based on ego

[steph]

why when you make a ocv attack a ecv attack is considered a advantage(+1)
steph
hope i am clear

[gojira]

Guessing: Most people have less ECV than DCV and less Mental Defense than Physical or Energy Defense. The costs I think are the same to raise each one, respectively, but physical attacks are much more common, so most people do in fact purchase up PD and ED but not MD so much.

[Lxndr]

Most people's defensive Ego Combat Value is lower than their plain ordinary DCV. Also, BOECV usually goes against mental defense, which (usually) people have less of than PD or ED.

[prestidigitator]

You also get no Range Penalty and a maximum range of Line of Sight rather than APx5". IIRC you might be able to attack a target with it through Mind Scan, too (not real sure about that one; I'm being to lazy to open my book).

[Mike W]

Based on ECV has several potential benefits depending on the situation, many of which have already been said:

1. Outside of mentalists/psychics and mages, high EGO tends to be rare so you often have a much easier time hitting people.

2. Also, there are no mental "block" or "dodge" maneuvers. Your ECV is your ECV, period. There is really virtually nothing you can actively do to defend against an EGO based attack. Unlike a physical attack where you can dodge, duck behind cover, or do whatever, once you are under mental attack the only things you can actively do to "defend" against the attack are to pound the attacker into the ground fast or leave the field all together except that...

3. There are no range penalties and your range is line of sight, regardless of how many points you have in it. Also, you CAN attack someone you can't "see" with your eyes if you have the appropriate mental powers.

4. Ironically, your best "defense" against mental powers is sometimes a LIMITATION like Beserk or Enraged that radically alters your mental makeup.

[Hugh Neilson]

The +1 Based on ECV advantage converts the power to using Ego CV, applying against mental defense and having a Line of Sight range modifier. AVLD is a +1 1/2 advantage, and LoS is +1/2, so BoECV is effectively half price. Note that, if you lose LoS, the BoECV advantage falls to +3/4 (ie the 1/2 price ratio is retained).

So why would anyone ever buy AVLD - mental Defense? Clearly, it's only worth +3/4.

With the above in mind, the switch from dex-based CV to ego-based CV appears to have no cost. This has been discussed on prior threads in some depth. To me, it seems reasonable to make the choice of DEX-based or Ego-based CV a straight swap (+0 advantage/-0 limitation).

[David Johnston]

The +1 Based on ECV advantage converts the power to using Ego CV, applying against mental defense and having a Line of Sight range modifier. AVLD is a +1 1/2 advantage, and LoS is +1/2, so BoECV is effectively half price. Note that, if you lose LoS, the BoECV advantage falls to +3/4 (ie the 1/2 price ratio is retained).

So why would anyone ever buy AVLD - mental Defense? Clearly, it's only worth +3/4.



Because they have a really high Dex and skill levels that only apply to physical combat. Psylocke for example has mad Ninja DEX and lots of hand to hand skill levels and her psychic knife can in fact be dodged by someone even better.

[prestidigitator]

2. Also, there are no mental "block" or "dodge" maneuvers. Your ECV is your ECV, period. There is really virtually nothing you can actively do to defend against an EGO based attack. Unlike a physical attack where you can dodge, duck behind cover, or do whatever, once you are under mental attack the only things you can actively do to "defend" against the attack are to pound the attacker into the ground fast or leave the field all together except that...
Hmm. I personally allow Dodge and Block against Mental Powers, but neither changes your DCV (only your DECV), and the latter can only be performed if the defender has a Mental Power of some kind. It is also typically at a penalty if the defender possesses no offensive Mental Powers (in the same manner I assign a penalty to unarmed characters in HTH combat). I allow BOECV Telekinesis in some cases to allow a Block against both Mental Attacks and Ranged Attacks in the same maneuver if the defender also has Missile Deflection (and the Missile Deflection's SFX is such that it would make sense to use it with TK).

[Mike W]

Hmm. I personally allow Dodge and Block against Mental Powers, but neither changes your DCV (only your DECV), and the latter can only be performed if the defender has a Mental Power of some kind. It is also typically at a penalty if the defender possesses no offensive Mental Powers (in the same manner I assign a penalty to unarmed characters in HTH combat). I allow BOECV Telekinesis in some cases to allow a Block against both Mental Attacks and Ranged Attacks in the same maneuver if the defender also has Missile Deflection (and the Missile Deflection's SFX is such that it would make sense to use it with TK).

I suppose there might be occasions where it makes sense(albeit rarely) but to my knowledge, there is nothing in the rules that allows this. It's stirctly your house rule. Which is fine if it works for you.

[Mike W]

The +1 Based on ECV advantage converts the power to using Ego CV, applying against mental defense and having a Line of Sight range modifier. AVLD is a +1 1/2 advantage, and LoS is +1/2, so BoECV is effectively half price. Note that, if you lose LoS, the BoECV advantage falls to +3/4 (ie the 1/2 price ratio is retained).

So why would anyone ever buy AVLD - mental Defense? Clearly, it's only worth +3/4.

With the above in mind, the switch from dex-based CV to ego-based CV appears to have no cost. This has been discussed on prior threads in some depth. To me, it seems reasonable to make the choice of DEX-based or Ego-based CV a straight swap (+0 advantage/-0 limitation).

Partly based on special effect. A pain whip might qualify here. Also, AVLD only vs. mental defense would ignore mind class wouldn't it? Based on ECV makes it a full mental power, so mind class WOULD be important.

[prestidigitator]

I suppose there might be occasions where it makes sense(albeit rarely) but to my knowledge, there is nothing in the rules that allows this. It's stirctly your house rule. Which is fine if it works for you.
Probably, yeah. I was just sharing a ruling that seemed to make sense to me. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

Partly based on special effect. A pain whip might qualify here. Also, AVLD only vs. mental defense would ignore mind class wouldn't it? Based on ECV makes it a full mental power, so mind class WOULD be important.

So the power should cost more and be less effective due to SFX? And 5er explicitly states that BOECV powers are not subject to the classes of mind rules (absent specific GM rulings to the contrary).

[Mike W]

So the power should cost more and be less effective due to SFX? And 5er explicitly states that BOECV powers are not subject to the classes of mind rules (absent specific GM rulings to the contrary).

That's new then. It used to be that BOECV powers basically counted as full mental powers, which would have included mind class. And it would still depend on the character as to whether it was more efficient or not. An AVLD uses normal OCV/DCV to hit. For some that might make it easier(generally speaking) to hit than using ECV all the time.

I think the SFX is important to the power in that it explains how it works. Some things are just more efficient or more useful than others. I also look at it that the SFX infleunces how closely related the power is to other powers. The more you have to stretch the SFX, the more expensive it should be because you're pushing the limit of what you can do.

For example, say I want to be able to start fires. Lots of characters could be able to do this. For some, it would be easy. A pyrokinetic could do it naturally. It's what they do. A mage might have more limits, but really, we have no trouble seeing this since mages and fireball spells go hand in hand. But what about a matter manipulator? Or a someone who controls vibrations? Theoretically, especially if we'll apply a little comic book science, they should be able to start fires by rubbing atoms together, but we're stretching the power,so it should be more difficult for them to do it.

[Hugh Neilson]

That's new then. It used to be that BOECV powers basically counted as full mental powers, which would have included mind class. And it would still depend on the character as to whether it was more efficient or not. An AVLD uses normal OCV/DCV to hit. For some that might make it easier(generally speaking) to hit than using ECV all the time.

But the cost of the AVLD and the BOECV advantages are constnat, regardless of whether you have a 30 DEX and 10 EGO, or vice versa. Assuming a 60 AP limit, you can have a 4d6 AVLD (Mental Defense), LOS range, or a 6d6 BOECV. Which will be more powerful? Let's simplify it greatly - the characters are otherwise completely idenitcal in all respects, except AVLD Man has a 23 DEX and 14 Ego, and BOECV Man has a 23 Ego and 14 DEX.

If we assume no caps, BOECV Man gets a 6d6 attack for 60 points, and AVLD Man must pay 90 points to do the same damage, with the same OCV, same range modifier and against the same defense.


I think the SFX is important to the power in that it explains how it works. Some things are just more efficient or more useful than others. I also look at it that the SFX infleunces how closely related the power is to other powers. The more you have to stretch the SFX, the more expensive it should be because you're pushing the limit of what you can do.

Here we disagree. The point cost should, in my opinion, reflect the utility of the power. The ability to start a fire does not vary in utility regardless of the character's SFX. If the same result is more difficult for one character to accomplish than another, then the first character should have limitations reflecting that difficulty, which reduces the cost of the power.

Let's take three characters, Aquaman, Iron Man and Grond. All three can breathe underwater.

This makes perfect sense for an Atlantean - standard 5 point cost.
Iron Man's sealed systems make perfect sense - standard 5 point costs, with a limitation (say OIHID) for the armor.

What's the SFX of Grond waterbreathing. He's a classic Brick with no real aquatic connection. Should be pay more for waterbreathing because it's not a classic fit with his power suite? I'd say he pays the same as Aquaman - he gets the same benefits, so why should he pay more?

[Narratio]

Back at the first question. Another thing to remember is that with an ECV there's (almost) always no incidental effects. A line of sight with you and your target. Even if the LOS gets momentarily blocked by people walking between you and teh target, they are not going to be effected by the attack. Unlike bullets and beams.

[Mike W]

But the cost of the AVLD and the BOECV advantages are constnat, regardless of whether you have a 30 DEX and 10 EGO, or vice versa. Assuming a 60 AP limit, you can have a 4d6 AVLD (Mental Defense), LOS range, or a 6d6 BOECV. Which will be more powerful? Let's simplify it greatly - the characters are otherwise completely idenitcal in all respects, except AVLD Man has a 23 DEX and 14 Ego, and BOECV Man has a 23 Ego and 14 DEX.

If we assume no caps, BOECV Man gets a 6d6 attack for 60 points, and AVLD Man must pay 90 points to do the same damage, with the same OCV, same range modifier and against the same defense.



Here we disagree. The point cost should, in my opinion, reflect the utility of the power. The ability to start a fire does not vary in utility regardless of the character's SFX. If the same result is more difficult for one character to accomplish than another, then the first character should have limitations reflecting that difficulty, which reduces the cost of the power.

Let's take three characters, Aquaman, Iron Man and Grond. All three can breathe underwater.

This makes perfect sense for an Atlantean - standard 5 point cost.
Iron Man's sealed systems make perfect sense - standard 5 point costs, with a limitation (say OIHID) for the armor.

What's the SFX of Grond waterbreathing. He's a classic Brick with no real aquatic connection. Should be pay more for waterbreathing because it's not a classic fit with his power suite? I'd say he pays the same as Aquaman - he gets the same benefits, so why should he pay more?


For the first part, yes, the costs are constant regardless of what your other stats are, but the alternative would be a sliding scale that would complicate matters immensely. I think you have to settle for the flat rate and just realize that sometimes it's going to be more limiting than others. Just like with Increaded END costs. Some characters have so much END to burn that it really doesn't affect them very much. Others, it is a serious hinderance because they burn up a lot.

As for your "breathing underwater example", I would point out two things:

First, Grond is, IIRC, somewhat amphibious himself, so the rationalization for him and Aquaman would be the same. And regardless, if you're going to give him water breathing, then you're assuming that he DOES in fact have some sort of gills or natural aquatic leanings, so it DOES fit with his SFX. So your example doesn't hold.

Second, the power you chose has a flat cost and is already expressly defined. So basically, you either have it or you don't. There is no other way to build it that changes the cost, except by applying limits or advantages. So your example is loaded. Instead, build, say, an illusion power that has one idea - make you appear as someone else(set image), sort of like an image inducer in the X-men comics. But build it once for a menatlist, once for a mage, and once for a gadgeteer. If you do that, you might not build the power the same way. I'd say you use Mental Illusions for the mentalist, Images for the techie, and the mage could go either way. The point cost isn't likely to come out the same. While I would agree that utility should be a general guideline to power cost(though we can all think of things in the book we think are over or under priced), I don't think it should be the ONLY factor. Some things are just harder for other characters and that will be reflected in more than just Limits, simply because different people, for whatever reason, approach things differently, and not all methods are equally efficient.

[Hugh Neilson]

For the first part, yes, the costs are constant regardless of what your other stats are, but the alternative would be a sliding scale that would complicate matters immensely. I think you have to settle for the flat rate and just realize that sometimes it's going to be more limiting than others.

Alternatively, we could review the various means of building the powers to assess which is overpriced and which is underpriced in achieving the same effect. Basically, the AVLD + LOS build is virtually always going to lose. Even if I have a 10 Ego and a 35 DEX, +9 OCV for 18 points, added to the 60 point BOECV ability, is cheaper than paying 90 points for the AVLD approach. I fail to see why SFX should impose a significantly greater cost.


Just like with Increaded END costs. Some characters have so much END to burn that it really doesn't affect them very much. Others, it is a serious hinderance because they burn up a lot.

As for increased END, the character who has more END did pay more points for it. The possibility of an abuse is noted under END Battery, where it is suggested that END batteries and powers with increased END be closely scrutinized. By the way, it makes no difference how much END you had when you wake up after being knocked to -1 STUN. At this point, your Increased END becomes a very serious limitation.


As for your "breathing underwater example", I would point out two things:

First, Grond is, IIRC, somewhat amphibious himself, so the rationalization for him and Aquaman would be the same.

Aquaman is an Atlantean. Grond is a Hulk knockoff. This just comes down to assessing which SFX/rationalizations you're prepared to accept for the character. I suspect you'll find few players who wish to attack Mental Defense will want that defined as an AVLD given the much lower cost of a BOECV power. So those powers will gain an ECV related SFX/rationalization.

"Yeah, all my other powers are based on electricity - this one's BRAIN electricity. If Grond can go from normal human to aquatic monster, I should be able to use mental electricity."


Second, the power you chose has a flat cost and is already expressly defined. So basically, you either have it or you don't. There is no other way to build it that changes the cost, except by applying limits or advantages. So your example is loaded.

+50 END (or 50 point END battery), only to assist in holding breath. There are other ways to simulate most abilities.


Instead, build, say, an illusion power that has one idea - make you appear as someone else(set image), sort of like an image inducer in the X-men comics. But build it once for a menatlist, once for a mage, and once for a gadgeteer. If you do that, you might not build the power the same way. I'd say you use Mental Illusions for the mentalist, Images for the techie, and the mage could go either way.

Actually, the differentiating factor over Images or Mental Illusions would be whether it affects one target or multiple targets. If I want the target's Ego or Mental Defense to affect the perception of Images, I'll slap a limitation on it.


While I would agree that utility should be a general guideline to power cost(though we can all think of things in the book we think are over or under priced), I don't think it should be the ONLY factor. Some things are just harder for other characters and that will be reflected in more than just Limits, simply because different people, for whatever reason, approach things differently, and not all methods are equally efficient.

We simply disagree on this point. Your approach, to my mind, is one which encourages the "archetype approach". Sorry, Attacks vs Mental Defense are a cross-class skill for your Martial Artist, so they cost extra.

[Mike W]

Alternatively, we could review the various means of building the powers to assess which is overpriced and which is underpriced in achieving the same effect. Basically, the AVLD + LOS build is virtually always going to lose. Even if I have a 10 Ego and a 35 DEX, +9 OCV for 18 points, added to the 60 point BOECV ability, is cheaper than paying 90 points for the AVLD approach. I fail to see why SFX should impose a significantly greater cost.



As for increased END, the character who has more END did pay more points for it. The possibility of an abuse is noted under END Battery, where it is suggested that END batteries and powers with increased END be closely scrutinized. By the way, it makes no difference how much END you had when you wake up after being knocked to -1 STUN. At this point, your Increased END becomes a very serious limitation.



Aquaman is an Atlantean. Grond is a Hulk knockoff. This just comes down to assessing which SFX/rationalizations you're prepared to accept for the character. I suspect you'll find few players who wish to attack Mental Defense will want that defined as an AVLD given the much lower cost of a BOECV power. So those powers will gain an ECV related SFX/rationalization.

"Yeah, all my other powers are based on electricity - this one's BRAIN electricity. If Grond can go from normal human to aquatic monster, I should be able to use mental electricity."



+50 END (or 50 point END battery), only to assist in holding breath. There are other ways to simulate most abilities.



Actually, the differentiating factor over Images or Mental Illusions would be whether it affects one target or multiple targets. If I want the target's Ego or Mental Defense to affect the perception of Images, I'll slap a limitation on it.



We simply disagree on this point. Your approach, to my mind, is one which encourages the "archetype approach". Sorry, Attacks vs Mental Defense are a cross-class skill for your Martial Artist, so they cost extra.

The Increased END may or may not be a serious limitation shortly after "waking up" depending on a number of factors including what the character's REC is and whether the power runs off of personal END or an END reserve. I could for example, build a power armor character with a large END reserve then buy one of his rare guns at X2 END because it chews up a lot of END converting energy and it makes perfect sense. Since it runs of an END reserve, it's irrelevant whether I "just woke up" or not, because the END reserve isn't affected by me getting knocked to negative STUN.

+50END only to hold your breath? Why bother when long term END rules would already allow him to hold his breath almost indefinitely. But that isn't the same as being able to breathe underwater. If I knock the wind out of someone who is trying to use "can hold my breath forever" as a substitute for breathing underwater, he has to surface or drown. Aquaman doesn't have that problem. Just like Aquaman can talk underwater but someone who bought END "only to hold my breath" can't talk without resurfacing. It's NOT the same thing.

Mental Illusions vs. Images should not be based on how many people it affects. You can have either one affect one person or more than one, depending on how you build it. Instead, it should depend on how you're going about it. Are you bending the light(Images) or are you reaching into their brain and telling it that it sees something that's not there? The second one is harder(generally) so it should cost more, even though it's going to do much the same thing.

Also, I'm not trying to encourage archetypes so much as discourage people assembling a random collection of powers. I want things that go together rationally. Just because you reason from special effects doesn't mean that you have to have an archetype. Few characters I play(or players I play with) really have that. But we build things based on how the character would do it, not on what is most efficient. Sure they all have a few archetypal things. But it's impossible not to. If you give someone 75 STR and high DEF, you've build a brick. BUT that doesn't mean the characters can't stretch themselves in ways that differentiate them from others with the same (very) general archetype. For example, in the last group, the team brick had an origin similar to the Molten Man from Marvel Comics, but his powers were completely different. For one, he was a brick. For another, he could "sense" metal. He could also bond himself to metal and "walk up walls" if they were strong enough to hold him, which necessitated him buying a limited version of Flight. And Clinging. Ever see an 800 pound metallic guy hang upside down from a steel girder like he was Spiderman? Of course, he also had Density Increase and Life Support, which are traditional brick powers, but they made sense. You don't have to build "the same old character" just because you're building from special effect.

[bigdamnhero]

I suppose there might be occasions where it makes sense(albeit rarely) but to my knowledge, there is nothing in the rules that allows this. It's stirctly your house rule. Which is fine if it works for you.
4th Ed Ultimate Mentalist had rules for Mental Maneuvers, including one called Mind Bar which basically worked as a Block (OECV vs OECV). IIRC there were also several different options for boosting your DECV +/or MD, typically at the expense of your OECV +/or DCV. But as far as I know those haven't yet been carried forward into any 5th Ed pubs.


I think the SFX is important to the power in that it explains how it works. Some things are just more efficient or more useful than others. I also look at it that the SFX infleunces how closely related the power is to other powers. The more you have to stretch the SFX, the more expensive it should be because you're pushing the limit of what you can do.
I absolutely agree that SFX is critical to the character concept, and I'm all for encouraging character designs that make sense rather than just hanging a bunch of powers together and calling it a superhero. But that's for us as GMs and players to enforce. The idea that Powers cost the same regardless of sfx is pretty central to the Hero chargen philosophy, and I see no need to change that.

Now if the sfx for a power don't fit the character, then you're going to have a hard time fitting it into that MP or EC; so in that sense it will be more expensive.

[Mike W]

4th Ed Ultimate Mentalist had rules for Mental Maneuvers, including one called Mind Bar which basically worked as a Block (OECV vs OECV). IIRC there were also several different options for boosting your DECV +/or MD, typically at the expense of your OECV +/or DCV. But as far as I know those haven't yet been carried forward into any 5th Ed pubs.


I absolutely agree that SFX is critical to the character concept, and I'm all for encouraging character designs that make sense rather than just hanging a bunch of powers together and calling it a superhero. But that's for us as GMs and players to enforce. The idea that Powers cost the same regardless of sfx is pretty central to the Hero chargen philosophy, and I see no need to change that.

Now if the sfx for a power don't fit the character, then you're going to have a hard time fitting it into that MP or EC; so in that sense it will be more expensive.

Yes, if they are the same power. But if you're doing things much differently, with different mechanics, then it may have a similar effect, but it is NOT the same power.

[The Souljourner]

BOECV is there probably precisely *because* AVLD: MD is crap. Just don't take AVLD: MD.

For the original poster - it's already been said, you get to attack someone based on their Ego instead of Dex, and most people have worse Ego than Dex. Plus, you're the one choosing to buy this advantage, which means *you* probably have better Ego than Dex. Plus you get no range modifier and Line of Sight range, both of which are good advantages on their own.

-Nate

[bigdamnhero]

Yes, if they are the same power. But if you're doing things much differently, with different mechanics, then it may have a similar effect, but it is NOT the same power.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. To use the firestarter example you used earlier:

PC#1 has elemental control powers. He wants to have a 1-Body RKA flame strike, defined as a weak flame he uses to start fires and the like.

PC#2 has vibration control powers. He wants to have a 1-Body RKA flame strike defined as causing molecules to rub together so fast that they combust.

While these are different powers within the game world, they are built using the exact same Power in the game mechanics. (Assume they have the exact same modifers.) It sounded before like you were saying PC#2 should have to pay more for the his firestarter, because it is "harder" in terms of sfx and it is doesn't fit as neatly into his power suite as PC#1's does. Did I misunderstand?

[Hugh Neilson]

BOECV is there probably precisely *because* AVLD: MD is crap. Just don't take AVLD: MD.

To restate, AVLD: Mental Defense is overpriced. Why not fix overpricing issues?


For the original poster - it's already been said, you get to attack someone based on their Ego instead of Dex, and most people have worse Ego than Dex. Plus, you're the one choosing to buy this advantage, which means *you* probably have better Ego than Dex. Plus you get no range modifier and Line of Sight range, both of which are good advantages on their own.

No Range Modifier is not required - you get Line of Sight (a +1/2 advantage) and AVLD Mental Defense, a +1 1/2 advantage (which I agree is overpriced) for a single +1 advantage.

If changing from attacking based on physical CV to attacking based on mental CV's should be an advantage, what should the limitation be for having a mental-based attack target based on physical CV (eg. how much should BoECV be reduced if I get the AVLD and LOS modifiers, but target with DEX vs DEX, and how much should the limitation be if my Ego Attack is targeted physically)?

[Mike W]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. To use the firestarter example you used earlier:

PC#1 has elemental control powers. He wants to have a 1-Body RKA flame strike, defined as a weak flame he uses to start fires and the like.

PC#2 has vibration control powers. He wants to have a 1-Body RKA flame strike defined as causing molecules to rub together so fast that they combust.

While these are different powers within the game world, they are built using the exact same Power in the game mechanics. (Assume they have the exact same modifers.) It sounded before like you were saying PC#2 should have to pay more for the his firestarter, because it is "harder" in terms of sfx and it is doesn't fit as neatly into his power suite as PC#1's does. Did I misunderstand?

A little, but not much. For something that small, it doesn't make much difference. But the vibration guy is gonna have to talk if he wants to start big fires - or be able to use the power on an airborne target. Because the SFX is so different, his character just isn't going to be as good at it. I'd probably recommend he take fewer dice than the pyrokinetic, but he's also going to end up being required to take some extra modifiers to limit how well he can do it. Those may make the power less useful. If he wants to do the exact same thing as the pyrokinetic(i.e. - throw a major fireball) he's probably going to have to pay more for it, at least a little.

Here's an example:

Player A(pyrokinetic) want to buy a fireball attack. This is exactly what the character is supposed to do. It's his bread and butter, so he can do this pretty much any way he wants. Let's say:

3D6 RKA, 1 Hex AOE.

Player B(vibration specialist) wants to buy a fireball attack defined as "vibrating the molecules so fast that they combust". Ok, theoretically this is possible. But whereas the pyrokinetic is naturally capable of generating the heat necessary in a specific area, it's pretty basic for him. Not so true of the vibration specialist. It's a bit outside his area of expertise and requires a finer degree of control over his power. When he first buys it at least(I might be willing to talk about changing things after he uses it a lot), the power is probably going to have take some kind of extra effort(Concentration, Increased END, whatever). Also, it's VERY hard to rub things together fast enough to create a hot fire, so he probably has to buy it as EB. So he might have to buy it like this:

9D6 1 hex AOE, X2 END

[Mike W]

A better example would be one that is tied to the initial reason for the thread: the "pain whip". Two characters want a "pain whip" the first is a gadgeteer, who is building an actual whip, the second is a mentalist who basically is conjuring a variation on Psylocke's "psychic knife" idea.

The gadgeteer is going to attack the other person's nervous system and attempt to overload it, because he doesn't want an "all or nothing" concept, he's left with buying an AVLD Energy Blast. Since it obviously won't run off of the character's END(though other types of characters, it might), he has to either buy charges or buy it 0 END. For the sake of direct comparison, we'll buy it 0 END.

Pain Whip: 6D6 EB AVLD vs. Power(or Mental,you could argue either) DEF. OAF(whip). 0 END Active Points: 90 Real Cost 45

Mentalist is basically creating a unique "focus" that, for the sake of comparison, is actually tangible and can be "blocked" and such. We will distinguish however that her focus is unique and cannot be used by others, but these are -0 limits. It is still OAF because it can be taken from her in combat(basic disarm maneuver or any grab/hold that can force her hand open) Her pain whip is really an EGO Blast with no range.

Pain Whip: 6D6 EGO blast. 0 END(she's good at it). No Range. OAF
Active Points: 90 Real Cost: 36

The second power is 20% cheaper but has the exact same effect as the first. However I have no problem with this because menatlists with EGO blasts are very common. Most mentalists have them. It's something the character would easily learn how to do, even though he is doing it a bit differently. Overloading the brain's pain receptors is stock in trade for a mentalist. On the other hand, a gadgeteer building the first power is a bit less common. Partly because the archetype is a bit broader but also because they are trying to build something that works against anyone, regardless of anatomy, which could vary radically even among those who were/are originally human/mutant(e.g. Sandman, Colossus, the Thing, Hyrdo Man in water form). The mentalist, by definition, is targeting something that all humans, mutants, etc have - a basically human mind. So it's easier for him because he is always trying to "get ahold" of the same thing.

[prestidigitator]

I'd use AVLD to make a pain whip work against the targets Resistance Talent. :D :eg:

[Hugh Neilson]

Here's an example:

Player A(pyrokinetic) want to buy a fireball attack. This is exactly what the character is supposed to do. It's his bread and butter, so he can do this pretty much any way he wants. Let's say:

3D6 RKA, 1 Hex AOE.

Player B(vibration specialist) wants to buy a fireball attack defined as "vibrating the molecules so fast that they combust". Ok, theoretically this is possible. But whereas the pyrokinetic is naturally capable of generating the heat necessary in a specific area, it's pretty basic for him. Not so true of the vibration specialist. It's a bit outside his area of expertise and requires a finer degree of control over his power. When he first buys it at least(I MIGHT be willing to talk about changing things after he uses it a lot), the power is probably going to have take some kind of extra effort(Concentration, Reduced END, whatever). Also, it's VERY hard to rub things together fast enough to create a hot fire, so he probably has to buy it as EB. So he might have to buy it like this:

9D6 1 hex AOE, X2 END

Note that Plauer A pays 67 points and player B pays 45 points. Player B has a limitation on his power, so this seems reasonable. It's the AVLD vs BOECV example I have difficulty with because the exact same power (using your example of the pain whip below) has a different cost. As well, if the "no range" limitation shoud really be higher for the ego blast, since it loses both range and LOS.

In the fireball example, you're imposing your vision of the character on the player, something I personally have a distaste for, but the costs are reasonable. In the pain which example, however, we end up with two characters with powers that are exactly as useful, but have different costs. That's unbalanced, IMO.

[Mike W]

Note that Plauer A pays 67 points and player B pays 45 points. Player B has a limitation on his power, so this seems reasonable. It's the AVLD vs BOECV example I have difficulty with because the exact same power (using your example of the pain whip below) has a different cost. As well, if the "no range" limitation shoud really be higher for the ego blast, since it loses both range and LOS.

In the fireball example, you're imposing your vision of the character on the player, something I personally have a distaste for, but the costs are reasonable. In the pain which example, however, we end up with two characters with powers that are exactly as useful, but have different costs. That's unbalanced, IMO.

Hugh,

I don't feel I'm "imposing my vision" on a character, just because I won't let him do something that is a bit beyond his character's actual ability. I don't view forcing him to buy something as an EB instead of an RKA any differently than telling him that "no I don't think your character could be that strong" and not letting him have 60 STR when he says he's building a "Luke Cage" type of character.

As for the pain whip example, aside from the fact that we probably wouldn't build either one quite like that(at least I wouldn't), I tend to view it similarly to a character with NCM trying to buy 25 STR. Sure, you technically CAN have the character do that(and if you want to stretch the character that way, I'm ok with it) but you have to recognize that it's simply harder for him to do. Pioneering or going "outside the box" is always more difficult. In short, I view the cost of the power as not just representing the power/usefulness of an ability(because, quite frankly, we all know that there are mathematical ways around that) but also the difficulty of what is being attempted(much like Mind Control is modified by how difficult the control/memory change etc you are attempting is). Overall, these things tend to balance out because while the gadgeteer may, in this instance, have to pay more to do the same thing, most of the time he isn't(because of the natural Focus limits he puts on everything) and if you add a Juryrig skill, he'll be able to change his powers in combat, even without a VPP. How many characters can do that? In the end, I find that it all balances out.

[Hugh Neilson]

I don't feel I'm "imposing my vision" on a character, just because I won't let him do something that is a bit beyond his character's actual ability. I don't view forcing him to buy something as an EB instead of an RKA any differently than telling him that "no I don't think your character could be that strong" and not letting him have 60 STR when he says he's building a "Luke Cage" type of character.

That is the crux of our disagreement. To me, there are a few approaches to your Luke Cage example, as follows:

(a) "No, you can't have a 60 STR. That's too strong. It violates the campaign limits." [Maybe because he has a HA that adds +4d6 and my DC max is 12 - he could lower STR or ditch the HA in this case.] The campaign limits are rules, so that's no different than saying "No, you can't buy +50 STR for 25 points - STR costs 1 point each." So I'm OK with this.

(b) "A 60 STR is about as strong as it gets in my game. You mentioned you were looking to build a low-level brick, which would be about 40 STR." The polayer will either drop his STR, or decide his character is a high end Brick. And either is OK - I've just told the player that what he has designed doesn't match what he has described so one of the two needs to go.

(c) "Based solely on your concept, I deem you to have a 40 STR max." If there's no game balance or campaign limit issue, I'm deciding the character for my player. That is where I personally draw the line.

Picture a GM (who has somehow missed reading certain comics) saying:

"Your character is supposed to be a super-soldier. Soldiers don't have shields. Trash the shield and give him a machine gun instead"

"Your character has a bunch of natural powers derived from an animal's abilities. It's stupid to have one of those powers through a focus. Get rid of your web spinners' focus limitation and buy natural spinneretts, you point whore."

"So this guy's strong, tough and can fly. I'm OK with all that. But no way can he shoot heat beams from his eyes - that's mixing too many concepts. Oh, and reduce his flight speed, DEX and Speed. Bricks should be slow."

"OK, he runs fast, moves fast, thinks fast, etc. All good. I'll even give you "so fast he runs up buildings and doesn't have time to sink in the water". But no way can he move so fast he can vibrate through walls!"

It's not the GM's character, and the GM should be open to character builds that may not be quite the way he would design the character [within, of course, balance, campaign limits and campaign tone].


As for the pain whip example, aside from the fact that we probably wouldn't build either one quite like that(at least I wouldn't), I tend to view it similarly to a character with NCM trying to buy 25 STR. Sure, you technically CAN have the character do that(and if you want to stretch the character that way, I'm ok with it) but you have to recognize that it's simply harder for him to do. Pioneering or going "outside the box" is always more difficult.

NCM is either a campaign ground rule (ie a RULE) or a disadvantage the player chose to impose on his character to get disadvantage points. That makes it quite different in my eyes.

At the end of the day, when the GM applies extra point costs to the exact same ability because the characters have different SFX, I start thinking (rightly or wrongly) about character classes. "That's a cross-class power or SFX for Gary Gadgeteer - he has to pay double". If I wanted that, I'd play a d20 game instead of a Hero game (and for the record, I do play both).

[The Souljourner]

I don't feel I'm "imposing my vision" on a character, just because I won't let him do something that is a bit beyond his character's actual ability.

That's the thing... you don't define the character's "actual ability", he does. If he has defined his control of vibration to be so good that he can effectively cause explosions... well, wow, that's cool. Who are you to say that's beyond the character's ability? It's not like he's asking for multiform because he can vibrate into different shapes. This is a logical extension of his stated ability. Just because it seems "harder" to create a fireball through vibration powers than through fire powers, doesn't mean he should have to pay more.

And that brings me to the second point. You're penalizing someone because of their special effects. Game mechanics and special effects are specifically separate in hero. A 6d6 AOE EB costs 60 points regardless of whether it's a fireball, holy smiting, or some guy vibrating molecules really quickly. You should never penalize someone purely for their choice of special effect. If the nuances of creating the power includes limitations, that's fine. Maybe the vibration guy can't do it in a vacuum, and the fire guy can't do it under water. Makes sense. But you shouldn't ever say "that's too hard for you to do, so you'll have to pay more".

-Nate

[Hugh Neilson]

That's the thing... you don't define the character's "actual ability", he does.

Your entire post covers my points exactly - only much more concise and far more elegant. Thanks and repped!

[Mike W]

That is the crux of our disagreement. To me, there are a few approaches to your Luke Cage example, as follows:

(a) "No, you can't have a 60 STR. That's too strong. It violates the campaign limits." [Maybe because he has a HA that adds +4d6 and my DC max is 12 - he could lower STR or ditch the HA in this case.] The campaign limits are rules, so that's no different than saying "No, you can't buy +50 STR for 25 points - STR costs 1 point each." So I'm OK with this.

(b) "A 60 STR is about as strong as it gets in my game. You mentioned you were looking to build a low-level brick, which would be about 40 STR." The polayer will either drop his STR, or decide his character is a high end Brick. And either is OK - I've just told the player that what he has designed doesn't match what he has described so one of the two needs to go.

(c) "Based solely on your concept, I deem you to have a 40 STR max." If there's no game balance or campaign limit issue, I'm deciding the character for my player. That is where I personally draw the line.

Picture a GM (who has somehow missed reading certain comics) saying:

"Your character is supposed to be a super-soldier. Soldiers don't have shields. Trash the shield and give him a machine gun instead"

"Your character has a bunch of natural powers derived from an animal's abilities. It's stupid to have one of those powers through a focus. Get rid of your web spinners' focus limitation and buy natural spinneretts, you point whore."

"So this guy's strong, tough and can fly. I'm OK with all that. But no way can he shoot heat beams from his eyes - that's mixing too many concepts. Oh, and reduce his flight speed, DEX and Speed. Bricks should be slow."

"OK, he runs fast, moves fast, thinks fast, etc. All good. I'll even give you "so fast he runs up buildings and doesn't have time to sink in the water". But no way can he move so fast he can vibrate through walls!"

It's not the GM's character, and the GM should be open to character builds that may not be quite the way he would design the character [within, of course, balance, campaign limits and campaign tone].



NCM is either a campaign ground rule (ie a RULE) or a disadvantage the player chose to impose on his character to get disadvantage points. That makes it quite different in my eyes.

At the end of the day, when the GM applies extra point costs to the exact same ability because the characters have different SFX, I start thinking (rightly or wrongly) about character classes. "That's a cross-class power or SFX for Gary Gadgeteer - he has to pay double". If I wanted that, I'd play a d20 game instead of a Hero game (and for the record, I do play both).

B & C - I never said a guy couldn't change his character archetype when he's building his initial character, but once he's decided that "this is the kind of character I want to play" I'm going to be very careful about where he can expand his powers and how quickly he gets good at them. Logical progression is important. And I also don't want him stepping on the toes of other characters.

I don't directly apply "extra point costs" to anything, but I build the power as the character would do it, and if that's more expensive than how someone else might do it, I'm fine with that. I don't feel a need to min/max the character to that degree. Points don't always equal power, directly anyway. They're SUPPOSED to, but we've all seen examples where it doesn't work that way. Go check out one of the abusive power threads. Also, I think it reflects "real life" a bit in that while there is often more than one way to do things, not all of them are as efficient. You can start a fire by rubbing two sticks together with a bow and arrow or you can start a fire with matches and lighter fluid. The second is much easier.

I think the real argument here isn't "what I will allow", I'll let people try almost anything that makes sense, BUT I'm not concerned with building it the most point efficient way. I'm concerned with building it based on how the character would do it. But with the way the system is set up, some builds will be more efficient than others. It's the nature of the beast. It's the nature of reality. And I'm fine with that. I'm more concerned with the character making sense and developing in a way that works for the player and is logical at the same time. The math is incidental.

Still, I DO enforce campaign limits, and part of that is balancing abilitites. Just because one character has 60 STR doesn't mean everyone can have 60 STR. Balancing characters also involves balancing them against each other. Charcters with higher DEX generally have lower STR to balance them out so there aren't uber characters capable of doing everything. Sure, I COULD build a 350 point character that hardly needs anyone else, but what's the point of playing in a group then? So as a GM I won't allow such a character.

And again, not everyone is going to be as good at doing the same thing. So you're probably going to have to at least start off with a less effective build when you step outside the box. Over time, you can get better, but it's not what you're best at, so you don't do it quite as efficiently until you learn more about it/get more practice at it. And that principle is built into the system in all sorts of ways from Skill Enhancers to Power Frameworks.

[Mike W]

That's the thing... you don't define the character's "actual ability", he does. If he has defined his control of vibration to be so good that he can effectively cause explosions... well, wow, that's cool. Who are you to say that's beyond the character's ability? It's not like he's asking for multiform because he can vibrate into different shapes. This is a logical extension of his stated ability. Just because it seems "harder" to create a fireball through vibration powers than through fire powers, doesn't mean he should have to pay more.

And that brings me to the second point. You're penalizing someone because of their special effects. Game mechanics and special effects are specifically separate in hero. A 6d6 AOE EB costs 60 points regardless of whether it's a fireball, holy smiting, or some guy vibrating molecules really quickly. You should never penalize someone purely for their choice of special effect. If the nuances of creating the power includes limitations, that's fine. Maybe the vibration guy can't do it in a vacuum, and the fire guy can't do it under water. Makes sense. But you shouldn't ever say "that's too hard for you to do, so you'll have to pay more".

-Nate

At some point, as GM you have to impose your vision of the character, to enforce campaign limits and play balance if nothing else. And I'm not "penalizing" anyone. I just ask them to build it how their character would actually do it. If it's not as efficient as how another character would do it, oh well.

I also think that at a certain point, special effect DOES define how a power works. An EB is an EB. But frying someone's brain and messing with their nervous system are NOT the same thing.

[Hugh Neilson]

I don't directly apply "extra point costs" to anything, but I build the power as the character would do it, and if that's more expensive than how someone else might do it, I'm fine with that. I don't feel a need to min/max the character to that degree.

Does the CHARACTER know whether his power is an EB, or a killing attack, or does he know it sets things on fire?


Points don't always equal power, directly anyway. They're SUPPOSED to, but we've all seen examples where it doesn't work that way.

When two abilities accomplish precisely the same game effects, I think they should carry precisely the same cost. When one is clearly superior, it should cost more. The fact that there may be flaws in the system, such that this is not universally achieved, doesn't motivate me to want to create more flaws. It motivates me to look for ways to achieve the goal more universally.


You can start a fire by rubbing two sticks together with a bow and arrow or you can start a fire with matches and lighter fluid. The second is much easier.

The first should therefore cost less. And it does thanks to the miracle of Extra Time! Unless, perhaps, you don't carry the materials, but must locate them to start the fire - two sticks are more commonly lying around than a pack of matches and lighter fluid. But that's OK because 2 sticks man can use his power more frequently.

[Mike W]

Does the CHARACTER know whether his power is an EB, or a killing attack, or does he know it sets things on fire?



When two abilities accomplish precisely the same game effects, I think they should carry precisely the same cost. When one is clearly superior, it should cost more. The fact that there may be flaws in the system, such that this is not universally achieved, doesn't motivate me to want to create more flaws. It motivates me to look for ways to achieve the goal more universally.



The first should therefore cost less. And it does thanks to the miracle of Extra Time! Unless, perhaps, you don't carry the materials, but must locate them to start the fire - two sticks are more commonly lying around than a pack of matches and lighter fluid. But that's OK because 2 sticks man can use his power more frequently.

Does the character know whether a power is an EB or a KA in ANY circumstance? As a general rule, yes. If for no other reason than they can gauge it by the effect it has. If you're dealing with pyrokinetics then the most logical explanation is that the KA is hotter than the EB. But to say that the character can specifically say that "this power is a killing attack and that one is an energy blast", not they can't. What they CAN tell is "either attack is hot enough to kill(or almost kill) a normal human but this one doesn't do nearly as much permanent damage as the other one does(especially where superhumans are concerned".

At this point, I want to fall back on the metarules of the system for a few things:

1. If there are two equally valid ways to build a particular ability, you must use the more expensive build.

2. When building powers, choose the Power and Modifiers which best represent the special effect of the ability the character has.

These are both in the book(in 5th edition it's page 348) and should be. The first helps to cut down on power gaming. The second, which IMO is more imporant, focuses on creating the character according to the concept, not the numbers. The idea is to build the character according to how they would do things, not according to what would be most cost effective. This isn't to say that cost is irrelevant, but it's a secondary consideration. You build the power according to the special effect and if the expense is too great, you find ways to tweak it without changing the build to something that doesn't fit the concept. It is an erroneous assumption that every power that costs the same amount of points will be equally useful/powerful. That's just the way it is. Sometimes, you get more bang for your buck than others. A 6D6 EGO Blast and a 12D6 EB are not the same and are not equal, though they cost the same. Similarly, an attack which overload's someone's nervous system is not the same thing as reaching into their mind and overloading their pain receptors. They do completely different things and should look that way mechanically. An EB is an EB, but an EB is not an EGO attack.

Also, I think you're getting too hung up on the points. I'm no more penalizing someone for their concept by making them take a more logical, but less efficient build than I would be rewarding them by allowing them to use a MP or a skill enhancer. Such an approach does not necessarily lead to archetypal characters - that is determined by the creativity of the player. But it DOES ensure that the character will have a unified theme that holds together - even if those parts are drawn from several different archetypes. Superman is more than just a "flying brick" he's an alien with a physiology that converts solar energy - so the heat vision DOES fit his concept, because it can be seen as Superman releasing some of the solar energy he has absorbed in a focused beam. In short, the concept can be as broad as you care to make it, but of necessity, the broader you make the concept, the less likely you are to reach "elite" status at any aspect, because your abilities/points are spread out more than someone who focuses on doing only a handful of things particularly well.

Even if you're trying to build similar abilities, because not every character does things exactly the same way, they aren't going to be equally effective at everything, especially not when they first attempt something. Just because you are an All Star basketball player doesn't mean you can suddenly go play baseball and be equally good(ask Michael Jordan). You've got the raw talent(maybe) but you're going to have to start at a lower level and work your way up because there are significant differences. Even switching positions could change your effectiveness. Not many point guards can play center and not many centers can play point guard. They are still basketball players, but they tend to emphasize much different aspects of the game. This doesn't mean you can't have a rare talent who can guard both positions(like Ben Wallace) or an even rarer one who can play both positions on the offensive end(Magic Johnson) but those players are extremely rare and generally have to put in a tremendous amount of work to be consistently effective at such disparate tasks. So forcing a character to start off a new power with a weaker build than their other powers and/or weaker than other characters who attempt something similar is perfectly fair. It doesn't mean the character can't get better at it later, but at the same time, they can't just wake up one day and be as good as everyone else at the power either.

[Hugh Neilson]

At this point, I want to fall back on the metarules of the system for a few things:

1. If there are two equally valid ways to build a particular ability, you must use the more expensive build.

This applies equally to all characters. If both choices are equally valid, and choice A costs more, choice A should be required of both characters.

This comes down to how one interprets "equally valid". Are the following equally valid:

(a) an Ego Blast
(b) an EB, AVLD, Invisible to all but Mental, Range LoS, Custom Advantage: uses ECV; Limitation: only vs Human class of minds
(c) an energy blast, BoECV, Invisible to all but mental, Limitation: only vs Human class of minds

I would say no. They all get the same end result, but the Ego Blast is the straightforward build, thus (IMO) the one intended by the designers to be used for such a power, and thus the most straightforward build.


2. When building powers, choose the Power and Modifiers which best represent the special effect of the ability the character has.

Two characters who both cause spontaneous combustion would seem to have the same ability with the same special effect, even if one approaches causing that combustion differently than the other.


Superman is more than just a "flying brick" he's an alien with a physiology that converts solar energy - so the heat vision DOES fit his concept, because it can be seen as Superman releasing some of the solar energy he has absorbed in a focused beam.

Since 1985. The character was published for 45 years before John Byrne came along and added that theme. Now tie his super breath back to solar power...


So forcing a character to start off a new power with a weaker build than their other powers and/or weaker than other characters who attempt something similar is perfectly fair. It doesn't mean the character can't get better at it later, but at the same time, they can't just wake up one day and be as good as everyone else at the power either.

This depends on approach. "Sorry, you can't buy a 12d6 EB right from square one. You have to start with 1/2d6 and work your way up." Gee, that;'s a useful power! OTOH, I like the idea that the 12d6 EB starts with several limitations, perhaps reducing OCV, requiring Concentration, extra time, extra END and/or other limitations that reflect the character having discovered this new power and now working to master it. This serves a few purposes in game, to my mind.

It shows in game play that this is a new and developing ability. All those limitations reduce the cost, so the character need not save up 60 xp to buy the ultimate EB, but can "start smaller". But the character just learning to use his powers to manifest an energy beam should not be required to pay 60 points for a very limited version of an EB when his teammate paid the same 60 points for an unlimited version.