to take Power Defense is if it were seriously in concept. I've got problems with it for the same reasons as above. It shouldn't affect all of the character's abilities evenly. Why would the Amazing Flame Lad having hard to Drain fire powers also mean he has hard to Drain STR?

Nah, any time there is any Power in the Adjustment arena that appears on a character sheet, a little red flag goes up, and I question the player seriously about it, so the effect is defined specifically. You want an EB? Sure! You want to Drain any other EB you choose whether it's Fire or Electricity or Mystic Bolts or a Spam Cannon? Buh? The F...? Hell No!

[Vorsch]

Slightly off topic but if you put primary stats in a EC do they grant figured stats. I thought they didnt but 5e may have changed that.

Personally i allow well justified stats ( spd for a speedster, Str for a metalic form, etc ) when the sfx expicitly allows stats as logical, though i give them a -0 costs end.

[Oruncrest]

Slightly off topic but if you put primary stats in a EC do they grant figured stats. I thought they didnt but 5e may have changed that.

Personally i allow well justified stats ( spd for a speedster, Str for a metalic form, etc ) when the sfx expicitly allows stats as logical, though i give them a -0 costs end.
You don't get figured stats if you put primaries into any power framework according to pg 92 of FREd.

[Vorsch]

i thank you, and to be fair this is a grivence with another user of these boards.

[GamePhil]

You don't get figured stats if you put primaries into any power framework according to pg 92 of FREd.

But you do get to take the Limitation, Does Not Add To Figured Characteristics (see FAQ).

[Vorsch]

GamePhil are you saying you get a xtra lim for something thats implicit in the rules anyway?

EC stats dont give fig(default), with does'nt give fig(-1/2), ......Your having a laugh here.

[GamePhil]

GamePhil are you saying you get a xtra lim for something thats implicit in the rules anyway?


That is correct. In the FAQ, under Powers: Characteristics, Steve Long has said that the section in question is meant to require characters to take the Limitation, not that it is had for "free".

Obviously, any given GM can choose to ignore this. I'm sure many do, and while I don't I can understand why.

[Vorsch]

You have ageed to a paradox, or at least steve has.

Is this serious? the lims default, then you are required to take the lim again?

Double Jeapardy

Please tell me this is not true or that im "missing" something!

[GamePhil]

Well, it's meant as a clarification. It is not a default in the sense that you don't get a Limitation for it, it is default in the same way as the Limitation on Hand Attack is.

[Vorsch]

Ie

EC
30 60 EC whatever
20 60 str +40 0 end -/2 lim for no fig ( even though its default ) EC stat

[Vorsch]

If you dont take the lim do you get the figs?

or are you just losing out on an extra -1/2lim

[beauxdeigh]

You have ageed to a paradox, or at least steve has.

Is this serious? the lims default, then you are required to take the lim again?

Double Jeapardy

Please tell me this is not true or that im "missing" something!

Nope. Not "missing" anything. That's just the way it is. In fact, the official Hero Designer software works that way as well. If you add a Characteristic to any Power Framework, it automatically applies the No Figured Characteristics lim on it.

I suppose you could create a House Rule against that if you don't like it though.

[Dust Raven]

If you dont take the lim do you get the figs?

or are you just losing out on an extra -1/2lim
It's not written the same way, but as said above about HA, it's much the same. If you absolutely refuse to put the -1/2 Hand Attack Limitation on HA, it still has no range and doesn't add to lifting or Figured Characteristics or anything else it might be based on.

If you don't put the -1/2 No Figured Characteristics on a Characteristic that grants Figured's in an EC, they still don't add to them and you're missing out on the bonus for it.

Which brings to mind something I've been meaning to bring up about Damage Shield and no range.....

[Hawksmoor]

I am going to have to check my rules but I *thought* that the -1/2 No Figure Characteristics only applied to Characteristics in MP, not in ECs.

The reason was that with a MP the points were shifting around all the freeking time and fiqured could get quite unmanagable and abusive.

Hawksmoor
-I just don't think that is right. Of course Char in an EC is a frequently GM allowed thing...at least ONE CHAR is often allowed.

[Bloodstone]

I am going to have to check my rules but I *thought* that the -1/2 No Figure Characteristics only applied to Characteristics in MP, not in ECs.

Nope. NFC applies to EC's and MP's.

[Kristopher]

Speak for yourself. If I put a Characteristic in an EC, and don't apply the -1/2 NFC limitation, you better believe I'm getting the figured Characteristics.

Heck, if you change the settings in Hero Designer so that NFC isn't automatically applied to Characteristics in an EC, you get the figured Characteristics.

[Kdansky]

EC is probably the easiest power framework to abuse. If there aren't any transforms/drains present, you just get 50% off of every power except the first in the framework. I did not think about taking Power Defense up to now, but this is really cheap. 4 powers at 100 AP, EC at 50, brings us to 250 total, add 50 power defense and you're really safe. 25% discount and even got an advantage out of it (50 points Power Def will make you undrainable for up to 14 dice). Impressive.
I rarealy allow ECs anyway:
Firewoman vs any magician, she just get's discount on flight, dmg shield, EB, EF and he does not with his flight: wings (per spell "grow wings"), dmg shield "burning body", EB "lightning blast", EF "magical barrier". Variable Special effect + EC would be cheaper, as special effects are just that.

What defines a power: Active Points.
What fleshes it out: Special Effect.

Now why do we get discount on Special Effect?

On the other hand, there are situations where an EC is a good solution: I've got a mute psionic in my game and he has to use telepathy to tell someone he mind controlled what to do, this is clearly a disadvantage. (Could also buy linked, but then he can't write the commands onto a sheet of paper :)

[Hawksmoor]

Nope. NFC applies to EC's and MP's.

Just looked it up in FRed and Damn but you are correct. By the ink on the page you are correct.

I am still not going to use that rule though. ECs are constant additions.
MP and VPPs are not, in fact VPPs are just unlimited slot MPs anyway.

Hawksmoor

[zornwil]

Hoo boy, this can of worms again! :)

Gary, I'm not so down with this suggestion, even taking for granted for the moment (and I do not otherwise) that the Power Defense boosted with EC is so dangerous (I say I do not agree outside of "for the moment" as I think Kristougher's point re PC predictability and expoitability stands tall). The reason I say this is that the real issue, I feel, comes back to that which has been the biggest issue for ECs (and I would argue MPs are no different though you and I differ as to those relative issues), scalability abuse.

If someone has 90% of their powers in an EC, then, yes, Power Defense is not only crucial to them but very easy to become an abusable component and charging 3x is not so disturbing a proposition. But if someone has 20% of their powers in an EC, then charging 3x seems way excessive to me. In fact I'd be loathe to even consider more than 1x for that small a scale, even assuming I shared the concern on this specific.

So I think it would be better to either create some sort of inverse proportion (something more foreign to HERO than the 3x rule so anathema from the consistency perspective), "tier" this for some criteria (# of points or % of points indicates 1x, 2x, or 3x - or 1.5x, 2x, 3x if you prefer), reduce the Power Defense amount to 2x (not consistent with 3x but in my mind this simply won't be nearly so useful as in the automoton/DEF case), or - well blow up ECs entirely.

I am still of the camp that ECs fundamentally "work" though primarily WITHOUT the "drain one drain all" BLANKET ruling and WITHOUT the automatic 0 END exclusion, as both of these are rather arbitrary to much of how HERO works, not the least of which being the whole reasoning-from-effect and proceeding to these conclusions issue. So I do see value in reformulating, but I think that value is more in the effort of creating a more coherent framework law. No, not bringing it up to push "my agenda", just rather saying that your point made me feel moreso than before that a total revamp is more appropriate. And yes I still plan to get back to this. Just busy, plus taking it very seriously as I intend to implement what I come up with, as aforementioned, in my game.

[Kristopher]

Based on my experiences with the game, I also think that the automatic exclusion of no-END powers, and the "drain blanket", make ECs 2nd-rate in comparison to the other frameworks.

My first Champions character would have been lost without his EC, an EC that would be almost entirely illegal under the FREd rules. All the other characters had either a Multipower or a VPP that was used to increadible advantage.

[zornwil]

Based on my experiences with the game, I also think that the automatic exclusion of no-END powers, and the "drain blanket", make ECs 2nd-rate in comparison to the other frameworks.

My first Champions character would have been lost without his EC, an EC that would be almost entirely illegal under the FREd rules. All the other characters had either a Multipower or a VPP that was used to increadible advantage.
Though don't you think a substantial portion of that harkens back to that era when we were all messing around with understanding the rule and there was a lot of rules rape in general (at least in my experience and what I heard) of frameworks, powers, etc.? There was a certain "wild west" looseness to the first couple editions of HERO (really Champions of course) as there were so many unresolved areas (e.g., Transform didn't exist until 2nd (or actually wasn't that the SUPPLEMENT to 2nd?), etc.), and I think it's hard to compare those experiences to the more mature system now.

[Kristopher]

Though don't you think a substantial portion of that harkens back to that era when we were all messing around with understanding the rule and there was a lot of rules rape in general (at least in my experience and what I heard) of frameworks, powers, etc.? There was a certain "wild west" looseness to the first couple editions of HERO (really Champions of course) as there were so many unresolved areas (e.g., Transform didn't exist until 2nd (or actually wasn't that the SUPPLEMENT to 2nd?), etc.), and I think it's hard to compare those experiences to the more mature system now.

Except that I wasn't introduced to HERO until 4th Edition, back in 94 or so.

[zornwil]

Except that I wasn't introduced to HERO until 4th Edition, back in 94 or so.
Well, now, that's a fair point. :)
So I take it your thought is "no, it does not".

[Southern Cross]

Personally,I'd just have used the following general rule for Power Frameworks :"Powers that are Always On may not be placed in Power Frameworks without GM's permission". :neptune:

[Vorsch]

I object to the fact that a stat EC gives you no figs, as a general rule of EC.

Then its up to you if you take the no fig lim.

I had previously thought no fig was a condition of EC not a lim.

[Kristopher]

Well, now, that's a fair point. :)
So I take it your thought is "no, it does not".

I don't think that your counterpoint was entirely without merit, because I don't think the same GM would be quite as lenient with the MPs and VPPs now, as he was then.

I still think, however, that FREd's new restrictions have unbalanced the relationship between ECs and the other frameworks, and not in favor of the ECs. And as I noted earlier, I think that the common SFX with its resulting
predictability and its extra vulnerability to SFX-based Adjustment Powers is pretty much enough to balance the point savings.

[zornwil]

I don't think that your counterpoint was entirely without merit, because I don't think the same GM would be quite as lenient with the MPs and VPPs now, as he was then.

I still think, however, that FREd's new restrictions have unbalanced the relationship between ECs and the other frameworks, and not in favor of the ECs. And as I noted earlier, I think that the common SFX with its resulting
predictability and its extra vulnerability to SFX-based Adjustment Powers is pretty much enough to balance the point savings.
I can't figure out how much 5th's "new" restrictions (which per an earlier thread/investigation apparently arne't so new bu are in some caess more boldly mandated rather than suggested) are hobbling EC but I can tell you I find the est of them illogical compared to the rest of the game. I also find they simply "insist" on a lot of GM intervention to ensure characters are okay, compared to other constructs, and I think some sort of fundamental change would be good. But as it stands, I still think it's all playable. I think those GMs (unlike me) who are strict and use the 5th ed. rules "as is" do tend to balance it out otherwise in other ways ,from what I can see here online (either they run low-powered enough games it doesn't really matter or they seem to be rather tight and attentive in general). And I think GMs who are looser about it...are just fine for the most part.

But this is creating more cross-campaign headaches and concerns. I think a resolution is in order. And I have a feeling it will be more fundamental than what Gary's suggested but I also think it will be less fundamental than any of the "universal framework" sorts of notions I've toyed with.

[Vorsch]

Personally,I'd just have used the following general rule for Power Frameworks :"Powers that are Always On may not be placed in Power Frameworks without GM's permission". :neptune:

Why, there are plenty of persistant powers that fit if a EC.

genuinely curious about this?

[Southern Cross]

Actually Vorsch,that rule I just made up was for ALL Power Frameworks,not just EC's.By definition Multipowers & VPPs cannot have Powers with this Limitation,after all.

[David Blue]

One of the problems with the new way that Elemental Controls are supposedly defined is: who is this supposed to be a problem for, the player with the Elemental Control, or me the gamemaster?

I won't want Adjustment Powers to be important in my game. They are not central to the sub-genre I'm going for. I want them to be novety acts, not significant or regular events. And they're a pain to keep track of. That conflicts with my strong preference for simplicity and speed, and "clean," transparent character design, and simple, classic effects in play.

So what am I supposed to do now: stifle my preferences, break my genre focus, and make drains a big deal, to enforce Elemental Controls being redefined in a way that makes no sense to me? No.

This is why Gary's suggestion doesn't appeal to me. It assumes I have to head off the players' response to my wheeling out The Living Drain Regularly - even though I don't want to, merely because 5th Edition rules seem to put an obligation on me to do that.

Elemental Controls alway have been free points, with two limitations:
(1) Tight special effect, which don't matter much, but which is nice for colour coordination, and
(2) No powers that don't cost END by default, a rule published characters break, just like Hero system published characters are routinely bad models of character design in other ways.

The way I see it is: stick to the old rules, and things work out well enough. Mighty Man gets some cost breaks from his strength and constitution. He spends them on things you can't put in an Elemental Control, like Armour and Telescopic Vision. He's got his thing, he's happy.* Then Energy Projector Lass gets paid: she takes an Elemental Control, with the special effect "purple energy" talks a little bit with the gamemaster about aesthetics and what purple can and can't go with, and fills her Elemental Control with things other characters can't buy as cheaply. Then it's Martial Artist's turn to get paid with brilliant skills at bulk (mega-dexterity) rates, and so on. Everybody's happy, no harm done.

Above all, I'm happy, because I don't have to make up Fifth Edition Enforcement Man to come around and drain the characters all the time to enforce a limitation I didn't pick and don't want to dominate my game.

Also, I strongly agree with Pattern Ghost in Post #28: the aesthetics and special effects of doing this the 5th Edition way are terrible.

Tetsuji: "IMO, ECs began as simply a means of encouraging tight character designs. As such, it tends to promote characters more like the XMEN (where a character has one power used several different ways or maybe two closely related powers) as opposed to "collection of neat unrelated powers" like Martian Manhunter or even SuperMan."

Exactly. I will pay you bulk points to colour-coordinate your powers, like all Ice-Man blue-white, is what it comes down to, from my point of view. Nobody's getting points for plaids and paisleys, not from me. Take the style points and later start wearing non-functional belts, spikes, huge shoulder-pads and a codpiece, and you will be unhappy. I will make you unhappy.

If I preferred the Martian Manhunter style of character, I would bar Elemental Controls and just give free points for complying with that Manhunter style of character.

It's the same as saying: if you want to look like garbage fine, but if you want to avail yourselves of the advantages of an Edna "E" Mode super costume, there are standards.

Now, as a related issue: why did we need Elemental Controls in the first place? I think the real need was because of the brutal END costs that used to apply to being an Energy Projector running a Force Field, Flight and Energy Blasts that sucked I pip of END/d6.

4th Edition fixed that, so does this mean Energy Projectors don't need their Elemental Controls (as much) any more? I think that's exactly right. And if they were using powers that didn't use END in their Elemental Controls, they didn't need them in the first place.

*If he's not happy, because he also wants a point break on his ice slide, ice armour and so on, that's where we need to have a little talk.

[Dust Raven]

Interesting points David.

The funny thing about Elemental Controls is that for the longest time all it did was reward a character with a spiffy concept. Another way to look at this is that EC punished characters who didn't have a theme power and weren't all Silver Age happy. Most of the character's from the source material don't have a unifying SFX for their powers; they just have these powers. Sure, there was some justifications for some of it, like 'I'm an alien' or 'I was bitten by a wacked out bug', but the powers actually selected didn't act or look like they should work together. Those character were punished for not looking like Iceman, who only had one power, but could do a lot with it. A LOT of people complained and bitched about it. Many GMs absolutely banned EC in their games because thery weren't gonna reward concept A and punish concept B just because the rules like concept A.

5th Edition changed that. They pretty much stated that since concept A is getting all these extra free powers, we're gonna treat them as all one power and if one goes, they all go. Bam! A viable solution and matched the source material and inspiration of the EC. All is well. All is good.

Only now people are complaining and bitching about there being a limiting factor on EC. They don't like it. They prefer to hand out free points to some characters and punish others. I don't get it...

[zornwil]

The "drain one drain all" hardly matches the source material or inspiration of EC in that it defies the SFX of the drain (or other Adjustment Power) itself. A "Drain HTH Strike" that's based on sapping musclepower in the striking area can well reduce Iceman's block-of-ice-hand (HTH strike in EC) since he can't wield it effectively but it hardly reduces his ramp-of-ice Gliding/Flight power.

PS - Dust Raven, my complaint remains that the limitations aren't sensible. I'm all for a limitations such as offsetting Disad costs or offsetting common weaknesses or other constructs. Many people are complaining about how artificial the current restraints are.

[Dust Raven]

The "drain one drain all" hardly matches the source material or inspiration of EC in that it defies the SFX of the drain (or other Adjustment Power) itself. A "Drain HTH Strike" that's based on sapping musclepower in the striking area can well reduce Iceman's block-of-ice-hand (HTH strike in EC) since he can't wield it effectively but it hardly reduces his ramp-of-ice Gliding/Flight power.

Neither would those SFX apply against any character withh a Focus. So you break by bat by reducing my muscle power?


PS - Dust Raven, my complaint remains that the limitations aren't sensible. I'm all for a limitations such as offsetting Disad costs or offsetting common weaknesses or other constructs. Many people are complaining about how artificial the current restraints are.
Depends on the point of view actually. I've noticed that the same people who complain about the limitations on EC are the same people who complain that Adjustment Powers are broken (a generalization, there are exceptions). I do wonder if it's all just a missunderstand of the rules or of how the rules work together.

[zornwil]

Neither would those SFX apply against any character withh a Focus. So you break by bat by reducing my muscle power?

I don't see how that's relevant to the issue itself - that's merely a separate issue.


Depends on the point of view actually. I've noticed that the same people who complain about the limitations on EC are the same people who complain that Adjustment Powers are broken (a generalization, there are exceptions). I do wonder if it's all just a missunderstand of the rules or of how the rules work together.

The EC and Adjustment Powers thing are necessarily conflated, I think. But throwing out Adjustment Powers, I think the 0 END prohibition is just as artificial and a poor limitation. It doesn't seem at all specific to source material.

As others here, I've run without either 0 END or artificial relationships to Adjustment Powers. One could choose to express their weakness by saying that stopping the SFX of any one power in their EC stops all and I'd accept that as a balancing weakness, but as a necessary rule it makes no intrinsic sense to me.

[David Blue]

The funny thing about Elemental Controls is that for the longest time all it did was reward a character with a spiffy concept. Another way to look at this is that EC punished characters who didn't have a theme power and weren't all Silver Age happy. Most of the character's from the source material don't have a unifying SFX for their powers; they just have these powers. Sure, there was some justifications for some of it, like 'I'm an alien' or 'I was bitten by a wacked out bug', but the powers actually selected didn't act or look like they should work together.Yup. They also (often) failed to cost END by default when they were most strongly linked in the comics. "Spider-sense", sensible or not, is as Spidey-ish as it gets, yet does not belong in an Elemental Control. Which is a reason to think there's something wrong with Elemental Controls.


Those character were punished for not looking like Iceman, who only had one power, but could do a lot with it. A LOT of people complained and bitched about it. Many GMs absolutely banned EC in their games because thery weren't gonna reward concept A and punish concept B just because the rules like concept A.This is all absolutely right and much to the point. And I wasn't kidding when I said if I was looking for Martian Manhunter and other classic characters like that, next time up, I'd ban Elemental Controls myself. I may very well do so in future. "Magic Lasso" and "Invisble plane" don't ... hmm. (pauses) You're convincing me of, and I'm convincing myself of, something I'd rather not be convinced of, because it's not convenient.

But on the other hand, it was and is irritating when the rules are kept, yet published characters and gamemasters make exceptions to the rules - because what's in question here is a pure, point-crunching non-flavour, un-subtle point bonus. Quite a big one too.

It's hard to see how the exceptions can not sometimes feel like favouritism. Cyborg X-Plus gets to put his armor and his force field and his damage reduction in his "Cyborg Body" Elemental Control because his character concept is good and deserves a bonus? (While my character gets no such break, which seems to imply ... POUT!)

Without any Elemental Control rules that were widely respected and consistently in force, qualifying for an Elemental Control, or not qualifying for it, could so easily have to do with whether you were a long-term gaming buddy of the gamemaster or a newbie. The way the gamemaster wants it must always prevail in any case, but rules that basically come down to "you're cool, get rewards, your character sucks, no biscuit for you" and are highly likely not to be applied as written are a potential exacerbating factor.

So there was a problem.


5th Edition changed that. They pretty much stated that since concept A is getting all these extra free powers, we're gonna treat them as all one power and if one goes, they all go. Bam! A viable solution and matched the source material and inspiration of the EC. All is well. All is good. I think that's exactly where we disagree: everything after Bam! (which is always correct) is in dispute.

If anything, I think I'm coming round to the view that the limitation on Elemental Controls has to be something like a Vulnerability or a Susceptibility that the player has to negotiate for, with factors like "what kinds of villains are there in this game?" being highly relevant.

(At least the Vulnerability rules are tweaked so you will sting from what you're supposed to be vulnerable to even if you use some of your free points to buy up a defence to it. Gary pointed out that there's a problem with the Elemental Control drain pseudo-Vulnerability, and he's offered us a solution to it. Bravo, Garry, but even so I think that's not as good or as neat as the rules on Vulnerability have been since - forever.)

As it is, it's like 5th Edition is saying what the weakness-triggering factor has to be, whether the player had that in mind and whether I want to it to be that common in my game or not. It's like if they'd said the weakness is always intense magnetic fields or the weakness is always magic, regardless of what the gamemaster wanted, and then said, by the way, here's a whole lot of intensely annoying rules on magic and magnetic fields.


Only now people are complaining and bitching about there being a limiting factor on EC. They don't like it. They prefer to hand out free points to some characters and punish others. I don't get it...I don't mind there being "a limiting factor". What I mind is 5th Edition saying what it's going to be, in regard to a bonus that everybody wants, and worse yet selecting that limit as something I don't want around. I do not want the rules defining drains as important, when I don't want that stuff.

Dust Raven "They prefer to hand out free points to some characters and punish others." I prefer to make it as clear and consistent as I can, childishly clear, no-brainer clear, who gets rewards and why, and how anyone can equally qualify for rewards regardless of whether they gamed with me before. I think that's an improvement, that is, it's better than a complete mess.

[Vorsch]

The problem stems from the subjective nature of "tight sfx" for ec.

Cyborg boddy is a reason not a sfx for powers, as this would logicaly allow "superhuman" as a valid sfx.

If Hero publish a list of acceptable ECs with sample powers , as approved by steve (who makes alot of controversial rules decision as it is), then wed have a basis for judging wether a submission was good or not.

I for one think my Invulnerability EC is fine, it gives physical invulnerability but includes no EC legal powers. EC was explicitly stated by the original game designers as a cost break (reward) for good concept related powers.

RC AP
30 60 EC Invulnerability
45 75 Armour 20pd 20ed, hardened
30 60 75% Physical damage red
30 60 75% Energy damage red

a saving of 90 pts, of which some could be used for powerdef (handy sfx invulnerability).

If a player brought me this i would accept it, far less cheesy than alot of Book legal/published characters.

I mean to say when i see FF bought as sfx armour i cringe. ( of which ive had two submission recently both for power armour characters.)

Note i dont consider Power armour suitable for EC.

Marvel characters would more likely qualify than DC ones, as DC characters are a collection of unrelated "super" powers, thouch each power could qualify as a EC such as Superspeed/superstrength/invulnerability

[AmadanNaBriona]

I've been pondering this topic, and the thoughts I've been having are that EC needs to be reworked in much the same way that the old Gadget Pool rules were reworked into the VPP rules. Steps are as follows...
#1) Rename it to something more neutral (Concept Pool? )
#2) Boost the Control cost to 1 RP per 1 active point
#3) remove most of the "illogical for all aplications" built in limits on the EC
#4) add a variety of metagame based Advantages and Limitations to the control cost to allow for simulation of different types of pools... thus the current EC would have something like:
(-1) One power source: Any Adjustment power effecting a power in pool also affects All other powers in pool and control
(-0) Any Stats in pool are required to take No Figured Stats at full limit value (default limit)
(Incedentally, the option for advantages and limits on the control allows for more use variations on the power without GM hand waves... Have a +1/2 Advantage: Persistant powers OK and suddenly GM permission is no longer needed. Or a +1/2: Stats in pool generate normal figured stats. Presto. Problem solved.)
I think that EC has had something like this coming to it for a long time, myself. It has always been a bit of a holdout from the "Good Old Days" and really is one of the last constructs that NEEDS to be dragged kicking and screaming into the toolkit age.

[Dust Raven]

I don't see how that's relevant to the issue itself - that's merely a separate issue. It was your example :). My point was that just because the SFX don't fit a particular Power dosn't mean some other Power or mechanic is broken. It all depends on how you look at it and what you're willing to let a player get away with.




The EC and Adjustment Powers thing are necessarily conflated, I think. But throwing out Adjustment Powers, I think the 0 END prohibition is just as artificial and a poor limitation. It doesn't seem at all specific to source material.

As others here, I've run without either 0 END or artificial relationships to Adjustment Powers. One could choose to express their weakness by saying that stopping the SFX of any one power in their EC stops all and I'd accept that as a balancing weakness, but as a necessary rule it makes no intrinsic sense to me.
Adjustment Powers are "necessarily" conflated, but not EC I think. It's rather simple, though misunderstood (by authors as well as players and GMs apparently).

I've run games with and without special consderation for EC and I've come to a happy conclusions as to how it works, and is "supposed" to work. It turns out that my conclusion seems to disagree with how Mr. Long and other Herogames authors see EC, but I don't mind much because I'm not actually gaming with any of them. What I do works for me, but I can't help thinking it would work for everybod else too.

(I'll get to what I'm getting to in my reply to David Blue)

[zornwil]

It was your example :). My point was that just because the SFX don't fit a particular Power dosn't mean some other Power or mechanic is broken. It all depends on how you look at it and what you're willing to let a player get away with.

To be clear, I'm saying the comparison was irrelevant, though your point itself is valid.

However, I think the issue is that Adjustment Powers, by their nature, won't really be so clear as to have their SFX warrant such a ruling on EC. It's a confusion that shouldn't be necessary.


Adjustment Powers are "necessarily" conflated, but not EC I think. It's rather simple, though misunderstood (by authors as well as players and GMs apparently).

I'm saying those two issues are necessarily conflated (I don't know what you mean by "Adjustment Powers are 'necessarily' conflated", they are one item on a list so that doesn't make sense, I think) because the rules for EC specifically include a rule related to Adjustment Powers. The two become inseparable and any issues with one influences the other.


I've run games with and without special consderation for EC and I've come to a happy conclusions as to how it works, and is "supposed" to work. It turns out that my conclusion seems to disagree with how Mr. Long and other Herogames authors see EC, but I don't mind much because I'm not actually gaming with any of them. What I do works for me, but I can't help thinking it would work for everybod else too.

(I'll get to what I'm getting to in my reply to David Blue)

I'll have to look back above re your conclusion.

I think there are many possible fixes for ECs that I could support. The idea of Disads traded in for them works, the idea of simply indicating they must have a counter at some level of toughness works. I think a good fix might be fudgier than the current (and prior) Adjustment Powers and 0 END rulings, but I see no fundamental issue there.

[Dust Raven]

Woah... long reply.

[digesting]

Yup. They also (often) failed to cost END by default when they were most strongly linked in the comics. "Spider-sense", sensible or not, is as Spidey-ish as it gets, yet does not belong in an Elemental Control. Which is a reason to think there's something wrong with Elemental Controls.

This is all absolutely right and much to the point. And I wasn't kidding when I said if I was looking for Martian Manhunter and other classic characters like that, next time up, I'd ban Elemental Controls myself. I may very well do so in future. "Magic Lasso" and "Invisble plane" don't ... hmm. (pauses) You're convincing me of, and I'm convincing myself of, something I'd rather not be convinced of, because it's not convenient.

But on the other hand, it was and is irritating when the rules are kept, yet published characters and gamemasters make exceptions to the rules - because what's in question here is a pure, point-crunching non-flavour, un-subtle point bonus. Quite a big one too.

It's hard to see how the exceptions can not sometimes feel like favouritism. Cyborg X-Plus gets to put his armor and his force field and his damage reduction in his "Cyborg Body" Elemental Control because his character concept is good and deserves a bonus? (While my character gets no such break, which seems to imply ... POUT!)

Without any Elemental Control rules that were widely respected and consistently in force, qualifying for an Elemental Control, or not qualifying for it, could so easily have to do with whether you were a long-term gaming buddy of the gamemaster or a newbie. The way the gamemaster wants it must always prevail in any case, but rules that basically come down to "you're cool, get rewards, your character sucks, no biscuit for you" and are highly likely not to be applied as written are a potential exacerbating factor.

So there was a problem.
Seems like we are eye to eye here.


I think that's exactly where we disagree: everything after Bam! (which is always correct) is in dispute.

I would say that yes, as most people are interpreting EC, it is FUBARed (damn, I haven't used that acronym since the 80s). There's a different way to look at it though, which I'll get to in a moment.


If anything, I think I'm coming round to the view that the limitation on Elemental Controls has to be something like a Vulnerability or a Susceptibility that the player has to negotiate for, with factors like "what kinds of villains are there in this game?" being highly relevant.

(At least the Vulnerability rules are tweaked so you will sting from what you're supposed to be vulnerable to even if you use some of your free points to buy up a defence to it. Gary pointed out that there's a problem with the Elemental Control drain pseudo-Vulnerability, and he's offered us a solution to it. Bravo, Garry, but even so I think that's not as good or as neat as the rules on Vulnerability have been since - forever.)
Looks kinda like that, but it's not even close to how Vulnerability works. Vuln inceases the effect roll of an attack, the limiting factor on EC simply applies that effect roll to addition Powers in addition to the targeting Power. A Susceptibility is closer, except that the amount of effect varies with the strength of the attack power.


As it is, it's like 5th Edition is saying what the weakness-triggering factor has to be, whether the player had that in mind and whether I want to it to be that common in my game or not. It's like if they'd said the weakness is always intense magnetic fields or the weakness is always magic, regardless of what the gamemaster wanted, and then said, by the way, here's a whole lot of intensely annoying rules on magic and magnetic fields.

I don't mind there being "a limiting factor". What I mind is 5th Edition saying what it's going to be, in regard to a bonus that everybody wants, and worse yet selecting that limit as something I don't want around. I do not want the rules defining drains as important, when I don't want that stuff.
To a point, I agree. There are nifty ways around this though. There are certain limiting factors on any number of Powers and Frameworks. All a GM has to do is say "instead of the normal rule for this particular instance, we will be using this alternate rules which I've judged to be of equivalent value." Nothing wrong with that, and there's already a lot of precidence for it in the published material (check the USPD and count the number of "exceptions").


Dust Raven "They prefer to hand out free points to some characters and punish others." I prefer to make it as clear and consistent as I can, childishly clear, no-brainer clear, who gets rewards and why, and how anyone can equally qualify for rewards regardless of whether they gamed with me before. I think that's an improvement, that is, it's better than a complete mess.Well, if that's what you want to do, then that's what you do. But that's your game, which at this point has nothing to do with the rules governing character balance. You are specifically giving a bonus to some characters and not others. That's just a house rule. House rules don't mean the real rules are broken.

Here's how I see the whole EC thing. Fairly simple really. EC is a group of Powers with a "tight" SFX, and when one Power in the EC is negatively affected by an Adjustment Power, all Powers in the EC are. I won't get into any other "false" limitations having to do with END, which I agree are stupid and make no sense. I'll stand by the general "no Special Powers" rule though, but keep in mind it's followed by "without GM's expressed permission."

So, what is an EC? It's a single power. Not Power, but power. Little 'p'. More specifically, it's a single power that is so flexible, useful or well trained that it functions as more than one Power in game mechanics. But EC takes this a step further. Not only is it a single power represented by several Powers, the single power is so "tight", that all of the Powers, the game mechanics that define it, are to be treated as a single Power. So an EC turns many Powers into a single Power, to represent a single power.

I really hope this is making sense...

Why is this point of view so significant in thinking EC is just fine (without the END restriction crap)? Think of some constructs that actually are a single power that should be represented by a single Power, but the only way to do it is to build it with many Powers. There aren't many, but they exist. As a GM, this is how I quallify an EC in my campaigns. If what the player wants or what the character needs doesn't fit this description, the character doesn't get an EC. If it does, they do, and it doesn't matter what Powers are going into it (though I disallow most Special Powers... as in I haven't yet allowed one).

I just don't think many people see EC like this... it's still just a bunch of different powers with the same or similar SFX, like it was in previous editions.
I never take into account previous rules editions when evaluating a current set of rules though. In the end I might like something from a previous edition, but you can only fairly compare a rule to the other rules in the same edition of the rules, as things are likely to have changed across the board. EC is a glaring example. Something big changed and you can't compare it to what it was in previous editions. At least not unless you're gonna take all of the rules associated with it and compare those right along side it in both editions as well.

[Dust Raven]

I'm saying those two issues are necessarily conflated (I don't know what you mean by "Adjustment Powers are 'necessarily' conflated", they are one item on a list so that doesn't make sense, I think) because the rules for EC specifically include a rule related to Adjustment Powers. The two become inseparable and any issues with one influences the other.

I think I was being confusing. Basically what I mean to say is that EC and Adjustment Powers are two different things, and are seperable. You can in fact run a game using one without the other (so long as the one you are using isn't EC). I suppose that you can talk about Adjustment Powers without getting involved with EC, but not the other way around, although the Adjustment Powers don't have anything to do with EC.




I'll have to look back above re your conclusion.

I think there are many possible fixes for ECs that I could support. The idea of Disads traded in for them works, the idea of simply indicating they must have a counter at some level of toughness works. I think a good fix might be fudgier than the current (and prior) Adjustment Powers and 0 END rulings, but I see no fundamental issue there.

From what I've found, most of the fixes I've made to the rules have come about through point of view. I might eventually find a point of view that allows me to remove all of my house rules, but I doubt it, but the fewer house rules I have the better. It's much easier to just to "oh, so that's how it works..." without actually changing anything in the rules (just what those rules mean).

[Vondy]

I don't like to tie my hands with carte blanche rulings. I consider each design in turn with a careful eye towards impact and balance. I don't crunch numbers on it, but I have an experienced eye ad a nose for cheese. In general, I agree that a character with an EC and power defense can be a problem, but I don't allow character's to take "power defense." I require power defense have a defined SFX which is approved before play, and I weigh the sfx of the power defense and the EC on the scales. In many cases, I don't consider it problematic - and I've never run into a problem in play.

[David Blue]

Dust Raven: "Woah... long reply."

Heh. I'll go for relative brevity this time. (Looking back - well, I tried.)

Dust Raven: "I would say that yes, as most people are interpreting EC, it is FUBARed (damn, I haven't used that acronym since the 80s). There's a different way to look at it though, which I'll get to in a moment."

In the meantime, will you agree that before 5th Edition came out there were no Elemental Control rules that were widely respected and consistently in force, and after 5th Edition came out there were still no Elemental Control rules that were widely respected and consistently in force?

Dust Raven: "Vuln inceases the effect roll of an attack, the limiting factor on EC simply applies that effect roll to addition Powers in addition to the targeting Power. A Susceptibility is closer, except that the amount of effect varies with the strength of the attack power."

Yup. (Assuming you meant "targeted Power" not "targeting power". Typos haunt us all.)

Dust Raven: "There are nifty ways around this though. There are certain limiting factors on any number of Powers and Frameworks. All a GM has to do is say "instead of the normal rule for this particular instance, we will be using this alternate rules which I've judged to be of equivalent value." Nothing wrong with that, and there's already a lot of precidence for it in the published material (check the USPD and count the number of "exceptions")."

I don't have USPD, but am thinking of getting it. You like it?

Dust Raven, re: my "colour" SFX approach: "Well, if that's what you want to do, then that's what you do. But that's your game, which at this point has nothing to do with the rules governing character balance. You are specifically giving a bonus to some characters and not others. That's just a house rule. House rules don't mean the real rules are broken."

It seems to me you suggested above that not to apply the rules as written but to create house rules or exceptions was a good approach. Obviously I agree.

I hope we also agree that just as house rules don't prove the real rules are broken, they also don't prove the real rules are not broken.

Dust Raven: "Here's how I see the whole EC thing. Fairly simple really. EC is a group of Powers with a "tight" SFX, and when one Power in the EC is negatively affected by an Adjustment Power, all Powers in the EC are." [snip] "So, what is an EC? It's a single power. Not Power, but power. Little 'p'. More specifically, it's a single power that is so flexible, useful or well trained that it functions as more than one Power in game mechanics. But EC takes this a step further. Not only is it a single power represented by several Powers, the single power is so "tight", that all of the Powers, the game mechanics that define it, are to be treated as a single Power. So an EC turns many Powers into a single Power, to represent a single power.

Dust Raven: "I really hope this is making sense..."

Maybe.

[David Blue]

Walk me through an example.

Here's an official Marvel power: Darkforce Manipulation. Darkstar (Lania Petrovna of the Soviet Super-Soldiers) has it, among others. It can produce force rams, or shields, or a bunch of different things, though any one character is likely to have just a few tricks (Powers) they use over and over, like fly, ranged energy bash, force wall.

I hope it's obvious from what I said before what I'd do with this: I'd rubber-stamp it. Dark-force Powers all using Dark Energy, Purple Powers all using Purple Energy - I'm easy. And I think out of ten guys all applying my approach, nine or ten of them would say: "Power up your Dark Force Manipulation, baby: it's all good."

It's not at all clear to me what you'll do with this power.

It's even less clear to me that ten different gamemasters trying to apply what I see as the FUBARed Elemental Control rules according to your suggested saving interpretation would all or almost all make the same call on this. I can't see the bright line. It looks like the rule, applied as you suggest, might in practice amount to: "if the gamemaster is in a giving mood that day, you get the Elemental Control bonus, and if not, not."

What would you do? Why would you do it? Where's the predicability coming from?

Dust Raven: "Think of some constructs that actually are a single power that should be represented by a single Power, but the only way to do it is to build it with many Powers. There aren't many, but they exist. As a GM, this is how I quallify an EC in my campaigns. If what the player wants or what the character needs doesn't fit this description, the character doesn't get an EC. If it does, they do, and it doesn't matter what Powers are going into it (though I disallow most Special Powers... as in I haven't yet allowed one)."

Show me what this means.

[Bloodstone]

I've always looked at EC's as the Power Skill writen up as an actual power. You are using one power and here are some tricks you have figured out how to do with it reliably.

So I would probably give Darkstar a EC. But it would ultimatly depend on what the player had in that EC and what we agreed the "Darkforrce" should be able to do.

I would probably not give somone like the Mandarin a single "Ten Rings of Power" EC. Each ring is an entirly seperate power, with vastly different SFX. The only thing that ties them all together is the fact that they are all rings created by the Mandarin from Alien tech.

In actual play however, I would not be surprised if a player decided to focus on one ring and develop tricks with it, so that it eventually became an EC or MP. Take the Mento Intensifier Ring. In the comics, I believe all it does is Mind Control against a single target. I could easily see a player working towards expanding that mind control as well as developing powers like Mental Illusions, Telepathy and/or Mind Scan. At that point I could see giving the player a "Mento Intensifier Ring" EC.

[David Blue]

I've always looked at EC's as the Power Skill writen up as an actual power. You are using one power and here are some tricks you have figured out how to do with it reliably.

So I would probably give Darkstar a EC. But it would ultimatly depend on what the player had in that EC and what we agreed the "Darkforrce" should be able to do.That sounds to me like a solid and well-considered "maybe, maybe not, depending."

That of course is what I expect: uncertainty.

Still, it's always reasonable to ask for details.

OK, I'll fill in the details. And I'll be as simple as can be.

The prospective player of Natasha Shaposhnikova, Darklight, intends to defend the Motherland with the following power built as an Elemental Control:

Cost Power
30 Dark Force Powers: Elemental Control, 60-point powers
30 1) Dark Force Blast: Energy Blast 12d6
30 2) Dark Force Pseudo-Tar Attack: Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF
30 3) Dark Force Flight: Flight 30"
Total Cost of Dark Force Powers: 120 Points

Legal? Or not legal? A true Elemental Control? Or not a true Elemental Control?

Three powers? One power built with three Powers? Three Essences in one Substance? And what about the filioque?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

(wink)

[incrdbil]

I'm still in the camp that believes this is not a problem and doesn't need a fix. But to me, the easy fix would be a simple house rule that, in addition to EC's automatically being "drain one drain all", the character's power defense can never apply to anything draining his EC - an automatic -0 limitation.



I'm with you right up to the PD not applying to the EC. I'm ok with that--if I've decided to allow the character power defense at all. I'm admittedly stingy on power defense. It's hard to justify unless your main power base consists of drains, transfers, or some type of FX that says 'this power is given only to the chosen one'--and even then, I'll define that as PowerDef only vs transfer. How to do build up a resistance ott your powers being drained? and even if you have a teem 'leech', is that type of training useful against the different affect of a suppress power?

so I don't worry much in my campaigns--It's going to be the incredibly rare character with an EC and power defense, and even then, its goign to be such a minor amount--10 points sounds nice, but when a 5 to 6d6 drain hits (or a 10 d6 suppress), that EC and all its powers are still going to be weakened somewhat.

[zornwil]

I think I was being confusing. Basically what I mean to say is that EC and Adjustment Powers are two different things, and are seperable. You can in fact run a game using one without the other (so long as the one you are using isn't EC). I suppose that you can talk about Adjustment Powers without getting involved with EC, but not the other way around, although the Adjustment Powers don't have anything to do with EC.





From what I've found, most of the fixes I've made to the rules have come about through point of view. I might eventually find a point of view that allows me to remove all of my house rules, but I doubt it, but the fewer house rules I have the better. It's much easier to just to "oh, so that's how it works..." without actually changing anything in the rules (just what those rules mean).
Looking back, I think your definition of EC is basically fine. I wouldn't have a problem with that, either, as a standard rule for it. I think it is also a better rule than what we have now, and while it would leave open some room for fudge in applying Adjustment SFX it's still much clearer as to rationale than the current system.

BTW, I didn't know that Steve Long disagreed that EC was essentially one power.

[Bloodstone]

I would have to talk to the prospective player a bit and ask a my usual barage of questions, but something like that would most likley get approved with little to no alteration.

[zornwil]

Just thinking further along the "truly one power" lines...one interesting side note is that in theory you'd expect them to share some sort of basic Advs/Lims and where not they'd need a Variable SFX or Variable Effect or whatever to pay for the increased flexibility for a slot. Not sure how/if you'd codify that, though. Maybe just a basic instruction that slots should share similar/the same Advs/Lims in general and any exceptions are with GM permission. As simple as that, perhaps.

BTW, one thing that really bugs me about ECs is the basic construction in that you can't get any price break for adding powers smaller than the reserve. I think there should be some way to deal with this as well.

[Gary]

BTW, one thing that really bugs me about ECs is the basic construction in that you can't get any price break for adding powers smaller than the reserve. I think there should be some way to deal with this as well.


Easy. Just replace the EC with a -1/4 'drain one drain all' Limitation on all powers in the 'framework'. Now you can combine 5 pt powers with 60 pt powers and still have benefits.

[zornwil]

Easy. Just replace the EC with a -1/4 'drain one drain all' Limitation on all powers in the 'framework'. Now you can combine 5 pt powers with 60 pt powers and still have benefits.
Sure, so long as the cost differential is one people are willing to take (re the price drop with EC).

Maybe an interesting way to do EC would be the -1/4 Lim you indicate plus a rule to allow you to offset an ADDITIONAL (to the -1/4) control cost among EC powers for any offsetting Disads relevant to all EC powers, as suggested above. Putting these 2 together might be a very good way to revise ECs.

[Mentor]

I guess I am both purust and heretic about many things EC. I always saw it as the counter balance to the old number crunching gamer (me included) trick of buying lots of STR and CON to make everyone looking for pure combat efficiency a Brick, if everything is bought raw. While it is possible to cheese the construct up badly, that is true with any aspect of the system.

Thus the EC is the balancer. The issues of SFX, character concept, and campaign limits come in to play yet again in determinig whether someone can or should be buying tons of Power Defense or any exotic defense for that matter. Thus the energy based PC, Mentalist, or Versatility Guy can play in the same league as the unadulterated Brick, who still holds his own in most campaigns.

On the other hand, I do take the writers of the rules at thier word. When a construct calls for GM discretion, as GM I consider my discretion to be sufficient justification to allow changes. I feel no guilt or pause at all about allowing some non END powers in the Elemental Control. Likewise, when a construct is unbalanced and completely book legal, I am willing and able to say no. I trust and expect the players in our campaign to adhere to the "spirit of the law" as to how our campaign works.

[Vondy]

Easy. Just replace the EC with a -1/4 'drain one drain all' Limitation on all powers in the 'framework'. Now you can combine 5 pt powers with 60 pt powers and still have benefits.

I usually allow a -1/2 for the lim, since an EC amounts a -1 lim for the individual slots, less the EC itself, but its a variable GM call when all is said and done. In fact, this construct has pretty much replaced ECs in my game (partly because my players know what I think about EC's in general).

[Dust Raven]

Walk me through an example.
...
What would you do? Why would you do it? Where's the predicability coming from?
...
Show me what this means.

In short, I would probably allow the example, but I should elaborate.

Take the well known example of Witchcraft and her Helpful Witcheries:

<TABLE cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD vAlign=top align=right>15 </TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>Helpful Witcheries: Elemental Control, 30-point powers </TD><TD vAlign=top align=right></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD vAlign=top align=right>15 </TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>1) Shield Of Sorcery: FF (10 PD/10 ED), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) </TD><TD vAlign=top align=right>0</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD vAlign=top align=right>15 </TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>2) Wings Of The Wind: Flight 15" </TD><TD vAlign=top align=right>3</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

As written, I would not allow it. It's two seperate spells. Sure, they are both magic, but they are two different magical effects, both mechanically and by SFX. It wouldn't fly. But if you make a few changes...

<TABLE cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD vAlign=top align=right>15 </TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>Fairhand's Floating Field: Elemental Control, 30-point powers </TD><TD vAlign=top align=right></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD vAlign=top align=right>15 </TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>1) Field: FF (10 PD/10 ED), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) </TD><TD vAlign=top align=right>0</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD vAlign=top align=right>15 </TD><TD vAlign=top align=left>2) Floating: Flight 15" </TD><TD vAlign=top align=right>3</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

This I would allow. What's different? Just the names as far as what's printed on the sheet, but the names indicate something that the mechanics cannot. This is a single spell, a single power. It does two things, and those two things don't necessarily have to happen at the same time (Linked is inappropriate). You could easily have the Field up and "float" with your feet firmly on the ground, and you could easily float while only having the field beneath your feet (but with 0 END on the field, why would you?).

[Dust Raven]

BTW, I didn't know that Steve Long disagreed that EC was essentially one power.

It's really an assumption of mine, but it seems rather apparent from some of his replies to questions related to EC and how it's presented in his rules.

[Sean Waters]

Hmn.

Elemental controls? All frameworks are a necessary evil, but EC is the least necessary.

People like them becasue they get more points to play with. Fair enough, but it is all a matter of balance. The idea of removing the restrictions imposed by the rules is daft though. You want points because you're so great that you've come up with a brilliant character concept? Oh my aching ribs.

The trade-off of an EC is the easy drain.

There's nothing to stop you buying as much power defence as you like to overcome this. Well, nothing but the GM, who will, if they have any sense.

Like many things in Hero, it isn't a problem with the rules, it's a problem with the way they are used.

Boy I'm in a good mood today, ain't I? :uranus:

[zornwil]

I usually allow a -1/2 for the lim, since an EC amounts a -1 lim for the individual slots, less the EC itself, but its a variable GM call when all is said and done. In fact, this construct has pretty much replaced ECs in my game (partly because my players know what I think about EC's in general).
Some time back during one of these EC discussions I think it amounted to, on a non-scientific average, around an 80%-90% of original value cost break (obviously, this depends entirely on the character in question, but IIRC this was derived from various reasonable, common builds), so -1/2 certainly seems reasonable. I think many HERO gamers would be more accepting of this than a -1/4 value, plus I think many might accept trading in the vagaries and questions for how it stands now with a more specific and clear rule such as this.

[zornwil]

Hmn.

Elemental controls? All frameworks are a necessary evil, but EC is the least necessary.

People like them becasue they get more points to play with. Fair enough, but it is all a matter of balance. The idea of removing the restrictions imposed by the rules is daft though. You want points because you're so great that you've come up with a brilliant character concept? Oh my aching ribs.

The trade-off of an EC is the easy drain.

There's nothing to stop you buying as much power defence as you like to overcome this. Well, nothing but the GM, who will, if they have any sense.

Like many things in Hero, it isn't a problem with the rules, it's a problem with the way they are used.

Boy I'm in a good mood today, ain't I? :uranus:
I really believe ECs are a wonderful evil. They represent a way to build some constructs encouraged by the source material but expensive otherwise.

Let me tell you about an evil, abusive EC I allowed. We have a character who wants to be a robot. With his concept and with the points allowed for characters, I had two choices: give him more points than anyone else, or fudge the EC. I chose to fudge the EC. Because it was there! It allowed his well-conceived, specific concept to function. The concept has many implied deficiencies, not all written out in Disads nor even possible to really say they are "cost-effective", but definitely there in SFX.

It works great. It is an EC most GMs, from the sounds of the boards, would not let happen - includes characteristics and 0 END powers, oh my! But it is a useful way to "game" the system yet allow for a character who by all rights should fit.

I think more GMs will be willing to abuse a construct than to go "points-less" or seem to favor a player with more points. But I ALSO think that "abuse' is really a misnomor; a very well-conceived EC should have apparent drawbacks, as with any tight SFX. Why? Because "any idiot" can see what they can do to a robot - big old magnets, steel cutters, and so on all become useful against the robot, and other things are not. Other EC concepts should wield a similar predictability.

To me that's what ECs make a lot of sense for and should be better stated in the rules and possibly even codified - they outright suggest courses of actions to others! If they do not, then they should not qualify as an EC.

[zornwil]

I guess I am both purust and heretic about many things EC. I always saw it as the counter balance to the old number crunching gamer (me included) trick of buying lots of STR and CON to make everyone looking for pure combat efficiency a Brick, if everything is bought raw. While it is possible to cheese the construct up badly, that is true with any aspect of the system.

Thus the EC is the balancer. The issues of SFX, character concept, and campaign limits come in to play yet again in determinig whether someone can or should be buying tons of Power Defense or any exotic defense for that matter. Thus the energy based PC, Mentalist, or Versatility Guy can play in the same league as the unadulterated Brick, who still holds his own in most campaigns.

On the other hand, I do take the writers of the rules at thier word. When a construct calls for GM discretion, as GM I consider my discretion to be sufficient justification to allow changes. I feel no guilt or pause at all about allowing some non END powers in the Elemental Control. Likewise, when a construct is unbalanced and completely book legal, I am willing and able to say no. I trust and expect the players in our campaign to adhere to the "spirit of the law" as to how our campaign works.
My problem is that I want it all. From a real-world perspective, I'm fine with and employ an approach such as yours. And I think that HERO does necessarily demand a little more GM involvement in character design than other systems, and this is just part of that.

But I want the system to be more rational in a way that is less arbitrary than the current (and not just 5th, they've been this way for some time) way in which they handle ECs - the simple "no 0 END" and "drain one/drain all" fiats are in and of themselves aberrant from other rules in the system, on the whole, and I just don't think they are necessary.

[Kristopher]

I've never considered the "drains-1-drains-all" rule as anything but an unneeded kludge.

[David Blue]

Just thinking further along the "truly one power" lines...one interesting side note is that in theory you'd expect them to share some sort of basic Advs/Lims and where not they'd need a Variable SFX or Variable Effect or whatever to pay for the increased flexibility for a slot.Well, let's try this example, which is the same as my previous example:

Ice Girl wants the following power, built as an Elemental Control:

Cost Power
30 Ice Powers: Elemental Control, 60-point Powers
30 1) Ice Blast: Energy Blast 12d6
30 2) Ice Block: Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF
30 3) Ice Slides: Running +30"
Total Cost: 120 points.

Ice Girl, like Darklight, is built line for line from page 72 of Sidekick: this is the example where it shows you how to do an ideal, textbook legal plain vanilla Elemental Control. (All I did different for Darklight was swap in Flight for Running, since I didn't think running extra fast on black, sticky pseudo-tar would look good.)

I like this example, because as I noted before, it conforms perfectly to a "real" Marvel universe power. That's simulation!

Yet they (the Powers) are not sharing any advantages or limitations at all, as zornwil would expect them to.

Is refusing to play the Hero System munchkin game of accumulating advantages and -1/4 limitations inconsistent with Elemental Controls? (Or is it just so strange to think about a character built on four-coloured rather than Hero System concepts that one readily forgets ... ? (laughing) Hmm?)

Dust Raven: "In short, I would probably allow the example ..."

Bloodstone: "I would have to talk to the prospective player a bit and ask a my usual barage of questions, but something like that would most likley get approved with little to no alteration."

Is this how it's supposed to be for the simplest, most in-genre, most book-legal thing you could possibly write down regarding an Elemental Control?

Why is it so easy to get special treatment for nasty, complicated "grey zone" concepts (and sympathy for 0 END powers in the Elemental Control, small powers in the Elemental Control and so on), why is it readily acceptable that Elemental Controls are limited only by Adjustment attacks that nobody (or hardly anybody) may be using, and yet the simplest, most good-guy thing you can do gets a firm "probably"?

Truly, Hero System makes the straightforward hero pass his ideas through the eye of a needle, while it swallows the villain's Death Star whole.

These complicated fixes and re-interpretations intended to make an over-ripe rules system smell sweet tend to make things worse, not better.

The fancier you get, the tougher it is on character concepts that aren't supposed to be fancy.

However, I admit I did love the example of Fairhand's Floating Field. That was helpful.

[Hawksmoor]

I've never considered the "drains-1-drains-all" rule as anything but an unneeded kludge.

Ditto.

Seems pointless, harsh, and cruel.

In my games I just don't touch it.

That said I generally don't use or allow many adjustment powers, because of my understanding of the recovery record keeping. Which is a bear, but I think the way the rules read. So I just avoid the whole issue and keep adjustments: Rarer than a Virgin in Bangkok Whorehouse.

Hawksmoor

[zornwil]

Well, let's try this example, which is the same as my previous example:

Ice Girl wants the following power, built as an Elemental Control:

Cost Power
30 Ice Powers: Elemental Control, 60-point Powers
30 1) Ice Blast: Energy Blast 12d6
30 2) Ice Block: Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF
30 3) Ice Slides: Running +30"
Total Cost: 120 points.

Ice Girl, like Darklight, is built line for line from page 72 of Sidekick: this is the example where it shows you how to do an ideal, textbook legal plain vanilla Elemental Control. (All I did different for Darklight was swap in Flight for Running, since I didn't think running extra fast on black, sticky pseudo-tar would look good.)

I like this example, because as I noted before, it conforms perfectly to a "real" Marvel universe power. That's simulation!

Yet they (the Powers) are not sharing any advantages or limitations at all, as zornwil would expect them to.

To be fair, though, they don't have any advs/lims, so they fit my "proposed rule" (which, please note, is more of a musing about rules than anything else) in that they share the same level of non-tweaked powers.


Is refusing to play the Hero System munchkin game of accumulating advantages and -1/4 limitations inconsistent with Elemental Controls? (Or is it just so strange to think about a character built on four-coloured rather than Hero System concepts that one readily forgets ... ? (laughing) Hmm?)

Actually, this response raises a question we're not properly tackling - is this a genre issue? If it is, it should not be in core rules. If it is not, then what are the other source material instances we are emulating?

I think EC is a good sort of idea in general. I think it can be used for many purposes. I don't doubt that we will never reach a "holy grail" of EC with a solid, coherent, specific set of rules that most people fully agree to and follow carefullly. The very concept (SFX-based) is a bit nebulous for HERO to handle, actually, and requires GM adjudication, much as Adjustment Powers, which share the whole issue of being very wedded to SFX, share.


Dust Raven: "In short, I would probably allow the example ..."

Bloodstone: "I would have to talk to the prospective player a bit and ask a my usual barage of questions, but something like that would most likley get approved with little to no alteration."

Is this how it's supposed to be for the simplest, most in-genre, most book-legal thing you could possibly write down regarding an Elemental Control?

Well...kinda...

I mean, the biggest failure in ANY construct is where the GM and Player do not share an understanding. ECs essentially FORCE them to do so, as the concept itself has a fudginess (tight SFX) which begs a question. A good GM may ask a few questions on the example you've given, simply because there shouldn't be too much grey about how these will function if (for example) a Drain hits only one power among the set.


Why is it so easy to get special treatment for nasty, complicated "grey zone" concepts (and sympathy for 0 END powers in the Elemental Control, small powers in the Elemental Control and so on), why is it readily acceptable that Elemental Controls are limited only by Adjustment attacks that nobody (or hardly anybody) may be using, and yet the simplest, most good-guy thing you can do gets a firm "probably"?

You certainly raise a good point here. But I wonder how much more ECs *really* get challenged off the boards as opposed to our yakkity-tak here...


Truly, Hero System makes the straightforward hero pass his ideas through the eye of a needle, while it swallows the villain's Death Star whole.

This doesn't strike me as fair. Villains are plot devices in some significant part and aren't subject to scrutiny because the GM can control them at will, including toning down if the power is too great. Heroes are harder - they are played by other people, and for cooperative storytelling to work, some level of shared concept is essential.


These complicated fixes and re-interpretations intended to make an over-ripe rules system smell sweet tend to make things worse, not better.

The fancier you get, the tougher it is on character concepts that aren't supposed to be fancy.

To your second sentence of this snippet, I do agree. That's why I support a simple (even if fudgey) set of EC (or any other) rules that make sense, that's all. I still think the original EC rules weren't so bad, they were just easy to abuse when adding more powers and with certain stacks.

It's a hard line to draw. I suggest the rules should generally be more conservative and tip off the players as to how to liberalize, rather than the other way around, merely because this is presumably more manageable for those less versed in the system. But I don't think we should be so conservative we try to address every situation.


However, I admit I did love the example of Fairhand's Floating Field. That was helpful.

Agreed.

[zornwil]

Ditto.

Seems pointless, harsh, and cruel.

In my games I just don't touch it.

That said I generally don't use or allow many adjustment powers, because of my understanding of the recovery record keeping. Which is a bear, but I think the way the rules read. So I just avoid the whole issue and keep adjustments: Rarer than a Virgin in Bangkok Whorehouse.

Hawksmoor
I think the 0 END ban is worse.

What bugs me about drain one/drain all is that I don't think there's an "SFX permitting" caveat for it as there should be - perhaps I'm wrong, though.

[David Blue]

To be fair, though, they don't have any advs/lims, so they fit my "proposed rule" (which, please note, is more of a musing about rules than anything else) in that they share the same level of non-tweaked powers.To be fair, you're right.


Actually, this response raises a question we're not properly tackling - is this a genre issue? If it is, it should not be in core rules. If it is not, then what are the other source material instances we are emulating?Good point!

I'm not familiar with the latest incarnation of Fantasy Hero. How are elementals and elemental magics typically built now?


I think EC is a good sort of idea in general. I think it can be used for many purposes. I don't doubt that we will never reach a "holy grail" of EC with a solid, coherent, specific set of rules that most people fully agree to and follow carefullly. The very concept (SFX-based) is a bit nebulous for HERO to handle, actually, and requires GM adjudication, much as Adjustment Powers, which share the whole issue of being very wedded to SFX, share.OK.


This doesn't strike me as fair. Villains are plot devices in some significant part and aren't subject to scrutiny because the GM can control them at will, including toning down if the power is too great. Heroes are harder - they are played by other people, and for cooperative storytelling to work, some level of shared concept is essential.With great respect, I think I'll stick to my guns here.

Hero system seems to function like a suspicious mommy when you want to do something that's a basic, heroic "bit". Wanna be BIG? The improved 5th Edition rules breathe an atmosphere of suspicion that the player not get away with something. Wanna do the Miracleman/Kid Miracleman mach-several power dive slamming into hard ground and bounce up fighting? How well do the rules support that? And so on - I could multiply examples. Yet do something truly nasty, and the design glances blearily over its newspaper at the breakfast table, says "good" and goes back to reading 600 pages of rules.

This does seem to apply to Elemental Controls. And how could it not? It's pervasive. Do everything "right" - at a considerable cost in efficiency - and you get "probably". Go another way - cool! Radical! Interesting! Want to tangle Elemental Controls with Adjustment? (And my feelings on that are the same as Hawksmmore's - his post had me rolling on the floor laughing at how he expressed it too.) That's supposed to be mandatory in the core rules now.

In the Star Wars universe, the Dark Side is not superior, just faster. In the Hero System genre, which overlays and mingles with other genres, Yoda would be wrong, or he'd have to change his story. There is a wind that blows constantly to the Dark Side - and that applies to player characters, not just non-player characters. Again and again, gamemasters see player characters discovering that Killing Attacks are OK after all - because they want to be effective, and that's the way the system works. (Which would be terrific if I wanted to play Dark Champions.) Character concepts that should be basic get funky, because the game system pushes and lures them that way, all the time.

Sure, the gamemaster can outpower and defeat the tendency of the game. But I'd rather the game system worked for me, or at least not against me unless I deliberately put effort into stifling it.

In other words: "No, Bob, not good!"

[zornwil]

To be fair, you're right.

Good point!

I'm not familiar with the latest incarnation of Fantasy Hero. How are elementals and elemental magics typically built now?

Not sure, I did read it, but it was large and it was a while ago. I don't recall much discussion on ECs. And my FH book is at home while I am on a plane to Germany. I hope someone else can check and elaborate.


OK.

With great respect, I think I'll stick to my guns here.

Hero system seems to function like a suspicious mommy when you want to do something that's a basic, heroic "bit". Wanna be BIG? The improved 5th Edition rules breathe an atmosphere of suspicion that the player not get away with something. Wanna do the Miracleman/Kid Miracleman mach-several power dive slamming into hard ground and bounce up fighting? How well do the rules support that? And so on - I could multiply examples. Yet do something truly nasty, and the design glances blearily over its newspaper at the breakfast table, says "good" and goes back to reading 600 pages of rules.

This does seem to apply to Elemental Controls. And how could it not? It's pervasive. Do everything "right" - at a considerable cost in efficiency - and you get "probably". Go another way - cool! Radical! Interesting! Want to tangle Elemental Controls with Adjustment? (And my feelings on that are the same as Hawksmmore's - his post had me rolling on the floor laughing at how he expressed it too.) That's supposed to be mandatory in the core rules now.

In the Star Wars universe, the Dark Side is not superior, just faster. In the Hero System genre, which overlays and mingles with other genres, Yoda would be wrong, or he'd have to change his story. There is a wind that blows constantly to the Dark Side - and that applies to player characters, not just non-player characters. Again and again, gamemasters see player characters discovering that Killing Attacks are OK after all - because they want to be effective, and that's the way the system works. (Which would be terrific if I wanted to play Dark Champions.) Character concepts that should be basic get funky, because the game system pushes and lures them that way, all the time.

Sure, the gamemaster can outpower and defeat the tendency of the game. But I'd rather the game system worked for me, or at least not against me unless I deliberately put effort into stifling it.

In other words: "No, Bob, not good!"

I dunno. Some age-old simple constructs such as MP persevere with no substantive criticism or challenging. I don't think KAs have been made any more or less effective, in general. And it's not as if the 5th edition rules changed EC much if at all; I'd have to go back and review, but as I recall 4th edition had the same general prohibitions (it counsels against 0 END, I would have to check again re drain one/drain all).

I'm not dismissing your thoughts/concerns. It's a worthwhile thought, not without merit, but I'm not sure how real this issue is.

Away from the boards and our dubious speculations, how have you seen this concern play out in games?

[Phil]

player submits character to GM, GM asks why do you have superhuman stats? player responds "because i have a superhuman physique " GM nods and approves character.

Later player is hit by 6d6 str drain, GM informs him "because all your Stats are based of the same sfx all your stats are affected even though the drain didnt have the +2 adv"

Players reply is unprintable
Quite right, because Player didnt get a major cost break for the single SFX. I remember doing a pretty detailed analysis of the three different power frameworks for the old HERO email list a couple of years back, and my conclusion from that was that ECs are mathematically broken. Wish I still had that somewhere! Of course, this is no substitute for game play experience, and that's fine. For me, the benefit of a fairly standard EC with 4 50pt powers saving 75 pts for 4 powers that can all be active at the same time (unlike most VPPs and multipowers, unless you have a 200 point pool!) is just too great, and even the 5th edition draw-back of Drains / Adjustment powers doesnt balance this out.

Although I agree with one of the posts above - if there's one thing worse than by-the-rules ECs, it's some of the dodgy uses of ECs among 'official' characters!

[zornwil]

Ah, the rules say no-no, but the examples say yes-yes... ;)

And I think neither is wrong. I just wish that there was a better indication in character examples explicitly as to where/why things are done in certain ways seemingly antithetical to the rules. I think THAT is where explanations become more valuable, certainly as compared to what are basically "what-ifs" embodied in the rules now.

I think that if a detailed analysis shows a mathematical problem, that is useful info, but we should be careful not to declare something "broken" so much as simply a warning sign or stop sign issue, depending, of course.

[David Blue]

I'm not dismissing your thoughts/concerns. It's a worthwhile thought, not without merit, but I'm not sure how real this issue is.

Away from the boards and our dubious speculations, how have you seen this concern play out in games?Thank you for your kind words. Your question is a very good one, and what I suspect is your suspicion (grin) is well-founded.

I have seen issues I've talked about in games. The influence is mostly on the marginal case, the player or the character that could go either way depending on what seems to work. But, the overwhelming power of the focus bonus stacked with other limitations and frameworks tends to sideline other issues. I mean, a 7d6 RKA is more effective than a 21d6 EB, but what does a Daredevil clone care? "Need to buy into the STUN lotto to effect these big guys" is an issue, but "gotta get a power suit" is so much bigger an issue. Elemental Control: Powered Armour is just part of the "winner's bonus" - a "fast track" character like Steel Man will get it, along with other benefits like END Batteries, a "slow track" character with a billy club and a swing-line won't, and that's really all you need to know about Elemental Controls.

I haven't seen any problems with 5th Edition Elemental Controls and/or Adustment powers in games, because I'm not in such games, or the issues haven't arisen yet. So there's a lot of mere speculation in what I'm saying.

Now, let me take a different tack. Instead of criticising, let me invite you to put forward examples of the sort of thing you think should be waved through with a smile by the gamemaster. If the player wanted to be a "good guy" and get respect and rewards for it, he or she would do - what?

We have Dust Raven's example, which you and I liked. We have Gary's idea, which could use an illustration but which is pretty clear already. I've given my two examples of "perfect" Elemental Controls, and explained why I think they're OK. We've got the Robot EC, which is free points to support a superior concept with inherent limitations (like being affected by steel cutters).

More!

And why does your example work, in the context of the issues Gary started the thread to discuss, or if that's not an issue - it isn't for me or Hawksmoore - why not?

[zornwil]

Thank you for your kind words. Your question is a very good one, and what I suspect is your suspicion (grin) is well-founded.

I have seen issues I've talked about in games. The influence is mostly on the marginal case, the player or the character that could go either way depending on what seems to work. But, the overwhelming power of the focus bonus stacked with other limitations and frameworks tends to sideline other issues. I mean, a 7d6 RKA is more effective than a 21d6 EB, but what does a Daredevil clone care? "Need to buy into the STUN lotto to effect these big guys" is an issue, but "gotta get a power suit" is so much bigger an issue. Elemental Control: Powered Armour is just part of the "winner's bonus" - a "fast track" character like Steel Man will get it, along with other benefits like END Batteries, a "slow track" character with a billy club and a swing-line won't, and that's really all you need to know about Elemental Controls.

I haven't seen any problems with 5th Edition Elemental Controls and/or Adustment powers in games, because I'm not in such games, or the issues haven't arisen yet. So there's a lot of mere speculation in what I'm saying.

Now, let me take a different tack. Instead of criticising, let me invite you to put forward examples of the sort of thing you think should be waved through with a smile by the gamemaster. If the player wanted to be a "good guy" and get respect and rewards for it, he or she would do - what?

We have Dust Raven's example, which you and I liked. We have Gary's idea, which could use an illustration but which is pretty clear already. I've given my two examples of "perfect" Elemental Controls, and explained why I think they're OK. We've got the Robot EC, which is free points to support a superior concept with inherent limitations (like being affected by steel cutters).

More!

And why does your example work, in the context of the issues Gary started the thread to discuss, or if that's not an issue - it isn't for me or Hawksmoore - why not?
I think the "why" is very much two-fold in my example. The first, which applies to any case of what some would call over-effective builds, is the player's willingness to "play fair" and not use the ability to trump (regularly or in any other annoying way) other players and/or the GM's creations/interactions. The second, specific to this, is that to me any EC which is predictable in ways to deal with it (which a robot mostly is) works well even if it's not abiding by what some call tight SFX (though, again, I think predictability is as good as this) or the arbitrary rules restrictions. Since those rules restrictions are arbitrary to begin with and there for balance, any other balancing factors, such as predictability and ability to counter therefore, can and will do the same.

Vaguer or otherwise questionable ECs, I think, can still work well so long as the player and GM understand the various SFX implications and follow through. So long as there is an obeisance to SFX and those SFX allow for an appropriate limitation in choice and/or lead to opporunities in the actions of others and/or similarly "lock" a character into some identifiable pigeon-hole, I think it is accomplishing something akin to Disads.

But also, I think there is something more important than analyzing points, and that is simply that in my experience, reasonable ECs, even if somewhat liberal, simply have not translated into undue advantage for those EC-related characters. I think this is because a halfway-decent EC, regardless of arbitrary restrictions, keeps a PC to a schtick. And HERO is very forgiving, as I think about it, about varying point levels so long as there is separation in capabiltiies or such. So historically the loose, fudgey EC has simply not resulted in the abuse it may have against the barely-defined MP or the defined-but-ultraflexible VPP.

[zornwil]

I forgot a third issue (started to write to three, then forgot it!) re the reason the robot EC works - basically, the type of robot being built, one with reasonable but not true brick STR, simply was just not an efficient build without the EC! Not the way the player conceived it, anyway. It was just "flexible" enough but also well-defined enough that taking away an EC made the PC cost just too many points for its game-effectiveness.

And here's a point in your favor - I am a GM who does allow for funky and "grey area' builds. So that seems to indicate that, just to your statements earlier, there is a real need to allow ECs somewhat liberally where other conceptions are being executed in ways that are complex and potentially perhaps "too efficient".

I suppose that, to take a tangent, the "STR is too powerful" clan have a point in that this whole efficiency argument re STR is along these lines of "too efficient", but, see, this is where I think the game is actually better balanced than we think. I think that if you take down STR to be less efficient, you suddenly have to be stricter about the so-called grey area builds and ECs and all that. And many of the character examples show us another view. So the point is that the whole system is not that fragile, it all scales together fairly well according to how strict or liberal a GM is, so long as the GM is consistent and doesn't pick on one element unduly.

[Sean Waters]

Ditto.

Seems pointless, harsh, and cruel.

In my games I just don't touch it.

That said I generally don't use or allow many adjustment powers, because of my understanding of the recovery record keeping. Which is a bear, but I think the way the rules read. So I just avoid the whole issue and keep adjustments: Rarer than a Virgin in Bangkok Whorehouse.

Hawksmoor

M'K. Give me an example of a type of EC you would allow where the drain-1-drain-all rule is inappropriate, or if that's not a good game, tell me what you balance the loss of that with? Something? Nothing?

If it is the latter, you might as well be honest and give players who come up with concepts yuo like more points than other players.

[Vondy]

M'K. Give me an example of a type of EC you would allow where the drain-1-drain-all rule is inappropriate, or if that's not a good game, tell me what you balance the loss of that with? Something? Nothing?

If it is the latter, you might as well be honest and give players who come up with concepts yuo like more points than other players.

The drain one drain them all restriction is an arbitrary constraint aimed at enforcing game-balance on a construct that is completely broken in terms of the cost benefit it provides in relation to other power-constructs, be they individual buys or power frameworks. Even if we accept the premise that the drain one drain them all constraint provides necessary internal conceptual consistency, it still does not provide equilibrium in terms of character design and concepts as it doesn't merit a -1 cost break on individual slots within the EC. In other words, even if it is a necessary constraint in terms of internal conceptual consistency, which I do not accept, it still provides an unfair benefit to some concepts while, due to its hard-coded conditions, excluding others, in terms of cost. The entire construct is essentially broken. I do not care to give some concepts a bigger benefit than others. As a result I generally eschew EC designs. I prefer the drain one drain them all constraint be applied, at the correspondent level for the appearance of drains and their ilk in the campaign, to individual powers. In my games this generally amounts to a -1/2.<o =""></o>

[Hawksmoor]

M'K. Give me an example of a type of EC you would allow where the drain-1-drain-all rule is inappropriate, or if that's not a good game, tell me what you balance the loss of that with? Something? Nothing?

If it is the latter, you might as well be honest and give players who come up with concepts yuo like more points than other players.

I am in general very lax on what constitutes an EC. It is a thing from my Champs I-III days that has successfully avoided Longification. In essence if the player can tell me in a single compound word like "Kryptonian Powers" or "Weather Control" or "Unimaginable Horror Alien Powers" I'll let it slide. Why? Because I haven't mustered the courage and skill to run a pointless Champions game and I think that if the extra points help build a better more rounded PC then great.

I am loathe to use the *1 drain to ruin them all* mechanic because it smacked of "Steve Long's House Rules" and I never saw ECs aunbalancing against other Frameworks. All Frameworks save points. I accept that axiom and don't fight it. A rare PC is built by me that does not include at least one if not two or more Frameworks. The Drain rule suddenly cropped up (to me at least) in FRED and addressed an inbalance that never existed in my games (or games I play in).*

More pressing has always been the expense of what I called fluff abilities (like affording Zorn's robot getting LS: and a little armor and upgraded stats and on and on just to build Data.) and the lack of absolute invulnerability w/o making a house rule.

Hawksmoor

*But then everyone ~wants~ to play a Framework based PC in my games since I have evenhanded (read effects all pool and powers) limitations on VPPs, easy to get ECs; and think that Attack MPs are a good as shotguns!

[Dust Raven]

...and yet the simplest, most good-guy thing you can do gets a firm "probably"?

Well, everything gets a probably. Why should a character's EC be any different? There is no character concept, Power construct or complete character write up that will be approved for all games by all GM in any campaign they might be running at that point level. There are also some things I would allow for a character played by player A but not for a character played by player B. None of this has anything to do with rules though.

I hope I did answer your question as to what I do and don't consider a "correct" EC though.

[David Blue]

Well, everything gets a probably. Why should a character's EC be any different? There is no character concept, Power construct or complete character write up that will be approved for all games by all GM in any campaign they might be running at that point level. There are also some things I would allow for a character played by player A but not for a character played by player B. None of this has anything to do with rules though.

I hope I did answer your question as to what I do and don't consider a "correct" EC though.Yup. Good answer.

[Kristopher]

One problem I have with the new restrictions on what Powers can be placed within an EC is that sometimes, those powers fit perfectly within the SFX of the EC, and the concept in question needs the EC to be complete.

Character I'm putzing around with right now is a Desolid type, and I wanted to give her Damage Reduction against attacks she sees coming, to represent being able to phase out partially in the split second before the attack hits. Can't put DR in an EC, because it doesn't cost END.

[Vondy]

One problem I have with the new restrictions on what Powers can be placed within an EC is that sometimes, those powers fit perfectly within the SFX of the EC, and the concept in question needs the EC to be complete.

Character I'm putzing around with right now is a Desolid type, and I wanted to give her Damage Reduction against attacks she sees coming, to represent being able to phase out partially in the split second before the attack hits. Can't put DR in an EC, because it doesn't cost END.

This is why I started doing lists with a common drain one drain all limitation attached (I give -1/2). Its not quite as cost effective, but you don't pay the additional cost of the EC before the individual items. Were I the GM, however, I would probably allow you to buy the power with linked (to EC) -1/2 and dranied with EC -1/2. Its a freebee and something of a kludge, but I'm a foul libertine when in comes to being fair minded int terms of concepts.

[Kristopher]

Which works if you're in agreement with the drains-one-drains-all rule for ECs that was added in 5th.

[zornwil]

Which works if you're in agreement with the drains-one-drains-all rule for ECs that was added in 5th.
I don't think so, I think that it's a more elegant approach, because you are buying them in VDM's game to work that way and otherwise he's discouraging ECs. I htnik it's a notably difference, obviously not radically so.

[Sean Waters]

One problem I have with the new restrictions on what Powers can be placed within an EC is that sometimes, those powers fit perfectly within the SFX of the EC, and the concept in question needs the EC to be complete.

Character I'm putzing around with right now is a Desolid type, and I wanted to give her Damage Reduction against attacks she sees coming, to represent being able to phase out partially in the split second before the attack hits. Can't put DR in an EC, because it doesn't cost END.

I get round that with this (from the FAQ)


Q: Could a character put a power that inherently costs no END in an Elemental Control if he applied the Costs Endurance Only To Activate Advantage on it?



A: With the GM’s permission, yes.


I don't like this ruling because it says 'with the GM's permission: you can do ANYTHING with the GM's permission, but I do take this as a sign it should be granted.

Personally I can't see the point of the 'no 0 END powers' rule: can anyone?

I CAN see the point of the 'drains one drains all rule': elemental controls have powers in them that all work in the same way through the same sfx, and it seems logical to me that the linkage is so close that if you can drain one you can drain them all. You might have Kryptonian Powers, and if a drain can reduce your Kryptonian Strength, I can see how that is (in fact) reducing your Kryptonian Energy, which, in turn, means that your Kryptonian Occular Blast is also reduced. Even though the 'final sfx' appear completely different, the 'root sfx' are all the same.

To take another example, if you had a flamethrower device, a mutant powered forcefield against fire and heat and wings of flame that allow you to fly given to you by the magic of the volcano God, even though they are all fire effects, I'd never let them in an EC. The 'final sfx' may all be fire, the 'root sfx' have no connection at all though, and they are not sufficiently connected IMO.

Would anyone do it differently?

In fact i tend to use the 'drain 1 drain all' thing as a litmus test for ECs: if it doesn't make any sense that it should work, then the EC probably doesn't make any sense either.

[zornwil]

The no-0 END thing is merely a complete artifice intended to somehow balance ECs. It borders on the absurd.

However, as to GM permission, I think it's important to point it out in a rulebook when the rules/author are trying to say "this is really a viable option, you just have to think about it," as opposed to other areas where the lack of such implies "we really think this could screw up game balance or otherwise be bad for the game so we don't want to even suggest that discretion overtly."

Subtle, but I think it has an important impact as well in terms of what it makes GMs and players think about and not think about. By pointing out GM discretion, it encourages the player to seek out such.

[Sean Waters]

I forgot a third issue (started to write to three, then forgot it!) re the reason the robot EC works - basically, the type of robot being built, one with reasonable but not true brick STR, simply was just not an efficient build without the EC! Not the way the player conceived it, anyway. It was just "flexible" enough but also well-defined enough that taking away an EC made the PC cost just too many points for its game-effectiveness.

And here's a point in your favor - I am a GM who does allow for funky and "grey area' builds. So that seems to indicate that, just to your statements earlier, there is a real need to allow ECs somewhat liberally where other conceptions are being executed in ways that are complex and potentially perhaps "too efficient".

I suppose that, to take a tangent, the "STR is too powerful" clan have a point in that this whole efficiency argument re STR is along these lines of "too efficient", but, see, this is where I think the game is actually better balanced than we think. I think that if you take down STR to be less efficient, you suddenly have to be stricter about the so-called grey area builds and ECs and all that. And many of the character examples show us another view. So the point is that the whole system is not that fragile, it all scales together fairly well according to how strict or liberal a GM is, so long as the GM is consistent and doesn't pick on one element unduly.

That's the trouble with HERO. You can build two characters on the same points and they just do not compare in terms of raw power. One will beat the other 8 or 9 out of 10. Is that a good reason to give more points to the weaker character?

Well, it might be, or, assuming that the 'weaker in a straight fight' character can do stuff that the other can't, you could GM-finesse it by making double damn sure the things the weaker character CAN do better come up in play.

I don't disagree that 'robot' is an appropriate SFX for all kinds of stuff, BUT I'd want to make it clear that all the abilities of the robot in the EC are tied into the design: it isn't just a load of entirely seperate equipment carried round by or integrated into the design. Full LS costs, what, about 50 points: you could stick that in, but have it cost END to use. Usually the robot runs in human-analogue mode but can switch to a sealed system running off battery power. I'd allow a single slot with a slew of enhanced senses, even though they are not supposed to be there - again, costing END.

Point is, I'd want there to be a down-side, and that downside would be that anything that could disrupt/drain the 'core system' disrupts/drains all the systems tied into it. That doesn't seem unreasonable.

What is the alternative? Well, presumably everyone could buy characters that would never cut it as they are Jack-0f-all-trades and then beg some extra points to make them combat efficient too.

Interesting aside: I can't see any problem with putting, for example, STRENGTH in an EC: it costs END to use, but it also has benefits when it is not being used (figured charcteristics). Given the comments about STRENGTH being, in effect a species of EC already, what are people's feelings on this?

[Sean Waters]

The no-0 END thing is merely a complete artifice intended to somehow balance ECs. It borders on the absurd.

However, as to GM permission, I think it's important to point it out in a rulebook when the rules/author are trying to say "this is really a viable option, you just have to think about it," as opposed to other areas where the lack of such implies "we really think this could screw up game balance or otherwise be bad for the game so we don't want to even suggest that discretion overtly."

Subtle, but I think it has an important impact as well in terms of what it makes GMs and players think about and not think about. By pointing out GM discretion, it encourages the player to seek out such.

Stop being so damn reasonable :). Go and drink some bier.:cheers:

[Hawksmoor]

//snipped for whimsy//
I CAN see the point of the 'drains one drains all rule': elemental controls have powers in them that all work in the same way through the same sfx, and it seems logical to me that the linkage is so close that if you can drain one you can drain them all. You might have Kryptonian Powers, and if a drain can reduce your Kryptonian Strength, I can see how that is (in fact) reducing your Kryptonian Energy, which, in turn, means that your Kryptonian Occular Blast is also reduced. Even though the 'final sfx' appear completely different, the 'root sfx' are all the same.

In fact i tend to use the 'drain 1 drain all' thing as a litmus test for ECs: if it doesn't make any sense that it should work, then the EC probably doesn't make any sense either.

I can see where Drain/Transfer would not work more often than they would work actually.

For example, I'll use a page from Trebuchet's MOD. My character Turbine is a Magneto class Electromagnetic Manipulator. He has a VPP and an EC both defined as Electromagnetic effects (Greater and Lesser respectively). Both have VDM's mentioned cascade drain limitation: Drain the VPP and you Drain the EC and vice versa.

Now if Turbine is in combat and his struck by a dart from Dartboy which is defined as 3d6 Drain Armor (Acid weakens the metal in his magnetically formed metallic shell) I can see no reason other than 5e and 5er rules that indicate that his other powers should likewise be weakened. After all the Armor is a Physical Manifestation, Turbine could just dismiss the effect, let the armor crumble to iron dust and eat a Delorean for more armor next phase.
Why should his ability to create 90AP of Force Wall diminish? or his VVP slot of Sense the EM field? To Drain one and Drain them all makes no sense even thought all the powers are from the same root SFX: the attack targeted a manifestation of the power not the power itself.

I rule the same when presented with most adjustments, they are manifestation (SFX driven) constructs that attack other manifestations.
That is to say the SFX of the drain must have a reasonable way to work against the character and if the SFX of either powerset negates the Drain then well too bad.

Adjustment powers are cheese anyway.

Hawksmoor

[Ki-rin]

Sounds to me that when Power Frameworks are present there's a need to be able to define Adjustment Powers as affecting:
a- a specific effect or power in the PF, OR
b- the "base" sfx or collection of points for the PF, OR
c- both at once

It seems equally clear that it should get more expensive as you work your way "up" from a to c given that a represents the fewest CP spent and c represents the greatest CP spent.

So what about using the simple method of pricing the Adjustment Power needed to affect something to the greater of the AP or CP spent for the thing affected?

This way, cheap slots are cheap to Adjust, the AP or CP base for the PF is more expensive to Adjust, and the most expensive thing to Adjust is what cost the most to obtain in the first place: the combination of the base points for the PF + the slot itself.

In addition, those who bought their Powers "at full price" have powers that are harder to Adjust then those who were "at reduced cost".

It SEEMS fair. What do people think?

[Mentor]

The no-0 END thing is merely a complete artifice intended to somehow balance ECs. It borders on the absurd.

However, as to GM permission, I think it's important to point it out in a rulebook when the rules/author are trying to say "this is really a viable option, you just have to think about it," as opposed to other areas where the lack of such implies "we really think this could screw up game balance or otherwise be bad for the game so we don't want to even suggest that discretion overtly."

Subtle, but I think it has an important impact as well in terms of what it makes GMs and players think about and not think about. By pointing out GM discretion, it encourages the player to seek out such.
I agree. So we only apply it as a GM discretion call. If the Power fits concept, such as Armor as part of the EC: Power Armor (duh. :D ) we allow it. Coversely, if a positive rule effect (drain one drain them all) which should work against EC: Power Armor, doesn't seem logical against a given SFX or concept, we rule it so.

My point in general is that I don't view any construct or rule in 5ER or any other version as fixed vs. broken or balanced vs. unbalanced. As far as I am concerned, every page in the Hero book should be considered "some assembly required".

[Trebuchet]

I can see where Drain/Transfer would not work more often than they would work actually.

For example, I'll use a page from Trebuchet's MOD. My character Turbine is a Magneto class Electromagnetic Manipulator. He has a VPP and an EC both defined as Electromagnetic effects (Greater and Lesser respectively). Both have VDM's mentioned cascade drain limitation: Drain the VPP and you Drain the EC and vice versa. My MOD? Most Often Described? I'm assuming you're speaking of Zl'f's construction, and her cross-Linked Powers? I should point out she's not actually built with an EC, although earlier version were.

In general the problem I have with Drain and their ilk in Hero is that they lack in-game definition. They should both have and attack specific special effects, not Powers. A STR Drain which paralyses human muscles should have zero effect on the hydraulic servos of powered armor, despite the fact that both are bought as STR. Whereas a STR Drain defined as draining energy (which is present in both human musculature and mechanical equipment) might well Drain both. This all has to be applied in a way that makes the sfx more important than the actual mechanics of the power construction.

[Hawksmoor]

My MOD? Most Often Described? I'm assuming you're speaking of Zl'f's construction, and her cross-Linked Powers? I should point out she's not actually built with an EC, although earlier version were.

In general the problem I have with Drain and their ilk in Hero is that they lack in-game definition. They should both have and attack specific special effects, not Powers. A STR Drain which paralyses human muscles should have zero effect on the hydraulic servos of powered armor, despite the fact that both are bought as STR. Whereas a STR Drain defined as draining energy (which is present in both human musculature and mechanical equipment) might well Drain both. This all has to be applied in a way that makes the sfx more important than the actual mechanics of the power construction.

No, your use of Zl'f as an example, your modus operandi MO or MOD if you take an alternate spelling using in my old f2f games is to use Zl'f as an example. :)

I did notice you agreed that Drains should have rigid SFX and define what they drain. I would disagee with one point drain that effects ATP metabolism has ZERO to do with electrical (read noncatalyzed) reactions.

SFX to SFX is the only way to go.

[Trebuchet]

SFX to SFX is the only way to go.Agreed. While I think anything that's in an EC should generally be affected by a Drain, I also think it should still depend in most cases on the sfx of both Drain and EC. (Very few instances of powered armor IMO would qualify as an EC, although a particular sfx such as "magnetism" might qualify.) Most powered armors are more than powerful enough with the OIF and MPs they typically employ. So if a guy has a magnetic-based EC in his PA, then Drains based on suppressing magnetism should be his nemesis, not "2d6 Drain Flight" or "4d6 Suppress STR."

[zornwil]

Stop being so damn reasonable :). Go and drink some bier.:cheers:
Done! :)

[zornwil]

I can see where Drain/Transfer would not work more often than they would work actually.

For example, I'll use a page from Trebuchet's MOD. My character Turbine is a Magneto class Electromagnetic Manipulator. He has a VPP and an EC both defined as Electromagnetic effects (Greater and Lesser respectively). Both have VDM's mentioned cascade drain limitation: Drain the VPP and you Drain the EC and vice versa.

Now if Turbine is in combat and his struck by a dart from Dartboy which is defined as 3d6 Drain Armor (Acid weakens the metal in his magnetically formed metallic shell) I can see no reason other than 5e and 5er rules that indicate that his other powers should likewise be weakened. After all the Armor is a Physical Manifestation, Turbine could just dismiss the effect, let the armor crumble to iron dust and eat a Delorean for more armor next phase.
Why should his ability to create 90AP of Force Wall diminish? or his VVP slot of Sense the EM field? To Drain one and Drain them all makes no sense even thought all the powers are from the same root SFX: the attack targeted a manifestation of the power not the power itself.

I rule the same when presented with most adjustments, they are manifestation (SFX driven) constructs that attack other manifestations.
That is to say the SFX of the drain must have a reasonable way to work against the character and if the SFX of either powerset negates the Drain then well too bad.

Adjustment powers are cheese anyway.

Hawksmoor
Maybe we should reverse this dynamic, rethink our paradigm, to use an over-used expression but, I think, appropriately.

Maybe, as I think about it, the "drain one drain all" concept is NOT at fault. Maybe the dominant issue is that many, many (most?) Adjustments are not just SFX-driven normally as with other powers but rather to the degree where their effects are themselves often truly limited, so that they should be costed appropriately with Limitations. So in your example the dart-based Armor limitation perhaps should have something like a "-1/4 Does Not Affect ECs Beyond Power Adjusted", and that Limitation should be available for all Adjustment Powers where appropriate. That way we kind of have our cake and eat it, too - the Adjustment Powers "normally" affect a broader SFX but where they clearly don't (which, I agree with you, is quite often if not more often), we recost the Adjustment Power and NOT THE EC, leaving the drain-one-drain-all in place but it will be more appropriate.

This has the effect (importantly) of making Adjustment Powers slightly cheaper in general since so many would be costed this way, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing as long as it's "slightly".

As an alternative, we could remove the "drain-one-drain-all" but give Adjustment Powers a cheaper Advantage to affect ECs which reflects that the Adjustment Power is not so broad in SFX that it deserves the higher-costed Advantages for that but it's just broad enough that it would "normally" affect all related powers of what it drains. So, to change your example a bit, let's suppose the dart instead drains the armor because it "drains all electromagnetic forces inherent in the armor", it' snot an acid, instead it's a molecular-level attack (just for this example). We create an Advantage called something like "Affects Linked Powers" and call that +1/4 or +1/2 or such.

Anyone have thoughts on these? What I am suggesting, as Hawksmoor has been, is that this is a two-sided equation, a push-me-pull-you, where we need to look at the Adjustment Powers as much as we do ECs.

[zornwil]

Sounds to me that when Power Frameworks are present there's a need to be able to define Adjustment Powers as affecting:
a- a specific effect or power in the PF, OR
b- the "base" sfx or collection of points for the PF, OR
c- both at once

It seems equally clear that it should get more expensive as you work your way "up" from a to c given that a represents the fewest CP spent and c represents the greatest CP spent.

So what about using the simple method of pricing the Adjustment Power needed to affect something to the greater of the AP or CP spent for the thing affected?

This way, cheap slots are cheap to Adjust, the AP or CP base for the PF is more expensive to Adjust, and the most expensive thing to Adjust is what cost the most to obtain in the first place: the combination of the base points for the PF + the slot itself.

In addition, those who bought their Powers "at full price" have powers that are harder to Adjust then those who were "at reduced cost".

It SEEMS fair. What do people think?
Whoops, kinda duped what you said, in a way!

In essence, I seem to agree - see my post above. My point above could be extended to MPs and VPPs well. For example, if an EB drain works by an acid attack against the source and all things attached (which the GM might decide requires Sticky in addition), it might get Batman's MP utility belt.

[zornwil]

I agree. So we only apply it as a GM discretion call. If the Power fits concept, such as Armor as part of the EC: Power Armor (duh. :D ) we allow it. Coversely, if a positive rule effect (drain one drain them all) which should work against EC: Power Armor, doesn't seem logical against a given SFX or concept, we rule it so.

My point in general is that I don't view any construct or rule in 5ER or any other version as fixed vs. broken or balanced vs. unbalanced. As far as I am concerned, every page in the Hero book should be considered "some assembly required".
Which makes sense, for a toolkit, well-said. I think, now that you phrase it that way, that's a lot of why even if I ran DOJ tomorrow, I wouldn't change so much as I muse about, not remotely close, I do EXPECT that THIS system will have that kind of an "issue" (and it's not an issue, or a bug, it's a feature!).

[zornwil]

My MOD? Most Often Described? I'm assuming you're speaking of Zl'f's construction, and her cross-Linked Powers? I should point out she's not actually built with an EC, although earlier version were.

In general the problem I have with Drain and their ilk in Hero is that they lack in-game definition. They should both have and attack specific special effects, not Powers. A STR Drain which paralyses human muscles should have zero effect on the hydraulic servos of powered armor, despite the fact that both are bought as STR. Whereas a STR Drain defined as draining energy (which is present in both human musculature and mechanical equipment) might well Drain both. This all has to be applied in a way that makes the sfx more important than the actual mechanics of the power construction.
So basically, you purchase a Drain for a Power AND an SFX, with modifiers for how broad or limited the SFX. And if you want more than one power, you just have a modifier for that. Is that kind of what you're thinking?

[Kristopher]

It sounds to me like Adjustment powers are where seperating mechanics from SFX starts to show its limitations, maybe.

[zornwil]

It seems so, and it's telling that Adj. Powers were a later addition to the game. I think we need them, they serve a real purpose from many angles, but they have become a bit of a challlenge.

[Doc Democracy]

Agreed. While I think anything that's in an EC should generally be affected by a Drain, I also think it should still depend in most cases on the sfx of both Drain and EC. (Very few instances of powered armor IMO would qualify as an EC, although a particular sfx such as "magnetism" might qualify.) Most powered armors are more than powerful enough with the OIF and MPs they typically employ. So if a guy has a magnetic-based EC in his PA, then Drains based on suppressing magnetism should be his nemesis, not "2d6 Drain Flight" or "4d6 Suppress STR."

While I agree with virtually everything that has been said so far - I am firmly in the SFX based camp (and that goes for desolid as well as adjustment powers) - there might also be a case for saying that if draining a power in the EC does not make sense to drain all other powers then there should be a second or even third look at validity of the presence of that power in the EC in the first place.

In the case of the Turbine using Armour. Well if it doesn't make sense perhaps he shouldn't actually be using armour. It is possible better to be a force field with the SFX of armour encasing him - it would make more sense that the drain on the force field drained everything else, no?

Just playing devil's advocaet and thinking of ways to better regulate ECs when they are presented to me....


Doc