Advantages Issues [Archive] - Page 2 - HERO Games Discussion Boards

palaskar

Mar 23rd, '08, 08:14 AM

Q: Should Advantages and Limitations be expressed with decimals rather than standard fractions?

No. Although the current system of quarters is hard, going to hundredths would make it much more so; same even with tenths, IMHO. See how I’d handle it below.

I like a “shift” system like they used in MSH. I wrote it up for a MUD I wizarded in; unfortunately, it was so complex, I was the only one who could understand it.

Really, it’s not that hard!

You start at shift 0. Every “costs more” level costs 15 points or +1/4 points, whichever is higher – just like in Side Effects. Every “costs less” level costs -15 points or -1/4 points, whichever is lower (loses more points.)

This is really easy to understand by using the Martian Manhunter as an example. He has the Physical Disad: Loses all Powers near any fire: 20 points (Frequently, All the Time.) Now he can take the 20 points from the Disad, or take a -1 Limitation on all his 1700+ points of powers.

I ask you, which option makes more sense? :D

Hmm, the “costs per unit” makes sense too. Still, there’s the perennial problem of the 1 pip KA, 1 hex area effect, Autofire, Penetrating. That’s…5 x (2 + 2 + 2) = 30. Pretty reasonable, actually.

The “shift” mechanic seems to solve this also, but I worry it hoses other small powers too much…shift up 6 levels... that’s 90 points!

Let’s check out MM…assuming 5 points for each of the 1700+ point powers…-1 Limitation coverts to -4…1 point for each power. Way too low.

This also raises the problem of negative CPUs.

Perhaps Disads should be “Heroic Only” and Limitations and Advantages “Supers Only?”

Hey! I saw the Logarithms post! Great idea; though it involves a chart, there much less math – no more multiplying 7/8th by 5/4ths.

Q: Should we allow characters to choose whether to use an Advantage on a power whenever they use the power, rather than making Advantage use mandatory?

Let’s bring back Variable Advantage. It made modeling some things (like weapons masters) really easy.

Q: Should any new Advantages be added?

Steve’s Thoughts: I can’t see a strong need for any, but there are certainly some that could be considered. For example, the Time Duration Power Modifier (from my DH #39 column) might be worth adding, if not in the core book then in a 6E FH genre book. The same could be said for Damage Over Time (DH #47).

I like Piercing Points. As long as we’re going to have multiple levels of Hardened, and multiple Find Weakness rolls, why not?

Although I admit I hate multiple levels of Hardened; it’s just too easy to make small powers Penetrating/AP-proof.

Q: Should Damage Shield be removed as a stand-alone Advantage and just become a form of Trigger?

Q: Should Time Delay be eliminated?

Yes. It makes things simpler and more coherent (just like merging Instant Change with Transform.) Although the math for Damage Shield should always be simple, since it’s used comparably much…but the logarthymn’s (sp!) chart works great here.

Q: Should MegaScale be tweaked for ease of use?

I think it will work better if the initial level is more expensive (probably +1), but you can use the power at any scale from personal up to the purchased maximum.

I agree. Plus it’s the only sane way to model nukes – which should be written up expressly in 1 kton and 1 megaton levels, just to end the argument about how much damage they cause.

Personally, I favor a 5d6 EB (for 1 kilogram of dynamite) + 10d6 EB (1000 kg or one ton) + 10d6 EB (x1000) == 25d6, Megascale, Explosive for a 1 kton bomb.

Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?

Steve’s Thoughts: I can’t say for sure right now, but it sort of seems to me like UOO has gotten way more complicated than it needs to be. Maybe that’s unavoidable; giving a power to another person (either voluntarily or as an attack) is a sort of complicated thing. But at the very least I’d like to create some options so the rules set forth easy ways to do typical Fantasy things like make everyone in an adventuring party invisible, or for a flying character to carry some friends along but not let them fly under their own power.

Errrgh. Depends. A flying character should automatically be able to carry some friends; I mean, we let a flying character lift equal to his STR and still fly, right? (I’m not going to fish through Fred if that’s right, but it makes some sense.)

"So if I club you with a car I found in a parking lot I should have paid for it?"

Well, yeah. That’s why Fred is base 350 pt supers instead of 250 pts. The other 100 pts is for Tricks (and the Skills that a character should have.)

Homing Attacks

I like the No Range modifier, plus Indirect +3/4 for these…but tacking on a variation of Continous would be nice for better simulation. Yes, there’s the “dogpile” problem, but it’s just another problem as the 1 pip RKA, Penetrating, AF, One Hex power. It’s just a consquence (sp!) of how rules stack up.

I like Steve Water’s solution for Continous:

Continuous (power keeps going if maintained and in LOS, new attack roll required, but you can use other atatcks without having to use the MPA rules) (+1/2)
+Adv removes the need to make new attack rolls for a given target (+1/2)
+Adv power keeps going if not maintained (Some way of turning power off must be defined) (+1/2)
+Adv power keeps going if not in LOS (+1/2)

Not so much Indirect. It makes perfect sense to me the way it is.

CTaylor’s suggestion for “fast” or “slow” speed powers should default to Flash speed – every segment, unless modified otherwise.

(Do Flash speed powers come with Speed Force Extra-Dimensional Movement? :D Sorry, just had to say that one. Obviously, that attack would be instant – everything in one segment – the attack one.)

AVLD:

Isn’t some one going to make rules about stupid ADLDs, like AVLD versus Flash defense sight, or God help us, touch, or smell?

Trebuchet

Mar 23rd, '08, 08:27 AM

I'm in favour of defining all exotic defenses as Resistant by default so KA's with AVLD aren't overpowered. "Oh, you didn't buy Resistant Smell Flash Defense?"There's a simpler solution:

Player: "His nastiest attack is 'The Scent of Death.' It's a 2d6 RKA AVLD vs. Flash Defense: Scent. Pretty sneaky, huh?"

GM: "No. I won't allow it."

Player: "Why not? It's legal."

GM: "So is me kicking you out of our campaign for daring to propose such a wombatish build."

CTaylor

Mar 23rd, '08, 08:54 AM

The cost alone tends to prevent such attacks from being as powerful as they might be. One of the problems people run into in games, I think, is that they start at too high a power level. Too many points = too easy to build unreasonable, unstable powers.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 23rd, '08, 09:14 AM

There's a simpler solution:

Player: "His nastiest attack is 'The Scent of Death.' It's a 2d6 RKA AVLD vs. Flash Defense: Scent. Pretty sneaky, huh?"

GM: "No. I won't allow it."

Player: "Why not? It's legal."

GM: "So is me kicking you out of our campaign for daring to propose such a wombatish build."

I'm not convinced that's simpler than:

Player: "His nastiest attack is 'The Scent of Death.' It's a 2d6 RKA AVLD vs. Flash Defense: Scent. Pretty sneaky, huh?"

GM: "That's fine. By the way, you know that Flash Defense is resistant by default, right?"

Now, I'd also like to see Flash Defense go back to defending all senses by default or, alternatively, making AVLD pay extra (maybe double it) for applying against flash defense that protects a non-targetting sense. Now that 2d6 RKA AVLD (which cost 75 points and does no BOD) becomes either:

(a) a 1d6 + 1 KA that costs 80 points
(b) a 1d6 KA that costs 60 points
(c) a 1 1/2d6 KA, NND (Smell Flash Defense; +2 because the defense is uncommon)
OR
(d) still disallowed because it's stupid, overpowered or both

[And your Hunted will definitely have Misssile Reflection - smell yourself, Stinky!]

ajackson

Mar 23rd, '08, 04:09 PM

Too many points = too easy to build unreasonable, unstable powers.
1d6 area effect (+1), autofire 20 shots (+2), 0 END (+1), NND (+1) is only 30 active points. Since it has a radius of 2 hexes, and it's impossible for an area effect to scatter by more than half the distance between you and the target, at a range of 1 hex you can automatically hit a target with 20d6 NND damage.

There are less extreme examples, but it often doesn't take that many points to do something highly abusive.

CTaylor

Mar 23rd, '08, 05:50 PM

It doesn't, but it is absolutely a fact that the the more points you have to work with, the more trouble you're going to see in your campaign with potentially abusive builds. I think that's partly where people are coming from in some of the posts here, and the inflation in base points between 4th and 5th edition encouraged that.

James Gillen

Mar 23rd, '08, 09:14 PM

I'm in favour of defining all exotic defenses as Resistant by default so KA's with AVLD aren't overpowered. "Oh, you didn't buy Resistant Smell Flash Defense?"

The whole point of AVLD Does BODY costing that much is that it wouldn't do BODY by default. If exotic defenses have to be Resistant, then Does BODY shouldn't be an extra Advantage.

JG

James Gillen

Mar 23rd, '08, 09:20 PM

I'm quoting BTILC.

BTILC?

Vondy

Mar 23rd, '08, 11:03 PM

The whole point of AVLD Does BODY costing that much is that it wouldn't do BODY by default. If exotic defenses have to be Resistant, then Does BODY shouldn't be an extra Advantage.

JG

We have Does Body +1 for NND's. It could be applied here as well.

James Gillen

Mar 24th, '08, 01:16 AM

We have Does Body +1 for NND's. It could be applied here as well.

It IS applied the same way. AVLD Does BODY is +2 1/2.

jg

Susano

Mar 24th, '08, 03:53 AM

BTILC?

Big Trouble In Little China

Vondy

Mar 24th, '08, 04:52 AM

It IS applied the same way. AVLD Does BODY is +2 1/2.

jg

Well then, there you have it. I fail to see the problem. Its got a big cost attached and AVLD is a stop-sign power. Why would we need to hard-code this? On the other hand, my issue is that I think adding resistant / not-resistant to exotic defenses adds an unecessary level of granularity, and adds ridiculous expense to some character concepts. I think it needs to go the way of the dodo not because it can't be managed, but because its a concept that was carried to its logical conclusion without considering whether the gain was worth it. Its unecessary, cumbersome, and adds unecessary costs to some concepts (if you allow these sorts of attacks). I have yet to allow one, and I doubt I ever will.

Edsel

Mar 24th, '08, 05:31 AM

I've seen variants of AP where you reduce the DEF based on the BODY you roll or some such.
This is something that I have been thinking about lately. To me it would make more sense if the AP Advantage were tied to the attack it modifies instead of the defense that it attacks.

A lament that I have often heard is that AP for something like a .22 caliber pistol works really odd. You can halve the defenses of a battleship with it while at the same time ignore only a point or two of a car's body.

What I have been thinking about is something like this: A level of AP allows a Killing Attack to ignore 1 point of non-hardened defense per DC of the killing attack. For example a 2d6 RKA (6 DCs) would get to ignore 6 points of non-hardened defense. A 6d6 RKA (18 DCs) tank cannon could ignore up to 18 points of non-hardened defenses.

In the case of non KA the effect would be to ignore 1 point of defenses per DC but only for the STUN portion of the attack.

Dang firewall at work is about to shut me down.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 24th, '08, 05:54 AM

The whole point of AVLD Does BODY costing that much is that it wouldn't do BODY by default. If exotic defenses have to be Resistant, then Does BODY shouldn't be an extra Advantage.

Does BOD is an extra +1 advantage regardless of whether the attack it is applied to is a killing attack or a normal attack. If it is a normal attack, non-resistant defenses apply against both the STUN and the BOD. If it is a killing attack, only resistant defenses apply against the BOD and all defenses apply against the STUN provided at least one point of defense is resistant.

So the point of AVLD Does BOD costing extra is that it would not do BOD by default, not that the limited defense must be resistant to prevent that BOD being taken. An NND that does BOD costs the same additional +1 advantage, and there's no need for your Life Support to be Resistant to block it.

Simplistically, I would never allow Resistant Smell Flash Defense as a "reasonably common defense" for an NND, so why should I allow an AVLD to move from "Flash Defense" to "Resistant Smell Flash Defense" for free?

Perhaps the advantage for AVLD: Resistant XXX Defense should be +2 1/4, since we're starting by changing the defense from ordinary PD/ED to an exotic defense (usual cost +1 1/2) and then changing the defense from all defenses of that type to only the resistant form (a subdivision of the defense, usual cost +3/4).

Well then, there you have it. I fail to see the problem. Its got a big cost attached and AVLD is a stop-sign power.

If you would allow NND: Resistant Smell Flash Defense for a +1 advantage, I see no reason not to allow AVLD: Resistant Smell Flash Defense as a +1 1/2 advantage. I do not consider Resistant Smell Flash Defense a "reasonably common defense", so I would not allow the NND at +1. With that in mind, it seems unreasonable to allow the AVLD at +1 1/2.

On the other hand, my issue is that I think adding resistant / not-resistant to exotic defenses adds an unecessary level of granularity, and adds ridiculous expense to some character concepts. I think it needs to go the way of the dodo not because it can't be managed, but because its a concept that was carried to its logical conclusion without considering whether the gain was worth it. Its unecessary, cumbersome, and adds unecessary costs to some concepts (if you allow these sorts of attacks). I have yet to allow one, and I doubt I ever will.

I agree - this was unnecessary and should be removed. Let's also remember that part of the goal is (or should be) making the game accessible. That means providing guidance for new Hero gamers, not relying exclusively on good GM judgment, which requires experience with the system.

Paragon

Mar 24th, '08, 09:05 AM

Honestly, I'm not sure there's any rationale for exotic attack KAs anyway; at that point the distinction that's being made in the system between normal and killing damage seems to already be lost anyway.

PhilFleischmann

Mar 24th, '08, 03:42 PM

I like a “shift” system like they used in MSH. I wrote it up for a MUD I wizarded in; unfortunately, it was so complex, I was the only one who could understand it.

Really, it’s not that hard!

You start at shift 0. Every “costs more” level costs 15 points or +1/4 points, whichever is higher – just like in Side Effects. Every “costs less” level costs -15 points or -1/4 points, whichever is lower (loses more points.)
So a 60-point power with "-1 worth" of limitations is free? 60 - 4x15

Hey! I saw the Logarithms post! Great idea; though it involves a chart, there much less math – no more multiplying 7/8th by 5/4ths.
Where in the HERO system would you ever have to multiply 7/8 by 5/4? And what's so difficult about it, even if you did? 35/32, easy!

(Although I'm for swithing to decimals, which would make it even easier.)

Yes, there’s the “dogpile” problem, but it’s just another problem as the 1 pip RKA, Penetrating, AF, One Hex power. It’s just a consquence (sp!) of how rules stack up.
Oh, yeah! I don't know if anyone has brought this up on this thread yet, but another change that needs to be made is to get rid of the ridiculous "exception" for Penetrating with a 1-pip KA. If 1d6 KA (3 DCs) with Penetrating does 1 BODY of Penetration on average (sometimes 2, sometimes 0), a 1-pip KA (1 DC) with Penetrating should do no more than 1/3 of a BODY of Penetration. This would either be rounded down to 0, or become a die roll: 1 pip of Penetration one third of the time (or maybe less).

Hugh Neilson

Mar 24th, '08, 09:06 PM

Oh, yeah! I don't know if anyone has brought this up on this thread yet, but another change that needs to be made is to get rid of the ridiculous "exception" for Penetrating with a 1-pip KA. If 1d6 KA (3 DCs) with Penetrating does 1 BODY of Penetration on average (sometimes 2, sometimes 0), a 1-pip KA (1 DC) with Penetrating should do no more than 1/3 of a BODY of Penetration. This would either be rounded down to 0, or become a die roll: 1 pip of Penetration one third of the time (or maybe less).

I agree the exception should be done away with. Either it does nothing (just like +1 STUN does no BOD) or you roll a d6 and get 1 BOD penetrating only if you roll a 6.

James Gillen

Mar 24th, '08, 09:31 PM

Well then, there you have it. I fail to see the problem. Its got a big cost attached and AVLD is a stop-sign power. Why would we need to hard-code this? On the other hand, my issue is that I think adding resistant / not-resistant to exotic defenses adds an unecessary level of granularity, and adds ridiculous expense to some character concepts. I think it needs to go the way of the dodo not because it can't be managed, but because its a concept that was carried to its logical conclusion without considering whether the gain was worth it. Its unecessary, cumbersome, and adds unecessary costs to some concepts (if you allow these sorts of attacks). I have yet to allow one, and I doubt I ever will.

That too.

jg

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 25th, '08, 06:32 AM

I think the advantages/limitations structure could be simplified through the use of a cost multiplier table like one of the two below. A +½ advantage would be +2 steps, and a -1 limitation would be -4 steps. Note that this will make advantages and limitations cancel out, which will affect the cost of some applications of advantages and limitations.

Active Cost should be calculated after all advantages are applied, before any limitations are applied. However, there is another option:

It has been debated whether some advantages shouldn't add to Active Cost (Reduced End being the one most mentioned), and whether some limitations should reduce Active Cost (see e.g. here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1571010&postcount=631) and the following posts). With a table like this, you could start by applying all modifiers (positive and negative) that affect Active Cost, use this to calculate Active Cost, and then apply the other modifiers to get the Real Cost. Modifiers would then be sorted according to this rather than according to being advantages or limitations (this would also prevent Charges from appearing in two sections).

Anyway, a cost multiplier table that mimics the current cost structure would look something like this:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27186&stc=1&d=1206448587

However, I suggest using a logarithmic table, which besides having nicer numbers at the low end has the feature that an advantage or a limitation has the same relative effect on cost, no matter how many other advantages or limitations there might be. With the current system, if you e.g. buy 6d6 EB, AoE radius (+1), 0 End (+½); Cost = 30x2½ = 75, then you might as well add Armor Piercing (+½), since that is only going to add 20% to the cost, rather than the usual 50%. With a logarithmic table like the one below, this will cease to be an issue. The same goes for limitations, where with the current system each extra limitation is worth less than the one before (though this might be seen as a feature). This table is easy to extend up and down, since every four steps corresponds to a factor of 2.

http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27188&stc=1&d=12064494338

To calculate the same power as above with this table, we get: 6d6 EB, AoE radius (+4), 0 End (+2); Total modifier +6; Cost = 30x2.8 = 84. Adding Armor Piercing (+2) to this will increase the multiplier to x4 and the cost to 120 - a ~40% increase for a modifier that also would be +40% on a basic Power.

As can be seen, powers with large modifiers (> a +1 advantage) will be more expensive - particular when the advantages are stacked heavily. In return, powers with smaller modifiers get a bit cheaper.

Now, let's examine the option where some modifiers affect Active Cost and other don't. Let's say that the above Power (minus Armor Piercing) also has the modifiers No Range (-2) and Full Phase (-2), and we say that 0 End and Full Phase don't affect Active Cost, while No Range does. The modifiers that affect Active Cost then come to +2 (x1.4): Active Cost = 42. 0 End and Full Phase cancel out, so the Real Cost is also 42.

The same calculation using the first table: Active Cost = Real Cost = 45.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Vondy

Mar 25th, '08, 08:13 AM

If you would allow NND: Resistant Smell Flash Defense for a +1 advantage, I see no reason not to allow AVLD: Resistant Smell Flash Defense as a +1 1/2 advantage. I do not consider Resistant Smell Flash Defense a "reasonably common defense", so I would not allow the NND at +1. With that in mind, it seems unreasonable to allow the AVLD at +1 1/2.

I did not say I would allow them. I was addressing the build that was brought up. Its a moot point. At the same time, NNDs are all or nothing, whereas AVLD measure against the defense in question. If they have the defense (be it point or FX based) - at all - the attack fails. At the same time, I do not allow a carte blanche +1 on NNDs (I measure their usefulness), nor do I allow people to declare weird-assed mechanics specific defenses it works against. I have to feel comfortable with the definition of the defense. I am known for my ability to say "no" or to negotiate an agreeable compromise where apropos. I would not allow someone to declare the defense you specified. I would summarily execute them.

I agree - this was unnecessary and should be removed. Let's also remember that part of the goal is (or should be) making the game accessible. That means providing guidance for new Hero gamers, not relying exclusively on good GM judgment, which requires experience with the system.

Yup.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 25th, '08, 09:37 AM

I did not say I would allow them. I was addressing the build that was brought up. Its a moot point.
**********************************************
At the same time, I do not allow a carte blanche +1 on NNDs (I measure their usefulness), nor do I allow people to declare weird-assed mechanics specific defenses it works against. I have to feel comfortable with the definition of the defense. I am known for my ability to say "no" or to negotiate an agreeable compromise where apropos.

I don't think it's moot. You would not allow either. Neither would I. Show me that the ability in question makes sense for the character (a major stretch for the suggested mechanic!) and then we can discuss a realistic price for the benefit granted.

To me, a resistant limited defense is much less common than a non-resistant one, so it should cost more to select that resistant limited defense. Smell flash defense is much less common than sight flash defense, so it should be more expensive for your attack to be defended by smell flash defense.

The GM has the option of allowing or disallowing the power. Assuming he chooses to allow it, the rules should provide a rational pricing structure. Or the rules should indicate "this isn't allowed". In such case, a GM wishing to allow it (say resistant exotic defenses) should not be surprised he's on his own assessing how to cost it.

At the same time, NNDs are all or nothing, whereas AVLD measure against the defense in question. If they have the defense (be it point or FX based) - at all - the attack fails.

Which is why the one is a slightly greater advantage than the other.

Paragon

Mar 25th, '08, 10:06 AM

The GM has the option of allowing or disallowing the power. Assuming he chooses to allow it, the rules should provide a rational pricing structure. Or the rules should indicate "this isn't allowed". In such case, a GM wishing to allow it (say resistant exotic defenses) should not be surprised he's on his own assessing how to cost it.

I don't even think the latter is appropriate, since at some Advantage cost, its probably reasonable balance-wise (even if baroque in rationale). After all, at some point you're not doing any more damage than you'd expect to get by defenses in most cases, so why not?

But I don't think the current all-or-nothing costing does great service here; it tends to discourage concepts that have more modest advantages (an NND versus Resistant Defense for example) and prohibit ones that are more advantageous (AVLD versus hardened ED Force Field, for example) because of the one-size-fits-all nature of the advantages.

Vondy

Mar 26th, '08, 08:04 AM

I don't think it's moot.

I'm not going to spin semantics with you. We agree to disagree. Or, at least, I do.

David Blue

Mar 26th, '08, 07:00 PM

After all, at some point you're not doing any more damage than you'd expect to get by defenses in most cases, so why not?
"At some point" comes very quickly and very easily, and what happens "at some point" is levels of damage or other effect and levels of confidence in hitting that are far beyond anything normal to the game, as it is played by those using straightforward methods. Punching in the front armor of a tank is not happening with numbers normal to the game, if you are being straightforward, but with a trivial amount of number-crunching using Advantages, you can disintegrate that tank or pretty well anything else with a touch. Say goodbye, Invulnerable Man.

What we have with Advantages now is a mess that's as bad as the Mega-damage / Normal damage mess in Palladium, where the only balance that may exist is created by experienced gamemasters who make up wise house rules or just have a well-trained sense of when to apply the Rule of No.

casualplayer

Mar 26th, '08, 07:18 PM

What we have with Advantages now is a mess that's as bad as the Mega-damage / Normal damage mess in Palladium, where the only balance that may exist is created by experienced gamemasters who make up wise house rules or just have a well-trained sense of when to apply the Rule of No.

Oh, snap.

Paragon

Mar 27th, '08, 09:27 AM

"At some point" comes very quickly and very easily, and what happens "at some point" is levels of damage or other effect and levels of confidence in hitting that are far beyond anything normal to the game, as it is played by those using straightforward methods. Punching in the front armor of a tank is not happening with numbers normal to the game, if you are being straightforward, but with a trivial amount of number-crunching using Advantages, you can disintegrate that tank or pretty well anything else with a touch. Say goodbye, Invulnerable Man.

What we have with Advantages now is a mess that's as bad as the Mega-damage / Normal damage mess in Palladium, where the only balance that may exist is created by experienced gamemasters who make up wise house rules or just have a well-trained sense of when to apply the Rule of No.

Actually, I'd argue that with stun and the 5e suggestions for Defenses, that "some point" comes pretty bloody early; with an Active Point cap of as much as 75, you are doing six dice of AVLD damage, or about 21 points of Stun. I will give you bets against the vast majority of targets that you'll be doing more stun than that with 15D6 of normal damage.

Body and exotic damage are more complicated, but note that doing Body damage on a bypass attack already is more expensive; a Body doing NND gives you 1 DC per each 15 active points. That's 5 DC for that 75. While it wouldn't necessarily get any Body through on a straight attack, I suspect strongly you'd start getting at least some through at the 10D6 Armor Piercing attack against most objects except for the extreme.

ajackson

Mar 27th, '08, 10:25 AM

Actually, I'd argue that with stun and the 5e suggestions for Defenses, that "some point" comes pretty bloody early; with an Active Point cap of as much as 75, you are doing six dice of AVLD damage, or about 21 points of Stun. I will give you bets against the vast majority of targets that you'll be doing more stun than that with 15D6 of normal damage.
For simple AVLDs without other advantages, the breakpoint for stun is 2.1 defenses per damage die, so the AVLD will be better against a defense of 32+. At the 60 active point limit, the AVLD is better vs a defense of 26+.

The big problem with AVLDs/NNDs comes from stacking those advantages with other advantages. In a 60 active point game, there are rather few targets who will take more stun from 6d6 EB, AE radius (60 AP) than from 3d6 EB, AVLD, AE radius (52 AP).
Body and exotic damage are more complicated, but note that doing Body damage on a bypass attack already is more expensive; a Body doing NND gives you 1 DC per each 15 active points. That's 5 DC for that 75. While it wouldn't necessarily get any Body through on a straight attack, I suspect strongly you'd start getting at least some through at the 10D6 Armor Piercing attack against most objects except for the extreme.
In a 75 active point game, most living targets will have basic defenses in excess of 20. Inanimate objects are another case, though popping the 15/15 force wall with a 1d6 AVLD attack is fairly bogus.

Paragon

Mar 27th, '08, 10:55 AM

For simple AVLDs without other advantages, the breakpoint for stun is 2.1 defenses per damage die, so the AVLD will be better against a defense of 32+. At the 60 active point limit, the AVLD is better vs a defense of 26+.

The big problem with AVLDs/NNDs comes from stacking those advantages with other advantages. In a 60 active point game, there are rather few targets who will take more stun from 6d6 EB, AE radius (60 AP) than from 3d6 EB, AVLD, AE radius (52 AP).

I kind of think that's more an indictment of how quickly other effects become useless with an AP limit than the idea the NNDs and such are too strong, though.

In a 75 active point game, most living targets will have basic defenses in excess of 20. Inanimate objects are another case, though popping the 15/15 force wall with a 1d6 AVLD attack is fairly bogus.

How much of that is an artifact of the fact Force Walls have no Body, though? Would it be a big deal if they were a mix of Body and Defense? I've found the no-body element of Force Walls and Foci causing problems in other places.

ajackson

Mar 27th, '08, 11:03 AM

I kind of think that's more an indictment of how quickly other effects become useless with an AP limit than the idea the NNDs and such are too strong, though.
It's possible. My big problem with NND/AVLD is actually lack of scalingl. It really should be possible to knock out an agent with a gas bomb, and the same gas bomb should be really marginal against a tough hero.

This is one of the things M&M did right, IMO -- everything has a defense. In M&M, that NND/AVLD becomes a damaging attack vs Fortitude (usually).

Paragon

Mar 27th, '08, 11:19 AM

It's possible. My big problem with NND/AVLD is actually lack of scalingl. It really should be possible to knock out an agent with a gas bomb, and the same gas bomb should be really marginal against a tough hero.

This is one of the things M&M did right, IMO -- everything has a defense. In M&M, that NND/AVLD becomes a damaging attack vs Fortitude (usually).

Well, in a sense, everything that does damage in Hero has a defense: Stun and Body. Its just that M&M has a fairly all-or-nothing (note fairly; I'm quite aware of staging, as I've just gotten off running an M&M campaign) and statistical approach to resisting effects, where Hero takes an accumulative tact.

ajackson

Mar 27th, '08, 11:31 AM

Well, in a sense, everything that does damage in Hero has a defense: Stun and Body. Its just that M&M has a fairly all-or-nothing (note fairly; I'm quite aware of staging, as I've just gotten off running an M&M campaign) and statistical approach to resisting effects, where Hero takes an accumulative tact.
Well, M&M combat is pretty much accumulative too -- you win when you run them out of hero points for rerolls (this is not really a strength of the system; IMO it actually makes combat pretty bland). The thing is, effects accumulate much much slower on a tougher target. A brick really should be something like a hundred times tougher than a random agent, and unless you give agents 1 stun, that winds up with unplayable numbers unless you cheat and just toss in a generic defense which works against all damage effects.

Paragon

Mar 27th, '08, 11:46 AM

Well, M&M combat is pretty much accumulative too -- you win when you run them out of hero points for rerolls (this is not really a strength of the system; IMO it actually makes combat pretty bland). The thing is, effects accumulate much much slower on a tougher target. A brick really should be something like a hundred times tougher than a random agent, and unless you give agents 1 stun, that winds up with unplayable numbers unless you cheat and just toss in a generic defense which works against all damage effects.

Yeah, but in a save system, for all that things accumulate slower, you still have the potential for a relatively weak attack to take out a pretty strong target; as you note, Steve Kenson is aware of that which is why the Hero Point mechanic is so important in M&M.

The reason you don't have that in Hero is very simple; historically, it was designed to make thugs a credible threat. That's all over part of the damage/defense design system, and if its not what you want, the system can produce all kind of problems.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 28th, '08, 03:53 AM

My big problem with NND/AVLD is actually lack of scalingl. It really should be possible to knock out an agent with a gas bomb, and the same gas bomb should be really marginal against a tough hero.
If the tough hero is based on lots of Stun and Con rather than just a hard shell, a gas bomb will be marginal.

- Klaus

CTaylor

Mar 28th, '08, 06:57 AM

If the tough hero is based on lots of Stun and Con rather than just a hard shell, a gas bomb will be marginal.

Sounds like an argument for the logic of figured characteristics, again.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 28th, '08, 08:09 AM

Sounds like an argument for the logic of figured characteristics, again.

Not really. That fact that Stun is a universal 'defense' against damage and that CON helps avoid getting stunned by even armor-bypassing attacks doesn't mean that you should get a huge discount on the one from buying the other.

In fact, since having a lot of Stun usually is an alternative to having large defenses, it could easily be argued that the characteristics that add to one shouldn't add to the other.

- Klaus

Paragon

Mar 28th, '08, 09:32 AM

If the tough hero is based on lots of Stun and Con rather than just a hard shell, a gas bomb will be marginal.

- Klaus

Unfortunately, only if you have a rather generous definition of "marginal"; the amount of stun that will KO a normal person runs to a third to a quarter of what even the most Stun-intensive characters I've ever seen had, and I don't consider something that does that percentage of their totals marginal, given that's often all they'd to to their equivelent opponent with a blow.

ajackson

Mar 28th, '08, 09:44 AM

If the tough hero is based on lots of Stun and Con rather than just a hard shell, a gas bomb will be marginal.
Knocking out Joe Street Thug (Str 13, Con 13, Bod 10, Stun 24, PD 6) with an NND takes 7d. That same attack will knock out Bill Brick (Str 60, Con 33, Bod 15, Stun 62, PD 28) in 3 hits, which is hardly marginal, and it will likely knock out a heroic-level energy projector in 1-2 hits.

Knocking out Joe Street Thug with a regular attack takes 9d. That same attack will do an average of 3.5 stun to Bill Brick, and it will require 18 hits to put him down.

I don't object to NND being somewhat more efficient against bricks than regular dice. However, I do object to the magnitude of the difference.

CTaylor

Mar 28th, '08, 11:41 AM

Eh, the point of NNDs is to be a special attack that cuts through defenses. I mean think about it, how much does it take to knock out the Hulk or Superman if you have the right attack? The source material has these special attacks very rapidly effective, against targets that shrug off ordinary attacks.

ajackson

Mar 28th, '08, 11:45 AM

Eh, the point of NNDs is to be a special attack that cuts through defenses. I mean think about it, how much does it take to knock out the Hulk or Superman if you have the right attack?.
Unless you hit a specific vulnerability, quite a lot.

Opal

Mar 28th, '08, 11:51 AM

Knocking out Joe Street Thug (Str 13, Con 13, Bod 10, Stun 24, PD 6) with an NND takes 7d. That same attack will knock out Bill Brick (Str 60, Con 33, Bod 15, Stun 62, PD 28) in 3 hits, which is hardly marginal, and it will likely knock out a heroic-level energy projector in 1-2 hits.

Knocking out Joe Street Thug with a regular attack takes 9d. That same attack will do an average of 3.5 stun to Bill Brick, and it will require 18 hits to put him down.I think a large part of this problem is attacks being designed the wrong way. If an attack is /designed/ to KO normals, it should be a normal attack. A 'stun ray' that consistently instantly KOs reasonably tough normals only has to blow through 2-8 pts of ED, and do 20-40 STN. A 12d STN-only EB will work very consistently, a 6d NND will pretty consistently stun normals, but will often fail to KO them. Why use NND to model the effect at all?

Same thing goes with some poisons. Why model a poison dart with a controversial Continuous NND/does BOD, when you can just buy it as a Gradual KA that gets a /limitation/ for not working vs even 1 point of resistant DEF?

BobGreenwade

Mar 28th, '08, 12:40 PM

Interrupting the ongoing debate about NND/AVLD for a moment.... :)

I'd like to say something about Sticky that I don't think has been brought up in this thread. As currently written, a Sticky Power can affect its primary target, and anyone who touches him... but nobody else. This is okay for some effects, but something like a contagious disease should just go on forever until it's stopped in every way.

The current +1/2 Advantage for the current form of Sticky is reasonable. In a previous discussion on this topic, someone suggested that this greater amount could be a +1 Advantage, called Contagious.

ajackson

Mar 28th, '08, 01:13 PM

I think a large part of this problem is attacks being designed the wrong way. If an attack is /designed/ to KO normals, it should be a normal attack.
So, the classic trope of the Chloroform handkerchief over the mouth is designed wrong? The fact is, in cinematic genres, NNDs are used to KO normals fairly frequently.

Opal

Mar 28th, '08, 02:40 PM

So, the classic trope of the Chloroform handkerchief over the mouth is designed wrong?Yes. :sneaky: If you're just reasoning from the effect it has, rather than the logic of how it works. A limitted STN-only EB would work just fine in a campaign where no one's running around with a high ED (because NND is pretty nearly superfluous). CON does add to your ED, so ED resisting the effect slightly isn't absurd. You have to cover the victim's nose/mouth, and there's not a lot of armor in a genre like that which covers that particular hit location (and, if hit locations are used, that's double STN, right, there, too). Cheap and ineffectual against more capable characters (since you're unlikely to be able to hit them in location 4 and keep them grabbed long enough for the heavily-limitted STN-only EB to take effect).

BTW, I know I said 'wrong' way - but I didn't mean that there was one right way to model a given special effect, just that there are better ways to model the end result of a power that's used vs very different characters. If you want a power that KOs normals easily, but doesn't much affect high-normal-defense supers, you're looking for a normal attack, not an NND.

CTaylor

Mar 28th, '08, 03:01 PM

Unless you hit a specific vulnerability, quite a lot.

That's not exactly true. Batman can take ten guys punching him at the same time but only one gas grenade. The Hulk has been knocked out by gas in the comic books, depending on his incarnation. NND attacks take people out pretty fast; that's how it should be.

The current +1/2 Advantage for the current form of Sticky is reasonable. In a previous discussion on this topic, someone suggested that this greater amount could be a +1 Advantage, called Contagious.

I agree, that would be a very good idea: a sticky power that can be passed on to each person that sticky affects. It should be good and spendy, I could even see +1 1/2, but it should be possible. In fact, that's going in Codex vol 2 as a suggested rule to update my Pestilence spell :)

schir1964

Mar 28th, '08, 05:55 PM

PhilFleischmann

Mar 31st, '08, 07:22 PM

Q: Should any new Advantages be added?
Here's a few that I forgot to mention before. I use them in my games and find they work well. I'm not sure what to call them, so the names I give them here are not necessarily the best possible names for them, they're just what I've come up with so far. (And yes, I'm sure I've mentioned them on the regular boards.)

Area Effect, Automatic Selective Target - A +0.5 Advantage in addition to the base cost of the AE Advantage. This allows an Area Effect power to effect only those targets the user selects, but without an additional attack roll for each such target. You still have to make the roll to hit the target hex, but everyone within the target area that you want is then automatically effected by the power.

I pegged this at +0.5 because it's the same as the difference between Non-Selective and Selective (everyone with an additional attack roll vs. only those you want with an additional attack roll), which is analogous to "plain" Area Effect and "Automatic Selective Target" (everyone with no additional attack roll vs. only those you want with no additional attack roll).

Lock-on Feedback - A +0.5 Advantage to Mental Powers that allows the user to determine the level of effect achieved *before* declaring the "extent" of the desired effect. This would be best explained by an example:

The Rampaging Destructor is on a destructive rampage through the city. Along comes Super-Ego to save the day. He attempts a Mind Control "Stop your Destructive Rampage!" This is something that the Rampaging Destructor is Violently Opposed to, so he'll need EGO+30 for the power to work. If he fails to achieve that level of effect, nothing happens at all, according to the current rules. But with "Lock-on Feedback," Super-Ego gets a feedback of information of how well he "locked-on" to his opponent's mind. Say in this case he only achieved EGO+10, so he can't stop the rampage entirely, but might be able to direct it in a way that RD "wouldn't mind" doing. Super-Ego mentally commands that the Destructor continue his rampage in the direction of the military base, rather than in the direction of the children's hospital.

The user still has to specify the general idea of the effect he's aiming for, and must stick with that, toning it down somewhat, depending on the actual effect roll.

Note also that the GM need not reveal the target's EGO or Mental Defense to the player, only the level of effect achieved.

What do you think?

BobGreenwade

Apr 1st, '08, 05:41 AM

Area Effect, Automatic Selective Target - A +0.5 Advantage in addition to the base cost of the AE Advantage. This allows an Area Effect power to effect only those targets the user selects, but without an additional attack roll for each such target. You still have to make the roll to hit the target hex, but everyone within the target area that you want is then automatically effected by the power.

I pegged this at +0.5 because it's the same as the difference between Non-Selective and Selective (everyone with an additional attack roll vs. only those you want with an additional attack roll), which is analogous to "plain" Area Effect and "Automatic Selective Target" (everyone with no additional attack roll vs. only those you want with no additional attack roll).

Lock-on Feedback - A +0.5 Advantage to Mental Powers that allows the user to determine the level of effect achieved *before* declaring the "extent" of the desired effect. This would be best explained by an example:

The Rampaging Destructor is on a destructive rampage through the city. Along comes Super-Ego to save the day. He attempts a Mind Control "Stop your Destructive Rampage!" This is something that the Rampaging Destructor is Violently Opposed to, so he'll need EGO+30 for the power to work. If he fails to achieve that level of effect, nothing happens at all, according to the current rules. But with "Lock-on Feedback," Super-Ego gets a feedback of information of how well he "locked-on" to his opponent's mind. Say in this case he only achieved EGO+10, so he can't stop the rampage entirely, but might be able to direct it in a way that RD "wouldn't mind" doing. Super-Ego mentally commands that the Destructor continue his rampage in the direction of the military base, rather than in the direction of the children's hospital.

The user still has to specify the general idea of the effect he's aiming for, and must stick with that, toning it down somewhat, depending on the actual effect roll.

Note also that the GM need not reveal the target's EGO or Mental Defense to the player, only the level of effect achieved.

What do you think?I like these. The first is very logical; the second achieves an effect sometimes found in fiction without badly screwing around with game balance.

CTaylor

Apr 1st, '08, 08:40 AM

MODIFIERS IN GENERAL: some modifiers seem like they shouldn't affect endurance cost, these should be separate from the ones that do. Autofire, for instance, is just shooting a lot - why cost more END each shot? But AE makes perfect sense, it's a huge area.

ADVANTAGES
AREA EFFECT (ANY): as pointed out earlier: very much too small an area. 1 hex/5 points in the power would be tolerable, at present it's idiotically tiny. Yes, the flexibility is worth a reduction in size, but not to this enormous a degree.

AREA EFFECT (GROUP): Allows you to target only a specific group of people in the area instead of whomever happens to be there. Requires severe limitation and description, but this would be quite useful.

AREA EFFECT (MENTAL): This variant on AE was great from the old rules, it used the modifiers for mind scan to see how many people you hit rather than using a physical area.

AUTOFIRE: Doubling the number of shots should be a +1/4, not a +1/2 advantage. In almost all cases, increasing the number of shots fired is not much (if any) of a gain. I'd also suggest a special modifier for AE autofires, in addition to the 'not with normal attack roll' modifier.

AVLD: Compare costs of this with BOECV and tell me that structure is working as intended. This needs a complete rework.

IGNORES DAMAGE REDUCTION: For each +1/4, reduces damage reduction in the target by 25%.

IGNORES HARDENED: Instead of having to buy Armor Piercing or Penetration over and over to get past hardened (at +1/2 each time) there should be a separate advantage that does this. This could be the same one used to get past "blocks teleport" and other such ideas. It should be +1/4 as well; you've already paid for the attack, and each additional step does not actually give you the same amount of benefit.

LIMITED EVASION: The AVLD version of NNE below; if the character has the ability to evade it, still can hit with a normal attack roll.

NO NORMAL EVASION: AKA Always Hits. The alternative to NND, a power that doesn't use an attack roll but can be avoided with a specific set of circumstances (also turns the power stun only and doesn't make it indirect).

VARIABLE RESULT: This would be a minor advantage (+1/4) but it would allow characters to use their powers more flexibly. For example, shifting force field around from 10 PD/ED to 5 PD/15 ED, or using an AE power without the AE. This would require some specific restrictions and explanation, but it would be useful and is a missing part of the rules.

BobGreenwade

Apr 1st, '08, 12:42 PM

AREA EFFECT (ANY): as pointed out earlier: very much too small an area. 1 hex/5 points in the power would be tolerable, at present it's idiotically tiny. Yes, the flexibility is worth a reduction in size, but not to this enormous a degree.

AVLD: Compare costs of this with BOECV and tell me that structure is working as intended. This needs a complete rework.

VARIABLE RESULT: This would be a minor advantage (+1/4) but it would allow characters to use their powers more flexibly. For example, shifting force field around from 10 PD/ED to 5 PD/15 ED, or using an AE power without the AE. This would require some specific restrictions and explanation, but it would be useful and is a missing part of the rules.Count me in as supporting these ideas. On the rest, I'm ambivalent but cautiously supportive -- I like having maximum options, but I can see how these might seem unattractive due to balance issues. The latter can be cleared somewhat, however, with Stop Signs (and possibly my suggestion of a Do Not Enter Sign).

Gary

Apr 1st, '08, 03:50 PM

Autofire non-standard attacks:

Non-standard Autofire do not have an additional +1 efficiency surcharge. Instead, each additional hit after the 1st adds +2 DC to the base attack. Do not count the Autofire when calculating the DCs of the base attack. So a 3d6 Autofire NND attack that hits once will do 3d6 damage, twice will do 4d6 damage, 3 times will do 5d6 damage, etc. An Autofire Area Effect NND Does Body is 4 DCs per 1d6. So each additional hit will add 1/2d6 to the base attack.

Gary

Apr 1st, '08, 04:00 PM

Reduced End

Reduced End is now a separate Power. The cost is as follows:

5 pts to reduce End Cost for 1 single Power or Characteristic by 1 End per usage.

10 pts to reduce End Cost for a small set of related Powers or Characteristics by 1 End per usage. Such as all Powers in the same EC.

15 pts to reduce End Cost for all Powers and Characteristics by 1 End per usage. (This may be too powerful, but I'm throwing it out as a suggestion)

So a character who wants to spend 4 End a shot instead of 6 on his 12d6 EB would pay 10 pts extra. If he wants to reduce his EB, FF, and Flight in a EC, he would pay 20 pts and all of them would be reduced by 2 End per shot.

For Multipowers, it would cost 5 pts for 1 power +1 pt per additional power after the 1st up to a maximum of 10 pts per level. So a multipower with 3 slots would spend 7 pts per level of End reduction.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 2nd, '08, 05:38 AM

VARIABLE RESULT: This would be a minor advantage (+1/4) but it would allow characters to use their powers more flexibly. For example, shifting force field around from 10 PD/ED to 5 PD/15 ED, or using an AE power without the AE.
You can achieve this with a Multipower. It might even be cheaper that way.

It might, however, be a worthy alternative to power frameworks (just as it has been suggested to replace the EC with a limitation on powers that they are drained as a group).

I have toyed with the idea of a Variable Power, which can be any basic Power (perhaps within a single Power group). The cost might be twice the Active cost of the Powers it could be. A Variable Power with Variable Advantage and Variable Limitations (and Variable Result) could to a large extent replace the VPP construct.

- Klaus

BobGreenwade

Apr 2nd, '08, 05:46 AM

I've been kind of musing over the idea that Based On Ego Combat Value could be changed, at least in the listings, to Based On Alternate Combat Value, and possibilities other than ECV listed. The Ultimate Mentalist already mentioned Intelligence Combat Value (ICV) and Presence Combat Value (PCV) as possibilities; I could see attacks derived from grappling based on Strength Combat Value (SCV), some derived from appearance based on Comeliness Combat Value (CCV). Probably someone could come up with ways to do it with CON and/or BODY.

If nothing else, discussing the idea in a text box or sidebar accompanying the BOECV text would be a good thing, I think.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 2nd, '08, 05:52 AM

Reduced End

Reduced End is now a separate Power. The cost is as follows:

5 pts to reduce End Cost for 1 single Power or Characteristic by 1 End per usage.

10 pts to reduce End Cost for a small set of related Powers or Characteristics by 1 End per usage. Such as all Powers in the same EC.

15 pts to reduce End Cost for all Powers and Characteristics by 1 End per usage.
I have actually considered something similar, but you beat me to it. :)

For the sake of simplicity and flexibility, I would make it an add-on to a specific power at the 5-pt cost you suggest. If all powers in an EC take this add-on, the EC discount will reduce the overall cost similarly to your 10-pt version, and there would be no need to make a special case for MPs, either.

Another way to do it: You could buy 'fast REC', which recovers END every phase without requiring actions, at 5 points per 1 END/phase. This would be particularly useful if post-segment 12 recovery is removed (as has been suggested).

- Klaus

Gary

Apr 2nd, '08, 07:22 AM

I have actually considered something similar, but you beat me to it. :)

For the sake of simplicity and flexibility, I would make it an add-on to a specific power at the 5-pt cost you suggest. If all powers in an EC take this add-on, the EC discount will reduce the overall cost similarly to your 10-pt version, and there would be no need to make a special case for MPs, either.

Another way to do it: You could buy 'fast REC', which recovers END every phase without requiring actions, at 5 points per 1 END/phase. This would be particularly useful if post-segment 12 recovery is removed (as has been suggested).

- Klaus

Making it an add-on to a specific power makes the construct rather wonky. The purpose of seperating out Reduced End is because if you leave it as an Advantage, it's a LOT cheaper to Reduce End on a low base attack with lots of Advantages. Thus it costs 10 pts to make a 4d6 Area Effect NND 0 End whereas it costs 30 pts to make a straight 12d6 EB cost no End.

If you make it an add-on to a specific power, you get a quasi-Adder. It's not a real Adder since otherwise you'd have to place other Advantages on it as well as the base power. And this quasi-Adder would be fairly confusing since it acts like an Adder in some ways but not others. By making Reduced End a separate power, it looks cleaner on a character sheet and is easier to understand and implement. I had another thread somewhere where this issue was thoroughly discussed.

As a note to my proposal, Autofire attacks would automatically be at the 10 pt level if you want to Reduce the End. Every shot in the Autofire would be reduced by 1 End for that 10 pt purchase.

Incidentally, it should probably cost either 8 or 10 pts for 1 End per phase fast Rec. It's significantly more useful than simply reducing the End cost of 1 single power by 1 per usage.

CTaylor

Apr 2nd, '08, 08:00 AM

You can achieve this with a Multipower. It might even be cheaper that way.

It might, however, be a worthy alternative to power frameworks

Thats what my thoughts on the matter were. While you could use a framework like multipower to let you buy your force field at different levels, it's needlessly complicated and takes up a lot of room on a character sheet. Some applications of this advantage would be better served with a multipower... but then so would applications of variable advantage and variable special effect.

And I like the concept of reduced endurance as suggested better than an advantage, plus it makes some very interesting builds possible (I'm thinking of a few spells right now).

If nothing else, discussing the idea in a text box or sidebar accompanying the BOECV text would be a good thing, I think.

That is a pretty good concept, and while some might be worth more or less of an advantage (maybe 1/4 more) than others, it would bring an interesting dynamic to the game.

The same thing could be done with END cost: costing Body or Stun instead of END is something I've used in the past, based on increased END Cost and an additional limitation for how slow Body recovers.

Southern Cross

Apr 2nd, '08, 02:09 PM

Thanks for the many new Advantages! Here are a few of my own:
KILLING ATTACK (+1/2):This Advantage replaces the Killing Attack Powers.Damage (and Knockback) are figured as normal,but only resistant defenses reduce the damage.
RESISTANT DEFENSE(+1/2):This Advantage replaces the
Damage Resistance Power,in that it makes Non-Resistant Defenses Resistant.
If this Advantage is available in the campaign,then it is assumed that Damage Reduction and all exotic defenses are innately Non-Resistant.
SELECTIVE FIRE (+1/2):This Advantage is only available for Autofire Powers that do not do Knockback.The user of the Power can aim all his shots at one target without any OCV penalties.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 3rd, '08, 05:53 AM

Making it an add-on to a specific power makes the construct rather wonky. The purpose of seperating out Reduced End is because if you leave it as an Advantage, it's a LOT cheaper to Reduce End on a low base attack with lots of Advantages. Thus it costs 10 pts to make a 4d6 Area Effect NND 0 End whereas it costs 30 pts to make a straight 12d6 EB cost no End.

If you make it an add-on to a specific power, you get a quasi-Adder. It's not a real Adder since otherwise you'd have to place other Advantages on it as well as the base power. And this quasi-Adder would be fairly confusing since it acts like an Adder in some ways but not others. By making Reduced End a separate power, it looks cleaner on a character sheet and is easier to understand and implement. I had another thread somewhere where this issue was thoroughly discussed.
Reducing END cost by 1 as a 5-point adder is a structure very similar to adding x2 non-conbat movement as a 5-point adder.

It will not be particularly advantageous for powers with many advantages. A 6d6 AoE EB costs 6 END per use, so you would need to buy 30 points worth of reduction to make it 0 END, just as you would with a plain 12d6 EB.

Incidentally, it should probably cost either 8 or 10 pts for 1 End per phase fast Rec. It's significantly more useful than simply reducing the End cost of 1 single power by 1 per usage.
I based the cost off what you currently get from PS12 recovery. 1 REC costs 2 points and gives you 1 END + 1 STUN every turn plus every time you take a recovery. Only recovering END would be at least a -1 limitation, and not being able to take extra recoveries maybe -1/4. That is 0.89 points for 1 END every turn, or 10.56 for 1 END every segment. At SPD 6, this would be ~ 5 points for 1 END/phase; at SPD 3 it would be ~ 2½ points. 5 points is thus on the high end; 8 or 10 would be far too much.

- Klaus

Gary

Apr 3rd, '08, 06:41 AM

Reducing END cost by 1 as a 5-point adder is a structure very similar to adding x2 non-conbat movement as a 5-point adder.

It will not be particularly advantageous for powers with many advantages. A 6d6 AoE EB costs 6 END per use, so you would need to buy 30 points worth of reduction to make it 0 END, just as you would with a plain 12d6 EB.

Except that the 5 pt Adders for movement will count as part of the base power for advantages purposes. It is NOT placed on top. So 5" Flight with X4 NCM normally costs 15 pts, 10 for the base power and 5 for the Adder. If you make it Usable as Attack, it now costs 30 pts since the Adder is multiplied by 2 as well. The Reduced End would have to be treated differently from any other Adder so it's cleaner to simply make it it's own separate power.

I based the cost off what you currently get from PS12 recovery. 1 REC costs 2 points and gives you 1 END + 1 STUN every turn plus every time you take a recovery. Only recovering END would be at least a -1 limitation, and not being able to take extra recoveries maybe -1/4. That is 0.89 points for 1 END every turn, or 10.56 for 1 END every segment. At SPD 6, this would be ~ 5 points for 1 END/phase; at SPD 3 it would be ~ 2½ points. 5 points is thus on the high end; 8 or 10 would be far too much.

- Klaus

Well, being able to Recover during each phase is quite an advantage. Often a character needs the End NOW, not PS12. I'd say it's a +1/4 or +1/2 Advantage.

That being said, we have somewhat of a disconnect between the cost of Reduced End and Rec even under the current system.

5 pts for every 1 End reduction is in keeping with the current cost structure. A 60 pt power would normally spend 30 pts to Reduce End cost by 6, or 5 pts per End reduction. At 5 SPD, he would spend 30 End per turn. As you pointed out, he could simply buy +30 Rec End Only (-1) for 30 pts and get almost the same thing functionally as well as the ability to take Recoveries during the Turn as well.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 3rd, '08, 06:52 AM

That being said, we have somewhat of a disconnect between the cost of Reduced End and Rec even under the current system.

5 pts for every 1 End reduction is in keeping with the current cost structure. A 60 pt power would normally spend 30 pts to Reduce End cost by 6, or 5 pts per End reduction. At 5 SPD, he would spend 30 End per turn. As you pointed out, he could simply buy +30 Rec End Only (-1) for 30 pts and get almost the same thing functionally as well as the ability to take Recoveries during the Turn as well.
Agreed.

I think I favor a Recharge power (or secondary characteristic) that lets you recover 1 END per segment for 10 points - even when stunned or unconscious. Persistant powers could feed off this. It will require a bit more book-keeping, but this would be compensated by now having the Post-12 recovery.

BTW, should continuous powers pay END per segment rather than per phase? A SPD 3 character pays half the END per turn to have a FF running all the time than does a SPD 6 character.

- Klaus

PhilFleischmann

Apr 3rd, '08, 07:34 PM

Gary

Apr 3rd, '08, 08:02 PM

Here's another issue: I have a problem with the requirement to buy an Instant Power Continuous and then also buy Continuing Charges. That's paying for the same Advantage twice!

Just the Continuing Charge ought to be enough - you buy the maximum duration with the levels down on the chart. The power can still be stopped by some reasonable condition before it would normally run out, just as with any Continuous Power.

Or the Continuous Advantage and "regular" Charges - this would allow the power to continue as long as desired (theoretically, subject to the cancelling condition). Though this can be potentially abusive, like other 0-END Continuous Powers. Costs END might help.

Take a 12d6 EB, please:

For +0, you can have 16 of them per day.
For +0, you can have 12 per day that last for an additional phase.
For +0, you can have 8 per day that last for one turn.
For +0, you can have 6 per day that last for one minute.
etc.

It's ultraabusive if you allow a power to be Continuous by simply using Continuing Charges. There would be nothing stopping someone from buying a 4d6 RKA or any other 60 pt attack for that matter, with 8 Continuing Charges of 1 Turn each in their multipower. Presto, instant napalm fire and forget attacks that'll get 4-7 hits in for 1 attack roll for the typical super. At least by forcing it to purchase Continuous, the napalm attack gets reduced to 2d6.

Imagine a 4d6 Transform with Continuing Charges... :eg:

MPT

Apr 4th, '08, 08:55 AM

Q: Should Advantages and Limitations be applied to Powers in a different way?

Whilst there may be some logical reasons for changing it*, the current method of Active Cost/Real Cost calculation is one of the defining features of the HERO system and should not be changed for precisely that reason - after all if we change all of the 'core' HERO rules (it looks as if Figured Characteristics are going) then what we have is no longer the HERO system.

Also, having to recalculate the cost of everything in all the books with a new formula would take forever :thumbdown

* Two -1 Limitations represent a power that is 1/4 it's normal effectiveness, but the cost is only 1/3 which is more than expected. Two +1 Advantages represent a power that is 4 times its normal effectiveness but the cost is x3 which is less than expected. So you get a cost break if a power is more powerful, but pay more if it is less powerful, which seem strange.

If it was to change then I would prefer that all Advantages and Limitations were multipliers ... a +1/4 would be x1.25, a -1 would be x0.5 ... although this would increase the amount of space that the calculation would take up.

Q: Should any new Advantages be added?

Definitely add the 'Homing Attack' Advantage in some form. Before now you had to do this as some form of vehicle or summoned creature which self-destructed after a given time period or a successful attack.

Q: Should Damage Shield be removed as a stand-alone Advantage and just become a form of Trigger?

I like the idea of making it a Continuous Area of Effect.

Paragon

Apr 4th, '08, 12:26 PM

Q: Should Damage Shield be removed as a stand-alone Advantage and just become a form of Trigger?

I like the idea of making it a Continuous Area of Effect.

Like it needs to be even _more_ expensive. :rolleyes:

PhilFleischmann

Apr 5th, '08, 01:37 PM

It's ultraabusive if you allow a power to be Continuous by simply using Continuing Charges.
I can certainly see it being potentially abusive at the longer durations (say, 1 turn and up), but it isn't necessarily so.

There would be nothing stopping someone from buying a 4d6 RKA or any other 60 pt attack for that matter, with 8 Continuing Charges of 1 Turn each in their multipower. Presto, instant napalm fire and forget attacks that'll get 4-7 hits in for 1 attack roll for the typical super.
That assumes all your attacks hit. Let's say you hit 75% of the time (a rather high percentage considering the lengths your opponents will likely go to, assuming a modicum of intelligent strategy, to not get hit by your napalm, especially after having seen it in action once: they's DFC, Missile Deflect [or Reflect!], etc.). So you take out up to 6 opponents, then you're out of shots. Can you be certain there won't be any left standing, or any more you'll need to face for the rest of the day, while you're out of offensive power?

But yes, the one level per time increment might be a bit too cheap. How 'bout one level down for an additional phase, and two levels down for each additional level on the time chart. And this would also allow increased granularity in that you could have the other levels be two of the appropriate unit of time. Vis:

For +0, you can have 16 of them per day.
For +0, you can have 12 per day that last for an additional phase.
For +0, you can have 8 per day that last for three phases (interpolated).
For +0, you can have 6 per day that last for one turn.
For +0, you can have 4 per day that last for two turns.
For +0, you can have 3 per day that last for one minute.
For +0, you can have 2 per day that last for two minutes.
For +0, you can have 1 per day that last for five minutes.

Looking at that, I like it a lot better. I think that's might be my new house rule for continuing charges, regardless of the decision made in 6e.

Imagine a 4d6 Transform with Continuing Charges... :eg:
Yeah, so?

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 5th, '08, 03:10 PM

Q: Should Advantages and Limitations be applied to Powers in a different way?

* Two -1 Limitations represent a power that is 1/4 it's normal effectiveness, but the cost is only 1/3 which is more than expected. Two +1 Advantages represent a power that is 4 times its normal effectiveness but the cost is x3 which is less than expected. So you get a cost break if a power is more powerful, but pay more if it is less powerful, which seem strange.

If it was to change then I would prefer that all Advantages and Limitations were multipliers ... a +1/4 would be x1.25, a -1 would be x0.5 ... although this would increase the amount of space that the calculation would take up.

Not if made into a table, like in the second chart in this proposal (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1571357&postcount=275). Each step is x1.2 cost, which comes to x2 cost for four steps, just as four +1/4 advantages now is x2 cost.

- Klaus

Gary

Apr 6th, '08, 12:04 AM

I can certainly see it being potentially abusive at the longer durations (say, 1 turn and up), but it isn't necessarily so.

That assumes all your attacks hit. Let's say you hit 75% of the time (a rather high percentage considering the lengths your opponents will likely go to, assuming a modicum of intelligent strategy, to not get hit by your napalm, especially after having seen it in action once: they's DFC, Missile Deflect [or Reflect!], etc.). So you take out up to 6 opponents, then you're out of shots. Can you be certain there won't be any left standing, or any more you'll need to face for the rest of the day, while you're out of offensive power?

One character taking out 6 is pretty potent, especially if you consider that he's probably saving these napalm attacks vs worthy foes and not mooks. And against the bosses, he can hit several times and each hit would represent 4-7 attacks of damage.

And who says you'll be out of offensive power? It's probably just 1 slot in your multipower.

But yes, the one level per time increment might be a bit too cheap. How 'bout one level down for an additional phase, and two levels down for each additional level on the time chart. And this would also allow increased granularity in that you could have the other levels be two of the appropriate unit of time. Vis:

For +0, you can have 16 of them per day.
For +0, you can have 12 per day that last for an additional phase.
For +0, you can have 8 per day that last for three phases (interpolated).
For +0, you can have 6 per day that last for one turn.
For +0, you can have 4 per day that last for two turns.
For +0, you can have 3 per day that last for one minute.
For +0, you can have 2 per day that last for two minutes.
For +0, you can have 1 per day that last for five minutes.

Looking at that, I like it a lot better. I think that's might be my new house rule for continuing charges, regardless of the decision made in 6e.

Yeah, so?

I think that's still way too powerful. You simply can't allow a free +1 Advantage for no cost. Perhaps you should test it out with a few arena fights between some characters with and without free Continuous on their attacks.

AnotherSkip

Apr 7th, '08, 06:25 AM

Sure, I know that some see MegaScale as unbalancing, but frankly, it's the only reasonable way to simulate some effects.

My players have been teasing me with some mercy about building a character by selling off all running(-12cp) with buying Teleport 2" Megascale(+1/4)," and a protractor.....(something like 7 CP) :idjit:

fortunately the players seem to not be interested in dying so much that they are willing to get themselves killed off by doing stupid things.

AnotherSkip

Apr 7th, '08, 07:16 AM

I experimented with an advantage like that back in the 80s. It's certainly workable, but it does change the dynamics of combat, especially vs low-DEF, high-DCV or active-defense characters (like those who use missle deflection). If you toss several of these at such a character, eventually, one hits, stuns him, and the rest of the attacks chasing him 'dogpile.'

I've generally used No Range Mod before and since, to model 'guided' attacks of any kind.

How about a gradual effect modifier that at each level could be negated(the effects of that level) by making a succesful missle reflect/dodge/block (-1/2 or more limitation?). Then against a character with a flying dodge it would simulate the character being chased down by a gyrojet round. how does that sound?

CTaylor

Apr 7th, '08, 01:48 PM

I built a decent, workable seeking advantage that wasn't overpowered (it had quite a few restrictions built in that made it cost quite a bit to use the way Opal notes), but it's a pretty specific sort of advantage I don't know as would fit in a generic rule set like 6th edition.

PhilFleischmann

Apr 7th, '08, 06:11 PM

One character taking out 6 is pretty potent, especially if you consider that he's probably saving these napalm attacks vs worthy foes and not mooks. And against the bosses, he can hit several times and each hit would represent 4-7 attacks of damage.
That assumes the boss isn't doing anything to defend himself. Is he just going to stand there and take it? Is he not going to make any attempt to stop the effects of the attack (which much have a reasonably common and obvious method)? Is he not dodging, diving for cover, firing back? Are the mooks and henchmen just standing around doing nothing? Is this character unhittable/invulnerable that he can take out 6 opponents or a big boss without having to worry that he might be taken out himself?

And who says you'll be out of offensive power? It's probably just 1 slot in your multipower.
Then he'll have paid extra for it, and now he can't use it for the rest of the day.

I think that's still way too powerful. You simply can't allow a free +1 Advantage for no cost. Perhaps you should test it out with a few arena fights between some characters with and without free Continuous on their attacks.
And it's way to expensive just to let a power continue for one or two extra phases. According to RAW, 60 Real/60 Active points can get you:

12d6 EB, 16 per day.
6d6 EB, Continuous, 16 per day - where Continuous is useless, since the Charges only last one phase.
6d6 EB, Continuous, 12 per day that last two phases.
6d6 EB, Continuous, 8 per day that last one turn.

The latter three are not nearly as useful as the first.

Southern Cross

Apr 7th, '08, 06:29 PM

True enough.Personally I think that Continuous should be a +1/2 Advantage on normal,non-Advantaged attacks.

Gary

Apr 7th, '08, 07:35 PM

That assumes the boss isn't doing anything to defend himself. Is he just going to stand there and take it? Is he not going to make any attempt to stop the effects of the attack (which much have a reasonably common and obvious method)? Is he not dodging, diving for cover, firing back? Are the mooks and henchmen just standing around doing nothing? Is this character unhittable/invulnerable that he can take out 6 opponents or a big boss without having to worry that he might be taken out himself?

If it's a boss, he's probably fighting 2-4 other characters at the same time. If he's using all his effort to avoid being hit by this character, he'll easily be taken out by the teammates. And just one hit is going to ruin his day because it's the gift that keeps on giving.

Then he'll have paid extra for it, and now he can't use it for the rest of the day.

A whole 6 pts for 6 shots that do 4-7 times damage if it hits. Somehow I don't think the character is terribly worried about this.

And it's way to expensive just to let a power continue for one or two extra phases. According to RAW, 60 Real/60 Active points can get you:

12d6 EB, 16 per day.
6d6 EB, Continuous, 16 per day - where Continuous is useless, since the Charges only last one phase.
6d6 EB, Continuous, 12 per day that last two phases.
6d6 EB, Continuous, 8 per day that last one turn.

The latter three are not nearly as useful as the first.

It's priced the same as area effect. Except area effect hits multiple guys once each whereas this hits one guy multiple times.

A simple thought experiment should show what would happen. 2 identical Blasters except one has Continuous and the other doesn't fight. Since it takes 2-3 hits to take down the typical character, then the character with Continous only needs 1 hit. The other character would need 2-3 hits. Odds are the one with Continous is going to beat the other quite handily most of the time. Especially if he gets 1 hit in and then Dodges for the rest of the combat.

Mini-Nukette

Apr 8th, '08, 02:31 PM

A question... do people think that Advantages should count to Active Points in a Power to increase range as they do currently? Personally I don't think they should, a straight 5" per 1d6 (or 1" per equivalent STR in damage) would be better, or even having the Range paid for in points (effective / maximum ranges.)

ajackson

Apr 8th, '08, 02:51 PM

A question... do people think that Advantages should count to Active Points in a Power to increase range as they do currently?
Personally, I don't think that range should be based on active points.

CTaylor

Apr 8th, '08, 04:35 PM

yeah I second that idea. Range should be a set amount, not based on active cost.

schir1964

Apr 8th, '08, 05:03 PM

yeah I second that idea. Range should be a set amount, not based on active cost.
I presume then that Increasing/Decreasing Range would be a specific Advantage/Limitation that would affect range in a consistent way?

- Christopher Mullins

CTaylor

Apr 8th, '08, 07:37 PM

Paragon

Apr 9th, '08, 11:32 AM

ajackson

Apr 9th, '08, 11:44 AM

Seems like the present structure would function, you could just have a flat 200" range for most powers (it could actually vary based on the type of power) and then a limitation for 'less than 200"' of -1/4 and an advantage for '5x range increase' for +1/4.
I'd go with either some form of powers of 2 setup (say, x8 per +1/4), or powers of 10. A basic range of 64" or 100" is fine for most comic book powers, which are rarely used on targets that are not easily visible; a sniper would need a level of extra range.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 9th, '08, 12:11 PM

For range, it seems to me:

-1/2 No Range
-1/4 Some range (rule of thumb, can reach about half the combatants in a typical combat)
-0 Line of Sight
+1/4 Planetary
+1/2 ...

Range Modifier:

+1/4 +4 to RMod
+1/2 No Range Modifier

Perhaps the cost of Range Modifier is doubled if you have Increased Range, or perhaps the cost of Increased Range is increased if you have bought up your Range Modifier. At any rate, having a Power with Planetary Range is a major advantage if you have a snowball's chance of actually hitting anything at that range.

ajackson

Apr 9th, '08, 01:24 PM

For range, it seems to me:

-1/2 No Range
-1/4 Some range (rule of thumb, can reach about half the combatants in a typical combat)
-0 Line of Sight
+1/4 Planetary
Hm. I'm inclined towards:
-1/2: No Range
-1/4: Short Range, equivalent to a reasonable half-move
+0: Medium Range; can generally hit anyone on a normal battlemat
+1/4: Long Range; allows for sniping
+1/2: Extreme Range; allows things like shooting targets in orbit, or from orbit.

CTaylor

Apr 9th, '08, 01:36 PM

Could just make half range modifier with a +1/4; that way it's flat out better at any range, no matter how ridiculous (the longer the better) but not absolute at any range.

The reason you want the range increaser to work in terms of distance multiples is that some powers are still very useful at very long ranges, and you don't want them to be too cheap to take advantage of.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 10th, '08, 02:09 PM

Well, honestly, maximum range on most powers comes up so rarely I don't think it matters overly much.
Agreed. I wouldn't mind getting rid of this concept altogether. While it may seem reasonable in normal situations, it makes less sense in e.g. outer space where a bullet, particle stream or lightray goes on forever.

If the rule should be realistic, then range should also be halved when shooting upwards, be drastically reduced underwater, etc. I think rather than having a set max range, there could be a guideline rule that ranges should be limited by circumstances as dictated by common sense.

The only place I can see a problem might be for area attacks, e.g. villains that make random area attacks against a city from kilometers away (of course, they can do that with megascale now).

- Klaus

CTaylor

Apr 10th, '08, 04:37 PM

Well, for example, I built a great bad guy power in my necromancy spells for volume 2 of the Codex. It does a duplicate on the character, indirect, at range, triggered by taking enough damage to die. Basically, the instant they die... they show up at the prepared location where the duplicate is. They do it by stealing a corpse and preparing it with hours of work before hand and storing it away somewhere safe. It's them... without any of their gear, but alive.

This is within a certain range: the necromancer never seems to leave his castle very far, for some reason. If you just shrug at range you lose effects like this and make them all hand waving. I agree that most of the time maximum range doesn't come up... but that's because the maximum range on most powers is like seven football fields and you can't even see your target at that distance.

Lowering the range, standardizing it for various power types (maybe shorter for powers that are bought with range, longer for blasts and KAs, shorter for flashes, whatever) to a reasonable distance and you'll see it come up more often. 50" is more than a football field, that's a huge distance. That's plenty for most powers. For some, like clairvoyance, it's not nearly enough.

PhilFleischmann

Apr 10th, '08, 05:56 PM

Another thought on this question:

Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?

Yes. Usable By Others and Usable As Attack should be split up into two separate Advantages. It would be clearer and less confusing. After all, they work in two very different ways.

And while we're at it, it might also be a good idea to split it into three:

Usable By Others (lending the power to your friends)
Usable As Attack (inflicting a power on others against their will)
and
Usable On Inanimate Objects (that have no will)

These three concepts have very different purposes and methods of use and levels of utility and should not automatically be assumed to fit into the same "one-size-fits-all" construct.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 10th, '08, 08:58 PM

I've been looking over Based On ECV and I really think it ought to be broken up for parts.

However, I think some of those parts ought to be reduced in price. In particular, it costs +1 1/2 to alter a Power from affecting a "normal" defense to affecting an exotic one. It ought to be something like +1/2 to go one "step" (normal to resistant to exotic, or from one exotic to another).

Here's everything you get, in a nutshell:

Based On ECV:

* Uses ECV combat roll (+1/4, typically)
* Goes Vs. Mental Defense (+1 1/2) (1/4 less if target chooses between Mental and other, 1/2 more if attacker chooses)
* No Range Modifier (+1/2)
* Range Line Of Sight (+1/2)
* Invisible To Two Senses (Visible To Mental) (+3/4)
* STUN Only Unless +1 Advantage Bought

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 11th, '08, 03:10 AM

About max range, perhaps this should be bought similarly to non-combat move multipliers.

I.e., basic maximum range is 100 m; quadruple this for +5 point (that's x1000 for +25 points).

- Klaus

CTaylor

Apr 11th, '08, 12:35 PM

Chris Goodwin

Apr 11th, '08, 12:57 PM

* Uses ECV combat roll (+1/4, typically)

This could probably be pushed up to +1/2, few people have more than 11 EGO in my experience, unless they specifically have a use for EGO like a mentalist.

The other elements seem fine to me. Just dropping "vs ECV" is a bad idea, but you could have a section about how to make a power work vs ECV.

I almost think it should be campaign specific. For instance, in a Psi Hero game, attacks based on ECV should be the default, and "Uses CV Combat Roll" might be a Limitation. (Or an Advantage, depending on the relative values.)

CTaylor

Apr 11th, '08, 01:05 PM

Yeah, that's true, campaigns vary a lot. A game heavy on magic users would average higher ECV, a game of cops with low-end super powers would be very unlikely to see much (a campaign I've always wanted to run or play in).

Paragon

Apr 11th, '08, 05:08 PM

Lowering the range, standardizing it for various power types (maybe shorter for powers that are bought with range, longer for blasts and KAs, shorter for flashes, whatever) to a reasonable distance and you'll see it come up more often. 50" is more than a football field, that's a huge distance. That's plenty for most powers. For some, like clairvoyance, it's not nearly enough.

I wouldn't entirely disagree; I'm just noting that barring things like Clairsentience and Teleportation, you can go through a whole campaign without the maximum range of a power being at all relevant--and with most ranged attacks, you'd have to really cut the range low before it did, because the range mods make it moot long before then in the vast majority of cases.

Paragon

Apr 11th, '08, 05:12 PM

* Uses ECV combat roll (+1/4, typically)

This could probably be pushed up to +1/2, few people have more than 11 EGO in my experience, unless they specifically have a use for EGO like a mentalist.

The other elements seem fine to me. Just dropping "vs ECV" is a bad idea, but you could have a section about how to make a power work vs ECV.

As said, this is one of those things where you may need to default one way but accept it'll need to be modified in some campaign set ups. It also sometimes turns on game culture; I've seen a lot of Champions characters with a 14 just to frustrate Ego Attackers for example. It also can be more attractive to have in a game which uses the Heroic Push rules.

ajackson

Apr 11th, '08, 05:36 PM

I've seen a lot of Champions characters with a 14 just to frustrate Ego Attackers for example. It also can be more attractive to have in a game which uses the Heroic Push rules.
I've seen a moderate number of 18s, though 18 ego/9 MD (25 p) is probably less effective than 10 ego/27 MD (25 p)

Paragon

Apr 11th, '08, 05:47 PM

I've seen a moderate number of 18s, though 18 ego/9 MD (25 p) is probably less effective than 10 ego/27 MD (25 p)

Depends; unless your ego attacker has a particularly high ECV, the former may create a fair likelyhood of no connection at all, which for high value mental powers may be a better choice.

BobGreenwade

Apr 11th, '08, 05:49 PM

I wouldn't entirely disagree; I'm just noting that barring things like Clairsentience and Teleportation, you can go through a whole campaign without the maximum range of a power being at all relevant--and with most ranged attacks, you'd have to really cut the range low before it did, because the range mods make it moot long before then in the vast majority of cases.I think we're somewhat in YMMV territory here; I've been in a couple of games where characters had access to lots of Range Skill Levels, extremely large targets, and other means of making extremely long-range shots where maximum range could make a difference. I'll grant, though, that even the situations where those things would be likely to arise are fairly rare; outside the Terran Empire setting I've rarely seen the Increased Maximum Range Advantage.

Paragon

Apr 11th, '08, 06:38 PM

I think we're somewhat in YMMV territory here; I've been in a couple of games where characters had access to lots of Range Skill Levels, extremely large targets, and other means of making extremely long-range shots where maximum range could make a difference. I'll grant, though, that even the situations where those things would be likely to arise are fairly rare; outside the Terran Empire setting I've rarely seen the Increased Maximum Range Advantage.

Well, I'll give you that if the campaigns supports a lot of long distance outdoors exchanges that this could be different, but I have to still question whether that's common, since I haven't seen it as common in much of any game system, barring those focused on vehicles and/or mecha.

CTaylor

Apr 11th, '08, 07:12 PM

Gary

Apr 11th, '08, 09:15 PM

I've seen a moderate number of 18s, though 18 ego/9 MD (25 p) is probably less effective than 10 ego/27 MD (25 p)

What's probably more effective is 8 Ego (-4) with 11 pts of MD (9) for Ego Attacks, and +10 (20) to Ego Rolls for 25 pts total if you're going to be spending that many points.

Since you get immediate breakout rolls, it's virtually impossible for any mental powers to work against you.

+1 to Ego Rolls costs 2 pts and gives you 5 pts of protection against all mental attacks except for Ego Blast. It's trivially easy to make most mentallists useless at a relatively cheap cost.

This is technically legal, but a GM may want to limit or ban it.

BobGreenwade

Apr 12th, '08, 07:12 AM

It occurs to me that maximum range being rarely an issue is true to fiction; it's not often an issue in most source material. The only setting I can think of where it's even commented on with any appreciable frequency at all is Star Trek.

So I think the way for doing maximum Range is probably best left as is.

Paragon

Apr 12th, '08, 09:24 AM

It is a fact that range is not an issue for most games (although it will be critical for some), and that the present ranges are absurdly gargantuan. On the other hand, if nothing was changed it wouldn't exactly damage my gaming experience either, so ... you know, either way is fine with me.

Well, I was just noting that unless you play games with the range mods, changing the ranges is essentially getting fussy over something that not only isn't often relevant, but barring the case that Bob mentioned, really can't be, because for most powers its going to be moot unless you go to the other extreme and make it absurdly short.

ajackson

Apr 12th, '08, 12:10 PM

It occurs to me that maximum range being rarely an issue is true to fiction.
That's because most fictional combat occurs at extremely short ranges. Also, while range is rarely mentioned, that doesn't mean range is a nonissue -- if the hero is pinned down by a sniper and only has a pistol, he doesn't blaze away with his pistol.

Paragon

Apr 14th, '08, 10:41 AM

That's because most fictional combat occurs at extremely short ranges. Also, while range is rarely mentioned, that doesn't mean range is a nonissue -- if the hero is pinned down by a sniper and only has a pistol, he doesn't blaze away with his pistol.

That's as much an issue of effective range as maximum range, though; if someone is firing at you in Hero from 200" away, even though your pistol can technically hit him from there, for most people the -10 or 11 penalty is more than enough to make it a pretty much useless procedure.

Mini-Nukette

Apr 15th, '08, 06:32 AM

My main concern with Range was that it was based on Active Cost, and any Advantage increases the maximum range, barring Range Advantages which don't count their points towards Active Cost.

eg, a basic 4d6 Energy Blast has a range of 100". A 4d6 EB with Autofire and half END Cost has a range of 175". Why should just by adding those Advantages you gain an extra 150 meters to your EB's Range?

I propose that the Range simply be based on the Base Cost of the Power, before any Advantages are applied to determine Active Cost.

Paragon

Apr 15th, '08, 08:50 AM

There is no particular reason Advantages should weigh in on range, but again, I'm not sure making the change is worthwhile simply because maximum range for most powers has so little relevance anyway. Its one of those cases of an extent rule that's essentially harmless even if it isn't entirely sensible.

Tonio

Apr 18th, '08, 09:59 AM

I dunno, I think a power's range should be a standard thing, not tied to its cost. It can be incremented through Advantages or Adders (probably the former... it should cost more to make a powerful attack reach farther than a weak one), or reduced through Limitations (as now).

JmOz

Apr 19th, '08, 02:43 AM

AVLD:

A better sliding system of value, for instance an attack vs Flash Defence Sight is more likely to be defended than Power defence, while both are more common defence types than Flash Defence smell (Yes I have seen a EB: AVLD vs Flash Taste/Smell...called a Stink Bomb)

PhilFleischmann

Apr 21st, '08, 05:35 PM

Paragon

Apr 22nd, '08, 08:06 AM

I notice we don't have a thread here called "Adder Issues". I submit that some Adders exist because of not enough granularity in Advantages - that is, an additional "advantage" on a power that wasn't seen as significant enough to warrent a +0.25 Advantage, was instead made a +10 Adder, for example.

It's worth thinking about the possibility that some Adders should be turned into Advantages, and vice versa.

While not willing to say that's never the case, I think there are some benefits that are simply fixed values and don't justify increases or decreases as base power level advances. They're effectively small flat value powers attached to another power. The ability to come back from the dead with Regeneration strikes me like that; there's no reason for it to be more expensive when you regenerate fast and cheaper when you do it slow, really, because in the time scale of normal regeneration, neither much impacts its utility.

CTaylor

Apr 22nd, '08, 12:40 PM

Some adders probably ought not add to the END cost of a power, either.

Tonio

Apr 23rd, '08, 05:05 AM

While not willing to say that's never the case, I think there are some benefits that are simply fixed values and don't justify increases or decreases as base power level advances. They're effectively small flat value powers attached to another power. The ability to come back from the dead with Regeneration strikes me like that; there's no reason for it to be more expensive when you regenerate fast and cheaper when you do it slow, really, because in the time scale of normal regeneration, neither much impacts its utility.

There's that, and there's also the interaction between Adder and Advantage costs, which doesn't exist between Advantages. For example, let's consider a power with a Base Cost of 20. If we apply a +1/2 Advantage, the cost is now 30; the cost of that Advantage was 10. If we add another +1/2 Advantage, the cost is now 40; the cost of each Advantage is still 10. If we apply a 10pt Adder and a +1/2 Advantage, the total cost is 45.

Klaus Mogensen

Apr 23rd, '08, 05:22 AM

There's that, and there's also the interaction between Adder and Advantage costs, which doesn't exist between Advantages. For example, let's consider a power with a Base Cost of 20. If we apply a +1/2 Advantage, the cost is now 30; the cost of that Advantage was 10. If we add another +1/2 Advantage, the cost is now 40; the cost of each Advantage is still 10. If we apply a 10pt Adder and a +1/2 Advantage, the total cost is 45.
It might be worth discussing it there should be this relationship. If Adders are add-ons to Powers rather than considered integral parts of the Powers, then it doesn't make sense that Advantages should make them more expensive or Limitations cheaper.

Also, why should an Adder be more expensive on a 40-point Power with a +½ Advantage than on a straight 60-point Power? (Well, this argument can be used in reverse about multiple Advantages, so it may not be worth much).

Should non-combat multipliers cost more for movement Powers with Reduced End? You can argue both ways, I guess.

If Reduced End is changed to a 5-point Adder per -1 End (as has been suggested), then it definitely doesn't make sense to let Advantages and Limitations change the cost.

If Increased Range becomes an Adder (as has also been suggested), then I find it odd that it should cost more for an 8d6 ap EB than for a 12d6 EB (and equally odd that it should cost less, which is the case now).

- Klaus

Tonio

Apr 23rd, '08, 05:36 AM

It might be worth discussing it there should be this relationship. If Adders are add-ons to Powers rather than considered integral parts of the Powers, then it doesn't make sense that Advantages should make them more expensive or Limitations cheaper.

Also, why should an Adder be more expensive on a 40-point Power with a +½ Advantage than on a straight 60-point Power? (Well, this argument can be used in reverse about multiple Advantages, so it may not be worth much).

Should non-combat multipliers cost more for movement Powers with Reduced End? You can argue both ways, I guess.

If Reduced End is changed to a 5-point Adder per -1 End (as has been suggested), then it definitely doesn't make sense to let Advantages and Limitations change the cost.

If Increased Range becomes an Adder (as has also been suggested), then I find it odd that it should cost more for an 8d6 ap EB than for a 12d6 EB (and equally odd that it should cost less, which is the case now).

- Klaus

I believe that at least in most cases it's appropriate for the cost of the Adder to be modified by any Advantages, since that Adder is being affected by the Advantages. Take Regen with Resurrection... let's say we apply Usable Against Others. Others DO benefit from the Resurrection part, so it's appropriate to have the cost of that Adder be increased by the the UAO Advantage.