Power Frameworks Issues

[Markdoc]

I'm glad they didn't decide on a "realistic" spidey, then.

Oddly enough, this topic has come up in discussion with our gaming group, along with a discussion about redesign of the spidey suit. Favourite comment - "If this had happened, nobody would be worried about the black suit/red suit argument any more." :D

cheers, Mark

[Zaltar]

Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?

Steve’s Thoughts: Every now and then I see this talked about on the boards or wherever — the idea of joining all the Frameworks into one and then restricting how the slots work with Limitations or other ways of altering the cost to reflect the utility. It’s not particularly an idea I favor, since I think it would be harder to learn than the current arrangement, but it would probably cut down on redundancy of text and the like, and there may be some potential here that I haven’t seen because I haven’t yet thought about it much. So I figured I’d toss it on the pile of things to consider.

Zaltar's Thought's: No, This is not logical. You cannot 'unify' them. You can reduce them to one item that would not perform all of thier functions logicaly. Each type of power framework does something diffrent and works diffrently. The Variable Point Powerpool, is the ultimate in flexabilty allowing almost any power. The multipower is something that will give a new player flexabilty and allow him to learn the system faster. The elemental control links a number of powers together, and it helps people build certain concepts in characters. Anything that reduces a charcter concept options goes against the concept of hero games wher you can build anything.

[Kdansky]

Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?

Zaltar's Thought's: No, This is not logical. You cannot 'unify' them. You can reduce them to one item that would not perform all of thier functions logicaly. Each type of power framework does something diffrent and works diffrently. The Variable Point Powerpool, is the ultimate in flexabilty allowing almost any power. The multipower is something that will give a new player flexabilty and allow him to learn the system faster. The elemental control links a number of powers together, and it helps people build certain concepts in characters. Anything that reduces a charcter concept options goes against the concept of hero games wher you can build anything.

You obviously have not read the thread (which is against the rules! hurr durr!), or you would have seen the multiple possibilities of unifying them and the pointlessness of ECs.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?

Zaltar's Thought's: No, This is not logical. You cannot 'unify' them. You can reduce them to one item that would not perform all of thier functions logicaly. Each type of power framework does something diffrent and works diffrently. The Variable Point Powerpool, is the ultimate in flexabilty allowing almost any power. The multipower is something that will give a new player flexabilty and allow him to learn the system faster. The elemental control links a number of powers together, and it helps people build certain concepts in characters. Anything that reduces a charcter concept options goes against the concept of hero games wher you can build anything.

See here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1703774&postcount=737) for a unified framework that unifies Multipower and VPP with some added flexibility. As Kdansky says, Elemental Controls are pretty much pointless. They are merely questionable point savers; they don't add options.

Also, it is a fallacy that you can build anything in Hero System. You can't for instance build a character that is totally invulnerable to all damage - nor do I think you should be able to.

- Klaus

[ghost-angel]

Also, it is a fallacy that you can build anything in Hero System. You can't for instance build a character that is totally invulnerable to all damage - nor do I think you should be able to.

- Klaus

That depends on the campaign parameters; which is the real point of Hero - setting up a Game to do exactly what you want.

[Hugh Neilson]

Also, it is a fallacy that you can build anything in Hero System. You can't for instance build a character that is totally invulnerable to all damage - nor do I think you should be able to.

6e needs to either lose the "if you can imagine it, you can build it" marketing line or live up to the promise. Many gamers can imagine a character who is totally invulnerable, either to a small SFX or a large one.

Will it make for good gaming? That's for the players and the GM to decide. But the possibility should exist for the players and GM's to make the choice. It should not be made for them by the rules.

Unless we eliminate "if you can imagine it, you can build it".

[Or Steve could apply some of the negative stereotypes of his other profession and slap a * on the statement and set out the fine print underneath in 1 point font. ;)]

[Vulcan]

You obviously have not read the thread (which is against the rules! hurr durr!), or you would have seen the multiple possibilities of unifying them and the pointlessness of ECs.

Are you sure about that? I've read them all, and I happen to agree with him 100%. The only way EC's should be disposed of is to balance the loss of Figured Characteristics - which I happen to oppose. And I think MP's and VPP's are too different to be realistically combined.

The many attempts to do so that have been demonstrated here do not stand up adequitely, IMO.

[Markdoc]

Are you sure about that? I've read them all, and I happen to agree with him 100%. The only way EC's should be disposed of is to balance the loss of Figured Characteristics - which I happen to oppose. And I think MP's and VPP's are too different to be realistically combined.

The many attempts to do so that have been demonstrated here do not stand up adequitely, IMO.

But my reaction has been the opposite. I originally opposed changes, thinking that the power frameworks were too different, but the discussion here has convinced me otherwise. ECs can in fact be handled other ways, and expanded rules for multipowers could obviate the need for VPPs.

Power frameworks are one of the most complicated parts of the rules and also a part that often spawns the most angst among GMs. Simplifying them would be a big step forward, in my view, and we've had some quite workable suggestions.

cheers, Mark

[Vulcan]

But my reaction has been the opposite. I originally opposed changes, thinking that the power frameworks were too different, but the discussion here has convinced me otherwise. ECs can in fact be handled other ways, and expanded rules for multipowers could obviate the need for VPPs.

Power frameworks are one of the most complicated parts of the rules and also a part that often spawns the most angst among GMs. Simplifying them would be a big step forward, in my view, and we've had some quite workable suggestions.

cheers, Mark

As I said, IMO (In My Opinion). Other opinions may vary.

[Kdansky]

The word "IMO" does not give you a free pass on logic though :P

We have seen enough demonstrations of mathematical concepts which were close enough to VPP/MP and allowed all these constructions, without the necessity of two rules. We have seen that a -1/2 or -1/4 limitation instead of an EC leads to extremly similar results without the drawbacks or complications. Yes, you will be a few points off in one way or the other in the end, but do not tell me the current system is well-balanced when I can list a dozen things off the top of my head which are utterly broken.

And if you think "ECs balance vs figureds", then I wonder why characters with figureds cannot have an EC (which would break a system balanced around only having one of them at a time). Interesting house-rule you got there which seems to be utterly central to your balance :P
And anyway, this is not the case. There are enough concepts which do not work well with ECs or figureds or both. Are these balanced? Probably not.

[Vulcan]

The word "IMO" does not give you a free pass on logic though :P

I said 'in my opinion' and I stand by it! Because I think these proposals all fall flat somewhere, and it's not always in 'backwards compatability' so to speak. Some of them just seem too complicated to me to be worth changing rules that in my opinion work well as-is.

Obviously you feel differently; that's fine. That's your perogative. Please DO NOT TELL ME I MUST AGREE WITH YOU! :mad: Or that I'm somehow 'wrong' or 'stupid' or 'illogical' because I don't!


And if you think "ECs balance vs figureds", then I wonder why characters with figureds cannot have an EC (which would break a system balanced around only having one of them at a time). Interesting house-rule you got there which seems to be utterly central to your balance :P
And anyway, this is not the case. There are enough concepts which do not work well with ECs or figureds or both. Are these balanced? Probably not.

The reason I think Figureds and EC's tend to balance out is that the archetypes (primarily brick and martial artists) that spend the most on characteristics - and therefore benefit the most from figured characteristics - tend not to have points left for large EC's. Whereas other archetypes that tend not to spend so much on characteristics - primarily Energy Projectors and Mentalists - have lots of points left over for large EC's and gain the most benefit from them. With both in place, the archetypes are pretty balanced, with a small advantage going to bricks because they are a bit more point-efficient. Take away Figureds and leave in EC's and the advantage shifts - massively, in my opinion - to archetypes that do not spend so much on characteristics, and therefore have that many more points to spend on large EC's.

This is, of course, just speaking from my experience and expressing my opinions, which is what this particular set of threads is for. YMMV.

[ghost-angel]

The word "IMO" does not give you a free pass on logic though :P

Personally insult someone much....

I don't find anything wrong with the current set up, I like the current set up, it works in practice for me, I've never had issues with it - there is no misstep in my logic when I say "No, I don't think we should change this rule"

And I don't give a F what math you bring to the table your attitude sucks. :thumbdown
Why don't you apologize to Vulcan, who has done nothing more but get insulted by you for having an opinion on the matter.

[PhilFleischmann]

I don't find anything wrong with the current set up, I like the current set up, it works in practice for me, I've never had issues with it - there is no misstep in my logic when I say "No, I don't think we should change this rule"
I pretty much agree. Any changes of improvements made or needed would be minor. Most importantly, there might be a simpler, clearer way to present the rules for frameworks, but the rules themselves only need minor tweeking at the most.

IMO, Elemental Controls should be eliminated in favor of various Limitations like Linked and "Drained Along With" and "Real SFX". But it's not that big a deal if they are kept.

Multipowers are pretty much fine as-is. I'd like to see the costs of multi- and ultra- slots brought closer together, but I'm not sure what the best way to do this is. Either make multi-slots cost less, or ultra-slots cost more, or a little of each. Any change that is made in this regard would remove the nice, simple /5 and /10 structure, so I make the reccomendation with some reservation.

VPPs are fine as-is, but I would like the increased flexibility that has been mentioned before on this thread of Total Points = Pool Cost, and Max Active Points/2 = Control Cost.

I see these as minor changes. The frameworks are not particularly complex. I started playing HERO (Champions) in early high school and had no problem understanding them. I don't see how anything is gained by combining two or three fairly simple frameworks into one complex framework.

[ghost-angel]

One of the reasons I like ECs as they are is the Conceptual Presentation.

Yes, you could replace them with a series of Limitations; but the idea of the EC is really easily presented and visualized as the Framework it is.

[Kdansky]

Even though I might have worded my text better, I still fully stand by what I say. Vulcan put an "IMO" in a sentence/post argueing something which is not personal preference which makes it pointless.

"In my oppinion, 1+1 equals 3."

I can put "IMO" there all I want, I'm still totally wrong, and anybody can flame me for what it's worth.


The many attempts to do so that have been demonstrated here do not stand up adequitely, in my oppinion.
That's the same. Stating "truth" and then trying to get immunity to retorts by putting "IMO" there. If you say "your arguments suck", then you'd better bring a decent argument yourself, which "IMO" really is not. Telling me the experiments on unified frameworks do not work when there are pages upon pages of very well working examples, variants and ideas AND then putting "IMO" there to get diplomatic immunity is ... well... bad? Let me rephrase my first sentence: "Just because you put an IMO there does not make you right, nor does it prevent me from pointing out stuff." Better?

And back to frameworks: Possibly, ECs work well with archetypes (which I call "classes") and that explains well why they do not work for my games. If I want classes, I'll play DnD 4E. If I want flexibility, I'll play Hero. Therefore I never have typical archetypes in a Hero-game. Figureds and ECs might well go into the Champions book, but they break a lot for the other games which is why I loathe them.

And since GC posted while I was writing: Yes, I will give you the presentation one, that is certainly a plus-point, though I have trouble getting nice Hero-character sheets to begin with, and this often looks chaotic in the end anyway.

[ghost-angel]

The presentation I was talking about wasn't on the Character Sheet.

[ghost-angel]

Even though I might have worded my text better, I still fully stand by what I say. Vulcan put an "IMO" in a sentence/post argueing something which is not personal preference which makes it pointless.

"In my oppinion, 1+1 equals 3."

I can put "IMO" there all I want, I'm still totally wrong, and anybody can flame me for what it's worth.


That's the same. Stating "truth" and then trying to get immunity to retorts by putting "IMO" there. If you say "your arguments suck", then you'd better bring a decent argument yourself, which "IMO" really is not. Telling me the experiments on unified frameworks do not work when there are pages upon pages of very well working examples, variants and ideas AND then putting "IMO" there to get diplomatic immunity is ... well... bad? Let me rephrase my first sentence: "Just because you put an IMO there does not make you right, nor does it prevent me from pointing out stuff." Better?

And back to frameworks: Possibly, ECs work well with archetypes (which I call "classes") and that explains well why they do not work for my games. If I want classes, I'll play DnD 4E. If I want flexibility, I'll play Hero. Therefore I never have typical archetypes in a Hero-game. Figureds and ECs might well go into the Champions book, but they break a lot for the other games which is why I loathe them.

And since GC posted while I was writing: Yes, I will give you the presentation one, that is certainly a plus-point, though I have trouble getting nice Hero-character sheets to begin with, and this often looks chaotic in the end anyway.

He didn't say they didn't work - he said they didn't adequately demonstrate a reason to change from the current method.

There's a difference.

And I agree, the unified framework may have worked perfectly in your games. It doesn't adequately demonstrate that they should be made the new rule - and that's my opinion on the matter too.

[OddHat]

Speaking as a moderator, respect your fellow posters is one of the rules of conduct on these boards. Please keep things civil.

[Volcilord]

I looked at the price difference between elemental control and multipower in Galactic Champions and it is very significant. A 15 ultra slot multipower has the same cost as a cosmic power pool. Trimming multipower slots to inexpensive is best done by adding ultra slots to a power pool for something to abort to without having to take a phase to skill roll to change slots.
The elemental control price penalty is best resolved by the x1/3 spell cost of The Turakian Age. If an elemental control requires a skill roll to activate each power, even at -0 for no active points penalty, the powers are at x1/3 cost each, and the elemental control reserve cost is removed by the need for a very good skill roll to use. Easy skill rolls require a skill roll purchased to +5 to use -1/20 active points, and to +10 to use no active points penalty. Attacks get attack (-1/2) for using an elemental control at x1/3 cost format. Multipowers and power pools have x1/3 cost for the reserve cost only, and must be very limited in scope like Doll Magic or Goganath's Spell of Negation. Schools of magic must be used to get x1/3 cost that includes multipowers and power pools, not just a magic roll by elemental control. X1/3 cost elemental controls have no reserve, so that by The Turakian Age even small spells get discounted. Except in The Turakian Age, an active points limit is appropriate for x1/3 cost with full cost above that. Overall levels do not help towards the active points limit. 20 active points plus 20 points per +1 is a good active points limitation.

[bwdemon]

For the record, here are my votes...

Unification: I was fairly impressed with the unified rules proposal by Klaus above. Good work and I'd support it in a new version of the game.

Elemental Control: Unnecessary legacy item easily removed. Replace with a token limitation to suit a character's concept.

[CGlied]

I agree with those who suggest EC should be put out to pasture.

The test I'd use is that if there was no EC rule in existence now and someone was here arguing for one based on how its currently configured this board would be pretty suspect.

[James Gillen]

I agree with those who suggest EC should be put out to pasture.

The test I'd use is that if there was no EC rule in existence now and someone was here arguing for one based on how its currently configured this board would be pretty suspect.

Indeed.
But then maybe we should use that test for most of what we're discussing. :D

JG

[Chris Goodwin]

If Figured Characteristics go away then there's a use for EC after all, if the rule is changed to allow Characteristics in ECs. (I know, if we had some ham...)

[Hugh Neilson]

If Figured Characteristics go away then there's a use for EC after all, if the rule is changed to allow Characteristics in ECs. (I know, if we had some ham...)

Chris, you've nailed the biggest problem with these discussions, in my opinion. We can really only discuss the issues in isolation, but what will make or break them in game, and make or break 6e itself, is how all the changes operate in tandem.

I don't envy Steve the herculean task before him.

[Vulcan]

Chris, you've nailed the biggest problem with these discussions, in my opinion. We can really only discuss the issues in isolation, but what will make or break them in game, and make or break 6e itself, is how all the changes operate in tandem.

I agree. We can argue individual changes ad infinitum. The real test of the system is going to be how all the changes work together.

Case in point: EC's give a cost break to certain concepts. The more points you have to spend on the EC, the more points you save. SO, charcters with LOTS of points in charcteristics don't have the points to spend on an big EC for maximum benefit... but then, they tend to get lots of benefit from figured characteristics.

If we loose Figured Characteristics, we should drop EC's too.

Of course, if we yank Figured Characteristics, then suddenly the Primary Charcteristics are overpriced (CON being the big one). So we reduce the cost... and now Adjustment Powers are a lot more effective against charcteristics than before... :hush: And without EC's, Drains are less effective against characters that used to use EC's a lot. Now Bricks are getting drained a lot, and need to spend more points on Power defense, while the Energy Projectors just laugh and blast the guy some more...

It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences. Changes in one thing lead to changes elsewhere, often not to your benefit.

HEROS 5th edition is pretty well balanced: not perfect, but pretty well. I think 6E should be about tweaking and streamlining, not doing major overhauls to long-standing systems that work well together. ;)

[Kdansky]

HEROS 5th edition is pretty well balanced.
You are not searching for flaws well enough ;) Adjustment powers are in dire need a an overhaul: Suppress vs Drain vs Transfer is worse than KA vs EB, it just does not come up very often, so damaging that system some more before it was due maintenance anway does not hurt much.

In general, I think a "design from ground up" approach works far better than to patch some hole somewhere and then you have to clean up the mess it created (ECs -> Figureds -> CON -> Drain being the example). If you start with: "How do we want drains to work" and "What kind of frameworks make sense", you are bound to run into these issues that much.

Which is probably why Steve broke down the topics. We're a couple thousand posts in and it starts to make sense now... Steve, I have to admire your farsight right now. Well played.

[AnotherSkip]

Still think Steve is Pulling a DC trick of "distract thine enemies whilst thou gettests thine work done elsewhere..."

[Vulcan]

You are not searching for flaws well enough ;) Adjustment powers are in dire need a an overhaul: Suppress vs Drain vs Transfer is worse than KA vs EB, it just does not come up very often, so damaging that system some more before it was due maintenance anway does not hurt much.

In general, I think a "design from ground up" approach works far better than to patch some hole somewhere and then you have to clean up the mess it created (ECs -> Figureds -> CON -> Drain being the example). If you start with: "How do we want drains to work" and "What kind of frameworks make sense", you are bound to run into these issues that much.

Which is probably why Steve broke down the topics. We're a couple thousand posts in and it starts to make sense now... Steve, I have to admire your farsight right now. Well played.

Surely we can fix Adjustment powers without having to throw everything else that makes the game what it is away, can't we?

[steamteck]

Surely we can fix Adjustment powers without having to throw everything else that makes the game what it is away, can't we?

If not, Then why should long time fans bother with the new game. Which is basically what it would be. "Based on HERO.":nonp:

[James Gillen]

If not, Then why should long time fans bother with the new game. Which is basically what it would be. "Based on HERO.":nonp:

Like that Starsky & Hutch movie with Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson.

JG

[Markdoc]

Surely we can fix Adjustment powers without having to throw everything else that makes the game what it is away, can't we?

We can. I agree adjustment powers need some fixin', but that's not actually hard to do.

My suggestions (buried back in the thread somewhere, but here they are again)

Break Healing completely away from Aid. Make Regen a single power which simply lets you move your REC down the time chart and Healing a UAA equivalent. That's essentially what it does now, just in a clumsy way. Retain the adders for limbs, recover from death, etc.

Aid and Drain should cost the same as Transfer. Which makes Drain 10 per d6, Aid 10 and Transfer 15. Increase the price (significantly) for extending the period over which points fade, thus nerfing the "I use my self-only Aid to boost all my physical stats for the next 5 hours" thing that got Aid pumped to 10 XP per d6 in the first place.

Succor remains as a long-lasting, but limited form of Aid/transfer

As it stands right now, Aid is almost worthless, but under 4E it was regularly abused. This should fix most problems without rejiggering the whole system.

cheers, Mark

[James Gillen]

Break Healing completely away from Aid. Make Regen a single power which simply lets you move your REC down the time chart and Healing a UAA equivalent. That's essentially what it does now, just in a clumsy way. Retain the adders for limbs, recover from death, etc.


Yes.



Aid and Drain should cost the same as Transfer. Which makes Drain 10 per d6, Aid 10 and Transfer 15. Increase the price (significantly) for extending the period over which points fade, thus nerfing the "I use my self-only Aid to boost all my physical stats for the next 5 hours" thing that got Aid pumped to 10 XP per d6 in the first place.

Succor remains as a long-lasting, but limited form of Aid/transfer

As it stands right now, Aid is almost worthless, but under 4E it was regularly abused. This should fix most problems without rejiggering the whole system.

cheers, Mark

Aid already is 10 per d6. Are you saying it should be 15?

JG

[ajackson]

Aid already is 10 per d6. Are you saying it should be 15?
Is there any strong reason for Aid to exist at all? It's not like you can't do the same thing with UBO on a power.

[PhilFleischmann]

Aid and Drain should cost the same as Transfer. Which makes Drain 10 per d6, Aid 10 and Transfer 15.
Uh, I'm missing something here. Or did you miss something? 10, 10, and 15 are what they cost now. And 10 is not the same as 15.

[James Gillen]

Is there any strong reason for Aid to exist at all? It's not like you can't do the same thing with UBO on a power.

Boosting someone else's CHA?

jg

[AnotherSkip]

Buy your stats as UBO....


Wait, that gets really really weird.

[ajackson]

Boosting someone else's CHA?
+10 charisma, usable by others (+0.25) (6) is perfectly functional.

[James Gillen]

+10 charisma, usable by others (+0.25) (6) is perfectly functional.

It would be if charisma was a game stat. :D

JG

[Markdoc]

Aid already is 10 per d6. Are you saying it should be 15?

JG

No - sorry, I meant Aid plus Drain should cost the same as transfer. Drain is 10 and seem to be reasonably priced for what it does (subtract from another). Transfer subtracts from another and adds to yourself. Aid adds to yourself. The cost of the two should be relative. The trouble is that Aid at 10 points is two expensive but without some tweaking, is too cheap at 5.

Ideally it'd cost 7, so Aid (only up to amount rolled on drain) plus Drain would be the same as Transfer, but 7's an odd number :D

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Uh, I'm missing something here. Or did you miss something? 10, 10, and 15 are what they cost now. And 10 is not the same as 15.

No - sorry, I meant Aid plus Drain should cost the same as transfer. Drain is 10 and seem to be reasonably priced for what it does (subtract from another). Transfer subtracts from another and adds to yourself. Aid adds to yourself. The cost of the two together should be relatively similar. The trouble is that Aid at 10 points is too expensive but without some tweaking, is too cheap at 5.

Ideally it'd cost 7, so Aid (only up to amount rolled on drain) plus Drain would be the same as Transfer, but 7's an odd number :D



Aid already is 10 per d6. Are you saying it should be 15?

JG

Oops, typing in a hurry - as noted above I meant that Aid and Drain are already 10 and Transfer is 15. So draining another and boosting yourself using transfer is cheaper than doing the same thing via Aid + Drain.

The trouble is that we've tried Aid at 5 points per d6 and that was too cheap - but 10 points per d6 is too expensive - it's almost always better to buy a power or CHA UBO instead.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Oops, typing in a hurry - as noted above I meant that Aid and Drain are already 10 and Transfer is 15. So draining another and boosting yourself using transfer is cheaper than doing the same thing via Aid + Drain.

The trouble is that we've tried Aid at 5 points per d6 and that was too cheap - but 10 points per d6 is too expensive - it's almost always better to buy a power or CHA UBO instead.

I agree that the pricing should be appropriate. I disagree with your determination, however. Transfer is not "Drain + Aid". I note the following differences:

- Drain keeps going indefinitely. The FAQ, if not the rules as written, says if you've hit the Aid cap, you no longer Drain. I would eliminate that restriction, but it's there.

- Normal Aid can be used on multiple people. The Transfer Aid is Self Only.

- Aid can be used without draining. Transfer cannot.

- Aid costs no END. Transfer costs END.

Transfer could be built as:

- 1d6 Drain, Linked to Aid (-1/4), 1/2 END (+1/4) 10 points
- PLUS 1d6 Aid, self Only (-1/2), Linked to Drain (-1/4), Costs END (-1/2) 4.44 points

That's just under 15 points per d6 of Transfer - and note that the Drain keeps working after the Aid is capped. Transfer is not underpriced.

The END modifications make 2d6 of the combination cost 3 END, like 2d6 of Transfer. Take Costs END off Aid and it costs 6 (5.71). Slap 1 1/2x END on Drain for -1/4 and it costs 7 (6.67), so a total of under 12.5 for 1d6.

[Markdoc]

I agree that the pricing should be appropriate. I disagree with your determination, however. Transfer is not "Drain + Aid". I note the following differences:

- Drain keeps going indefinitely. The FAQ, if not the rules as written, says if you've hit the Aid cap, you no longer Drain. I would eliminate that restriction, but it's there.

- Normal Aid can be used on multiple people. The Transfer Aid is Self Only.

- Aid can be used without draining. Transfer cannot.

- Aid costs no END. Transfer costs END.

Transfer could be built as:

- 1d6 Drain, Linked to Aid (-1/4), 1/2 END (+1/4) 10 points
- PLUS 1d6 Aid, self Only (-1/2), Linked to Drain (-1/4), Costs END (-1/2) 4.44 points

That's just under 15 points per d6 of Transfer - and note that the Drain keeps working after the Aid is capped. Transfer is not underpriced.

The END modifications make 2d6 of the combination cost 3 END, like 2d6 of Transfer. Take Costs END off Aid and it costs 6 (5.71). Slap 1 1/2x END on Drain for -1/4 and it costs 7 (6.67), so a total of under 12.5 for 1d6.

I agree that Transfer is not underpriced (even if we eliminate the math error in your calculation, where you have applied linked to both powers, your basic point is still correct). My earlier comments were that Aid is over-priced (at 10 per d6) but it was underpriced at 5.

My suggestion was to make Aid work more like Transfer/Drain (eliminate the cap, as you suggest) make it self only at base (like Transfer) and make it cost END (like Transfer/Drain) - but cut the cost to 5. If you want an Aid that works like today's you can use UBO and 0 END - which lifts the cost back to 10, same as today's.

In short, make Aid, Transfer and Drain work the same way and rationalise their costs. That simplifies the rules and actually opens up more options.

The biggest problem with all of these adjustment powers is duration - it's where they were/are most readily abused. In the past, fixing that problem led to all sorts of rules contortions because of the Aid/Healing/Regen confusion.

It becomes much simpler if Healing is broken out as a subset/variant on Regen (both are simply rapid healing) and Aid/Transfer/Drain become what they were supposed to be: short term adjustment powers.

cheers, Mark

[James Gillen]

Well yeah, making a 5 pt. Aid UBO and 0 END would solve the cost issue, given that I'm one of those who never liked doubling the cost of Aid. I also don't know why it is no END by default, except maybe in contrast to the Succor option.

JG

[PhilFleischmann]

My suggestion was to make Aid work more like Transfer/Drain (eliminate the cap, as you suggest) make it self only at base (like Transfer) and make it cost END (like Transfer/Drain) - but cut the cost to 5. If you want an Aid that works like today's you can use UBO and 0 END - which lifts the cost back to 10, same as today's.
If the bottom line is that Aid, as it currently is (affecting others, 0 END) winds up costing the same thing, then what's the point of making the change?

You seem to agree that Transfer is correctly priced (since if there's nobody around to Drain from, you can't Aid yourself). And you seem to agree that Drain is correctly priced. And you seem to agree that Aid is correctly priced*, with it's current applicability and 0 END costs. So why change it?

In general, no one should really ever buy Aid, Self-Only. The whole raison d'etre of Aid is to Aid others. If you want to sometimes have some extra points of power/characteristic, then just buy them outright with a conditional limitation on them. It's a simpler build, more accurately priced, and easier to deal with in-game.

*With the exception of the Delayed Return Rate Advantage, and possibly the Multiple Effects at Once Advantage. And I agree with you on those.

[Hugh Neilson]

I agree that Transfer is not underpriced (even if we eliminate the math error in your calculation, where you have applied linked to both powers, your basic point is still correct). My earlier comments were that Aid is over-priced (at 10 per d6) but it was underpriced at 5.

Why does everyone think Aid's price was doubled in 5e over 4e? It went from 5 points for Aid that costs END to 10 points for Aid, 0 END. To make them comparable, Aid 0 END costs 7.5 in 4e and 10 in 5e, while Aid, Costs END, costs 5 points in 4e and 6 2/3 points in 5e.

No book with me, but last time I recall reading Linked carefully, -1/2 on the lower point power means that I can only use the lower point power if I use the higher point power, but does not prevent me using the higher point power all by itself. I then use the -1/4 on both to require both powers always be used in tandem.

[Markdoc]

If the bottom line is that Aid, as it currently is (affecting others, 0 END) winds up costing the same thing, then what's the point of making the change?

You seem to agree that Transfer is correctly priced (since if there's nobody around to Drain from, you can't Aid yourself). And you seem to agree that Drain is correctly priced. And you seem to agree that Aid is correctly priced*, with it's current applicability and 0 END costs. So why change it?

Why?


In general, no one should really ever buy Aid, Self-Only. The whole raison d'etre of Aid is to Aid others. If you want to sometimes have some extra points of power/characteristic, then just buy them outright with a conditional limitation on them. It's a simpler build, more accurately priced, and easier to deal with in-game.

Because of this. You say "No-one should ever buy Aid, Self-Only". But in the game, this seems by far to be the most common use of Aid (it's also pretty common in fantasy/superhero/martial arts genres). In other words, you're saying "No problem, if only people would use the power differently"

Also - and much more important in my opinion - is that the price change only makes sense if the rules are changed as - in other words, make adjustment powers all the same. Read the rules on adjustment powers. You can paraphrase it as "Adjustment powers work like this - except for Aid, which has its own rules". It doesn't cost end by Default (therefore in theory can't be put in frameworks without special permission, it's capped in how much it adds and so on. Why not simplify the rules and clear away all that excess confusing verbiage?

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

The problem is not the pricing of Aid. It is the need for a more accurate value for Self Only when applied to Aid. -1/2 is not adequate to reflect the value lost, as evidenced by comparing the cost with equal points spent on just buying the abilities directly.

The solution to such a problem is "correct the limitation value", not "well, don't buy those abilities".

[PhilFleischmann]

Why?

Because of this. You say "No-one should ever buy Aid, Self-Only". But in the game, this seems by far to be the most common use of Aid (it's also pretty common in fantasy/superhero/martial arts genres).
Not in my experience. In all my years of HERO gaming, Aid has been mostly used to help others (possibly in addition to onesself). Notice that I said "in general..." I'm sure there are some circumstances where someone would want to buy Aid, Self Only, but I can't think of what those circumstances are off hand.

3d6 Aid, Self Only, (30 Active) costs 20 Points, and gives you about 10 points of a particular ability, and it takes an Attack Action to have it. Or you can take two Attack Actions and have (probably) 18 points of that ability. It will fade completely in 2 or 4 turns, unless you take more Attack Actions to keep it going.

For the same 20 points, you can have +20 points of the ability, all the time, that never fade, and never take an Attack Action just to have. If NCM gets in the way, then you can have +10 points of the ability, all the time, that never fade, and never take an Attack Action just to have.

Or for the same 20 points, you could have +30 points of an ability with a -1/2 conditional Limitation (e.g. Only at Night), or +40 points of the ability with a -1 conditional Limitation (e.g. Only in Rain or Water), or +60 points of the ability with a -2 conditional Limitation (e.g. Only in the Light of the Brightly Shining Mid-day Sun). None of these fade, as long as the condition holds, nor do they take an Attack Action to have access to. And of course, you could also have these with other kinds of limitations, such as Focus, Charges, Activation, Concentration, Lockout, Increased END Cost, and many others.

I don't see why anyone would ever want to buy Aid, Self Only.


In other words, you're saying "No problem, if only people would use the power differently"
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm asking you why you want to change the way the power is built, when the bottom line cost and functionality comes out exactly the same? Apparently, it's because you think most people want Aid as Self Only, which may be true in your games, but that's a separate issue.

And yes, the Self-Only Limitation for Aid, as Hugh points out is undervalued, butt's also a separate issue. If it were -1 or maybe even more, then it might be worth it to buy Aid, Self Only.


Read the rules on adjustment powers. You can paraphrase it as "Adjustment powers work like this - except for Aid, which has its own rules". It doesn't cost end by Default (therefore in theory can't be put in frameworks without special permission, it's capped in how much it adds and so on. Why not simplify the rules and clear away all that excess confusing verbiage?
The only Framework that you can't put Aid in without special permission is the EC. Other Frameworks will take Aid just fine. Transfer and Healing also have a cap (as should Succor, IMO). It seems to me you're "clearing away excess verbage" (which I don't find at all confusing), only to put in new excess verbage about how to add various Advantages to make Aid like what it is now - including on the character sheet, where those extra Advantages have to be written down, which is the worst place to add more verbage because it complicates the game *during play*.

[ajackson]

I don't see why anyone would ever want to buy Aid, Self Only.
1d6 aid (increased max +14; 17 base), all powers in a special effect (+2), increased duration 2 steps (+0.5), self only, concentration 0 DCV (59 active, 29 real). Spend 6 rounds before combat, and you've got +20 active points to all ten or so powers you have in that special effect for the next five minutes.

This assumes aid goes away if you switch the multipower slot, which is kind of weird. If not, abuse is a lot easier, because that same power only costs 3 real points instead of 29.

[Hugh Neilson]

Not in my experience. In all my years of HERO gaming, Aid has been mostly used to help others (possibly in addition to onesself). Notice that I said "in general..." I'm sure there are some circumstances where someone would want to buy Aid, Self Only, but I can't think of what those circumstances are off hand.

3d6 Aid, Self Only, (30 Active) costs 20 Points, and gives you about 10 points of a particular ability, and it takes an Attack Action to have it. Or you can take two Attack Actions and have (probably) 18 points of that ability. It will fade completely in 2 or 4 turns, unless you take more Attack Actions to keep it going.

For the same 20 points, you can have +20 points of the ability, all the time, that never fade, and never take an Attack Action just to have. If NCM gets in the way, then you can have +10 points of the ability, all the time, that never fade, and never take an Attack Action just to have.

Or for the same 20 points, you could have +30 points of an ability with a -1/2 conditional Limitation (e.g. Only at Night), or +40 points of the ability with a -1 conditional Limitation (e.g. Only in Rain or Water), or +60 points of the ability with a -2 conditional Limitation (e.g. Only in the Light of the Brightly Shining Mid-day Sun). None of these fade, as long as the condition holds, nor do they take an Attack Action to have access to. And of course, you could also have these with other kinds of limitations, such as Focus, Charges, Activation, Concentration, Lockout, Increased END Cost, and many others.

I don't see why anyone would ever want to buy Aid, Self Only.

I don't see why anyone would ever want to buy Aid, Self Only when it is so clearly overpriced due to the Self Only limitation being far more limiting than its points saved would indicate.

I do see why someone would want to buy it - but they are quickly set straight by the excessive cost.

[Markdoc]

Not in my experience. In all my years of HERO gaming, Aid has been mostly used to help others (possibly in addition to onesself). Notice that I said "in general..." I'm sure there are some circumstances where someone would want to buy Aid, Self Only, but I can't think of what those circumstances are off hand.

See below.


1d6 aid (increased max +14; 17 base), all powers in a special effect (+2), increased duration 2 steps (+0.5), self only, concentration 0 DCV (59 active, 29 real). Spend 6 rounds before combat, and you've got +20 active points to all ten or so powers you have in that special effect for the next five minutes.

Yep, what he said. Aid - when it was priced at 5 point per die - was a killer for self-boosting characters, and we saw quite a few of them, in several groups with several GMs. SteveL specifically commented that these sorts of chracters were the prime reason for lifting the cost of Aid from 5 points to 10, so it wasn't just our group. At 5 points per die you get +20 to multiple powers for only 17 real points and it only takes you two phases. There's plenty of other options - team buffers are even worse because for slightly more they can dump a bonus on everyone.

Even at 10 points per die, as ajackson indicates, it's viable.

But that's largely a side issue. The problems I see with adjustment powers are multiple and all relatively easily solved.
1) Aid, at it's current price, is useless for the simplest use - single buffs - whether it is self-buffing or party buffs.
Solution: Drop the price for self only to 5 (essentially solving the pricing issue Hugh identifies with self only). No extra verbiage is required: it's a simple power that plays nice with existing advantages/limitations and should require no further explanation. It balances well with Drain and Transfer at this level too.
2) Aid does become potentially abusive when you are buffing multiple powers at once - but primarily when the duration is extended. This is true of Drain and Transfer too, though to a lesser extent since it's harder to use them pre-combat. A 5 minute duration in combat is a long, long time. In practical terms it's as good as an hour since very few combats will ever go 25 turns.
Solution: Use an adder for increased duration. This allows us to retain a simple +1/4 per step up the time chart, but essentially makes the first few steps relatively more extensive, which is where the combat use - and abuse - primarily lies.

These are simple, small changes which improve balance and decrease extra explanation. I haven't seen a downside indicated as of now.

cheers, Mark

[AnotherSkip]

breaking Aid in combat only involves Linking it to either
a. a power you will use every round/phase
b. 0 phase actions like stances or Pre Attacks...

with linked (-1/2) and Self only (-1/2) you are allready at -1 in disads...

:)

[Klaus Mogensen]

1d6 aid (increased max +14; 17 base), all powers in a special effect (+2), increased duration 2 steps (+0.5), self only, concentration 0 DCV (59 active, 29 real). Spend 6 rounds before combat, and you've got +20 active points to all ten or so powers you have in that special effect for the next five minutes.

This assumes aid goes away if you switch the multipower slot, which is kind of weird. If not, abuse is a lot easier, because that same power only costs 3 real points instead of 29.
Actually, the rules (5e p74) specifically states that if you switch a framework away from an Adjustment Power, the effect stays.

So here:
23 Multipower (58 Active Points): All powers are Full Phase (-½), Self Only (-½), and Cost END (-½)
2 ultra: 2d6 Aid STR, max +18, Return Rate 5 points/hour (+1)
2 ultra: 2d6 Aid CON, max +18, Return Rate 5 points/hour (+1)
2 ultra: 2d6 Aid BODY, max +18, Return Rate 5 points/hour (+1)
2 ultra: 2d6 Aid DEX, max +18, Return Rate 5 points/hour (+1)
2 ultra: 2d6 Aid SPD, max +18, Return Rate 5 points/hour (+1)
2 ultra: 2d6 Aid STUN, max +18, Return Rate 5 points/hour (+1)
Total cost: 35

Every hour, this character spends a minute boosting his physical characteristics: STR +30, CON +15, BODY +15, DEX +10, SPD +3, STUN +30. All this for 35 points with the slight limitation that he has to spend some time and END every hour to stay fully boosted (the boost takes 6 hours to fade fully). This boost isn't affected by NCM.

Indeed, why would anyone want to buy Aid, Self Only? ;)

- Klaus

[Vulcan]

Actually, the rules (5e p74) specifically states that if you switch a framework away from an Adjustment Power, the effect stays.

So here:
23 Multipower (58 Active Points): All powers are Full Phase (-½), Self Only (-½), and Cost END (-½)
2 ultra: 2d6 Aid STR, max +18, Return Rate 5 points/hour (+1)
2 ultra: 2d6 Aid CON, max +18, Return Rate 5 points/hour (+1)
2 ultra: 2d6 Aid BODY, max +18, Return Rate 5 points/hour (+1)
2 ultra: 2d6 Aid DEX, max +18, Return Rate 5 points/hour (+1)
2 ultra: 2d6 Aid SPD, max +18, Return Rate 5 points/hour (+1)
2 ultra: 2d6 Aid STUN, max +18, Return Rate 5 points/hour (+1)
Total cost: 35

Every hour, this character spends a minute boosting his physical characteristics: STR +30, CON +15, BODY +15, DEX +10, SPD +3, STUN +30. All this for 35 points with the slight limitation that he has to spend some time and END every hour to stay fully boosted (the boost takes 6 hours to fade fully). This boost isn't affected by NCM.

Indeed, why would anyone want to buy Aid, Self Only? ;)

- Klaus

Because a lot of GM's would rule that as soon as you switch points in that MP, the aided points go away. Rules notwithstanding...

[Klaus Mogensen]

Because a lot of GM's would rule that as soon as you switch points in that MP, the aided points go away. Rules notwithstanding...
Which may be a hint that the rules don't work very well in this case. ;)

At any rate, we should strive to make a game where GM's wouldn't have to disregard or overrule written rules. Probably not possible, but we should at least address obvious cases.

The obvious fix in this case would be to let all the Aids count towards the same maximum; i.e., if you aid yourself to +20 STR, you can at most Aid yourself 10 more points of the common maximum of 30.

Of course, this won't help if the character just has a single Aid in a Multipower with all sorts of other Powers...

- Klaus

[PhilFleischmann]

Yep, what he said.
No, not at all what he said. ajackson used, not one, but both of the Advantages that I already agreed with you are unbalanced. Have you changed your mind on this, or am I misremembering?

IOW, given that Prolonged Fade Rate, and Multiple things at once Advantages are unbalanced as-is, no one would ever buy a plain Aid, Self-Only.


SteveL specifically commented that these sorts of chracters were the prime reason for lifting the cost of Aid from 5 points to 10,
And he was right to do so, IMO.


At 5 points per die you get +20 to multiple powers for only 17 real points and it only takes you two phases.
And here you are using the Advantage which I thought we both agreed was unbalanced.


Even at 10 points per die, as ajackson indicates, it's viable.
...if you use the under-costed Advantages, in which case it's not merely viable, but abusive.


But that's largely a side issue. The problems I see with adjustment powers are multiple and all relatively easily solved.
1) Aid, at it's current price, is useless for the simplest use - single buffs - whether it is self-buffing or party buffs.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. You seem to be agreeing with me that a Self-Only Aid is "useless" (but so what, when you can just buy extra power/char for yourself, with a limitation if you like?). And when not self-only, it seems to me to be quite useful at 10 points per die - buff everyone (including yourself) for 3.5 points (that fade), or more with multiple uses and/or increased cap. Granted, only 10 points of Aid isn't worth much at all, but that's true of any Attack Power as well.


Solution: Drop the price for self only to 5 (essentially solving the pricing issue Hugh identifies with self only). No extra verbiage is required: it's a simple power that plays nice with existing advantages/limitations and should require no further explanation. It balances well with Drain and Transfer at this level too.
I don't think it does. As Hugh pointed out, Transfer is not just "Drain plus Self-Only Aid," because you can't Aid yourself unless you have someone to Drain from (likely an unwilling target, whom you have to hit successfully at no range).


2) Aid does become potentially abusive when you are buffing multiple powers at once - but primarily when the duration is extended. This is true of Drain and Transfer too, though to a lesser extent since it's harder to use them pre-combat. A 5 minute duration in combat is a long, long time. In practical terms it's as good as an hour since very few combats will ever go 25 turns.
Solution: Use an adder for increased duration. This allows us to retain a simple +1/4 per step up the time chart, but essentially makes the first few steps relatively more extensive, which is where the combat use - and abuse - primarily lies.
Hmmm... If I'm understanding you correctly, you're proposing that an Slower Fade Rate should cost *both* an Adder and an Advantage (and you're keeping the Advantage at +1/4 per step on the time chart). What would the value of that Adder be? And is the Advantage applied to the Adder as well as the base power (as per the current rules)?

My proposal (which I mentioned on one (or more) of the Power Threads, was to make the first two steps on the time chart be +1/2. So fading 5/minute is +1/2, and 5/5 minutes is +1. And then +1/4 per step thereafter (because they become less useful). (And since I'm a die-hard enthusiast for granularity, you could even allow fade at 5/2 turns for +1/4, and 5/2 minutes for +3/4.)


These are simple, small changes which improve balance and decrease extra explanation. I haven't seen a downside indicated as of now.
I don't see how needing both an Adder and an Advantage for one function decreases explanation, nor do I see how "You can only Aid your own abilities unless you buy an Advantage, UBO, which doesn't quite work like UBO normally works, and here's how it works in this case..." is less explanation than "You can Aid yourself or others, or you can take a -X 'Self Only' Limitation."

And I don't see how it improves balance better than just increasing the value of the Self Only Lim.

[Markdoc]

I don't see how needing both an Adder and an Advantage for one function decreases explanation, nor do I see how "You can only Aid your own abilities unless you buy an Advantage, UBO, which doesn't quite work like UBO normally works, and here's how it works in this case..." is less explanation than "You can Aid yourself or others, or you can take a -X 'Self Only' Limitation."

And I don't see how it improves balance better than just increasing the value of the Self Only Lim.

I've trimmed out all the individual comments you made because I can sum up my response fairly simply. Yes, Aid used to augment a single power or CHA is pretty much useless as stands - whether it's self only or to aid others. When combined with the advantages like aiding multiple CHA and increased fade rate, it easily becomes abusive - whether it's self only or to aid others. That's why I consider it broken.

Because it's useless without those advantages, the later version is usually what I see: hence my comment that "Self only is very common - perhaps the most most common usage of Aid". Hugh, ajackson and I have all seen it, so I doubt your claim that "nobody uses self-only aid". It is in fact common, and saying "It wouldn't be common if the rules were different" rather misses the point. Currently the rules aren't different.

Last off, I didn't suggest that Aid should use UBO differently from any other powers. If Aid becomes a power, that is self-only by default, you should be able to use UBO exactly like any other self-only power like Force Field.

The suggestion of an adder for being able to extend the fade rate is based on two assumptions.
1. keeping the interval for the fade rate the same for each step on the time table - exactly the same as for other powers which use the time table - is simpler than having different prices for shifting a step.
2. Since transfer powers are cumulative, multiple applications which fade slowly are almost as beneficial as a single large application (Depending on where the cap is set). Since the benefit does not scale equally with the dice of the power, an adder seems more appropriate than an advantage. The rule is thus - all adjustment powers can buy the adder: Delayed Fade Rate (maybe +20 points?) and then increase their fade rate up the time table by 1 step per +1/4. That seems pretty simple to me.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

What I found rendered Aid most unbalanced pre-5e, was that it healed. 1d6 STUN Aid, persistent added 1d6 maximum to your STUN. Big deal. But if you were down STUN, it added back 1d6 every phase. Why buy REC?

A lot of the rest of the changes in 5e were, I think, backlash against overpowered adjustments in 4e. It's time to quit swinging the pendulum and review the effectiveness of adjustment powers overall - make them reasonable for the benefits they provide.

As Markdoc points out, presently they are useless for common applications and overpowered for other applications.

Why should we be able to affect multiple abilities doubling for +1/4? I can't buy +20 STR, then slap on a +1/4 advantage to also have +20 PRE. "All powers of a given SFX" works because it not only enhances the number of abilities, it restricts the types of abilities. Everyone has characteristics, so the ability to augment or reduce multiple stats at the same time is underpriced.

The in between steps have another issue. Why is the ability to Drain any two fire based powers a +1/2 advantage, and the ability to Drain fire-based EB and KA also a +1/2 advantage? The ability to select any two fire based powers is far superior.

[IndianaJoe3]

"All powers of a given SFX" works because it not only enhances the number of abilities, it restricts the types of abilities. Everyone has characteristics, so the ability to augment or reduce multiple stats at the same time is underpriced.

Just because everyone has Characteristics doesn't mean that Characteristics all have the same SFX. One might reasonably claim that some Characteristics share SFX, but claiming that they all share SFX is like claiming that Mind Scan and Tunneling share SFX because they're both Powers.

[Hugh Neilson]

Just because everyone has Characteristics doesn't mean that Characteristics all have the same SFX. One might reasonably claim that some Characteristics share SFX, but claiming that they all share SFX is like claiming that Mind Scan and Tunneling share SFX because they're both Powers.

The rules say something like "any two powers of the same SFX or any two characteristics".

[PhilFleischmann]

Yes, Aid used to augment a single power or CHA is pretty much useless as stands - whether it's self only or to aid others.
I don't see at all how it's useless to Aid others.


Because it's useless without those advantages,
A premise I do not grant.


Hugh, ajackson and I have all seen it, so I doubt your claim that "nobody uses self-only aid".
I never made any such claim.


Last off, I didn't suggest that Aid should use UBO differently from any other powers. If Aid becomes a power, that is self-only by default, you should be able to use UBO exactly like any other self-only power like Force Field.
To make an Aid under your proposal that works like Aid currently does - capable of boosting others' powers - then indeed it doesn't work like UBO normally does. UBO gives a power to another. Aid, UBO would allow others to use Aid. If Aid becomes self-only by default, Aid UBO would allow others to take an attack action to use the Aid on themselves. That may be a fine power, but it isn't the way Aid currently works. I don't want to lose the ability to build a power that works the way Aid currently does - like a Drain, or other attack, but it helps the person you hit instead of hurting them.

To make the current Aid from your proposed Aid would require something more like UAA - the other person is *affected* by the power, rather than *given* the ability to use the power.

Other dissimilarities between RAW Aid and your Aid, UBO is the line-of-sight requirement and the limits on the number of people to whom the Aid make be given.


The suggestion of an adder for being able to extend the fade rate is based on two assumptions.
1. keeping the interval for the fade rate the same for each step on the time table - exactly the same as for other powers which use the time table
And which powers would those be? The only Power I can find that has anything to do with a certain amount of time is some of the categories of Life Support, such as needing to eat or breathe less often - and those work the way my proposal does: there's a fixed price per step on the time chart - only up to a certain point - and anything beyond that has a different price (in the case of LS, free).


- is simpler than having different prices for shifting a step.
I still don't see how Adder + Advantage is simpler than two Advantage Values. Or better in any way.


2. Since transfer powers are cumulative, multiple applications which fade slowly are almost as beneficial as a single large application (Depending on where the cap is set). Since the benefit does not scale equally with the dice of the power, an adder seems more appropriate than an advantage. The rule is thus - all adjustment powers can buy the adder: Delayed Fade Rate (maybe +20 points?) and then increase their fade rate up the time table by 1 step per +1/4. That seems pretty simple to me.
I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded phrase above. More dice is more beneficial, regardless of the fade rate, and since you're already paying for the dice, you're already paying for the benefit. That's how Advantages work: a +1/2 Advantage on a 20-point base power only costs 10 points, but the same advantage on a 40-point power costs 20. I'm sure you know that already. I guess I just don't understand your point here. Is this what you mean:

4d6 Aid (Self-only by Default) has a base cost of 20, but it fades 5 points/turn.
Then you add on the +20 Adder so you can reduce the fade rate - you haven't actually reduced it yet, but you've purchased the ability to do so. You've spent 40 points so far, and you've still got 4d6 Aid, that still fades at 5 points/turn.
Then you buy, say +1/2 worth of reduced fade rate, so that it fades at 5 points/5 minutes.
The power now costs (20+20) x 1.5 = 60 points. So you have 4d6 Aid (average roll 14 cp of benefit, to a maximum of 24 cp), that fades at 5 cp per 5 minutes.

Is that what you mean? I understand that you haven't settled on the value of the Adder yet.

[IndianaJoe3]

Just because everyone has Characteristics doesn't mean that Characteristics all have the same SFX. One might reasonably claim that some Characteristics share SFX, but claiming that they all share SFX is like claiming that Mind Scan and Tunneling share SFX because they're both Powers.


The rules say something like "any two powers of the same SFX or any two characteristics".

In 5e, it's "...any two Characteristics or Powers with related special effects simultaneously." I interpret that to mean that the Characteristics would need the same SFX. Did 5er change that?

[ghost-angel]

The wording is the same in 5E and 5ER; and it is also worded as seem that if you had a Characteristic and a Power that chared SFX the +1/2 could affect them both.

I take Characteristic included in the statements to make sure that Players/GMs understand that your Characteristics (as opposed to Characteristic Powers) can also be affected by Adjustment Powers normally.

[Dr.Device]

I posted this early in the thread, but have made a few changes and added some examples.

I think this system has the advantage of keeping almost complete backward compatibility with the current system, while adding flexibility.

I don't think all three frameworks should be combined, but I think Multipowers and Variable Power Pools should be replaced with a more flexible Power Pool concept.
Currently Multipower is a pool of Active points, allocated via slots. VPP is a pool of real points, allocated via control cost. What I am proposing is to allow either (or both) types of allocation to either type of pool.

The following has parts heavily cribbed from various ideas I have seen on these boards. This is a rough draft. I'm not really happy with the term Pool Control that I use, but it was all I could think of at the moment.

Power Pools
A power pool gives you a pool of points that you can distribute between various powers. A pool can be either an Active Point Pool (APP) or a Real Point Pool (RPP). There are plusses and minuses to each type.

Active Point Pool (APP): An APP has a base cost of 1 character point per 1 Active Point in the pool. The total of Active Points of powers allocated in the pool can never exceed the base pool cost. Limitations may be put on the pool cost to lower its Real Point cost. Only limitations which affect every power in the pool may be taken on the pool.
Real Point Pool (RPP): An RPP has a cost of 1 character point per 1 Real Point in the pool. The total Real Points of powers allocated in the pool can never exceed the pool cost. No limitations can be taken on the pool cost.

Allocating Points
For either kind of pool, the points are allocated via slots and/or a pool control.

Slots- A slot is a specific power that can be used from the pool. A slot may be activated as a zero-phase action. To find the cost of a slot, determine what the Real Cost of the power would be if purchased outside the pool. This includes any limitations which affect switching slots, such as extra time to switch slots, or limited situations in which slots can be switched. Divide this number by 10 (for a fixed slot) or 5 (for a flexible slot).

Fixed Slots: A fixed slot must be allocated (but not necessarily used) at full power. So a fixed slot with a 10d6 Energy Blast with no modifiers would use up fifty points from the pool, even if only used as an 8d6 Energy Blast.
Flexible Slots: A flexible slot can be allocated with any number of points up to the maximum it was purchased for. So the above 10d6 Energy Blast would only use 40 points of the pool if it was only being used at 8d6.

Pool Control- A pool control allows a character to allocate points toward any power that fits the special effect of the pool. The base time to allocate points to a power with a pool control is one turn. If a character has a Power skill for the pool, he may make a skill roll to allocate points as a full phase action. This skill roll is at -1 per 10 active points in the power.
The base cost of the pool control is one half of the largest number of Active Points the character can allocate to a single power in the pool. In other words, the most Active Points that can be allocated to a single power within a pool control is twice the base cost of the Pool Control. GMs may want to limit a Pool Control to half the pool cost, when used with an RPP.

Pool Control Advantages:
For a +1/2 advantage on the Pool Control, points can be allocated as a half-phase action.
For a +1 advantage on the Pool Control, points can be allocated as a zero-phase action.
For a +1 advantage on the Pool Control, no skill roll is necessary to allocate points in combat.
Pool Control Limitations:
Any limitation that will be applied to every power in the pool may also be taken on the Pool Control.
Further, the following limitation may apply.
(See list of VPP limitations from 5ER)

_______________
This has the advantage of being (mostly) backwards compatible. A Multipower is just an APP with slots and no Pool Control, and a Variable Power Pools is an RPP with Pool Controls and no slots.



Examples:
Eric the Eldritch has the Amulet of Egon, which gives him magical powers. When he first starts his career, he has the following framework.

53 Eldritch Energies: 80pt APP; OIF (Amulet of Egon; -1/2)
8 m Eldritch Blast : 12d6 Energy Blast (60ap)
8 m Eldritch Flight : 20" Flight; Reduced Endurance (+1/2) (60ap)
6 m Eldritch Shield : Forcefield (15 PD/ED/Power Def) (45ap)

This construct acts like a regular Multipower. Eric can allocate the 80 active points of the pool among the three powers as he chooses.

As he becomes more skilled with the amulet, rather than adding additional normal slots, eric adds a pool control. The result looks like:

53 Eldritch Energies: 80pt APP; OIF (Amulet of Egon; -1/2)
8 m Eldritch Blast : 12d6 Energy Blast (60ap)
8 m Eldritch Flight : 20" Flight; Reduced Endurance (+1/2) (60ap)
6 m Eldritch Shield : Forcefield (15 PD/ED/Power Def) (45ap)
10 Cantrips Pool Control for 20ap powers; Can Be allocated as half-phase action (+1/2)

This construct acts like a regular multipower, except that Eric can allocate up to 20 Active points of the pool to any magical power he chooses by making an appropriate power skill roll and using a half-phase action.
____

Prestidigitator can pull ectoplasm from the air to form almost anything he can imagine. If he stops concentrating on a given item, it quickly dissipates. His player buys an RPP to represent this.

60 Ectoplasm : 60pt RPP
30 Ectoplasmic Control: Pool Control for 60ap Powers

This acts just like a VPP under current rules. He can any combination of powers so long as the total real points of the powers totals to 60 or less, and each power has 60 or fewer active points. To change powers in combat, he has to use a full phase and make a successful skill roll.

After being surprised one too many times with no offense or defense ready, he buys two dedicated slots:

60 Ectoplasm : 60pt RPP
24 Ectoplasmic Control: Pool Control for 60ap Powers; Physical Manifestation (All powers; -1/4)
6 u Ectoplasmic Sword : 3d6 RKA; Restrainable (-1/2), No Range (-1/2) (45ap/22rp)
3 u Ectoplasmic Mail : Armor (10pd,10ed); Physical Manifestation (-1/4), Activate (15-, -1/4) (30ap/20rp)

Now he can manifest his sword and armor as a zero-phase action. He still has to use a full turn and make a successful skill roll to manifest anything else.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Power Pools
A power pool gives you a pool of points that you can distribute between various powers. A pool can be either an Active Point Pool (APP) or a Real Point Pool (RPP). There are plusses and minuses to each type.

Active Point Pool (APP): An APP has a base cost of 1 character point per 1 Active Point in the pool. The total of Active Points of powers allocated in the pool can never exceed the base pool cost. Limitations may be put on the pool cost to lower its Real Point cost. Only limitations which affect every power in the pool may be taken on the pool.
Real Point Pool (RPP): An RPP has a cost of 1 character point per 1 Real Point in the pool. The total Real Points of powers allocated in the pool can never exceed the pool cost. No limitations can be taken on the pool cost.

Allocating Points
For either kind of pool, the points are allocated via slots and/or a pool control.

Slots- A slot is a specific power that can be used from the pool. A slot may be activated as a zero-phase action. To find the cost of a slot, determine what the Real Cost of the power would be if purchased outside the pool. This includes any limitations which affect switching slots, such as extra time to switch slots, or limited situations in which slots can be switched. Divide this number by 10 (for a fixed slot) or 5 (for a flexible slot).

Fixed Slots: A fixed slot must be allocated (but not necessarily used) at full power. So a fixed slot with a 10d6 Energy Blast with no modifiers would use up fifty points from the pool, even if only used as an 8d6 Energy Blast.
Flexible Slots: A flexible slot can be allocated with any number of points up to the maximum it was purchased for. So the above 10d6 Energy Blast would only use 40 points of the pool if it was only being used at 8d6.

Pool Control- A pool control allows a character to allocate points toward any power that fits the special effect of the pool. The base time to allocate points to a power with a pool control is one turn. If a character has a Power skill for the pool, he may make a skill roll to allocate points as a full phase action. This skill roll is at -1 per 10 active points in the power.
The base cost of the pool control is one half of the largest number of Active Points the character can allocate to a single power in the pool. In other words, the most Active Points that can be allocated to a single power within a pool control is twice the base cost of the Pool Control. GMs may want to limit a Pool Control to half the pool cost, when used with an RPP.

Pool Control Advantages:
For a +1/2 advantage on the Pool Control, points can be allocated as a half-phase action.
For a +1 advantage on the Pool Control, points can be allocated as a zero-phase action.
For a +1 advantage on the Pool Control, no skill roll is necessary to allocate points in combat.
Pool Control Limitations:
Any limitation that will be applied to every power in the pool may also be taken on the Pool Control.
Further, the following limitation may apply.
(See list of VPP limitations from 5ER)
This looks a lot like the Flexible Power (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1703774&postcount=737) I presented back in October, with a few variations and fewer options.

One thing I don't understand: Why would anyone choose to buy an Active Point Pool rather than a Real Point Pool? As far as I can see, a Real Point Pool is effectively an Active Point Pool where you can take different Limitations on the powers and still get a discount on the Power Pool cost.

To illustrate, let's redo Eric's Eldritch Energies as an RPP:

53 Eldritch Energies: 53pt RPP
8 m Eldritch Blast: 12d6 Energy Blast; OIF (Amulet of Egon; -1/2) (40rp)
8 m Eldritch Flight: 20" Flight; Reduced Endurance (+1/2); OIF (Amulet of Egon; -1/2) (40rp)
6 m Eldritch Shield: Forcefield (15 PD/ED/Power Def); OIF (Amulet of Egon; -1/2) (30rp)

As you can see, the cost is the same, but we can now add a slot that would be illegal in the APP, since the Active Cost is 100ap:

8 m Eldritch Burst: 10d6 Energy Blast; OAF Cone (+1); No Range (-½), Double END (-½); OIF (Amulet of Egon; -1/2) (40rp)

IOW, with an RPP, you can do all you can do with an APP - but the reverse isn't true. You might as well scrap the APP and only have the RPP - which is basically what I did in my version.

- Klaus

[Steve Long]

Hey folx! It's time for me to start reading all the 6E threads, and that means I need to lock them.

Hopefully 15 months has been plenty of time for anyone who wanted to have a say, to have a say. ;) So please, don't start up other threads to try to continue discussions, send me PMs with points you "just have to make," or anything like that. It's time for y'all to sit back, relax, have a frosty beverage, and let me get 6E written. ;)

We definitely appreciate everyone's interest, participation, and ideas! I'm looking forward to reading the posts and seeing what nuggets of wisdom lurk therein. I have no doubt 6E is going to be even better than it would have been because of our fans' enthusiastic efforts at providing us with input and suggestions. :hex: