Power Construction - theoretical question

[zornwil]

So if we take HERO as a toolkit and we build powers from what's therein, we are then left with 2 choices as to what to do with this power (basically, there's an in-between choice obviously, I'll discuss it as well):

1 - use this power "as constructed"; any new Advantages or Limitations just get piled on top; the points per effect are based wholly on this construction, the Advs and Lims just applied to whatever change in the base for the points of effect

2 - use this power as a new "base power", writing up the power as it is with the Advs and Lims incorporated for a new Base Cost which is then used to apply other Advs and Lims on

For example - suppose I create a "Stunning" power. For purposes of our illustration, this will be VERY crude, please don't debate the construct as such. It's an Energy Blast with a +1 NND (target must be in a state they can't be easily shaken or jarred or such) and -2 Limited Power (Damage Does not Count Against STUN, only for CON stunning purposes). Given how the base power (EB) functions, one can define it as Physical or Energy. One can always elect to add BOECV if one wants it to be against Mental. For now let's say this is done, for our example purposes.

Now we can choose to either keep Stunning Power as "Stunning Power: EB, 5 pts/1d6, +1 Adv, -2 Lim" (simply put) or "Stunning Power: 3 pts/1d6", following the 2 methods above. Obviously, the latter is slightly less expensive when extended (first way = 1d6=3 CP/10 AP;2d6=7 CP/20 AP; 3d6=10 CP/30 AP; second way = 1d6=3 CP/3 AP;2d6 = 6 CP/6 AP;3d6=9 CP/9 AP). However, here's the cost when we apply BOECV to each:

version 1 - (EB, +1 Adv, -2 Lim) - +1 for BOECV; 1d6 = 5 CP/15 AP; 2d6 = 10 CP/30 AP; 3d6 = 15 CP/45 AP; etc.
version 2 - (Stunning Power, 3 pts/1d6) - +1 for BOECV; 1d6 = 6 CP/6 AP; 2d6 = 12 CP/ 12AP; 3d6 = 18 CP/18 AP; etc.

So it matters a lot which way we go. Version 2 gives us more inhibition over the power as it scales up. Version 1 does not. This is very much related to why we do not say "Killing Damage = +2 Advantage" - the scalability gets wonky compared to what we want/need in the system.

Of course I didn't discuss the in-between method - create the base power with only certain components and simply require the others to be added. So we could do "Stunning" as just the EB with the -2 Limitation "built in" so it becomes a base cost of 1/1d6 but we require that both the +1 NND and the +1 BOECV be added. In this case "Stunning" is also built with no built-in NND, just as an EB with the built-in limitation. Obviously this also creates another whole path (and in this example certainly undesirable given how it would scale upwards very cheaply very quickly).

What would be people's suggestion as to when these costs should get built-in and when the "new" power should simply be the old power with the various Advs and Lims and "compiled at run-time" as it were? What would be the actual rules to govern this in power creation?

And I haven't even touched on turning Compound Powers into "regular Powers"... :eek:

[schir1964]

You just had to start this thread, didn't you! (8^D)

Okay, here are my rules, and of course my rules are the only ones that count. (8^D)

Generally, I begin looking at a possible New Power construct when either of the following occur.

When an SFX requires overly complicated construction that makes it hard for the player to use and difficult to grow/enhance that construct as his character grows.

Or when you have to strip almost all of the basic elements of a current power resulting in a power that no longer resembles the basic mechanics of the original power. (Please don't ask for clarification, I don't want to get into the whole Protean Form discussion again 8^D)

Now to be clear, there are complex structures that exist, but as long as those structures add to the systems flexibility then they serve the purpose of the system as a whole.
Example: The Naked Power Advantage is a complex structure, but it's the simplest way to allow for certain SFX and therefore adds flexibility to the system as a whole, therefore, it's a good construct. Same goes for VPP and Multipower.

Let's the games begin!!! (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

You just had to start this thread, didn't you! (8^D)

Okay, here are my rules, and of course my rules are the only ones that count. (8^D)

Generally, I begin looking at a possible New Power construct when either of the following occur.

When an SFX requires overly complicated construction that makes it hard for the player to use and difficult to grow/enhance that contruct as his character grows.

Or when you have the strip almost all of the basic elements of a current power resulting in a power that no longer resembles the basic mechanics of the original power. (Please don't ask for clarification, I don't want to get into the whole Protean Form discussion again 8^D)

Now to be clear, there are complex structures that exist, but as long as those structures add to the systems flexibility then they serve the purpse of the system as a whole.
Example: The Naked Power Advantage is a complex structure, but it's the simplest way to allow for certain SFX and therefore adds flexibility to the system as a whole, therefore, it's a good construct. Same goes for VPP and Multipower.

Let's the games begin!!! (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins
Do you build new powers from existing powers sometimes? If so, do you then create a new base cost for that new power or do you maintain the original with its Advs and Lims and then apply any additional ones to that?

[schir1964]

Do you build new powers from existing powers sometimes? If so, do you then create a new base cost for that new power or do you maintain the original with its Advs and Lims and then apply any additional ones to that?
Were you around for the Protean Form thread?
That thread covered the entire process of creating a new power based on another one. You might find it useful to see the process in action. I was also convinced in that thread that my idea was not the best solution, so I moved on the other idea suggested and worked on.

The result was a New Power with it's own base, adders, etc...
However, the construct was such it could be used as an extension of another power if someone didn't want to have a "New Power".

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Were you around for the Protean Form thread?
That thread covered the entire process of creating a new power based on another one. You might find it useful to see the process in action. I was also convinced in that thread that my idea was not the best solution, so I moved on the other idea suggested and worked on.

The result was a New Power with it's own base, adders, etc...
However, the construct was such it could be used as an extension of another power if someone didn't want to have a "New Power".

- Christopher Mullins
I know I saw it but I'll have to go back and look, sorry to ask for the repeat! Last time I looked at it was purely just to pull out the power itself, not to survey the creation process.

[Dust Raven]

What would be people's suggestion as to when these costs should get built-in and when the "new" power should simply be the old power with the various Advs and Lims and "compiled at run-time" as it were? What would be the actual rules to govern this in power creation?

Call me a purist, but I'd stick with using what's in the book, and not making up new Powers at all.

Of course, I do occasionally make something that ends up being a "new" Power of sorts, but that's when I'm making a new Talent for a particular game, like my Non-Human Mind Talent (that represents a higher level needed to achieve a particular effect when a Mental Power is used against them that doesn't normally target their type of mind, simulated by buying a limited form of Mental Defense). Beyond that, there's not much left to create that would really be useful to the system. Well, maybe bringing back Instant Change instead of using Transform, but I can't think of any other time when I'd want to make a "new" power by modifying an existing one with Advantages and Limitations then calling it new.

[schir1964]

I know I saw it but I'll have to go back and look, sorry to ask for the repeat! Last time I looked at it was purely just to pull out the power itself, not to survey the creation process.
Hmmm... that thread may have been lost due to age. Ok, here is how it went. This thread existed pre-5th Edition.

Premise
Wanted to build a fluid-like character (Hydro-Man, Sandman, Blob, Elasticman, Plasticman, Reed Richards, Terminator, etc..).
Basic abilities of character: Squeeze through small holes yet solid. Wanted there to be inverse relationship between size of hole and the amount of time to go through it.

Checked the rules and found that the "official" way to do it was to use
Desolidifcation. Decided to break down Desolidification to it's elemental mechanics that define it.

Desolidification Elemental Mechanics
1) Can't Be Damaged (SFX Vulnerability Only)
2) Movement Through Solid Objects
3) Unable To Affect Real World

Mechanic Changes Needed for SFX
1) Can Be Damaged Normally
2) Can't Move Through Solid Objects
3) Can Affect Real World Normally

Realized that mechanics needed for SFX were the exact opposite of the mechanics that define Desolidification. Once these are stripped away, it's no longer the Desolidification power at all, at least not mechanically.

Created thread to propose a new type of Movement Power to allow building of the SFX. Spent the first few pages trying to explain why Desolidification wasn't appropriate for the SFX and trying to refine a movement power. Tried to base it on Tunneling replacing DEF with Percentage size of hole with size of character. Went through a page of going back and forth over another suggested idea of using Shape Shift. Why it would be better than a movement power. Finally, after many posts (can't remember who it was with now), I was convinced that Shapeshift was better. The other poster had finally presented an argument that had no logical flaws or erroneous presumptions. Scrapped my idea and began working on defining all the options necessary for the Shapeshift to be able to simulate the SFX.
Shapeshift in 4th Edition was much too vague in definition, so I chose to simply call the new ability Protean Form, based on the minimum requirement of Shapeshift, that became the base cost and definition of the power. Added all my options to it.

Once 5th came out, I emailed Steve Long and revisited this quandry about Desolidification with SFX and suggested a possible Shapeshift variant. Steve Long said that the Touch Group would allow this, although in his game, he would limit just how small a hole someone would be able squeeze through. Beyond that, he didn't have a problem with it.

- Christopher Mullins

[Dr. Anomaly]

I've got to admit, zornwil, that when I saw what you proposed in regard to treating it as a new "base" Power, I thought "Oh, like the way they did with Talents" -- because when you buy a Talent with Advantages or Limitations, you just use the Talent as the base cost, not use the way the Talent is built from other Powers, Advantages, and Limitations.

My inclination would be this:

If the Power has a single fixed cost, or a few set levels (like most Talents) then I'd go the "use the figured cost as a new base cost, just like a Talent".

If the Power is open-ended (like, for example, Energy Blast, Flight, and so on) I'd use the option of "use it as built, with all Advantages and Limitations applied 'properly' to the real base Power" -- EB in your example.

[prestidigitator]

Okay, I will admit that I build new Talents this way sometimes for Herioc games.

I am really more inclined to build new Advantages and Limitations (yeah, "Limited Power!") then whole new Powers. I might buy a new Power if I found not only that I was using a complex construct of existing Powers and Modifiers, but that I was using such a construct over and over again. That just screams for a little laziness (and laziness is everyone's friend!).

[prestidigitator]

Oh, yeah, and for creating this thread, Zornwil: Go dunk your head! ;)

[schir1964]

Okay, I will admit that I build new Talents this way sometimes for Herioc games.

I am really more inclined to build new Advantages and Limitations (yeah, "Limited Power!") then whole new Powers. I might buy a new Power if I found not only that I was using a complex construct of existing Powers and Modifiers, but that I was using such a construct over and over again. That just screams for a little laziness (and laziness is everyone's friend!).
"If you only knew the power of the Dark Side..."

(8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[austenandrews]

I just write up the Power as normal and tell players how much it costs for 1d6, 2d6, etc. I don't necessarily even tell them what the exact base power or modifiers are. If someone really wants to add some other effect or modifier into the mix, they run it by me. If I approve, I tell them the new cost breakdown.

[Supreme Serpent]

I've felt for a long time that NND should just be a 10pt/die attack power rather than an advantage. And fie on thee who are concerned with making NND flashes and the like! :)

[zornwil]

I think it's probably a scalability versus damage issue. Dr. Anomaly (hey, good avatar pick! ;) ) mentions Talents, and he brings up a good point there. I think it works in the case he cites, but I also think you want to resort to the base cost IF the power, like Killing Attack, will "scale badly", i.e., it will scale so that as it goes up it is too cheap to pile on other Advantages. I think our guidepost for this is Killing Attack.

But how to find that line? Is only trial-and-error available?

[Dr. Anomaly]

I also think you want to resort to the base cost IF the power, like Killing Attack, will "scale badly", i.e., it will scale so that as it goes up it is too cheap to pile on other Advantages. I think our guidepost for this is Killing Attack.

But how to find that line? Is only trial-and-error available?
Hmmm. I think you may have a point, zornwil. I am, however, unsure as to how to find 'the line'; trial and error may be the only option. It's not as if the HERO system is a microprocessor and we can look at the microcode of the instructions the processor knows how to execute.

[Mentor]

Call me a purist, but I'd stick with using what's in the book, and not making up new Powers at all.

Of course, I do occasionally make something that ends up being a "new" Power of sorts, but that's when I'm making a new Talent for a particular game, like my Non-Human Mind Talent (that represents a higher level needed to achieve a particular effect when a Mental Power is used against them that doesn't normally target their type of mind, simulated by buying a limited form of Mental Defense). Beyond that, there's not much left to create that would really be useful to the system. Well, maybe bringing back Instant Change instead of using Transform, but I can't think of any other time when I'd want to make a "new" power by modifying an existing one with Advantages and Limitations then calling it new.
I tend to agree. While there are certainly areas in the existing rules that require some imaginative twisting, using existing powers as a base seems more consistent with an attempta a balancing abilities to their defenses.

[zornwil]

Hmmm. I think you may have a point, zornwil. I am, however, unsure as to how to find 'the line'; trial and error may be the only option. It's not as if the HERO system is a microprocessor and we can look at the microcode of the instructions the processor knows how to execute.
Well, I think there must be an implicit set of rules, we just have to find them. But I don't know where or how to do that based on the documentation within the toolkit as it stands now.

Then again, maybe it's pure intuition and experience, maybe you're right.

Aside from Killing Attack, we could consider Ego Blast a sort of similar thing. In the case of Ego Blast again it's a +1 Advantage that wouldn't scale well if incorporated only as such.

What about defenses? Armor and FF are the same except one basically costs no END. Armor is basically FF bought with 0 END, the Advantage "preapplied". What would Armor's scalability be if not?

as it is now with Hardened, +1/4:

10 PD = 19
20 PD = 37 (rounding in player's favor)
30 PD = 56

if as a +1/2 Adv with Hardened:

10 PD = 17
20 PD = 35
30 PD = 52

All of these situations cited are "common" attacks and defenses and the effect of incorporating the "native" Advs into the base cost is to inhibit their cost-effectiveness.

It seems to me that there's a relationship between the inherent nature of the Advantage and the damage scalability (which has to correspond on defenses).

What I struggle with, is why not call Advantages that are "important" in this matter instead as Adders to Base Cost per Dice? So why not have:

Killing Damage: Add 10 to Base Cost per Dice
BOECV: Add 5 to Base Cost per Dice

If we treat Autofire this way, we fix a lot the concerns with its scalability! Should we treat AoE this way? Dunno...but I think I have a clue in this regard - the effect of AoE also comes with inhibitions; you can't reduce the AoE without reducing the effect in dice. Killing and BOECV grant almost complete advantage; Autofire the same.

Why is this not a more elegant solution in general? Doing so seems to eliminate the need to create so many individual powers, or at least, more importantly, allows us to better understand power construction!

If this trend I think I'm seeing is true, here's what I think happened: the original designers, whether implicitly or explicitly, understood this, and when adding KA and Ego Blast, accounted for it. Later, by the time Autofire was added, we already had too many versions of powers. We couldn't in good conscious create "RKA - Autofire", "Ego Blast - Autofire", and so on. And there was a lack of attention to the underlying structure. So we got just the Advantage Autofire, now with (counter to the toolkit) specialized rules when combining it with other Advantages!

Nay, I say, define what the critical Advantages are, call them Adders to Base Cost (before applying Advs and Lims), and then we might have a more elegant solution.

What are the flaws in this post? I know now I've gone astray from the original topic, but entirely out of necessity in exploring it, and this needs critical analysis. If my notion here is correct (not saying it is yet) then perhaps there is a far better solution to the way we apply some Advantages.

[zornwil]

I tend to agree. While there are certainly areas in the existing rules that require some imaginative twisting, using existing powers as a base seems more consistent with an attempta a balancing abilities to their defenses.
Grrr, you're not Hyper-man!

Mentor, to you and Dust Raven, I have a bit of a challenge - the powers in the book are themselves constructions from a more core set of elemental abilities/powers. If we do not leverage the toolkit to learn to create powers, we cannot reverse engineer the powers that exist. If we do not reverse engineer the powers that exist, I contend that we are limiting our ability to then properly modify the system as needed long-term. See my thoughts in my post most recently above for related thoughts. Wonder what you (plural) think...

[zornwil]

As an additional thought, perhaps BOECV should be an Adder to Base Cost in general. It would increase cost on such items, but is that such a bad thing? And as noted in examples, the cost increase is hardly prohibitive at moderate levels, but becomes important in greater and greater levels.

[Dr. Anomaly]

What about defenses? Armor and FF are the same except one basically costs no END. Armor is basically FF bought with 0 END, the Advantage "preapplied". What would Armor's scalability be if not?Zornwil, you forgot that Armor is also Persistant, which Force Field is not.

One of my hobbies is reverse-engineering formulas, computer code, and so on...for some reason, it never occured to me before to try that with the HERO system. When I have a chance, I'll look at it and see if I can make anything of it.

Unfortunately, that won't be today since I slept really badly last night, and for only two hours, so I'm working in a grey fog right now. When I've had a proper sleep and am feeling clear-headed and sharp is when I'll give it a whirl. ;)

[Dr. Anomaly]

By the way, I don't know that "Make damage Killing" should be a 10 point Adder. After all:

1d6 Energy Blast has range, does on average 1 BODY, does on average 3.5 STUN, costs 5 points

1 pip RKA has range, does 1 Body, does on average 2.67 STUN, is only stopped by Resistant defenses, costs 5 points

Is "only stopped by Resistant defenses" really the equivalent in cost per 1 BODY to an additional 0.83 STUN?

[Doc Democracy]

Now we can choose to either keep Stunning Power as "Stunning Power: EB, 5 pts/1d6, +1 Adv, -2 Lim" (simply put) or "Stunning Power: 3 pts/1d6", following the 2 methods above. Obviously, the latter is slightly less expensive when extended (first way = 1d6=3 CP/10 AP;2d6=7 CP/20 AP; 3d6=10 CP/30 AP; second way = 1d6=3 CP/3 AP;2d6 = 6 CP/6 AP;3d6=9 CP/9 AP). However, here's the cost when we apply BOECV to each:

version 1 - (EB, +1 Adv, -2 Lim) - +1 for BOECV; 1d6 = 5 CP/15 AP; 2d6 = 10 CP/30 AP; 3d6 = 15 CP/45 AP; etc.
version 2 - (Stunning Power, 3 pts/1d6) - +1 for BOECV; 1d6 = 6 CP/6 AP; 2d6 = 12 CP/ 12AP; 3d6 = 18 CP/18 AP; etc.


It is the cost variation that makes me leary of using version 2. The costs in the game have been heavily play tested and while we argue about specifics we generally agree that the costs are roughly right. This would make every game have to go through the same testing of all the 'new' powers created.

I would not have a problem with GMs providing ready-made powers for players - stunning attack - 3pts/D6

If they wanted a variant then I think I'd go back to first principles.


Doc

[zornwil]

Zornwil, you forgot that Armor is also Persistant, which Force Field is not.

:tonguewav:

Sure, be that way...

Good catch, seriously.


One of my hobbies is reverse-engineering formulas, computer code, and so on...for some reason, it never occured to me before to try that with the HERO system. When I have a chance, I'll look at it and see if I can make anything of it.

Unfortunately, that won't be today since I slept really badly last night, and for only two hours, so I'm working in a grey fog right now. When I've had a proper sleep and am feeling clear-headed and sharp is when I'll give it a whirl. ;)

Would be interesting if you spent some time on it.

Me, I'm just a concept-gadfly, plant a seed and move on...

Seriously, I'll think some more on this but have to admit I don't think I'll do the hard analytical work aside from playing around on this thread as time permits and others encourage simply by response. I should really spend more time on other projects, and as to number-crunching I should really concentrate on the Unified Framework idea.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Would be interesting if you spent some time on it.
Identifying the "microcode elements" would be the first step, of course. Things like "does 1 BODY damage", "only stopped by Resistant defenses", "provides movement", and so on.

Some of those will be easy, as they already exist in some form as an Advantage, Limitation, or other Power. (Force Field has Cost END, which basic PD & ED don't, but also has Damage Resistance for every pip of defense automatically. You see what I mean...you could consider Force Field as being built from PD/ED with that Limitation and that other Power as "modifiers" to its cost.)

[RDU Neil]

I have to look at this from a philosophical point.

1) Is the new power something that needs to exist "in general" for the system?

Normally my answer is "no" it is a unique "one off" or it is handled "close enough" by the base rules... I see no reason to create a new Power.

2) I view creating new Powers very skeptically. If this is creating something new at the Mechanics level... which should not be taken lightly. If you are creating something at the Game Rule level, that is different, as it is intended to be used in a specific setting/genre/game... not to be considered a universal mechanic.

I don't think I've EVERY considered creating something new at the Mechanic level. Changing something on the Mechanic level? Sure. But never needed to create anything whole cloth.

3) Is the new Power really a "reason from effect" consideration... or is it a "exploiting a game state" concept. The first is ok... the second is not.

Example: I want a power that saps a man's will! (Ego drain) That is a reasoning from effect. I want a power that reduces a character's Ego characteristic so the team mentalist can better effect them" that is exploiting a game state, and entirely unacceptable at my table.

This "stunning" power, as an example... smacks of game state exploitation IMO. It is looking at the System Mechanic for "Con Stunning" and building a power to exploit that game state. The "charges on an END Reserve" is an example of this... as I can't really figure out ANY effect this is simulating... it is simply applying two Mechanics in a way to exploit a game state of Zero END plus Reduced Cost.


So... all that said, I am leery of anything that breaks the 5 Active Point per d6 rule. That is the ultimate balancing factor. If that isn't there... I'm seriously dubious. Even when it is there (Hand Attack) there are ways to break it... without it, it's just worse.

There are plenty of what are considered core mechanics that currently break this structure. Some I can live with... others really bug me.

Plus... this thread really makes me realize that there are TWO types of tinkerers. One is the Mechanics Level tinkerer. The other is the Game Rules level tinkerer. (Someone can obviously be both, of course.) I've always felt that I am a tinkerer... but had a gut revulsion against some of the suggested tinkers I've seen on this board. I realize now that I'm a Game Rule level tinkerer for the most part. I tweak at the higher level to meet Play Experience needs... but I really try to avoid changing things at the Mechanics level.

Thanks for this thread... a little personal insight. I now know why certain ideas bug me, and others don't.

So, to finally answer your question... I'm in camp 1.

(oh... and lose the duck... bring back the lizard! :) )

[zornwil]

By the way, I don't know that "Make damage Killing" should be a 10 point Adder. After all:

1d6 Energy Blast has range, does on average 1 BODY, does on average 3.5 STUN, costs 5 points

1 pip RKA has range, does 1 Body, does on average 2.67 STUN, is only stopped by Resistant defenses, costs 5 points

Is "only stopped by Resistant defenses" really the equivalent in cost per 1 BODY to an additional 0.83 STUN?
Fair point. I'm taking it more from the simplistic "KA = +2 Advantage" argument which has been (to my satisfaction) rebutted as an approach and applying instead the logical Adder value.

I think you have to bear in mind, too, though, that the STUN multiple is either a wash and/or a benefit at some levels of power and/or a minor limitation at others, depending on how you look at it.

Although in general I think I'd rather scale an Ego Killing Blast as 20 pts/d6 rather than a +1 Does BODY Advantage if other Advantages will be tacked on. It definitely scales better at least to my taste. A 10d6 Ego Killing Blast with AoE is 400 points rather than 300 points this way; a 5d6 one is 200 rather than 150 points.

[Dr. Anomaly]

I doubt we'll every be able to come up with a precise formula / subset / toolkit for the toolkit or whatever you want to call it, simply because I don't believe the system was constructed like that way back when, and it's evolved considerably since then.

About the best we can hope for is to get a reasonable "fitting a curve to the data points" sort of framework, and then tweak a few "trouble spots" by hand.

[schir1964]

As I understand it, beyond the 1d6 Damage per 5 Points rule, there is no magic formula for evaluating new mechanics. The system that we know now is the result of trial and error testing over the years. They would create something new, discover it would wreak havoc, tweak it, discover it was useless, tweak it, etc...

Then there are guidelines for Limitations for judging what the limitation value should be. It's either based on the reduction of effectiveness of the power it's applied to, or how often in the game that reduction of effectiveness will occur. It's a very vague rule that and the GM must rely on his experience to decide what a proper value should be, which by it's very nature, is subjective as opposed to objective.

That's why I like to hash out new ideas out here. Draw on the pool of experience and boost my judgement and perspective. (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

(snip)

This "stunning" power, as an example... smacks of game state exploitation IMO. It is looking at the System Mechanic for "Con Stunning" and building a power to exploit that game state. The "charges on an END Reserve" is an example of this... as I can't really figure out ANY effect this is simulating... it is simply applying two Mechanics in a way to exploit a game state of Zero END plus Reduced Cost.

First, as a general comment, I agree in a somewhat large part. I think there might be more occassions to make powers than you probably do, but I also think there's rarely a really good reason, and as far as the game itself goes, the orthodox rules don't need much at all added. Thing is, there's a few difficult SFX I can see messing with, and the current answers for Invulnerability I find unsatisfactory, and I think that applicability is not just one or two genres. So more liberal than you but I don't fundamentally disagree in terms of criteria.

Re the Stunning example, and I think you got this, I just want to stress it was only as an example. I don't consider it in any way a power needed in HERO. But I was inspired to use this solely because it is a power in Mutants and Masterminds and one I can easily see people wanting to do in HERO, especially with less experience in the game.

Also, I would add to your post that I think that some of my comments above regarding Advantages and specifically stacking Advantages at the least imply that there is a structural issue here.


(oh... and lose the duck... bring back the lizard! :) )

All in due time!

[Dr. Anomaly]

All in due time!
"When will then be now?"
-- Dark Helmet

"Soon!"
-- Col. Sandurz

[schir1964]

... Thing is, there's a few difficult SFX I can see messing with, and the current answers for Invulnerability I find unsatisfactory, and I think that applicability is not just one or two genres...
And the interesting thing is, Steve Longs official Invulnerability construct is waayyy more expensive than any of the suggested extrapolations done here. So, from his perspective, Invulnerability should be so expensive most people will ignore it, and those who do get it, will be massively less effective in other areas. Basically, they become pinballs in a pinball machine. (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

I doubt we'll every be able to come up with a precise formula / subset / toolkit for the toolkit or whatever you want to call it, simply because I don't believe the system was constructed like that way back when, and it's evolved considerably since then.

About the best we can hope for is to get a reasonable "fitting a curve to the data points" sort of framework, and then tweak a few "trouble spots" by hand.
I agree with that...

...whoever you are!?!?

(Simon003 - AKA Dr. Anomaly I take it)

[zornwil]

As I understand it, beyond the 1d6 Damage per 5 Points rule, there is no magic formula for evaluating new mechanics. The system that we know now is the result of trial and error testing over the years. They would create something new, discover it would wreak havoc, tweak it, discover it was useless, tweak it, etc...

Then there are guidelines for Limitations for judging what the limitation value should be. It's either based on the reduction of effectiveness of the power it's applied to, or how often in the game that reduction of effectiveness will occur. It's a very vague rule that and the GM must rely on his experience to decide what a proper value should be, which by it's very nature, is subjective as opposed to objective.

That's why I like to hash out new ideas out here. Draw on the pool of experience and boost my judgement and perspective. (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins
Although I agree with Dr. A's (I think) point, I should add that I think there was a fairly robust formula early on, even if it was implicit, in the system's simplicity. I think it became muddled because it remained implicit.

I think we can draw that out and make it explicit. Then we can make exceptions to those rules much more intelligently.

[Dr. Anomaly]

I agree with that...

...whoever you are!?!?

(Simon003 - AKA Dr. Anomaly I take it)Good catch! :D

[schir1964]

I thought there would be a lot more discussion on this. Hmm...

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Well, we also hit the weekend as I posted so Friday, so that's part of it, I think. Plus, thanks for the comments in the other thread. :)

[prestidigitator]

Zornwil, you forgot that Armor is also Persistant, which Force Field is not.
And let's not forget Invisible Power Effects. Unless it has been FAQed away somewhere, Armor costs no End in its unmodified form, and thus requires no visible Special Effects (though most people buy it through a Focus, so that becomes moot).

[schir1964]

And let's not forget Invisible Power Effects. Unless it has been FAQed away somewhere, Armor costs no End in its unmodified form, and thus requires no visible Special Effects (though most people buy it through a Focus, so that becomes moot).
I wasn't going to batter Zornwil with those details. In the thread that delved into comparing Armor to Force Field, many little advantages/limitations were needed to "effectively" turn one into the other.

However, the bigger point is, both of these should have been built from a more basic construct that would be common to both.

Also, I seem to recall that with 5th Edition, another nuance that made the two powers different on the mechanic level, is that you can add PD, MD, and PwrD to a Force Field, but with Armor you can't. Again, I only know this because of building the Hero 5th Edition Template for Metacreator. Steve may have changed his mind on this since then though.

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

Also, I seem to recall that with 5th Edition, another nuance that made the two powers different on the mechanic level, is that you can add PD, MD, and PwrD to a Force Field, but with Armor you can't.
On Force Field? Hmm. I don't remember that part. I know you can add it to Force Wall, and then you can make it transparent to some forms of attack as well. You could certainly be right, though these defenses would be more expensive than a normal variety that Costs End.

[schir1964]

On Force Field? Hmm. I don't remember that part. I know you can add it to Force Wall, and then you can make it transparent to some forms of attack as well. You could certainly be right, though these defenses would be more expensive than a normal variety that Costs End.
Verified.
In 5th Edition Revised, it clearly denotes that the player must specify which defenses (it lists all the defenses available) that the FF will have and that it can't be changed thereafter. Armor specifically states that only PD and ED can be purchased.

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

Verified.
In 5th Edition Revised, it clearly denotes that the player must specify which defenses (it lists all the defenses available) that the FF will have and that it can't be changed thereafter. Armor specifically states that only PD and ED can be purchased.
Huh. Interesting. Pointless for the extra cost, it seems (except that I guess you can consider the whole thing as one Power for purposes of Adjustment applications).

[Beastial]

There's at least one theoretical (and very rare) advantage to getting your power/flash/ego defense through a FF: It's resistant for free.

Now I've never seen a 'killing' attack against any of those, but if someone came along with one, you'd be all set. Reaching a bit... stretching even (at least 5" worth).

[Warp9]

Grrr, you're not Hyper-man!

Mentor, to you and Dust Raven, I have a bit of a challenge - the powers in the book are themselves constructions from a more core set of elemental abilities/powers. If we do not leverage the toolkit to learn to create powers, we cannot reverse engineer the powers that exist. If we do not reverse engineer the powers that exist, I contend that we are limiting our ability to then properly modify the system as needed long-term. See my thoughts in my post most recently above for related thoughts. Wonder what you (plural) think...
As I remember it, there is a comment in one of the books (maybe it was 4th Edition), about the idea of having a very general list of abilities.

I can't seem to find it in any of my books, so it may be that I am mis-remembering. (it would be nice to be able to find the exact quote)

The concept was that there would be 1 Attack Power, 1 Movement Power, 1 Defense Power, and 1 Sense Power. These 4 Base Powers would then have limitations and advantages applied to them simulate all the various possibilities. This concept sounds like it would be very much in line with what you are talking about.

[Sean Waters]

Hello.

I instinctively like this idea, as has been mentioned there is precedent in the construction of Talents.

However (as always) a caveat:

This would only work, IMO, as a useful tool for the GM to introduce powers to a campaign for the players to use, as a way of encouraging certain constructs.

It would be potentially disastrous to just hand this as a tool to players?

Why?

Well, the cunning player will take the damn thing and make points out of it.

Take an example (ALL OR NOTHING BLAST)

1d6 EB (NND +1) and (11- activation -1), base cost 5 points

BUT if the player gets hold of it and builds it like this:

1d6 EB (11- activation -1), base cost 2 points, calls that ALL OR NOTHING BLAST and then adds the advantage, it works out at 4 points per dice.

Over 10 or 12 dice, that is quite a saving...in effect it allows you to reverse the ususal rule that advantages are applied first...

(Equally, depending on the constructed power, a player could end up paying far more due to the order the multipliers and dividers are added)

I think the problem, to my mind, is that it makes keeping an eye on power level is more difficult this way, and there is no easy way of spotting the active cost (if you use that as a guidline)

I suppose my fear is that you are going to end up with a more complicated system rather than a simpler one in that what will happen is that the player will calculate the cost building from scratch, then compare it to the pre-built power and chose the most favourable one.

If ALL the powers in your campaign are chosen from a pre-built list then no problem, but otherise they are just going to pick the best one for them, so you'll be running two systems rather than one streamlined system.

Mind you, despite all this party pooping I do like the idea in principle. I will ponder some more.... :)

[zornwil]

As I remember it, there is a comment in one of the books (maybe it was 4th Edition), about the idea of having a very general list of abilities.

I can't seem to find it in any of my books, so it may be that I am mis-remembering. (it would be nice to be able to find the exact quote)

The concept was that there would be 1 Attack Power, 1 Movement Power, 1 Defense Power, and 1 Sense Power. These 4 Base Powers would then have limitations and advantages applied to them simulate all the various possibilities. This concept sounds like it would be very much in line with what you are talking about.
I have seen such talk but I don't believe it was ever in the HERO rule books.

I don't think such a system would be playable, but it would be the necessary framework to any tinkering with the system, much more desirable than what we have now in terms of understanding what basis we're tinkering from.

[zornwil]

Hello.

I instinctively like this idea, as has been mentioned there is precedent in the construction of Talents.

However (as always) a caveat:

This would only work, IMO, as a useful tool for the GM to introduce powers to a campaign for the players to use, as a way of encouraging certain constructs.

It would be potentially disastrous to just hand this as a tool to players?

Why?

Well, the cunning player will take the damn thing and make points out of it.

Take an example (ALL OR NOTHING BLAST)

1d6 EB (NND +1) and (11- activation -1), base cost 5 points

BUT if the player gets hold of it and builds it like this:

1d6 EB (11- activation -1), base cost 2 points, calls that ALL OR NOTHING BLAST and then adds the advantage, it works out at 4 points per dice.

Over 10 or 12 dice, that is quite a saving...in effect it allows you to reverse the ususal rule that advantages are applied first...

(Equally, depending on the constructed power, a player could end up paying far more due to the order the multipliers and dividers are added)

I think the problem, to my mind, is that it makes keeping an eye on power level is more difficult this way, and there is no easy way of spotting the active cost (if you use that as a guidline)

I suppose my fear is that you are going to end up with a more complicated system rather than a simpler one in that what will happen is that the player will calculate the cost building from scratch, then compare it to the pre-built power and chose the most favourable one.

If ALL the powers in your campaign are chosen from a pre-built list then no problem, but otherise they are just going to pick the best one for them, so you'll be running two systems rather than one streamlined system.

Mind you, despite all this party pooping I do like the idea in principle. I will ponder some more.... :)
I'm not really suggesting a change per se or the idea of doing derived powers as simple composite, new points-per-dice powers in general, but given that some of the powers we have in the book (RKA being a prime sort of example) seem to have been derived this way, I think there must be some times that one "should" do it this way.

I do wonder if "serious" Advantages scale better as adders to base values, though, given some of the comments above and how the math works out. At the least, treating Autofire this way along with Does Body seems to make any powers derived on those scale more slowly, which seems better and more balanced.

[Ganesh]

Zornwil: it seems like your mathematical objection there is due to rounding error. If not for that, do you think it would still be a problem? You could just as easily only have people buy from the "more basic" power list, which gives you a similar effect to just a more extreme HERO.


As an aside, I've been working on pulling apart the basic components of HERO and stringing them into something much more basic, with far fewer powers for some while now. Unfortunately, ever since changing ISPs, I haven't been able to make the wiki accessable anywhere outside the house network. ::sigh::

Anyway, the way I dealt with the "what's the base power?" problem was to change the way advantages and limitations stacked...each +1/2 advantage was a PowerEnhancer, every 2 PowerEnhancers doubled the cost of the power, every 3 PowerEnhancers trippled the cost of the power. Actually approximated things with the 7th root of 12, and made a chart.

Limitations were similar...every -1/2 limitation was a PowerLimiter, and then you reduced the effective number of PowerEnhancers. Reduce by one for one PowerLimiter, by two for three PowerLimiters, by three for six PowerLimiters, by four for ten, etc. The GM (and only the GM) has the option to allow some number of limiters to just cancel with some number of enhancers, creating a new "base power."


My "short power list" wound up being Defense (cost 10 points a die for all corporial damage, limitation to make it nonresistant, and with options to make it into things like Damage Reduction), Body Modification (with pulled-apart bits of DI, Stretching, Growth, Shrinking, some of the "touch sense group" shapeshift effects, etc.), Change Environment, Endurance Reserve, Luck, Images (with modifications like "must overcome target's {Characteristic} to allow for Mental Illusion and modifiers to make Darkness or many of the effects of Shapeshift), Summon/Create (for forcewalls, entangles, and summons of different stripes), Move (for making flight, jumping, teleportation, TK, EDM and a number of other effects), Adjustment, Blast, and Command (which is definitely a stopsign power, the thing used to build mind control).

Missile Deflection, Senses (including seekersense/mindscan, clairsentience, and mind-link), and most Movement was made part of the skill system (skills do All-Or-Nothing much better, and aren't affected by adjustment powers nearly as much).

It's actually been a lot of fun to put together. I heartily recommend it as a mental excercise.

[zornwil]

Zornwil: it seems like your mathematical objection there is due to rounding error.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure which exactly you're referring to? When I understand, will be glad to answer your question of course.

Also, to be clear, I think the fundamental question is how and why to embed a Modifier inside of a power and then expose the whole thing as a single power to be further modified, as opposed to building the power as a single construct but with Modifiers exposed. I don't think (?) that the difference between the two is merely rounding. I think if we take the example of EB => RKA and believe that there is an Advantage equaling +2 for "Killing Damage", then there's also a good reason that the Advantage is "buried" in the base cost and not simply added to - it scales much better this way than having a +2 Killing Damage Advantage.


If not for that, do you think it would still be a problem? You could just as easily only have people buy from the "more basic" power list, which gives you a similar effect to just a more extreme HERO.


As an aside, I've been working on pulling apart the basic components of HERO and stringing them into something much more basic, with far fewer powers for some while now. Unfortunately, ever since changing ISPs, I haven't been able to make the wiki accessable anywhere outside the house network. ::sigh::

Anyway, the way I dealt with the "what's the base power?" problem was to change the way advantages and limitations stacked...each +1/2 advantage was a PowerEnhancer, every 2 PowerEnhancers doubled the cost of the power, every 3 PowerEnhancers trippled the cost of the power. Actually approximated things with the 7th root of 12, and made a chart.

Limitations were similar...every -1/2 limitation was a PowerLimiter, and then you reduced the effective number of PowerEnhancers. Reduce by one for one PowerLimiter, by two for three PowerLimiters, by three for six PowerLimiters, by four for ten, etc. The GM (and only the GM) has the option to allow some number of limiters to just cancel with some number of enhancers, creating a new "base power."


My "short power list" wound up being Defense (cost 10 points a die for all corporial damage, limitation to make it nonresistant, and with options to make it into things like Damage Reduction), Body Modification (with pulled-apart bits of DI, Stretching, Growth, Shrinking, some of the "touch sense group" shapeshift effects, etc.), Change Environment, Endurance Reserve, Luck, Images (with modifications like "must overcome target's {Characteristic} to allow for Mental Illusion and modifiers to make Darkness or many of the effects of Shapeshift), Summon/Create (for forcewalls, entangles, and summons of different stripes), Move (for making flight, jumping, teleportation, TK, EDM and a number of other effects), Adjustment, Blast, and Command (which is definitely a stopsign power, the thing used to build mind control).

Missile Deflection, Senses (including seekersense/mindscan, clairsentience, and mind-link), and most Movement was made part of the skill system (skills do All-Or-Nothing much better, and aren't affected by adjustment powers nearly as much).

It's actually been a lot of fun to put together. I heartily recommend it as a mental excercise.

Very interesting, will you post your work? I would like to see it.

[prestidigitator]

Well, for one thing if we had multiplicative Advantages and Limitations, this wouldn't be an issue. I'll give an example. If you had a Power with a 40 Base Cost, two +1/2 Advantages, a -1/4 Limitation, and a -1 Limitation, the Real Cost might be calculated as follows:



(1+1/2)(1+1/2) 9 4
40 . -------------- = 40 . - . -- = 36
(1+1/4)(1+1) 4 10

Now, I think costs would have to be re-worked quite a lot, and the +1s really wouldn't be necessary (every Advantage and Limitation would simply have a value greater than one). Things would have to be fooled with, thought out, and play tested quite a bit.

I'm also not sure exactly how you would do Active Points (maybe just carry them along independently of the cost, and always apply only Advantages, and not Limitations, to them?). But this system has obvious benefits where scalability is concerned; the new cost can simply be multiplied by a new Advantage or divided by a new Limitation, at any time and without really considering the "original" cost of the Power.

Another problem with it, though, is that things tend to explode quite rapidly. Might work with adjusted values; might not. Only testing could tell for sure, I think.

[zornwil]

Looks interesting. I do think it has the opposite problem of blowing up the numbers too much, but I only say that from gut feel, would have to really look at the various mixtures and see how it looks.

[prestidigitator]

Looks interesting. I do think it has the opposite problem of blowing up the numbers too much, but I only say that from gut feel, would have to really look at the various mixtures and see how it looks.
Yep. Another thought just occurred to me. In this case, why not represent the Limitations as multipliers as well? Just make them rational numbers that are (obviously) less than one. Instead of a -1 Limitation, you would have a x1/2 Limitation (whereas a +1 Advantage would be represented as a x2, or x2/1 multiplier). Then our whole rule of thumb that says, "If a Power is only a third as effective, it should have a Limitation value of X," would have X=1/3.

[prestidigitator]

Yep. Another thought just occurred to me. In this case, why not represent the Limitations as multipliers as well? Just make them rational numbers that are (obviously) less than one. Instead of a -1 Limitation, you would have a x1/2 Limitation (whereas a +1 Advantage would be represented as a x2, or x2/1 multiplier). Then our whole rule of thumb that says, "If a Power is only a third as effective, it should have a Limitation value of X," would have X=1/3.
Those were extreme examples. Especially with the explosive nature, I'm sure Advantages would tend to fall more in the realm of x5/4 to x3/2, and Limitations more like x3/4 to x2/3.

[Ganesh]

Sorry, Zornwil -- you cited two complaints: one, that the "all or nothing blast" wound up saving 1 point per DC (which was a rounding error) and the other that keeping track of power levels was harder. The former seems like it could be fixed by eliminating the rounding wherever possible, while the latter...seems like much more of an issue. Then again, there are so many other "rule of X" rules out there, perhaps AP has simplicity as its major merit? ::shrugs::

The problem with making limitations simply multiplicative is that they shrink the cost of powers stupidly fast. Take two -1 limitations, and you're left with something that's not 1/3 the cost, but 1/4. Apply another -1 limitation, and the cost is down to 1/8, not 1/4. All those "destroy the earth on a 5 RP budget!" powers just got cheaper, and the drive to take lots of limitations just got gobs stronger. In general, I like the fact that in hero, piling on the limitations fairly quickly hits a point of...well, pointlessness from the point of view of points savings. ::grin::

Advantages, on the other hand...if I had a dollar for every time someone said "any power with +N in advantages or more needs to be very seriously looked at/is obviously a munchkin tool" where N is either 2 or 3, I'd be a wealthier man. Making them explode doesn't seem too bad, from that point of view.

Also to Zornwil:
I'd be willing to post what I've scraped together if you like, though I'm not sure here's the place to do it. It was pulled together using a wiki, the ultimate tool for nonlinear (i.e. scatterbrained) thinkers like myself, so pulling out the data in a reasonable order will take a little while.

[zornwil]

Those were extreme examples. Especially with the explosive nature, I'm sure Advantages would tend to fall more in the realm of x5/4 to x3/2, and Limitations more like x3/4 to x2/3.
Good clarification. The other problem becomes that the old +1 Advantages do need to double the price with no other Modifiers, so how do you maintain the "lower end" balance we do have now while achieving a higher-scaled balance for more Advantages and such? Perhaps multiplying by Limitations will work - I almost never see a character that has significant Advantages without some Limitations, and not so much from an efficiency standpoint but rather many Advantages usually is just a symptom of a more complex power construct which almost always has Lims involved by the nature of its complexity.

[zornwil]

Sorry, Zornwil -- you cited two complaints: one, that the "all or nothing blast" wound up saving 1 point per DC (which was a rounding error) and the other that keeping track of power levels was harder. The former seems like it could be fixed by eliminating the rounding wherever possible, while the latter...seems like much more of an issue. Then again, there are so many other "rule of X" rules out there, perhaps AP has simplicity as its major merit? ::shrugs::

The problem with making limitations simply multiplicative is that they shrink the cost of powers stupidly fast. Take two -1 limitations, and you're left with something that's not 1/3 the cost, but 1/4. Apply another -1 limitation, and the cost is down to 1/8, not 1/4. All those "destroy the earth on a 5 RP budget!" powers just got cheaper, and the drive to take lots of limitations just got gobs stronger. In general, I like the fact that in hero, piling on the limitations fairly quickly hits a point of...well, pointlessness from the point of view of points savings. ::grin::

Advantages, on the other hand...if I had a dollar for every time someone said "any power with +N in advantages or more needs to be very seriously looked at/is obviously a munchkin tool" where N is either 2 or 3, I'd be a wealthier man. Making them explode doesn't seem too bad, from that point of view.

Also to Zornwil:
I'd be willing to post what I've scraped together if you like, though I'm not sure here's the place to do it. It was pulled together using a wiki, the ultimate tool for nonlinear (i.e. scatterbrained) thinkers like myself, so pulling out the data in a reasonable order will take a little while.
If it's not too much trouble, I'm interested, but I understand if it is. I'll have to look into the wiki thing, not familiar with it though I've heard of a few different non-linear methods of data gathering and appraisal.

As to rounding, I do understand what you mean now. That seems like it would have some impact, good point. However, I think the progression shows it's not just rounding, it's also an issue of the very algorithm. If we take the power contruct and just add Modifiers without resetting the base cost, each Advantage and Limitation is applied with the original 1+ part of the formula. So an additional Advantage of +1 if we have, say a single +1 Advantage to start with, results in the AP total increasing by 50%. If we "repackage" the construct into a new base power in this same situation, each base cost is doubled by that additional +1 Advantage. That means even for 1d6 there's a difference - in the first mentioned version the cost for a 5 point per d6 power with two +1 Advantages will be 15, whereas in the second mentioned version the cost for a 10 point per d6 power (the power "packaged" for that base cost representing it was originally a power construct that was 5 per d6 with a single +1 Advantage) with a +1 Advantage will be 20.

[prestidigitator]

The problem with making limitations simply multiplicative is that they shrink the cost of powers stupidly fast. Take two -1 limitations, and you're left with something that's not 1/3 the cost, but 1/4. Apply another -1 limitation, and the cost is down to 1/8, not 1/4. All those "destroy the earth on a 5 RP budget!" powers just got cheaper, and the drive to take lots of limitations just got gobs stronger. In general, I like the fact that in hero, piling on the limitations fairly quickly hits a point of...well, pointlessness from the point of view of points savings. ::grin::
I know. That is why I believe the costs would need to be re-thought a bit. I think the frequency of "x1/2" Limitations would have to be quite small (perhaps more along the lines of our current -2 Limitations, rather than the -1s). I was including this aspect of Limitations when I mentioned the, "exploding," quality.

Note that if this method were used, you would have to seriously think about when Limitations are just "larger" Limitations, and when they are actually multiple smaller Limitations. For example, if we were to just translate the current Limitations into this structure, a -2 would become a x1/3, but two -1s would become the equivalent of a x1/4; Limitations that would normally be of equivalent value when combined will no longer be.

I wasn't proposing a direct conversion into this kind of structure; just a general idea for one that could produce the quality of being somewhat, "stateless."

[zornwil]

I am making a potential recommendation in a new thread, prestidigitator, will link it here momentarily...

First, to answer your last post:


I know. That is why I believe the costs would need to be re-thought a bit. I think the frequency of "x1/2" Limitations would have to be quite small (perhaps more along the lines of our current -2 Limitations, rather than the -1s). I was including this aspect of Limitations when I mentioned the, "exploding," quality.

Note that if this method were used, you would have to seriously think about when Limitations are just "larger" Limitations, and when they are actually multiple smaller Limitations. For example, if we were to just translate the current Limitations into this structure, a -2 would become a x1/3, but two -1s would become the equivalent of a x1/4; Limitations that would normally be of equivalent value when combined will no longer be.

I wasn't proposing a direct conversion into this kind of structure; just a general idea for one that could produce the quality of being somewhat, "stateless."

No matter what, a multiplicative system will mean significant recosting. That's not necessarily a bad thing, if the new scale and values seem more useful. However, the biggest challenge would be player adoption and resistance out of tradition/familiarity rather than whether the values are so good, I think. Also, I just went through typing out a long post on costs and whether a single Advantage composed of "pieces" (e.g., 2 +1/2 Difficult to Dispel levels) should be devolved to the sum of the parts as a multiplier (i.e., 2 +1/2s of the same Advantage equal a single +1, which now might be costed as (e.g.) x2; or do 2 +1/2s of the same Advantage each be treated as individual multipliers at whatever value?). Then I realized that this just won't be accepted because it doesn't merely mean recosting and balance implications, but it also begs a whole new set of AP/END issues (as alluded to above) as well as recasting the fundamnental scaling of even the smallest to the largest SINGLE Advantages because the values would have to change to achieve a reasonable curve.

So I've proposed a new idea in thread http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30457