Advantages Issues

[Steve Long]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Advantages that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about Advantages that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.

This section also includes questions about Power Modifiers in general.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: What I mean by this is that instead of +½, we’d write it +.5. The main benefit to doing this is that it would increase granularity since we’d no longer be limited to ¼, ½, ¾, 1, and so on. You could have a +.15 Advantage, a -.60 Limitation, and so on. That would allow for much more precise pigeonholing than the current four-step system.

While granularity is desireable, there are also some drawbacks. First, it takes more spaces on the page to write +.5 than +½, or -.75 than -¾. This may not seem like a big deal to you, but trust me — when it comes to wanting to make character sheets compact and easy to use, and over the course of hundreds of thousands of lines of text in dozens of books, it’s a concern that can’t be overlooked.

Second, is this level of granularity really desireable? One, while current HERO System users could master the difference with almost no effort, I think it could be more confusing to newcomers. Two, I shudder to think over the arguments that could result regarding the value of an Advantage (“It should be a +.35.” “No, you idiot, that’s clearly a +.41!”). Three, even if this change takes place, I still think most Power Modifiers will end up as .25, .50, .75, and 1 partly out of habit, partly because those values are appropriate, and partly because we like to think in terms of such numbers. Fourth, I don’t think there are really *that* many situations where wedging Power Modifier values into the current four-step system causes unbalance or other problems.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: This may depend partly on the answer to the question in the “General Issues” thread about whether we should abandon the concept of Active Points and Real Points. One possibility would be to make them adders and subtractors rather than multipliers and dividers, since the concepts of multiplying and dividing by a fraction seem to scare off some newcomers despite the facts that (a) it’s pretty basic math, and (b) calculators are really cheap. Another would be to let Advantages and Limitations “cancel each other out” before application, so that a +¾ Advantage and a -½ Limitation would result in a (¾ - ½ =) +¼ Advantage. A third would be to have Advantages affect *effectiveness* rather than points, so that a power with a -¼ Limitation is somehow 20% less effective, not 20% less costly (though this raises the question of why to take one if it doesn’t “save” anything).

Overall, though, my current thinking is that none of these changes are worth it (even if all their implications can be worked out). I’m always open to new ideas, but I think the current Power Modifier rules structure works fine.


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?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think we should, but as long as we’re considering everything I suppose it can’t hurt to throw this one out there.


Q: Should any new Advantages be added?

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


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.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. That’s really all it is, and the expansions and clarifications for Trigger make it possible to create one that functions in basically the same way. However, there would probably need to be a “Damage Shield” additional value adder for Trigger to reflect the fact that a Damage Shield *automatically* hits its target, whereas an ordinary Trigger does not. OTOH, under this scheme the No Range Limitation would be applied to the power, easing the cost burden some.


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.


Q: Should Time Delay be eliminated?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. You can do the same thing with Trigger.


Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?

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

[Michael Hopcroft]

Everything in a game system interacts with everything else. So I'm wondering how things like Area of Effect and Megascale will work if the hex grid is replaced.

Mind you, there are some who consider Megascale a severely broken mechanic anyway and would not mind seeing it disappear.

[vincemcd]

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


Splitting up the comments Steve has made that I'd like to add my own $0.02 to...

One possibility would be to make them adders and subtractors rather than multipliers and dividers....
I may be an old Fuzion fan, but this is one part of Fuzion that I definitely didn't like - everything was a flat adder or subtractor. While I think that some advantages and limitations probably work better as flat additions or subtractions, I think doing this across the board won't work well.

For example: Penetrating, for instance, might work well as a flat adder per amount of "minimum damage" that gets through defense. Armor Piercing, on the other hand, benefits higher-damage attacks much more than lower-damage attacks, and should be more costly for bigger attacks.

Another would be to let Advantages and Limitations “cancel each other out” before application, so that a +¾ Advantage and a -½ Limitation would result in a (¾ - ½ =) +¼ Advantage.
This will likely depend greatly on any changes to the "Real Cost vs. Active Cost" implementation. Overall, the math is easier while still meaningful. Even if I'm simply going to regularly plug formulas into my computer, anything that'd help play on the fly while not hindering the capabilities of the system is a "win."

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?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think we should, but as long as we’re considering everything I suppose it can’t hurt to throw this one out there.

This is already possible, if one sets up all of the advantages on their powers with Naked Advantages. It's a character sheet nightmare to do so, and probably should set off a GM's warning-bells if someone did. Musing aloud, maybe this means that Naked Advantages (or at least some of them) need a little additional cost over "regular" advantages.

I don't see the harm in having this as an option. Maybe just a flat +0 option with GM permission, or maybe make it cost something (probably something as low as a +1 adder).

[James Gillen]

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

No, it's easier this way.


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

Ehh, no.



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?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think we should, but as long as we’re considering everything I suppose it can’t hurt to throw this one out there.

It's worth considering at least.


Q: Should any new Advantages be added?

Not really necessary, but if any really good ones come up, sure.



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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. That’s really all it is, and the expansions and clarifications for Trigger make it possible to create one that functions in basically the same way. However, there would probably need to be a “Damage Shield” additional value adder for Trigger to reflect the fact that a Damage Shield *automatically* hits its target, whereas an ordinary Trigger does not. OTOH, under this scheme the No Range Limitation would be applied to the power, easing the cost burden some.

Not specifically the same question, but on the subject, forcing us to take Continuous on top of Damage Shield was one of the biggest bee-itches I and several other people had with 5th Edition. If it HAS to be Continuous, it should simply be the straight +1 value, with "Damage Shield" defined as a 0-level adjustment like the variants for Area Effect One Hex or the like.


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.

I seem to be one of the few people who likes MegaScale.

JG

[Enforcer84]

Ractive query, little thought.

so what would qualify as a .15 advantage? and does there really need to be a .01 level of Granularity?

[Enforcer84]

Personally, I'd kind of like the Semi-Armor Piercing/Armor piercing Advantages combined? I kind of liked the Piercing Points Advantage from long ago, perhaps bought as an Adder? but of course I could see the abuse potential there.

[L. Marcus]

For a little more granularity, why not use Ad and Disad steps of a fifth? Or a multiple of .2, if that's easier to read.

[mabalmer]

Point by point....

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

I could see an argument for and against. For, in that it would allow us to define Advantages and Limitations that really do have a more accurate representation of how powerful they are. Against, in that it's more mathy. And I don't like math. ;) So I'd say no. I could get behind the notion of adding a couple of steps, though - say, 1/3, and 2/3. It would give us two more steps; I think that would be helpful. That's a level of granularity that I think would work well.

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

I can't see why, quite honestly. Do I think some advantages are more expensive than they should be/fail to offer enough benefit for the cost? Sure, but that doesn't mean we should do the calculations any different.

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?

While I can see the reason for this, I can also see a reason not to. This is the whole reason we have Multipowers.

Q: Should any new Advantages be added?

I can't think of any off the top of my head. I so rarely create custom Advantages that it's almost a moot point.

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

Absolutely, but with one big point: add some granularity to the actual range of these advantages! The old "one hex per 5 Active" works for many things, and you can buy this up, but what if you DON'T want that? I think reworking the AoE Advantages costs is definitely in order, especially when it comes to range of effect. For strong powers, the AoE is frequently far too large (much as the range limit on powers is so huge as to not be an issue in many cases). Case in point: a 90-AP AoE (line) power has an effective range of 18". While this is nice for a +1 advantage, 18" is the width of a full battlemap. Can we have a version that's a smaller Advantage with less range on it so we don't have to burn up so many Active points when we -don't- want all that range and never did in the first place?

Example: An earth manipulator wants to buy a power that is defined as a whip-force that travels along the ground, knocking things out of the way as it travels. Its kinetic force doesn't last very long, but it is quite powerful while it travels. He buys it as:

EB 9d6; AoE (18" line; +1), No Range (-1/2), Limited AoE (9"; -1/4). 90 AP, 51 RP.

He's paying full price for an effect he doesn't -fully- want, because while he takes a -1/4 Limitation on the power to limit the AoE of the power by half, that doesn't really help him when it comes to getting what he really wants, which is a few extra dice of damage.

See what I'm getting at?

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

As stated before, that's kinda what it is, so yes. :)

Q: Should MegaScale be tweaked for ease of use?

I'm not sure how else you'd tweak it. It seems pretty straightforward to me. IMO, before you tweak Megascale, I would see how the general measurement changes play out. If you change from hexes to grid squares, and go to 1" = 1m, then that makes Megascale even simpler, as you just multiply distances by whatever factor of ten you need. I kinda like MS as it is.

Q: Should Time Delay be eliminated?

Bag it, I never use it.

Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?

Don't really have a good answer on this one. Would I like it so that it was easier to use in terms of a "party-effect" power? Yeah, I would, but again, short of changing costs I'm not quite sure how to do that.

[Sean Waters]

I'd like to see advantages and limitaitons overhauled so that an advantage adds something to a power and a limtiaiton takes something away. Two examples at present of advvantages reducing utuility and limtiations increasing it are with damage shield and focus, but there are others.

[L. Marcus]

You feel Focus increases utility in Powers? How so?

[Sean Waters]

You feel Focus increases utility in Powers? How so?

I have a gun focus. I can give it to you to use, even though I have not bought UBO for it, unless I define it as a 'personal only' focus.

[Sean Waters]

Naked advantages:

I can buy an 8d6 EB AP for 60 points in a game capped at 60 AP and I have to use the AP (I'd probably want to anyway unless I was desperate to save END against a low-def target)

OR I can buy 8d6 EB and a 20 point naked advantage, and not have to use the advantage, and so not spend the END.

Finally I could (without violating the AP cap) buy a 12d6 EB and a 30 point naked advantage for AP.

I think we need to either make NAs cost more or increase the utility of 'normal' advantages by making their use optional to acheive some sort of balance here.

Actually another point occurs: there is no cost or other penalty if you define your NA as applying to more than one power. Perhaps there should be?

[Susano]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: What I mean by this is that instead of +½, we’d write it +.5. The main benefit to doing this is that it would increase granularity since we’d no longer be limited to ¼, ½, ¾, 1, and so on. You could have a +.15 Advantage, a -.60 Limitation, and so on. That would allow for much more precise pigeonholing than the current four-step system.

While granularity is desireable, there are also some drawbacks. First, it takes more spaces on the page to write +.5 than +½, or -.75 than -¾. This may not seem like a big deal to you, but trust me — when it comes to wanting to make character sheets compact and easy to use, and over the course of hundreds of thousands of lines of text in dozens of books, it’s a concern that can’t be overlooked.

Second, is this level of granularity really desireable? One, while current HERO System users could master the difference with almost no effort, I think it could be more confusing to newcomers. Two, I shudder to think over the arguments that could result regarding the value of an Advantage (“It should be a +.35.” “No, you idiot, that’s clearly a +.41!”). Three, even if this change takes place, I still think most Power Modifiers will end up as .25, .50, .75, and 1 partly out of habit, partly because those values are appropriate, and partly because we like to think in terms of such numbers. Fourth, I don’t think there are really *that* many situations where wedging Power Modifier values into the current four-step system causes unbalance or other problems.


Please, no. One thing that drives me nuts about GURPS is the percentages, whcih are all over the map. The 4 (really) 8-step system is nice and elegent. It goes from -0 to -2 at -1/4 increments and has worked for years that way (so, actually, it's a 9-step system).


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

Steve’s Thoughts: This may depend partly on the answer to the question in the “General Issues” thread about whether we should abandon the concept of Active Points and Real Points. One possibility would be to make them adders and subtractors rather than multipliers and dividers, since the concepts of multiplying and dividing by a fraction seem to scare off some newcomers despite the facts that (a) it’s pretty basic math, and (b) calculators are really cheap. Another would be to let Advantages and Limitations “cancel each other out” before application, so that a +¾ Advantage and a -½ Limitation would result in a (¾ - ½ =) +¼ Advantage. A third would be to have Advantages affect *effectiveness* rather than points, so that a power with a -¼ Limitation is somehow 20% less effective, not 20% less costly (though this raises the question of why to take one if it doesn’t “save” anything).

Overall, though, my current thinking is that none of these changes are worth it (even if all their implications can be worked out). I’m always open to new ideas, but I think the current Power Modifier rules structure works fine.


Personally, I don't seen the need for a change like this (although I will admit, 25 years ago I thought they did cancel each other out...).


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?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think we should, but as long as we’re considering everything I suppose it can’t hurt to throw this one out there.


My answer? Buy a Multipower with enough slots to acheive the results you want.


Q: Should any new Advantages be added?

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


I'd rather see some Advnatages expanded or better defined than start adding news ones, unless the new ones incorporate an effect that must otherwise be built with multiple Advantages and the like. OTOH, I know your DH columns had a lot of good ideas and material in there.


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.


Yes, please. I don't own the CCH, but I do have The UEP, and liked the new AOE effects. I do, however, disagree with your implimentation of what happens when you miss with an AOE or Explosion (as stated in the UEP) and really don't want to see that made a 6th Ed. ruling. It makes no sense from both a realism and game mechanics standpoint.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. That’s really all it is, and the expansions and clarifications for Trigger make it possible to create one that functions in basically the same way. However, there would probably need to be a “Damage Shield” additional value adder for Trigger to reflect the fact that a Damage Shield *automatically* hits its target, whereas an ordinary Trigger does not. OTOH, under this scheme the No Range Limitation would be applied to the power, easing the cost burden some.


Our consensus last night on this exact subject (Damage Shield) was to make the Advantage "all-in-one," and thus remove the need to buy other Advantages to simulate it. Our idea was to make a Damage Shield +3/4, and an Offensive one +1. No need for Continious or other Advantages as it is now all "built in" to DS Advantage.


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.


Ah, good. Right now there's a disconnect between a character's max range on a movement power and where Megascale stats. This will eliminate that.


Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?

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

Simpler is always better.

[nexus]

Megascale should be better defined and expanded to include optional extras like acceleration time for Mega movement. The advantage tends (for me) to include some logical disconnects that detract from its use.

Time Delay might be rarely used but it seems important for creating things like Time Bombs. I suppose it could be lumped into Trigger (a set period of time passes).

What are the new AE modifiers in the Character Creation book?

[Susano]

Megascale should be better defined and expanded to include optional extras like acceleration time for Mega movement. The advantage tends (for me) to include some logical disconnects that detract from its use.

Time Delay might be rarely used but it seems important for creating things like Time Bombs. I suppose it could be lumped into Trigger (a set period of time passes).

What are the new AE modifiers in the Character Creation book?

Sounds like the same ones from The Ultimate Energy Projector.

[Balok]

so what would qualify as a .15 advantage? and does there really need to be a .01 level of Granularity?I think 0.01 is too fine a granularity, but 0.1 might not be. Basing the system on tenths would also simplify multiplication for the same reasons the metric system works well (unless you learned the English system and it's dug into your brain like a tick). Most folks can figure out what a tenth of something is in their head, and going from there to, say, .3 of it is hardly harder. I don't regard the current math as particularly difficult, but the topic seems to appear again and again when people cite reasons why they're leery of Hero - and one assumes at least one of the major design goals is to bring in new folks.

[Sean Waters]

You can do time delay as a species of trigger.

[Xotl]

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

While initially in favour of the cancel-out method, posts later in the thread have revised my opinion against it. The idea of using something other than quarters for costing is intriguing though, if it could be worked out, as the 1/4 scale lacks a bit of granularity for me.

Q: Should any new Advantages be added?

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

Those would both be appreciated, preferably in the main book.

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

These would also be handy.

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

I'd love to see logical simplification, and if it solves the Damage Shield problem at the same time so much the better. However, http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1549688&postcount=91 is an excellent post on the subject that I think takes care of things even better.

Q: Should Time Delay be eliminated?

Yes: fold it in to Trigger, as it's logical.

[DavidToomey]

As an alternative to Fnd Weakness...

How about removing the restriction on only one halving for Armor Piercing? In my mind, the first halving is the most effective one anyway...going from 32 to 16 Def is much more debilitating than going from 16 to 8, or 8 to 4...

As an alternative, apply an additional +1/4 to later levels of AP, either once or every time, i.e.

AP1 = + 1/2
AP2 = + 1/2 + (1/2 + 1/4) = +1 1/4
AP 3 = + 1/2 + 1/2 + (1/2 + 1/4) = + 1 3/4 OR + 1/2 + (1/2 + 1/4) + (1/2 + 1/4) = +2
and so on

[Simon]

Regarding the display/representation of Modifiers as decimal values, I think that fractions are easier to read but provide less granularity.

If you stick with fractions, maybe consider moving away from 1/4 increments....take it to 1/10 or somesuch.


One thing that I think would _definitely_ be a good idea would be to bring the rounding rules inline with real-world mathematics. Drop the idea of "when rounding to 2 decimal places, ignore everything after the 2nd decimal place, round to 1 decimal place in the player's favor and then round again to 0 decimal places in the player's favor".

Just got for a straight: round the number to the closest integer/whole number value. .5 rounds up (or down....just make it always round in the same direction regardless of "favor").

[Chris Goodwin]

Here's an idea I've had but haven't seen floated here yet.

Give all Powers a "cost per unit". Call it that if you wish; CPU makes a nice abbreviation ;). Advantages and Limitations now modify cost per unit directly, by an amount equal to their value. For example: Energy Blast has a default cost of 5 points per unit. A +2 Advantage would make it 7 points per unit, and a -3 Limitation would then make it 4 points per unit.

To get the new value of all Modifiers, you simply multiply their existing costs by 4. So, IIF becomes a -1 Limitation, while OAF becomes -4. 0 Endurance Cost becomes a +2 Advantage.

This does a couple of things, but the main one is it removes all of the fractions. It also turns the final cost into straight addition and subtraction then multiplication, instead of multiplication (to find the existing cost-per-unit times the number of units), addition (Advantages), multiplication (Base Points to Active Points), addition (Limitations), and division (Active Points to Real Points).

Many Powers have an obvious Unit; Energy Blast (whatever we end up calling it) is dice; Armor is DEF. Some Powers might not have easy units as is; Life Support, Invisibility, and Desolidification are examples. These could be changed, so that, for instance, Life Support is now a flat 5 points per condition. Or you could just say that each "level" is a unit, and the Modifiers against it modify the cost, even if the first level is 5 points and the second level is +10. You could also arbitrarily decide that, for instance, Desolidification at, say, 8 units at 5 points per unit, if you wanted to keep it at 40 points.

Include a rule that you can't reduce the per-unit cost of a Power below 1. You could also say that if you've reduced the per-unit cost of the Power to 1, then further Limitations against it lower the final cost; so that 10d6 Energy Blast with a +2 in Advantages and -6 in Limitations now costs 10 points; if you for some reason added -3 more Limitations to it, the final cost would be 7 points. We now have an absolute minimum cost of 1 point for any Power.

It also easily does away with Active Points vs. Real Points.

[SSgt Baloo]

I should explain that I'm a bit ambivalent about 6E Hero. I really liked 4th Ed., and while 5ER seems like a fair lot of improvement, there were some changes I choose to ignore. Another thing -- I've had the rules book for at least a couple of years now and I'm still discovering differences between 4th and 5th. Some I like, butr some I don't. I really think a lot of thought should go into how to organize the 6E core book, to make it easier to find the things you want to do, even without initially knowing the name of the power you're looking for (useful for both newbs and old hands, especially when the power/skill/task/perk has been renamed or otherwise changed).

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

No. While you might want to make it as an option for players who want extra crunchy goodness, it would complicate matters for people new to the system.

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

Nope. Works fine. Once again, make it optional for folks who want to adjust granularity.

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've occasionally done something like this in my campaigns. It didn't hurt the running of it none. You might want to include some of the other suggestions as an option though.

Q: Should any new Advantages be added?

Maybe, but would it improve gameplay or not?

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

Sounds like a plan.

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

Yes.

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.

I approve heartily.

Q: Should Time Delay be eliminated?

Time delay is a kind of trigger. Fold it in.

Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?

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

Once again, yes.

Finally, I'd like to agitate for a streamlined core system with plenty of options for making the game as crunchy as you like.

[Edsel]

Q: Should Advantages and Limitations be expressed with decimals rather than standard fractions?
My thoughts are to keep it as it is now. You can always give an example of how doing math using +.5 is the same as using +1/2. It might make thing easer for the mathematically challenged. The current breakpoints of 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and 1 are good enough.

Q: Should Advantages and Limitations be applied to Powers in a different way?
No.

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?
If the character can choose then that is an Advantage in itself. It becomes a sort of Variable Advantage. Keep it like it is now.

Q: Should any new Advantages be added?
I think we have a good enough selection now. It is easy to add custom Advantages as the GM and gaming group desires.

Q: Should some of the optional new Areas of Effect in the Character Creation Handbook be incorporated into the core rules?
Yep, I like the additional flexibility.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. That’s really all it is, and the expansions and clarifications for Trigger make it possible to create one that functions in basically the same way. However, there would probably need to be a “Damage Shield” additional value adder for Trigger to reflect the fact that a Damage Shield *automatically* hits its target, whereas an ordinary Trigger does not. OTOH, under this scheme the No Range Limitation would be applied to the power, easing the cost burden some.
Sounds like a reasonable simplification to me.

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.
I like this suggestion as well.

Q: Should Time Delay be eliminated?
Yes, Trigger will work for this.

Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?
I have no strong opinion on this one.

[Balok]

I like the cost per unit approach - it seems simpler, and therefore better from the perspective of new people.

[Jhamin]

I'd like to vote for keeping advantages and disadvantages the way they are. In my mind the current setup is very much core to the system.

Making them cancel each other out will do all kinds of wonky things to active and real points, and switching them to decimals will lead people to start arguing over pricing something a .2 vs. .3.

I don't know that enough will be gained to offset all the hastle of changing one of the core mechanics of the system.

[SSgt Baloo]

Here's an idea I've had but haven't seen floated here yet.

Give all Powers a "cost per unit". Call it that if you wish; CPU makes a nice abbreviation ;). Advantages and Limitations now modify cost per unit directly, by an amount equal to their value. For example: Energy Blast has a default cost of 5 points per unit. A +2 Advantage would make it 7 points per unit, and a -3 Limitation would then make it 4 points per unit.

To get the new value of all Modifiers, you simply multiply their existing costs by 4. So, IIF becomes a -1 Limitation, while OAF becomes -4. 0 Endurance Cost becomes a +2 Advantage.

This does a couple of things, but the main one is it removes all of the fractions. It also turns the final cost into straight addition and subtraction then multiplication, instead of multiplication (to find the existing cost-per-unit times the number of units), addition (Advantages), multiplication (Base Points to Active Points), addition (Limitations), and division (Active Points to Real Points).

Many Powers have an obvious Unit; Energy Blast (whatever we end up calling it) is dice; Armor is DEF. Some Powers might not have easy units as is; Life Support, Invisibility, and Desolidification are examples. These could be changed, so that, for instance, Life Support is now a flat 5 points per condition. Or you could just say that each "level" is a unit, and the Modifiers against it modify the cost, even if the first level is 5 points and the second level is +10. You could also arbitrarily decide that, for instance, Desolidification at, say, 8 units at 5 points per unit, if you wanted to keep it at 40 points.

Include a rule that you can't reduce the per-unit cost of a Power below 1. You could also say that if you've reduced the per-unit cost of the Power to 1, then further Limitations against it lower the final cost; so that 10d6 Energy Blast with a +2 in Advantages and -6 in Limitations now costs 10 points; if you for some reason added -3 more Limitations to it, the final cost would be 7 points. We now have an absolute minimum cost of 1 point for any Power.

It also easily does away with Active Points vs. Real Points.

Okay. Beats my suggestions to insensibility. I fully endorse the above suggestions.

[nexus]

Simpler is always better.

Nitpick: Simpler and just as functional is better

Sounds like the same ones from The Ultimate Energy Projector.

Oh okay thanks, I missed that.

[Balok]

Making them cancel each other out will do all kinds of wonky things to active and real points, and switching them to decimals will lead people to start arguing over pricing something a .2 vs. .3.People argue about this now. It seems to me that finer granularity would make resolving such arguments easier.

I don't know that enough will be gained to offset all the hastle of changing one of the core mechanics of the system.If they canceled out, I'd agree. If they just switch to decimals, like .2 or .3, and the basic formula is still the same, I don't see it as a huge change, but more like an enhancement.

JMO.

[steamteck]

Nitpick: Simpler and just as functional is better

.

Quoted for truth that needs to be carefully considered here.



I think damage shield should be a stand alone advantage with no others needed or maybe radically an actual power!

[Susano]

Nitpick: Simpler and just as functional is better

Ah yes, that's very true and I agree 100%. Simplicity is of no use if it hinders character options and/or actions.

[Andrew Byers]

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

I strongly hope that you don't make this change. I think the added level of granularity is superfluous and would lead to a lot of additional (silly) arguments that amount to quibbles over a point or two. Quarter point fractions are enough. We really don't want to see arguments over limitations being worth -.35 or -.4.



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.

I've been houseruling MegaScale this way since 5th ed. first came out and it's worked well in play so far. I would definitely like to see this become the official rule. Sure, I know that some see MegaScale as unbalancing, but frankly, it's the only reasonable way to simulate some effects.

[ajackson]

Q: Should Advantages and Limitations be expressed with decimals rather than standard fractions?
Well, having dealt with GURPS, which gets completely out of hand with this, I certainly don't want 0.05 advantages. On the other hand, I'd kind of like to see advantages be 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, etc, because that maps to a straight 6/7/8/9/10 points per die, rather than 6.25/7.5/8.75/10 per die.

I'm sort of tempted by discarding 1/4 and 3/4 advantages, and having advantages in tenths. I'm also tempted by converting most of them to adders, but there are problems with that.

Q: Should Advantages and Limitations be applied to Powers in a different way?
As you mention, there are some advantages to treating everything as adders. However, there are also some fairly significant complexities (for example, AP attacks), so pending a complete rewrite of how damage works, it's probably not an option.

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'd like to see Variable Advantage brought back.

Q: Should Damage Shield be removed as a stand-alone Advantage and just become a form of Trigger?
It's a common enough use that it should probably be described by itself, but that doesn't mean it can't just be a specific case of Trigger.

Q: Should MegaScale be tweaked for ease of use?

Megascale should probably be an adder, at least when applied to movement powers. As it is, there's basically no purpose to non-combat movement any more.

Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?

Call me a heretic on this, but I think Usable Against Others should be folded into Transform. The effectiveness of a power used against someone else is rarely particularly linked to how useful it is as a personal power. Easier to balance 'banish someone to an alternate dimension' as being the same as 'transform person into a rock'. Usable By Others is probably okay as is.

[Chris Goodwin]

Well, having dealt with GURPS, which gets completely out of hand with this, I certainly don't want 0.05 advantages. On the other hand, I'd kind of like to see advantages be 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, etc, because that maps to a straight 6/7/8/9/10 points per die, rather than 6.25/7.5/8.75/10 per die.

Yeah, I thought of that a long time ago. That led me to consider, why not just have Advantages and Limitations add to and subtract from unit cost directly instead of multiplication?

I mean, honestly, how important is it to keep multiplication and division?

[Enforcer84]

I have a gun focus. I can give it to you to use, even though I have not bought UBO for it, unless I define it as a 'personal only' focus.
So if I club you with a car I found in a parking lot I should have paid for it?

[Enforcer84]

Naked advantages:

I can buy an 8d6 EB AP for 60 points in a game capped at 60 AP and I have to use the AP (I'd probably want to anyway unless I was desperate to save END against a low-def target)

OR I can buy 8d6 EB and a 20 point naked advantage, and not have to use the advantage, and so not spend the END.

Finally I could (without violating the AP cap) buy a 12d6 EB and a 30 point naked advantage for AP.

I think we need to either make NAs cost more or increase the utility of 'normal' advantages by making their use optional to acheive some sort of balance here.

Actually another point occurs: there is no cost or other penalty if you define your NA as applying to more than one power. Perhaps there should be?
Naked Advantage doesn't count against Campaign AP Caps? Really? I did not know that.

[devlin1]

Yeah, I thought of that a long time ago. That led me to consider, why not just have Advantages and Limitations add to and subtract from unit cost directly instead of multiplication?

I mean, honestly, how important is it to keep multiplication and division?
I agree. I realize the AP totals would change, and I realize that it's a little M&M-ish, but I wouldn't mind, say, Armor Piercing being +3 points/1d6 instead of +1/2. Not a straight adder, but a per-die-of-effect adder (or per meter, for movement powers, and so on). A 6d6 AP "Attack" (I think I'm also in favor of a unified Attack power with Advantages to make it ranged, etc.), assuming each 6d6 still costs 5 points, is 48 points (5 x 6 + 18), as opposed to 45 under the current system.

Limitations would work the same way, except I'd have a -1/2 Limitation subtract only 2 points instead of 3 (so Advantages round up and Limitations round down). Stick a -1/2-equivalent Limitation on there, like OIF, and it brings the cost down to 36 (48 - 12), instead of 30, as it does now. Minimum cost per whatever is 1 point.

Advantages and Disadvantages could be listed with their attendant powers for easy reference instead of off in their own sections. This, too, is quite M&M-ish, but hey, if it works, it works.

I like the mathematical precision of the multipliers and divisors as much as the next guy, but I honestly believe this is one of HERO's biggest barriers to entry. This is the bit that scares people off, and the only real reason I can see to keep it is the stubborn insistence on "doing it the way we've always done it, dagnabbit!" I think that because I have that impulse within me, so I know I can't be the only one. It's the same as people who live in foul-weather climates being proud of their city's harsh winters.

Instituting this change would mean no more charts, no more calculators, and no more comments about HERO requiring slide rules.

[Lord Liaden]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: What I mean by this is that instead of +½, we’d write it +.5. The main benefit to doing this is that it would increase granularity since we’d no longer be limited to ¼, ½, ¾, 1, and so on. You could have a +.15 Advantage, a -.60 Limitation, and so on. That would allow for much more precise pigeonholing than the current four-step system.

While granularity is desireable, there are also some drawbacks. First, it takes more spaces on the page to write +.5 than +½, or -.75 than -¾. This may not seem like a big deal to you, but trust me — when it comes to wanting to make character sheets compact and easy to use, and over the course of hundreds of thousands of lines of text in dozens of books, it’s a concern that can’t be overlooked.

Second, is this level of granularity really desireable? One, while current HERO System users could master the difference with almost no effort, I think it could be more confusing to newcomers. Two, I shudder to think over the arguments that could result regarding the value of an Advantage (“It should be a +.35.” “No, you idiot, that’s clearly a +.41!”). Three, even if this change takes place, I still think most Power Modifiers will end up as .25, .50, .75, and 1 partly out of habit, partly because those values are appropriate, and partly because we like to think in terms of such numbers. Fourth, I don’t think there are really *that* many situations where wedging Power Modifier values into the current four-step system causes unbalance or other problems.

Like it or not, we live in the age of decimal designations and ubiquitous electronic calculators. While us old fogeys may be very comfortable with fractions, their use is one of the most frequent complaints I hear from non-HERO players. The younger ones in particular seem to find them intimidating. If the goal is to bring new players to HERO, IMO this would be one merely cosmetic but still useful tack, whose benefits would balance the wordcount drawback.

As far as "increasing granularity" goes, there's no reason why switching to decimals would open the door to +.41 Advantages or -.62 Limitations, any more than the current fractions system employs +2/3 or -1/8. Just restrict all official Advantages or Limitations to multiples of .25, and you should be alright. :)


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

Steve’s Thoughts: This may depend partly on the answer to the question in the “General Issues” thread about whether we should abandon the concept of Active Points and Real Points. One possibility would be to make them adders and subtractors rather than multipliers and dividers, since the concepts of multiplying and dividing by a fraction seem to scare off some newcomers despite the facts that (a) it’s pretty basic math, and (b) calculators are really cheap. Another would be to let Advantages and Limitations “cancel each other out” before application, so that a +¾ Advantage and a -½ Limitation would result in a (¾ - ½ =) +¼ Advantage. A third would be to have Advantages affect *effectiveness* rather than points, so that a power with a -¼ Limitation is somehow 20% less effective, not 20% less costly (though this raises the question of why to take one if it doesn’t “save” anything).

Overall, though, my current thinking is that none of these changes are worth it (even if all their implications can be worked out). I’m always open to new ideas, but I think the current Power Modifier rules structure works fine.

As I indicated above, I believe that changing to decimals would reduce that "fear factor" for new players.


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?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think we should, but as long as we’re considering everything I suppose it can’t hurt to throw this one out there.

The point about Naked Advantages upthread is a good one, but the rulebook recommends that characters should have a good rationale for buying Advantages "Naked" other than convenience, and that they should have different Modifiers from the Powers they apply to. IMO that puts them in a different category from Advantages that are added directly to the cost of a Power.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. That’s really all it is, and the expansions and clarifications for Trigger make it possible to create one that functions in basically the same way. However, there would probably need to be a “Damage Shield” additional value adder for Trigger to reflect the fact that a Damage Shield *automatically* hits its target, whereas an ordinary Trigger does not. OTOH, under this scheme the No Range Limitation would be applied to the power, easing the cost burden some.

I remember the Digital HERO article on expanding Trigger, where you outlined that alternative build for a "damage shield" effect. IIRC the Active Point cost came out the same as for 5E Damage Shield, but the Real Point cost was lower solely because you allowed No Range to be applied to it.

This example reinforces a conclusion I came to long ago - and Steve, I say this with all due respect - there's no logical or game-balance reason why Ranged Power Damage Shields can't take No Range, except that the writeup in FREd said that it couldn't (perhaps just continuing the tradition from 4E), and several published characters appearing soon after FREd came out were built that way, so it was too late to change it. Not that that couldn't be argued as a valid reason, but for Sixth Edition it can be discarded without loss of face. ;)

I could live with a Trigger-based damage shield concept, as long as it didn't come out more expensive in Active Points than the current one. I'm sure I'm in the minority in actually agreeing with the logic of adding Continuous to the official 5E DS build. If No Range had been allowed I, and I think a lot of other HEROphiles, would have been content. However, in my games I've not only allowed No Range, I also allow Damage Shield to be bought without Continuous as a straight +1/2 Advantage. It's still an automatic hit, but has to be turned on with each use and doesn't linger between the user's Phases.

I've seen several concepts in my games that suit this, such as electrified skin/armor, or automatic counterpunching. IME it works great as an Entangle-breaker or a counter to multiple Grabs. Since it's automatically successful it's superior in some circumstances to a standard attack that needs to be targeted. And of course, it's much cheaper than a Continuous Damage Shield.

If you could devise an Advantage used with Trigger that did that, I'd be happy with it; otherwise I'd prefer to leave Damage Shield in the system.


Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?

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

Perhaps some version of Area Of Effect would make a viable option, including Selective Target. That way a character with this Power could affect everyone within an area without buying Ranged for the Power, and choose who to give the Power to, while retaining control of its use.

[Eodin]

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?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think we should, but as long as we’re considering everything I suppose it can’t hurt to throw this one out there.

I think that, like MegaScale, a +1/4 added advantage to get the choice is not unreasonable. For that matter, I'm also fond of a +1/4 variable effect (20 pts FF can become 10PD/10ED or 5PD/15ED, as desired).

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. That’s really all it is, and the expansions and clarifications for Trigger make it possible to create one that functions in basically the same way. However, there would probably need to be a “Damage Shield” additional value adder for Trigger to reflect the fact that a Damage Shield *automatically* hits its target, whereas an ordinary Trigger does not. OTOH, under this scheme the No Range Limitation would be applied to the power, easing the cost burden some.

Most definitely.

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.

PLEASE. Star Hero weapons are a prime example where the current construct is painful.


Q: Should Time Delay be eliminated?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think it should. You can do the same thing with Trigger.


Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?

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

Yes and Yes. UOO should in some circumstances be treated like an Aid/Succor effect, without having to have the power in the first place, and in other cases should work like an area of effect. I'll think a bit more about what would be a good change...

[Xotl]

Piercing: it's easy to understand, a rather short entry, far more flexible than normal Armour Piercing (why a reduction of half, regardless of defense amount?), and allows the modeling of certain elements that can't be done right now. It's extremely useful in any genre employing guns (sci-fi, comics, military, western), which is more than common enough to justify rescuing it from any one genre book. I would very much like to see it in the main book.

Also:
- I agree with Simon's plea for normal rounding rules as one more piece of intuitiveness.

- On further reflection I quite like the idea of moving to decimals rather than fractions, as long as the decimals were fixed increments like they currently are. It would aid in teaching.

If by some chance the advantage increment amounts are up for examination, it might be worth examining increments of .20 rather than the current .25. .20 is more granular than what we have now while still coming out to 1.0, and without getting down to ridiculously minor amounts. Of course, with increments of .20 you lose the convenient .50 though....

[Vondy]

I would like to see advantages and disadvantages remain as they are or go to a decimal system with only one decimal place. More decimal places give complexity without gain, IMO. Also, I think we will run into balance issues if we change from the calculate active cost with advantages and then refactor with limitations method. The current method (in that regard) has been tuned into form over several versions and opening it back up could have some unforseen consequences. On the other hand, while I am used to advantages being expressed in fractions, having them expressed as decimal points doesn't actually create a mathematical difference in terms of how the calculation is performed (I convert to decimal for calculator use already). It does allow more granularity-precision in costing the value of advantages and limitations. In that latter respect, however, I'm parve. I'm happy with the current system, but if we go to a single decimal place I'll probably be just as happy.

[Bismark]

Piercing: it's easy to understand, a rather short entry, far more flexible than normal Armour Piercing (why a reduction of half, regardless of defense amount?), and allows the modeling of certain elements that can't be done right now. It's extremely useful in any genre employing guns (sci-fi, comics, military), which is more than common enough to justify its rescue from a genre book. I would very much like to see it in the main book.

What he said - plus, it is also incredibly useful for modelling arrows, crossbow bolts, slingshot, etc.

There is even a case for there being a negative version of it as a Limitation (Reduced Penetration is just too coarse for a lot of weapons/ammo)

[JmOz]

Just had an idea for a defence power advantage: Absolute defence, probably a +1 or more. It would turn the defence power so that it functions similar to Force Wall instead of Force Field, no body penetration No damage done

[BobGreenwade]

Q: Should Advantages and Limitations be expressed with decimals rather than standard fractions?I was just contemplating this myself. I think that, even if you don't go the decimal route, breaking down to the 1/8 level is indicated.

My line of thought actually started with 1/8 breakdowns. Hero has gotten to the point where similar Limitations (and I'd give specific examples if I could remember them) have the same game value even though one practically subsumes the other. There are also some specific ideas I have that would require 1/8 levels (Focus, which I'll post on later, is one).

All that said, if you do go with decimals, I think you should limit the breakdowns to increments of .05, at least for now. That's 1/20, and should be more than enough for now. Any finer and things will be a little too subject to the kinds of fine-detail agrument you cite -- plus, I don't think we really need to differentiate in increments of .01 just yet.Q: Should Advantages and Limitations be applied to Powers in a different way?No, I agree with you that the current system is fine. It does lead to the perception that Hero is math-intensive, even though this is really the only area where we actually use multiplication to a great extent, or (with a few obvious exceptions like Armor Piercing) division hardly at all.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?There should be a mechanic for it. The default should still be mandatory use, but there are occasional situations where the ability to choose is logical. Perhaps some form or variant of Variable Advantage can be devised to handle it.Q: Should any new Advantages be added?I think we're fine. The ones you mention from DH should be put into print (as in dead-tree books) somewhere else before being slid into the main rulebook. I'm not sure why I feel that way, though, so if others are excited by them then go ahead and slide them in.Q: Should some of the optional new Areas of Effect in the Character Creation Handbook be incorporated into the core rules?I don't have the CCH yet myself, but I am quite fond of the Areas you cite.

I also think something should be done to make Area Of Effect (One Hex) cost less than Explosion.

Now, separately, regarding Armor Piercing: I think there should be a way to allow this Advantage to reduce defenses past half. The way I think it could be done is to increase the cost of each successive increment by +1/4. Thus:

Basic Armor Piercing: +1/2.
Armor Piercing, overcomes one level of Hardened: +1/2 + +1/2 = +1.
Armor Piercing, reduces defenses to 1/4, one level of Hardened reduces to 1/2: +1/2 + +3/4 = +1 1/4.
Armor Piercing, reduces defenses to 1/4, one level of Hardened still reduces to 1/4, two levels reduces to 1/2: +1/2 + +1/2 + +3/4 = +1 3/4.
Armor Piercing, reduces defenses to 1/4, overcomes two levels of Hardened but neutralized by three levels: +1/2 + +3/4 + +3/4 = +2.
Armor Piercing, reduces defenses to 1/8, one level of Hardened reduces to 1/4, two levels to 1/2: +1/2 + +3/4 + +1 = +2 1/4.

Note, of course, that as the Advantage level gets larger the amount of base damage gets smaller for any game with Active Point caps. In a 90 AP game that last Advantage on an Energy Blast would be limited to 8d6 (assuming no other Advantages), versus 18d6 for a raw attack. That's average damage of 28 STUN, as opposed to 63 STUN. Sure, the 28 STUN applies to only 1/8 of the target's defenses, but it's much less likely to "one-punch" the target, do Knockback, or have any other effect other than nickel-and-diming the target into unconsciousness.Q: Should Damage Shield be removed as a stand-alone Advantage and just become a form of Trigger?Given your explanation, I think this would be a good idea.Q: Should MegaScale be tweaked for ease of use?Given the tweaking you suggest, I can go along with it. I'd feel more comfortable with +1/2 as the initial value, but that's just me.Q: Should Time Delay be eliminated?I've had the same feeling as you from the beginning. Yes, just fold it in with Trigger.Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?I do think that the complications are, for the most part, necessary to make it work. And the new (arguably returning) options you mention would be a good thing, applicable in more than just Fantasy.

It also seems to me that the Differing Modifiers aspect of this Advantage is applied differently in FHG than in the rulebook. My copy of FHG is buried at the moment, so I can't be sure, but I remember running into a problem with it when trying to build some expansions to one of the spell lists that use it extensively (I forget the aracnum name).

A version of UOO for "enchanting items" should also be addressed, IMO, though only briefly -- it's worth discussing here, since it could potentially be applicable in several genres, but really belongs most strongly in the Fantasy Hero book.

[BobGreenwade]

One more point, regarding Naked Advantages:

Currently it costs the same to have "Armor Piercing on Ultra-Gun Slot #3" as it does to have "Armor Piercing on any Ultra-Gun slot," "Armor Piercing on any weapon of up to 60 Base Points," or "Armor Piercing on any attack of up to 60 Base Points." These should all be different values, probably using some construct similar to that for Variable Advantage.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm firmly on the side of believing that adding finer granularity to the current system of fractions is a move in the wrong direction. Having to multiply and divide by fractions is one of the two biggest complaints about the system by newbies. If we can eliminate that, the PR value alone would be astronomical.

Going to decimals means we'll see numbers like:

50 * (1 + 1.35) / (1 + 1.6)

Going to eighths means we'll see:

50 * (1 + 1 1/8) / (1 + 1 3/8)

And both:

50 * (1 + 1.125) / (1 + 1.375)

I don't see any of those as improvements. I see them as business as usual, taken even further in the wrong direction. Denominating Modifiers in terms of 1/8 means that, at some level, you're looking at fractional significant digits in the thousandths. You think the complaints about Hero System math are bad now?

So, why not go back to my previous post on the issue:

10 * (5 + 3 - 2)

where you have 10d6, times (5 points per die +3 Advantages -2 Limitations)

If you wanted to, you could even keep Active Cost, though you might rename it to Advantaged Cost. In my example here, the Advantaged Cost of the Energy Blast would be (10 * (5 + 3)) 80. You could analogize a Limited Cost, which would be the units times the quantity (cost per unit minus Limitations). So, in my example here the Limited Cost would be (10 * (5 - 2)) 30. I'm not sure what you'd use it for, but it's there as a tool. And the Net Cost would be 60.

Some might say, too much like Mutants and Masterminds. But I think GURPS Supers did it first, back in that book's first edition. At any rate, that's no reason for us not to do it.

[ajackson]

There are problems with stacking limitations in strict additive systems. Stack up 4 -1/4 limitations in Hero and you get a power for 1/2 cost. Stack up 4 -20% limitations and you've got a power for 1/5 cost. One way around that might be a a lookup table -- i.e. add up ads and disads and get a percentage, such as:

Ad/Dis Total -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 +0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8
Cost/Level 25 30 35 40 50 60 70 80 100 125 150 175 200 250 300 350 400

[Chris Goodwin]

There are problems with stacking limitations in strict additive systems.

There are problems with multiplying and dividing by fractions ending in 1/4. There are bigger problems with multiplying and dividing by fractions ending in 1/8, and even bigger ones with multiplying and dividing by decimals.

It is my firm and strong belief that anything that increases complexity in this regard is the wrong direction to move in.

[Susano]

There are problems with multiplying and dividing by fractions ending in 1/4. There are bigger problems with multiplying and dividing by fractions ending in 1/8, and even bigger ones with multiplying and dividing by decimals.

It is my firm and strong belief that anything that increases complexity in this regard is the wrong direction to move in.

This is my stand as well. I think the current method is fine. I've seen how GURPS does (or did) it for GURPS Supers and wasn't impressed.

[BobGreenwade]

There are problems with multiplying and dividing by fractions ending in 1/4. There are bigger problems with multiplying and dividing by fractions ending in 1/8, and even bigger ones with multiplying and dividing by decimals.Four words: digital calculator, one dollar.

Such a device, usually available at your local $1 store these days, can multiply and divide by decimals quite easily -- even more easily than with fractions, which have to be converted. It's what I use when I need to calculate a Power's cost and don't have HD available.

On the other hand, "that other system" (Herodom's "F-word") broke things down to addition and subtraction exclusively, but had to deal with the issue of what to do when the value of the Subtractors overwhelmed the value of the base power, and never was able to balance the "minimum cost of 1" (the approach it took) with the urge to eliminate Subtractors that didn't provide any actual cost savings.

[Chris Goodwin]

Four words: digital calculator, one dollar.

Such a device, usually available at your local $1 store these days, can multiply and divide by decimals quite easily -- even more easily than with fractions, which have to be converted. It's what I use when I need to calculate a Power's cost and don't have HD available.

Sure, "all you need is a calculator." That becomes "You need a calculator in order to play!" or, on RPG.net, "You can't play Hero unless you have a degree in calculus!"

We're talking about multiplying and dividing by eighths (three significant digits in decimal) or potentially as far as twentieths (increments of .05). How is this better?

If we need a finer grain, and are going to insist on keeping fractions, let's rescale the Limitations. Maybe we need to increase the current values by -1/2 or so. OAF for -1 1/2 sounds right. No Range for -1.

I don't see how adding complexity is an improvement. I'm not even sure I can accept the notion that adding complexity can be an improvement.

On the other hand, "that other system" (Herodom's "F-word") broke things down to addition and subtraction exclusively, but had to deal with the issue of what to do when the value of the Subtractors overwhelmed the value of the base power, and never was able to balance the "minimum cost of 1" (the approach it took) with the urge to eliminate Subtractors that didn't provide any actual cost savings.

I only vaguely remember how Fuzion did it. Wasn't it straight adders and subtracters to the final cost? Or was it per unit?

[nexus]

Sure, "all you need is a calculator." That becomes "You need a calculator in order to play!" or, on RPG.net, "You can't play Hero unless you have a degree in calculus!"


On rpg.net a game requires calculus to play if it needs addition AND subtraction :rolleyes:

but I see your point.


I only vaguely remember how Fuzion did it. Wasn't it straight adders and subtracters to the final cost? Or was it per unit?

To the final cost, IIRC. I can try to dig out my old Fuzion stuff....

[Chris Goodwin]

On rpg.net a game requires calculus to play if it needs addition AND subtraction :rolleyes:

but I see your point.


Sorry if I'm harping on RPG.net.... when I first got into Champions, teenagers working at McDonald's could still make change for a dollar when the power went out. I'm told they can't do that anymore.... :lol: :cry:

[BobGreenwade]

I only vaguely remember how Fuzion did it. Wasn't it straight adders and subtracters to the final cost? Or was it per unit?"Per unit?" If you mean, like, per die to the cost, then a single Subtractor would reduce the cost to 0 -- it was 1 point per 1d6. The subtractors applied to the final cost of a given Power, so if you had a heavily-limited ability (6 dice, say, with +3 in Adders, -10 in Subtractors) it got tossed down to just 1 point. My example of 6 + 3 - 10 thus cost the same as 6 + 3 - 8, so what (other than "game flavor") is the point of those other -2 in Subtractors, or on the other hand why not just pump up to 8 dice? Going to a straight add/subtract method in Hero would have much the same effect.

OTOH I could see going to a straight-balance method of handling Advantages and Limitations, so in the end you only either multiply or divide, not both.

[Chris Goodwin]

"Per unit?" If you mean, like, per die to the cost, then a single Subtractor would reduce the cost to 0 -- it was 1 point per 1d6.

Ahhh, right. One of many problems with Fuzion.

My example of 6 + 3 - 10 thus cost the same as 6 + 3 - 8, so what (other than "game flavor") is the point of those other -2 in Subtractors, or on the other hand why not just pump up to 8 dice? Going to a straight add/subtract method in Hero would have much the same effect.

OTOH I could see going to a straight-balance method of handling Advantages and Limitations, so in the end you only either multiply or divide, not both.

I'm assuming we're still trying to approximate the 5 points per 1d6 scale. Plus, I've specified what happens once you reach a cost-per-unit of 1 -- any further Limitations decrease the Real Cost directly. So, a 12d6 Energy Blast with -7 in Limitations (-1 3/4 in 5e terms) would have a Real Cost of 9 points ((12 * (5-4)) -3).

Edit: While I am passionate about this :D I'm not wedded to my specific implementation. I am passionate about not going further in a bad direction than we are already. The current system is not necessarily ideal, but if we leave it as is we're no worse off than we are now.

[JohnTaber]

Suggestion = For area effect any area (AEAA) allow the placement of the hexes to be changed each time the power is used.

Reasoning = AEAA is so little hexes (i.e. AE Radius for example gives many times more hexes for the same cost) it should be able to be defined each time the power is used. Currently I don't think there is a good way to have an area effect power where the hexes change without using Variable Advantage or something similar.

[Xotl]

What he said - plus, it is also incredibly useful for modelling arrows, crossbow bolts, slingshot, etc.

This too. I forgot about Fantasy Hero, where Piercing will be very handy for the modeling of crossbows. Basically any game that has standardized weapons and standardized armour benefits immensely from Piercing. I like making a rifle/crossbow that is great against personal armours but doesn't do jack against a tank. Hamfisted normal Armour Piercing simply cannot allow me to accomplish this.

[ajackson]

This too. I forgot about Fantasy Hero, where Piercing will be very handy for the modeling of crossbows. Basically any game that has standardized weapons and standardized armour benefits immensely from Piercing. I like making a rifle/crossbow that is great against personal armours but doesn't do jack against a tank. Hamfisted normal Armour Piercing simply cannot allow me to accomplish this.
A lot of the problem is the way Hero is a bit confused about linear vs logarithmic. If you use AP to reduce a 4 to a 2, that's equivalent to halving the thickness of armor. If you use AP to reduce a 20 to a 10, that's equivalent to dividing armor thickness by 32.

Without a complete restructure of how damage works, making it either purely logarithmic (which is very difficult to implement) or purely linear (in which case the tank has something like 1,000 Def), this isn't really fixable.

[Xotl]

A lot of the problem is the way Hero is a bit confused about linear vs logarithmic. If you use AP to reduce a 4 to a 2, that's equivalent to halving the thickness of armor. If you use AP to reduce a 20 to a 10, that's equivalent to dividing armor thickness by 32.

Without a complete restructure of how damage works, making it either purely logarithmic (which is very difficult to implement) or purely linear (in which case the tank has something like 1,000 Def), this isn't really fixable.

I agree that in a general sense it's something that can't be dealt with, which is why I don't advocate the removal of the normal Armour Piercing advantage; AP is very handy for things like magic and superpowers, where absolute values for armour and weapons don't exist, and is about the best solution available under the circumstances. However, I feel you can gain quite a lot of modeling power that the game currently lacks at its base by incorporating Piercing to deal with Pulp, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, and Dark and normal Champions elements. Simply adding in Semi-Armour Piercing and the like from Dark Champions doesn't address this at all.

Linear vs. Logarithmic doesn't enter into the occasion with Piercing because all plate armour or tank armour or whatever has the same value, and all weapons that combat them can be designed around them. The values for armour negation become exactly right instead of all over the place. My crossbow bolt negates exactly x PD, equating to plate: no more, no less. And it's all so short and easy to understand.

[Chris Goodwin]

Responding to myself...

I'm assuming we're still trying to approximate the 5 points per 1d6 scale. Plus, I've specified what happens once you reach a cost-per-unit of 1 -- any further Limitations decrease the Real Cost directly. So, a 12d6 Energy Blast with -7 in Limitations (-1 3/4 in 5e terms) would have a Real Cost of 9 points ((12 * (5-4)) -3).

Another bit of coolness: if you want two (or more!) Powers that always work together, add their unit costs together, then take a -1 Linked Limitation against the lot. If the Modifiers or otherwise default conditions (such as Endurance Cost) differ, work them out separately, for each particular component, before adding them, then apply Linked and any other Modifiers that apply to both.

Although, you could do something like the following:

Energy Blast plus Armor (Costs END, -2; CPU 1). Linked, -1; OIF (Shield Gun), -2. Unit Cost: 3. 10 units @3 = 30 Real Cost.

[steamteck]

Armor piercing I've always disliked the flat 1/2 of defenses how about something like the old piercing where you buy extra points of penetration instead?

[Susano]

I've seen variants of AP where you reduce the DEF based on the BODY you roll or some such.

[Opal]

Q: Should Advantages and Limitations be expressed with decimals rather than standard fractions?I don't think so. Going down to quarters is enough granularity, I think. Layer on a few limitations, for instance, and an additional +1/4 can save you nothing. If you had .1 limitations, that could be happening even more. Also, it's hard enough to make judgement calls in 1/4 inrements. If you had to got to 1/8ths or 'steenths,' I think you'd have even more Champions GMs having nervous breakdowns.


Q: Should Advantages and Limitations be applied to Powers in a different way?There is a good argument for this. There are advantages that really affect how powerful a power is - AP, for instance. An 8d EB AP really is comparable to a 12 EB. There are others that affect how often it hits. An 8d EB Explosion hits several people, an 8d Autofire EB hits one person several times.

But, when you put the two together, it gets wonky. A 2d RKA AP, Autofire, hits multiple times about as hard as a 3d RKA AP, but doesn't cost as much.

It might make sense to create two tiers of limitations: one set that directly impacts the direct effectiveness of the power and is applied first, another that affects how often the power can be used, and is aplied after. Same for limitation, even.

Advantages and limitations on the same tiers could cancel eachother out.


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?Bad idea, unless we re-think the cost of many advantages, such as Explosion, AE, Damage Shield, etc...

QQ: Should MegaScale be tweaked for ease of use?MegaScale is a great idea. Really, it should be expanded to deal with extreme cases of Growth and the like. Key should be making it possible for smaller scale characters to avoid mega-scale action.


Q: Should Time Delay be eliminated?
You can do the same thing with Trigger.
It should be specifically mentioned as a possible trigger, and it should be pointed out that no special 'absolute time sense' power need be bought for it....


Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?I think it's been prettymuch OK sinse the Useable /by/ Others vs Useable /against/ Others distinction was drawn.

[sbarron]

I think gettting rid of the fractions is critical for 6th Ed. I particularly agree with elements of Chris' idea, and I said as much here...

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27678.

The problem is, how to apply these changes but keep things the same? My original suggestion back in the day involved converting each 1/4 increment into a whole number. So +1/4 = +1, +1/2 = +2, -3/4 = -3, etc. Then, in order to find your AC and RC, you had to use a chart, since the math didn't work anymore. The advantage of this system is that the math really didn't change, just the designation of the value of each limitation. So, us old timers that wanted to do it the "right" way, could just divide their limits and advantages by 4 and be right back were we started.

However, as you can see from the thread above, my idea took off like a lead balloon. And I still don't have the solution, but maybe now that we're having this discussion again someone can figure it out.

1) Just playing with the math here, you can also just increase the actual cost of everything in the game by a factor of 4, in which case the math would again work just fine.

Like say, each 1d6 of EB costs 20 pts instead of 5 pts, KAs would cost 60 per die instead of 15, etc. The minimum limit would be -1 (currently -1/4). When you run the numbers this way, you're getting the same formula applied to each power. Everything just costs 4 times as much. I guess this also means that all the Characteristics would cost 4 times as much as well, but there you go. However, I suspect that people would complain that we now would have 600 pt starting heroic characters, and it could go way higher, especially if point totals go up to account for figureds going away.

2) More in this vein, we could use 1/2 point limitations instead of 1/4 point limitations, and have the same process as above, but with everything costing 2 times as much rather than 4 times as much. 300 point and 700 point characters don't seem that bad, but you still have the 1/2 point in there, which, while better that 1/4 points, isn't really that awesome of a change.

3) Another way would be to change the power cost calculation formula to...

Real Cost = (Power Cost * (Advantages/4) +1)) / ((Limitations/4) +1), and
Active points = Power Cost * ((Advantages/4) +1).

Doing it this way, the limits themselves are less complicated, because the fractions are gone, but the power calculation formula has become slightly more complex. While its not really the simplification that I'm looking for, it does have the advantage of simplifying all the limits and advantages, and putting the complexity all in one single formula. A lot of people would still probably need a calculator, though.

4) So, can anyone think of any other mathmatical "process" by which we can designate -1/4 limitations as -1 (or something else!), and still get the AP and RC calcs to work the same as ever? :confused:

[Opal]

1) Just playing with the math here, you can also just increase the actual cost of everything in the game by a factor of 4, in which case the math would again work just fine.Actually, this is a common way of dealing with 1/4 limitations. Divide by 1 1/4? Multiply by 4, divide by 5. Divide by 2 3/4? Multiply by 4, divide by 11.

[dstarfire]

Continuous: A while back somebody suggested breaking continous into two parts, thus seperating the lock-on effect from the continues-to-function effect.

Damage shield: I think this should be changed to a simple +1 advantage and the need for continuous dropped. This wouldn't be neccesary if the above change to continuous were made

One of my biggest pet peeves are advantages which force you to take additional limitations (Mobile AoE and No Range, for example), I'd like to see this sort of thing remodeled as varying lvls of an advantage. It's very counter intuitive to pay more for a reduced effect.

[ajackson]

Here's a way, which happens to be already built into the Hero system at several levels, of transforming advantages and limitations from multiplication to simple addition and table lookup: logarithms. Each advantage or disadvantage is rated in levels (I've set it so x2 cost = +5); to find the cost of a power with advantages, just find the number closest to the base cost of the power on the chart below, then count left by one per point of advantages, right by one per point of disadvantages.

1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 17 20 23 26 30 35 40 45 53 60 70 80 92 105 120 140 160
If you don't care about precision, various sorts of rounding are possible. I would be strongly tempted to just move in flat steps of +5 beyond 30 points, for example, which would have the additional benefit that you can just sacrifice 1d of damage for a +1 level advantage.

[Harakani]

Easy ones first...

AP:
I like the idea of an AP adder as an option. I also like "ignores N armour" instead of "halves armour".

More advantages:
More advantages, or more accurately OPTIONS for advantages are an excellent idea. A good adv (or lim) can make a tricksy power construct suddenly trivial. Try doing a 'lock on laser beam' with continuous...

Str adds:
In the same way that HKA gets "Strength adds" other powers should eb able to buy it (where appropriate). Eg an entangle where Str is used. I would also argue OTHER atts could be used. I can see an "Ego adds" for a 'mind based' telekinetic strike, for example. This would be a little like a mini-EC, I think. A mage whose powers ran off int would buy up int and buy powers where his int made him/her more powerful (without having to reflect int being important by putting a magic skill on everything). Obviously you'd need a rule that said "A power may never have more than twice effect" or somesuch.

Stacking powers.
Okay, this bit is controversial. Let me present my reasoning
Argument 1: It would be useful for a GM to be able to "create" a new power thorugh advantages or disdvantages, and for that power to be treated identically to a base power. Example; Base power flight. Costs 20 points for 10". GM decides to make Gliding. Decides is a -1 limitation, and therefore costs 10 points for 10". Also makes up ground gliding from Gliding. Decides this is also -1, and makes it 5 points for 10". Finally a player buys Ground Gliding, OIF (Elven boots -1/2), and now 10" costs 3.
This system would mean it would be possible to have a few base powers for simplicity in learning the system, but have shopping lists of powers for when characters go looking. Give regen it's own power; yeah it's a complicated healing construct, but so what? GM decides all spells HAVE to be bought with Zero End and Requires an Activation Roll, he can just post the new CPU*
Every power in an ultimate power book can be modified straight off the bat.
Argument 2: Xotl's point about advantages and lims cancelling out is an excellent one.
Unfortunately these two points, taken together, only really allow one mathematical system. Doublings. +1 of advantages doubles the cost. +2 of advantages quadruples the cost. -1 of limitations halves the cost. -2 of limitations quarters the cost.
I hate log maths... a table is really the only way for most people without a scientific calculator to cope.
On the other hand, I strongly suspect what would happen is that people would simply balance Advantages and Limitations, or look for the easy doubling/halving. Got a 10" flight OIF jetpack? Give it "no end (+1/2)" to cancel.
The table, incidentally, would look like this
-2 = *0.25
-1.75 = *0.30
-1.5 = *0.35
-1.25 = *0.42
-1 = *0.5
-0.75 = *0.59
-0.5 = *0.70
-0.25 = *0.84
-0/+0 = *1
+0.25 = *1.19
+0.5 = *1.41
+0.75 = *1.68
+1 = *2
+1.25 = *2.38
+1.5 = *2.82
+1.75 = *3.36
+2 = *4

harakani

* I love the CPU idea Chris Goodwin posted, and apologise for using it in a post that seems to be 180 degrees opposed to his idea.

[AmadanNaBriona]

I've seen variants of AP where you reduce the DEF based on the BODY you roll or some such.

That showed up in one of the 4th edition Adventurer's Clubs in the "tinker with the system" feature. I've mucked about with it, and think it works fairly well, especially in a game that also features Piercing. Multiple levels of effect work fairly easily, the amount of armor penetrated is based on the strength of the attack (generally pretty close to the DC of the attack, which would probably be a good standard effect option), not the defenders armor.

[ajackson]

The basic problem with Piercing is that it's really just 'more damage, vs everyone'. One thing I've been pondering recently:

AP: +5 points per level (or maybe -1d6 per level). Each level of AP halves up to 10 points of defense -- thus, AP/3 would halve up to 30 points of defense. As always, hardened defenses cannot be halved.

AP/X is a damage bonus against targets with a defense of up to (levels*7); against targets with lower defenses it's a net reduction in damage.

[JmOz]

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?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think we should, but as long as we’re considering everything I suppose it can’t hurt to throw this one out there.


What about a +1/4 advantage to allow it?

Also, while we're on the topic, the idea of changing to decimal based modifiers, if you did it I would recomend (and it would take some minor redoing) that you make it one decimal place, +1/4 and +3/4 modifiers would either be .2 or .3, and .7 or .8, depending on the particulars for that modifier, for instance, non-persistant would be .2 (Maybe .1 actualy) while cost end to activate would be .3 (or .4 even)

[sbarron]

Also, while we're on the topic, the idea of changing to decimal based modifiers, if you did it I would recomend (and it would take some minor redoing) that you make it one decimal place, +1/4 and +3/4 modifiers would either be .2 or .3, and .7 or .8, depending on the particulars for that modifier, for instance, non-persistant would be .2 (Maybe .1 actualy) while cost end to activate would be .3 (or .4 even)If we're going to keep the 1/4 point value system, rather than actually using the current 1/4, or decimals like .2 or .3, how about just using percentages? I realize its the same thing, but I think for most people it would be easier to get their head around than just looking at .2 or .7. So...

Gestures, -25%, Armor Piercing, +50%, OAF, -100%.

I realize this would require several hundred (thousand?) more words per book, but I think most people would understand +25% easier than they would either +1/4 or +.25. And what scary about adding whole numbers like 25? Not a thing! :thumbup:

[Andrew_A]

Personally I prefer using decimals for advantages. The benefit of this system is that anyone with at least a grade five education can understand it. Every day, people add and subtract dollars and cents. It's the most common form of math in our society. How many people on a day-to-day basis use fractions? Switching to decimals wouldn't end the "HERO requires too much math" complaints, but it would significantly reduce them.

And if we're really worried about arguments ("Is it a .36 advantage or a .47?") then we could just use Lord Liaden's suggestion and say that modifiers can only be in .25 increments. Doing it this way keeps the system as is, while making it easier for the math phobic to understand.

And as for using calculators, I have yet to find a cheap calculator (i.e. $1 or less) that can do fractions. On the other hand, every calculator I've ever seen can do decimals.

Also, I think Chris's system of simply adding and subtracting to the base cost, while flawed, is a great idea. It would simplify the game greatly. Ajacksons idea would be even better, because it would be easy to balance, simple, and innovative.

[Andrew_A]

BTW, adding more advantages can't hurt. There are things that you just can't do in HERO.

For example, you can't really do homing attacks. I'm not talking about "instant hit" absolute attacks. I'm referring to an attack that requires the target to dodge a certain number of times before the attack fizzles out or dissipates. Simulating common or noteworthy fictional abilities should be a priority.

[Opal]

For example, you can't really do homing attacks. I'm not talking about "instant hit" absolute attacks. I experimented with an advantage like that back in the 80s. It's certainly workable, but it does change the dynamics of combat, especially vs low-DEF, high-DCV or active-defense characters (like those who use missle deflection). If you toss several of these at such a character, eventually, one hits, stuns him, and the rest of the attacks chasing him 'dogpile.'

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

[Netzilla]

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

I whole-heartedly support this idea and have ever since I was introduced to the Hero System with Champs 3rd Edition. I think if you're going to go this route, however, you restrict Modifiers to increments of 0.1 or 0.2 only. That way you're not taking up too much more space on the character sheet and I doubt you'd really need more granularity than that.

Also, I think it will be easier for newcomers to digest the concept of 50 * (1 + .2 + .5) = 5 * 1.7 = 85 than it is for them to get 50 * (1 + ¼ + ½ ) = 50 * 1¾ = 87; not to mention 50 / (1 + .2 + .5) = 50 / 1.7 = 29 compared to 50 / (1 + ¼ + ½) = 50 / 1¾ = 29. Fractions scare people however irrational that response may be.

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

Steve’s Thoughts: This may depend partly on the answer to the question in the “General Issues” thread about whether we should abandon the concept of Active Points and Real Points. One possibility would be to make them adders and subtractors rather than multipliers and dividers

I think this is a horrible idea. They tried this with Fuzion, and while I liked the core of the system, this was one of the reasons I felt the powers system was absolute garbage. It just doesn't reflect the way that Advantages/Limitations scale with the amount of power being modified. Armor piercing means way less on a 2d6 Energy Blast than it does on 10d6. The only way this could potential work is if you apply it as an adder/subtractor to the base cost of the power. Thus a +1 Advantage on Energy Blast raises the base cost from 5/1d6 to 6/1d6.

Another would be to let Advantages and Limitations “cancel each other out” before application, so that a +¾ Advantage and a -½ Limitation would result in a (¾ - ½ =) +¼ Advantage.

This changes the math significantly.
* Traditional: 50 * (1 + ¾) / (1 + ½) = 58.
* Proposed: 50 * (1 + ¾ - ½) = 50 * (1¼) = 62.5
* Traditional: 50 * (1 + ½) / (1 + ¾) = 43
* Proposed: 50 * (1 + ½ - ¾) = 50 * (¾) = 37.5

So, unless my math is wrong, things don't work out right unless the Advantages exactly cancel the Limitations. Now, this is assuming that you want to keep the math the same as it is under the current system. I do think that doing this this way is simpler to express and explain mathematically, but only go this route if you're willing to make large changes in the costs of existing builds.

A third would be to have Advantages affect *effectiveness* rather than points, so that a power with a -¼ Limitation is somehow 20% less effective, not 20% less costly (though this raises the question of why to take one if it doesn’t “save” anything).

Too fuzzy and ill-defined.

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 don't think Advantages should be mandatory myself, especially when you take a look at things like Variable Advantage.

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

I've often felt that AoE could use a bit more granularity than it has. I also feel that One Hex and Line are currently over-costed when compared to equivalent AoE options (Explosion and Radius respectively).

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

I think that Damage Shield should go back to the way it was in 4th Edition. As it stands now, it ends up being so expensive & complicated that it's not worth it most of the time. I understand the problem with how the old Damage Shield interacted with NND & AVLD attacks, but I think that's best handled by doubling the value of Damage Shield in the case of an attack with an exotic defense (anything other than PD, ED, rPD & rED).

Q: Should MegaScale be tweaked for ease of use?

Perhaps the way MegaScale should work would be +¼ per x10 scale:
* ¼ = x10
* ½ = x100
* ¾ = x1,000 (close enough to the current smallest level of MegaScale).
* 1 = x10,000

Q: Should Time Delay be eliminated?

I tend to use Trigger more often, so sure.

Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?

It can get complex. I wonder if it should be done as a variation on Area of Effect (similar to how Selective works). I don't know, that's just off the top of my head.

Additional Thoughts:

NND and AVLD should be combined into a single Advantage: Attack vs Exotic Defense
* Base = ½ if the given defense completely negates the attack (NND).
* Base = 1 if the given defense will only reduce the attack (AVLD).
* Add +½ if the given defense is uncommon.

This is functionally the same as what we have now but reduces the number of entries in the Advantages list by one and thus hopefully reduces the amount of text.

BOECV needs another modifier: DCV applies (-½).

[The Shadow]

Here's a way, which happens to be already built into the Hero system at several levels, of transforming advantages and limitations from multiplication to simple addition and table lookup: logarithms.

This is quite brilliant.

It's even better when combined with Chris' 'cost-per-unit' scheme. Just look up what the "CPU" is with the given ads and disads, and bango. No need to look up the closest number, so long as the chart contains 3, 5, 10, and 15.

That said, I think the CPU idea as given should be very workable and very desirable. I'm not afraid of math; I have a degree in physics. I just find HERO character creation to be needlessly complex for the amount of payoff.

[Markdoc]

There are problems with stacking limitations in strict additive systems. Stack up 4 -1/4 limitations in Hero and you get a power for 1/2 cost. Stack up 4 -20% limitations and you've got a power for 1/5 cost. One way around that might be a a lookup table -- i.e. add up ads and disads and get a percentage, such as:

Ad/Dis Total -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 +0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8
Cost/Level 25 30 35 40 50 60 70 80 100 125 150 175 200 250 300 350 400


Yep, this is one of the reasons FUZION flopped: they tried to avoid multiplication and divisoon and ended up with highly abusive constructs for powers almost routinely.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

I would like to see some attention paid to reciprocal advantages and limitations. I don't like the fact, for example, that:

- making Armor cost END is a -1/2 limitation when making a Force Field 0 END Persistent and Invisible is a +2 advantage. Either Armor with no limitation is underpriced or Force Field with those advantages (or a subset of them) is overpriced.

- Why should I ever put "Costs END" on a power when "Visible" and "Not Persistent" get the same savings with less drawbacks? Concept, sure, but if we're going to overcharge for certain concepts, our toolkit isn't what it should be.

- making the power invisible is a +1 advantage, but taking it away is a -1/4 limitation. I think this highlights the need to have differing advantage and limitation values depending on impact on the specific ability. An undetectable attack seems far more valuable than undetectable movement or undetectable defenses, for example.

[SSgt Baloo]

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

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

To simulate guided missiles, dropped bombs, etc., there might be a "Takes some amount of time depending upon range to target" limitation for more "realism" in certain genres that call for it. That way you could introduce a terminal defense mechanism simulating jamming, jinking (Sort of like a ranged dodge, but only effective perhaps one phase or segment prior to "impact"), or shooting down the incoming missile/projectile or otherwise dodging behind something that breaks lock or makes the attack miss. Sorry, but I'm an old Electronic Warfare troop and like the idea that you can, with the appropriate defenses (chaff, jamming, flares, or just turning hard just before the missile gets there), defend against guided attacks.

- making the power invisible is a +1 advantage, but taking it away is a -1/4 limitation. I think this highlights the need to have differing advantage and limitation values depending on impact on the specific ability. An undetectable attack seems far more valuable than undetectable movement or undetectable defenses, for example.

Emphasis added.


I just got the mental image of how a hero with invisible running might work. He walks around a corner and nobody knows where he went,

"Where'd he go? He was standing right there just a second ago!":shock:

[Paragon]

Yep, this is one of the reasons FUZION flopped: they tried to avoid multiplication and divisoon and ended up with highly abusive constructs for powers almost routinely.

cheers, Mark

Yeah. Limitations saved preportionately more the lower rank the power was, and Advantages cost preportionately less the bigger it was. This became really abusive about the point the Foci rules came out where you could pay for a typical OAF equivelent for one fifth of the cost if it was small.

[ajackson]

Note that this still somewhat true in Hero. If you put a +1 advantage on a power with no other advantages, it doubles cost. If the power already has +1 worth of advantages, it only bumps cost by 50%.

The logarithmic shift system does eliminate that cheese as well, though at a cost of requiring table lookup.

[Paragon]

Note that this still somewhat true in Hero. If you put a +1 advantage on a power with no other advantages, it doubles cost. If the power already has +1 worth of advantages, it only bumps cost by 50%.

The logarithmic shift system does eliminate that cheese as well, though at a cost of requiring table lookup.

The usual limiting factor there is that as you crunch down the base effect in most powers, you tend to care about it less and less anyway; there are exceptions of course (a lot of things stack ugly with NND, for example) but on the whole you're usually getting into diminishing returns.

[Opal]

making Armor cost END is a -1/2 limitation when making a Force Field 0 END Persistent and Invisible is a +2 advantage. Either Armor with no limitation is underpriced or Force Field with those advantages (or a subset of them) is overpriced. Apts make a real difference, here. You can't put as much armor in a framework as you can FF, because of the Apt difference, you aply an advantage to Armor, it costs more than it costs to add it to a FF - even a 0 END/Persistent FF.

- Why should I ever put "Costs END" on a power when "Visible" and "Not Persistent" get the same savings with less drawbacks?It is a granularity problem, yes. While 'Not Persistent' or 'Visible' may be worth a -1/4 each, and Costs END reasonable at -1/2, even though it includes both of them. It might mean that 'Constant' and 'visible' are 'really' only -1/8th, or that one should be -1/4, but that both should also be -1/4....

[McCoy]

Only thing I have to add here is that I really think we should keep damage shield.

[Susano]

Only thing I have to add here is that I really think we should keep damage shield.

Sure, I just think we need to change the cost so that you don't need to by anything else to make it work.

[Kdansky]

- making the power invisible is a +1 advantage, but taking it away is a -1/4 limitation. I think this highlights the need to have differing advantage and limitation values depending on impact on the specific ability. An undetectable attack seems far more valuable than undetectable movement or undetectable defenses, for example.
Even though I absolutely dislike it, Aye!

Look at Autofire. It just needed special rulings for stacked advantages, because AF by itself is ok, but if you slap 0 END on it, it quickly becomes much more powerful. We should differ for (some?) advantages/limitation how much they are worth, specified in the text of the advantage. Also why does Cost End tack Nonpersistent and Visible on a power for free? That's pretty outrageous.

I can live with these much better if it's advantages: Continuous is +1/2, Damage Shield is +1, but you need to buy both? I say: Make Damage Shield also give Continuos "for free", it's still more expensive than Continuous by itself, but cheaper than both seperately.

A: +1/2
B: +1/2
C: +1/2

A+B+C Special thing (example damage shield): +1 1/4. Yeah, you get 1/4 off.

[Hugh Neilson]

In many of the Power threads, it is noted that certain powers could be built using other powers and advantages. The general rend is to say these should be retained to make the creation of such powers more intuitive.

Damage Shield is a pretty common ability in much of the source material. It should be simple and intuitive to build a Damage Shield power which is reasonably efective for its cost. In 4e, it was. In 5e , it is not. I don't particularly care HOW 6e fixes this, but I believe not fixing it would be a failing in 6e.

[rjcurrie]

In many of the Power threads, it is noted that certain powers could be built using other powers and advantages. The general rend is to say these should be retained to make the creation of such powers more intuitive.

Damage Shield is a pretty common ability in much of the source material. It should be simple and intuitive to build a Damage Shield power which is reasonably efective for its cost. In 4e, it was. In 5e , it is not. I don't particularly care HOW 6e fixes this, but I believe not fixing it would be a failing in 6e.

My problem with Damage Shield being a Power instead of an Advantage is that unless it's a really complex Power allowing for all sorts of Attack types, it becomes very limited. As an Advanatage, you can apply it to any kind of Attack.

I would suggest making Damage Shield a flat +1 and mention in the description that it effectively makes the Power Continuous (and thus, that Advantage does not need to be purchased separately).