Limitations Issues

[Markdoc]

And what happens if you buy a power Independant but not through a focus?

You can do this (something people often forget) - in fact, I am doing it in my current FH game: magical gifts can (in fact, in that setting, must) be bought with independant. Each magical gift comes with a Geas. If you ever break the Geas, your magical gift goes poof! It's already happened to one character: he forgot that he was never allowed to give or recieve a gift and gave a sick man some coins: that was the end of those points.

cheers, Mark

[Tonio]

If I take the Focus limitation on a character, I am telling the GM that (for the cost break I am receiving) I expect him to take the focus away occasionally.

Not really relevant to the point you were making... but I disagree with this statement. By taking the Focus Limitation, you're telling the GM that, for the cost break you're receiving, you expect him to put you in situations where the fact that the focus can be taken away is a problem. This sort of situations can include taking the focus away, but it need not. If you find yourself staying at range often, rather than using potentially more powerful HTH attacks, in order to protect a Blaster Gun from being taken away... you're seeing the problems associated with the Focus Limitation.

[Vulcan]

I don't see too many situations where someone will forgo an opportunity to use a more powerful melee attack to protect a focus for a weaker ranged attack... but that's just my experience. YMMV.

[BobGreenwade]

As I mentioned in another thread, I've been looking closely at Senses lately, and it's given me a thought or two on the Visible Limitation.

We've been looking at the possibility of allowing Advantage and Limitation values of less than -1/4. I've been advocating using decimals with a minimum value of 0.05, and I think some "tweaks" to Visible is yet another place where this can be taken advantage of.

Instead of just giving a bonus of -1/4 (or -0.25) to be Visible to three Sense Groups, maybe it could have value based on how many Sense Groups the Power is Visible to, and what sort of Sense Groups. For example, a Targeting Sense Group (Sight or Touch) could be -0.15, a Common Nontargeting Sense Group (Hearing or Smell) -0.10, and an Uncommon Nontargeting Sense Group (Radio or Mental) -0.05. A normally fully invisible Power could thus be Visible to one Sense Group in each category for -0.30.

This could also allow a Power that is normally Visible to three Sense Groups to be Visible to more than just three.

[Vulcan]

I often Consider some Bionics to be Independant in many superhero games, there just are not enough trustable cybersugreons out there to easly replace the bionic/human interfaces. and hacking your own brain is really a bad idea. as well as the sheer amount of pain you would go through..... generally, from a player persepctive buying independant on your bionics would mean back to character generation after they went away. Because realistically you would be a hopeless cripple.

That's kinda my point. If the remaining character is unplayable after the independant points go away, the character isn't being limited by independant - or even by focus, for that matter. He's being replaced rather than living with the limitation.

[AnotherSkip]

Some characters if they had all their bionics removed would be playable, others would not. Wolverine would be one example though of 'Playable after Independant goes away', though of course in the real world if you get your leg blown off did you really buy your running an Independant?

[BobGreenwade]

Here's something I've been pondering lately for Requires A Skill Roll.

The suggestion: For 1/4 less Limitation (or perhaps a slighly smaller one, like 0.2, if we go to my suggested 1/20 increments) the Required Skill Roll can add to the level of success for a Power that either has a success roll or affects others' rolls. The amount that the character must make the roll by to achieve a bonus is equal to the cost of a bonus (or penalty) of the Power.

For example: The superhero Captain Sonar has Hearing Group Images, with Power: Sonic Tricks as a Required Skill Roll. When he makes his Power: Sonic Tricks roll, for every +3 he makes that roll by he gets an additional -1 to the target's PER Roll to discover that the "Image" isn't real.

This could also apply not only to Images, as in the example, but also to Change Environment (increased effects being based on the Power's Combat Effects), Detect and other Enhanced Senses (+1 to PER per +1 by which the RSR is made; requires GM's permission), Find Weakness (+1 per +5 by which the RSR is made), Missile Deflection (+1 per +2 by which the RSR is made), or Skills bought as Powers (+1 per +2 by which the RSR is made). It could not be used to increase the character's OCV or Effect Rolls (though an exception might be possible in the case of Mind Scan, and other cases with the GM's permission).

It's a thought to consider, and in the actual book would probably take up less text that I used.

[Tonio]

Here's something I've been pondering lately for Requires A Skill Roll.

The suggestion: For 1/4 less Limitation (or perhaps a slighly smaller one, like 0.2, if we go to my suggested 1/20 increments) the Required Skill Roll can add to the level of success for a Power that either has a success roll or affects others' rolls. The amount that the character must make the roll by to achieve a bonus is equal to the cost of a bonus (or penalty) of the Power.

For example: The superhero Captain Sonar has Hearing Group Images, with Power: Sonic Tricks as a Required Skill Roll. When he makes his Power: Sonic Tricks roll, for every +3 he makes that roll by he gets an additional -1 to the target's PER Roll to discover that the "Image" isn't real.

This could also apply not only to Images, as in the example, but also to Change Environment (increased effects being based on the Power's Combat Effects), Detect and other Enhanced Senses (+1 to PER per +1 by which the RSR is made; requires GM's permission), Find Weakness (+1 per +5 by which the RSR is made), Missile Deflection (+1 per +2 by which the RSR is made), or Skills bought as Powers (+1 per +2 by which the RSR is made). It could not be used to increase the character's OCV or Effect Rolls (though an exception might be possible in the case of Mind Scan, and other cases with the GM's permission).

It's a thought to consider, and in the actual book would probably take up less text that I used.

Wouldn't that end up being an Advantage rather than a Limitation? Raising your Power skill is probably cheaper than adding those extra levels of effect, and the actual effect you might be acheiving could be higher than what the APs paid for...

Nevertheless, I like the concept, even if I don't agree with the implementation!

[BobGreenwade]

Wouldn't that end up being an Advantage rather than a Limitation? Raising your Power skill is probably cheaper than adding those extra levels of effect, and the actual effect you might be acheiving could be higher than what the APs paid for...

Nevertheless, I like the concept, even if I don't agree with the implementation!I don't think it'd be an Advantage. It'd always cost twice as much to raise the Power Skill by enough to get extra levels of effect; using the Images example, it costs only 3 points to get a raw -1 to PER, whereas it through the Skill would cost 6 points (for +3 to the Skill). And you still have to deal with the possibility of missing the RSR (which is still made at -1 per 10 Active Points in the Power) and the Power not working at all.

[Tonio]

I don't think it'd be an Advantage. It'd always cost twice as much to raise the Power Skill by enough to get extra levels of effect; using the Images example, it costs only 3 points to get a raw -1 to PER, whereas it through the Skill would cost 6 points (for +3 to the Skill).

Oops, I'd initially misread your post, and thought you'd said the Power got a bonus equal to how much you made your roll by. Still, you could use the raised Skill for multiple powers, and end up paying less.


And you still have to deal with the possibility of missing the RSR (which is still made at -1 per 10 Active Points in the Power) and the Power not working at all.

Which is, presumably, balanced with the cost break given by the RSR Limitation.

As an example... RSR with a -1 per 20AP, with your proposed modification, would end up being a -0 Limitation, and give a -3 to the skill roll for 60 AP Powers. Buying the Skill Roll to 21- costs, at worst, 23 pts. For these 23 pts, you get a virtually guaranteed bonus of 7pts on the average. For Images, that would cost 21 pts. Add a second power with the same RSR build, and you're already saving points without really limiting your powers at all (except for a 1 in 216 chance of your powers not working).

I think I'd be more comfortable with having this be a +1/4 Advantage (which requires the RSR or Activation Limitation).

[AnotherSkip]

I'm seeing it as Something like Autofire in some respects. the more you "hit" by the better you do.

[BobGreenwade]

As an example... RSR with a -1 per 20AP, with your proposed modification, would end up being a -0 Limitation, and give a -3 to the skill roll for 60 AP Powers. Buying the Skill Roll to 21- costs, at worst, 23 pts. For these 23 pts, you get a virtually guaranteed bonus of 7pts on the average. For Images, that would cost 21 pts. Add a second power with the same RSR build, and you're already saving points without really limiting your powers at all (except for a 1 in 216 chance of your powers not working).This sort of thing can already be done with RSR as it stands -- just give a Required Skill Roll with an Active Point Penalty of -1 per 5 points, and you have a -1 Limitation. In a 60 AP game that saves 30 points per Power if there are no other Limitations, with a -12 to the Roll when used at full power. A normal Power Skill at 29- (assuming a base roll of 14-) costs 33 points, so you still have a 17- chance (slightly better than 99.5%) of success and if it's applied to two or more powers you're saving points big time.

I do think that the book's discussion of the Limitation needs a mention of how it can be abused in this way just in general, whether my suggestion becomes included or not. (I thought it did, but I can't find it right now in the listing on pages 302-303 of 5ER.)

[Tonio]

This sort of thing can already be done with RSR as it stands -- just give a Required Skill Roll with an Active Point Penalty of -1 per 5 points, and you have a -1 Limitation. In a 60 AP game that saves 30 points per Power if there are no other Limitations, with a -12 to the Roll when used at full power. A normal Power Skill at 29- (assuming a base roll of 14-) costs 33 points, so you still have a 17- chance (slightly better than 99.5%) of success and if it's applied to two or more powers you're saving points big time.

I do think that the book's discussion of the Limitation needs a mention of how it can be abused in this way just in general, whether my suggestion becomes included or not. (I thought it did, but I can't find it right now in the listing on pages 302-303 of 5ER.)

Yah, I see your point. On the whole, I think I'd still prefer it to be an Advantage, if only to more correctly reflect how powerful the power is (through raising the Active Points, I mean).

In any case, as I said before, I love the concept, and I certainly think it should be included!

[Chris Goodwin]

Here's something I've been pondering lately for Requires A Skill Roll.

The suggestion: For 1/4 less Limitation (or perhaps a slighly smaller one, like 0.2, if we go to my suggested 1/20 increments) the Required Skill Roll can add to the level of success for a Power that either has a success roll or affects others' rolls. The amount that the character must make the roll by to achieve a bonus is equal to the cost of a bonus (or penalty) of the Power.

I have a very similar suggestion in my Mental Powers thread, though I can't remember the details.

Edit: Found it:


Requires A Skill Roll: Progressive: This is an additional modifier to the Requires A Skill Roll Limitation. The Power to which this Modifier is applied may not always be used at its full Active Points; instead, the amount of the Power that may be used is based on how successful the Skill Roll is.

Up to 4 Active Points of Power per point roll made by: -1/2
From 5-8 Active Points of Power per point roll made by: -1/4
9 or more Active Points of Power per point roll made by: -0

This assumes a successful roll including all penalties for Active Points used.

It should go without saying, but in case it doesn't: this maxes out at the amount of Active Points bought. In other words, a character can't gain more of a bonus than what he has bought by succeeding at his Skill Roll by a greater amount.

(Example: Guy with Images buys -5 in additional PER Roll penalties with Requires A Skill Roll and Progressive: 3 Active Points of Power per point. He pays (15 / 1.5) = 10 points for the additional penalties.)

Cost: -1/2 for up to 4 Active Points of Power per point the Skill Roll is made by; -1/4 for 5-8 Active Points per point the Skill Roll succeeds by; and -0 for 9 or more Active Points per point.

With this, you have to buy the bonuses you want to be able to apply, then apply the RSR with an added Limitation for how much of them you get to use.

[Hugh Neilson]

On the subject of de-linking, I'd like to see Charges lose the automatic 0 END. The base power should determine whether the charges cost END when used. If your concept requires both charges and 0 END, that would be an advantage and a limitation.

This will require revising the limitation applied to charges. This could mean adding 1/2 to each limitation value (ie subtracting "0 END"), however given the usual interaction between advantage and limitations, perhaps we should reprice so that the power has the same cost, more or less, with 0 END and its charges. For example:

12d6 EB, 1 charge currently costs 20 points.

12d6 EB, 0 END (+1/2) is 90 AP, so 1 charge needs to be -3.5 to get back to 20 points.

12d6 EB, 4 charges currently costs 30 points.

12d6 EB, 0 END (+1/2) is 90 AP, so 4 charges needs to be -2 to get back to 30 points.

12d6 EB, 8 charges currently costs 40 points.

12d6 EB, 0 END (+1/2) is 90 AP, so 8 charges needs to be -1.25 to get back to 40 points.

12d6 EB, 12 charges currently costs 48 points.

12d6 EB, 0 END (+1/2) is 90 AP, so 4 charges needs to be between -3/4 and -1 to get back to 45 to 51 points. Maybe we can break it down to 10 charges at -1 and 13 at -3/4.

12d6 EB, 16 charges currently costs 60 points.

12d6 EB, 0 END (+1/2) is 90 AP, so 16 charges needs to be -1/2 to get back to 60 points.

12d6 EB, 32 charges currently costs 75 points.

12d6 EB, 0 END (+1/2) is 90 AP, so 32 charges needs to be -1/4 to get close, at 75 points.

More than 32 charges would be no limitation, as the present +1/2 advantage equals the cost of 0 END.

This ignores autofire, of course.

Another Charges issue - I think the VPP rules should lock in points used for charges used. For example, assume a character has a 60 point VPP, and puts 30 points into an attack power with a -1 limitation for charges (4 charges under the present system). He uses enough charges to account for a -2 limitation (present system, he fired one shot). If he wants to reconfigure the pool, he has to leave 20 points in the original attack power until the charge would otherwise have recovered. The present ability to change the points once the charges run out renders the limitation meaningless.

[Grail Quest]

As an example... RSR with a -1 per 20AP, with your proposed modification, would end up being a -0 Limitation, and give a -3 to the skill roll for 60 AP Powers. Buying the Skill Roll to 21- costs, at worst, 23 pts. For these 23 pts, you get a virtually guaranteed bonus of 7pts on the average. For Images, that would cost 21 pts. Add a second power with the same RSR build, and you're already saving points without really limiting your powers at all (except for a 1 in 216 chance of your powers not working).

This is something that's bugged me about RSR: If you look at it cynically, RSR is a possible way for you to get a net discount through a mechanic. Or, you end up penalized with a power that costs more than it should simply because you are modelling an FX. Even if you don't adopt either of these POVs, there is still the issue of costing where RSRs complicate the cost analysis / cost comparison.

What if we replaced RSR with a "Sliding-Scale Activation". Suppose you buy your power with this sort of variable Activation 14- when you use it at 50% power. If you use it at 75% you would get an Activation 11-, if you use it at 25% you would get an Activation 17-. Or something like that.

[Hugh Neilson]

To me, a major use for RSR is to force an economy of scale to magic users in a fantasy setting. It's not cost effective buying that Magic skill up to have just one spell, but it's much more effective if you have half a dozen spells with the same skill requirement.

Broadened, it can enforce different branches of magic.

I think that, if Hero wants to be a toolkit with which you can build ANYTHING, it should include some detail of the purposes which the various tools were designed to implement - ie what is this limitation useful for, and in what kinds of games might it best be prohibited.

[Vulcan]

On the subject of de-linking, I'd like to see Charges lose the automatic 0 END. The base power should determine whether the charges cost END when used. If your concept requires both charges and 0 END, that would be an advantage and a limitation.

Sounds reasonable to me. It'll make guns cost more, though - not exactly a big deal.:D


This will require revising the limitation applied to charges. This could mean adding 1/2 to each limitation value (ie subtracting "0 END"), however given the usual interaction between advantage and limitations, perhaps we should reprice so that the power has the same cost, more or less, with 0 END and its charges. For example:

<specific examples snipped for brevity>


This ignores autofire, of course.

Which'll make assault rifles and machine guns a lot more expensive. Along with bringing the STUN of Killing attacks back in line, that'll go a long way to making guns less useful in superheroic games. And back in line with the genre. :thumbup:

In heroic games it won't matter because guns won't cost points anyway.:D


Another Charges issue - I think the VPP rules should lock in points used for charges used. For example, assume a character has a 60 point VPP, and puts 30 points into an attack power with a -1 limitation for charges (4 charges under the present system). He uses enough charges to account for a -2 limitation (present system, he fired one shot). If he wants to reconfigure the pool, he has to leave 20 points in the original attack power until the charge would otherwise have recovered. The present ability to change the points once the charges run out renders the limitation meaningless.

Either that or say that you can't use charges in a VPP unless there is charges on the control cost - or the charges recharge the same way you change slots (a gadget pool that changes in the lab...).

But clearly something should be done to close that loophole, one way or another.

[Hugh Neilson]

Sounds reasonable to me. It'll make guns cost more, though - not exactly a big deal.:D


6 charges is currently -3/4, right? 60/1.75 = 34
60 x 1.5 [0 END] = 90/2.75 = 33;90/2.5 = 36. Call 6 charges -1 1/2.


This would mean a 1d6+1 RKA (20 base) 0 END (30 AP), 6 charges (-1 1/2); OAF (-1) = 9. 20/1.75 = 11

The gun is actually marginally cheaper under this approach.


Which'll make assault rifles and machine guns a lot more expensive. Along with bringing the STUN of Killing attacks back in line, that'll go a long way to making guns less useful in superheroic games. And back in line with the genre. :thumbup:

In heroic games it won't matter because guns won't cost points anyway.:D

60 AP, 64 charges (+1/2) = 90
60 AP, 0 END (+1/2) = 90. Therefore 64 charges is -0.

1d6+1, Autofire (+1/2), 64 charges (+1/2), OAF Gun (-1) costs 20 at present.

1d6+1, Autofire (+1/2), 64 charges (+0), 0 END (+1), OAF Gun (-1) costs 25 as revised. I'm OK with that price change.


Either that or say that you can't use charges in a VPP unless there is charges on the control cost - or the charges recharge the same way you change slots (a gadget pool that changes in the lab...).

But clearly something should be done to close that loophole, one way or another.

I would let non-VPP charges recover in a means other than "at midnight, your charges come back". The gun would recharge in your armory, where you have bullets, and where your VPP could be changed. The drawback? If you're away from a location where you can access more bullets, your charges don't recover at all.

Normally you change slots with a skill roll, so "the same way you change slots" doesn't solve the problem. Even if every power in a VPP must have, say, 4 charges, you can rotate through a near-infinite number of such powers, so the charges are not really limiting you. My approach would mean 4 charges on the control cost essentially fixes the pool to four charges.

[Vulcan]

Out of curiousty, how did the second two blocks of quotes in that post get changed from me to Kdansky?

[steamteck]

To me, a major use for RSR is to force an economy of scale to magic users in a fantasy setting. It's not cost effective buying that Magic skill up to have just one spell, but it's much more effective if you have half a dozen spells with the same skill requirement.

Broadened, it can enforce different branches of magic.

.

that's exactly how we use it enforcing schools of magic so it fills that niche well.

[Hugh Neilson]

Out of curiousty, how did the second two blocks of quotes in that post get changed from me to Kdansky?

It was probably in my cut/paste - fixed.

[SteveZilla]

Caveat (this should be taken for anything that I post): IANAGD (I am not a game designer).

That said, I think that Charges needs some serious looking into. Having had the nightmare of trying to work it into HD, it's unlike just about any other Modifier. The main problem that I see with it is that it tries to do too much all in one, monolithic Modifier.

I'd love to see it split up into multiple, simpler Modifiers that follow the rules structure of all the others. Remove the "0-END" aspect of it. It's broken, points-wise, since Charges max out at +1 if the Power costs END, but max at +0 if the Power is already 0-END (which only costs +1/2 to achieve).

Boostable, Recoverable, etc. all get split out into separate Modifiers that have the requirement of a Charges-based ability.

Just my thoughts...and by no means a requirement for me to look forward to 6th.

Would Charges be easier to impliment if instead of Boostable/Recoverable/etc. changing what "level" each one was, they simply applied a flat 1/4, 1/2, etc. modifier to the Limitation?

[SteveZilla]

I want to agree with the folks who have suggested going decimal. I think it would make things much easier, for the newbie especially. I mean do any of us really use fractions in our regular lives much?

Maybe, as television is switching from the old analog to digital, it's time for HERO to go decimal and leave the fractions behind.

I would concur. Also, decimals are more "metric-y" than fractions, which seem more "English-y". To me, at least.

But I have no problem adding up various fractions that are all multiples of 1/4. But either decimals or fractions, people will still need pen & paper or calculator the same amount IMO.

[CGlied]

STUN Only

Doesn’t anyone else think STUN Only should be -1/4 limitation? Three reasons:
1) It does no KB
2) You can’t damage inanimate objects
3) Yes STUN only helps in a four color campaign where doing BODY is frowned upon, but what about the other genres?

[Klaus Mogensen]

STUN Only

Doesn’t anyone else think STUN Only should be -1/4 advantage? Three reasons:
1) It does no KB
2) You can’t damage inanimate objects
3) Yes STUN only helps in a four color campaign where doing BODY is frowned upon, but what about the other genres?

Does no KB is a good thing if the target is standing in front of innocent bystanders or delicate art/equipment.
Not doing BODY means you don't have to worry about putting full power into your attacks - you can't do lasting harm. This is particularly good for area attacks against hostage situations. Remember what happened in the Moscow Opera when a 'Does Body' sleep gas was used in a hostage situation.
Not being able to harm inanimate objects is only a problem if this is your only attack. However, I don't think I've ever seen a "Stun Only" attack that hasn't been in a Multipower with a normal attack ("Phasers set to stun").
If an area attack does BODY, it will damage or destroy a lot of property value: cars, windows, trees, stray cats, leashed poodles, etc. You avoid all this hassle with a "Stun Only" attack.
You are of course right that in some types of campaigns, these things don't matter much. That just means that this limitation is unsuitable for that sort of campaign (just as "Code Against Killing" would be).

If you want a limitation for doing less BODY, use "Reduced Penetration". This is a limitation because you don't get the advantage of not having to worry about BODY damage and KB.

- Klaus

[David Blue]

STUN Only

Doesn’t anyone else think STUN Only should be -1/4 advantage? Three reasons:
1) It does no KB
2) You can’t damage inanimate objects
3) Yes STUN only helps in a four color campaign where doing BODY is frowned upon, but what about the other genres?
I agree.

Sometimes the inability to push something or someone away is disadvantageous.

Very often, it's a serious limitation not to be able to damage inanimate objects, for example the locked door of your cell which is flooding, or the STUN-immune (Automata) zombies plodding towards you.

And this isn't automatically compensated for by a social advantage, such as complying with a widespread expectation that heroes don't do anybody injury.

So the limitation should be worth -¼ in many games.



Does no KB is a good thing if the target is standing in front of innocent bystanders or delicate art/equipment.
Not doing BODY means you don't have to worry about putting full power into your attacks - you can't do lasting harm. This is particularly good for area attacks against hostage situations. Remember what happened in the Moscow Opera when a 'Does Body' sleep gas was used in a hostage situation.
Not being able to harm inanimate objects is only a problem if this is your only attack. However, I don't think I've ever seen a "Stun Only" attack that hasn't been in a Multipower with a normal attack ("Phasers set to stun").
If an area attack does BODY, it will damage or destroy a lot of property value: cars, windows, trees, stray cats, leashed poodles, etc. You avoid all this hassle with a "Stun Only" attack.
You are of course right that in some types of campaigns, these things don't matter much. That just means that this limitation is unsuitable for that sort of campaign (just as "Code Against Killing" would be).

If you want a limitation for doing less BODY, use "Reduced Penetration". This is a limitation because you don't get the advantage of not having to worry about BODY damage and KB.

- Klaus
I don't agree.

The ability to knock bad buys back a little (and hopefully over) is sometimes valuable even if bystanders are behind them.

The frequent practice of putting a STUN Only attack in a Multipower with other attacks that do do BODY is evidence that it's worth a limitation. Evidently, people don't feel confident that a STUN Only attack will do everything they will need done.

That you can work around the problem by having attacks that are not so limited doesn't show that the limitation isn't real, or else no limitation on an attack that could be put in a Multipower together with attacks that weren't hampered in the same way would be valid.

Also, that in some games it isn't problematic to do more BODY doesn't prove that STUN Only attacks cannot reasonably be employed in those games. It only shows that STUN Only attacks are less valuable in those games, and so more clearly worth a small limitation.

It doesn't make sense to say that if a limited attack is less effective in some games, the gamemasters of all those games should ban it outright, thus preventing the costing of the less effective attack from becoming an issue. I think it's quite all right to put in the same game both Professor Steamhead's new STUN Only Steam Treatment (-¼) and abundant supplies of both unaffected Automata and other monsters like werewolves and vampires that must be dispatched not merely disconcerted.

[SteveZilla]

Maybe, if Advantages and Limitations remain fractions instead of going decimal, 6E allowed steps of 1/8 intead of 1/4?

[Vulcan]

Does no KB is a good thing if the target is standing in front of innocent bystanders or delicate art/equipment.
Not doing BODY means you don't have to worry about putting full power into your attacks - you can't do lasting harm. This is particularly good for area attacks against hostage situations. Remember what happened in the Moscow Opera when a 'Does Body' sleep gas was used in a hostage situation.
Not being able to harm inanimate objects is only a problem if this is your only attack. However, I don't think I've ever seen a "Stun Only" attack that hasn't been in a Multipower with a normal attack ("Phasers set to stun").
If an area attack does BODY, it will damage or destroy a lot of property value: cars, windows, trees, stray cats, leashed poodles, etc. You avoid all this hassle with a "Stun Only" attack.
You are of course right that in some types of campaigns, these things don't matter much. That just means that this limitation is unsuitable for that sort of campaign (just as "Code Against Killing" would be).

If you want a limitation for doing less BODY, use "Reduced Penetration". This is a limitation because you don't get the advantage of not having to worry about BODY damage and KB.

- Klaus

In most settings, STUN Only really isn't a limitation for those very reasons. I would only allow it to be a limitation - and give points back (at a -1/4) - for a character that has no other effective attacks. And that includes STR. And he would have to buy off the limitation before buying another attack of any type.

I have no problem with a character taking it, they should just be aware that it is a -0 most of the time.

[BobGreenwade]

STUN Only

Doesn’t anyone else think STUN Only should be -1/4 advantage? Three reasons:
1) It does no KB
2) You can’t damage inanimate objects
3) Yes STUN only helps in a four color campaign where doing BODY is frowned upon, but what about the other genres?Do you mean a +1/4 Advantage, or a -1/4 Limitation?

Personally, I think that if No Knockback is a -1/4 Limitation, then (assuming the same scaling of Limitations is kept) No BODY should be -1/2. Doing no BODY is less utility than doing BODY but no Knockback.


Does no KB is a good thing if the target is standing in front of innocent bystanders or delicate art/equipment.
Not doing BODY means you don't have to worry about putting full power into your attacks - you can't do lasting harm. This is particularly good for area attacks against hostage situations. Remember what happened in the Moscow Opera when a 'Does Body' sleep gas was used in a hostage situation.
Not being able to harm inanimate objects is only a problem if this is your only attack. However, I don't think I've ever seen a "Stun Only" attack that hasn't been in a Multipower with a normal attack ("Phasers set to stun").
If an area attack does BODY, it will damage or destroy a lot of property value: cars, windows, trees, stray cats, leashed poodles, etc. You avoid all this hassle with a "Stun Only" attack.

You are of course right that in some types of campaigns, these things don't matter much. That just means that this limitation is unsuitable for that sort of campaign (just as "Code Against Killing" would be).

If you want a limitation for doing less BODY, use "Reduced Penetration". This is a limitation because you don't get the advantage of not having to worry about BODY damage and KB.

- KlausWhat do you mean, some types of campaigns? I'd say many if not most. Remember that, despite the overwhelming popularity of Champions, the Hero System has been spending the at least last three editions trying to get away from the all-superhero image.

An attack that does no BODY cannot affect walls, Entangles, Force Walls, Vehicles, robots, foci, or anything else that doesn't have STUN. Not doing property damage is only an advantage if you're in a location where there's property around that you don't want to damage, and even in a four-color superhero setting that's not always the case.

In practice, having an Energy Blast simply defined as STUN Only, as opposed to being NND or AVLD, is (at least in my experience) extremely rare. Even in the published books I don't recall seeing it more than maybe twice, and I can't offhand think of a single 5th Edition character who has it (though it's entirely possible that I'm forgetting someone).

Does BODY is a +1 Advantage for a reason. The same reasoning should apply to Does No BODY.

[Klaus Mogensen]

What do you mean, some types of campaigns? I'd say many if not most. Remember that, despite the overwhelming popularity of Champions, the Hero System has been spending the at least last three editions trying to get away from the all-superhero image.

Sci-fi campaigns a la Star Trek
Modern-day campaigns where killing is a capital offense
Romantic Fantasy where the good guys are pure and clean

Does BODY is a +1 Advantage for a reason. The same reasoning should apply to Does No BODY.
Does BODY is a +1 Advantage because it applies to attacks against no normal defense; i.e., every point of BODY in the attack will damage targets without the relevant special defense. STUN Only, OTOH, typically applies to normal attacks that often do little or no BODY against typical targets, anyway.

I grant that STUN Only has inherent limitations, but it also carries inherent advantages. I happen to think they balance reasonably well. If you want a point break for doing less BODY, take Reduced Penetration instead.

- Klaus

[Vulcan]

Thank you for putting that more clearly than I did, Klaus.

[PhilFleischmann]

I agree with Bob. In superheroes and space-opera, STUN ONLY is probably a -0, but just about everywhere else, it's a Limitation.


Modern-day campaigns where killing is a capital offense
Romantic Fantasy where the good guys are pure and clean
Assuming the PCs are the good guys, any killing they do is likely to be a good thing, rather than a crime. Cops, Soldiers, Spies (license to kill), etc.

And in most romantic fantasy, there's still plenty of killing on the part of the good guys. It's one of the required good things that they must do. The Three Musketeers didn't use ratan swords.

[Vulcan]

Even a rattan 'sword' can kill, that's why the SCA guys who use them wear armor. The adjective you want is 'boffer.'

[David Blue]

In practice, having an Energy Blast simply defined as STUN Only, as opposed to being NND or AVLD, is (at least in my experience) extremely rare. Even in the published books I don't recall seeing it more than maybe twice, and I can't offhand think of a single 5th Edition character who has it (though it's entirely possible that I'm forgetting someone).
I should have spoken more precisely before. I didn't mean to say that it's very common to have a STUN Only attack, in a Multipower together with other attacks that do do BODY. I agree: STUN Only Energy Blasts are very uncommon, because STUN Only means that often they won't get the job done. I only meant to say that when such an attack is taken at all it's always or almost always seen in company with an attack that does BODY. I've seen such attacks ... I think twice, but never without a "big brother".

[BobGreenwade]

I agree: STUN Only Energy Blasts are very uncommon, because STUN Only means that often they won't get the job done.And this, just in case anyone didn't get it already, is the heart of my assertion.

[tesuji]

I should have spoken more precisely before. I didn't mean to say that it's very common to have a STUN Only attack, in a Multipower together with other attacks that do do BODY. I agree: STUN Only Energy Blasts are very uncommon, because STUN Only means that often they won't get the job done. I only meant to say that when such an attack is taken at all it's always or almost always seen in company with an attack that does BODY. I've seen such attacks ... I think twice, but never without a "big brother".

i would argue that if indeed it is expected that a stun only attack will almost if not always be accompanied by a body attack option that points to the notion that the choice of stun only is NOT equivalently effective to the other?

I have seen characters with killing attacks only, i have seen characters with eb only, and i too have seen character with those plus STUN ONLY but never seen a character built for play with just stun only attacks.

So i would say the perception here as well is they are not able to be on their own.

one obvious example where they are needed is busting out of entangles.

now, some mention the killing issue??? isn't stun only primarily for EB, which can by default be spread? So against a soft target i dont want to maim, i just spread a little, gain some ocv for it, and dont turn them into red ooozy jello, right?

unless the campaign style is "really heroic" i tend to allow a lim for stun only, and primarily i really disagree with the DEFAULT rule being one that takes "actual effectiveness" and trades it off for "social concerns" or "role playing". should DRAIN get a power boost in core rule because it is frequently NECROMANCY and in some campaigns NECROMANCY is evil and subject to hunteds and the like? no? then why should STUN ONLY not get balanced cost just because in some campaigns killing is really bad?

on the other hand, nothing toasts a bad guy like a freindly entangle and a rapid fire stun only blast from an ally at his now 0 dcv self.

[Vulcan]

You know, I hadn't thought of it that way before. Thanks for pointing out the hole in my reasoning.:thumbup:

[CGlied]

Cool. So a bunch of people agree with me. Neat! So we can expect to see that changed in 6th ed? Any other issues we need to solve?

[SteveZilla]

On the other hand, nothing toasts a bad guy like a freindly entangle and a rapid fire stun only blast from an ally at his now 0 dcv self.

Other than not damaging the entangle and thus hastening the victim's escape (and not forcing Mr. Tangler to buy Takes No Damage on his Entangle), it doesn't do any more "toasting" than a normal attack.

Now, if it was an Autofire Stun Only attack, *that* would toast him. "Oh, look, I hit with all 5 shots. Again." :eg:

I guess I tend to expect targets of entangles to be able to get out of them on their own in a reasonable amount of time, and thus to be of limited (but still usefull) utility.

[Talon]

Cool. So a bunch of people agree with me. Neat! So we can expect to see that changed in 6th ed?

Well, there is one person who needs to agree first. :)

[tesuji]

Other than not damaging the entangle and thus hastening the victim's escape (and not forcing Mr. Tangler to buy Takes No Damage on his Entangle), it doesn't do any more "toasting" than a normal attack.


uhhh... you may be missing the rapid fire part.

entangle makes enemy 0 dcv.
rapid fire provides dcv penalties for extra shots.
so, taking ALL THREE SHOTS at 0 dcv is a GOOD thing.

with a regular attack, the first shot will, if effective, also break the entangle, releasing the enemy and restoring his dcv for the subsequent rapid fire shots. so only one attack gets thru with the easy 0 dcv target.

with a stun only eb as the rapid fire attack, usually its easy to get all three shots in even at the -4 ocv.

see the effectiveness gained?





I guess I tend to expect targets of entangles to be able to get out of them on their own in a reasonable amount of time, and thus to be of limited (but still usefull) utility.

naturally i was assuming this as a planned maneuver - the pc with the rapid fire stun only eb is either holding an action or acts later in the same segment.

the target would have to either have a held action himself then OR have enough causla strength to shatter the entangle in one go. naturally the entangle does have to be at least minimally effective for this to work, enough to beat casual strength - which might simply make it very effective against non-bricks even for weaker entangles.

it also beats the "takes no damage" entangle approaches because neither the simple entangle nor the stun only eb cost any extra points - rapid fire ability is free. by the time you buy "takes no damage" under ap caps or limits you weaken the entangle power enough to limit its effectiveness in broader sense.

its just an example of synergy - three separate elements - standard entangle, eb stun only, and rapid fire - that combine to be more than the sum of their parts for no points. While not game breaking, although some might find it so, IMO it does tend to add an element to the no stun costing debate.

IMO the actual value of a stun only eb vs a regular eb is affected by the following:
1 - is this group made up of good team and tactic oriented players likely to figure this out?
2 - do others in the team have now or have reasonable concept-wise access to entangles?

for example, in a non-fantasy historical-ish game where instant entangles were more rare, this issue would be not in play and i could let a "blunted arrow" or taser get a limitation for stun only, but in a "spidey teams with taser boy" i would be very less likly to allow a disad for the stun only, and might require an advantage.

[BobGreenwade]

You know, I hadn't thought of it that way before. Thanks for pointing out the hole in my reasoning.:thumbup:To whom and what are you referring?:think:
I guess I tend to expect targets of entangles to be able to get out of them on their own in a reasonable amount of time, and thus to be of limited (but still usefull) utility.If the target of the Entangle tries to use a STUN Only attack, it still will have zero effect.

[AnotherSkip]

Doesn't the Entangled guy still get the bennie of the Entangled defense against the Stun Damage?

[SteveZilla]

Doesn't the Entangled guy still get the bennie of the Entangled defense against the Stun Damage?

Yes. Likely, all 6 points of it. Presuming the Entangle isn't Advantaged, and the attack isn't NND/AVLD.

[SteveZilla]

If the target of the Entangle tries to use a STUN Only attack, it still will have zero effect.

Yes, the victim of an Entangle cannot break out of the entangle (barring it having a Vulnerability) by using a Stun Only attack.

But we're talking about the victim of the Entangle being also the target of the Stun Only attack.

:)

[SteveZilla]

uhhh... you may be missing the rapid fire part.

entangle makes enemy 0 dcv.
rapid fire provides dcv penalties for extra shots.
so, taking ALL THREE SHOTS at 0 dcv is a GOOD thing.

with a regular attack, the first shot will, if effective, also break the entangle, releasing the enemy and restoring his dcv for the subsequent rapid fire shots. so only one attack gets thru with the easy 0 dcv target.

with a stun only eb as the rapid fire attack, usually its easy to get all three shots in even at the -4 ocv.

see the effectiveness gained?

Ah, yes. That's for the clarification! :) But shouldn't that be "rapid fire provides ocv penalties for extra shots."? ;)

After reading Rapid Fire again, it strikes me that one could capitalize on all of this by usign an Autofire RKA, Increased Stun Multiple along with Rapid Fire (he'd need the Rapid Autofire skill, but that's minor). This maximizes the chance to hit the Stun Lotto! :eg:

[BobGreenwade]

Yes, the victim of an Entangle cannot break out of the entangle (barring it having a Vulnerability) by using a Stun Only attack.

But we're talking about the victim of the Entangle being also the target of the Stun Only attack.More broadly, we're talking about how useful (or not) a STUN Only attack is compared to one that also does BODY.

[Starlight]

Doesn’t anyone else think STUN Only should be -1/4 limitation?

The limitations of a Stun Only Attack.

1) It does no Body damage
2) It does no KB
3) Inanimate objects are unaffected

The advantages of a Stun Only Attack.

1) It does no Body damage
2) It does no KB
3) Inanimate objects are unaffected

Stun Only Attacks are frequently an excellent option to use in game situations. They have weaknesses. They have strengths. That's why Stun Only is, quite correctly, a -0 limitation.

In fact a case could can easily be made for Stun Only being an advantage. :)

Judging by the millions of dollars being spent on trying to develop such attack modalities in the real world it would seem the US DoD at least agrees with the above viewpoint. Any company that developed a genuine honest-to-god stunner weapon would be set on an instant path to mega-profits with sales to every law enforcement agency in the world.

Back to in game context: Stun Only is a specialized attack mode, in the same way that Flash or Ego Attack is. Should mentalists get a -1/4 limitation on Ego Attack because it does no Body. No, of course not. The idea is silly. The same is true for Stun Only attacks. Don't think of a Stun Only Attack as a limited form of the base attack. It is more correctly viewed as a different modality of attack, as different from the base attack as Flash is from an Energy Blast. To make that clearer I'd personally suggest changing Stun Only from a -0 limitation to a +0 advantage in 6th edition.

[BobGreenwade]

The limitations of a Stun Only Attack.

1) It does no Body damage
2) It does no KB
3) Inanimate objects are unaffected

The advantages of a Stun Only Attack.

1) It does no Body damage
2) It does no KB
3) Inanimate objects are unaffected

Stun Only Attacks are frequently an excellent option to use in game situations. They have weaknesses. They have strengths. That's why Stun Only is, quite correctly, a -0 limitation.

In fact a case could can easily be made for Stun Only being an advantage. :)

Judging by the millions of dollars being spent on trying to develop such attack modalities in the real world it would seem the US DoD at least agrees with the above viewpoint. Any company that developed a genuine honest-to-god stunner weapon would be set on an instant path to mega-profits with sales to every law enforcement agency in the world.

Back to in game context: Stun Only is a specialized attack mode, in the same way that Flash or Ego Attack is. Should mentalists get a -1/4 limitation on Ego Attack because it does no Body. No, of course not. The idea is silly. The same is true for Stun Only attacks. Don't think of a Stun Only Attack as a limited form of the base attack. It is more correctly viewed as a different modality of attack, as different from the base attack as Flash is from an Energy Blast. To make that clearer I'd personally suggest changing Stun Only from a -0 limitation to a +0 advantage in 6th edition.
What are the advantages of a STUN Only EB? You didn't list any; you only repeated the limitations.

And of course Ego Attack doesn't get a -1/4 Limitation for doing no BODY; it already does no BODY in its base form. We're talking about Energy Blast; for that Power doing STUN Only is a Limited form, because it does less than the base form.

To make clearer: modeling Hero System stats for the weapons being researched by DoD and others would involve the use of the NND and AVLD Advantages, both of which are also STUN Only by default.

[Starlight]

The very points that are the limitations of a Stun Only Attack are also the advantages of that attack mode. It all depends on the situation when the attack is made.

1) It does no Body damage. Stun Only attacks will not injure a panicked child who is running headlong into mortal danger and, not heeding any shouted warnings, can be stopped in time only by rendering her unconscious. Should a Stun Only attack miss the intended target it will not injure or kill hostages clustered beyond a villain. When it's not certain exactly who is on which side, you can take them all down and sort it out later. This is the more humane approach to kill them all and let God decide. A live prisoner can be turned into a dead enemy with ease. The converse is usually much harder. Your mind controlled team-mate will be so glad you bought a Stun Only Attack when he is instructed to switch off his defensive force field and then turn on his team.

2) It does no KB. This is rather more occasionally advantageous in that no KB eliminates the possibility of unintended collateral damage. It also means the villain drops in his tracks. This is handy if he is holding the King's daughter hostage on the edge of a cliff.

3) Inanimate objects are unaffected. This is going to be very important when a fight breaks out in the space shuttle you're travelling in. Not to mention in the worryingly unstable caves where the Orcish raiding party is holding their captives. Crushed and buried in the same instant from an errant spell blast is just as dead as being cleaved by a Orc's battle axe.

There will be situations when a Stun Only attack will be less effective than a standard energy blast. There are also going to be situations when a Stun Only attack is notably advantageous compared to a standard energy blast. Given that -0 is a fair and balanced modifier. A Stun Only attack is not a limited Energy Blast, it doesn't do less than an Energy Blast. It does something different from a standard Energy Blast. A standard Energy Blast cannot replicate the effect of a Stun Only Energy Blast.

The Ego Attack analogy is weak. I withdraw it. I was trying to point out that doing no Body damage is not a terrible limitation that makes an attack useless but that particular example is flawed.

[Hugh Neilson]

And of course Ego Attack doesn't get a -1/4 Limitation for doing no BODY; it already does no BODY in its base form. We're talking about Energy Blast; for that Power doing STUN Only is a Limited form, because it does less than the base form.

Ego Attack gets IPE (+3/4), AVLD (+1 1/2), Range Line of Sight (+1/2) and "Targets OECV vs DECV instead of OCV vs DCV" (which I want to call -0) which, applied to an Energy Blast, would be 18.75 points per 1d6. Apparently, "only vs human class minds" is a -7/8 limitation :eek:

[Klaus Mogensen]

Ego Attack gets IPE (+3/4), AVLD (+1 1/2), Range Line of Sight (+1/2) and "Targets OECV vs DECV instead of OCV vs DCV" (which I want to call -0) which, applied to an Energy Blast, would be 18.75 points per 1d6. Apparently, "only vs human class minds" is a -7/8 limitation :eek:
Actually, "Based on EGO Combat Value" (which includes line-of-sight range and vs. mental defense) is +1. OTOH, EGO Attack affects desolid, which is another +½. Add IPE (+3/4), and you get +2.25, or 16.25 per d6. So "only vs human class minds" is a de facto -5/8 limitation - still quite a lot.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

Actually, "Based on EGO Combat Value" (which includes line-of-sight range and vs. mental defense) is +1. OTOH, EGO Attack affects desolid, which is another +½. Add IPE (+3/4), and you get +2.25, or 16.25 per d6. So "only vs human class minds" is a de facto -5/8 limitation - still quite a lot.

BoECV is also underpriced if you break out its components. It's a wonder those Mentalists don't take over the world...

[BobGreenwade]

The very points that are the limitations of a Stun Only Attack are also the advantages of that attack mode. It all depends on the situation when the attack is made.

1) It does no Body damage. Stun Only attacks will not injure a panicked child who is running headlong into mortal danger and, not heeding any shouted warnings, can be stopped in time only by rendering her unconscious. Should a Stun Only attack miss the intended target it will not injure or kill hostages clustered beyond a villain. When it's not certain exactly who is on which side, you can take them all down and sort it out later. This is the more humane approach to kill them all and let God decide. A live prisoner can be turned into a dead enemy with ease. The converse is usually much harder. Your mind controlled team-mate will be so glad you bought a Stun Only Attack when he is instructed to switch off his defensive force field and then turn on his team.

2) It does no KB. This is rather more occasionally advantageous in that no KB eliminates the possibility of unintended collateral damage. It also means the villain drops in his tracks. This is handy if he is holding the King's daughter hostage on the edge of a cliff.

3) Inanimate objects are unaffected. This is going to be very important when a fight breaks out in the space shuttle you're travelling in. Not to mention in the worryingly unstable caves where the Orcish raiding party is holding their captives. Crushed and buried in the same instant from an errant spell blast is just as dead as being cleaved by a Orc's battle axe.

There will be situations when a Stun Only attack will be less effective than a standard energy blast. There are also going to be situations when a Stun Only attack is notably advantageous compared to a standard energy blast. Given that -0 is a fair and balanced modifier. A Stun Only attack is not a limited Energy Blast, it doesn't do less than an Energy Blast. It does something different from a standard Energy Blast. A standard Energy Blast cannot replicate the effect of a Stun Only Energy Blast. Nearly all of these are situations not necessarily of the usual type, even in the genres they belong in. It's rather like how the Focus Limitation has aspects of the Usable By Others Advantage for free; just because there are situations where it's better doesn't mean that it's better overall, or that the advantages and weaknesses balance out.

If the advantages and weaknesses of not doing Knockback balance out, for example, then it should also be a +0 Modifier.

[PhilFleischmann]

BoECV is also underpriced if you break out its components. It's a wonder those Mentalists don't take over the world...
Or the components of BoECV are overpriced.

[Hugh Neilson]

Or the components of BoECV are overpriced.

True - one of the two is mispriced would be a more accurate statement.

[The Main Man]

This thought just occurred to me:

While it may already be partially implied, why not introduce Conditional Power and Limited Power, two very broad Power Limitations, at the beginning of the Power Limitations section as gauges?

I think that something like that would go a long way towards educating new players on creating new Power Limitations.

[BobGreenwade]

I've been doing a bit of reading and thinking about Senses, and Perceptibility of Powers is one specific issue in which I support a finer grade of Advantages and Limitations. (This is the thread under which we're supposed to discuss issues related to Limitations, but since it's also regarding an issue concerning Advantages I've cross-post it from there.)

Right now, for example, the Visible Limitation is -1/4 for others' ability to perceive a normally invisible Power with three Sense Groups. But what if the Special Effect demands (or at least strongly suggests) that the Power should be perceptible to more than that?

Take a lightning bolt, for example. Obviously it'll be perceptible to Sight (big flash) and Hearing (thunder). TUEP also correctly pointed out that it would be perceptible to Radio. But it could also be perceptible to Smell, since it ionizes the air and leaves the scent of ozone. And the heat and concussion would likely also make it perceptible to Touch.

So let's suppose the basic requirement is for a Power to be perceptible to Sight (as a Targeting Sense Group), one commonly-used Sense Group (usually Hearing, though Touch should be acceptable), and one uncommonly-used sense Group (Smell, Radio, Mental, or a campaign-specific Sense Group).

Then, also suppose that we're going with the 0.05 increments that I've advocated. Adding Sense Groups could work roughly as follows: -0.15 for Visible to Sight, -0.10 for Hearing or Touch, -0.05 for all other Sense Groups. The classic Visible Limitation then becomes -0.30, which is only slightly greater than the existing -0.25.

Now the above-described lightning blast gets an additional -0.10 Limitation for being perceptible to Smell and Touch. Even at Superheroic level, this will likely only make a difference of a few points (a 15d6 EB with no other Modifiers costs 68 points instead of 75), but it does make for finer detail in Power descriptions.

Going the other way under 5th Edition is simpler, of course, since we already have divisions for how many Sense Groups a Power is Invisible to. Either use the same values as the above or double them, but you still have a good pattern to work with.

[Balabanto]

The problem here is that GMs handle mentalism very differently. In one man's game, 10 points of mental defense is HUGE. In others, it's peanuts.

BOECV in a world where mental powers are pretty rare should cost MORE, around the cost of an AVLD.

In a world where there's a brainfryer around every corner, people can buy Psi-Screens for a sum of money, and one in every three people is telepathic, chances are, BOECV is a lot cheaper.

This one might need to be redone to read:

Extremely Common +1/2

Common +3/4

Uncommon +1

Rare +1 1/2

[Kdansky]

What I was trieing to do recently:

A force field (lets say 20/20), but everytime it gets hit (either exceeded or just hit), it becomes smaller (either by a fixed amount, or the full hit size). Everytime I have a phase, it regains some strength (either a fixed amount of full strength). This is very complicated to model but would actually be an interesting build to work with, and with lots of precedence in literature/movies.

Basically, I would like to have a better Ablative limitation, because the current one is very spotty. Also, Ablative should go in the general Limitation section.

[The Main Man]

The problem here is that GMs handle mentalism very differently. In one man's game, 10 points of mental defense is HUGE. In others, it's peanuts.

BOECV in a world where mental powers are pretty rare should cost MORE, around the cost of an AVLD.

In a world where there's a brainfryer around every corner, people can buy Psi-Screens for a sum of money, and one in every three people is telepathic, chances are, BOECV is a lot cheaper.

This one might need to be redone to read:

Extremely Common +1/2

Common +3/4

Uncommon +1

Rare +1 1/2

This makes me wonder if Conditional should be a meta-modifier of sorts.

[PhilFleischmann]

What I was trieing to do recently:

A force field (lets say 20/20), but everytime it gets hit (either exceeded or just hit), it becomes smaller (either by a fixed amount, or the full hit size). Everytime I have a phase, it regains some strength (either a fixed amount of full strength). This is very complicated to model but would actually be an interesting build to work with, and with lots of precedence in literature/movies.

Basically, I would like to have a better Ablative limitation, because the current one is very spotty. Also, Ablative should go in the general Limitation section.
The first part of this is easy enough to do already: Ablative gives you that very option - lose 5 AP per hit, for a -1 Lim, adjust up or down if you want to lose more/fewer AP per hit.

The second part (regaining the lost points) is just Healing, though you probably want to do it without using an action, so make it Regeneration. Buy what you need, then apportion in over your phases during the turn. For example, if you have a 5 SPD, buy 5d6 of Regen, Standard Effect, then you'll regain 1PD and 1ED on your FF per phase (equivalent to 5/5 over the turn).

[Lord Liaden]

I would like to suggest an expansion to the description of the Real Weapon Limitation as it would apply in Superheroic campaigns, assuming it continues to be used for Sixth Edition. One of the most frequent (although certainly not universal) complaints I hear about Champions games is that published Fifth Edition supers, even the most powerful ones, are not as resistant to damage from modern firearms as statted in published HERO sources, as are comparable characters from comics. While not everyone enjoys playing supers at that power level, IMHO those who do should reasonably expect to find optional rules available to help emulate that subgenre.

Since almost every published weapon write-up has taken the Real Weapon Limitation, and possible "realistic" restrictions on what such weapons can damage are explicitly part of that Lim, it would be reasonable to suggest that such weapons do reduced or even no damage versus a target with "super" Defenses. That would immediately "power up" super characters against real-world hardware without changing anything about how either the weapons or characters are statted.

There are a number of ways that a GM could define super Defenses, but those with the flipside Limitation of RW, i.e. Real Armor, would be logical to exclude from this category. RW attacks would continue to affect RW Defenses normally.

Assuming that 6E superheroic-genre weapon writeups continue the precedent of not being built using Real Weapon, this would further help to explain why all those high-tech super agencies equip their agents with blasters and similar futuristic weapons, rather than real-world firearms of comparable Damage Class. The blasters would be more effective against the kinds of opponents they usually come up against.

[Lucius]

Since almost every published weapon write-up has taken the Real Weapon Limitation, and possible "realistic" restrictions on what such weapons can damage are explicitly part of that Lim, it would be reasonable to suggest that such weapons do reduced or even no damage versus a target with "super" Defenses. That would immediately "power up" super characters against real-world hardware without changing anything about how either the weapons or characters are statted.

There are a number of ways that a GM could define super Defenses, but those with the flipside Limitation of RW, i.e. Real Armor, would be logical to exclude from this category. RW attacks would continue to affect RW Defenses normally.

Assuming that 6E superheroic-genre weapon writeups continue the precedent of not being built using Real Weapon, this would further help to explain why all those high-tech super agencies equip their agents with blasters and similar futuristic weapons, rather than real-world firearms of comparable Damage Class. The blasters would be more effective against the kinds of opponents they usually come up against.


Something to be said for that, but I think it would be better also to tone down the damage done by weapons in the 'modern' period. It seems to be inflated compared to everything else and has been pointed out, this leads to rather ridiculous comparisons when one realizes that the main weapon banks of a futuristic starship do no more, and perhaps less, damage than a 20th century main battle tank.

Lucius Alexander

Real Palindromedary Limitation

[SCUBA Hero]

My opinion is that the -1/4 Real Weapon Limitation is asked to do an awful lot for its value.

There are scaling issues in Hero System.

The standard Mark VII Laser Rifle in Terran Empire is a 181 (!) Active Point weapon! And 45 Real Points. Can you imagine the reaction of a Supers GM to the player that wants that Power???

[tesuji]

True - one of the two is mispriced would be a more accurate statement.

however there is a third option.

easy example to see this in play AUTOFIRE NND

it is simply not true, and autofire nnd shows hero recognizes it, that the sum of components equals the net combo.

autofire plays balanced at +1/2
nnd plays balanced at +1
autofire nnd is not balanced at +1.5 but instead foes up to +2.5 and is debateable at that.

so the system already renounces the notion that the sum of components is equal to the net gain in all cases.

so while the individual elements on BOECV add up to more than they all are priced when at +1 in boecv that could be simply the case of reverse synergy... the sum being less than the sum of its parts.

while we all can add the figures and get the individual elements to add up to higher than boecv, have we actually seen in play, among the myriad of power gamer and non-power gamers in play we have seen, have we seen BOECV as the go to power to exploit?

The only times i have seen it as such is for entangles, where people love trying to find a way to run entangles that you cannot escape with strength or attacks and thus get cheap but effective entangles (supported unfortunately by hero official as well.)

In my games, boecv has been used fairly rarely, usually only as side powers for mentalists, and has neither been seen as overpowering or underpowered.

invisible powers are uncommon but not unheard of and not usually in the "undervalued.
no range mod gets a reasonable amount of purchase.

so all in all, beyond it being a theoretical imbalance based on the premise of sum equals sum, we haven't had a problem.

[Hugh Neilson]

so while the individual elements on BOECV add up to more than they all are priced when at +1 in boecv that could be simply the case of reverse synergy... the sum being less than the sum of its parts.

while we all can add the figures and get the individual elements to add up to higher than boecv, have we actually seen in play, among the myriad of power gamer and non-power gamers in play we have seen, have we seen BOECV as the go to power to exploit?

The only times i have seen it as such is for entangles, where people love trying to find a way to run entangles that you cannot escape with strength or attacks and thus get cheap but effective entangles (supported unfortunately by hero official as well.)

In my games, boecv has been used fairly rarely, usually only as side powers for mentalists, and has neither been seen as overpowering or underpowered.

invisible powers are uncommon but not unheard of and not usually in the "undervalued.
no range mod gets a reasonable amount of purchase.

so all in all, beyond it being a theoretical imbalance based on the premise of sum equals sum, we haven't had a problem.

What I see is that characters are not permitted to take full advantage of the invisibility and long range of mental powers. "Mentalist Snipers" - characters who actually MAKE USE of the fact that their mental powers have near-unlimited range and are not readily detectable - are banned.

Have you ever seen a game where one character is attacked by a mentalist and no other character is aware of the mentalist's actions? A Mentalist who uses abilities which allow him to evade his target's retaliation by, say, turning invisible, shrinking, using high levels of Stealth and/or moving through a crowd between attacks, preventing the hero effectively retaliating? Tactics which are most effective for mentalists (and anyone else with high range and invisible attacks, for that matter) are frowned upon or outright banned.

And that's before considering Mind Scan to allow mental attacks from half a world away.

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]



What I see is that characters are not permitted to take full advantage of the invisibility and long range of mental powers. "Mentalist Snipers" - characters who actually MAKE USE of the fact that their mental powers have near-unlimited range and are not readily detectable - are banned.

well, first, i would note that BOECV powers are not invisble unless you also buy the various visibility advantages. Matter of fact they are MORE percievable perhaps since they gain the "seen by mental sense group" tho i suppose that can be interpreted as "must have mental as one of their three senses"

second, while mental powers indeed are rarely seen in games as you describe so also you rarely see long range no range mod normal powers either and for the same reasons - the number of cases where in game play being sruck by effects you cannot respond to and the events remain fun to play are few and far between.

whether its orbital satellites blasting laser tinted death or visions of pain from dr mind guy is irrelevent to whether "you get hit and cannot do anything significant about it" is any fun to spend a half hour or 45 minutes play time on.

in hero either "could be allowed" and would be if they were fun.



Have you ever seen a game where one character is attacked by a mentalist and no other character is aware of the mentalist's actions?

yes. it is by no means common though and requires an unusual setup to be fun to play out. mental illusion and mind control are the most common uses for these, although i do recall a mental transform boecv.



A Mentalist who uses abilities which allow him to evade his target's retaliation by, say, turning invisible, shrinking, using high levels of Stealth and/or moving through a crowd between attacks, preventing the hero effectively retaliating? Tactics which are most effective for mentalists (and anyone else with high range and invisible attacks, for that matter) are frowned upon or outright banned.

and the reason is that the use of such remaining fun or leading to a fun play, that whole balance thing, is very situational. frankly it requires scripting, something authors do but harding to pull off in rpg, to make this ability play out as balanced.



And that's before considering Mind Scan to allow mental attacks from half a world away.

agreed but again here we are discussing something entirely different than boecv.

this correlates back to the "want a cheap stun attack" issue.

balance goes away whenever you have the ability to hurt your foe and not be hurt back. It doesn't matter how expensive you price it if i can get more stun thru than you can recover then if you cannot strikle back balance is gone.

whether this occurs by you being stunned, by me mental blasting thru mind scan, by me zapping you with horizon fired missiles, or orbital satellites is irrelevent - the costing scheme will fail if the circumstances allowing me to hit you with impunity since you cannot hit back are common enough to make the attack viable.

with npcs or with novel/comic character the author scripts things so the beyond reach power isn't abusive. but in a game, one where we are talking about banning such PCs, the gm has no such control.

at least not if he is considered to be "playing fairly" and not whipping out "at this point the agents of doom invade the minivan your mentalist is riding around in." coincidences.


it wont take more than a few seconds for any of us her to combine some combo of no range mod, aoe, nnd, extended range and some special senses to get (maybe add indirect) a sniper from safety attack that simply lets us wail away... probably for less than 50 cp. and that cost is much less than the attacks effectiveness unless the gm manages the circumstances very tightly to prevent it (which some would consider "unfair" though i disagree.)

[Hugh Neilson]

well, first, i would note that BOECV powers are not invisble unless you also buy the various visibility advantages. Matter of fact they are MORE percievable perhaps since they gain the "seen by mental sense group" tho i suppose that can be interpreted as "must have mental as one of their three senses"

Which makes Ego Attack a far bigger bargain than BoECV, at least in theory.


second, while mental powers indeed are rarely seen in games as you describe so also you rarely see long range no range mod normal powers either and for the same reasons - the number of cases where in game play being struck by effects you cannot respond to and the events remain fun to play are few and far between.

Absolutely. As a result, Line of Sight (or No Range Modifier) advantages are not permitted to be played to their full potential, nor are Invisible attacks. As such, while the Ego Attack (as well as Mind Control, Mental Illusions, etc.) technically has both of these advantages, it might as well not have them since they are not really allowed to be fully taken advantage of. The balance is maintained by denying access to these benefits - and if the benefits are not received, they should not be paid for, so balance is technically maintained. But the Ego Attack would play no differently if it had a maximum range of 20" or so, was not usable through Mind Scan and was visible.


and the reason is that the use of such remaining fun or leading to a fun play, that whole balance thing, is very situational. frankly it requires scripting, something authors do but harding to pull off in rpg, to make this ability play out as balanced.
*******************************************
balance goes away whenever you have the ability to hurt your foe and not be hurt back. It doesn't matter how expensive you price it if i can get more stun thru than you can recover then if you cannot strikle back balance is gone.

Quite true. So why set a trap for the novice GM by incorporating these abilities in certain powers by default? Why not make these powers visible by default, perhaps limit their range as well, and incorporate heavy cautions in the advantages (and especially advantage combinations) that would permit access to this unbalanced and un-fun type of power?

Reliance on an experienced GM creates a significant barrier to entry for new players and new GM's. This is counterproductive for DoJ - they make money from 6e by selling more books.

ASIDE: For those who don't read the whole thread, this does link back to Limitations - many pages back, this started as a discussion of the Does no BOD limitation.

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]



Which makes Ego Attack a far bigger bargain than BoECV, at least in theory.

IMX ego attack has played balanced in most cases. note this is in normal play not in sniper from afar scenarios.


Absolutely. As a result, Line of Sight (or No Range Modifier) advantages are not permitted to be played to their full potential, nor are Invisible attacks. As such, while the Ego Attack (as well as Mind Control, Mental Illusions, etc.) technically has both of these advantages, it might as well not have them since they are not really allowed to be fully taken advantage of. The balance is maintained by denying access to these benefits - and if the benefits are not received, they should not be paid for, so balance is technically maintained. But the Ego Attack would play no differently if it had a maximum range of 20" or so, was not usable through Mind Scan and was visible.

I dont disagree with this.


Quite true. So why set a trap for the novice GM by incorporating these abilities in certain powers by default? Why not make these powers visible by default, perhaps limit their range as well, and incorporate heavy cautions in the advantages (and especially advantage combinations) that would permit access to this unbalanced and un-fun type of power?

Reliance on an experienced GM creates a significant barrier to entry for new players and new GM's. This is counterproductive for DoJ - they make money from 6e by selling more books.

ASIDE: For those who don't read the whole thread, this does link back to Limitations - many pages back, this started as a discussion of the Does no BOD limitation.


dont really disagree an especially to emphasize the need for more caution in this regard.

however, its not just a few cases ... this really needs to be addressed up front as "just because you can build it doesn't mean you should" kind of warning to emphasize that playability is a concern and just because the rules technically allow something doesn't mean its good for a game. too many player IMO try to "win" in chargen by not getting a fun playable character but by getting a super-crusher characters and the notion of 'i built it legally" is their mantra. HERo is too much enamored of the "way to build anything" to foster that notion.

imo

so whether the shrinker flying guy throws invisible aoe nnd gas bombs from 300m away or is lobbing mental whammies from inside his minivan, neither should normally be permitted which does mean putting hefty cautions on those powers/advantages/combos.

2d6 AOE, NND, INC AOE, EXT RANGE, no rng mod, full invis for 50 ap or so... 88 rad 2d6 nnd from 2500m or so. should serve the purpose. is invis the only warning element in the mix as far as 5er is concerned?

[Hugh Neilson]

IMX ego attack has played balanced in most cases. note this is in normal play not in sniper from afar scenarios.

Exactly - because we don't play or allow "sniper from afar", it works. If the power were not invisible and had range limited to, say, 24", would the power have been less balanced (ie too expensive for it effects)? Pull IPE as a default, and it's still well worth 10 points per 1d6.


2d6 AOE, NND, INC AOE, EXT RANGE, no rng mod, full invis for 50 ap or so... 88 rad 2d6 nnd from 2500m or so. should serve the purpose. is invis the only warning element in the mix as far as 5er is concerned?

I think it's the combination of Fully Invisible (making this guy hard to track down) and high range at no penalties (allowing him to attack from enough range that he's exceedingly difficult to retaliate against) that creates the issue. A completely undetectable attack (which is more than just IPE +1; it needs to be undetectable to the target as well) would be devastating with normal range penalties. As far as the target knows, he's just taking damage with no determinable source. Similarly, an attack that can hit reliably from a substantial distance prevents retaliation.

Note how many advantages you had to add, though (even ignoring the AoE). Ego Attack combines the ability to strike invisibly with unlimited range at its base level. IPE needs work in any case - it's overpriced for many effects, but likely not unreasonable for attacks. It dovetails poorly with the "Visible" limitation (actually on topic for this thread!) and it needs some warnings about the "sniper syndrome" in general.

[RDU Neil]

I think there needs to be some division and differentiation in Limitations based on Mechanics vs. SFX.

Reduced Penetration is a mechanical limitation... it changes how an attack mechanic interacts with a defense mechanic. Such mechanics are much more likely to have set Modifiers (-1/4 or -1/2 or whatever).

NND and AVLD are basically such mechanics... as are Activation rolls, etc.


SFX limitations are such thinkgs like "Not at Night" or "Not in the cold" or whatever. They depend on the game play SIS occurrence of such factors and as such should be situationally costed. "Not under water" is a -1/4 in a standard game... but in an Atlantis game, is probably -2.

A lot more debate into the appropriate modifier needs to happen and be agreed upon during character construction when using SFX based limitations.
Categorizing the limitations into these two broad categories would make it easy to say, "These are pretty set in stone, but the others need to be decided in cost based on the game."

Really... just as with Disads... I think Lims should reflect player intent... not gaming the system. "I'm going to take all these limitations that might, rarely come up... but I'm essentially going to get a really cheap power that will never really be limited."

That kind of thing is encouraged by the classic Limitation model of Hero.

Something along the lines of "The more limitations you put on a power, the less control the the player has of that power. Zero limitations gives player as full control over use of that power as any player has. More limitations cede control of that power to the GM deciding when and where that power is effective."

I know this is a Nar interpretation of things, but Hero has struggled since the beginning to avoid the Gamist style of munchkining the system gaming that such a flexible system encourages in many. Some metagame rules that overarch things like Powers/Advantages/Lims/Disads/etc., that help define the intent of actual play beyond character construction, would be VERY helpful to Hero in general.

[steamteck]

NCM gets alot of hate but i think it has its place in the ecology its just not the right disadvantage for its spot. Something that made the character use the heroic campaign rules instead would be a good fit IMO.

[tesuji]

Reduced Penetration is a mechanical limitation... it changes how an attack mechanic interacts with a defense mechanic. Such mechanics are much more likely to have set Modifiers (-1/4 or -1/2 or whatever).


Problem is this also varies by the setting.

In a game where killing is a bad thing, lie say many supers, redpen is a very beneficial lim. Consider that redpen lowers the body you do but leaves the stun and compare that to the FREE "stun only" Tag this along ith "most attacks dont get body thru" and that -1/4 seems out of line.

then go to a campaign where body damage stopping the foes is a bigger more frequent problem.

As for "not in water", consider this notion extends well beyond Lims.

What value is water breathing rightly pricedat in a normal modern supers game? What about your atlantis game? What about a fantasy pirates game vs a dark sun game?

I have thought that something HERo really needs is a fairly good detail and breakdown of a lrge number of theoretical setting which illustrate "how to reset the game for these". The current hero model is to "mostly" leave the costs and values alone and manage the game by throwing out the various "problem cases". Its all about "disallow telepathy in a mystery game" or "disallow clairsentience" as opposed to "raise the price of tp to..."

Something along the lines of "at 5 cp per die we expect this ability to be useful 3 sessions in 10, more or less. if you run amystery game where it would be useful twice that often then double its price."

In your atlantis game, water breathing should be much pricier than in the desert sun /dark sun game or maybe it would be a freebie, since not having it could be more problematic than normal.

I would love for hero to tackle the differences in setting and genre in a more direct "grab the whole system and shake it til it squeezes" and "make hero fit the genre" way, and that goes a long way further than lims, but down to base costs.

i know they kind of went in that direction a little with the "divy spells by 5" options but that doesn't help much. its just an accounting trick, designed to counter act the "free equipment" impact making "fighters" cheap to build vs mages. It doesn't address the value difference due to effectiveness on any detailed level, just as a sweeping "of this sfx" thing." Why is riding the same price in fantasy as it is in modern supers? Its value and utility is going to be greater.

so i am all for your notion of dealing with lims as a setting dependent score, but as part of a much larger scoped address to the issue in broader terms.

[AnotherSkip]

theoretically part of the issue between Riding in Supers vs Riding In Heroic may be assumed to be covered by base points discrepancy. IE 350 vs 150 that 3 point skill costs more % of the 150 than the 350. Which is a hidden value in the system. However in an 150 pointer Ice Pirates game the Riding Skill would be nearly useless.

[Vulcan]

But in a 150-point Star Wars game, riding becomes useful again, what with the tauntons and dewbacks and what-not being used as riding animals on frontier worlds...

A skill is as useful as the setting and GM make it. No more, no less.

[The Main Man]

NCM gets alot of hate but i think it has its place in the ecology its just not the right disadvantage for its spot. Something that made the character use the heroic campaign rules instead would be a good fit IMO.
You just gave me an idea that I'll be posting in Advantages Issues.

[AnotherSkip]

But in a 150-point Star Wars game, riding becomes useful again, what with the tauntons and dewbacks and what-not being used as riding animals on frontier worlds...

A skill is as useful as the setting and GM make it. No more, no less.

the % does not change between 150 SW and 150 point FH.

[Vulcan]

the % does not change between 150 SW and 150 point FH.

Okay, so a 350 point SW game with really powerful Jedi. The point being that the skill is as useful as the GM makes it.

[tesuji]

Okay, so a 350 point SW game with really powerful Jedi. The point being that the skill is as useful as the GM makes it.

Absolutely and IMO the cost should be reflecting the value of the skill in play, as "set by the gm" or "as set by the setting", as opposed to the reverse - the gm choosing challenges in order to make the skill's value reflective of what he charged.

Unfortunately, what is lacking is any real guideline for the baseline.

Is Breathe water at 5 cp a trait that should prove "useful" 5 sessions in 10 or 3 sessions in 10 or maybe even just once in a while? Well then if riding is only 3 cp then it should be less useful or less often useful than wb at 5 cp, right? So, then i should as gm script more water breathing situations than riding situations?

most every fantasy game i have ever ran went the opposite. More riding than wb.

[Vulcan]

Absolutely and IMO the cost should be reflecting the value of the skill in play, as "set by the gm" or "as set by the setting", as opposed to the reverse - the gm choosing challenges in order to make the skill's value reflective of what he charged.

Unfortunately, what is lacking is any real guideline for the baseline.

Is Breathe water at 5 cp a trait that should prove "useful" 5 sessions in 10 or 3 sessions in 10 or maybe even just once in a while? Well then if riding is only 3 cp then it should be less useful or less often useful than wb at 5 cp, right? So, then i should as gm script more water breathing situations than riding situations?

most every fantasy game i have ever ran went the opposite. More riding than wb.

In general, not being able to ride just means the character moves slower. Not being able to breathe water when your ship sinks in a storm could be deadly...

[AnotherSkip]

Okay, so a 350 point SW game with really powerful Jedi. The point being that the skill is as useful as the GM makes it.

not to be rude but any power, skill, or other mechanic is about as useful as any gm makes it.

Realistically people should ask IS there anything to ride? Actually the Gm should point out on the Character sheet at review, "there is nothing to ride, do not buy this skill".

For example character buys a 12d6 Eb, A GM could build a game where it won't be as effective as in a Supers Campaign.

[Vulcan]

Very good point. If a GM isn't going to include anything to ride, then he should tell the player.

Of course, the player may leave it there based on concept... something I've done more than once.

[tesuji]

In general, not being able to ride just means the character moves slower. Not being able to breathe water when your ship sinks in a storm could be deadly...

and moving slower can be just as deadly, depending on who or what is chasing you.

severity and frequency are both important. I was just mentioning frequency to keep it simple, as example.

but the point remains that the value of a trait will vary greatly between settings, and even within settings. Sometimes you wont be able to predict the swings but often in drastic cases like riding vs water breathing between a desert game and a atlantean game and a riders of rohan game and in the cases where the swings can be predicted to some degree it would be nce to have some baselines to work off of.

Now of course i can invent them myself and do so, but if the answer of "you can do it yourself" was sufficient, we wouldn't need a rulebook at all. :-)

[tesuji]

Very good point. If a GM isn't going to include anything to ride, then he should tell the player.

Of course, the player may leave it there based on concept... something I've done more than once.

the catch is there may well be plenty of things to ride. horse oxen camels.

but are there going to be benefits from doing so?

If 995 of the campaign is dungeon crawls and if "travel time" is going to be abstracted downtime "you ride for three days and you arrive at the town" where there is no or minima difference between "TF: horses and "riding 17-" then there should not be a 1 cp vs 9 cp difference between those two traits.

Now for me, of course, i see those two stats on my pcs and i KNOW that i will because of this run a few horsey challenges so that the players SEE IN PLAy a difference between the two traits.

But thats my style of gming. I let the PCs tell me their story and so their traits shining is not an issue.

But some gms run a "sandbox" style, more sim related, where the GM builds his world and the n lets the players run in it. So he does very little in the way of "directing" his story items to the player character's traits. He can identify "riding wont be much of an issue" ahead of time a lot more than he will say "joe spent a lot on riding so lets make these bandits horsemen." Sandbox is not my preferred style but it is not all that uncommon.

But i guess the key is hero drops the ball both ways.

If you as gm play my way, and script the challenges to highlight pc traits, there is little to no coverage about "how to make the traits seem rightly priced in play" in the book. No guidelines on how often to do so and so forth.

If you play sandbox where a detailed world is cutloose there is also little info on "how to adjust our costs" and the frequencies and severities.

[Vulcan]

the catch is there may well be plenty of things to ride. horse oxen camels.

but are there going to be benefits from doing so?

If 995 of the campaign is dungeon crawls and if "travel time" is going to be abstracted downtime "you ride for three days and you arrive at the town" where there is no or minima difference between "TF: horses and "riding 17-" then there should not be a 1 cp vs 9 cp difference between those two traits.

Now for me, of course, i see those two stats on my pcs and i KNOW that i will because of this run a few horsey challenges so that the players SEE IN PLAy a difference between the two traits.

But thats my style of gming. I let the PCs tell me their story and so their traits shining is not an issue.

But some gms run a "sandbox" style, more sim related, where the GM builds his world and the n lets the players run in it. So he does very little in the way of "directing" his story items to the player character's traits. He can identify "riding wont be much of an issue" ahead of time a lot more than he will say "joe spent a lot on riding so lets make these bandits horsemen." Sandbox is not my preferred style but it is not all that uncommon.

But i guess the key is hero drops the ball both ways.

If you as gm play my way, and script the challenges to highlight pc traits, there is little to no coverage about "how to make the traits seem rightly priced in play" in the book. No guidelines on how often to do so and so forth.

If you play sandbox where a detailed world is cutloose there is also little info on "how to adjust our costs" and the frequencies and severities.

That makes sense to me.

[Hugh Neilson]

More 6e crossposting...


OAF is a pretty big limitation - although it also includes (in many cases) UBO for free - as do most focus 'limitations'.

It's either universal or it's not. UBO means I decide when you can use the power. Universal Focus means anyone who takes it can use it. To me, the ability to hand it to my friend is offset by the fact my opponent can use it against me.


In theory it should mean that the powers have their utility approximately HALVED i.e. they are not available about half the time. I'm willing to bet that most regular OAF users would be mightily hacked off if they could not use their focus powers every other combat, but THAT is what you get the cost break for.

OIF + Restrainable = OAF. I agree that, if you want the ability to use the power when restrained, buying it as OIF is a logical approach. But I also like the idea of revisiting the Focus limitation to assess its connection to Restrainability. Maybe we start with "power can be taken away - +1/4" and work up by adding obviousness of the focus, accessibility, restrainability, etc.

[tesuji]

OIF + Restrainable = OAF. I agree that, if you want the ability to use the power when restrained, buying it as OIF is a logical approach. But I also like the idea of revisiting the Focus limitation to assess its connection to Restrainability. Maybe we start with "power can be taken away - +1/4" and work up by adding obviousness of the focus, accessibility, restrainability, etc.

I actually think we should go in the reverse route - LESS DEFINITION more SUGGESTION.

What if focus listed say a dozen different potential problems associated with "i am an item" and the value of the lim was based on "how often does this come into play" as opposed to how many of these apply in what specific circumstances.

In "some other game" (tm) i had a guy take their version of focus, which was about 4 sentences of rule. Well at the start of one scenario a massive wave of magical energy swept over the city corrupting everything magical. People recovered but items were contaminated and were problematic until ritually cleaned - which they didn't have time for given the emergency right now.

This meant mr Wizard and his Amulet of power had to rely on his non-amulet powers for this scenario or use it amulet and take the consequences - random effects. Same for lady viper and her healing staff. of course the temptation was just too much and they did try and use those gadgets, with hilarious results.

But since the book just said something very vahue like "suffers all sorts of problems by being an item" i was able to invent the "perfectly reasonable" corruption thing and influct "unusable" on the pcs in an amusing and reasonable way.

that scenario was enjoyed most by the magicians who were affected. their players loved it.

however when i suggested it once here the flood of "you were unfairly screwing the player" responses was interesting.

I think perhaps one issue with hero is OVERDEFINITION and from that a percieved lack of flexibility. See the tiara gun grab discussion.

maybe if hero in some areas went for being a matter of yards not inches, of just getting you in the ballpark with costs vs mechancs and then let the gm and common sense (and dramatic sense yahdee yahdee) nail down the fine print we would get a more useful toolkit.

I dont think the answer is more details for the 600 page rulebook. if more details would have solved our problems then 30 years and 600 pages would have done it already.

So for me i suggest we break focus down to a limitation that can be written in one page, maybe one column, and base it on how often you experience the problems and a general list of "hey these kinds of things happen when its an item" and not more specific which just serve to limit the gm's options.

HERESY!!!!

Oh and BTW... in thw same scenario the magus with his mansion with arcane servants and wards was constantly getting cell phone calls from his butler, because his magical home and magical minions were all running amok - spilling his wine, burning his books, chasing down his living staff ala a die hard kind of event - alll the while the magus was stuck stopping villains and the demon - hearing his place getting trashed etc... it was hilarious. yet no where did the rules permit me explicitly to have his base become corrupted - in the three sentence base rule.

[Vulcan]

That's not that bad of an idea. Not sure how to implement it overall, but still...

[tesuji]

That's not that bad of an idea. Not sure how to implement it overall, but still...

Start of rule

STUFF

The power or ability stems from or is dependent on a particular items, device, substance or somehow can be frequently unavailable. maybe its a gun that can be stolen or is left at home, maybe it malfunctions, maybe its natural claws that can be trimmed or break and will take days or weeks to come back to full strength. However it happens you frequently lose the use of this power for significant periods of time, days usually.

-1/4 you lose the power maybe 1 sessions in 10
-1/2 you lose the power maybe 3 seesion in 10
-1 you lose the power maybe 5 seesions in 10

note that you might not lose the entire power - but will have its effectiveness seriously reduced.

it is recommened the player list several expected problems he will encounter with the stuff.

end of rule!


-

[Klaus Mogensen]

I think perhaps one issue with hero is OVERDEFINITION and from that a percieved lack of flexibility.
[...]
I dont think the answer is more details for the 600 page rulebook. if more details would have solved our problems then 30 years and 600 pages would have done it already.
Repped. Totally agree.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

Cross-posting from "Advantages Issues"


This strangely reminds me of Differing Modifiers from Hero Designer.

While I recognize that the program technically is not an official interpretation of the rules, the fact that it was seen as a good idea to have "Differing Modifiers" as opposed to taking a Naked Advantage with Limitations shows that perhaps the system could (and I think would) work better if modifiers were not done as Advantages first, then Limitations second.

I think that it would make more sense if all Modifiers that directly affect the mechanics of the power were to be applied first to create the Active Points - perhaps they could be called "Active" Modifiers.

For example, all powers have a basis over whether they cost Endurance.

Reduced END (an Advantage) as well as Increased END Cost (a Limitation) would both apply to the Active Points because they modify its mechanical value.

The Active Points are then modified by Modifiers that affect the power in ways that are not dictated by mechanics so much as how it interacts with the gaming world.

Focus, for example, does not have any particular bearing on the sheer mechanics of a power, but now that power can be taken away from you, or perhaps even broken, you have to bear it as well - what if you don't have enough hands? And so on...

[IndianaJoe3]

My final thoughts on Limitations.

Charges
Fuel Charges are used up at the rate of one Segment per second of fuel, instead of one Phase per second.

Inaccurate
Powers with this Limitation are inherently less accurate. It may not be applied to Powers that do not require an attack roll, nor to powers with AoE: Single Target Only.
Must make attack roll against willing target: -1/4
Makes attack rolls at ½ OCV: -1/2
Makes attack rolls at 0 OCV: -1

[The Main Man]

My Final $.02 on Power Limitations:

Having Advantages add up to calculate Active Points while Limitations add up to calculate Real points is somewhat oversimplified.

Certain Advantages and certain Limitations should each in turn be able to calculate Active Points while others calculate Real Points.

As described before, "Active" Modifiers (that is Advantages and Limitations) are stacked together to calculate the Active Cost of a power.

Active Modifiers are any Modifier (Positive or Negative) that affects the raw mechanics of a power such as Duration, Quality (i.e. Armor Piercing affects the quality of the damage of Energy Blast), Endurance Cost, Range, etc.

"Utility" Modifiers are any Modifier (Positive or Negative) that affects a power in ways that are not entirely mechanical.

Examples of Utility Modifiers include:
Focus - There is no mechanical basis upon any power that determines if it comes from a source.

Usable by Other - Similarly, the fact that another character can use the power does not affect how good it actually is. A 1pip EB can be Usable by Others.

Delayed Effect - Similarly in turn, a 1pip EB can be prepared multiple times for the day, but it's still a 1 pip EB.

[Hugh Neilson]

Limitations should not come with built-in advantages, and vice versa.

Charges should cost less if the power cost no END in the first place (or they should cost END if the power did unless you buy them to 0 END).

A Damage Shield should be allowed to take No Range if the power itself was No Range.

[The Main Man]

I'd like to take Damage Shield as an opportunity to demonstrate the idea of "Active" versus "Utility" Modifiers.

Continuous and No Range would be Active Modifiers as they affect mechanical aspects of a Power (Duration and Range respectively).

Damage Shield only affects how the power affects the world (in this characters must touch the character to be affected), making it a Utility Modifier.

Let's use RKA 2d6 to make a Fire Aura.

That's 30 Base Points x (1 + 1 - 0.5 = 1.5) = 45 Active Points / (1 - 0.5* = 0.5) = 22.5 Real Points, rounded to 23 Character Points.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I've tried to sort the standard Advantages and Limitations from 5e into "Power Modifiers" (that change the magnitude of the power and hence Active Cost) and "Utility Modifiers" (that merely change how easy it is to use the power, or how often you can use it, and hence only change Real Cost). There's also a few I'm not sure of.

Power Modifiers:
Affects Desolidified, Area of Effect, Armor Piercing, AVLD, Autofire, Cumulative, Damage Shield, Difficult to Dispel, Does Body, Does KB, Double KB, Continuous, Explosion, Megascale, NND, Penetrating, Sticky, Uncontrolled, Usable Simultaneously, Usable As Attack, Variable Advantage (if Power Modifiers), Variable Special Effect, Instant, Gradual Effect, Limited Power (reduced effectiveness), Reduced Penetration, Variable Limitations (if Power Modifiers)

Utility Modifiers:
Charges, Delayed Effect, Persistent, Inherent, Hole in the Middle, Invisible Power Effects, Range Advantages, Ranged, Reduced END, Time Delay, Trigger, Usably By Other Variable Advantage (if Utility Modifiers), Activation Roll, Always On, Concentration, Nonpersistent, Endurance Limitations, Extra Time, Focus, Gestures, Incantations, Independent, Conditional Power, Linked, No Conscuous Control, Only in Hero ID, Range Limitations, Requires a Skill Roll, Restrainable, Side Effects, Visible, Variable Limitations (if Utility Modifiers)

Not sure:
Based on ECV, Indirect, Transdimensional

Note: I've chosen to make Range Modifiers Utility Modifiers, since ranged powers have the same effect as non-ranged ones; you just don't have to move close to use it: improved utility, not improved magnitude.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

Nice job! I'll owe you rep.

I would however argue that Endurance Limitations would be an "Active" Modifier.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Nice job! I'll owe you rep.

I would however argue that Endurance Limitations would be an "Active" Modifier.
Being hit by a 12d6 EB, 0 END, is no worse than being hit by a 12d6 EB, 2x END. The magnitude of the blast is the same. The user is able to use the former more often than the latter, that is all, which IMO makes 0 END and 2x END Utility Modifiers.

A Conditional Power EB "can only be fired once per turn" would be similar to one that costs so much END that you can only fire it once per turn. You can also compare to Side Effects - the extra END cost is a side effect of a sort; it doesn't change the effect of the power on the target, but it has a side effect on the user.

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

Being hit by a 12d6 EB, 0 END, is no worse than being hit by a 12d6 EB, 2x END. The magnitude of the blast is the same. The user is able to use the former more often than the latter, that is all, which IMO makes 0 END and 2x END Utility Modifiers.

A Conditional Power EB "can only be fired once per turn" would be similar to one that costs so much END that you can only fire it once per turn. You can also compare to Side Effects - the extra END cost is a side effect of a sort; it doesn't change the effect of the power on the target, but it has a side effect on the user.

- Klaus


unless the Gm allows Rapid attack.
then suddenly you could easily face 15 12d6 EB @ 0 End per turn with the character having no End costs to reign him in (or a sufficiently huge ENd reserve/ Rec to tip off the Gm) Vs the Rapid Attacker x2 End having to burn 180 End to achive the same results....

[Klaus Mogensen]

unless the Gm allows Rapid attack.
then suddenly you could easily face 15 12d6 EB @ 0 End per turn with the character having no End costs to reign him in (or a sufficiently huge ENd reserve/ Rec to tip off the Gm) Vs the Rapid Attacker x2 End having to burn 180 End to achive the same results....
The character attacking with 15 x Rapid Fire will have -28 OCV - and if one attack misses, he won't get the rest. Not that even one is likely to hit - he's probably much better off just making one attack.

Now, if the advantage was "ignores penalties for multiple attacks" I'd agree with you...

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

You Didn't read the post well did ya?

15 attacks per turn = 3 attacks per acton phase w/a 5 Speed

PLus the character spends 12 points on PSL's vs. rapid attacks to counter the -4 per shot for each of those phases...

Frankly, Rapid atack should have a Stop Sign.

[JamesG]

As part of the preparation of 6E, I suggest a thorough review of all Limitations to make sure their values and balanced and consistent with each other.

For instance, on page 299 of 5ER the Limited Power example “Only works on women” is given a value of -1. This makes sense because the Limited Power Guidelines on page 298 say -1 represents a power that loses about half its overall effectiveness.

But on page 121 the Limited Class of Minds Limitation for Mental Powers lists as an example “Only works on men” with a value of -1/2. As this limitation reduces by about half the number of targets the power can effect, for consistency with the Limited Power Limitation the value should be -1. Likewise, the example on the same page of “Only works on sharks” should be higher than -1, since it reduces the power’s effectiveness by much more than half.

There may be instances where the “same” Limitation should have different values for different powers, though I do not think this is one of those cases. But where it does happen, some explanatory text as to why the value is different from the standard for a particular power might prove useful.

[PhilFleischmann]

As part of the preparation of 6E, I suggest a thorough review of all Limitations to make sure their values and balanced and consistent with each other.

For instance, on page 299 of 5ER the Limited Power example “Only works on women” is given a value of -1. This makes sense because the Limited Power Guidelines on page 298 say -1 represents a power that loses about half its overall effectiveness.

But on page 121 the Limited Class of Minds Limitation for Mental Powers lists as an example “Only works on men” with a value of -1/2. As this limitation reduces by about half the number of targets the power can effect, for consistency with the Limited Power Limitation the value should be -1. Likewise, the example on the same page of “Only works on sharks” should be higher than -1, since it reduces the power’s effectiveness by much more than half.

There may be instances where the “same” Limitation should have different values for different powers, though I do not think this is one of those cases. But where it does happen, some explanatory text as to why the value is different from the standard for a particular power might prove useful.
This brings up a good point as to what really constitutes "about half of a power's effectiveness". Those various conditional limitations, and resticted target limitations need to reduce the potential targets/situations by more than half in order to reduce their overall effectiveness by half. If a power only works on women, it does *not* lose half it's effectiveness, since most of the time, you'll know if your target is a woman in advance, and therefore you won't even attempt the power on a target that isn't a woman. Just like you're not likely to target a teleporter with an Entangle. You know what will work and what won't. Likewise, "Only Works at Night" is not worth a -1 limitation because it really doesn't lose half effectiveness, since again, most of the time, you'll know whether it's day or night.

And one other point specifically related to the example you brought up: "Only vs. Men" and "Only vs. Women" may well have different values depending on genre/setting considerations. The great majority of comic book superheroes and supervillains are men. There were only about three significant female characters in all of LOTR (four if you include Shelob). The majority of RPGers are male, and the majority of the PCs they create are male.

[Klaus Mogensen]

If a power only works on women, it does *not* lose half it's effectiveness, since most of the time, you'll know if your target is a woman in advance, and therefore you won't even attempt the power on a target that isn't a woman.
More to the point, if your team is up against a group of mixed-gender foes, you will just select female targets. It is only a strong limitation if your foes are all men, or if it is difficult to tell their gender.

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

Similar to Invulnerability only vs X. your foes will find Something to shoot at other than you (esp say two guys with similar SFX say Electricity vs Electricity).

[Hugh Neilson]

This brings up a good point as to what really constitutes "about half of a power's effectiveness". Those various conditional limitations, and resticted target limitations need to reduce the potential targets/situations by more than half in order to reduce their overall effectiveness by half. If a power only works on women, it does *not* lose half it's effectiveness, since most of the time, you'll know if your target is a woman in advance, and therefore you won't even attempt the power on a target that isn't a woman. Just like you're not likely to target a teleporter with an Entangle. You know what will work and what won't. Likewise, "Only Works at Night" is not worth a -1 limitation because it really doesn't lose half effectiveness, since again, most of the time, you'll know whether it's day or night.

And one other point specifically related to the example you brought up: "Only vs. Men" and "Only vs. Women" may well have different values depending on genre/setting considerations. The great majority of comic book superheroes and supervillains are men. There were only about three significant female characters in all of LOTR (four if you include Shelob). The majority of RPGers are male, and the majority of the PCs they create are male.

I agree that "only works half the time and you have no way of knowing in advance whether it will work" is more limiting than "only works half the time and you will typically know in advance whether it will work".

However, I would note that, if we assume "only works half the time and you can generally tell whether it will work" (eg. only vs men; only at night) is a -1 limitation at present, it IS worth less than "only works half the time and you don't know in advance", since -1 is the limitation for 11-, which works 62.5% of the time, not 50% of the time.

I'm also a big fan of telling the player flat out "you have applied a -1 limitation for 'not vs women'. Based on this, I expect to use female opponents on pretty much every team you face, have a significant number of female master villains and have an occasional team of nothing but women. There will likely also be several characters whose gender is not easily determinable."

Just like a character taking "2x STUN and BOD from octogenerian hammer-wielding Norwegian architects" can expect there to be a recurring character in the game who meets these criteria, or taking "2x STUN and BODY from solar powered cold weapons wielded by green and purple froglike martians" can expect a story arc entitled "Invasion of the Green and Purple Froglike Martians" who will have standard issue sidearms that are solar powered cold weapons.

It should not be a surprise to the player. And it won't be, since I'll tell him my expectations up front.

[PhilFleischmann]

However, I would note that, if we assume "only works half the time and you can generally tell whether it will work" (eg. only vs men; only at night) is a -1 limitation at present,
Is it really? IIRC, "Only at Night" and similar Limitations are typically only -1/2.


it IS worth less than "only works half the time and you don't know in advance", since -1 is the limitation for 11-, which works 62.5% of the time, not 50% of the time.
Yes, that's something I meant to mention: Activation makes a good baseline for comparison. A 10- Activation makes a power *less* than half as useful, because you still spend END, Attack Actions, etc., to use the power even when it doesn't work. An 11- Activation takes away *more* than 37.5% of a power's utility, because you can't plan around when it will work and when it will fail, and even when it fails, you're still spending END, Charges, time, etc.

[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: