Advantages Issues

[Chris Goodwin]

Hugh, did you even read Chris Goodwin's original post?

Hugh actually hit it on the head.

Lingering to me doesn't work because it's essentially "paying to suck".

[Hugh Neilson]

Hugh, did you even read Chris Goodwin's original post?

I'm sorry my example wasn't a 'perfect' one but I was only pointing out that a mechanic already exists and attempting to give it some context with a build. If you wan't to attack the mechanic that's fine but don't attack an example that was, by design, built at a bare minimum of detail.


Hugh actually hit it on the head.

Lingering to me doesn't work because it's essentially "paying to suck".

To confirm, my issue was with the "lingering" mechanic, not the example given. You pay more to do less.

[Hyper-Man]

So, everyone is in agreement that there is already an existing mechanic that was created for the sole purpose of the issue raised. Nearly everyone is also in agreement that the current cost structure of the mechanic is less than desirable.

Why couldn't that be stated earlier instead of asking for something 'new' when it already existed?

[Chris Goodwin]

wel first I agree with hugh - it seems obvious that while lingering exists already it is silly as an advantage.

As for turning an instant power into a constant spell - i would point out that we already have in several places a half-off lims for ones that only apply to start a power rather than all the time. So my first inclination would be to do just that - take all the lims that apply "only at start" for your power instead of their usual "every use" and half their value.

10d6 eb with -1/4 for gesture and inc (after halving) costs 40 cp not 50

This seems to me to be one right way to do it. There may be others.


my solution for things like a beast claws spell in previous FH campaigns was to require you to pay full end as long as the claws remained - whether you slashed with them or just dodged or ran away - when you stopped the end the claws went away. So they saved some "restarts" but spent some wasted endurance too.

This is how I used to do it too.


I really dislike the current +1/4 for "costs end only to start" as compared to half-end at the same cost it seems way off.

Problem being, there's only one step between full END Cost and 0 END Cost. That +1/4 should really be called Costs Somewhere Between Full END And 0 END.

[schir1964]

Another way to look at Reduced Endurance Costs/Values:
0 Endurance Per Any Active Points (+2)
1 Endurance Per 60 Active Points (+1 3/4)
1 Endurance Per 40 Active Points (+1 1/2)
1 Endurance Per 30 Active Points (+1 1/4)
1 Endurance Per 20 Active Points (+1)
1 Endurance Per 15 Active Points (+1/2)
1 Endurance Per 10 Active Points (+/-0)
1 Endurance Per 5 Active Points (-1)
1 Endurance Per 3 Active Points (-2)
1 Endurance Per 1 Active Point (-5)

However, to use this method would require that Reduced Endurance be always purchased as a Naked Power Advantage via the Grouping method that always applies. Then the advantage is paid for separately.

Probably too complicated for practical use.

- Christopher Mullins

[Klaus Mogensen]

Yet another way to look at reduced endurance:

Rather than being an advantage, Reduced END is a cumulative 5-point adder that reduces END cost by 1.

This is really just a finer version of how it works now. A power cost 2 END per 20 points, so Half END is -1 END at a cost of 5 points, and 0 END is -2 END at a cost of 10 points (per 20 points in the power). This also eliminates the strangeness of Half END being an advantage that doesn't increase END Cost - adders (like x2 non-combat) usually don't.

You could take a -1/4 limitation to these adders (making then cost 4 apiece): "Doesn't reduce END cost on the first phase of use". Presto, we have a power that costs END to start, but not to maintain.


That said, I support the suggestion that Powers as a rule shouldn't cost END, and that you only use END to Push or as a result of a limitation (or perhaps to move non-combat). For magic, it might then be the Magic Skill Roll, rather than the powers in the spell, that costs END.

- Klaus

[Hyper-Man]

....This also eliminates the strangeness of Half END being an advantage that doesn't increase END Cost - adders (like x2 non-combat) usually don't.

...

Actually, according to Steve Long from May '05 they DO increase END cost. Steve just never updated the Errata Page (http://www.herogames.com/errata.htm?bookTitle=HERO+System+5th+Edition%2C+Re vised&page=123&keywords=&dateString=).

See this old Rules Forum Thread:
re: Questions about Movement and END costs (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=664567#post664567)


...the following 15"/x8NCM/3 END example build is also used on page 364:
Quote:
On p123, under Endurance, it's noted that a character with 15" of Flight and a x8 NCM would pay 3 END per phase
Are these examples actually wrong? Should the character be paying 4 End per phase?



It's just an errata. It should be 4 END per Phase due to the Active Point cost of 40.

[The Main Man]

How about this?

1/2 END - +1/4
Costs END To Activate - +1/2
0 END - +3/4

[Klaus Mogensen]

How about this?

1/2 END - +1/4
Costs END To Activate - +1/2
0 END - +3/4
Let's examine a 12d6 EB bought to 0 END. That's +45 points to save 6 END per attack. For the same 45 points, you can buy +90 END, enough for 15 attacks. In my experience, you rarely get the opportunity to do that many attacks in a single battle. What's more, buying more END is more flexible than buying 0 END on a single power.

Or let's make a more precise comparison. Lets' assume that the above EB is fired 5 times per turn (SPD 5, attack every phase, or SPD 6, attack most phases). You would then need 30 more END to start with and +30 REC (END Only) to have effectively 0 END cost. Let's set REC (END Only) at -1 (you could argue -1½ or even -2). That's 45 points, same as buying 0 END for the EB - and you get a lot more flexibility.

Of course, if the character is knocked out, he will lose that extra END he bought, whereas you never lose 0 END. Let's instead compare with an END Reserve. This costs 33 points for 30 END, 30 REC - and the Reserve can be used for several powers.

0 END is a bit on the expensive side already, making it a reasonable option only for very fast characters. Let's not make it worse.

- Klaus

[schir1964]

Let's examine a 12d6 EB bought to 0 END. That's +45 points to save 6 END per attack. For the same 45 points, you can buy +90 END, enough for 15 attacks. In my experience, you rarely get the opportunity to do that many attacks in a single battle. What's more, buying more END is more flexible than buying 0 END on a single power.

Or let's make a more precise comparison. Lets' assume that the above EB is fired 5 times per turn (SPD 5, attack every phase, or SPD 6, attack most phases). You would then need 30 more END to start with and +30 REC (END Only) to have effectively 0 END cost. Let's set REC (END Only) at -1 (you could argue -1½ or even -2). That's 45 points, same as buying 0 END for the EB - and you get a lot more flexibility.

Of course, if the character is knocked out, he will lose that extra END he bought, whereas you never lose 0 END. Let's instead compare with an END Reserve. This costs 33 points for 30 END, 30 REC - and the Reserve can be used for several powers.

0 END is a bit on the expensive side already, making it a reasonable option only for very fast characters. Let's not make it worse.

- Klaus
Interesting analysis.

Sounds like Endurance should cost 1 Point Per 1 Endurance.

- Christopher Mullins

[AnotherSkip]

How about this?

1/2 END - +1/4
Costs END To Activate - +1/2
0 END - +3/4

seem like a good argument for Increments of .1
.5 0 end
.2 1/2 end
.3 only to activate

[Klaus Mogensen]

Interesting analysis.

Sounds like Endurance should cost 1 Point Per 1 Endurance.
The analysis was based on the 0 END advantage being increased to +3/4 rather than +½. It's not too bad with +½; that would be +30 points in the example given, cheaper than the alternatives (which are more flexible, though). For characters of SPD 5+, Reduced END and 0 END may be viable options for powers that are used all the time.

- Klaus

[PhilFleischmann]

Problem being, there's only one step between full END Cost and 0 END Cost. That +1/4 should really be called Costs Somewhere Between Full END And 0 END.
That's because we have chosen to limit ourselves to multiples of 1/4 for modifiers. We wouldn't have that problem if we made a different choice.


Another way to look at Reduced Endurance Costs/Values:
0 Endurance Per Any Active Points (+2)
1 Endurance Per 60 Active Points (+1 3/4)
1 Endurance Per 40 Active Points (+1 1/2)
1 Endurance Per 30 Active Points (+1 1/4)
1 Endurance Per 20 Active Points (+1)
1 Endurance Per 15 Active Points (+1/2)
1 Endurance Per 10 Active Points (+/-0)
1 Endurance Per 5 Active Points (-1)
1 Endurance Per 3 Active Points (-2)
1 Endurance Per 1 Active Point (-5)
That's an interesting idea which is similar to how Reduced END worked pre-4th Edition - +1/4 per halving of END cost, rounding down until you get to 0. Thus a 60-point power would cost 6 END; for +1/4, it becomes 3 END; for +1/2, it's 1 END; and for +3/4, 0 END. The diminishing returns were too expensive, as is your schedule above.


Rather than being an advantage, Reduced END is a cumulative 5-point adder that reduces END cost by 1.

This is really just a finer version of how it works now. A power cost 2 END per 20 points, so Half END is -1 END at a cost of 5 points, and 0 END is -2 END at a cost of 10 points (per 20 points in the power). This also eliminates the strangeness of Half END being an advantage that doesn't increase END Cost - adders (like x2 non-combat) usually don't.
That's a brilliant way of looking at it, and it's the same result as the current system, using partially advantaged powers. You could buy 20 points of power at 0 END (30) +20 points at 1/2 END (25), +20 points at normal END (20), for example.


You could take a -1/4 limitation to these adders (making then cost 4 apiece): "Doesn't reduce END cost on the first phase of use". Presto, we have a power that costs END to start, but not to maintain.
I think this is the best suggestion of all for the "Cost END only to Start" - Buy 0 END, and then apply a Limitation to that Advantage only. You could even buy 1/2 END and then limit it with "Doesn't reduce END cost on the first phase of use" to create a power that costs full END to start, but only half END to keep it running.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Rather than being an advantage, Reduced END is a cumulative 5-point adder that reduces END cost by 1.

That's a brilliant way of looking at it, and it's the same result as the current system, using partially advantaged powers. You could buy 20 points of power at 0 END (30) +20 points at 1/2 END (25), +20 points at normal END (20), for example.
I'm glad you like my suggestion, but you're interpreting it more complicated than necessary. In the example you give, you would by a 60-point power (60 points ) and then spend 15 points to reduce END cost by 3. The power then costs 3 END less to use, no matter what power level you use it on. So if you use 20 points, you pay 0 END rather than 2, if you use 40 points, you pay 1 END rather than 4, and if you use 60 points, you pay 3 END rather than 6.

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

Autofire Vs Rapid attack.

I think that there should be at least commentary on Rapid attack vs. Autofire. And especially PSL's vs. rapid attack penalties. IF the Gm Includes Autofire on the list as counting against Active limit of the campaign then the players can do end runs around that by rapid atacking.

And Rapid attack is an even better points expenditure because the PSL's are guaranteed to be used (whereas AF isn't) but worse from the Gm's point of view because they require more dice rolling.

IN addition with the Stun Lotto from Ka's both Autofire and Rapid attacks act as Force multipliers for getting a lot of stun from the attacks. I don't know the odds but 3 tries to roll a 5 or 6 o a d6 is much better than one...

I would reccomend that Rapid attacks only occur on succesive phases inorder to help prevent a must shoot first speed/rapid attack race as well as a doubling of penalties per step (-2, -4, -8 etc...) in order to bring the PSl's in line with autofire.

[PhilFleischmann]

I'm glad you like my suggestion, but you're interpreting it more complicated than necessary. In the example you give, you would by a 60-point power (60 points ) and then spend 15 points to reduce END cost by 3. The power then costs 3 END less to use, no matter what power level you use it on. So if you use 20 points, you pay 0 END rather than 2, if you use 40 points, you pay 1 END rather than 4, and if you use 60 points, you pay 3 END rather than 6.

- Klaus
Yes, I understood that, I was just illustrating how your suggestion is functionally the same as the current system, but is a simpler way of doing it. The bottom line (real cost) is the same.

[Lord Liaden]

I would like to suggest that there be some way to designate and differentiate between Advantages for Characteristics which are bought Naked, with all requirements for same (always cost Endurance to use, are Adjusted as separate and distinct Powers, etc.); and Advantages which are simply "stacked" with the Characteristic they're bought for, as they would be for any normal Power build. Examples of the latter which often appear in published Hero Games books include Reduced Endurance for Strength, and Hardened for PD and ED.

I would also suggest that, if Variable Advantages are to be kept more or less at the same cost structure they are now, that the Endurance paid to use Powers with these Advantages be based only on the Advantages chosen, not the total cost of Variable Advantages. In my games I've found that extra Endurance cost to be a major dissuader from people choosing VA even when that would be appropriate for a character -- PCs run out of Endurance too quickly.

This would not be a fundamental inconsistency with the rest of the game, as we already have an exception to "Advantages costing Endurance" in Reduced Endurance. And before you say "Reduced END wouldn't make sense if it cost END," well, yes it would. ;) Under Fourth Edition I saw plenty of games where RE was applied "just like any other Advantage" as the rulebook says: take the Active Points of the Power including the cost of Reduced Endurance, find the normal Endurance cost based on those Active Points, then cut that cost in half. (Not saying to do that, just that it would be consistent if you did.)

[ghost-angel]

Erm, I thought Advantages bought on Characteristics weren't considered Naked, but Advantages on Characteristics . . . there something I'm missing?

[Hyper-Man]

Erm, I thought Advantages bought on Characteristics weren't considered Naked, but Advantages on Characteristics . . . there something I'm missing?

True. But limitations of Hero Designer sometimes require building the Advantages as Naked ones anyway. Like when part of the characteristic is also Limited (like OIHID). Not really a Hero System issue but a Hero Designer one.

[ghost-angel]

Oh, that's just a program - it is by no means how the rules work, or should be any stretch be considered The Rules. Steve and Dan both have said that on many occasions.

At best it's a mere notation issue.

[Hugh Neilson]

Hi Steve, hope you're doing well. I couldn't locate any questions on this particular permutation of Damage Shield, so I'm crossing my fingers that I'm not being repetitive.

If I want to create a Damage Shield Hand-To-Hand Attack that adds its damage to the attacker's STR rather than the character's in order to reflect very hard, inflexible skin that does less harm to an average person slapping the character than to a bare-knuckle fighter punching with his full might, what sort of Limitation (or Advantage) value would you suggest?

Would it make any difference to the value if the character in question is super-strong as opposed to merely average in strength but extremely tough?


That's definitely the first time anyone's asked about this AFAIK. I don't recall any questions about using an attacker's attribute to calculate the effect of a Damage Shield.

I'd say just use the standard Damage Shield rules (at the +3/4 level) and have the GM agree that it's the attacker's STR rather than the character's STR that matters. If he's well above average for the campaign parameters on STR I suppose you could argue for a small Limitation, or if well below for a small Advantage, but as a default method I'd assume that this will hurt the character as often as it helps him.

This option should definitely be included in 6e! I've used a construct in the past purchasing a normal Damage Shield attack, then Limiting it that the damage cannot exceed the attack inflicted on the character, or some fraction theefo. Whatever the mechanic, however, this would make an excellent option or sample power for the 6e Damage Shield.

[Klaus Mogensen]

This option should definitely be included in 6e! I've used a construct in the past purchasing a normal Damage Shield attack, then Limiting it that the damage cannot exceed the attack inflicted on the character, or some fraction theefo. Whatever the mechanic, however, this would make an excellent option or sample power for the 6e Damage Shield.
Perhaps we could define a "campaign level base cost" which could be used for that kind of effects. I.e., if you want a Damage Shield that is based on opponents' powers, you should buy a naked advantage based on this base cost.

Such a base cost could also be used for Damage Reduction. It the cost is some fraction or multiple of a campaign level base cost, we would avoid DR being ineffective in low-powered campaigns and and too effective in high-powered campaigns. Other absolute powers might also be done in this way.

A reasonable base cost might be 80% of the campaign Active Cost max; e.g. 48 points in a regular 60-points-max campaign.

- Klaus

[Markdoc]

Perhaps we could define a "campaign level base cost" which could be used for that kind of effects. I.e., if you want a Damage Shield that is based on opponents' powers, you should buy a naked advantage based on this base cost.

Such a base cost could also be used for Damage Reduction. It the cost is some fraction or multiple of a campaign level base cost, we would avoid DR being ineffective in low-powered campaigns and and too effective in high-powered campaigns. Other absolute powers might also be done in this way.

A reasonable base cost might be 80% of the campaign Active Cost max; e.g. 48 points in a regular 60-points-max campaign.

But campaign caps are a suggestion, not a core rule. Making them into a core rule on which other powers are based would hardly be helpful for the many GMs who don't use campaign caps.

cheers, Mark

[ghost-angel]

But campaign caps are a suggestion, not a core rule. Making them into a core rule on which other powers are based would hardly be helpful for the many GMs who don't use campaign caps.

cheers, Mark

not only wouldn't it be helpful - it'd start closing off options. I'd avoid it absolutely and completely.
Worse yet - it can start to cause problems if the campaign increases in power level as time goes on.

[Markdoc]

not only wouldn't it be helpful - it'd start closing off options. I'd avoid it absolutely and completely.
Worse yet - it can start to cause problems if the campaign increases in power level as time goes on.

Right - there was mild sarcasm there. :) Not only would it almost certainly cause problems over time, but it would also destroy Hero's universal aspect as characters would cease to become "portable" - you would end up with characters with the exact same power at quite different prices.

In short, it's a concept that wasn't really thought through, I think. It's one of those things, which I (and many others) would imemdiately houserule back to the way it was if implemented (not really much chance of that, though, in this case). Too many of those sorts of things, and 6E becomes a non-starter.

cheers, Mark

[Klaus Mogensen]

But campaign caps are a suggestion, not a core rule. Making them into a core rule on which other powers are based would hardly be helpful for the many GMs who don't use campaign caps.
It wouldn't have to be a cap - just a baseline for campaign power level. It could also be a fraction, e.g. 1/10, of the points player characters are built from. If players characters e.g. are built from 400 points including Disadvantages, then the Power Level is 40 points.

We already have powers (e.g. Duplication) that cost a set fraction of a character's cost. This would just expand on that.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

Perhaps we could define a "campaign level base cost" which could be used for that kind of effects. I.e., if you want a Damage Shield that is based on opponents' powers, you should buy a naked advantage based on this base cost.

Or we could simply accept that this is not an absolute - the character's powers have limits. His rocky skin can't inflict more than 12d6 damage, even if the target is immensely stronger, because his skin doesn't get harder to compensate.

[Markdoc]

It wouldn't have to be a cap - just a baseline for campaign power level. It could also be a fraction, e.g. 1/10, of the points player characters are built from. If players characters e.g. are built from 400 points including Disadvantages, then the Power Level is 40 points.

We already have powers (e.g. Duplication) that cost a set fraction of a character's cost. This would just expand on that.

- Klaus

Yeah, but the problem with that is that in cases like duplication, the fractional cost depends on what you are getting. The cost doesn't depend on how many points you are built on - it depends on how many points you are duplicating. Damage reduction in contrast affects your opponent's attack. In other words, using the 10%/step as a suggestion, FeebleMan (built on 25 points) can get 75% Damage reduction for 7 points and it works exactly the same as Monstro's 75% Damage reduction which costs 115 points, because Monstro is built on 350 points - even if they are in the same game.

Blech.

With duplication, Feebleman only pays 5 points - but he gets a 25 point duplicate. Monstro pays 70 points - but he gets a 350 point duplicate. It's not comparable.

The concept of paying a fraction of your own cost for something is core to hero system - all advantages work that way. It's a giant (and I think ill-advised) leap to basing the cost of a power on what something else costs.

cheers, Mark

[BobGreenwade]

Here's kind of a crazy thought:

If we can have Line Of Sight, could we also have Line Of Hearing, Line Of Smell, and other Sense Lines?

Basically these Advantages would allow the character to use a Power to target any target he can perceive with a Targeting Sense that was part of the Sense Group in question. So if my character has Targeting Hearing and a Line Of Hearing Attack Power, he can hit a foe around the corner.

Yes, I know, it's kind of weird, but I could probably come up with at least a couple of logical Powers that would be better built this way than with Area Of Effect (Voice Range) or Area Of Effect (Smell Range). And probably a few other people could as well. It may belong in the Advanced Rules rather than the core rules, but if nothing else it's something to think about.

[Hugh Neilson]

Line of Sight presently means any character the attacker can directly perceive or detect a part of with a targetting sense. The sense need not be sight. An advantage to allow a non-targeting sensory perception to target couldn't hurt.

[Lord Liaden]

Oh, that's just a program - it is by no means how the rules work, or should be any stretch be considered The Rules. Steve and Dan both have said that on many occasions.

At best it's a mere notation issue.

Agreed. But as it stands now there's no notation on the character sheet to distinguish between a Naked Advantage and a "stacked" Advantage, and I've heard the question raised in my game group and here on the forums a few times since 5E and the Naked Advantage category came out. It's one more potential point of confusion for new players that should be clarified IMO.

As an example of how this can be confusing, Naked Advantages are always supposed to cost Endurance to use, even if the Power they apply to doesn't. However, in published 5E books the Hardened Advantage bought "stacked" on PD or ED is written out exactly the same as if it were Naked, but the Endurance Cost for it is always listed as "0".

[ghost-angel]

actually - there is.

In the books the Naked Advantage Power will say something like "X for up to Y Active Points of Z Power" and these 'stacked' Advantages as you call them simply say "Hardened for PD"

Mastermind And Madmen p151: Fists Of Steel - Armor Piercing for up to 9.5D6 Punk; Reduced END:0 END.

that is very clearly a Naked Advantage Power. Even without the Reduced END on it, the "for up to" is the key statement.

What we really need is Naked Advantage Power to be folded into the Powers section, called a Special Power and explained in greater detail for what it is: An Instant Power that Costs Endurance.

[The Main Man]

This strangely reminds me of Differing Modifiers from Hero Designer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Klaus Mogensen]

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

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

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

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

Focus, for example, does not have any particular bearing on the sheer mechanics of a power, but now that power can be taken away from you, or perhaps even broken, you have to bear it as well - what if you don't have enough hands? And so on...
I have suggested something like this, based on the discrepancy that e.g. "Ranged" increases active cost while "No Range" doesn't decrease it.

My distinction between "Active" modifiers and "Utility" modifiers is that Active modifiers affect the magnitude of the power, while Utility modifiers merely affect how and when you can use the power.

Ranged, AoE, Armor Piercing, No Range, No KB, etc. would be Active modifiers.

Reduced END, Increased END, Extra Time, Gestures, Persistant, etc., would be Utility modifiers.

Of course, we could get a similar result if all Active modifiers are advantages while all Utility modifiers are limitations. I.e., the default for all Powers would No Range, Persistant, No KB, etc.

(I'm actually not sure if Ranged should be an Active or Passive modifier. After all, the damage is the same in both cases, but Ranged attacks can be used from a distance, = greater utility).

Or maybe "Utility" advantages should all be adders that don't add to Active Points. E.g., Reduced END could be replaced with a 5-point adder "-1 END Cost".

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

I have suggested something like this, based on the discrepancy that e.g. "Ranged" increases active cost while "No Range" doesn't decrease it.

My distinction between "Active" modifiers and "Utility" modifiers is that Active modifiers affect the magnitude of the power, while Utility modifiers merely affect how and when you can use the power.

Ranged, AoE, Armor Piercing, No Range, No KB, etc. would be Active modifiers.

Reduced END, Increased END, Extra Time, Gestures, Persistant, etc., would be Utility modifiers.

Of course, we could get a similar result if all Active modifiers are advantages while all Utility modifiers are limitations. I.e., the default for all Powers would No Range, Persistant, No KB, etc.

(I'm actually not sure if Ranged should be an Active or Passive modifier. After all, the damage is the same in both cases, but Ranged attacks can be used from a distance, = greater utility).

Or maybe "Utility" advantages should all be adders that don't add to Active Points. E.g., Reduced END could be replaced with a 5-point adder "-1 END Cost".

- Klaus

I believe it was in fact your original suggestions that I have ruminated over for some time.

I like "Utility" better than "Real" so good call on that.

As far as the dividing line goes, I think that the best way to gauge whether a Modifier is "Utility" or "Active" is to see if it affects the basic information of the power.

Things like Range, END Cost, Duration, Quality (Hardened, Armor Piercing, etc) affect the Active Cost.

Modifiers that do not have to do with these things by and large (Activation Roll, Usable By Other, etc) go beyond sheer mechanics and make the power more or less than it normally would or could be.

[Lucius]

I admit, I'm finally starting to see some merit in creating such a two-classification system for modifiers.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary ruminates

[The Main Man]

I oughta crack open the book, list every modifier and lay out what they would essentially be.

But alas I have not the book.

[JamesG]

I’m sure this repeats some things already said on this thread, but I think Damage Shield, in either its current incarnation or the proposed Trigger build, is too expensive from an Active Points standpoint for what it does.

I would suggest it be either a +1/4 or +1/2 advantage with an additional +1/4 if it’s an offensive DS. It would have an additional surcharge if the attack the DS is applied to is exotic, similar to what is in place for Autofire. In fact, the surcharge could vary based on how exotic the attack is; some attacks impose a +1 surcharge, while other less nasty attacks get a +3/4 and/or +1/2. No other Advantages, including Continuous, would be required; the DS Advantage itself becomes a limited form of Continuous. The “No Range” Limitation should be allowed if the base attack is ranged.

I’m sure there are other suggestions out there that may be just as good if not better. But whatever is done, I think it is important that the Active Cost of a vanilla DS come way down.

Lastly, some additional END options for DS might be useful. Such as a Limitation that the power costs END to keep up AND for each time it “attacks”. Or an Advantage that it does not cost END to keep up, but does cost END for each “attack” (though that may be a +0 Advantage).

[Netzilla]

Persistent should be applicable without having to take 0 END first. The power would continue to run until consciously shut off or the END supply runs out (kind of like how END Reserves work).

[Klaus Mogensen]

Persistent should be applicable without having to take 0 END first. The power would continue to run until consciously shut off or the END supply runs out (kind of like how END Reserves work).
I have suggested the same thing. Of course, since you lose all END when knocked out, the power would stop then - but it will stay on when you're stunned, which would be very nice.

I think Persistant and Uncontrolled could be merged - they are very similar.

- Klaus

[IndianaJoe3]

I think Persistant and Uncontrolled could be merged - they are very similar.

They are similar, but Uncontrolled works better for attacks, and Persistent works better for everything else. Having one Advantage work differently on different kinds of Powers would be confusing.

[The Main Man]

Continuous should be renamed to Constant - that's kind of a strange disconnection in the book.

You take "Inherent" to make your power "Inherent."

You take "Persistent" to make your power "Persistent."

But you take "Continuous" to make your power "Constant?"

[Xotl]

Continuous should be renamed to Constant - that's kind of a strange disconnection in the book.

You take "Inherent" to make your power "Inherent."

You take "Persistent" to make your power "Persistent."

But you take "Continuous" to make your power "Constant?"

Definitely agree. These little wording disconnects should get just as much attention as the mechanical overhauls, IMHO, as this revision is a chance to make it easier for new players to get up to speed on Hero, not just to tweak things for the grognards.

[The Main Man]

Definitely agree. These little wording disconnects should get just as much attention as the mechanical overhauls, IMHO, as this revision is a chance to make it easier for new players to get up to speed on Hero, not just to tweak things for the grognards.

Interesting point.

Now I'm beginning to think about other disconnected terminology. :think:

[Klaus Mogensen]

Interesting point.

Now I'm beginning to think about other disconnected terminology. :think:
How about that "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" aren't each other's opposites? That took me a while to get used to, as I recall. To avoid confusion, I don't think we should rename "Limitations" to "Disadvantages", but perhaps "Disadvantages" should be renamed "Complications".

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

My Final $.02 on Power Advantages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Balabanto]

Costs End only to Activate is ridiculously broken and needs to be removed from the game. Why have END for anything other than an attack power ever? I've seen people abuse this into the ground on characters, and I just don't like it. It is literally like buying an advantage that makes Force Field better than any other defense in the entire game. Plus, you can get more of it and never pay end for anything that involves it for a lowly +1/4 advantage. If this cost +1/2 instead of +1/4, I might be tempted to say "All right, that makes sense." But you can do this with every continuous power that's not an attack that you have, and for a relatively low cost, your character becomes superefficient. This isn't cool.

[Greywind]

Concept should always over-ride build. Players need to justify why they don't have to constantly pay end for things like force fields.

[Southern Cross]

Not entirely-I can think of at least two different SFX that could justify a Force Field with that Advantage (i.e. earth and/or water-based powers).

[Hugh Neilson]

Costs End only to Activate is ridiculously broken and needs to be removed from the game. Why have END for anything other than an attack power ever? I've seen people abuse this into the ground on characters, and I just don't like it. It is literally like buying an advantage that makes Force Field better than any other defense in the entire game. Plus, you can get more of it and never pay end for anything that involves it for a lowly +1/4 advantage. If this cost +1/2 instead of +1/4, I might be tempted to say "All right, that makes sense." But you can do this with every continuous power that's not an attack that you have, and for a relatively low cost, your character becomes superefficient. This isn't cool.

The advantage belongs in the game, but it needs to be looked at again for balance. This is clearly more beneficial than halving the END cost.

[ajackson]

The advantage belongs in the game, but it needs to be looked at again for balance. This is clearly more beneficial than halving the END cost.
That's because half END cost is a lousy deal on ongoing powers (actually, I've pretty much never seen a constant power at anything other than 0 END). I'd like to see a 'pay END once per turn' advantage, at +1/4.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I'd like to see a 'pay END once per turn' advantage, at +1/4.
I bet players with fast-SPD characters will love that one! ;)

- Klaus

[ajackson]

I bet players with fast-SPD characters will love that one!
Well, it would mean they wouldn't always buy abilities at zero END. The fact is, continuous powers are often powers that you need to keep up for an extended period, so if you've got a speed of more than about 2 you're usually best off buying them to zero END.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, it would mean they wouldn't always buy abilities at zero END. The fact is, continuous powers are often powers that you need to keep up for an extended period, so if you've got a speed of more than about 2 you're usually best off buying them to zero END.

I've seen a lot of cases where I buy everything to half END. Commonly, I look at the ability to maintain the defensive powers for a cost equal to or less than REC.

Regardless, how is it any more balanced to pay END once per turn for a force field you maintain throughout the turn than to pay END once per turn for an attack you use in every phase? If anything, I will keep the field up in all phases, but might use a different attack, or not attack, in some phases.

The problem is that, between full END and 0 END, we only have one step. Back in the old days, 1/2 END was 1/2 END every time, so going from 8 to 4 to 2 to 1 to 0 meant buying it 5 times for a total cost of +1 1/4. Maybe END reduction should be an adder with a fixed cost, and a fixed reduction to the END cost.

[Vulcan]

That's because half END cost is a lousy deal on ongoing powers (actually, I've pretty much never seen a constant power at anything other than 0 END). I'd like to see a 'pay END once per turn' advantage, at +1/4.

I used to buy stuff at 1/2 END so I could continue to push it. Then I just started making it 0 END and bought 10 AP at x10 END, req. Ego Roll... :D

1/2 END is rarely worth it, yes. You're better off either going 0 END, or (in the case of AP caps rather than DC caps) buying more END/END Reserve.

[Greywind]

I used to buy stuff at 1/2 END so I could continue to push it. Then I just started making it 0 END and bought 10 AP at x10 END, req. Ego Roll... :D

1/2 END is rarely worth it, yes. You're better off either going 0 END, or (in the case of AP caps rather than DC caps) buying more END/END Reserve.Personally, as GM, I'd smack you around with FRED for about an hour for that build...

[Balabanto]

The advantage belongs in the game, but it needs to be looked at again for balance. This is clearly more beneficial than halving the END cost.

This is more beneficial than having an END cost of 0, Hugh. :)

Read my lips. (Sorry, George) Combat begins on Phase 12! Your End Cost is 0 anyway.

[Hugh Neilson]

This is more beneficial than having an END cost of 0, Hugh. :)

Read my lips. (Sorry, George) Combat begins on Phase 12! Your End Cost is 0 anyway.

It's not more beneficial than having an END cost of 0. It could be as beneficial if you only activate it once, recover all the END and it stays on. But I note:

- when you are ambushed, you don't act on Phase 12.

- if you wish to take a recovery, you must shut it off, then reactivate it, which costs END

- if you are KO'd, you wake up with the power off. You need to start it up again, which costs END - and you likely don't have much END after recovering from being KO'd.

- if you need to shut the power off for any reason (differing powers will have differing reasons), then you need to pay to restart it.

- Drain, Suppress, Dispel, Transfer - all shut the power down, in whole or in part, and force it to be reactivated (when points are recovered; immediately for Dispel)

The value of "only costs END to activate" is somewhere between 1/2 END [for most powers, anyway - few are activated every two phases or more] and 0 END.

One could, I suppose, buy 0 END, then buy a Side Effect that activation of the power causes an END reduction.

[Hugh Neilson]

I used to buy stuff at 1/2 END so I could continue to push it. Then I just started making it 0 END and bought 10 AP at x10 END, req. Ego Roll... :D

1/2 END is rarely worth it, yes. You're better off either going 0 END, or (in the case of AP caps rather than DC caps) buying more END/END Reserve.


Personally, as GM, I'd smack you around with FRED for about an hour for that build...

This depends on how the group uses Pushing. In our group, it is reserved for "above and beyond" heroic situations, not "gee, the Bad Guy's not going down - guess I'll spend some extra END and Push."

[Vulcan]

Personally, as GM, I'd smack you around with FRED for about an hour for that build...

Good luck with that, I'll pit my copy of FRED against yours in HTH combat any time! :D

Out of curiousity, why do you think that's so bad? I'm paying points to be able to do it, after all? :confused:

[Vulcan]

This depends on how the group uses Pushing. In our group, it is reserved for "above and beyond" heroic situations, not "gee, the Bad Guy's not going down - guess I'll spend some extra END and Push."

"Gee, the Bad Guy's not going down when we hit him hard" tells me that perhaps my attacks are a bit underpowered in relation to his defenses. SO perhaps pushing is not unjustified...

At any rate, I paid points for it. I could just have easily left the EGO roll off (it doesn't save any points until you get up to around 50 AP or so) and had an Easy Push I could do all the time. So long as the AP/DC caps aren't violated, what's the problem?

[ajackson]

This depends on how the group uses Pushing. In our group, it is reserved for "above and beyond" heroic situations, not "gee, the Bad Guy's not going down - guess I'll spend some extra END and Push."
Huh. I don't really see anything wrong with that logic for pushing. The problematic push behavior I've seen is "Gee, it's segment 12 at the start of combat and my recovery exceeds the End cost of this power by 10. Might as well push".

[Hugh Neilson]

"Gee, the Bad Guy's not going down when we hit him hard" tells me that perhaps my attacks are a bit underpowered in relation to his defenses. SO perhaps pushing is not unjustified...

At any rate, I paid points for it. I could just have easily left the EGO roll off (it doesn't save any points until you get up to around 50 AP or so) and had an Easy Push I could do all the time. So long as the AP/DC caps aren't violated, what's the problem?

I have no problem with your construct. You paid for the ability to pay a pile of END and add a couple of extra dice. If, as a GM, I didn't want that available, it's easy for me to disallow the construct.

I don't see "I want to win the fight faster" or even "I want to win the fight" as being sufficiently unusual and/or heroic to justify Pushing. If Pushing is routine, then losing the ability to Push justifies a limitation in some form. If it is an extremely rare event then loss of the ability to Push isn't a significant limitation.


Huh. I don't really see anything wrong with that logic for pushing. The problematic push behavior I've seen is "it's segment 12 at the start of combat and my recovery exceeds the End cost of this power by 10. Might as well push".

As opposed to "The bad guy isn't going down fast enough to suit my tastes and I have lots of END - might as well Push", or better still "I'm running out of STUN but I still have lots of END - might as well Push since I won't have any END if I'm KO'd", I don't see "Gee, it's segment 12 at the start of combat and my recovery exceeds the End cost of this power by 10. Might as well push" as being all that bad.

But none of these seem exceptionally heroic to me either, so none of them would be justification to Push in our games. YMMV.

[Vulcan]

Huh. I don't really see anything wrong with that logic for pushing. The problematic push behavior I've seen is "Gee, it's segment 12 at the start of combat and my recovery exceeds the End cost of this power by 10. Might as well push".

I agree, that is an inappropriate use of pushing.

[The Main Man]

While I think that Vulcan's example is fine, here's a thought: He could technically Push both of them as I understand the Push rules.

Oh yeah, and Haymaker!

Multiple Power Attacks, gotta love 'em. :D

[Midspec]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think so. I think AoE (Trail) and the Cage modifier are definitely worthwhile, and probably Sight Range and Voice Range as well. They’re all things that tend to be fairly common and that can be done with the current system, but it will save gamers time and effort to give them an easy, unified way to do them.


One if the things that always didnt quite click with me concerning AoE was the lack of definition when it came to Facing attacks with an AoE advantage on a 3 dimensional scale.

Take a humble AoE: Cone advantage for example. At it's most simplest form, its a triangle that is X hexes on a side, and a diameter of X hexes at the end - this is very simple and sweet to show on a hex grid (HSR 5th ed p249, for example) What, however are you to do if said cone isn't aimed straight out along the horizon?

This raises two issues in my mind: Facing, and calculating an affected area accurately.

There's 6 facing directions on the horizontal plane. Should this be expanded to include 6 facings on the verticle plane? The above mentioned example from HSR 5th ed. gives us a cone who's top border would slope 30 degrees upward and who's bottom border would slope 30 degrees downward (assuming the ground gives way) giving a 60 degree arc of affected area vertically as well as horizontally.

But what if this same cone were aimed so that its top edge went 90 degrees upward and its bottom edge sloped 30 degrees upward (ie: we shift the verticle orientation of the cone 'upwards' one facing.)

How would you represent the area that such a cone would cover on a hex grid?

Answering these questions may also influence the entire hex grid validity issue as well. Are hexes still needed?

[Steve Long]

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

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

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