Advantages Issues [Archive] - Page 3 - HERO Games Discussion Boards

PhilFleischmann

Jul 15th, '08, 06:23 PM

:think: Hmmm... I'm going to have to re-read the rules on Continuous (and related subjects) and think about this some more.

The +1/2 would only matter for instant non-attack powers: aid. EDM, healing, summon, teleport.
I still don't see what the benefit is for Continuous EDM or Teleport. They both should take you where you're going in one movement action.

If you have an AoE constant Aid then anyone entering the AoE between your phases gets the benefit, for example.
But if it's neither AoE nor Constant, you just use it when you want to on those you want to, and pay only 40% of the points and END. If it's AoE and not Constant, you pay 80% of the points and END, and you use it when you want to. Aid maxes out eventually anyway, so how long do you really need it to last? Without the increased max Adder, 2 phases usually does it.

For a lot of powers it is non-essential, but when you need it, you need it - persistent defences or (for eg) regeneration can be a life saver. I take your point on cost though.
And from another:
Have you ever played a character with a non-Persistent Force Field? If you had, you would realize that Persistent is a bargain at +½.
I've never bought this claim. Yes, I have played characters with non-persistent Force Fields. (And it can probably be assumed that most Force Fields are non-persistent, since that's the default way they come. Check the published characters with Force Fields and see how many of them are Persistent. But back to the point.) If you're unconscious, you are already at the mercy of your enemies anyway, regardless of whether your FF stays on. After all, they were able to know you out while it was on. What makes you think they can't kill you with it on, and with you not moving? Or at least keep you in "GM-option-land"? Or do whatever else they want to you? No, the "life saver" is more likely to be the plot than the Persistent defense. It's more in genre for you to wake up in an "inescapable death trap" just in time for you to escape it, your nemesis having assumed you'd be dead.

I think you may be looking from a different viewpoint. The suggestions I made had in mind keeping costs similar to the current structure.
Yes, and I appreciate that. But I don't think the current cost structure is right to begin with (subject to my review of the rulebook).

My actual concerns, were I designing this from scratch, would be to allow as great a degree of customisation as possible, ...
Yes. And that is definitely worthwhile, IMO. You did a fine job with it. The only place we disagree is on the specific costs (though again, I might change my mind on this).

(And BTW, I am also one of those who advocates expressing modifiers in decimals, and allowing for values other than "quarters," specifically, I'd allow the level of "nickels". For Sean, and those others of you who may not be familiar with American currency, a quarter, as its name implies, is a quarter of a dollar, or 25 cents ($0.25); a dime is ten cents ($0.10); and a nickel is five cents ($0.05). Thus there would be twenty possible values for Advantages up to +1. These Advantages being discussed might be prime targets for these new values.)

Hugh Neilson

Jul 15th, '08, 07:40 PM

I've never bought this claim. Yes, I have played characters with non-persistent Force Fields. (And it can probably be assumed that most Force Fields are non-persistent, since that's the default way they come. Check the published characters with Force Fields and see how many of them are Persistent. But back to the point.) If you're unconscious, you are already at the mercy of your enemies anyway, regardless of whether your FF stays on. After all, they were able to know you out while it was on. What makes you think they can't kill you with it on, and with you not moving? Or at least keep you in "GM-option-land"? Or do whatever else they want to you? No, the "life saver" is more likely to be the plot than the Persistent defense. It's more in genre for you to wake up in an "inescapable death trap" just in time for you to escape it, your nemesis having assumed you'd be dead.

Agreed. Now, have you ever played a character with a non-continuous force field? I think Continuous is worth more than Persistent, at least where remaining in effect phase to phase is relevant.

Paragon

Jul 16th, '08, 10:24 AM

:) fair enough, but I do think even an instant use of a constant power can be pretty potent.

In some cases, yeah. In others, I think its fatally flawed. Or put another way, generic Limitations and Advantages here really don't cut it to me; the benefits are too situational depending on the base power.

CTaylor

Jul 16th, '08, 11:52 AM

Actually continuous powers bought as instant - as I understand it - last for your whole phase, then turn off. Which means for that phase you have the full effect, which can be pretty effective.

Klaus Mogensen

Jul 16th, '08, 02:32 PM

I've never bought this claim. Yes, I have played characters with non-persistent Force Fields. (And it can probably be assumed that most Force Fields are non-persistent, since that's the default way they come. Check the published characters with Force Fields and see how many of them are Persistent. But back to the point.) If you're unconscious, you are already at the mercy of your enemies anyway, regardless of whether your FF stays on.
The problem isn't so much that you lose your FF when you get knocked out, it's that you lose it when you get stunned (5e, p.273). If Cyberslasher manages to stun you with a lucky roll on the stun die, your field goes down, and then you're shish kebab.

It's the same with Flying. If I get stunned, I'm liable to fall 45-80 meters (3-4 seconds) before I can turn Flight on again. It always pays to have at least 1" persistent Flight. ;)

- Klaus

PhilFleischmann

Jul 16th, '08, 06:50 PM

Agreed. Now, have you ever played a character with a non-continuous force field? I think Continuous is worth more than Persistent, at least where remaining in effect phase to phase is relevant.
You mean a Force Field with the Instant Limitation? No. And neither has anyone else. All Defense Powers are at least Constant by default, because it would defeat the purpose if they weren't. Perhaps we can conclude that Instant is undervalued at -1/2.

The point was about the Advantage Continuous, applied to powers that are Instant by default.

After having re-read some of the rules about it, I think maybe the source of my (and perhaps others') confusion is the inclusion of Flight as an example of a Constant Power. Sure, you can keep it going as long as you want, but it still takes time. You still need a full phase to perform a full move with a movement power. But if you put Continuous on an Attack Power, it doesn't require any time, any part of your phase, to keep it going? I don't know if the rules have been clarified in 5ER, but in FREd, it says something to the effect of "Powers bought with Continuous obey the rules of other Constant powers." But it isn't clear what this means, because Movement Powers are Constant (most of them, anyway), but they still require a half- or full-phase action to use.

PhilFleischmann

Jul 16th, '08, 06:54 PM

The problem isn't so much that you lose your FF when you get knocked out, it's that you lose it when you get stunned (5e, p.273). If Cyberslasher manages to stun you with a lucky roll on the stun die, your field goes down, and then you're shish kebab.
And yet, I haven't seen any published characters that have a Persistent Force Field. Even the random superhuman generator from Champions doesn't include one. Maybe because FF directly contributes to preventing you from being stunned. IMX, stunning doesn't happen all that often. And even when it does, it's often a better tactical choice to go after the teammate who isn't stunned (an active threat) than the one who is temporarily not a threat.

Vulcan

Jul 16th, '08, 07:40 PM

Klaus Mogensen

Jul 17th, '08, 02:51 AM

In most of the games I've been in, the stunned opponent gets gang-tackled in an attempt to turn 'stunned' into 'unconscious.' And the bigger the drop in DCV/defenses, the more likely this is to be true.

But that's our group.
And our group. It's sound tactics: If you give the stunned opponent a chance to unstun, he will be a threat again. Better finish him off while he's easy to hit - especially if his defenses are down as well.

I think many published villains have non-persistent force fields precisely to give the heroes a chance to beat them. Or maybe I'm overinterpreting...

- Klaus

AnotherSkip

Jul 17th, '08, 06:07 AM

You mean a Force Field with the Instant Limitation? No. And neither has anyone else.
I'm sorry, you cannot argue that and have me believe anything else you say.

AnotherSkip

Jul 17th, '08, 06:10 AM

And our group. It's sound tactics: If you give the stunned opponent a chance to unstun, he will be a threat again. Better finish him off while he's easy to hit - especially if his defenses are down as well.

I think many published villains have non-persistent force fields precisely to give the heroes a chance to beat them. Or maybe I'm overinterpreting...

- Klaus

that could be a good way to reinforce the teamwork works idea. as well as the Badguy is overconident idea.

Hugh Neilson

Jul 17th, '08, 08:20 AM

IMX, stunning doesn't happen all that often. And even when it does, it's often a better tactical choice to go after the teammate who isn't stunned (an active threat) than the one who is temporarily not a threat.

In most of the games I've been in, the stunned opponent gets gang-tackled in an attempt to turn 'stunned' into 'unconscious.' And the bigger the drop in DCV/defenses, the more likely this is to be true.

But that's our group.

And our group. It's sound tactics: If you give the stunned opponent a chance to unstun, he will be a threat again. Better finish him off while he's easy to hit - especially if his defenses are down as well.

Sorry, Phil - to me, the "one target downed beats two wounded" philosophy wins out.

I think many published villains have non-persistent force fields precisely to give the heroes a chance to beat them. Or maybe I'm overinterpreting...

I think many published villains have non-persistent force fields because defenses that are persistent are better simulated using armor or PD/ED/Damage Reduction.

PhilFleischmann

Jul 17th, '08, 06:07 PM

I'm sorry, you cannot argue that and have me believe anything else you say.
What the heck are you talking about? Have *you* ever bought an Instant Force Field? I never even attempted to make any point at all about the Instant *Limitation* (on this *Advantages* Issues thread), applied to a Defense Power. I was talking about the Continuous Advantage, or some variant of it, applied to powers that are instant by default, such as Attack Powers, which do not include *any* Defense Powers.

PhilFleischmann

Jul 17th, '08, 06:14 PM

Sorry, Phil - to me, the "one target downed beats two wounded" philosophy wins out.
Maybe so, but IMX, when one teammate is stunned, the others protect him.

I think many published villains have non-persistent force fields because defenses that are persistent are better simulated using armor or PD/ED/Damage Reduction.
It's not just the villains - *all* the published characters I've seen so far (heroes and villains) who have Force Fields, have them non-Persistent. But yes, Persistent Defenses are more likely to be bought using Armor or other powers (where the Persistant "Advantage" is free), which makes me wonder why you (or whoever it was) bothered asking me in the first place if I'd ever played a character with a non-persistent Force Field. And again, I have. And if Persistent is so huge, why do you get it for free with other defense powers? Maybe because it really is overpriced at +1/2.

Vulcan

Jul 17th, '08, 06:25 PM

I've seen characters killed (not just one or two, either) when a nonpersistent FF went down.:nonp:

Several characters in our campaigns have had persistent FF's, for that :rolleyes: or for character concept reasons. 0END FF's are the standard.

However, recently my wife's electrical character (with a 2/3 PD/ED split on her FF) repeatedly pushed her FF (gaining 6 extra ED) to wade through a crowd of mooks with ED blasters. She wound up taking about 20 STUN total over 2 turns - except for her last phase where she burned some STUN because she was out of END.

But at that point she was clear of the fight anyway.

It made the lot of us seriously reconsider the basic, costs END FF as a viable defensive option.

AnotherSkip

Jul 18th, '08, 07:47 AM

What the heck are you talking about? Have *you* ever bought an Instant Force Field? I never even attempted to make any point at all about the Instant *Limitation* (on this *Advantages* Issues thread), applied to a Defense Power. I was talking about the Continuous Advantage, or some variant of it, applied to powers that are instant by default, such as Attack Powers, which do not include *any* Defense Powers.

With a Trigger to stop one powerful attack cold in it's tracks. Yes. Evil Gloating Mega Villian and the most powerful attack the party can throw just bounces off.... For cheep!

Sean Waters

Jul 18th, '08, 05:25 PM

And our group. It's sound tactics: If you give the stunned opponent a chance to unstun, he will be a threat again. Better finish him off while he's easy to hit - especially if his defenses are down as well.

I think many published villains have non-persistent force fields precisely to give the heroes a chance to beat them. Or maybe I'm overinterpreting...

- Klaus

Quote: Hi, we're The Headstompers

Mission Statement: Fall down near us and you ain't never getting back up again!

What?

Vulcan

Jul 18th, '08, 05:56 PM

Player: "After all that damage, please tell me he's stunned!"

GM: "Yep, he drops to his knees, obviously stunned. And his FF turns off."

All other players: "BOOT PARTY!"

Talon

Jul 18th, '08, 06:16 PM

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

If you do this, I don't think the granularity should go above .1 -- the arguments will be bad enough at .1 vs .2.

I do think there are issues with advantage / limitation values being too close, or one modifier subsuming another (more in Limitations than in Advantages). However, I'm not sure that those issues are worth potentially recosting every modifier in the game. I certainly wouldn't complain if this change happened though. :)

My guess is that the discussions here and under Limitations will point out how needed this kind of thing is.

You could always put out black and green Hero Calculators with 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 buttons. ;)

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

I don't think there's any traction to the "abandon Active Points" idea at present (and I think it's generally a good aspect of Hero myself). I think that having Advantages and Limitations cancel each other out would make a system that is too far from Hero -- one character has a 12d6 EB, another can have a 12d6NND because it's in an OAF and so the costs are the same?

Of the ideas floated around out there, Opal's idea for "multiple tiers" (in post #81; classify Modifers into those that affect damage and those that don't, and then apply each separately) seems the best to me -- although it definitely adds a lot of complexity.

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?

I think that the Naked Power Advantage rules should cover this -- IMO, there should be a cost to have a Naked Power Advantage, even for one power, as opposed to just applying the Advantage. Once you do that, there is an "official" way to make an optional Advantage.

Q: Should any new Advantages be added?

I don't think we need the Damage Over Time Advantage, but Time Duration looks interesting. One point -- why can't you apply it to Continuous Attacks? If it's balanced properly it shouldn't be an issue.

Q: Should some of the optional new Areas of Effect in the Character Creation Handbook be incorporated into the core rules?

I like Cage, Sight, and Voice, and Trail seems reasonable.

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

The Continuous plus limited AOE (AOE "surface of one target") is an interesting idea.

While you are thinking about this, also think about the Dispel ability to automatically hit an incoming Power (albeit with a Held action at present). That ability would also be a useful Advantage for other powers, and it seems like it might fit in here.

Also, even if Damage Shield has its own entry under Trigger, please make sure it can be modified with the other Trigger options so characters have flexibility.

Hey, what if I want a Damage Shield that costs END? How does this work as a Trigger?

Q: Should MegaScale be tweaked for ease of use?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. MegaScale works just fine, but the differences between it and personal scale create some confusion on the part of some gamers and some logical disconnects. 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.

Since this is pretty much how it is used now, that makes sense. However, in order to avoid everyone just purchasing 1" of MegaScale movement, there should be some rule about needing a reasonable amount of non-MegaScale movement before you can buy the Advantage (unless waived by the GM of course). This is something like the Absolute Effect rule; once you have enough normal movement so that the GM determines it doesn't matter, buying MegaScale becomes OK.

This becomes a good way to keep MegaScale and address the "it does the same thing as other options but cheaper" (which is true, but the point is that at some point the cheaper way becomes the more appropriate way for most games).

Q: Should Time Delay be eliminated?

Can we get a countdown for this? :)

Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?

Usable On Others powers effectively have two "instances" to which Modifiers can be applied: the granting of the Power, and the use of the Power. The Differing Modifiers rule addresses this, but in a way which results in Advantages and/or Limitations being applied in two different steps. This naturally produces results wildly at odds with the rest of the system.

Instead of Differing Modifiers, I would say that Limitations applied to the granting of the Power are 1/2 value, while Limitations applied to the use of the Power are x1 value (so it is possible to get 1.5x value if the same Limitation applies to both). Obviously, GMs may change these values based on circumstances. For example, taking the "not on Thursday" Limitation on both the granting and use of the Power is slightly more limiting than just taking it on the use, but probably not 1.5x more limiting. Requiring a rare Expendable Focus to grant the power might be worth full value.

Also, I don't like that you have to make a UBO power 0 END before you can eliminate the LOS requirement. Since the text makes it clear that this purchase of Persistent is "not really Persistent", why not create a separate +1/2 modifier which eliminates need for LOS? Similarly, instead of using Uncontrolled to turn the 1/2 Phase "control target" action into 0-Phase, there should be a separate modifier to UAA.

Talon

Jul 19th, '08, 03:48 PM

Unless you are going to do something more radical (like logarithmic charts for advantages), you should expand the Autofire rule where attacks against "special defenses" cost an extra +1. There should be a list of Advantages that effect damage (Autofire, AOE AVLD, Armor Piercing, NND all come to mind); for each one of those past the first, there is an additional +1. Thus, the 2d6 NND Autofire AOE attack now costs 55 points (still abusive but maybe a little less so). Talking about the No Normal Evasion Advantage suggested in post #304 is what brought this to mind; the NNE / NND attack (assuming NNE is rated at +1) would be 4d6 in a 60 AP game; if you require an additional +1 it comes down to 3d6.

This might allow some Advantages to be recosted (for example, Continuous could be +1/2 for normal attacks; 8d6 Continuous seems a lot more useful than 6d6 in a 60 AP game). The same logic could apply to AOE.

Vulcan

Jul 19th, '08, 09:07 PM

No Normal Evasion!?! Waitaminute, let me go see this....

<brief pause to look at post 304>

How on earth did I miss this?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. This is a BAD IDEA. This makes the low-defense/high DCV character pretty much useless. Dealing with large AEH and Explosions is bad enough. If you need a 'always hits' attack, use the option on AEH One-Hex. At least that you can dive for cover from, giving the character a chance.

You cannot tell me that a 6-8 OCV Brick can buy this and use it to hit Spider-Man reliably!

Talon

Jul 20th, '08, 05:11 AM

I like the idea of No Normal Evasion, but it needs to be rare and costed appropriately. Since a Ranged version includes No Range Modifier, it should be at least +1 1/2 for a Ranged attack.

If it could be combined with Autofire, the cost would need to be even higher (or make a clever ruling that since no dice were rolled to hit, the attack only ever hits once).

EDIT: I like this a lot better than the Always Hits version from post #145; also, a No Normal Evasion attack which is also Continuous, NND, or something else with a SFX defense should have to have a different SFX defense so you can't "double dip".

Talon

Jul 20th, '08, 05:54 AM

Compounding Advantages

Unless you are going to do something more radical (like logarithmic charts for advantages), you should expand the Autofire rule where attacks against "special defenses" cost an extra +1. There should be a list of Advantages that effect damage (Autofire, AOE AVLD, Armor Piercing, NND all come to mind); for each one of those past the first, there is an additional +1. Thus, the 2d6 NND Autofire AOE attack now costs 55 points (still abusive but maybe a little less so). Talking about the No Normal Evasion Advantage suggested in post #304 is what brought this to mind; the NNE / NND attack (assuming NNE is rated at +1) would be 4d6 in a 60 AP game; if you require an additional +1 it comes down to 3d6.

This might allow some Advantages to be recosted (for example, Continuous could be +1/2 for normal attacks; 8d6 Continuous seems a lot more useful than 6d6 in a 60 AP game). Doing the same for AOE would help, IMO.

Granularity for long durations / distances: There is a bit of "if it's out of combat, it doesn't matter" sentiment, which I do not agree with (it's what D&D 4th Edition seems to be doing). Different campaigns place emphasis on longer or shorter spans of time and/or distance, and I don't think it is the system's place to dictate which scales matter.

Adder systems: Straight adder cost systems (like Chris Goodwin's from the first few pages, starting in post #21) have some real issues. Under Chris' system, for example, an Energy Blast (5 CPU) OAF (-4) would cost 1 point per d6, an 80% savings. Also, it eliminates the Active Point concept, which I think is a valuable part of Hero.

Getting rid of Adders: I like the idea of replacing Adders with Advantages, at least in some circumstances (for NCM, for example).

"Limitations should not have Advantages: While I agree with this in principle, there will be times (like Foci being UBO some of the time) where it's easier or more true to dramatic fiction to do a little bit of blending. Where this can be eliminated it should be, but I don't think it's possible to every last bit of it out of the system and still have that system be Hero.

Range: I like the idea of Powers having a standard Range (ideally set by the GM, though a system default is not unreasonable).

Resistant funky defenses: I favor declaring all special defenses inherently resistant to avoid the "AVLD vs. Resistant Touch Flash Defense" issue.

Rounding: The current rounding rules are fine except for the "drop the second decimal point" bit, which really just makes things more complicated if you are using a calculator.

Lock-On Feedback: (Post #302) I like the idea of having a way to determine what level of effect you achieved before declaring the "command" of your Mental Power.

Talon

Jul 20th, '08, 06:10 AM

Naked Advantages, as a complicated thing, should go at the back of the Advantages section rather than the front so as not to confuse people...

There should be a cost difference between:

-- NPA applied to a single power (minor cost, around +1/4, can go in frameworks in the same slot as the power, and maybe in a different framework)
-- NPA applied to a range of powers (minor - major cost depending on range of powers, not allowed in frameworks)

A statement on how GMs should consider NPAs when figuring AP limits should be in there if it's not already.

Also, why are NPAs Instant by definition? That does not seem to make sense -- it seems intuitive that NPAs should be the same as whatever power they are attached to at the moment.

The section under "Other rules" about not applying an NPA to an energy projector does not make sense to me -- why does the character who took a Limitation get extra abilities? This is a clear example of Limitations providing an Advantage for no reason.

Talon

Jul 20th, '08, 06:11 AM

AOE Hexes: I agree that AOE hexes does not give enough hexes at present; doubling or even tripling it seems called for. Really, you should be able to do AOE Cage by using AOE Hexes with a defined shape; at present you can't even come close.

Effectiveness of AOE attacks: I feel that AOE normal attacks are so worthless as to be rarely seen in a superheroic game (when they are, it's as a side slot in a Multipower that rarely gets used). I think that while Active Point limits are not absolute, they should be a reasonable power guideline and in this case they are not. I think that if AOE attacks against non-standard defenses were made to cost extra, the base cost for AOE could be reduced (to, say, +1/2); an 8d6 EB in a 60 AP game would be more reasonable than 6d6. (AOE attacks are tricky for GMs to balance because how they work against an average character is only part of the story.)

Autofire: There are a lot of AOE / Autofire abuses. IMO an AOE attack of any kind should only cause damage once per target, even if they are in multiple Autofire areas. Even better would be to disallow AOE / Autofire, or to strongly encourage just buying larger AOE instead.

Radius:AOE Radius needs a diagram so it's clear what a 2" Radius is without having to dive into the text.

Nonselective / Selective: Nonselective Target should be in the standard Limitation list, since you can apply it to other powers. (Actually, all the area powers like this should be classified and their modifiers listed in a single section.) Same goes for Selective.

AOE Conforming: Shouldn't this just be AOE Hexes with a Limitation ("forms a circle if possible, otherwise conforms to barriers")?

AOE Accurate: When you can and cannot use CSLs should be more clearly defined.

AOE Mobile: This just seems clunky as written. Being automatically No Range doesn't seem right; the Advantage should be balanced such that this is not necessary.

AOE variants:

CTaylor had an idea for "AE Group" in post #145. That seems like it could be easily abused and would have to be expensive.

I do not like "Area of Effect Automatic Selective". If you want that effect, buy Selective with enough OCV CSL's to hit everyone (or until the GM lets you invoke the Absolute Effects rule).

Talon

Jul 20th, '08, 06:20 AM

At present, the cost of AP is based on the attack, but the effectiveness is based on how much Armor the target has (a 1d6 EB cuts as much defenses as a 12d6 EB, even though the Advantage cost is very different for these attacks). Because of this, there is a "balance point" at which AP makes more sense than just buying more dice of effect. For example, in a 60 Active Point limit game, an 8d6 AP EB does 14 less STUN on average than a 12d6 EB. If you are removing less than 14 points of Armor, you are better off with a normal attack. If the average level of defenses is significantly lower than 28, AP makes less sense to buy.

Ideally, the GM should be able to set the cost of Armor Piercing so that the balance point matches with campaign defense levels. Making AP an Adder rather than an Advantage would do this -- for every +7 points of defense, the Adder should cost +5 points. (This would be determined by the GM, NOT by individual players). Presumably the balance point should be slightly above the campaign average defense level, but that would be up to the GM.

By having a separate Adder for "special defense" attacks, it would make AP Flash and Adjustment powers potentially worth taking, which would be nice.

Completely realistic AP would be more like Piercing (or damage dice "only to counter armor"), but if you allow players to buy that, they can conveniently buy just enough to counter the average defense level. For heroic games or situations where the GM builds the weapons, Piercing gives more "realistic" results.

Also, If the current AP mechanic remains, it should at least be only +1/4 per extra level (or even, the extra level should have its own name and be a modifier), since you get a lot less for levels of AP past the first.

Talon

Jul 20th, '08, 06:31 AM

Firstly, there should be some sort of Defense Commonality Chart (which can be changed for a given campaign):

Very Common: PD, ED
Common: resistant PD, resistant ED
Uncommon: Mental Defense, Flash Defense (sight and sound), Power Defense
Rare: Flash Defense (other sense groups)

AVLD should cost something like +1/2 to go up one level, +1 1/2 to go up two levels, and +2 to go up three levels. If an attack moves down the chart it should be a Limitation (and a -0 to move within a level).

This chart should also include the blanket statement that any attack applied vs Uncommon or rarer defenses is STUN only unless "Does BODY" is bought -- or the GM redefines this when he sets the chart up for his game.

While we're here, also state that Flash Defense, Power Defense, and Mental Defense are always resistant to get rid of various annoying rules abuses (or "creative powers").

AVLD vs NND vs BOECV

Several people have said that AVLD, BOECV, and NND are not costed appropriately with respect to each other.

-- NND gets "all or nothing", no BODY Limitation
-- BOECV gets "vs Mental Defense", uses ECV, Line of Sight, no BODY Limitation
-- AVLD gets "vs strange Defese", no BODY Limitation

To me, this says that: a) Ego Attack should be 15 points per die; b) BOECV should be +1 1/2; c) NND where the defense is an actual defense should either be +3/4 or should be a limited form of AVLD; AVLD should be +1. I would make the argument that NND and AVLD could be considered equivalent; NND has the potential to due more damage, and AVLD has the potential to affect more targets.

Talon

Jul 20th, '08, 06:40 AM

Autofire: I like the idea of extending the special +1 that Autofire has for certain attacks to other areas; it's a simple hack that will address some of the Advantage Stacking issues without a major change to the system.

Autofire itself should cost less for extra shots, since they don't do a while lot at present and have a built in disadvantage (costing END/charges)....or change some of the Combat rules for Autofire.

BOECV: This should be +1 1/2 (see my comments on AVLD). I like the idea of a +1/2 "targets using ECV", although it overlaps No Range. I also think that whether or not a BOECV power hits Desolid characters should be a point-based decision.

Continuous: Prior to 5th Edition, I played that Continuing Charges for an Instant Power gave you the ability to throw that power for the duration -- it didn't make the Power Continuous. That way, you could buy an Instant Power with Continuing Charges without abuse potential.

Costs END Only to Start: I don't think this will balance with anything else in the +1/4 range, though it seems like a good idea. (One argument for more granularity in Modifier values.)

Cumulative: This should have a set fade rate that can be increased (perhaps 5/turn and make Cumulative +1/4, so Cumulative that fades 5/minute would be +1/2, which seems like a reasonable equivalent to "per combat"). Also, why can't normal damage power just apply Cumulative damage to Stunning?

Damage Shield: Making Damage Shield its own power seems silly; what if I want to do Flash / Drain / whatever damage? If you unify all Attack powers then maybe Damage Shield can be separate, but that doesn't seem likely at present.

Also, Mental Damage Shields should be buildable using any power that is based on ECV combat.

Delayed Effect: The distinction between preparation and casting time should be made more clear; it seems reasonable that a character might have Extra Time to prepare and also Extra Time to cast. (IMO Extra Time, Concentration, and similar limitations should be half-value when applied to the preparation.)

Double Knockback: IMO this should just be extra dice with a Limitation, or maybe 3 points per extra BODY of knockback. The current Advantage requires enough game knowledge that some players take it and are disappointed by the effect (plus, its effect varies wildly depending on power level).

Indirect: This post (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1610485&postcount=375) from the Powers S-T thread is worth re-reading. I think that Indirect defined as "lobbing a grenade" should not be stopped by Hardened.

It also seems to me that the +1/4 "defined origin point" Indirect is almost always a +0, except when the origin point can be separated from the character by a barrier (like the "other side of Force Wall" Indirect). Varying the point of origin on the character's body doesn't seem like Indirect to me at all, but rather a different Advantage.

Sean Waters has a good concept in post #113 (although "englobe the target" could also mean "englobe the attacker" for the classic shoot-outside-my-Force-Wall concept) for making this more mechanics based. However, I'm not convinced that "define a non-standard Knockback direction when the power is bought" is worth +1/4 in most cases.

Also, Hardened defenses should only stop an Indirect attack if they completely surround the target (you can still lob a grenade over a Hardened Force Wall).

Invisible Power Effects: I agree with the sentiment that IPE should cost less for non-attack Powers (obviously, powers bought with the UAA Advantage become attack powers). On the other hand, making non-attack Powers invisible by default seems confusing and potentially abusive (unless the Visible Limitation becomes "extremely visible" for -1/4). Ideally, the system should have explicit Advantages and/or Limitations for "invisible", "visible but Stealth possible", and "too visible for Stealth to work".

Persistent: Persistent powers should be allowed to cost END (for example, gadgets running off an END Reserve) with a definition of what happens if the END runs out.

Since there is no actual definition of what Persistent Attack powers do, I would recommend outlawing Persistent on Attack Powers and requiring Uncontrolled instead.

Sticky: I agree that there should be a way to make Sticky more like "Contagious" for an extra Advantage (around +1/2 more seems right).

Trigger: The "can set more than once; must have Charges or Focus" modifier is a clear example of Limitations providing an Advantage -- this should not be the case. Instead, there should be a balanced method for characters to set multiple Triggers regardless of how they are bought. My suggestion would be x2 Triggers at a time per +1/4 Advantage; if someone has 16 Mines and wants to set them all, they need to pay for it.

Vulcan

Jul 20th, '08, 02:41 PM

Vulcan

Jul 20th, '08, 02:58 PM

Effectiveness of AOE attacks: I feel that AOE normal attacks are so worthless as to be rarely seen in a superheroic game (when they are, it's as a side slot in a Multipower that rarely gets used). I think that while Active Point limits are not absolute, they should be a reasonable power guideline and in this case they are not. I think that if AOE attacks against non-standard defenses were made to cost extra, the base cost for AOE could be reduced (to, say, +1/2); an 8d6 EB in a 60 AP game would be more reasonable than 6d6. (AOE attacks are tricky for GMs to balance because how they work against an average character is only part of the story.)

As much as I hate to say it (because I play a lot of low-defense high-DCV characters), AEH is too expensive for what it does. In any sort of AP limit game, AEH attacks beyond 1-Hex are pretty much negligible. Explosions are much more effective under those circumstances.

Frankly, AEH One-Hex should be cheaper than Explosion, because right now in that first hex both have the same effect for the same cost. But explosion goes on to do damage over an extended area. If you dive for cover from AEH One-Hex, you're clear. If you dive for cover from an explosion (unless you have a heck of a DEX roll and quite a bit of movement) you're still in the area.

This should be addressed in 6E.

Autofire: There are a lot of AOE / Autofire abuses. IMO an AOE attack of any kind should only cause damage once per target, even if they are in multiple Autofire areas. Even better would be to disallow AOE / Autofire, or to strongly encourage just buying larger AOE instead.

There are a very few legitimate applications, (we build miniguns as AEH Line AF 2-shot - if you're in the area you've been hit twice. Although on second thought, we could just buy it as a bigger RKA with the reduced penetration limitation...) Well, maybe not then. No AEH and AF gets my vote.

Radius:AOE Radius needs a diagram so it's clear what a 2" Radius is without having to dive into the text.

Nonselective / Selective: Nonselective Target should be in the standard Limitation list, since you can apply it to other powers. (Actually, all the area powers like this should be classified and their modifiers listed in a single section.) Same goes for Selective.

Agreed

AOE Conforming: Shouldn't this just be AOE Hexes with a Limitation ("forms a circle if possible, otherwise conforms to barriers")?

AOE Accurate: When you can and cannot use CSLs should be more clearly defined.

AOE Mobile: This just seems clunky as written. Being automatically No Range doesn't seem right; the Advantage should be balanced such that this is not necessary.

AOE variants:

CTaylor had an idea for "AE Group" in post #145. That seems like it could be easily abused and would have to be expensive.

I do not like "Area of Effect Automatic Selective". If you want that effect, buy Selective with enough OCV CSL's to hit everyone (or until the GM lets you invoke the Absolute Effects rule).

Somewhere in one of the books (UNTIL Powers Guide, perhaps) it suggests buying AEH (whatever), Selective plus AEH One-Hex, Accurate to simulate "accurately hitting only the targets you want in the area." Another way would be to buy Hole in the Middle on AEH.

Vulcan

Jul 20th, '08, 03:00 PM

BobGreenwade

Jul 20th, '08, 04:02 PM

Indirect: This post (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1610485&postcount=375) from the Powers S-T thread is worth re-reading. I think that Indirect defined as "lobbing a grenade" should not be stopped by Hardened.

It also seems to me that the +1/4 "defined origin point" Indirect is almost always a +0, except when the origin point can be separated from the character by a barrier (like the "other side of Force Wall" Indirect). Varying the point of origin on the character's body doesn't seem like Indirect to me at all, but rather a different Advantage.

Sean Waters has a good concept in post #113 (although "englobe the target" could also mean "englobe the attacker" for the classic shoot-outside-my-Force-Wall concept) for making this more mechanics based. However, I'm not convinced that "define a non-standard Knockback direction when the power is bought" is worth +1/4 in most cases.

Also, Hardened defenses should only stop an Indirect attack if they completely surround the target (you can still lob a grenade over a Hardened Force Wall).This whole part about lobbing a grenade brings up an interesting thought regarding Indirect. Perhaps, instead of just saying that Hardened stops Indirect, the rule could be that the player must define some reasonably common effect or circumstance that stops the Indirect, based on its Special Effect. Thus, a lobbed grenade could be stopped by any sort of above-the-head Force Wall or other barrier. An attack whose Indirectness is manifest by teleporting the attack in some way would be stopped by any barrier with the Affects Teleportation Advantage, or certain other effects based on how it's teleported (magic, quantum shifts, whatever). And some Special Effects of Indirect would still be stopped by Hardened Defenses.

PhilFleischmann

Jul 21st, '08, 05:25 PM

Does anyone have any reaction to this:

After having re-read some of the rules about it, I think maybe the source of my (and perhaps others') confusion is the inclusion of Flight as an example of a Constant Power. Sure, you can keep it going as long as you want, but it still takes time. You still need a full phase to perform a full move with a movement power. But if you put Continuous on an Attack Power, it doesn't require any time, any part of your phase, to keep it going? I don't know if the rules have been clarified in 5ER, but in FREd, it says something to the effect of "Powers bought with Continuous obey the rules of other Constant powers." But it isn't clear what this means, because Movement Powers are Constant (most of them, anyway), but they still require a half- or full-phase action to use.

schir1964

Jul 21st, '08, 05:49 PM

Does anyone have any reaction to this:
I had created a thread to try and breakdown the different components of the Continuous Advantage. One of the results was that there were components that only applied to Attack Powers and others that applied to any power (thus Non-Attack Powers).

I can find the thread and post it here if anyone thinks it might spur more constructive discussion.

- Christopher Mullins

PhilFleischmann

Jul 21st, '08, 06:18 PM

I had created a thread to try and breakdown the different components of the Continuous Advantage. One of the results was that there were components that only applied to Attack Powers and others that applied to any power (thus Non-Attack Powers).

I can find the thread and post it here if anyone thinks it might spur more constructive discussion.

- Christopher Mullins
Yes, I remember that. I was wondering if there was any official clarification somewhere (like 5ER), or how this should be handled in 6E.

Talon

Jul 21st, '08, 07:54 PM

Yes, I remember that. I was wondering if there was any official clarification somewhere (like 5ER), or how this should be handled in 6E.

Flight cannot be an Instant Power, otherwise you would fall in between your Phases.

Although I cannot remember it ever coming up in a game I was in, could someone with an Extra Time: Full Phase power use it while hovering? I can't imagine I would say no to that, although as far as I can tell it is not allowed under the current rules. Allowing that would imply more of a degree of Constancy to Flight.

schir1964

Jul 21st, '08, 08:31 PM

Continuous: Component Breakdown

For The Curious

- Christopher Mullins

BobGreenwade

Jul 22nd, '08, 09:04 AM

CTaylor

Jul 22nd, '08, 01:08 PM

why are NPAs Instant by definition? That does not seem to make sense

To make them cost more. Seriously, that's what it is for: buying Armor Piercing to stack on up to 60 active points is a 30 active point power, that's pretty cheap to make people rip opponents apart.

ideasmith

Jul 22nd, '08, 01:25 PM

To make them cost more. Seriously, that's what it is for: buying Armor Piercing to stack on up to 60 active points is a 30 active point power, that's pretty cheap to make people rip opponents apart.

However, most Attack Powers are already Instant. An NPA thereof would therefore be Instant anyway, without that rule.

CTaylor

Jul 22nd, '08, 03:02 PM

Not necessarily: you could give someone the ability to have armor piercing on their fists, and if bought continuous it would stay on them: every time they punched it would be armor piercing as long as the floating advantage was active.

Chris Goodwin

Jul 23rd, '08, 09:22 AM

Regarding the issue of Reduced Endurance combined with various forms of Costs Endurance.

I think this restriction should only be absolute at the 0 END level. When Reduced Endurance is at 1/2 END, one could have, for example (as in the recent, brief discussion elsewhere), the Requires Endurance To Maintain Limitation on a Mental Power, Entangle, or other ability.

This is one of the "mother may I" things I mention every so often. This logic shouldn't be embedded in the system; it should be up to the GM to implement. It might be a logical impossibility to have "Costs END" and "Reduced Endurance Cost" on one Power, but then you run into places like this where you might want it.

A notion I've had is to break Endurance Cost into three parts: activation, maintenance, and usage, and to have separate Modifiers for changing these. An example of this might be Strength; Strength has no Endurance Cost to activate or maintain, but does cost END to use; one could buy Costs END on Strength to require an END Cost every Phase the Strength is active, then additional END for the Strength used; one could also buy Costs END: Only To Activate, which would mean that you'd pay to activate and use but not maintain. If you want to buy a Strength Power that costs END to activate and/or maintain but not use, you run into the inbuilt system logic that says you can't buy Costs END and Reduced END Cost on the same Power.

At some point, though, you're bumping against the granularity of the system. You couldn't buy, for instance, Life Support with Costs END: 1/2 END Cost To Activate, because you're running into less than a -1/4 Limitation. (Costs END To Activate would be -1/4 on a non-END using Power, and Costs END: 1/2 END Cost would be -1/4 on the same Power.)

I believe I've also mentioned being in favor of a 1/2 END level of the basic Costs Endurance Limitation, this being preferable (in its simplicity) to allowing Costs Endurance with Reduced Endurance (1/2 END).

I do it myself. I put it at -1/4 because the basic Costs Endurance is -1/2.

BobGreenwade

Jul 23rd, '08, 09:45 AM

At some point, though, you're bumping against the granularity of the system. You couldn't buy, for instance, Life Support with Costs END: 1/2 END Cost To Activate, because you're running into less than a -1/4 Limitation. (Costs END To Activate would be -1/4 on a non-END using Power, and Costs END: 1/2 END Cost would be -1/4 on the same Power.) This is precisely why many of us are asking for smaller increments. Going decimal and making the minimum increment 0.05 would allow current Advantages and Limitations to remain at their current fractional values of 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 (at least, where there's no clear need to change them) while allowing for finer granularity for points in between.

Chris Goodwin

Jul 23rd, '08, 10:26 AM

This is precisely why many of us are asking for smaller increments. Going decimal and making the minimum increment 0.05 would allow current Advantages and Limitations to remain at their current fractional values of 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 (at least, where there's no clear need to change them) while allowing for finer granularity for points in between.

IMO, the solution is not to make more finely granulated Modifier values but to re-examine the values of the current Modifiers. I don't believe that denominating Modifiers in multiples of 1/20 (0.05) is going to, in the long run, make the system easier to use.

Netzilla

Jul 23rd, '08, 10:41 AM

IMO, the solution is not to make more finely granulated Modifier values but to re-examine the values of the current Modifiers. I don't believe that denominating Modifiers in multiples of 1/20 (0.05) is going to, in the long run, make the system easier to use.

I think you can get plenty of granularity by restricting modifiers to increments of 0.2 (though I can see the case for 0.1) without complicating the system (in fact, I find the math is easier with single-digit decimals than two-digit decimals (0.25) or fractions.

Yes, you'd have to change the current 1/4 and 3/4 limitations to something else, but if you're going to increase the granularity of Modifiers, you should be examining all of those costs anyway.

PhilFleischmann

Jul 23rd, '08, 05:51 PM

IMO, the solution is not to make more finely granulated Modifier values but to re-examine the values of the current Modifiers. I don't believe that denominating Modifiers in multiples of 1/20 (0.05) is going to, in the long run, make the system easier to use.
And what if we decide that many, or even most, if not all, of the current Modifiers are correctly priced at their current values? How would we add others that are, for example, more advantageous than +1/2, but less so than a +3/4? Modifiers of multiples of .05 will make the system easier to use, because you'll be able to have a 1/3 END Cost Advantage for +.35 (say), whereas it's currently much harder.

Hugh Neilson

Jul 23rd, '08, 08:13 PM

And what if we decide that many, or even most, if not all, of the current Modifiers are correctly priced at their current values? How would we add others that are, for example, more advantageous than +1/2, but less so than a +3/4? Modifiers of multiples of .05 will make the system easier to use, because you'll be able to have a 1/3 END Cost Advantage for +.35 (say), whereas it's currently much harder.

Don't we argue enough now over the value of advantages and limitations without quintupling the possible choices?

AnotherSkip

Jul 24th, '08, 06:46 AM

Don't we argue enough now over the value of advantages and limitations without quintupling the possible choices?

Actually the advantage of having tenths would be less to argue , after all the finer the grain the closer you could get to better maxim withgout messing around with the points value as much.

Heck even inserting a rule wherein a GM can adjust the Lim value by 1/10th the listed value would give a hack of a lot of freedom to those who felt certain things were over or under valued for thier base costs.

PhilFleischmann

Jul 24th, '08, 05:50 PM

I don't mean to harp on this, but here's one more thought on Persistent (which I've said is overpriced at +1/2, IMO):

If your Force Field goes down because you're stunned, that means someone was able to do >your CON in STUN damage, even *with* your FF on! A quick look at the published characters (as well as all the characters I've ever created) shows that in the majority of cases STUN is less than twice CON. And even when it isn't, it's only by a few points. Which means, if they can stun you with your Force Field on, you'll be K.O.'ed on the next hit, even if your FF was *still* on.

Vulcan

Jul 24th, '08, 06:32 PM

Having the FF drop when stunned has KILLED several characters in games I've played. That's a BIG difference from just being knocked out.

The characters in question had FF as their only defense, aside from a NCM level of PD/ED (not an uncommon situation in the comic-book genre). After being stunned, the follow-up shot was a repeat of the high-dice EB or 'STUN Jackpot' KA that stunned them in the first place.

Sure, in a lot of circumstances it's not that bad. But the potential exists for a non-persistent FF to be lethal, not just inconvenient.

Non-persistent flight could potentially be just as bad...

CTaylor

Jul 24th, '08, 07:22 PM

Which means, if they can stun you with your Force Field on, you'll be K.O.'ed on the next hit, even if your FF was *still* on.

Most likely so, yes. And?

Klaus Mogensen

Jul 25th, '08, 03:46 AM

If your Force Field goes down because you're stunned, that means someone was able to do >your CON in STUN damage, even *with* your FF on! A quick look at the published characters (as well as all the characters I've ever created) shows that in the majority of cases STUN is less than twice CON. And even when it isn't, it's only by a few points. Which means, if they can stun you with your Force Field on, you'll be K.O.'ed on the next hit, even if your FF was *still* on.
This assumes that damage rolls stay close to average. For a character with persistent defenses, having the opponent make one lucky-shot high roll that stuns is not that big a deal. It is always a big deal (and sometimes lethal) for characters with non-persistent defenses, because once the defenses are down, even low damage rolls will stun, and likely also do BODY damage.

- Klaus

AnotherSkip

Aug 25th, '08, 08:30 AM

Ya know what going over a recent build i didn't like Having to buy Inherent on Extra limbs, instead if we assumed that Extra limbs was an adder for Str then it wouldn't be necessary, or would it?

schir1964

Aug 25th, '08, 09:42 AM

Ya know what going over a recent build i didn't like Having to buy Inherent on Extra limbs, instead if we assumed that Extra limbs was an adder for Str then it wouldn't be necessary, or would it?
A thread exploring and discussing this more than you ever wanted to. (8^D)

Analysis: Extra Limbs - SFX or Power?

- Christopher Mullins

Hugh Neilson

Sep 1st, '08, 06:27 AM

Is Armor Piercing overpriced? I submit that, at the average defense levels posited for the typical game, it is.

STATUS QUO

Let's consider a 12 DC game, where we can have a 12d6 Normal or 8d6 AP attack. At various defense levels, the damage getting through from a single attack are as follows (assumed average rolls of 42/12 and 28/8; target does not have hardened defenses):

Normal 2 DEF:
Normal attack 40 STUN, 10 BOD; AP 27 STUN, 7 BOD
Clear Advantage Normal Attack

Tough Guy Normal 4 DEF:
Normal attack 38 STUN, 8 BOD; AP 26 STUN, 6 BOD
Clear Advantage Normal Attack

Low DEF Super/Agent 8 DEF: [Supers who avoid damage with DCV]
Normal attack 34 STUN, 4 BOD; AP 24 STUN, 4 BOD
Clear Advantage Normal Attack

Lower DEF Super 12 DEF: [probably still a Dodger]
Normal attack 30 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 22 STUN, 2 BOD
STUN Advantage Normal Attack; AP does BOD
I suggest the target will be KO'd before killed, so the normal attack retains the advantage

Below average DEF Super 16 DEF:
Normal attack 26 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 20 STUN, 0 BOD
Clear Advantage Normal Attack

Average DEF Super 20 DEF:
Normal attack 22 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 18 STUN, 0 BOD
Clear Advantage Normal Attack

Above average DEF Super 24 DEF:
Normal attack 18 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 16 STUN, 0 BOD
Slight Advantage Normal Attack

Very Tough Super 30 DEF: [Probably a Brick or powerful NPC]
Normal attack 12 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 13 STUN, 0 BOD
Slight Advantage AP Attack

Mega-Tough Super 40 DEF: [Probably a very powerful mega villain]
Normal attack 2 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 8 STUN, 0 BOD
Clear Advantage AP Attack

Nigh-Invulnerable Super 50 DEF: [Very tough mega villain]
Normal attack 0 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 3 STUN, 0 BOD
Clear Advantage AP Attack

So, what do we see from the above? The normal attack holds the advantage at virtually all reasonable defense levels. At one fairly uncommon defense level, it does do more BOD. That's probably higher DEF than most objects, entangles and automatons, but it might help against the occasional force wall.

AP has a real advantage only against very tough opponents. They're even in BOD at 8 DEF, and even in STUN at 28 DEF.

'Fess up, now - how many of those really tough characters (defenses 30+) in your games don't also Harden their defenses to show how "really tough" they are? Maybe that's why AP is only seen as a Multi slot, and a rarely effective one at that.

POSSIBLE CHANGE

In my view, the average defenses per DC have dropped off over the editions. Maybe the cost of A/P should have fallen to +1/4 at the same time. That would change the 12 DC AP attack to 9 1/2 d6 (average 33.5 STUN, 9.5 BOD), for results as follows:

Normal 2 DEF:
Normal attack 40 STUN, 10 BOD; AP 32.5 STUN, 8.5 BOD
Clear Advantage Normal Attack

Tough Guy Normal 4 DEF:
Normal attack 38 STUN, 8 BOD; AP 31.5 STUN, 7.5 BOD
Clear Advantage Normal Attack

Low DEF Super/Agent 8 DEF: [Supers who avoid damage with DCV]
Normal attack 34 STUN, 4 BOD; AP 29.5 STUN, 5.5 BOD
STUN Advantage Normal Attack; AP holds BOD advantage
I suggest the target will be KO'd before killed, but that's far from a sure thing

Lower DEF Super 12 DEF: [probably still a Dodger]
Normal attack 30 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 27.5 STUN, 3.5 BOD
STUN Advantage Normal Attack; AP does BOD
I suggest the target will be KO'd before killed, so the normal attack retains the advantage

Below average DEF Super 16 DEF:
Normal attack 26 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 25.5 STUN, 1.5 BOD
Normal attack has a slight STUN advantage, and the AP attack does BOD. Both probably KO the target at the same time in most cases

Average DEF Super 20 DEF:
Normal attack 22 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 23.5 STUN, 0 BOD
Slight Advantage AP Attack

Above average DEF Super 24 DEF:
Normal attack 18 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 21.5 STUN, 0 BOD
Clear Advantage AP Attack

Very Tough Super 30 DEF: [Probably a Brick or powerful NPC]
Normal attack 12 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 18.5 STUN, 0 BOD
Clear Advantage AP Attack

Mega-Tough Super 40 DEF: [Probably a very powerful mega villain]
Normal attack 2 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 13.5 STUN, 0 BOD
Clear Advantage AP Attack

Nigh-Invulnerable Super 50 DEF: [Very tough mega villain]
Normal attack 0 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 8.5 STUN, 0 BOD
Clear Advantage AP Attack

Now the AP attack has a slight advantage at average defense levels, rising as defenses rise higher. Absent Hardened defenses, I'd say this overpowers AP attacks. However, given higher defense characters more often take Hardened on some or all defenses, maybe this is better balanced.

OVERALL

NO CLEAR ANSWERS - but something to consider for 6e

Now, if we went to decimals, maybe AP becomes a 0.3, 0.35 or 0.4 advantage.

steamteck

Sep 1st, '08, 07:27 AM

I'd rather see armor piercing purchased as points of armor ignored myself rather than a divisor. That seems to fit more with what the effect should do to me. That harks back to something I can't quite recall ( maybe piercing) so it probably won't happen though.

Talon

Sep 1st, '08, 07:33 AM

See this post (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1648721#post1648721) for one suggestion along these lines.

The value of AP is going to vary based on the campaign's defense value. Ideally, the GM should be able to set the cost (as an Adder).

Markdoc

Sep 1st, '08, 07:47 AM

Not entirely convinced. AP does two things: it makes it easier to do BOD damage on lower DEF targets, and STUN damage on very tough targets. Particularly when combined with other attacks (like HKA and RKA) those are both pretty potent. Whether it's potent enough for a +1/2 is a matter of opinion, but I see enough AP attacks around that many players seem to think it's worth the cost.

Hugh's breakdown give an advantage for AP normal attacks vs normal targets, with DEF 20 or higher and for entangles, forcewalls, automatons and objects above 8 DEF. That doesn't seem unreasonable. Personally I don' have a problem with people only breaking out the armor piercing attacks when they are faced with a really tough target or want to break stuff.

cheers, Mark

BobGreenwade

Sep 2nd, '08, 09:04 AM

Klaus Mogensen

Sep 2nd, '08, 09:36 AM

Maybe this would be a good place to start for recommendations on where existing Advantages would lie with smaller steps for Modifiers. For example, if we go to the 0.05 steps that I suggest, Armor Piercing might become +0.35.
I hate this idea. Even now, there is a lot of discussion about whether certain advantages and limitations should be worth 1/4 more or less. See for instance the recent discussion about whether "STUN Only" should be +0 or -1/4. Imagine the discussions if we use steps of 1/20 instead!

The values of limitations and advantages simply aren't objective enough to be valued that precisely. The value of 'hardened' e.g. depends very much on the prevalence in a campaign of armor-piercing and penetrating attacks.

- Klaus

Talon

Sep 2nd, '08, 09:41 AM

Plus, the arguments over which increments to use will make it even worse. If Steve made some sort of framing comment ("I am leaning toward .1 / .05 / thirteenths") it would help that aspect at least.

Hugh Neilson

Sep 2nd, '08, 04:14 PM

Maybe this would be a good place to start for recommendations on where existing Advantages would lie with smaller steps for Modifiers. For example, if we go to the 0.05 steps that I suggest, Armor Piercing might become +0.35.

Hugh, how do the numbers come up if AP is +3/8?

That would allow 8 1/2d6 for an average roll of 30/8.5. That has the following results:

Normal 2 DEF:
Normal attack 40 STUN, 10 BOD; AP 29 STUN, 7.5 BOD
Clear Advantage Normal Attack

Tough Guy Normal 4 DEF:
Normal attack 38 STUN, 8 BOD; AP 28 STUN, 6.5 BOD
Clear Advantage Normal Attack

Low DEF Super/Agent 8 DEF: [Supers who avoid damage with DCV]
Normal attack 34 STUN, 4 BOD; AP 26 STUN, 4.5 BOD
STUN Advantage Normal Attack; AP holds slim BOD advantage

Lower DEF Super 12 DEF: [probably still a Dodger]
Normal attack 30 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 24 STUN, 2.5 BOD
STUN Advantage Normal Attack; AP does BOD
I suggest the target will be KO'd before killed, so the normal attack retains the advantage

Below average DEF Super 16 DEF:
Normal attack 26 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 22 STUN, 0.5 BOD
Normal attack has a STUN advantage, and the AP attack does some BOD. I;d give the edge to the normal attack.

Average DEF Super 20 DEF:
Normal attack 22 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 20 STUN, 0 BOD
Slight Advantage Normal Attack

Above average DEF Super 24 DEF:
Normal attack 18 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 18 STUN, 0 BOD
Dead Heat

Very Tough Super 30 DEF: [Probably a Brick or powerful NPC]
Normal attack 12 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 15 STUN, 0 BOD
Clear Advantage AP Attack

Mega-Tough Super 40 DEF: [Probably a very powerful mega villain]
Normal attack 2 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 10 STUN, 0 BOD
Clear Advantage AP Attack

Nigh-Invulnerable Super 50 DEF: [Very tough mega villain]
Normal attack 0 STUN, 0 BOD; AP 5 STUN, 0 BOD
Clear Advantage AP Attack

That 3/8 level seems like it's in the ballpark, anyway.

PhilFleischmann

Sep 3rd, '08, 05:26 PM

Imagine the discussions if we use steps of 1/20 instead!
Yes. I would say that those discussions would be much easier to resolve, since there's much more room to compromise. There's much greater opportunity for precision. +0 or +1/4 gives us a "lesser of two evils" choice, whereas, +0, +.05, +.1, +.15, +.2, +.25 gives us a choice of something just right. (The +1/4 porridge is too hot. The +0 porridge is too cold.)

The values of limitations and advantages simply aren't objective enough to be valued that precisely. The value of 'hardened' e.g. depends very much on the prevalence in a campaign of armor-piercing and penetrating attacks.
True. But they can be valued precisely for a particular campaign. If that precise value turns out to be +.15, or +.3, why should those values not be available in the toolkit?

Xotl

Sep 8th, '08, 09:07 PM

Klaus Mogensen

Sep 9th, '08, 02:24 AM

I'm curious if there's anyone out there who feels that Invisible Power Effects for mental powers is overcosted at +1/2. I'd rather see it cost a +1/4 for mental powers, like any other power taking invisible to mental group would be charged, as avoiding mental awareness (by default an extremely weak sense) is of pretty limited utility IMHO, and it makes things consistent as a bonus.
I have suggested (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1682378&postcount=1378) that there are three levels of visibility: Obvious, Inobvious and Invisible. While I require that even Invisible Powers are visible to one special sense, I suppose we could add a level "Undetectable", with each step of lessened visibility being a +1/4 advantage.

- Klaus

Markdoc

Sep 9th, '08, 02:41 AM

Maybe this would be a good place to start for recommendations on where existing Advantages would lie with smaller steps for Modifiers. For example, if we go to the 0.05 steps that I suggest, Armor Piercing might become +0.35?

The Horror, the Horror.... This is one of those ideas which while it sounds intriguing to those who like to tinker with rules and design characters for fun, sounds like an absolute nightmare to people who just want to play the game. I don't think you could get any real agreement as to if AP should be 0.5, 0.45, 0.4 or 0.35. And in real play, the difference between an ability priced at +.25 and +.5 is already pretty minimal in most cases. What then is the divider between .05 and .1?

Really the only advantage that I can see to this suggestion is that it'd give us more things to argue about .... and actually, that isn't an advantage.

cheers, Mark

Sean Waters

Sep 9th, '08, 06:03 AM

On the AP point - look at Body:

An 8d6 AP will damage a 15 DEF object on average rolls, whereas you need a really good roll to damage an object with such defences with a 12d6 attack.

I assume that a normal attack should be the best way of causing STUN damage. Variant attacks serve other purposes. To make AP cheaper would make the world more fragile.

Even at current levels, 12d6 v 8d6 AP against 24 DEF (which I consider about average working on 2XDC DEF) 18 v 16 damage. Close enough, especially given the Body damage advantage.

Also consider advantage synergy. 8d6 one hex AoE v 6d6 One hex AoE AP - much closer, and the AP has a clear advantage there against most DEF levels.

My view is AP is priced just right.

Talon

Sep 9th, '08, 06:05 AM

At 60 Active Points with no other limitations, we are talking about a 1.8 point difference, so I'd say moving a Modifier by .05 is a 0-3 point change.

Hugh Neilson

Sep 9th, '08, 06:32 AM

I can see the threads now.... "It should be a +0.30 Advantage" versus "it should be a 0.33 advantage" spreading over dozens of pages... :eek:

BobGreenwade

Sep 9th, '08, 08:22 AM

The Horror, the Horror.... This is one of those ideas which while it sounds intriguing to those who like to tinker with rules and design characters for fun, sounds like an absolute nightmare to people who just want to play the game. I don't think you could get any real agreement as to if AP should be 0.5, 0.45, 0.4 or 0.35. And in real play, the difference between an ability priced at +.25 and +.5 is already pretty minimal in most cases. What then is the divider between .05 and .1?

Really the only advantage that I can see to this suggestion is that it'd give us more things to argue about .... and actually, that isn't an advantage.

cheers, Mark

I can see the threads now.... "It should be a +0.30 Advantage" versus "it should be a 0.33 advantage" spreading over dozens of pages... :eek:Well, we don't really need agreement on what level of Advantage Armor Piercing should be. Steve's going to just decide, based on our input. If we can come up with a good principle -- I'm in favor of saying that an average attack should break even against an average defense in a typical campaign -- and run the numbers to make the decision easier, I think he'll come up with a good solution.

BobGreenwade

Sep 9th, '08, 08:29 AM

Separate post for a separate issue: the Does BODY Advantage.

As it sits now, Does BODY also means that the attack does Knockback, and if the attack shouldn't do Knockback then it takes the No Knockback Limitation. While that isn't a necessarily bad thing, maybe we can also have an option of Does BODY (no Knockback) for +3/4.

I don't mind if people shoot that one down; it's mostly just musing.

More definitely, I think that attacks with the Does BODY Advantage should be normally restricted to affecting characters only, and not inanimate objects and machines like walls, Entangles, Vehicles, and so forth. Most attacks have reasoning for this built in; for example, an EGO Attack that Does BODY wouldn't affect something without a mind, and an AVLD Attack versus Sight Flash Defense that Does BODY would affect something without the ability to see (at least, in my estimation; I call the lack of a Sense within a Sense Group as being the same as having effectively infinite Flash Defense in that Sense Group). If an attack that Does BODY would affect inanimate objects (as might an AVLD versus Power Defense), it can take an additional +1/4 Advantage.

Hugh Neilson

Sep 9th, '08, 09:59 AM

Klaus Mogensen

Sep 9th, '08, 01:42 PM

Also consider advantage synergy. 8d6 one hex AoE v 6d6 One hex AoE AP - much closer, and the AP has a clear advantage there against most DEF levels.
My view is AP is priced just right.
In addition, if you're mainly interested in STUN damage, you can get a 10d6 AP Reduced Penetration attack for the same cost as a 12d6 normal attack. The 10d6 will do far more STUN to all but very lightly armored targets, and is likely to do nearly the same amount of BODY. If AP is reduced to +1/4, you could get a 12d6 AP RP attack at the same cost as a 12d6 unmodified attack - not at all reasonable.

- Klaus

PhilFleischmann

Sep 9th, '08, 05:30 PM

I'm curious if there's anyone out there who feels that Invisible Power Effects for mental powers is overcosted at +1/2. I'd rather see it cost a +1/4 for mental powers, like any other power taking invisible to mental group would be charged, as avoiding mental awareness (by default an extremely weak sense) is of pretty limited utility IMHO, and it makes things consistent as a bonus.
I assume you mean Invisible to Mental Senses. And yes, I think I agree, mostly. I have long advocated (and used as a house rule), a +1/4 "Invisible to targets without Mental Awareness." With this Advantage, a non-mentallist has no idea that his mind is being read with Telepathy, etc., but any Mentally Aware person can "see" the power being used. This seems to be the way mental powers are represented in the source material (of just about ALL genres) most of the time.

BobGreenwade

Sep 9th, '08, 05:56 PM

What if the attack only does BOD to inanimate objects? While I agree an attack that does NND Bod against characters can be devastating, an attack that does NND Bod against objects renders Force Walls obsolete, and rips through prisons, entangles, etc. And does that "Does BOD - characters only" affect automatons? Are they "characters" or "objects"?There can be special constructs for those. Perhaps the restriction can apply only to AVLDs.

Xotl

Sep 9th, '08, 09:23 PM

I assume you mean Invisible to Mental Senses. And yes, I think I agree, mostly. I have long advocated (and used as a house rule), a +1/4 "Invisible to targets without Mental Awareness." With this Advantage, a non-mentallist has no idea that his mind is being read with Telepathy, etc., but any Mentally Aware person can "see" the power being used. This seems to be the way mental powers are represented in the source material (of just about ALL genres) most of the time.

Sorry: I'll clarify. While I would prefer an outright cost reduction for Invisible Power Effects (vs. Mental Group) on Mental Powers to +1/4 (the same as any other power pays for it), your idea is a second choice I would prefer to the current situation.

Basically I just don't see why it was necessary to add an exception to the IPE costing scheme by increasing the IPE cost specifically when hiding a mental power from the mental group (which is really just Mental Awareness, quite uncommon a sense and one which lacks targeting as well). I don't in any way see a 6D6 Ego Attack hidden from Mental Awareness being the equivalent of a 9D6 normal Ego Attack. The same applies to Telepathy, Mind Control etc. The normal +1/4 seems plenty, I believe (and a reduction to the cost gets rid of the exception too).

David Blue

Sep 10th, '08, 06:04 AM

I can see the threads now.... "It should be a +0.30 Advantage" versus "it should be a 0.33 advantage" spreading over dozens of pages... :eek:
Make it Pi.

Hugh Neilson

Sep 10th, '08, 06:10 AM

Make it Pi.

While this seems a reasonable solution, reasonable solutions thrown into multi-page passionate arguments rarely seem to get a lot of attention.

But if we're going to split the numbers down, why not +pi and -pi? From the polls on the Boards, many Hero gamers want more pi in the game (and outside) ;)

PhilFleischmann

Sep 10th, '08, 05:33 PM

Basically I just don't see why it was necessary to add an exception to the IPE costing scheme by increasing the IPE cost specifically when hiding a mental power from the mental group (which is really just Mental Awareness, quite uncommon a sense and one which lacks targeting as well). I don't in any way see a 6D6 Ego Attack hidden from Mental Awareness being the equivalent of a 9D6 normal Ego Attack. The same applies to Telepathy, Mind Control etc. The normal +1/4 seems plenty, I believe (and a reduction to the cost gets rid of the exception too).
I completely agree. My version is sort of a compromise between yours and the existing rules. Either one would be an improvement.

Istaran

Sep 12th, '08, 11:36 PM

Sorry: I'll clarify. While I would prefer an outright cost reduction for Invisible Power Effects (vs. Mental Group) on Mental Powers to +1/4 (the same as any other power pays for it), your idea is a second choice I would prefer to the current situation.

Basically I just don't see why it was necessary to add an exception to the IPE costing scheme by increasing the IPE cost specifically when hiding a mental power from the mental group (which is really just Mental Awareness, quite uncommon a sense and one which lacks targeting as well). I don't in any way see a 6D6 Ego Attack hidden from Mental Awareness being the equivalent of a 9D6 normal Ego Attack. The same applies to Telepathy, Mind Control etc. The normal +1/4 seems plenty, I believe (and a reduction to the cost gets rid of the exception too).

A mostly agree, but wonder why you consider Mental Awareness a 'quite uncommon' sense. As far as I know, it is the only sense you get for free outside the normal human senses. So the system seems to want it to be the single most common sense outside the normal human ones.

Vulcan

Sep 13th, '08, 11:01 PM

It's probably not going to be free much longer. :D

Xotl

Sep 14th, '08, 02:02 AM

A mostly agree, but wonder why you consider Mental Awareness a 'quite uncommon' sense. As far as I know, it is the only sense you get for free outside the normal human senses. So the system seems to want it to be the single most common sense outside the normal human ones.

As Vulcan points out, part of my reasoning is that I'm assuming MA won't come free in 6th. Even if it is free, you'll still need to buy a mental power and not take the (kludgy and part of why I don't want MA free anymore) "does not provide Mental Awareness" disad. As for how I figured on "quite uncommon", I was comparing it to the usual 5 senses and not-unusual multi-genre additional senses like infravision and nightvision.

Even if you're one of the few with Mental Awareness, it doesn't do you much good, as MA is non-targeting, non-Discriminatory, and only 120 degrees - hardly worth an exceptional +1/2 to hide from.

BobGreenwade

Sep 25th, '08, 09:00 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Netzilla

Sep 25th, '08, 09:15 AM

<snip proposal for greater granularity with the Visible Limitation>

Interesting thoughts, and something I've spent a bit of time pondering as well. I agree that the Visibility Limitation should be structured along the lines of:

-X Visible to one additional Targeting Sense (Sight, Radio, etc)
-Y Visible to one additional semi-Targeting Sense (Hearing, etc)
-Z Visible to one non-Targeting Sense (Smell, etc)

I can also see the value changing based upon the commonality of the sense:
* 1/2 value for Uncommon senses (Radio in a Fantasy game, Mental, etc)
* 1/4 value for a Rare sense (Magic in any low-magic setting)

I'll leave specific numbers for others to argue about. I feel that this is a solid enough concept that it should work across multiple Modifier Pricing structures (.05 increments, .1 increments [my own preference], 1/4 increments, 1/8 increments, etc).

Hugh Neilson

Sep 25th, '08, 04:40 PM

Moving this to the more appropriate thread...

One means of simplifying the game without removing options is to make the defaults consistent. I'd like to see consistent defaults across the board, probably on a category by category basis. For example, perhaps:

- all attack powers cost END and are visible by default.
- all adjustment powers cost END and are visible by default.
- all defense powers cost no END and are invisible by default.
- all movement powers cost END and are invisible by default.

Defaults for constant vs instant, persistent, etc. would also be standard across each type of power.

Some repricing will be required, of course. Examples: Force Field can no longer continue as written - it is simply an example of defenses purchased to be Visible, Non-Persistent and Cost END. Aid will cost END, so its price should be reduced accordingly. A base standard will assist new players in knowing the basics of power types.

I think this is a great idea, although I fear that it may make some costs difficult. I'd rather break this set of defaults than have some powers costing 6 or 7 points a die, for example.

My choice for "not visible" could easily be defaulted the other way if desired. However, my view of "movement not visible" is that it is not perceived in any way differently from the character as normal. What three sense groups is Running visible to? Flight does not make a sound, smell and leave a visible trail by default under this option.

Sight: Your legs can be seen moving.
Sound: The sound of your feet hitting the ground.
Smell: Your scent trail.

Currently, Flight is 'just as' visible as Running:

Sight: It's pretty obvious you're floating in the air.
Sound: The air "whooshes" as you fly by.

In my experience, it's the third sense that can get tricky and is highly dependent on SFX: gravitic might be felt as a pressure wave (Touch) as you pass over things, magnetic could show up to Radio, etc.

As I said, I'd be OK with movement being defined as inherently visible or inherently invisible. However, I suggest that a "visible" power remains detectable if the base character is invisible.

Invisibility to Sight, Hearing and Smell normally covers the character whether or not he's running. Thus, Running fails my definition [is there a "book definition"?] of being visible. Debates over whether invisibility covers the character when he flies, turns on his force field, etc. are pretty common. A better definition of "visible" would help in this regard.

Right now, the book states that a Visible power must be perceivable by at least 3 Sense Groups, normally Sight, Hearing plus one other (5ER pg 98). It also states that the Point of Origin must be clear. The Visible Limitation (5ER 309) adds that it should not be combined with an Obvious Focus because Obvious already makes the source of the power apparent.

By the book, Running is a Visible power. The book also states that no forms of movement are inherently more 'stealthy' than any other (5ER pg71). I went into more detail on this concept in another message (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1580035#post1580035) a while back.

The Invisibility Power states that it covers a character's Foci and weapons. However, if you attack with that weapon, the source & effect are obvious and visible.

With Movement Powers, it states that's it's purely a GM call based upon SFX interactions. It gives the examples that flying with wings would be covered but a fire elemental's fiery trail would not (5ER 193).

It also states, "in most cases Invisibility should cover Powers that are closely connected or related to a character's body, such as some uses of Force Field" (5ER 193).

So, while the interaction of Invisibility is fairly clearly spelled out for Attack Powers, it's a lot more nebulous when it comes to anything else. Personally, I view it as any non-Attack Power directly connected to the character is covered by Invisibility unless it has taken the Visibility Limitation to increase its visibility (5ER 309 states that the Visible Limitation can be used to increase the Visibility an already visible power).

So, yes, the book could stand to be more clear when it comes to how Invisibility interacts with Visible non-Attack Powers but otherwise I think it's fairly clear. I would like to see an explicit list of which powers are inherently Invisible rather than the current 'Visible if it costs END and Invisible if it doesn't but then here's these exceptions...". All you would have to do is add a single line to each Power description:

"Visible: Yes/No"

That would , theoretically, cut down on some of the Visible Power Effects debates that come up periodically without adding a lot of text.

So what is the point of origin for teleportation? Does Superman's flight have IPE? I don't see a point of origin there either.

The current use of "some uses of powers are covered by your invisibility and others are not" solidifies my belief that a standard rule is needed. Either Fiery Elemental and other uses of force field should have a limitation, or wings and some uses of force field should have an advantage.

Netzilla

Sep 25th, '08, 09:40 PM

So what is the point of origin for teleportation?

That's going to depend a lot on SFX. The Marvel character Magick generates teleportation disks that she steps through. Nightcrawler produces very obvious effects indicating that the power comes from him. If you read the entire paragraph under Power's Point of Origin (5ER 98) it states, "it must be clear that the power comes from the character". It only discusses specific body parts in relation to Attack Powers. It doesn't explicitly state that those are the only type where it really matters, but that's the impression I get.

Does Superman's flight have IPE? I don't see a point of origin there either.

I can go either way with Supes. To me, it's pretty obvious that it's his power and not coming from some other source. Plus, when he flies really fast, you get that nifty red-and-blue streak leading straight to him. However, if you figure the streak is more 'artistic license' and the characters within the book can't actually see it I could see it's lack of a blatantly obvious source (wings, jet boots, etc) might be ruled as requiring a Partial Invisible Power Effects Advantage. Unfortunately, there is no such beast.

<edit> Part of the problem with Supes is that his means of flight isn't really defined. It's gone a long way from his original shtick of just leaping really far. With the big 'S', we don't know if it's anti-gravity, telekinesis or some other means. Unless you can tell me by what mechanism he flies, it's pretty hard to tell exactly what senses could detect it.

The current use of "some uses of powers are covered by your invisibility and others are not" solidifies my belief that a standard rule is needed. Either Fiery Elemental and other uses of force field should have a limitation, or wings and some uses of force field should have an advantage.

Yep, I agree. I try to handle it as constantly and clearly as possible in my games. It would be nice if the book were a little clearer on this, however. A lot is left up to individual interpretation rather than making a clear, concise statement on the issue.

Istaran

Sep 26th, '08, 12:49 AM

Does Superman's flight have IPE? I don't see a point of origin there either.

Superman can use his flight to hover in a location where part of his body is obscured, and an onlooker would not be able to determine whether he was hovering using a power or supported by some mundane means (standing on something, held up by something, etc.). That seems like IPE to me. In contrast, you can easily tell the guy with wings is flapping them, and the burning fire guy is burning. It seems like either Superman should have IPE or the other guys should have Visible.

IPE is a +1. Visible is a -1/4. Which one is more in line with the difference in effectiveness of Flight between them?

Hugh Neilson

Sep 26th, '08, 06:23 AM

That's going to depend a lot on SFX. The Marvel character Magick generates teleportation disks that she steps through. Nightcrawler produces very obvious effects indicating that the power comes from him. If you read the entire paragraph under Power's Point of Origin (5ER 98) it states, "it must be clear that the power comes from the character". It only discusses specific body parts in relation to Attack Powers. It doesn't explicitly state that those are the only type where it really matters, but that's the impression I get.

Emphasis added. So the rules for visibility are not directly linked with point of origin since only attack powers seem to have a point of origin by default.

I can go either way with Supes. To me, it's pretty obvious that it's his power and not coming from some other source.

It seems pretty obvious that defenses are your own, and not coming from some other source, but neither PD nor Armor is visible by default. By contrast, a Force Field looks pretty much the same whether it's your own power, a UBO power granted to you or a UAA power forced upon you. Absent you going "Huh?? Where did this glowing field around me come from?". Which you could also do if it were your own power. I don't think saying "honest, I don't know where this force field came from" requires you to pay for IPE.

Plus, when he flies really fast, you get that nifty red-and-blue streak leading straight to him. However, if you figure the streak is more 'artistic license' and the characters within the book can't actually see it I could see it's lack of a blatantly obvious source (wings, jet boots, etc) might be ruled as requiring a Partial Invisible Power Effects Advantage. Unfortunately, there is no such beast.

I'd say that, if others can see the blue and red streak, it's because Supes himself is not invisible. That doesn't mean the flight itself is visible. Let's assume Supes "hovers" precisely 1 picometer off the ground. His feet are not technically touching the ground, but I don't think you can detect the fact he is flying without very sophisticated equipment. Certainly, you can neither see nor hear his flight in action.

<edit> Part of the problem with Supes is that his means of flight isn't really defined. It's gone a long way from his original shtick of just leaping really far. With the big 'S', we don't know if it's anti-gravity, telekinesis or some other means. Unless you can tell me by what mechanism he flies, it's pretty hard to tell exactly what senses could detect it.

Given he's been around long enough to collect social security, you'd think if his flight had a visible SFX, we'd know what it is by now, wouldn't you? even his last reboot was in the mid-1980's, so we've had 20+ years to clarify this.

Yep, I agree. I try to handle it as constantly and clearly as possible in my games. It would be nice if the book were a little clearer on this, however. A lot is left up to individual interpretation rather than making a clear, concise statement on the issue.

That's the bottom line to me - let's provide clear and unambiguous rules for what "Visible" means to a power. If that means the default is that attack powers are visible, defense powers are invisible and movement powers are "partially visible", so be it. Then give us advantages for reduced visibility and limitations for increased visibility so we can change the default and away we go.

Superman can use his flight to hover in a location where part of his body is obscured, and an onlooker would not be able to determine whether he was hovering using a power or supported by some mundane means (standing on something, held up by something, etc.). That seems like IPE to me. In contrast, you can easily tell the guy with wings is flapping them, and the burning fire guy is burning. It seems like either Superman should have IPE or the other guys should have Visible.

If you're not looking, how can you tell whether I walked away, flew away or teleported away? If Wings is obscured from, say, the knees up, you can't tell whether his feet are in the air because he was hovering using a power or supported by some mundane means either. Is the fact Burning Guy is burning an indicator that he's using Flight, Force Field, a damage shield or the poor sucker is on fire?

IPE is a +1. Visible is a -1/4. Which one is more in line with the difference in effectiveness of Flight between them?

Now we're getting into pricing, but we don't actually know what IPE on flight does - what are the requirements of Visible that IPE is taking away? Until a default is clearly established, how can we price deviations from the default?

If "you can see his legs move/wings flap/body move through the air", the only way to make this really invisible is to make the character invisible. "I fly away, but my flight has IPE so it looks like I'm still standing where I was. While he wastes attacks on my afterimages, I'll ambush him since he can't see me in my new location. Since his Flight is visible, he can't be stealthy and everyone within a mile can detect him flying in - when he flies at night, he gets ticketed for disturbing the peace." That difference is probably worth +1. If the difference between "standard flight" and "invisible flight" is negligible, maybe it's not even worth +1/4. At present, it seems like SFX defines which one is "standard visibility" with no point cost or savings to switch between the two. Considering I have to pay +1/4 to be able to change the point on my body that my EB emanates from, being able to switch from noisy glow in the dark stinky flight to "if they can see you normally they know you're flying" flight for free seems inappropriate.

Netzilla

Sep 26th, '08, 07:55 AM

If you read the entire paragraph under Power's Point of Origin (5ER 98) it states, "it must be clear that the power comes from the character". It only discusses specific body parts in relation to Attack Powers. It doesn't explicitly state that those are the only type where it really matters, but that's the impression I get.
Emphasis added. So the rules for visibility are not directly linked with point of origin since only attack powers seem to have a point of origin by default.

My reading of Power's Point of Origin is that who/what the power is coming coming from must be obvious and in the case of Attack Powers, which specific part of who/what as well. So, you can tell when a car is supplying power to its tires, but you can't see if the engine is in the front or the back. However, you can see the gun turret mounted on the roof plain as day.

What can I say, I've been on a Car Wars kick ever since I discovered Darkwind (http://www.dark-wind.com/).

However, I do agree that the distinction could and should be made more clear.

It seems pretty obvious that defenses are your own, and not coming from some other source, but neither PD nor Armor is visible by default. By contrast, a Force Field looks pretty much the same whether it's your own power, a UBO power granted to you or a UAA power forced upon you. Absent you going "Huh?? Where did this glowing field around me come from?". Which you could also do if it were your own power. I don't think saying "honest, I don't know where this force field came from" requires you to pay for IPE.Armor and PD look like normal skin by default. Flight does not look like walking. As to UBO/UAA: If you have EB - Continuous (Bonfire), people can see you set it, but once it's burning there's no longer an obvious connection back to you. I view UBO/UAA in the same way. They can see you grant the power, but once it's granted there's no longer an obvious connection.

I'd say that, if others can see the blue and red streak, it's because Supes himself is not invisible. That doesn't mean the flight itself is visible. Let's assume Supes "hovers" precisely 1 picometer off the ground. His feet are not technically touching the ground, but I don't think you can detect the fact he is flying without very sophisticated equipment. Certainly, you can neither see nor hear his flight in action.You also can't hear someone walking quietly or standing still, so I don't know why you'd expect to hear Supes when he's hovering. Also, if I take a 1 picometer step forward, can you tell?

Given he's been around long enough to collect social security, you'd think if his flight had a visible SFX, we'd know what it is by now, wouldn't you? even his last reboot was in the mid-1980's, so we've had 20+ years to clarify this.Various writers have occationally offered various explinations (the anti-gravity and telekinesis I mentioned earlier and I'm sure there've been others), but they keep changing. That's the problem when you have different writers for over 20+ years, you lose consistancy. Most writers just plain don't bother to explain it in the way that George Lukas has never explained how lightsabers or FTL work.

Like I said, the Big S's flight mechanics are too poorly defined to give a consistant IPE ruling.

That's the bottom line to me - let's provide clear and unambiguous rules for what "Visible" means to a power. If that means the default is that attack powers are visible, defense powers are invisible and movement powers are "partially visible", so be it. Then give us advantages for reduced visibility and limitations for increased visibility so we can change the default and away we go.What would also help would be better descriptions of how powers are visible on example character/power write-ups.

If "you can see his legs move/wings flap/body move through the air", the only way to make this really invisible is to make the character invisible. "I fly away, but my flight has IPE so it looks like I'm still standing where I was. While he wastes attacks on my afterimages, I'll ambush him since he can't see me in my new location.Now there's an interesting take on IPE Flight. I've always viewed it as "moves so fast you don't see the movement, only where he ends up" (which a lot of people build as Teleport - must cross intervening space).

Since his Flight is visible, he can't be stealthy and everyone within a mile can detect him flying in - when he flies at night, he gets ticketed for disturbing the peace." That difference is probably worth +1. If the difference between "standard flight" and "invisible flight" is negligible, maybe it's not even worth +1/4. At present, it seems like SFX defines which one is "standard visibility" with no point cost or savings to switch between the two. Considering I have to pay +1/4 to be able to change the point on my body that my EB emanates from, being able to switch from noisy glow in the dark stinky flight to "if they can see you normally they know you're flying" flight for free seems inappropriate.Personally, I'd think the 'can't be stealthy while flying/disturbing the peace with flight' power would qualify for Visible (-1/4) on the grounds of being "Noisy" (as described under the Visible Limitation). Overall, I definately agree that there needs to be different gradiations to Visible and IPE. I like the idea that BobG laid out for Visible a few posts ago. Inverting it would seem to work well for IPE.

Overall, I figure we're agreeing more than disagreeing (and the disagreements are really just nit-picks anyway), so I figure I've killed enough bandwidth for the time being.

Hugh Neilson

Sep 26th, '08, 09:37 AM

Armor and PD look like normal skin by default. Flight does not look like walking.

Why not? Couldn't "walking on air" be Flight?

As to UBO/UAA: If you have EB - Continuous (Bonfire), people can see you set it, but once it's burning there's no longer an obvious connection back to you. I view UBO/UAA in the same way. They can see you grant the power, but once it's granted there's no longer an obvious connection.

A reasonable interpretation, but again do we need definition? Does that bonfire:

(a) require an ongoing connection with the character? ie he must keep feeding the Continuous bonfire (Uncontrolled, being the true "fire and forget" advantage, may be the better example for "no obvious connection remaining")

(b) assuming (a) is "yes", what is the advantage to be able to remove that obvious connection while retaining the obviousness when you start the bonfire?

(c) assuming (a) is "no", what is the limitation to be able to continue that obvious connection while maintaining the bonfire?

You also can't hear someone walking quietly or standing still, so I don't know why you'd expect to hear Supes when he's hovering. Also, if I take a 1 picometer step forward, can you tell?

Based on the visibility rules, walking, hovering and moving 1 picometer forward are all "using the power" so it should be visible. Your EB doesn't become invisible because you only use some of the damage, does it? Can I use just 1d6 of my 12d6 FireBurst (say, to ignite a piece of paper from a distance) undetectably?

What would also help would be better descriptions of how powers are visible on example character/power write-ups.

That seems reasonable - although a more consistent rule on what constitutes "visible" might remove the need in many cases.

Now there's an interesting take on IPE Flight. I've always viewed it as "moves so fast you don't see the movement, only where he ends up" (which a lot of people build as Teleport - must cross intervening space).

Personally, I'd think the 'can't be stealthy while flying/disturbing the peace with flight' power would qualify for Visible (-1/4) on the grounds of being "Noisy" (as described under the Visible Limitation). Overall, I definitely agree that there needs to be different gradiations to Visible and IPE. I like the idea that BobG laid out for Visible a few posts ago. Inverting it would seem to work well for IPE.

Being obvious rather than stealthy occurs automatically when a Visible attack power is used. Why is it OK to be stealthy when using other Visible powers? Again, it sounds like Attack Powers are more visible, with no way to reduce them to, but not below, the visibility of movement powers.

It seems like we're OK with certain powers being less obvious than attack powers - that seems to suggest there is some middle ground between "Invisible" and "Visible". Maybe Klaus has the right idea:

I have suggested three visibility categories:
- Obvious: Easily noticed by common senses (no PER roll required)
- Inobvious: Noticeable by at least one common sense (PER Roll required)
- Invisible: Not noticeable except by a special sense
- Each step down is worth a -1/4 limitation; each step up is worth a +1/4 advantage

- Attack Powers and Adjustment Powers are Obvious by default
- Defense Powers and Movement are Inobvious by default
- Mental Powers and Special Powers are Invisible by default

One could introduce a fourth category, Indetectable, for Powers that cannot be detected through any means. However, I like the idea that all 'absolutes' must have a weakness.

Finally, we should de-link "visible" from "costs END". If it's physically taxing to look through walls, so my N Ray Vision costs END, why does it automatically follow that my N Ray Vision is now visible, audible and aromatic? More to the point, if my Enhanced Senses suite costs 30 points, reduced to 20 because it costs END, how is it reasonable that it costs 40 to cost END and be no more, or less, detectable than the 30 point version? The only change is that I spend END, and I pay 1/3 more, instead of a reduced price?