"Understanding limitations and advantages"

[cboscari]

Hello all...
I've been playing HERO for about a year, and I am finally getting around to designing a campaign, which of course means I have discovered how little I actually know and thought I knew...

Anyway, supose in my campain world, all magic (powers) can affect desolid. Would I add that advantage to ALL magic? The converse option would be to add a "Does not work on Desolid" Disadvantage to those rare items where this was the case. This would make those rare items less expensive, and save some bookeeping on my part. I am not sure what the guiding principle on this is...

Thanks,
Chris

[Agent X]

Just require any Desolid power to make Magical Attacks its weakness.

[cboscari]

I hadn't thought of that, but I guess I was asking the more general question of if a advantage or limitation applies to all powers, or even some class of objects.
Example-

*most* objects of class X have advantage Y in the game world. Is it better to create typical objects X with the advantage Y (making them more expensive) or better (because of the easier book keeping) to give a limitation to those objects that don't have Y - "Object limitation- does not have Y" to make it cheaper? The first way requires more record keeping, and to be honest, print-out space. However, there might be a convention or other good reason to do it the first way.
I hope that made sense. :)

Chris

[BasilDrag]

Originally posted by cboscari
I hadn't thought of that, but I guess I was asking the more general question of if a advantage or limitation applies to all powers, or even some class of objects.
Example-

*most* objects of class X have advantage Y in the game world. Is it better to create typical objects X with the advantage Y (making them more expensive) or better (because of the easier book keeping) to give a limitation to those objects that don't have Y - "Object limitation- does not have Y" to make it cheaper? The first way requires more record keeping, and to be honest, print-out space. However, there might be a convention or other good reason to do it the first way.
I hope that made sense. :)

Chris

As you say, the first way requires more writing up and so on. It is, however, in accord with the rules as written, though you have to make sure the requirement is told to all the players.

The second way is simpler, but requires a House Rule. The problem with House Rules is making sure everyone knows about them.

Your call.

[TheEmerged]

Remember that Desolidification by its text always has to have some defined way around it. Simply state as a GM that as a campaign rule, magic is the "way around" desolidification.

At one time, you had to do this with sense-affecting powers for example.

[CourtFool]

I really see this as a matter of preference. Go with less book keeping and inform the players of the house rule or be a completist and write it up for every instance.

I tend to be a completist as it makes it easy for me to share with others who may not include my house rule. It is also there as a reminder when I find a character sheet for a campaign I ran three years ago.

In a previous Fantasy campaign, I gave the magic users a free 'Magic Awareness' sense much like Mental Awareness for free. It was included in every magic user write up.

[Lord Liaden]

Whoa, this is thread necromancy worthy of Takofanes! :eek:

[Diamond Spear]

Whoa, this is thread necromancy worthy of Takofanes! :eek:

And the OP only has 20 posts in 4 plus years. I think we might have lost him somewhere along the way.

[Chris Goodwin]

There's been a rash of thread necro'ing lately, I've noticed.

[pinecone]

Just move on peasant! Important matters are being resolved....

[ghost-angel]

Eh, if it's a feature of the Game World it doesn't need to be included in Power Writeups, it just is.

(and who let the Llama spend XP on a "Raise Thread" Power?)

[Lord Liaden]

And the OP only has 20 posts in 4 plus years. I think we might have lost him somewhere along the way.

On Dec. 31 of '03, to be precise. :rolleyes:

[Manic Typist]

How can you know the date so precisely?

[ghost-angel]

How can you know the date so precisely?

That's the Last Activity Date in the OPs user profile.

[Lord Liaden]

(and who let the Llama spend XP on a "Raise Thread" Power?)

It's our fault for wiping out his negative Rep again. All that positivity probably made him think he's God's gift to wool sweaters. :winkgrin:

[pawsplay]

Ah, the age old question: does an Energy Blast defined as kryptonite radiation cost more than one defined as something more mundane?

[ghost-angel]

No. Why would it?

[ghost-angel]

Ah, the age old question: does an Energy Blast defined as kryptonite radiation cost more than one defined as something more mundane?

To clarify the point above of "no. why would it" the Kryptonite Radiation Blast is just an attack. If someone takes extra damage from Kryptonite Radiation like Superman that's reflected on their side as a Disadvantage.

SFX are SFX are SFX.

[CourtFool]

Whoa, this is thread necromancy worthy of Takofanes! :eek:

There's been a rash of thread necro'ing lately, I've noticed.

(and who let the Llama spend XP on a "Raise Thread" Power?)

You want I should rather start a new thread for something that has already been covered?

[cboscari]

"I'm not dead yet."

You are correct. Unfortunately, I moved to an area with few HERO players, so I haven't had a chance to finish the campaign. Someday... Someday (sigh). I really ought to check in to see what's new around here.
Chris

[Doc Democracy]

And here you see a potential benefit from thread necromancy rather than beginning a new thread - the OP was subscribed to the thread (I presume) and was alerted to the resumed discussion. Thus a lapsed member of the congregation was returned to the fold.


Well done CourtFool!


:)


Doc

[Sean Waters]

To clarify the point above of "no. why would it" the Kryptonite Radiation Blast is just an attack. If someone takes extra damage from Kryptonite Radiation like Superman that's reflected on their side as a Disadvantage.

SFX are SFX are SFX.


Well, if the campaign is called 'Invasion of the Supermen' then a Kryptonite EB is going to be far more useful and effective than a 'Yellow Sun EB'.

The lack of any cost consequences to sfx assumes a campaign where, over time, one sfx is no more useful than another. That is rarely true.

Roll on The Ultimate Blaster, eh?

[ghost-angel]

Well, if the campaign is called 'Invasion of the Supermen' then a Kryptonite EB is going to be far more useful and effective than a 'Yellow Sun EB'.

The lack of any cost consequences to sfx assumes a campaign where, over time, one sfx is no more useful than another. That is rarely true.

Roll on The Ultimate Blaster, eh?

You're suggesting the Players should be charged extra for being able to take advantage of someone else's Vulnerability and/or Susceptibility Disadvantage?
One guy gets points back and forces others to have their powers cost more?

[Sean Waters]

You're suggesting the Players should be charged extra for being able to take advantage of someone else's Vulnerability and/or Susceptibility Disadvantage?
One guy gets points back and forces others to have their powers cost more?

If the vulnerability or susceptibility is a 'campaign feature' as opposed to a character feature, then yes. A more useful power should cost more.

[ghost-angel]

If the vulnerability or susceptibility is a 'campaign feature' as opposed to a character feature, then yes. A more useful power should cost more.

If it's a Campaign Feature then I would say it's not a Disad you get points back for - like NCM in a Heroic Game. In which case I could agree with you. But if you get points for the Disadvantage then I disagree.

[Doc Democracy]

If it's a Campaign Feature then I would say it's not a Disad you get points back for - like NCM in a Heroic Game. In which case I could agree with you. But if you get points for the Disadvantage then I disagree.

The points for the disadvantage of being susceptible to kryptonite is not really the issue though is it?

What Sean is saying is that, if every major villain will have a susceptibility/vulnerability to a particular SFX then surely choosing that SFX for an attacking power should cost more than the same power with a less effective SFX. No?

I can see the argument, even if it does stray from the central Hero tenet of divorcing SFX from mechanics etc.

Doc

[Ganesh]

This only really becomes a problem when you're mixing PC and NPC vulnerabilities.

For an NPC flaw example, imagine our hypothetical "Invasion from Krypton" campaign, where most of the high-level baddies have problems with little green rocks. In this case, such attacks should be purchased as normal attacks, with an "Only affects Kryptonians" limitation of appropriate value for the campaign world.

For a PC flaw example, we have Superman, who takes a vulnerability, or a susceptability, or both, and thus keels over whenever exposed to chunks of his exploded home planet.

Now the difficulty arises when you have an "Invasion from Krypton" campaign, and someone wants to play the noble Superman, who has gone native and sided with the earthlings against his brothers.

Using susceptabilities and vulnerabilities and whatnot leads to math that doesn't work out...he winds up either taking set amounts of damage when other kryptonians are taking damae based on the powers his friends have bought, or taking more damage than other kryptonians, or other such problems.

I'd imagine, as long as Supes is the exception, that the best way to handle him in that case is to give the character the Physical Limitation "Kryptonian Physiology" -- with frequency and severity based on how often his teammates have the opportunity to use kryptonite-based weaponry (and either do, causing him problems, or don't, causing them problems) and just have him be damaged/affected by things that only affect kryptonians, as normal.

Now, if it's a band of kryptonian rebels and one guy is playing the human, you might not have kryptonite-based attacks be limited, or not as much, not allow Kryptonians to take a Physical Limitation, and just have humans all buy enough armor, or desolid, or something, limited to only protect them from kryptonite-sfx effects (other than being beaned by actual chunks of mineral).

I don't know what one would do if one were running an "Invasion from Krypton" campaign and about half your life-forms were kryptonians and half weren't. Use GM discretion and pick something, I guess.

[Maur]

Would the other kryptonians really be susceptible to kryptonite given that they are only just arriving on Earth? Unlike Superman they have spent their lives exposed to things made from their homeworld whereas Kal'el was not.

[Sean Waters]

Would the other kryptonians really be susceptible to kryptonite given that they are only just arriving on Earth? Unlike Superman they have spent their lives exposed to things made from their homeworld whereas Kal'el was not.

Well if they are not vulnerable to Kryptonite then we don't have anything to argue about, so THAT can't be right :)

Doc Democracy make my point better than me: if Supermen take double damage from Kryptonite EBs, then that 12d6 EB is really more like a 24d6 EB, with the extra points rolling in for free. If you KNOW that the campaign features many Supermen as villains then you chose the sfx not (just) for colour and interest, but for pure utility, and THAT is what I think ought to be paid for.

I'm not suggesting that, as a general rule, we should start costing sfx into point totals, just that there are some situations where that would be appropriate.

Normally sfx utility is balanced by the GM, and it would be hard to do in an IotS (Invasion of the Supermen) game, unless you had a second race of villains who were all bought with absorbtion (Kryptonite EB to Strength). Even then the chances are that it is the whole team who will suffer for the sfx choice of one character, rather than (necessarily) that individual. Especially if they had the foresight to buy plenty of movement powers.

Perhaps Maur's approach is the best of all - make sure that the situation does not arise. :thumbup: Mind you, the game choices about sfx cost are then dictating the sort of games we play. Can't win, can you?

One situation where this sort of thing is likely to come up is sonic weapons in a space campaign. The main limitation of sonics is that it is less effective in low pressure and ineffective in vaccuum. In a space campaign those things are hard to avoid, and you'd need a pretty cunning GM to avoid the pitfalls.

Captain SpaceZap's Player: Hey, I've finished working on my character. He has a SpacePlane and a SonicBlaster.

GM: Cool. The SpacePlane crashes.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd say it depends on how common the substance is. If the Kryptonians have taken Susceptibility to Kryptonite (Very Common), then everyone and their brother can fling Kryptonite at them, and a Kryptonite Blast shouldn't cost any more points. If it's Uncommon, and it takes some effort to find, I'd say go ahead and charge extra for it. That's just my opinion.

[caris]

I've always found the Superman example to be a little too specific too translate well. Here is my preferred. All vampires in a given Fantasy Campaign world must have Susceptibility: Sunlight 3D6 per turn. Now, player Fred wants to build a priest of the sun god, and have a gift from said god to produce sunlight. The base power is bought as Images (or Change Environment, if you prefer). When if at all would the PC have to add on some sort of Damaging Attack power to reflect the fact that the vampires can take damage from the light of this spell (assume that the GM agrees that this is appropriate for the campaign in general, i.e. that it is "true" sunlight in relation to the SFX of the Susceptibility)?

I tend to not consider the points from Disadvantages to NPCs as being meaningful (to be honest, I do not usually bother to get too worried about the real points with NPCs at all), so I base my decision on how common vampires are going to be in the campaign. If the major villains that I've planned for the campaign are going to be vampires, than the PC is going to have to pay points for some sort of attack power, or the PC will have to accept that the light they are producing is not quite "true" enough to affect the vampires.

On the other hand, if Vampires are only going to show up in once in a blue moon, than I do not see the need to require the extra attack power.

Getting back to the NPC issue, I do tend to look at SFXs that will negatively impact PCs do to Disadvantages or Limitations as part of balancing. For example, if one of the PCs has a Vulnerability to a specific SFX, I'll treat attack powers of that SFX as being in a higher category (low, medium, or high) than the straight dice would reflect. That of course, gets in to the fine art of balancing.

[Chris Goodwin]

I've always found the Superman example to be a little too specific too translate well. Here is my preferred. All vampires in a given Fantasy Campaign world must have Susceptibility: Sunlight 3D6 per turn. Now, player Fred wants to build a priest of the sun god, and have a gift from said god to produce sunlight. The base power is bought as Images (or Change Environment, if you prefer). When if at all would the PC have to add on some sort of Damaging Attack power to reflect the fact that the vampires can take damage from the light of this spell (assume that the GM agrees that this is appropriate for the campaign in general, i.e. that it is "true" sunlight in relation to the SFX of the Susceptibility)?

I see. I would say build it as something like a 3d6 NND with Continuous and a Once Per Turn type Limitation on it. Essentially, you're building a Power that has the same effect on the target as the Susceptibility.

That's all assuming that you don't just give it to him on SFX; because he's a priest of the sun god, his light spells have the power of not just the sun, but the God of the Sun behind them. (Actually this might be justification for building the NND plus allowing it to trigger the Susceptibility; it's not just sunlight, but Holy Sunlight (tm), thus doubling (or more -- maybe you just build the Power as a Continuous NND, every Phase).)

[caris]

That's all assuming that you don't just give it to him on SFX; because he's a priest of the sun god, his light spells have the power of not just the sun, but the God of the Sun behind them. (Actually this might be justification for building the NND plus allowing it to trigger the Susceptibility; it's not just sunlight, but Holy Sunlight (tm), thus doubling (or more -- maybe you just build the Power as a Continuous NND, every Phase).)

As I said, it is a matter of GM call, but there should come a point where a PC should not be allowed to try to get around the points by playing the system, anymore than they should be forced to pay for every little thing.

[Doc Democracy]

I think that I would do my level best to avoid the situation in the first place.

In the invasion of the supermen example I think that I would point out to the player that if I were the commander of an invasion force and one suprhuman on the planet was able to shoot kryptonite rays from their eyes then it would be my firs task to ensure that clear and present danger was removed.

I might not charge extra for the power but might indicate tot he player that the nature of the power would attract disadvantages such as 'Hunted: Super-Assassins 14-, seek to kill character' and 'Phys Lim: Kryptonite signature - easy to detect'

That might put a not so subtle note to the player that I, as GM, dont really want you to have that power though, under these extreme circumstances that I am prepared to allow it.

In the case of the vampires I might indicate that the power of the gods may wane when in ground controlled by other dieties. The powers granted by the god of the sun may be limited in the Land of the Vampires where the Night Lady holds sway. I would allow the images to cause damage and to trigger susceptibilities but might tack on things like activation rolls or Phys Lim - Avatar of the Light. One means that the power cannot be relied upon and the other that anyone seeking you out would get a fix on you whenever you used the powers....


Hmm. Is there a limitation that would do that? Something like Beacon where you radiate some quality that others might use to track you or find you when you dont necessarily want to be seen or found? Does Phys Lim cover that???


Doc

[Sean Waters]

Doc, I agree with your game logic but if the power itself attracts 'free' disadvantages, then you are making it cost more, albeit from a different direction.

As to the vampire point, if the entire game is called: BuffyHero, then the ability to cheaply produce an attack effective against the villain you will most often encounter is unfair tot hose concept players who do not take the power.

If you build it as a Change Environment or images, it is VERY cheap and AoE, and you only KNOW to buy it because that is the sort of thing you will be fighting. In DnD all clerics have turn undead, but a given cleric might go through their entire career and never so much as meet a zombie. My point is that in a balanced campaign where you meet a variety of villains with mixed disadvantages, then no one power or sfx will be overly advantageous BUT in a campaign where you effectively KNOW what you are going to be facing, then more useful sfx/powers should cost more.

In the BuffyHero game, if you buy the 'sunlight' thing as a NND, you would get very little limitation from 'only v vampires' because vampires will be ubiquitous (-1/2 or worse). In fact it is almost an advantage - it gives you a sort of automatic 'selective target combined with a 'detect vampire'. In a standard superhero or space game (for example), vampires are likely to be rare and so you get a larger limtiation value (-2 or better).

This means that we are ALREADY changing cost based on sfx. We might as well admit it and deal with it in a structured manner.

[Doc Democracy]

As you might have guessed - I am sympathetic to the making things cost more, I was just working through ways that you might alter the attractiveness of a power in game without reducing the portability of the character between campaigns.

Obviously it would be far more work to apply varied costs to powers as the players would have to be aware of that (and remember to apply it) when they were building their characters.

All in all it is more work for the GM before and after character submissions which is already the mountain as far as getting a Hero game going.

Not saying it isn't worth it, just makes things more complex.

If you are saying that the formula for working out costs of powers should be changed then that also makes it more complex.

To give you a starting point

actual cost = real points = ((active points * advantages)/(1+limitations)) * SFX modifier

Now in all current campaigns the SFX modifier is 1.

I would suggest that the lowest modifier should be 1 or else you are simply making the modifier another type of limitation. You could assign larger modifiers to SFX that would have campaign benefits.

So in Invasion of the Supermen a kryptonite based attack might have a modifier of 2 or 3 while a magic based power might have a modifier of 3 or 4.

I would not suggest modifiers larger than 4.

The GM could then simply produce a list of those SFX that would not be 1 for his campaign.


Better?


Doc

[SteveZilla]

Well, if the campaign is called 'Invasion of the Supermen' then a Kryptonite EB is going to be far more useful and effective than a 'Yellow Sun EB'.

The lack of any cost consequences to sfx assumes a campaign where, over time, one sfx is no more useful than another. That is rarely true.

Roll on The Ultimate Blaster, eh?

A player should not have to pay more for one F/X vs another (presuming they don't involve *required* Advantages or Limitations).

A power's point cost should be determined by mechanics, and any change in effectiveness based upon that power's F/X should be because of Disadvantages in the target.

[Mentor]

I've always found the Superman example to be a little too specific too translate well. Here is my preferred. All vampires in a given Fantasy Campaign world must have Susceptibility: Sunlight 3D6 per turn. Now, player Fred wants to build a priest of the sun god, and have a gift from said god to produce sunlight. The base power is bought as Images (or Change Environment, if you prefer). When if at all would the PC have to add on some sort of Damaging Attack power to reflect the fact that the vampires can take damage from the light of this spell (assume that the GM agrees that this is appropriate for the campaign in general, i.e. that it is "true" sunlight in relation to the SFX of the Susceptibility)?

I tend to not consider the points from Disadvantages to NPCs as being meaningful (to be honest, I do not usually bother to get too worried about the real points with NPCs at all), so I base my decision on how common vampires are going to be in the campaign. If the major villains that I've planned for the campaign are going to be vampires, than the PC is going to have to pay points for some sort of attack power, or the PC will have to accept that the light they are producing is not quite "true" enough to affect the vampires.

On the other hand, if Vampires are only going to show up in once in a blue moon, than I do not see the need to require the extra attack power.

Getting back to the NPC issue, I do tend to look at SFXs that will negatively impact PCs do to Disadvantages or Limitations as part of balancing. For example, if one of the PCs has a Vulnerability to a specific SFX, I'll treat attack powers of that SFX as being in a higher category (low, medium, or high) than the straight dice would reflect. That of course, gets in to the fine art of balancing.
Great point. If a GM tells players that the campaign is a Vampire Hunter campaign, then designing a sunlight guy should indeed require buying the vampire affecting powers and not just assuming the SFX is applicable.

OTOH, Solar Guy as a hero in a generic campaign should receive appropriate SFX bonuses and minuses if appropriate, when the occasional vampre shows up.

"One size fits all" SFX rules always seem to have exceptions anyway

[SteveZilla]

Hmm. Is there a limitation that would do that? Something like Beacon where you radiate some quality that others might use to track you or find you when you dont necessarily want to be seen or found? Does Phys Lim cover that???

Distinctive Features comes to mind...

[eternal_sage]

the only time i would even consider sfx to require a cost would be supers, because of the intrensic "only get what you pay for" mentality. however, i would only consider it, then say "nope" and give it for free. sfx do not cost points.

if there was system where you had to purchase the ability to create a certain sfx period, then yes, it would make sense. however, sense it doesn't (thank god), then it is my belief that OBVIOUSLY they shouldn't cost points. if a villian has a weakness, well its there to be exploited, which is the reasoning for kryptonite to begin with, as well as sunlight/crosses/running water/garlic/wooden stakes for vampires. to make the player suffer because it makes things easy is not fair nor correct rules wise.

for example, my last group of supers had an ice(wo)man clone, and a pyro clone. they both took Susceptibility to each other, basically, and had clashing personalities to boot. twice there were friendly fire incidents that caused full out battle that nearly killed them both. i also ran several villians to exploit these weaknesses. if a lim is not limiting, then it is worth nothing.

[Sean Waters]

As you might have guessed - I am sympathetic to the making things cost more, I was just working through ways that you might alter the attractiveness of a power in game without reducing the portability of the character between campaigns.

Obviously it would be far more work to apply varied costs to powers as the players would have to be aware of that (and remember to apply it) when they were building their characters.

All in all it is more work for the GM before and after character submissions which is already the mountain as far as getting a Hero game going.

Not saying it isn't worth it, just makes things more complex.

If you are saying that the formula for working out costs of powers should be changed then that also makes it more complex.

To give you a starting point

actual cost = real points = ((active points * advantages)/(1+limitations)) * SFX modifier

Now in all current campaigns the SFX modifier is 1.

I would suggest that the lowest modifier should be 1 or else you are simply making the modifier another type of limitation. You could assign larger modifiers to SFX that would have campaign benefits.

So in Invasion of the Supermen a kryptonite based attack might have a modifier of 2 or 3 while a magic based power might have a modifier of 3 or 4.

I would not suggest modifiers larger than 4.

The GM could then simply produce a list of those SFX that would not be 1 for his campaign.


Better?


Doc

This is a nice point. SFX are assumed to have zero cost impact because they are assumed to even out over time. In some games that would simply not be the case and, to be fair to ALL players, they either all have to take the 'advantageous sfx' or there has to be a cost to the sfx. To do otherwise woudl be to undermine the basis of using points to balance characters - if one of two attacks is markedly more effective on a regular basis thant he other, why should they cost the same?

That cost can be applied to the power cost OR to the character as a whole in terms of 'free' disadvantages. It is clearly better from the point of view of 'character portability' to apply the cost as 'free' disadvantages, because in a campaign where there is no overall advantage to that particular sfx, the 'free' disadvantages can just go away - you are not going to be hunted down by half the world's villains' or always targetted first in combat.

[caris]

the only time i would even consider sfx to require a cost would be supers, because of the intrensic "only get what you pay for" mentality. however, i would only consider it, then say "nope" and give it for free. sfx do not cost points.

if there was system where you had to purchase the ability to create a certain sfx period, then yes, it would make sense. however, sense it doesn't (thank god), then it is my belief that OBVIOUSLY they shouldn't cost points. if a villian has a weakness, well its there to be exploited, which is the reasoning for kryptonite to begin with, as well as sunlight/crosses/running water/garlic/wooden stakes for vampires. to make the player suffer because it makes things easy is not fair nor correct rules wise.

for example, my last group of supers had an ice(wo)man clone, and a pyro clone. they both took Susceptibility to each other, basically, and had clashing personalities to boot. twice there were friendly fire incidents that caused full out battle that nearly killed them both. i also ran several villians to exploit these weaknesses. if a lim is not limiting, then it is worth nothing.

Ok, lets look at a somewhat different set of examples related to SFX:

I have a fire based character concept with the Limitation "Not in water" should the value of the limitation be the same for a campaign based in the Sahara as one based in an underwater city?

The cost of things can and should be influenced by the nature of the campaign. The primary antagosts of a campaign seems to me to be a legitame factor to consider as any other factor when costing powers.

Another way to look at it is that one should be building a power to properly model a given special effect appropriately for the world it is in(e.g. combustion should not happen without the presence of oxygen, electricity should be attracted to the path of lowest resistance, etc.). Usually, this is a matter of a 0 Adder, Advantage or Limitation. Some times this can be frequent enough to warrant some sort of modifier to the attack. If a power isn't going to work half the time, because the SFX says it shouldn't work due to the environmental conditions, most GMs do not have a problem assigning a limitation to the power. On the other hand if the SFX says that a power should be consistently and frequently doing something, and the Player expect the power to do so, the Player should be willing to pay the cost. In a Buffy style Vampire Hunting game, I will not allow the player to buy a "ball of sunligt" spell as just Images, they would have to have an appropriately built damaging power built with it. I'd explain to the PC without the other element the light produced is just light. Otherwise, I am giving them much more than a minor advantage which is all that SFX should be providing for free.

[archermoo]

Ok, lets look at a somewhat different set of examples related to SFX:

I have a fire based character concept with the Limitation "Not in water" should the value of the limitation be the same for a campaign based in the Sahara as one based in an underwater city?

The cost of things can and should be influenced by the nature of the campaign. The primary antagosts of a campaign seems to me to be a legitame factor to consider as any other factor when costing powers.

Another way to look at it is that one should be building a power to properly model a given special effect appropriately for the world it is in(e.g. combustion should not happen without the presence of oxygen, electricity should be attracted to the path of lowest resistance, etc.). Usually, this is a matter of a 0 Adder, Advantage or Limitation. Some times this can be frequent enough to warrant some sort of modifier to the attack. If a power isn't going to work half the time, because the SFX says it shouldn't work due to the environmental conditions, most GMs do not have a problem assigning a limitation to the power. On the other hand if the SFX says that a power should be consistently and frequently doing something, and the Player expect the power to do so, the Player should be willing to pay the cost. In a Buffy style Vampire Hunting game, I will not allow the player to buy a "ball of sunligt" spell as just Images, they would have to have an appropriately built damaging power built with it. I'd explain to the PC without the other element the light produced is just light. Otherwise, I am giving them much more than a minor advantage which is all that SFX should be providing for free.

I would assume then that if the PCs are buying their sunlight spells as damaging attacks in and of themselves that the vampires don't get to take a Susceptability to sunlight for points. Or if they do that the damage is on top of the damage from the attack. Is that accurate?

My personal take is that if you want the Ref to control what your abilities do, just buy whatever power seems reasonable with the SFX and let the Ref do their thing. You want to buy a sunlight spell? If you buy it with just images then it only does the damage dealt by the Susceptability. If you buy it as an actual attack as well, it does that damage too, and would represent a more concentrated sunlight.

As far as Vulnerabilities go, if you only bought the bad guys Vulnerability as Uncommon, but then all of the PCs buy attacks based on that SFX, up it to Very Common and spend the extra points on something cool. :)

[caris]

I would assume then that if the PCs are buying their sunlight spells as damaging attacks in and of themselves that the vampires don't get to take a Susceptability to sunlight for points. Or if they do that the damage is on top of the damage from the attack. Is that accurate?

Which vampires, PC or NPC ones? The Susceptability would still exist, but would only be for actually being exposed to "environmental" Sunlight. Just like fire burns, but you can not use Images to represent fire's ability to illuminate a room and still expect it to do Damage. In this case, targets that take Damage from Sunlight are too common to allow it as a "freebie" of SFX, just like it would be for fire as an SFX to a light spell.

My personal take is that if you want the Ref to control what your abilities do, just buy whatever power seems reasonable with the SFX and let the Ref do their thing. You want to buy a sunlight spell? If you buy it with just images then it only does the damage dealt by the Susceptability. If you buy it as an actual attack as well, it does that damage too, and would represent a more concentrated sunlight.

The question, is though, is the cost of the Light Spell now balanced with the other things that point have been spent on in the game? Triggering the Disads of a small number of hostile NPCs is one thing. Triggering the Disads of 80%+ of the hostile NPCs is a different thing entirely.

As far as Vulnerabilities go, if you only bought the bad guys Vulnerability as Uncommon, but then all of the PCs buy attacks based on that SFX, up it to Very Common and spend the extra points on something cool. :)

Except, the NPCs have all the points I want them to have. Point totals are pretty meaningless for NPCs beyond meeting caps, which they can be assumed to have GM permission to violate if the GM uses them with those violations.

[archermoo]

Which vampires, PC or NPC ones? The Susceptability would still exist, but would only be for actually being exposed to "environmental" Sunlight. Just like fire burns, but you can not use Images to represent fire's ability to illuminate a room and still expect it to do Damage. In this case, targets that take Damage from Sunlight are too common to allow it as a "freebie" of SFX, just like it would be for fire as an SFX to a light spell.

It doesn't matter which vampires, the rules should treat them the same. And I'd personally disagree with seperating "environmental" sunlight from "power based" sunlight. Sunlight is sunlight. If someone is vulnerable/susceptable to it they are susceptable to it.

The question, is though, is the cost of the Light Spell now balanced with the other things that point have been spent on in the game? Triggering the Disads of a small number of hostile NPCs is one thing. Triggering the Disads of 80%+ of the hostile NPCs is a different thing entirely.

Not from my perspective. They get points for those disads because they are disadvantageous. It seems pretty cheesy to me to say "Well, since a lot of the NPCs have a particular disad, I'm going to make you pay extra to have a power that would take advantage of that". Obviously YMMV.

Except, the NPCs have all the points I want them to have. Point totals are pretty meaningless for NPCs beyond meeting caps, which they can be assumed to have GM permission to violate if the GM uses them with those violations.

Then why use disads at all? Oooh, I know, to flesh out the characters. But if you are then going to restrict the PCs from being able to take advantage of those weaknesses, what is the point?

[Hugh Neilson]

In the two examples provided:

- Attack of the Kryptonians and someone builds a Kryptonite-based character? DENIED

OR

Approve the character, but the invading Kryptonians soon realize they are placed at a disadvantage and take steps to mitigate this. Steps such as designing special combat gear which filters out K-rads, anti-Kryptonite vaccines, etc. Unlike lonely Kal-El, there are many Kryptonians, some with vastly superior scientific knowledge, who have time to engage in systematic research to eliminate this problem. You paid nothing for the advantage, so you have no grounds for complaint if the advantage goes away.

- Buffy - sorry, but this is a Vampire game. If I let you have sunlight SFX, the game is thrown off balance. DENIED

OR

Sunlight doing damage to vampires is so common that you must buy any Sunlight attack as an actual attack power that is Xd6 NND, does BOD, only vs Vampires (-1/2 because vampires are common opponents and fairly easy to ID). And Vampires get a Susceptibility to "ambient sunlight", which is likely about as common as you would normally expect "sunlight" to be even including sunlight-based attacks.

[caris]

It doesn't matter which vampires, the rules should treat them the same. And I'd personally disagree with seperating "environmental" sunlight from "power based" sunlight. Sunlight is sunlight. If someone is vulnerable/susceptable to it they are susceptable to it.

While I won't make claims for before fourth edition, I will say that since I've been playing the game the rules have never treated NPCs the same as PCs, and they shouldn't. The NPCs are there as a tool for the GM to make an enjoyable game out of. If that means having "mooks" be drop in one shot, because that is what you and your players enjoy that is what it should be. If I villain needs to be built on 5 times the number of points as any of the PCs to make it a challenge for the PCs that is what the villain should be built on.

Not from my perspective. They get points for those disads because they are disadvantageous. It seems pretty cheesy to me to say "Well, since a lot of the NPCs have a particular disad, I'm going to make you pay extra to have a power that would take advantage of that". Obviously YMMV.

Except, the NPCs do not get any points for that Disadvantage. How cheesey would you find it, if your PC had a Disadvantage and every game session there was a character who was able to trigger it just by hitting your Hex with a 10 Active Point attack? How cheesey is it to allow one character, because of their SFX to overwhelm the game by letting them cheaply buy a power that will/can devaste the opposition, when the other players did not choose concepts that allow them to do the same.

As Hugh elegently states, there are only three choices that don't upset game balance:
Deny the character or power concept.
Alter the NPCs not to have the Disadvantage
Charge a cost for the power equal to it's actual utility

Then why use disads at all? Oooh, I know, to flesh out the characters. But if you are then going to restrict the PCs from being able to take advantage of those weaknesses, what is the point?

Because, I wish the players to still be able to exploit the weakness, I just do not want them to be able to do it with a power, unless the cost is truly balanced with the effect within the specific campaign. As far as I am concerned, within the kind of campaign we are discussing exposure to sunlight is for vampires much the same as suffication is for humans. Something that can be created without the use of powers, but if it is done with powers, it is done with attack powers built to model the effect, not with Change Environment: Unbreathable Air.

[caris]

I'm going to go a bit further. There is another fine point to be addressed. It is obvious that the examples (Kryptonian Invasion and Vampire Hunters) are campaigns that are going for very specific things. If not everyone in the group is on board for those specific things than something should be changed. What needs to change would vary from group to group. Maybe, the player that wants to play Kryptonite Man should bow out. Perhaps, I should shelve the idea of a vampire hunter game and make it a monster hunter game. Maybe the slug like aliens invading the planet shouldn't have a Susceptibility to salt. Ultimately, it is up to the group to work out the best solution.

[ghost-angel]

I'm going to go a bit further. There is another fine point to be addressed. It is obvious that the examples (Kryptonian Invasion and Vampire Hunters) are campaigns that are going for very specific things. If not everyone in the group is on board for those specific things than something should be changed. What needs to change would vary from group to group. Maybe, the player that wants to play Kryptonite Man should bow out. Perhaps, I should shelve the idea of a vampire hunter game and make it a monster hunter game. Maybe the slug like aliens invading the planet shouldn't have a Susceptibility to salt. Ultimately, it is up to the group to work out the best solution.

This plays into what a few people have said.

All of the examples are really BAD examples to use when trying to charge players more. Because they are Campaign Centric - meaning the game is going to focus on those weaknesses at some point.

And giving players those Powers to take advantage of those weaknesses right off the bat shouldn't be a matter of charging more - it should be as Hugh said total Denial. They are campaign breaking points.

If there is no specific focus to a game - i.e. Sunlight Guy will get some extra stage time when the arc focuses on vampires, but once the arc focuses on something else he's just shooting bright beams of light.

He should no more be charged for that privilege than anyone else who can shoot various kinds of beams of light. Just because one villains has a Vulnerability to it; ESPECIALLY because of that actually.

If vampires are showing up a lot how is that the Players fault? That's a GM Game call. The GM should have considered that before introducing so many Vampires or even allowing the player in.

I go back to my statement - SFX are SFX are SFX. The total utility is up to the GM and how he runs the game. If he thinks it'll break his plans, deny them.

Don't force the Player to pay more because you put an inherent weakness into your villains. That's bad GMing IMO.

[eternal_sage]

Ok, lets look at a somewhat different set of examples related to SFX:

I have a fire based character concept with the Limitation "Not in water" should the value of the limitation be the same for a campaign based in the Sahara as one based in an underwater city?

The cost of things can and should be influenced by the nature of the campaign. The primary antagosts of a campaign seems to me to be a legitame factor to consider as any other factor when costing powers.

Another way to look at it is that one should be building a power to properly model a given special effect appropriately for the world it is in(e.g. combustion should not happen without the presence of oxygen, electricity should be attracted to the path of lowest resistance, etc.). Usually, this is a matter of a 0 Adder, Advantage or Limitation. Some times this can be frequent enough to warrant some sort of modifier to the attack. If a power isn't going to work half the time, because the SFX says it shouldn't work due to the environmental conditions, most GMs do not have a problem assigning a limitation to the power. On the other hand if the SFX says that a power should be consistently and frequently doing something, and the Player expect the power to do so, the Player should be willing to pay the cost. In a Buffy style Vampire Hunting game, I will not allow the player to buy a "ball of sunligt" spell as just Images, they would have to have an appropriately built damaging power built with it. I'd explain to the PC without the other element the light produced is just light. Otherwise, I am giving them much more than a minor advantage which is all that SFX should be providing for free.


i think that yes, in all cases, if a power should have a limitation or advantage (an actual in game rules, honest to Hexman advantage or limitation) then it should have it, and not get it for free. for example, the Pyro character i talked about, Cinder. he wanted an ability to make things actually catch on fire. i would not just say "ok, its an energy blast with fire sfx," i instead had him make it continous, sticky (only flammable things) and uncontrolled. but if he just wanted a fire beam, he would have an EB with fire SFX. it is only a puff of heat, tough, and could only set something on fire with a power skill roll.

and i would consider water still common the world over (if it was) regardless of the general location the majority of the campaign took place in. otherwise, to use the character again later, you would have to rebuild him, maybe from scratch, just to make him work correctly in another location. also, i often make any severe disadvantage as bad as it should be. powers don't work in water? you will get submerged at least once. afraid of clowns? crazy carnival of death, coming up (just as the a certain Texan Mastigos from my Mage Seattle setting). your lims will get you eventually.

that, at least, is my logic, and the way games are run at my house. obviously, things may work differently for you. i also do not see npc and pcs as inherently different creatures, as to do so means that things do not balance out in this reality. 350 points is 350 points. to say that either should get an advantage or limitation just because of their place in the cosmic hierarchy of story, i think, means that there is something wrong with the set up. then again, i like my characters to be well challenged, not smacking goblins on the nose room after room (for example, in DnD, my pcs usually level after 4-6 encounters, not the 13 that the DMG recommends.)

[caris]

This plays into what a few people have said.

All of the examples are really BAD examples to use when trying to charge players more. Because they are Campaign Centric - meaning the game is going to focus on those weaknesses at some point.

Why, yes, these are campaign specific, and all rules about costing SFX related issues are campaign specific. For example, a Distintive Feature: Orc is going to vary in cost depending on how common orcs are in the campaign.

And giving players those Powers to take advantage of those weaknesses right off the bat shouldn't be a matter of charging more - it should be as Hugh said total Denial. They are campaign breaking points.

I disagree with you on your interpretation of Hugh's post. Hugh pointed out denial as one option. Whether or not it is the best option to choose depends on the group involved.

If there is no specific focus to a game - i.e. Sunlight Guy will get some extra stage time when the arc focuses on vampires, but once the arc focuses on something else he's just shooting bright beams of light.

He should no more be charged for that privilege than anyone else who can shoot various kinds of beams of light. Just because one villains has a Vulnerability to it; ESPECIALLY because of that actually.

We are in agreement, that in a general game triggering one or two hostile NPCs Disadvantages with a power is a minor expression of SFX and is 0 Modifier. What we disagree on is whether or not in some campaigns or situations that a PC should be required to buy an attack to model the effects of a Disad if they want to be able to trigger that Disad on a consistent basis.

If vampires are showing up a lot how is that the Players fault? That's a GM Game call. The GM should have considered that before introducing so many Vampires or even allowing the player in.

Whoa, hold on a second here, assuming much aren't we? I stated that in the hypethetical example that the GM was running a vampire hunter campaign and that a player wants to create a Sunlight spell. At the moment, it would seem to me that it is the player that wants to introduce the new thing. So, yeah, I would say that the player is at fault. We are looking at things at the point where the GM is deciding on if to allow the power into his game.

Ghost-angel, iirc, you are a strong believer in reasoning from effect, yes? What is the effect, in this situation, that the player is wanting, a way to light up a room or an attack that damages vampires or both? Under reasoning from effect how would you build an attack that damages vampires and lights up a room without considering SFX?

I go back to my statement - SFX are SFX are SFX.

OK, so all Vulnerabilities should have their cost in a campaign should be based on the severity, since all SFX are equal and should not appear more frequently than the other? A GM that denies a specific power build for an SFX because it doesn't make sense for the SFX to work the way the build would work is wrong since all SFX should be equally appropriate for all possible builds of powers?

The total utility is up to the GM and how he runs the game. If he thinks it'll break his plans, deny them.

Don't force the Player to pay more because you put an inherent weakness into your villains. That's bad GMing IMO.

In my oppinion, it is bad GMing to apply the exact same solution to all problems. Denying the players is one solution, it is not always the best solution.

[caris]

i think that yes, in all cases, if a power should have a limitation or advantage (an actual in game rules, honest to Hexman advantage or limitation) then it should have it, and not get it for free. for example, the Pyro character i talked about, Cinder. he wanted an ability to make things actually catch on fire. i would not just say "ok, its an energy blast with fire sfx," i instead had him make it continous, sticky (only flammable things) and uncontrolled. but if he just wanted a fire beam, he would have an EB with fire SFX. it is only a puff of heat, tough, and could only set something on fire with a power skill roll.

Ok, so where is the difference in this example? The fact that vampires are defined as “characters” in the cosmic hierarchy of things and gasoline is only an object? Therefore, characters have Disadvantages to be exploited and objects don’t? Why is igniting gasoline with fire SFX, different from igniting a vampire with sunlight SFX?

and i would consider water still common the world over (if it was) regardless of the general location the majority of the campaign took place in. otherwise, to use the character again later, you would have to rebuild him, maybe from scratch, just to make him work correctly in another location. also, i often make any severe disadvantage as bad as it should be. powers don't work in water? you will get submerged at least once. afraid of clowns? crazy carnival of death, coming up (just as the a certain Texan Mastigos from my Mage Seattle setting). your lims will get you eventually.

Why limit yourself to just one world? Why not every planet in the solar system? Galaxy? Universe? Multi-verse? At some point you have to limit yourself to a specific scope for a given campaign, and set the commonality of things based on that scope. If I plan on my campaign to be limited to a single city, than the commonality is going to be based on the city, not the world. If the campaign, briefly moves beyond that scope, than there is no big deal. If the campaign permanently moves beyond the scope, than there has been as fundamental of a change to the campaign, as switching from one set of rules to another, and reassessment of the characters would be appropriate.

that, at least, is my logic, and the way games are run at my house. obviously, things may work differently for you. i also do not see npc and pcs as inherently different creatures, as to do so means that things do not balance out in this reality. 350 points is 350 points. to say that either should get an advantage or limitation just because of their place in the cosmic hierarchy of story, i think, means that there is something wrong with the set up. then again, i like my characters to be well challenged, not smacking goblins on the nose room after room (for example, in DnD, my pcs usually level after 4-6 encounters, not the 13 that the DMG recommends.)

Emphasis added is mine. Forgive me, but I think you are engaging in rhetoric here. For that statement to be true on the level that you are implying that all NPCs are built on the same Base Points and Disadvantages as the PCs, that they at best only have as much experience as the PCs have. It would imply that the concept of DNPCs that are less powerful than the PCs, or individual Hunters that are more powerful do not exist in your games. That any Followers or Summoned NPCs are built on the same points as the PCs and should be bought as such.

I know that I will speak heresy now, but 350 points do not equal 350 points. In general we strive to make them equal, but if we do not take campaign/game/setting/genre considerations into account than they are not equal, and never can be equal.

Acknowledging that NPCs are built differently depending on their role in the game is not the same as not wanting to challenge your players. A PC group can be just as challenged fighting superior numbers of less powerful opponents, an equivalent number of equally powerful opponents, or an outnumbered more powerful opponent. In only one of those scenarios are the NPCs truly treated exactly like the PCs. I stand by what I say, NPCs do not get the same kind of benefit for Disadvantages and Limitations that PCs do. I can build my NPC on the same base points as the PCs and give him how ever many points of “experience” I want.

[Sean Waters]

I think the issue here is whether a character should be built differently, or to a different cost, depending on the campaign. The answer, quite simply, has to be 'Yes'. 'Not v magical defences' and 'Vulnerability to magic' HAVE to cost different amounts in a campaign in which magic is abundanat and a campaign in which magic is rare.

So, we are already attaching cost and value to sfx, depending on the campaign. Where a particular sfx, or environmental factor, of character type is far MORE or LESS likely than in an 'average' campaign (if such a thing exists) then limitations, advantages and disadvantages (can I start a campaign to change the nomenclature to 'Advantages', 'Disadvantages' (instead of 'limitations' and 'Character Hooks'?) will reflect that in value, and so power cost will be affected.

That is it, basically - you HAVE to take into account the frequency of occurance whether that be camaign generated or otherwise, or any assessment of cost is meaningless.

That's my point: agree or not? (Or am I mis-stating the question for my own twisted ends?)

One question, aside, but interesting - if a character has a Kryptonite EB, and I'm building a villain superman, maybe one who is hunting the character on 14-, what is the frequency for disadvantage purposes? Is it rare, because kryptonite is reare, or frequent, because, in practice, the disadvantage is going to be triggered A LOT?

Similarly, what about a character who's powers only work in a strong magnetic field, if a team mate has 'strong magnetic field generating powers'? What is the frequency for limitation values?

Are we not already COSTING for sfx, albeit by the back door, and with a strong case of denial?

[Hugh Neilson]

I think the issue here is whether a character should be built differently, or to a different cost, depending on the campaign. The answer, quite simply, has to be 'Yes'. 'Not v magical defences' and 'Vulnerability to magic' HAVE to cost different amounts in a campaign in which magic is abundanat and a campaign in which magic is rare.

The limitation and vulnerability are costed differently for the different campaigns. However, you have only identified the precedents that favour this interpretation. A Dispel, any one magical power, costs +1/4 and All Magical powers costs +2. This is the same price in a Supers game where magic is one of dozens of SFX, and in a fantasy game where magic is a very prevelant SFX.

The only reconciliation I can see for these two divergent precedents is that disadvantages and limitations vary in cost for the prevelance of the specific item in the game world, while the cost of powers and advantages does not.

That would imply that a 12d6 Kryptonite Blast costs 60 points regardless, but the value of 2x Stun from Kryptonite Blasts, or a limitation like "Not vs defenses based on kryptonite" limitation, would vary in value depending on the frequency of encountering kryptonite, which this character has just increased.

So, we are already attaching cost and value to sfx, depending on the campaign. Where a particular sfx, or environmental factor, of character type is far MORE or LESS likely than in an 'average' campaign (if such a thing exists) then limitations, advantages and disadvantages (can I start a campaign to change the nomenclature to 'Advantages', 'Disadvantages' (instead of 'limitations' and 'Character Hooks'?) will reflect that in value, and so power cost will be affected.

From the above, variable cost seems to attach to "drawbacks" and not to "benefits" (to select terms without an existing game meaning for disad's and limitations, and powers and advantages, respectively).

One question, aside, but interesting - if a character has a Kryptonite EB, and I'm building a villain superman, maybe one who is hunting the character on 14-, what is the frequency for disadvantage purposes? Is it rare, because kryptonite is reare, or frequent, because, in practice, the disadvantage is going to be triggered A LOT?

I'm inclined to set the frequency based on the overall game world, on the assumption that SuperVillain has a life outside of hunting the target character. However, I would say the value of the EB character's Hunted has been reduced markedly, since on a purely comparable basis, it's tough to call a guy with a marked vulnerability to the EB's powers "more powerful".

Similarly, what about a character who's powers only work in a strong magnetic field, if a team mate has 'strong magnetic field generating powers'? What is the frequency for limitation values?

Again,this one is a problem in theory that I haven't seen in practice.

There is a third issue that tends not to be considered in these discussions. Let us assume that we have adjusted costs to our satisfaction based on how common these SFX are. Then, something changes the balance. Kryptonite Man has a radiation accident and now lacks any powers based on Kryptonite. He still has the Hunted. Does the point value of the Hunted rise because he is now much more powerful compared to "The Hero formerly known as Kryptonite Man"? If we adjusted SuperVillain's vulnerability, does it now drop back down and we subtract points from his powers and abilities to compensate, or does he just get enough extra xp to cover the shortfall?

Does "only in strong magnetic field man" get a whole bunch of points back if his teammate leaves? Do some of them disappear when a scenario results in Earth's magnetic properties being altered, making magnetic fields more common? This expands the question from "do costs vary" to "how often should these costs be varied, based on in-game events".

[Hugh Neilson]

I disagree with you on your interpretation of Hugh's post. Hugh pointed out denial as one option. Whether or not it is the best option to choose depends on the group involved.

In the cases described, I'm looking to denial. As I read the examples, the campaign model was specified and the player then selected a concept that oh so coincidentally played upon the vulnerability of a focus of the game.

I probably would not allow a Super to have powers that "only affect Supervillains", so why would I allow a character in my Invasion of the Kryptonians or Attack of the Vampires game to sneak a similar construct in through the back door, based on their selection of powers.

If you have established the Minuteman Robot (with 2x BOD from electricity) as a major adversary in your game, will you allow a player building a new character to be electrical based "because that will make those robots easier to deal with"? I suggest that either the SFX will be denied, or the new Minuteman model will have better insulation of its key systems.

Now, if Kryptonite Man/Sun Priest is presented to me when only I knew I was planning the Invasion of the Kryptonians/Vampires, I'm now much less offended by the character, and inclined to find a way to make it work. Maybe that means Invasion of the Daxamites, or a more varied field of monstrous opponents. But if I announce we're going to have a Vampire Hunting focus for the game, it seems pretty clear the guy showing up with sunlight-focused abilities knows he's selecting an SFX with distinct advantages. My reaction probably varies a lot depending on whether his approach is:

- "I know vampires are vulnerable to sunlight - how do you want to deal with that so my character is not excessively powerful?" In this case, I might tell him to buy a 3d6 NND Does BOD, only vs Vampires (-1/2) and Link it to his sunlight power.

or

- "It's just my SFX. I was planning the character for months before you told us the game plan. SFX are free so leave me alone." In this case, I might deny the character, punt the player (who needs that attitude?) or perhaps focus the first campagn arc on the vampires' creation of a potion that mitigates their vulnerability to sunlight. "It's my game world - vampires have developed a resistance to sunlight. Coincidentally, it also gives them Absorbption to sunlight attacks. It's just their SFX."

[Sean Waters]

The limitation and vulnerability are costed differently for the different campaigns. However, you have only identified the precedents that favour this interpretation. A Dispel, any one magical power, costs +1/4 and All Magical powers costs +2. This is the same price in a Supers game where magic is one of dozens of SFX, and in a fantasy game where magic is a very prevelant SFX.

The only reconciliation I can see for these two divergent precedents is that disadvantages and limitations vary in cost for the prevelance of the specific item in the game world, while the cost of powers and advantages does not.

That would imply that a 12d6 Kryptonite Blast costs 60 points regardless, but the value of 2x Stun from Kryptonite Blasts, or a limitation like "Not vs defenses based on kryptonite" limitation, would vary in value depending on the frequency of encountering kryptonite, which this character has just increased.

I like this a lot - it makes a great deal of sense and helps to make the game more cross-platform playable. I'd have to argue (why else would I be here?) that sfx CAN play a major part in advantages - your own example has a sfx category defining what the power can affect. Of course, that is arguable a limited advantage (ANY one power: limited to a certain sfx).

I'd also have to agrue that in a campaign where most opponents were mutants with just a very few magicians, the advantage 'any one power with mutant sfx' should cost more than 'any one power with magic sfx' but that could also be done, if very dodgily, with a limitation ont eh power to reflect the paucity of magical opponents.





From the above, variable cost seems to attach to "drawbacks" and not to "benefits" (to select terms without an existing game meaning for disad's and limitations, and powers and advantages, respectively).

Agreed, subject tot he points above.



I'm inclined to set the frequency based on the overall game world, on the assumption that SuperVillain has a life outside of hunting the target character. However, I would say the value of the EB character's Hunted has been reduced markedly, since on a purely comparable basis, it's tough to call a guy with a marked vulnerability to the EB's powers "more powerful".

That is one way to do it - who would win in a straight fight - and the character will have a marked advantage here given his opponent's vulnerability.

OTOH dialling down the value of a hunted will only 'lose' the character a few points - 10 at most - and not really affect the overall power of the character. I've said it before - disadvantages are not a balanced approach to points and character efficiency, they are really just plot hooks.



Again,this one is a problem in theory that I haven't seen in practice.

There is a third issue that tends not to be considered in these discussions. Let us assume that we have adjusted costs to our satisfaction based on how common these SFX are. Then, something changes the balance. Kryptonite Man has a radiation accident and now lacks any powers based on Kryptonite. He still has the Hunted. Does the point value of the Hunted rise because he is now much more powerful compared to "The Hero formerly known as Kryptonite Man"? If we adjusted SuperVillain's vulnerability, does it now drop back down and we subtract points from his powers and abilities to compensate, or does he just get enough extra xp to cover the shortfall?

Does "only in strong magnetic field man" get a whole bunch of points back if his teammate leaves? Do some of them disappear when a scenario results in Earth's magnetic properties being altered, making magnetic fields more common? This expands the question from "do costs vary" to "how often should these costs be varied, based on in-game events".

Again a good point - if you tailor too closely to the situation int he game, what happens when the situation changes - it is not acceptable to have to keep on having 'radiation accidents' to balance your points. A very good GM might be able to work their way around this - and an excellent GM would have seen the problem coming and not allowed that particular character combination - but this is a base fallacy with a point balancing system - that it is possible to balance the numbers AND the characters. It is a good guide, but nothing more, and I think there is sometimes a tendancy to see the numbers as the final goal rather than a waypoint, on the path to balance, and so much of it is an art rather than a science anyway.

[archermoo]

While I won't make claims for before fourth edition, I will say that since I've been playing the game the rules have never treated NPCs the same as PCs, and they shouldn't. The NPCs are there as a tool for the GM to make an enjoyable game out of. If that means having "mooks" be drop in one shot, because that is what you and your players enjoy that is what it should be. If I villain needs to be built on 5 times the number of points as any of the PCs to make it a challenge for the PCs that is what the villain should be built on.

In your opinion. Lots of people stat up all of their NPCs, and treat them just like any other character.

Except, the NPCs do not get any points for that Disadvantage. How cheesey would you find it, if your PC had a Disadvantage and every game session there was a character who was able to trigger it just by hitting your Hex with a 10 Active Point attack? How cheesey is it to allow one character, because of their SFX to overwhelm the game by letting them cheaply buy a power that will/can devaste the opposition, when the other players did not choose concepts that allow them to do the same.

If I give a disad to an NPC I am creating, they certainly do get points for it. If you choose not to do so, that is your issue, but it certainly isn't part of the base rules of the game. And it is important to make sure that a disad is bought at the correct level. If it is going to come up more often, they need to get more points for it. But giving a disad to the NPCs, and then charging the PCs more if they want to take advantage of it is double dipping. Only one or the other needs to be done. If a vampire takes double damage from sunlight based powers, then the PCs don't have to pay for twice the dice "only vs vampires", because the vampires have already gotten points for the vulnerability.

It is a matter of deciding how you want to handle things in the campaign. Do you want to give a vulnerability to certain attacks to the NPCs, or do you want the PCs to have to put more points into those types of attacks. I don't have a problem with either way of doing it, but I do have a problem with both being required.

And part of it from the PC point of view boils down to whether you want the Ref to decide how your powers effect the bad guys or whether you decide it yourself. If as a PC you create your sunlight power with just images, any damage you get out of it is a bonus and up the the Ref. If on the other hand you buy it as linked images and an EB of some kind (or for that matter just an EB) you have an actual attack power.

Because, I wish the players to still be able to exploit the weakness, I just do not want them to be able to do it with a power, unless the cost is truly balanced with the effect within the specific campaign. As far as I am concerned, within the kind of campaign we are discussing exposure to sunlight is for vampires much the same as suffication is for humans. Something that can be created without the use of powers, but if it is done with powers, it is done with attack powers built to model the effect, not with Change Environment: Unbreathable Air.

Then don't give the vampires any susceptabilities or vulnerabilities.

[Sean Waters]

In your opinion. Lots of people stat up all of their NPCs, and treat them just like any other character.


This is an interesting point too - a character has a range of disadvantages, all of which you can probably expect to be relevant during some part of the character's life.

Most NPCs will have disadvantages that are never going to actually come into play. Whilst it would be a giggle, occasionally, to roll to see if a viallain's hunted turns up, I can't see most GMs randomly complicating their games by having ti actually happen during an encounter with the Heroes, at leat not unless that is part of the plot.

Depends on game style, I suppose, but it seems to me that disadvantages for one shot or short duration NPCs are more or less irrelevant unless they are goign to have a direct effect on their interaction witht he characters.

In essence their disadvantage points are free.

[Sean Waters]

......................

Then don't give the vampires any susceptabilities or vulnerabilities.

The problem with NOT giving them susceptibilities that are expected is that is prejudicing the players who will doubtless go to great lengths to get the vampire to stand in front of the bedroom window at dawn.

If you are deliberately blindsiding them, fine, but it seems quite unfair to do it for game balance reasons.

[archermoo]

This is an interesting point too - a character has a range of disadvantages, all of which you can probably expect to be relevant during some part of the character's life.

Most NPCs will have disadvantages that are never going to actually come into play. Whilst it would be a giggle, occasionally, to roll to see if a viallain's hunted turns up, I can't see most GMs randomly complicating their games by having ti actually happen during an encounter with the Heroes, at leat not unless that is part of the plot.

Depends on game style, I suppose, but it seems to me that disadvantages for one shot or short duration NPCs are more or less irrelevant unless they are goign to have a direct effect on their interaction witht he characters.

In essence their disadvantage points are free.

I've had any number of villains that were initially designed as one shot or short duration types end up being long term adversaries. So while I don't generally bother to write up "third mook from the left", I do generally have complete writeups for any bad guys that are close to the power level of the PCs. Even to the point of having their background and personality known, if not actually written up.

[archermoo]

The problem with NOT giving them susceptibilities that are expected is that is prejudicing the players who will doubtless go to great lengths to get the vampire to stand in front of the bedroom window at dawn.

If you are deliberately blindsiding them, fine, but it seems quite unfair to do it for game balance reasons.

There are any number of ways that you can deal with vampires being destroyed by sunlight without resorting to the Susceptability and Vulnerability constructs.

[caris]

In your opinion. Lots of people stat up all of their NPCs, and treat them just like any other character.

I’m just going to quote myself.

Forgive me, but I think you are engaging in rhetoric here. For that statement to be true on the level that you are implying that all NPCs are built on the same Base Points and Disadvantages as the PCs, that they at best only have as much experience as the PCs have. It would imply that the concept of DNPCs that are less powerful than the PCs, or individual Hunters that are more powerful do not exist in your games. That any Followers or Summoned NPCs are built on the same points as the PCs and should be bought as such.

If I give a disad to an NPC I am creating, they certainly do get points for it. If you choose not to do so, that is your issue, but it certainly isn't part of the base rules of the game. And it is important to make sure that a disad is bought at the correct level. If it is going to come up more often, they need to get more points for it.

So you build all of your NPCs on a point budget of Base Points + Disadvantages + Experience, is that a correct interpretation of what you are saying? How is the amount of Experience you award the NPC determined? Do you just use it to balance out the points? If so, no, the NPCs are not getting Points for their Disads, because they would have had those points anyways. I would point out that every published character that is not built as an example of a starting character is built with just enough experience to balance out the points, not some sort of set amount to represent their adventuring career. The suggestions for making characters more or less powerful in campaign use do not mention real points at all.

But giving a disad to the NPCs, and then charging the PCs more if they want to take advantage of it is double dipping. Only one or the other needs to be done. If a vampire takes double damage from sunlight based powers, then the PCs don't have to pay for twice the dice "only vs vampires", because the vampires have already gotten points for the vulnerability.

It is a matter of deciding how you want to handle things in the campaign. Do you want to give a vulnerability to certain attacks to the NPCs, or do you want the PCs to have to put more points into those types of attacks. I don't have a problem with either way of doing it, but I do have a problem with both being required.

And part of it from the PC point of view boils down to whether you want the Ref to decide how your powers effect the bad guys or whether you decide it yourself. If as a PC you create your sunlight power with just images, any damage you get out of it is a bonus and up the the Ref. If on the other hand you buy it as linked images and an EB of some kind (or for that matter just an EB) you have an actual attack power.

You call it double dipping, I call it disallowing abusive builds. In reality, I’m doing exactly what you are saying. I’m a telling the players that a “sunlight” spell bought as Images or Change Environment will not be able to trigger the Susceptibility. If they want to be able to damage the vampires with a power, it has to be built with an actual attack power.

Then don't give the vampires any susceptabilities or vulnerabilities.

OK, than what do I do, if I want the light of the Sun to damage the vampires? I want the PCs to be able to stand out in broad daylight and know that a vampire will have to take damage to get to them, but I do not want the players to have a 10 Active Point power that does as much Damage to the vampires as the sun? Do I build the Sun as an NPC and give it a SPD 12 and an obnoxious NND Does Body Continuous Attack? What about a PC vampire do I tell him that he takes Damage from Sunlight, but gets no points for it because I won't let another PC have Sunlight SFX Images that Damage vampires?

[Sean Waters]

There are any number of ways that you can deal with vampires being destroyed by sunlight without resorting to the Susceptability and Vulnerability constructs.

Well, you could use a physical disadvantage, accidental change (to dust), or define sunlight as a 2d6 NND (Does Body attack - only v vampires) in your world, but then I run out of ideas...

[archermoo]

I’m just going to quote myself.

So you build all of your NPCs on a point budget of Base Points + Disadvantages + Experience, is that a correct interpretation of what you are saying? How is the amount of Experience you award the NPC determined? Do you just use it to balance out the points? If so, no, the NPCs are not getting Points for their Disads, because they would have had those points anyways. I would point out that every published character that is not built as an example of a starting character is built with just enough experience to balance out the points, not some sort of set amount to represent their adventuring career. The suggestions for making characters more or less powerful in campaign use do not mention real points at all.

I'll just say that I don't agree with you logic and leave it at that.

You call it double dipping, I call it disallowing abusive builds. In reality, I’m doing exactly what you are saying. I’m a telling the players that a “sunlight” spell bought as Images or Change Environment will not be able to trigger the Susceptibility. If they want to be able to damage the vampires with a power, it has to be built with an actual attack power.

Ah, so you simply don't allow PCs to have powers with "Sunlight" as the SFX. Seems pretty straightforward. Presumably vampires have a Susceptability to sunlight rather than a Vulnerability then?

OK, than what do I do, if I want the light of the Sun to damage the vampires? I want the PCs to be able to stand out in broad daylight and know that a vampire will have to take damage to get to them, but I do not want the players to have a 10 Active Point power that does as much Damage to the vampires as the sun? Do I build the Sun as an NPC and give it a SPD 12 and an obnoxious NND Does Body Continuous Attack? What about a PC vampire do I tell him that he takes Damage from Sunlight, but gets no points for it because I won't let another PC have Sunlight SFX Images that Damage vampires?

It sounds like you already found your way of dealing with it: Disallow Sunlight as a valid SFX. That certainly is one way of doing it. I initially stepped into the discussion when people were talking about charging people more to use certain SFX. THAT is what I have a problem with.

[caris]

I'll just say that I don't agree with you logic and leave it at that.

I’m curious about what your logic is, but I can live without getting that curiosity satisfied.

Ah, so you simply don't allow PCs to have powers with "Sunlight" as the SFX. Seems pretty straightforward. Presumably vampires have a Susceptability to sunlight rather than a Vulnerability then?

No, I’m saying what I said all along: to build “sunlight” in this specific campaign, if I am running it, a character would have to include an attack power to represent the Damage “sunlight” does to vampires. If the power does not have the component, than it isn’t “sunlight”. It is just “light” The Susceptibility still exists in a mechanical sense so that I can skip treating the Sun as an NPC, and that PC vampires can get it as a Disadvantage for points.

What I’m not sure is whether we are agreeing or disagreeing about if this is allowing “sunlight” as an SFX. I’m wondering if it is just a semantics/terminology usage issue.

Generally, no in these case I do not use Vulnerabilities if the specific Vulnerability is going to be so widespread that I would require that additional points be spent on the ability. OTOH, see below.

It sounds like you already found your way of dealing with it: Disallow Sunlight as a valid SFX. That certainly is one way of doing it. I initially stepped into the discussion when people were talking about charging people more to use certain SFX. THAT is what I have a problem with.

I’m sorry. I do not necessarily put in a rule +x/y Advantage: specific SFX. I do require that the build for a specific SFX makes sense for that SFX in the campaign. That may require the character to buy things to go with a given power of a certain SFX that the player and/or character would not necessarily want to have, and that other SFXs may not have. These could include buying extra Dice of Damage only vs. X, or custom Limitations like does not work in Y.

[Sean Waters]

......................

It sounds like you already found your way of dealing with it: Disallow Sunlight as a valid SFX. That certainly is one way of doing it. I initially stepped into the discussion when people were talking about charging people more to use certain SFX. THAT is what I have a problem with.


Mea cupla - but I was suggesting that only for games where the particular sfx would be disproportionately useful and not all players would have them.

[archermoo]

No, I’m saying what I said all along: to build “sunlight” in this specific campaign, if I am running it, a character would have to include an attack power to represent the Damage “sunlight” does to vampires. If the power does not have the component, than it isn’t “sunlight”. It is just “light” The Susceptibility still exists in a mechanical sense so that I can skip treating the Sun as an NPC, and that PC vampires can get it as a Disadvantage for points.

What I’m not sure is whether we are agreeing or disagreeing about if this is allowing “sunlight” as an SFX. I’m wondering if it is just a semantics/terminology usage issue.

Generally, no in these case I do not use Vulnerabilities if the specific Vulnerability is going to be so widespread that I would require that additional points be spent on the ability. OTOH, see below.

If an character has a Susceptibility to sunlight and that Susceptibility cannot be triggered by any power that a PC purchases, then no power a PC purchases can have sunlight as their SFX. They can have powers that are similar to sunlight, but if the Susceptibility is not triggered they aren't really sunlight.

I’m sorry. I do not necessarily put in a rule +x/y Advantage: specific SFX. I do require that the build for a specific SFX makes sense for that SFX in the campaign. That may require the character to buy things to go with a given power of a certain SFX that the player and/or character would not necessarily want to have, and that other SFXs may not have. These could include buying extra Dice of Damage only vs. X, or custom Limitations like does not work in Y.

Reasonable, if the X involved doesn't have a Susceptibility or Vulnerability to the SFX in question. If they do, and you allow someone to purchase a power with that SFX, then they get the extra dice plus the Susceptibility/Vulnerability. Otherwise they are buying attacks that mimic closely the stated SFX without actually being of that SFX. I think it is somewhat cheesy to say "Vampires get a disad for taking damage from sunlight, but if you want to have a power that uses that you have to pay for it", but each to their own.

Personally I've dealt with vampires in a wide variety of ways. A physical limitation that they die when exposed to the sun more "too long" (or any of a number of other "vampire killer" situations) along with damage reduction that doesn't apply to certain types of attacks (sunlight based, holy based, etc) was one of the ones I liked the best.

[archermoo]

Mea cupla - but I was suggesting that only for games where the particular sfx would be disproportionately useful and not all players would have them.

To me it is part and parcel of disads that they come into play. If running the disads as disads breaks play, my suggestion is to find another way of taking care of it, rather than making people pay extra points for specific SFX because the ref gave all of the NPCs Susceptibilites and/or Vulnerabilities to it.

[Sean Waters]

To me it is part and parcel of disads that they come into play. If running the disads as disads breaks play, my suggestion is to find another way of taking care of it, rather than making people pay extra points for specific SFX because the ref gave all of the NPCs Susceptibilites and/or Vulnerabilities to it.


And I have to say that I think disadvantages are probably the best way of dealing with this - I have been convinced by the discussion that charging an advantage is too much trouble. However I don't think those disadvantages need to be explicit, or worth points directly - the whole thing about sfx is that there should be no overall advantage to any one of them, so if there IS in a given campaign, there needs to be balance, whether it be through ALL the players having the same sfx (could happen, but unlikely) or throught he GM applying balancing 'problems' to the use of the power with the campaign advantageous sfx, which, although I've probably mangled the purity of the original, was what Doc Democracy suggested some pages ago....

[caris]

Reasonable, if the X involved doesn't have a Susceptibility or Vulnerability to the SFX in question. If they do, and you allow someone to purchase a power with that SFX, then they get the extra dice plus the Susceptibility/Vulnerability. Otherwise they are buying attacks that mimic closely the stated SFX without actually being of that SFX. I think it is somewhat cheesy to say "Vampires get a disad for taking damage from sunlight, but if you want to have a power that uses that you have to pay for it", but each to their own.

Personally I've dealt with vampires in a wide variety of ways. A physical limitation that they die when exposed to the sun more "too long" (or any of a number of other "vampire killer" situations) along with damage reduction that doesn't apply to certain types of attacks (sunlight based, holy based, etc) was one of the ones I liked the best.

Archermoo, this is the second post where you accused me of being “cheesy”, now in the context of this forum and this thread, I infer that to mean that you think that my position when applied to an actual game is “wrong” in some way. Every complaint about this seems to be that in your opinion that this is penalizing the PC of the SFX in question to the benefit of the NPCs. If I have already stated that I do not care about the points for the NPCs, and am perfectly willing to give those NPCs all the points they need to be as challenging as I need to the PCs, why do you think I feel the need to stack the deck any more in the NPCs’ favor?

I know that you and everyone else want to look at this as penalizing the poor player for picking the wrong SFX, so the big bad NPCs do not have to suffer for their Disadvantages. That is not the case, it is to not penalize the PCs who aren’t picking SFXs that play to Disadvantages and Limitations of the majority of the NPCs. Why should someone that didn’t pick: sunlight, fire, holy, etc have their powers have their effectiveness reduced because the GM decided to build a campaign around opponents that have weaknesses to specific SFXs and not others? Tell me, why that is less “cheesy” than expecting PCs to pay a cost for a power that reflects its actual usefullness?

[archermoo]

Archermoo, this is the second post where you accused me of being “cheesy”, now in the context of this forum and this thread, I infer that to mean that you think that my position when applied to an actual game is “wrong” in some way. Every complaint about this seems to be that in your opinion that this is penalizing the PC of the SFX in question to the benefit of the NPCs. If I have already stated that I do not care about the points for the NPCs, and am perfectly willing to give those NPCs all the points they need to be as challenging as I need to the PCs, why do you think I feel the need to stack the deck any more in the NPCs’ favor?

I know that you and everyone else want to look at this as penalizing the poor player for picking the wrong SFX, so the big bad NPCs do not have to suffer for their Disadvantages. That is not the case, it is to not penalize the PCs who aren’t picking SFXs that play to Disadvantages and Limitations of the majority of the NPCs. Why should someone that didn’t pick: sunlight, fire, holy, etc have their powers have their effectiveness reduced because the GM decided to build a campaign around opponents that have weaknesses to specific SFXs and not others? Tell me, why that is less “cheesy” than expecting PCs to pay a cost for a power that reflects its actual usefullness?

Let me start by saying that I am not accusing YOU of being cheesy per se, but I am stating that I find a particular way of doing things to be cheesy. I'm sure that I do things that other people would consider cheesy. It isn't meant as an insult, and isn't meant to imply that you are doing things wrong. It is actually meant to indicate that while I wouldn't do it that way, there isn't anything particularly wrong with that way of doing things. Other than the fact that I don't agree with it.

I certainly don't claim to be the end all be all of the rules, and that anyone who does things differently than me is doing it wrong, and I'm sorry if I've given you that impression. I'm simply noting that I would do it differently than you, and giving my reasons. Obviously my reasons are about as compelling to you as yours are to me, so no skin off my back.