Powers Issues -- S-T

[Steve Long]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Powers that begin with S-T 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 these Powers 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.


Q: Should Shrinking and Growth be done differently?

Steve’s Thoughts: See the “Powers F-K” post for discussion of this issue.


Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?

Steve’s Thoughts: If we’re consistent about decoupling things (Figureds from Primaries, Mental Awareness as a freebie, etc.), then growth momentum damage should also be removed. It should be bought as a supplementary ability.


Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?

Steve’s Thoughts: If we’re consistent about decoupling things (Figureds from Primaries, Mental Awareness as a freebie, etc.), then velocity damage should also be removed. It should be bought as a supplementary ability.


Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Steve’s Thoughts: I’ve heard this suggested, and the idea is not without merit, but I’m not entirely sold on it. I think there’s an ease-of-use benefit to keeping it a separate Power.


Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book?

Steve’s Thoughts: Arguably Swinging is a holdover from the days where Champions and the HERO System were the same thing. It’s true that characters can use Swinging in other genres, but it’s rarely something they buy as a Power. I’m not entirely sold on this idea either, especially because I don’t like the idea of putting entire Powers in genre books, but it’s worth considering.

Another possibility might be to make Swinging an Agility Skill. When you buy it, you’re assumed to have a swingline; if that gets taken away you can use environmental swinglines (e.g., vines in a jungle) at a Skill Roll penalty. Since by far the most common special effect for Swinging is “it’s a skill I have,” turning it back into a Skill might make some sense.


Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?

Steve’s Thoughts: As with my discussion of Absorption in another thread, my answer is “No, I don’t think so.” I think it’s helpful to keep it as a separate Power.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd like to see Shapeshift done somewhat differently, primarily the physical forms part. As it is written, Shapeshift vs. the Touch group to get a physical form change is IMO counterintuitive. I can conceptualize various combinations of Shapeshift abilities (for instance, Shapeshift vs. Touch or Shapeshift vs. Physical Form without vs. Sight gives you a character like Plasticman from the cartoons, who can take on many shapes but still looks like a goofy guy in a red and yellow suit).

I've recently had some thoughts about unifying Shapeshift, Transform, and to an extent Multiform. Shapeshift is for the most part the equivalent of a Cosmetic change; a Major Transform does many of the things Multiform does. If you're interested in hearing more I'll write something up and pass it along to you (keeping in mind your caveats throughout the 6e forum on credit, use of ideas, and who the ideas belong to). The basic idea is that you would buy some kind of Shapeshift/Multiform Power, and Transform is a modifier on that that allows you to do it to someone else by rolling dice and comparing it to their BODY.

[James Gillen]

I'd like to see Shapeshift done somewhat differently, primarily the physical forms part. As it is written, Shapeshift vs. the Touch group to get a physical form change is IMO counterintuitive. I can conceptualize various combinations of Shapeshift abilities (for instance, Shapeshift vs. Touch or Shapeshift vs. Physical Form without vs. Sight gives you a character like Plasticman from the cartoons, who can take on many shapes but still looks like a goofy guy in a red and yellow suit).

I've recently had some thoughts about unifying Shapeshift, Transform, and to an extent Multiform. Shapeshift is for the most part the equivalent of a Cosmetic change; a Major Transform does many of the things Multiform does. If you're interested in hearing more I'll write something up and pass it along to you (keeping in mind your caveats throughout the 6e forum on credit, use of ideas, and who the ideas belong to). The basic idea is that you would buy some kind of Shapeshift/Multiform Power, and Transform is a modifier on that that allows you to do it to someone else by rolling dice and comparing it to their BODY.

I already defined my issue with 5th Edition Shape Shift in my RPG.net review of The Ultimate Metamorph; even though it isn't defined as such, SS is basically a Sense-Affecting Power affecting oneself, with one example in the rules being a fat guy with Shape Shift versus Sight who is tied up and uses his power to 'thin' himself; even though he looks thinner, if the Power isn't bought with Touch Sense, the ropes don't fall away. While this might be the right effect in some cases (like a personal-effect illusion) the result is that Shape Shift means the thing-in-itself is ontologically different from the phenomenon perceived, which leads to the disturbing spectre of a roleplaying game designed by Immanuel Kant.

JG

[James Gillen]

Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?

Steve’s Thoughts: As with my discussion of Absorption in another thread, my answer is “No, I don’t think so.” I think it’s helpful to keep it as a separate Power.

My problem with 5th Edition's "fixing" of Aid to be 10 points per die instead of 5 was largely that it made Transfer more cost-efficient than actual Aid- whereas in the old system 5 pt. Aid and 10 pt. Drain were equivalent to 15 pt. Transfer, now 15 pt. Transfer is cheaper than 10 pt. Aid and 10 pt. Drain; for the equivalent of +1/2 Advantage, you have a Power that does both.

JG

[Enforcer84]

If you're going to decouple everything it seems to me that more points and more verbage will be required for characters.

[James Gillen]

If you're going to decouple everything it seems to me that more points and more verbage will be required for characters.

Agreed.

jg

[Acid_Crash]

I don't know, I always hated the Transform power... it was just one of those powers that never made any sense to me as written... I think it would make more sense if there was some kind of resistance roll against the power. The different distinctions between minor, major and really major :) (can't remember the three official names) categories was never clear to me, so the power never made much sense to me.

Of course I have no idea how you can write the power to make it any better, but some people just do not get it, and maybe if all the power effects were seperated into seperate powers it would make more sense.

I don't know why it's based on the Body of the target. It seems counter-intuitive to me. It should be based on something else.

[jtelson]

Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Steve’s Thoughts: I’ve heard this suggested, and the idea is not without merit, but I’m not entirely sold on it. I think there’s an ease-of-use benefit to keeping it a separate Power.

Swinging is essentialy a controlled move through the air ability. So like gliding I've generally felt that it should always have been limited flight.

Aside from general 'neatness in my brain' thoughts at 1 point per inch for a generally readily accessible movement power I've occasionally seen it misused with Maneuvers and Martial Maneuvers that have v/ damage components.

The description of how swinging works is not really more complicated than gliding so including it as a standard limitation on flight doesn't seem particularly cludgey.

The downside I see with both this and Gliding is that it complicates the Usable (As a second form of movement) advantage; For which I do not have a non convoluted answer.

[Sean Waters]

I like (after a shaky start) the way shapeshift uses sense groups, but physical form shifting should, I'd suggest, be done by an adder you can buy if you have either shapeshifting OR stretching. The adder could scale depending on how much you could change your actualy physical shape or deforrm eg:

5 points: you can halve your width
+5 points you can halve your width again

5 points: you can deform your body allowing you to use the points in (power) as a bonus to strength for escaping bonds and grabs.

Stretching has a lot of the characteristics of movement powers, and could easily be treated as one instead of 'decoupling'.

You could treat swinging and swimming (and gliding for that matter) as limitations on other modes of movement, as they currently can cause AP conflicts as they are so much cheaper, and are a bit inconsistent regarding END.

[Kdansky]

Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?
Well, if you go with the "big, complicated table" thing, then you can work it in there and that makes sense. If you don't want to do that, then remove that ability here too.


Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?
Again, that's nearly everything that stretching does, or else it just becomes TK or ranged strength (which we can but shall not buy).


Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?
Definitely. Flight, requires Focus of opportunity (high things). Extremly simple, and nearly the only character that uses it is Spiderman. It's just extremly un-generic.


Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book? (Or should it become a skill)
I still think it's limited flight (if you want to roll for it, take a limitation).



Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?
As I said in the absorbtion thread: So much complication, this is way easier. Also "Drain, linked to Aid" does not mean you roll only one set of dice, but two times. Once how much you drain, once how much you gain. I really dislike the idea of combining that and handwaving that mechanical differerence.


Shapeshift vs Touch also annoys me to no end. I will post on that topic another time.

[Spidey88]

Definitely. Flight, requires Focus of opportunity (high things). Extremly simple, and nearly the only character that uses it is Spiderman.

Well, honestly; you've got Spider-Man, Venom, Arana, Black Cat, Daredevil, Batman, Robin, Nightwing, Catwoman, Tarzan, Indiana Jones...

I see it as being pretty common, esp. among the Dark Champions-style characters. If you aren't overtly superpowered and regularly drive a whatever-mobile, you're likely using swinging (IMHO).

[Edsel]

I printed off all of Steve's original posts in all of the 6th Edition threads and spent hours reading them last night and thinking. It is amazing how little I came up with to respond with though. However the opinions in this post are based only on what Steve has posted in message #1 of this thread, I haven't been influenced by what others have posted subsequently since I haven't read them yet. I will try to keep my comments brief since there is a hellava lot to read in these discussions.

Q: Should Shrinking and Growth be done differently?

Steve’s Thoughts: See the “Powers F-K” post for discussion of this issue.

I expressed my thoughts in that thread as well. Short answer, No.


Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?
Probably not.


Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?
If you decouple growth momentum then this will have to go as well.


Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?
Keep it as is. It is far too useful in the Heroic games that my group regularly plays.


Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book?

Another possibility might be to make Swinging an Agility Skill. When you buy it, you’re assumed to have a swingline; if that gets taken away you can use environmental swinglines (e.g., vines in a jungle) at a Skill Roll penalty. Since by far the most common special effect for Swinging is “it’s a skill I have,” turning it back into a Skill might make some sense.

I find the Swinging as an Agility Skill concept to be of interest. I favor this.


Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?
No, it's been around forever and I like it as it is.

[misterdeath]

Q: Should Shrinking and Growth be done differently?

See comments elsewhere.


Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?

It still does that? Hmm.


Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?

It still does that? Hmm.


Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

I think that's a pretty good idea.


Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book?

Another possibility might be to make Swinging an Agility Skill. When you buy it, you’re assumed to have a swingline; if that gets taken away you can use environmental swinglines (e.g., vines in a jungle) at a Skill Roll penalty. Since by far the most common special effect for Swinging is “it’s a skill I have,” turning it back into a Skill might make some sense.

Swinging, the skill, might have some differing connotations to people that survived the seventies. But other than that, I like Skill better than "Champions V6, now with Swinging."


Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?

Again, I can see where you're going. But, there's a reason why most of us end up giving up on the whole, "There's only 4 powers, Attack, Defend, Move, and Change" and everything is just advantages and limitations on top of it.

D

[JmOz]

Regarding Swinging, what about making it a Talent, based on flight?

[Lord Liaden]

I've long had a couple of concerns about the Transfer Power. One is that you can only remove points from a target up to the maximum that can be rolled on the Transfer dice. IME this makes it a poor offensive choice when compared to Drain, which can continue to affect an opponent indefinitely; especially when you compare the relative cost of Drain vs. Transfer. Assuming you (Steve) would agree with this comparison, I can suggest three ways it might be dealt with:

1) Keep the cost of Transfer the same, but allow it to continue to Drain a target after the Transferring character has reached his maximum increase, with no further gain for the character;

2) Keep Transfer working mechanically in all ways as it does now, but lower the cost to 1d6 per 10 Active Points;

3) Allow an additional Advantage: "Points Gained Up To Starting Value Do Not Fade," as with 4E Adjustment Powers. (I would peg this at +1/2, for reasons which properly belong to discussion of another Power, and will appear there.) ;) Personally I would favor this last approach, as IMHO it makes for a far simpler and smoother mechanic for the classic effect of "powering up" by draining another source, than the current Linked Transfer + Healing.

Note that suggestion 3 is not exclusive of 1 or 2. :D

[BobGreenwade]

Q: Should Shrinking and Growth be done differently?

Steve’s Thoughts: See the “Powers F-K” post for discussion of this issue.Ditto.
Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?

Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?I can see your position on this, and I think a Power Advantage would work in these cases.
Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?Actually I think this might be a good idea, assuming the same is done with Gliding. If you leave Gliding separate, then Swinging should be left in too.
Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book?No. It's been used in plenty of non-superhero settings: Tarzan, Robin Hood, the girls of Cleopatra 2525, and Captain Simian and the Space Monkeys have all done it. It's not all that common, but then neither is it in superheroics (mostly Batman and Spider-Man).

The idea of turning it into a Skill has some merit, though; all that might be lacking is a way to regulate velocity.
Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?I agree completely.

[BobGreenwade]

I almost forgot... my pet peeve in the Hero System: Telekinesis.

In the aforementioned interest of "decoupling" abilities, get rid of the "Telekinetic Punch and Squeeze" effect, and allow TK to lift and move objects (or, with the correct Modifiers, substances and/or energy ) only. The Punch and Squeeze effects are better bought using Energy Blast.

That done, reduce the cost to 1 point per 1 STR. That will be 60 points to lift what 60 STR will lift at range, but no direct damage, Figured Characteristics, Characteristic Rolls, or the rest.

[Malleus]

Swinging, Stretching, TK and HITCHING A RIDE

I'd like to see an easy way to hitch a ride. Currently there's an explanation on how NOT to hitch a ride (i.e. don't use TK) but there's not an explanation on the right way to do it. I could personaly see doing it with any of the three powers, but it would be nice to have the official way detailed somewhere with a 'see page XX' inserted into the TK text.

[Kdansky]

Suppress - Drain
Compare these two. They are just not balanced. Suppress is just too cheap and comes with too many freebies (ranged), whereas drain does not.

Drain: 10 per 1d6, nonranged, needs to buy up time chart at least for +1/4 or else it's really hard to annoy with it.

Suppress: 5 per 1d6, ranged, costs a bit more end (if you spend 10 points on (arguably overpriced) END, you can keep up a 50 AP suppress for 4 segments, that's still the same price as the +1/4 the Drain pays for the time increment). Oh, but you get twice as many dice and free range.

Drain: 6d6, nonranged, 6 END, 5 points return per turn. 60 real cost
Suppress: 8d6, ranged, 4 END per phase, 20 points for more end (40 end), gives you probably about 2 turns of suppress for 0 end cost total (but the end can be used for other purposes too), you are on lower AP (40 vs 60), get ranged and 33% more dice. It's just wrong.

Either give ranged to drain (that's a free -1/2 if you don't want it, bringing the cost down), AND / OR take range away from suppress or just make the dice more expensive. Personally I would like to see Suppress cost 10 per die (ranged), just because it's so good.


Summon - Weak Willed
As I pointed out earlier in the Ask Steve A Stupid Question Forum, this advantage is really, really pointless and a waste of space in the book. You would rather buy a higher skill, since you get a negative adjustment on it due to having higher active points in the power. I also would like to see summon reworked a bit, the "how nice is my monster" vs "how good is it's ego" vs "how good is my skill" just don't work well. Easiest idea: Don't make the monster roll. I mean: When you summon it, you pay more points for a 100 EGO monster than for a 5 EGO monster, but the 5 EGO one is actually more powerful, because it's easier to control. Just a plain skill roll, modified by monster character points would make way more sense. That also drops Amicable/Weak willed out of the roll.

Summon:
1 per 5 of the monster (monster cost = x).
Roll: only 10 point levels apply, or else weak willed is pointless due to being very expensive. If one even allows 5 pointers, any summon power with more than 40 AP is better off buying skill levels than Weak Willed, because that costs more for less roll adjustment. This way the roll is bound strongly to the power, which makes sense: A better roll is a better power.
Basic roll: EGO - x / 100.
AP = anything else, obviously based on X/5, but don't modify your summon control roll.
So with 20 EGO, you have a 13- roll, and for a 300 point monster, you get -3. If you pass your 10-, you get EGO/5 commands, if you fail, you don't. That's it. No contest, just a single roll. Cleaner and less problem ridden.
Now if you add weak willed, you get +2 to your roll for an increase in AP (which won't change your roll).
If you add amiable, you get EGO/4 etc commands if you pass your roll, but your roll does not change. I would also add that the +1 level automatically passes the first roll. Or something along those lines. I want summons which are controlled by default, because there is few reasons why this should not be made. One could imagine having no roll by default and an activation roll limitation for control...

So, this design is less flawed, easier to manage in game and works at least as good. Hah!

And last: Make the roll PRE, not EGO. We're trying to "talk the monster into somthing", that should be PRE.

Swinging
That's flight (OAF (bulky? expendable?) Tall Things). Except Tarzan there is no non-super-hero character who uses this. Well, Indiana Jones "might", but in his case, it's more of a skill than a movement power. Have you seen him travel with it? No. He uses it once or twice in three movies, and then it's really Skill: Whip Tricks. When I discovered about five years ago, I read it and thought: WTH? Swinging? How pointless is that? That's one of the strongest memories of the BBB I have, because I did not read it as a Champions but, but as a generic rule set. Star Hero? Fantasy Hero? Horror? Pulp? I don't see much swinging there, but a lot of flight. I also don't know any fantasy system (GURPS 3rd, 300 spells, DSA 4th, 200 spells + about 500 customized variants, DnD 7 bazilliion spells) which give you a swinging spell, but I can quote at least a couple dozen flight versions.
Swinging is not generic. Put it into the champions book.

[Hugh Neilson]

Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?
Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?

If not, their cost should be reduced commensurately. We can't decouple everything, so maybe they should stay.


Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

This is tougher than Gliding. It should remain as either a sample power or its own power - it does have some genre crossing capabilities.


Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?

Steve’s Thoughts: As with my discussion of Absorption in another thread, my answer is “No, I don’t think so.” I think it’s helpful to keep it as a separate Power.

Ease of use says retain it, but it should be possible to create Transfer with Aid and Drain at similar cost. To address this:


My problem with 5th Edition's "fixing" of Aid to be 10 points per die instead of 5 was largely that it made Transfer more cost-efficient than actual Aid- whereas in the old system 5 pt. Aid and 10 pt. Drain were equivalent to 15 pt. Transfer, now 15 pt. Transfer is cheaper than 10 pt. Aid and 10 pt. Drain; for the equivalent of +1/2 Advantage, you have a Power that does both.

I disagree. The Aid in Transfer is Self Only, linked to the Drain and costs END. It is much less powerful. To mitigate this, at a minimum the Drain aspect should continue to function even when the character has maxed out the aid aspect.

Advantages such as "multiple abilities" are paid on the full cost of Transfer and should impact both aspects as a consequence.

I would also like to see Transfer (and Absorb) able to use a Healing effect rather than an Aid effect.


I almost forgot... my pet peeve in the Hero System: Telekinesis.

In the aforementioned interest of "decoupling" abilities, get rid of the "Telekinetic Punch and Squeeze" effect, and allow TK to lift and move objects (or, with the correct Modifiers, substances and/or energy ) only. The Punch and Squeeze effects are better bought using Energy Blast.

That done, reduce the cost to 1 point per 1 STR. That will be 60 points to lift what 60 STR will lift at range, but no direct damage, Figured Characteristics, Characteristic Rolls, or the rest.

I'd rather leave Punch and Squeeze, but make TK Direct, not Indirect, by default. It should be based on a concept of Ranged STR. If we remove Figured from STR, should the price of TK rise, since it no longer has No Fig built in? At present, TK is STR, Range (+1/2), Indirect (+3/4), No Figured (-1/2) to get to its cost.

[Chris Goodwin]

I almost forgot... my pet peeve in the Hero System: Telekinesis.

In the aforementioned interest of "decoupling" abilities, get rid of the "Telekinetic Punch and Squeeze" effect, and allow TK to lift and move objects (or, with the correct Modifiers, substances and/or energy ) only. The Punch and Squeeze effects are better bought using Energy Blast.

That done, reduce the cost to 1 point per 1 STR. That will be 60 points to lift what 60 STR will lift at range, but no direct damage, Figured Characteristics, Characteristic Rolls, or the rest.

Why not just make Telekinesis Strength with the Usable At Range, Indirect, and Invisible Source Advantages? Anything you don't want it to do can be reduced by Limitations.

Stretching then becomes Strength, Usable At Range, without Indirect and Invisible Source.

[Xotl]

I would like to see momentum Shrinking damage and Stretching velocity damage eliminated, and also would like to see Swinging either merged with Flight (especially if Gliding is merged as well) or built as a Talent/Skill.

Something re: Telekinesis I agree with as posted by someone else (Bob?) years ago:

Telekinesis 1) return the cost to the earlier 1 point for 1 STR (or whatever STR is going to cost in the new edition), and 2) completely remove the Punch/Squeeze aspect of the Power. That should never have been introduced in the first place, or at most should have been a Power Advantage. It's a violation of Meta-Rule #5, "One Power should not be used to do what another already does." Currently, for 60 points I can lift and move things with 40 STR, and I can also do 8d6 of damage -- but isn't doing Normal damage at range the function of Energy Blast?

Then again, if my superheroes have a limit of 60 Active Points for their Powers, that 8d6 is going to be a bit wimpy, so I'd better buy a real Energy Blast at 12d6 -- except that I can still do 8d6 damage with Telekinesis. But why would I want to, if I can do 12d6 with Energy Blast?

Telekinesis should also be able to start at less than 2 STR, for greater accuracy in modelling powers, as suggested later in the thread. This would be an easy fix.

Also,
Chris Goodwin: While I agree that things could be done re: Strength modifiers the way you suggest it, I think it gets you a very unintuitive result. People want to know how to do Telekinesis, not how to mod Strength. I think this is one case where adding a power, even though its effect can technically be arrived at by another, is warranted. It's just so much more user-friendly, especially for newbies.

[BobGreenwade]

Something re: Telekinesis I agree with as posted by someone else (Bob?) years ago:

Telekinesis 1) return the cost to the earlier 1 point for 1 STR (or whatever STR is going to cost in the new edition), and 2) completely remove the Punch/Squeeze aspect of the Power. That should never have been introduced in the first place, or at most should have been a Power Advantage. It's a violation of Meta-Rule #5, "One Power should not be used to do what another already does." Currently, for 60 points I can lift and move things with 40 STR, and I can also do 8d6 of damage -- but isn't doing Normal damage at range the function of Energy Blast?

Then again, if my superheroes have a limit of 60 Active Points for their Powers, that 8d6 is going to be a bit wimpy, so I'd better buy a real Energy Blast at 12d6 -- except that I can still do 8d6 damage with Telekinesis. But why would I want to, if I can do 12d6 with Energy Blast?That was indeed me, except that I also posted it a few hours ago. And your expression of it here is better than what I just said.

[Chris Goodwin]

Chris Goodwin: While I agree that things could be done re: Strength modifiers the way you suggest it, I think it gets you a very unintuitive result. People want to know how to do Telekinesis, not how to mod Strength. I think this is one case where adding a power, even though it's effect can technically be arrived at by another, is warranted. It's just so much more user-friendly, especially for newbies.

Sure, but you can easily bring it up as a worked example within the system. "Here's how you do Telekinesis: Buy STR, Usable At Range, ..." It's a common enough ability, and is one of the things that really deserves to be broken out at the beginning. There aren't many applications of TK that can't really be handled well with Advantaged STR, even (if necessary) Limited to ignore certain base effects of STR. Do we really need to keep it as a Power? One of the cool things I thought about 3e was that Telekinesis was denominated in STR, but it almost immediately occurred to me that, if we have Strength, and we have Usable At Range, why is Telekinesis not built this way?

[Xotl]

EDIT: Removed due me missing a few things. Sorry to back out on you Chris, though I still liked your general approach :)

[BobGreenwade]

I'd strongly oppose any effort to eliminate Telekinesis as a separate Power and model it with Advantaged STR, for several reasons.

One, Telekinesis is such a commonly-used effect that it deserves its own listing as a separate Power. That's kind of a "Meta-Power" rule -- it's less trouble to have a separate Power than to build the same construct dozens and dozens of times.

Two, if the "mandatory Advantage" rule is kept, then the character will always be using his STR with that Advantage.

Three, it's very common for characters to have stronger Telekinesis than native STR. Do we then buy STR only for Telekinesis? If so, does that STR add directly to normal STR for lifting things and hitting enemies? Sure, this can be solved with Limitations, but there's more Modifiers for things....

Four, what Xotl says about newbies is even more serious than he suspects. If we leave Telekinesis as Advantaged STR, we'll get repeated requests on these boards for "How do you build Telekinesis?"

I had a couple more when I started this post, but I don't remember them offhand and these should be enough.

[Xotl]

I guess my initial concerns regarding ease of use were warranted, as I totally missed those potential issues. Keep my vote with just a corrected Telekinesis entry, as I posted earlier.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd strongly oppose any effort to eliminate Telekinesis as a separate Power and model it with Advantaged STR, for several reasons.

One, Telekinesis is such a commonly-used effect that it deserves its own listing as a separate Power. That's kind of a "Meta-Power" rule -- it's less trouble to have a separate Power than to build the same construct dozens and dozens of times.

I'm not sure this necessarily follows.


Two, if the "mandatory Advantage" rule is kept, then the character will always be using his STR with that Advantage.

Ok, this definitely doesn't follow. If I've bought 10 STR, Usable At Range (+1/2) for 15 points, it's pretty clear that Usable At Range only applies to that STR.


Three, it's very common for characters to have stronger Telekinesis than native STR. Do we then buy STR only for Telekinesis?

Yes. 10 STR Usable At Range, for 15 points, is pretty clearly meant to be 10 STR Telekinesis.


If so, does that STR add directly to normal STR for lifting things and hitting enemies? Sure, this can be solved with Limitations, but there's more Modifiers for things....

I'm not sure where you're getting that buying STR Usable At Range means that somehow it's part of your base STR.

Now, if I'd bought 10 STR, plus Usable At Range on up to 20 STR, then it would be pretty clear that it's meant to add to my base STR.


Four, what Xotl says about newbies is even more serious than he suspects. If we leave Telekinesis as Advantaged STR, we'll get repeated requests on these boards for "How do you build Telekinesis?"

Not if, as I mentioned in my response to Xotl, you put it right there in the book as a worked example.

[BobGreenwade]

Ok, this definitely doesn't follow. If I've bought 10 STR, Usable At Range (+1/2) for 15 points, it's pretty clear that Usable At Range only applies to that STR.

Yes. 10 STR Usable At Range, for 15 points, is pretty clearly meant to be 10 STR Telekinesis.

I'm not sure where you're getting that buying STR Usable At Range means that somehow it's part of your base STR.

Now, if I'd bought 10 STR, plus Usable At Range on up to 20 STR, then it would be pretty clear that it's meant to add to my base STR. Let me be more clear, then.

Suppose my character has 10 STR, and 40 STR of additional STR with the Ranged and other necessary Modifiers. He puts his hands on a cvar to lift and throw it. Does he get 50 STR for the purpose? If not, why not?
Not if, as I mentioned in my response to Xotl, you put it right there in the book as a worked example.Where exactly?

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm not sure where you're getting that buying STR Usable At Range means that somehow it's part of your base STR.

Now, if I'd bought 10 STR, plus Usable At Range on up to 20 STR, then it would be pretty clear that it's meant to add to my base STR.


Let me be more clear, then.

Suppose my character has 10 STR, and 40 STR of additional STR with the Ranged and other necessary Modifiers. He puts his hands on a cvar to lift and throw it. Does he get 50 STR for the purpose? If not, why not?

Okay, thinking about it some more, you're right. Though, note we're talking about eliminating two powers; Telekinesis and Stretching. Given that, I'm willing to bend over a little more. Consider:

Stretching: Usable At Range on STR.

Telekinesis: 20 STR, Indirect, Invisible, Usable At Range, Does Not Add To Base STR.

That last (Does Not Add To Base STR) is one more than I postulated in my first posting on this thread, but the fact that I didn't think about that up front doesn't invalidate the whole notion.


Not if, as I mentioned in my response to Xotl, you put it right there in the book as a worked example.


Where exactly?

In this message right here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1544151&postcount=24).

Edit: Or are you asking where exactly in the book you'd put it? The most logical place would be in the section under reasoning from effect.

[Blue]

Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?

I'd allow it once as a power stunt, and after that if they wanted to use it regularly they'd have to buy an attack with that SFX. It really isn't accounted for in the cost of the power, so remove it.


Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?

Again, it's not really paid for with the power, so they should buy this seperately.


Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Keep swinging. There are only so many "true" modes of flight in comics. Running, Tunnelling, Flight, Teleportation, Leaping, and Swinging. I think a new player building a spiderman clone would have to remember this tidbit from a sidebar in the "flight" section. Instead, give him what he wants: an actual swinging power.


Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book?

Nope. Any creature (man or beast) should have the option available and up front. Grabbing something already there and swinging on it is more of an acrobatics roll, IMO. Spider-man style high-speed movement across the city is definitely a powerl


Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?

Finally something I sorta agree with. While there's a certain amount of convenience in having it as a seperate power, Transfer could be classified as you mention. I don't see any real harm for a new player picking up the book and reading it by not having it as a seperate power.

[Opal]

Q: Should Shrinking and Growth be done differently?The way shrinking continues increasing DCV has always irked me. If I'm punching someone the size of mayfly, is that really any harder than punching someone the size of a cockroach? I mean, they're both smaller than my fist. People use flyswatters for a reason.



Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?This decoupling thing is a horrid idea. Shrinking is a primary power - that is, characters in the supers genre often have shrinking and little or nothing else. It should be a pretty good power in it's own right, and it does makes about as much sense as move by and the like.



Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?
Something like that, yes. Again, Stretching is a classic power and often the primary or only power of such characters. It should enable some special manuvers - much like having a good movement power makes move-bys a practical attack - that allow a stretcher to do some good in combat. 'Velocity' damage would be a way of doing that, but Stretching really needs more, not less.


Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?Please. Swinging has never made the slightest bit of sense to me.


Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book?No, it should just be a limitted form of flight (for the Spiderman types). For the chandelier-swining types in other genres, it should be an aspect of a skill like accrobatics or something.


Another possibility might be to make Swinging an Agility Skill. When you buy it, you’re assumed to have a swingline; if that gets taken away you can use environmental swinglines (e.g., vines in a jungle) at a Skill Roll penalty. Since by far the most common special effect for Swinging is “it’s a skill I have,” turning it back into a Skill might make some sense.I don't like the 'assuming a swing line focus' idea at all. Aside from that, use a skill would be OK.

When you think about it, movement powers all work only in certain environments. Running works only on reasonably level solid surfaces, swimming works only in liquids, tunnelling only in solids, flight in gas or vacuum - even teleportation works only between areas you're familiar with (can see or have memorized). So a swinging or brachiation movement ability would only work in apropriate environments - like a forest or jungle or sailing ship or whatever.



Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?Though it absolutely could be, it's a common enough idea that it should be presented ready to purchase. I'd actually consider making Transfer the base power and making Drain a limitted form of Transfer, if you wanted to combine them.

[BobGreenwade]

Edit: Or are you asking where exactly in the book you'd put it? The most logical place would be in the section under reasoning from effect.That's what I was asking. And that might seem like a logical place to put it, but not a logical place to look for it if I'm trying to figure out how to model Telekinesis.

Oh, and I did forget to mention the Active Point problem with Advantaged STR as TK. It becomes the same as the Active Point problem right now: for 60 AP in a Multipower I can lift the same as 40 STR directly. I want to be able to lift the same as 60 STR -- make Telekinesis a single-function Power with a simple price.

[Chris Goodwin]

That's what I was asking. And that might seem like a logical place to put it, but not a logical place to look for it if I'm trying to figure out how to model Telekinesis.

Oh, and I did forget to mention the Active Point problem with Advantaged STR as TK. It becomes the same as the Active Point problem right now: for 60 AP in a Multipower I can lift the same as 40 STR directly. I want to be able to lift the same as 60 STR -- make Telekinesis a single-function Power with a simple price.

Shouldn't it have a higher Active Cost? I think it should. Under 4e and 5e, Telekinesis does a higher Active Cost than STR, and I'm okay with that. Being able to perform feats of STR at a distance is worth a lot more than STR that can't, and should have a higher Active Cost. I honestly can't see a rationale for not requiring it to.

[ajackson]

Shouldn't it have a higher Active Cost?
Maybe, but 3 points per 2 Str winds up being a really annoying value for further computation.

[Chris Goodwin]

Maybe, but 3 points per 2 Str winds up being a really annoying value for further computation.

That's true.... and may be another argument for removing multiplication and division from the Advantage/Limitation process.

[BobGreenwade]

Shouldn't it have a higher Active Cost? I think it should. Under 4e and 5e, Telekinesis does a higher Active Cost than STR, and I'm okay with that. Being able to perform feats of STR at a distance is worth a lot more than STR that can't, and should have a higher Active Cost. I honestly can't see a rationale for not requiring it to.

Besides what ajackson mentions, remember that I'm also proposing taking out the "Telekinetic punch and squeeze." I'd be okay with removing the "semi-indirect" aspects as well. Either could be returned to the Power with an Advantage -- probably +1/4 for each. That's the deal I'm suggesting: reduced utility for a more manageable cost.

[Opal]

TK was originally 1 pt per pt of STR. It couldn't punch or squeeze, you had to smack people with objects or slam them against the floor to do damage. I don't know why they changed it. IMHO, the 5pt/DC standard should be maintained.

Besides, it's not like STR stacks with TK. Other powers, like KA, get to stick to the 5apt/DC standard whether they're HTH and stack with STR or Ranged and don't. Why should TK be so different?

[dstarfire]

I'd seriously like to see swinging removed as a seperate power. It's nothing more than a combination of climbing and limited flight (gliding actually, but since that'll be rolled into flight ...).

I'd suggest leaving these powers as 'optional variants' of the powers, similar to how regeneration is built now. This would solve the 'usable as second mode of movement' issue.

[rjcurrie]

I think leaving Swinging as a separate Power is perfectly fine. It doesn't take up that much space and I'm leery of turning too many existing Powers into other Powers with Limitations.

[Andrew_A]

Posted by BobGreenwade


Besides what ajackson mentions, remember that I'm also proposing taking out the "Telekinetic punch and squeeze." I'd be okay with removing the "semi-indirect" aspects as well. Either could be returned to the Power with an Advantage -- probably +1/4 for each. That's the deal I'm suggesting: reduced utility for a more manageable cost.

Why can't we treat TK the same way we treat HA? Cost wise it's basically Ranged STR, so why not make the ranged advantage required to purchase it? This way you'd keeep TK the same cost and make it cheaper to add some of the more common advantages (e.g. Invisible, Area Effect/Selective Area, Line of Sight, etc.)

Or you could price TK the way Bob has suggested and use an optional advantage to give it the ability to punch and squeeze.

[Andrew_A]

As for Shrinking...

I think (given that this is a universal sysyem) that shrinking behaves way too much like it does in superhero comics. Once you're shrunk, you're as tough, strong, and your attacks do the same amount of damage that they do at your full height. What's more, Usable as Attack makes anyone you've shrunk more powerful instead of less powerful.

I would like to see an option for Heroic campaigns that makes shrinking less deadly, while still keeping it as powerful in Superheroic campaigns.

[Netzilla]

Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?

I can see turning it into an Adder or Advantage on Stretching.


Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Unlike Gliding, I think Swinging would be too complicated to build as a Limited for of Flight. Change the points so that they would match a Limited Flight, but don't actually remove the power.


Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book?

No. Keep it in the core rules. The fewer books I have to page through to find the rule I want, the better.


Another possibility might be to make Swinging an Agility Skill. When you buy it, you’re assumed to have a swingline; if that gets taken away you can use environmental swinglines (e.g., vines in a jungle) at a Skill Roll penalty. Since by far the most common special effect for Swinging is “it’s a skill I have,” turning it back into a Skill might make some sense.

Heck, if you're going to go this route, it sounds like something that should be done with a combination of Acrobatics and Environmental Movement.


Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?

I think this would over-complicate the build.

[eternal_sage]

i for one would REALLY like to see the mechanic for Telepathy (and Mind Control, and PRE Attacks) be completely taken out, and replaced with something that doesn't seem quite so out of place.

for instance: these powers still give you a number of d6, and they still get compared to EGO, however if "Normal Damage" from the dice beats EGO you get the most basic effect, if the "Normal BODY Damage" is greater than EGO then you get the advanced effect. Mental Def acts like normal Def in this case (reducing the effect) and could even get a Resistant MD option.

or something different. this is one of my wife's biggest pet peeves, and one she claims makes mentalists nigh unplayable. i agree that the current system makes these powers confusing and they feel tacked on. my two coppers

[eternal_sage]

and i'm all for ditching TK in favor of Ranged STR.

[rjcurrie]

and i'm all for ditching TK in favor of Ranged STR.

I think Telekinesis is a wide enough basic concept that it should be a separate power. I think as a usability issue, it is better to have the separate power.

[Chris Goodwin]

Okay, but couldn't it (using STR) be provided as a sort of Talent-like prebuild? If you want Telekinesis, here's how you build it, sort of thing.

[Tonio]

The way shrinking continues increasing DCV has always irked me. If I'm punching someone the size of mayfly, is that really any harder than punching someone the size of a cockroach? I mean, they're both smaller than my fist. People use flyswatters for a reason.

Hadn't thought of that... makes a lot of sense. Just like you can't go below 0 DCV, there should be a cap on how much DCV you can get from Shrinking (or actually, from size differences in general).

On second thought, no... your DCV really should keep going up: hitting a cockroach with a needle really is tougher than hitting a gnat. The catch is that at some point (that is, at a certain size difference), attacks should be treated as area effect, somewhat. This is the flyswatter effect you're describing (you're not really targetting the fly itself, but rather the 4"x4" (or however big the swatter is!) "hex" the fly is in).


This decoupling thing is a horrid idea. Shrinking is a primary power - that is, characters in the supers genre often have shrinking and little or nothing else. It should be a pretty good power in it's own right, and it does makes about as much sense as move by and the like.

Something like that, yes. Again, Stretching is a classic power and often the primary or only power of such characters. It should enable some special manuvers - much like having a good movement power makes move-bys a practical attack - that allow a stretcher to do some good in combat. 'Velocity' damage would be a way of doing that, but Stretching really needs more, not less.

Seriously now... would you rather see "Fire Blast", "Ice Blast", "Rock Blast", etc... than "Energy Blast, player defines the SFX"? Why this obsession with bundling effects that conform to your views of the "correct" SFX for a power or characteristic?


Please. Swinging has never made the slightest bit of sense to me.

No, it should just be a limitted form of flight (for the Spiderman types). For the chandelier-swining types in other genres, it should be an aspect of a skill like accrobatics or something.

JmOz earlier mentioned it could be written up as a Talent, based on Flight. I think that's an excellent idea, fits the bill as Talents go (more than just skills, but obtainable in Heroic campaigns without issues).


Though it absolutely could be, it's a common enough idea that it should be presented ready to purchase. I'd actually consider making Transfer the base power and making Drain a limitted form of Transfer, if you wanted to combine them.

I don't like Transfer as the base power, to get Drain as a limited form of it. HERO follows a "here are the building blocks, put 'em together however you want" idea which favors construction rather than deconstruction. There are exceptions, of course (hence Limitations!), but in this case you'd be lumping two distinct effects into one Power, a HERO no-no. (It'd be like making a "Fire Control" power that gives you EB and FF, which you'd buy Limited if you only wanted EB.)

[rjcurrie]

The way shrinking continues increasing DCV has always irked me. If I'm punching someone the size of mayfly, is that really any harder than punching someone the size of a cockroach? I mean, they're both smaller than my fist. People use flyswatters for a reason.

This is one place where a SIZE characteristic would come in handy. If the difference is big enough, the attack becomes an area effect.


This decoupling thing is a horrid idea. Shrinking is a primary power - that is, characters in the supers genre often have shrinking and little or nothing else. It should be a pretty good power in it's own right, and it does makes about as much sense as move by and the like.

Or you can look at it as the "Shrinking" power being one aspect of the character's ability to shrink and buy a hand-to-hand attack with the limitation "only when turning off shrinking" to represent growth momentum.

On the other hand, if we have a SIZE characteristic, then maybe growth momentum becomes a system rule for anyone increasing in size.


Something like that, yes. Again, Stretching is a classic power and often the primary or only power of such characters. It should enable some special manuvers - much like having a good movement power makes move-bys a practical attack - that allow a stretcher to do some good in combat. 'Velocity' damage would be a way of doing that, but Stretching really needs more, not less.

Again, it could just be a hand-to-hand attack that is used when stretching. Also, like Shrinking, the Stretching power is just one aspect of having the superpower of "stretching". It's also used for other things other than that and many uses of it buy off the verlocity damage with a limitation, so maybe that's a sign that it shouldn't be there.


Please. Swinging has never made the slightest bit of sense to me.

No, it should just be a limitted form of flight (for the Spiderman types). For the chandelier-swining types in other genres, it should be an aspect of a skill like accrobatics or something.

Ok. On the other hand, I've never had a problem with it. And a part of me thinks that when something is one of the main powers of one of the most known characters in a genre, serious consideration should be giving to it being its own power. Burying it under another power reduces the usability of the system.

But yeah, the power is only for the Spiderman types. Although I think of Batman often doing Swinging move bys or move throughs too and a few others too. But for a lot of characters, yeah, it's just acrobatics. And even if it is only for superheroes, it should be in the main rule book. You should be able to run games with just the core rule books -- and without the genre books.


I don't like the 'assuming a swing line focus' idea at all. Aside from that, use a skill would be OK.

Well, I'd leave it as is.


When you think about it, movement powers all work only in certain environments. Running works only on reasonably level solid surfaces, swimming works only in liquids, tunnelling only in solids, flight in gas or vacuum - even teleportation works only between areas you're familiar with (can see or have memorized). So a swinging or brachiation movement ability would only work in apropriate environments - like a forest or jungle or sailing ship or whatever.

Or amongst skyscrapers, etc.



Though it absolutely could be, it's a common enough idea that it should be presented ready to purchase. I'd actually consider making Transfer the base power and making Drain a limitted form of Transfer, if you wanted to combine them.

Yeah, these are best left as separate Powers.

[Opal]

This is one place where a SIZE characteristic would come in handy. If the difference is big enough, the attack becomes an area effect. Or, at least, the DCV bonus stops accumulating.




Or you can look at it as the "Shrinking" power being one aspect of the character's ability to shrink and buy a hand-to-hand attack with the limitation "only when turning off shrinking" to represent growth momentum.Thanks to Hero's system of powers, advantages and limitations, yes, however you define a base power, you probably add to it anything that's missing from your concept, and certainly delete anything that's extraneous.

It really becomes an issue of what makes the most sense, what would give the power the right utlitity for it's active points, what would be the most useful in designing the most effects using the power, what would be easiest for the player, and so forth.



On the other hand, if we have a SIZE characteristic, then maybe growth momentum becomes a system rule for anyone increasing in size.
Probably if we had a Size Characteristic, we could have a 'Size Change' power that could be limitted to be just growth or just shrinkig - or even just partially limit your SIZE to achieve the effect.



Again, it could just be a hand-to-hand attack that is used when stretching. Also, like Shrinking, the Stretching power is just one aspect of having the superpower of "stretching".Nod. What I'd really like to see is Stretching working more like a movement power - including velocity damage, and the ability to stretch to a distant point, and unstretch into it. I think it'd just be a little cleaner.

[GamePhil]

Q: Should Shrinking and Growth be done differently?


I'm going to post this here since it is about Shrinking alone: Shrinking is the only place in the game that I know of where logarithms are no longer your friend. The halving of height every level is fine at first, but characters that can become veeery small start to have to pay a huge number of points. I'd like to see some adjustment to that. And if Size is instituted as a Characteristic, Shrinking and Growth probably need an overhaul.



Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?


I don't actually see this de-coupling as necessary for consistency with de-coupling of Figured Characteristics. Characteristics provide distinct and separate abilities from the ones they are based on, with their own costs and so on, as opposed to benefits folded into the Characteristics themselves.

Many Powers provide more than one use, including in some cases extra damage, most notably Movement. I consider de-coupling the damage from Shrinking if it's done for consistency to be akin to de-coupling STR and DEF from Density Increase. Growth Momentum may not be consistent with de-coupling of Figureds, but it is consistent with many other Powers, and is consistent with Movement based Maneuvers (in fact, I'd be inclined to use a modified Move By if Growth Momentum is kept, or possibly adding a Shrinker Martial Art).

That said, Shrinking provides quite a few things even without this, and the growth momentum idea isn't really all that common among characters in literature that have it. I would not actually miss it, but do think Shrinking may have to be re-worked slightly if it is gotten rid of.



Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?


Stretching is even more similar to Movement Powers than Shrinking (much, much more, actually, since it has a distance "moved" on the battle mat), and really needs the extra umph a lot of the time. I'd suggest allowing the Stretching character to use it to perform Movement based maneuvers if you do get rid of the Stretching-specific velocity damage, including Passing Strike and similar Martial maneuvers.

Further, I'd like to see Stretching reworked slightly to allow it some movement like ability, so that you can reach out, grab something, and pull yourself to it. Or something like that, though I suppose that could be Movement: Must Follow Stretching. But I think something needs to be done with it, because as it stands it's very expensive.



Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?


I'm a little surprised that you're leaning towards keeping Swinging but not Gliding, and would like to hear more of your thoughts on the matter.

However, we're not really here to get your thoughts, you're here to get ours, so: Maybe. Certainly there are ease of use issues, but at the same time we get the old HA problem (I don't like the 5th Ed solution to that, but that's another thread): it's half the price of other Movement, so works funny in Frameworks, at least without GM oversight. And then you might need to fiddle with it in order to get it to work right for a given character. I'd prefer it to just be Flight, myself.



Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book?


I shouldn't think so, for reasons already outlined elsewhere. I also don't know how it would work making it a Skill: It still allows movement from place to place, and it would be inconsistent with other Movement abilities if it were to work differently, unless it was based on existing Movement in the same way Climbing speed is determined from Running. The more you make the roll by, in that case, the more of your Running you can use, or you might even get a multiple. Or base it on the length of the rope.



Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?


It's too complex to do it that way, really. You'd need: Drain, Can Only Drain Up To Linked Aid Maximum (say a -1/2) plus Aid, Self Only for a total of 14 points.

Actually, that's not too bad. Nevertheless, I'd prefer to keep this and several other Powers that can be built with other Powers, with possibly a short blurb on how they could be otherwise built if someone wants to change them in a fundamental way. So, you could have Swinging (if kept), and a short sample saying "You could also build it this way", if it could be done somehow so as not to confuse the newbies.

[rjcurrie]

Transfer

Should Transfer have an Adder or Advantage that lets you add the transfered points to a Power the character does not already have? If so, should there also have a Limitation that the Power Transferred is merely copied not not stolen?

This might make it easier to do characters who steal or copy powers.

[BobGreenwade]

Transfer

Should Transfer have an Adder or Advantage that lets you add the transfered points to a Power the character does not already have? If so, should there also have a Limitation that the Power Transferred is merely copied not not stolen?

This might make it easier to do characters who steal or copy powers.I'm in favor of this for other additive Adjustment Powers (Absorption, Aid, and Succor) as well.

[Scott Destroyer]

Hi all,

My thoughts on Steve's list in this thread...


Growth momentum from Shrinking - Get rid of it.
Velocity damage from Shrinking - Get rid of it.
Velocity damage from Stretching - Get rid of it.
Swinging made Flight, or a Skill, or relegated to genre book - I'd probably reduce it to a Skill; if I left it a Power, I'd probably base it or its cost on Leaping or Stretching rather than Flight. I'd likely leave it in the core rules in any case, even if just as a sidebar power-construction example.
Eliminate Transfer - I probably wouldn't, for simplicity's sake; if it were eliminated, I'd hope to see an explicit "Transfer" Advantage for Drain or other Attack Powers, rather than linking up an Aid.


Thoughts on other issues raised...


Shapeshift - This one's a toughie. I also dislike the cosmetic-only effects of non-Touch Shapeshift, and I'd leave Growth and Shrinking seperate from it rather than the Adders they were in 4th. Just what I'd do to change it, I'm not sure. I'd probably be happy enough leaving the point costs for its functionality levels the same, if it were just set forth or explained more intuitively.
Telekinesis - This is a bit of a puzzler. On the surface, it's STR at with Range (+1/2), with some Indirect aspects thrown in at the cost of needing Adders to do fine work or move fluids. The problem is the existence of Energy Blast, which does the same damage as equal-cost STR at range. If you buy, say, TK STR 40 with no attack ability at range at 1:1, and Energy Blast 8d6, you're paying 80 points; with TK STR 40, you get the same functionality for 60. I'd leave it as is. And BTW, for all the talk of renaming Powers, the only renaming that really matters to me is, please, please, please, please, please rename the "Affects Porous" Adder for TK to "Affects Fluids".
Change Telepathy/Mind Control/PRE Attack mechanic - Telepathy, if I had my druthers, I'd change outright to a Mental Group Enhanced Sense, with Analyze necessary to actually read thoughts, and good PER rolls on top of Analyze to read memories or the subconscious mind; the Transmit Adder would send thoughts. Mind Scan would be eliminated in favor of Clairsentience with the Telepathy Sense. Mind Control and PRE attacks (and the social Skills) I'm OK with.
Let Transfer stick points into Powers character doesn't have - I'm fine with this, for no extra cost at all, if it's explicitly limited to the same power that's being Transferred away. I'd also be fine with a properly-costed Adder or Advantage that removed even that limitation.

[BobGreenwade]

Telekinesis - This is a bit of a puzzler. On the surface, it's STR at with Range (+1/2), with some Indirect aspects thrown in at the cost of needing Adders to do fine work or move fluids. The problem is the existence of Energy Blast, which does the same damage as equal-cost STR at range. If you buy, say, TK STR 40 with no attack ability at range at 1:1, and Energy Blast 8d6, you're paying 80 points; with TK STR 40, you get the same functionality for 60. I'd leave it as is.This assumes that the two abilities would be bought completely separately. In most cases they'd be separate slots in a Power Framework, usually a Multipower.

[Scott Destroyer]

Hi again,


Originally Posted by Bob Greenwade:
This assumes that the two abilities would be bought completely separately. In most cases they'd be separate slots in a Power Framework, usually a Multipower.

Multipower, 80-pt reserve, 1 fixed slot with no-damage TK with STR 40 at 1:1, 1 fixed slot with EB 8d6. Can hold with STR 40 then pummel with 8d6. Similar functionality to STR 40 as-is TK, costs more points, costs more END.

Multipower, 50-pt reserve, 1 fixed slot with no-damage TK with STR 25 at 1:1, 1 fixed slot with EB 5d6. 10% less cost than as-is STR 40 TK, costs 2 less END, 37.5% functionality drop.

Juggling the pool size and slot cost between those two extremes hardly seems to help matters much; I'd just as soon leave it alone.

[GamePhil]

Stretching is currently being used to cover two basic things: a kind of pseudo-movement ability, and reach. The pseudo-movement idea is the reason (aside from feeling that it needed more "umph") I never had any difficulty with the Velocity Damage being a part of it: you're effectively doing a Move By with your stretched part, althoug you didn't have the drawbacks of doing so. However, having greater reach alone, without the "stretchy" aspect, can logically mean you do more damage, too. The longer lever of your arms, or a pole arm, or whatever could be considered to do more damage.

Hmm, not where I intended to go. Ah, well. It's brainstorming, sometimes you get blown off course.

In any event, I'm thinking that the "reach" aspect of Stretching could easily be pulled out, and reduced in cost. I think without the Velocity Damage it really isn't worth 5 points per inch, though 5 points per doubling of reach might work (or 10, I think making it 15 is going too far since Growth that doubles reach already costs that). I could live with taking away the value of the Velocity Damage for this if it were made easier to build characters with longer reach, especially if you continue having to buy Stretching to be big.

I'd call the Power Reach instead of Stretching, though.

I'd also like to see some way of doing Stretching-as-movement power, too. Perhaps a limited form of Flight that forces you to return to your original position unless you move by other means as well. Flight, Body Parts Only? Something along those lines.

[BobGreenwade]

Hi again,

Multipower, 80-pt reserve, 1 fixed slot with no-damage TK with STR 40 at 1:1, 1 fixed slot with EB 8d6. Can hold with STR 40 then pummel with 8d6. Similar functionality to STR 40 as-is TK, costs more points, costs more END.

Multipower, 50-pt reserve, 1 fixed slot with no-damage TK with STR 25 at 1:1, 1 fixed slot with EB 5d6. 10% less cost than as-is STR 40 TK, costs 2 less END, 37.5% functionality drop.

Juggling the pool size and slot cost between those two extremes hardly seems to help matters much; I'd just as soon leave it alone.I should have also reminded that most people who support the 1:1 TK cost also support an Advantage to allow Punch/Squeeze.

[Chris Goodwin]

In any event, I'm thinking that the "reach" aspect of Stretching could easily be pulled out, and reduced in cost. I think without the Velocity Damage it really isn't worth 5 points per inch, though 5 points per doubling of reach might work (or 10, I think making it 15 is going too far since Growth that doubles reach already costs that). I could live with taking away the value of the Velocity Damage for this if it were made easier to build characters with longer reach, especially if you continue having to buy Stretching to be big.

I'd call the Power Reach instead of Stretching, though.

The reach aspect could easily be done with STR Usable At Range. Not unlike the Telekinesis built as STR Usable At Range, except it's not bought Indirect, and perhaps it's only Usable At Limited Range (+1/4). In fact, for Stretching/extra reach you'd likely buy Usable At Range on your base STR.

[GamePhil]

The reach aspect could easily be done with STR Usable At Range. Not unlike the Telekinesis built as STR Usable At Range, except it's not bought Indirect, and perhaps it's only Usable At Limited Range (+1/4). In fact, for Stretching/extra reach you'd likely buy Usable At Range on your base STR.

That may be the way to go: dump Stretching and just take Limited Range (or Range for really long stretches) on STR. The only flaw I see with that is it costs the same for 3" as 15", and so on.

Or, if you get really weird, Area Of Affect: Any or Line on STR. The Line would allow you to move people up mountains and such. You'd still need separate Movement, though.

That may be running into the "overly complicated" problem, though. arrgh.

[BobGreenwade]

The reach aspect could easily be done with STR Usable At Range. Not unlike the Telekinesis built as STR Usable At Range, except it's not bought Indirect, and perhaps it's only Usable At Limited Range (+1/4). In fact, for Stretching/extra reach you'd likely buy Usable At Range on your base STR.I'm having several problems with the Ranged STR idea for Stretching. For one, Stretching also has a Physical Manifestation to it. So does STR already have a Physical Manifestation, and the Indirect for your version of Telekinesis takes that away, or do we add the Physical Manifestation Limitation to the Stretching construct somehow?

You address the shorter range somewhat with the Limited Range lessened Advantage, but Stretching as it currently exists is more finely tuned than that. But I'm not much of a fan of the more free-form aspects of Limited Range (I'd rather it was a fixed number, like 1/5 AP), and in any event there certainly is an advantage to (for instance) Mister Flow's ability to stretch 30" versus Cyber Warrior's stretch of only 2". This is much easier to handle if Stretching is quantified on a per-inch basis.

And then there are those polearms and other large weapons, whose ability to reach well beyond the character's normal reach is modeled with 1" (occasionally 2") Stretching under the current rules. For that matter, the reach of a very large character is also modeled this way.

What I'd do with Stretching is (and I'm mostly thinking "out loud" here) to redefine it as a natural Reach, taking out velocity damage, the Indirect aspect, and noncombat stretching, and having 0 END cost. I'm not sure whether that should be worth 5 points or 2 points per 1" (I'm personally leaning toward the latter), but all other aspects can be given using Modifiers (including Adders).

[SAVeira]

Q: Should Shrinking and Growth be done differently?

No idea. However, if some of the changes are done to the Characteristics happens, these powers must be revised.


Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?

Maybe.


Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?

Maybe.


Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Yes, as all swinging depends on a Focus and other factors.


Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book?

Yes, but it should be an Agility Skill.


Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?

No. One of these, if only to avoid the headache.

[dsatow]

Q: Should Shrinking and Growth be done differently?

No.

Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?

I think growth momentum is actually just a special effect on HA.


Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?

My only concern is that stretching is not really cost efficent at 1" per 5 points then. If you treat stretching as a travel power per say, 1" per 2 points, people could do move bys with stretching to simulate velocity damage.

Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Personally I am in favor of all movement 1" = 2 points. Whether to combine it into flight or stretching, I don't really care.


Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book?

See above.


Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?

I think that would add complexity to a situation which currently works.

[Balabanto]

My thoughts on Tunnelling.

Wow. I'm surprised no one has actually brought this up. This is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, THE least purchased power in the entire game.

Let's look at why.

1) Tunnelling is perceived by many players as stupid. Yeah, I hate to say it, but it's true, people look at tunnelling and say "Yeah, that's either a villainous power, or a dirty one."

2) Tunnelling is cost prohibitive. Let's look at the cost of tunnelling. 1" of Tunnelling costs 5 points. 1 DEF of Tunnelling costs 3 points. Would you rather have 15" of flight, or 6" of Tunnelling through 6 DEF. A normal house can have more than 6 DEF. This is really not very exciting.

3) Tunnelling is only effective when you build weird characters or buy weird powers. Example: Shaped Charge to Blow a door. It is so much more effective to buy this as Tunnelling with 1" of movement and a heap of DEF that compared to Killing Attack, it just blows it away.

My suggestions: Lower the cost for an inch of movement to 2 per hex (Or MU if you take my other suggestion), and standardize it with every other movement power in the game. DEF is not free. You still get 1 DEF for every " of movement, but now that costs 2 points instead of 3. Tunnelling is not that fast, but it still should still be able to somewhat compete with other movement powers without breaking the game.

The truth: No one cares enough about the Tunnelling power to really give it a serious look, IMHO.

But these fixes need to happen.

Should Stretching provide Velocity Damage.

Themewise, yes, but my contention is that the mechanic for doing so is not worth the cost of the granularity. My players, some of whom are IQ 180+, cannot do the crunching of numbers related to this on an internal basis, AND frequently forget that the velocity damage exists, usually causing them to receive a point break when I tell them they're breaking the damage cap.

It's not that it's not believable, it's that it doesn't intuitively follow from the rest of the power that it deals damage, and people can't wrap their mind around the movement distance versus impact strength ratio. So my decision to ask this to not happen anymore is entirely based on watching people look at me and say "It deals damage? What?"

And my contention, really, is that while I can run an extremely rules heavy game with 40 pages of house rules and still get in the TONS of RP, not everyone can. Kudos to Rod Currie for making Rick Davies playable to new players at a gaming table for so many years. So the intuitive nature of Stretching needs to change, and the velocity damage needs to go away.

While everything that Wizards is doing with D+D 4th edition is wrong, their general unspoken strategy (Which they are not properly marketing) of making the game more comprehensible for convention crowds is a philosophy that also applies here.

[ajackson]

My thoughts on Tunnelling.

Wow. I'm surprised no one has actually brought this up. This is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, THE least purchased power in the entire game.
Speak for your own campaign. It may be a rarely purchased power, but making an absolute claim that it's the least purchased power in the game is rather ambitious. In the last Hero campaign I was in, two PCs (of about a dozen over the course of the campaign) had Tunneling.

Splitting tunneling into 2p/inch and 3p/Def isn't a bad idea, but tunneling isn't horribly broken as it is.

[Opal]

I've played more characters with tunnelling than I have characters with swinging.

Tunnelling is also a great villain power, the perfect thing for getting into vaults or breaking your buddies out of jail. ;)

[dsatow]

Tunneling

One side effect on tunneling is that others can use the tunnel. Which is why I suggested to detach the def from movement. Only one person needs tunneling for the party to benefit. Its also the only move power which can give you cover, as I recently seen at a con. I tunnel for cover! Lastly, some GMs will allow you to use tunneling against vehicles as well as bases!

[Balabanto]

What some GMs do is irrelevant to a rules as written discussion. :)

However, if it has a DEF score, you can tunnel through it. Which leads me, of course to gainsay everyone who wants DEF removed from the game, because otherwise, you'll be able to tunnel through people.

WHAT? Yeah. Replacing DEF with PD makes no sense.

[PhilFleischmann]

Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?
If not, it needs to cost less. A house rule I've been using for years is the ability to squeeze one's body narrower, included with the extended reach provided by Stretching. How narrow one can slim down to depends on how many points of Stretching they use. My current table looks like this:


Points of Body fits through
Stretching diameter hole
10 50 cm (slightly smaller than normal adult human body)
15 37.5 cm (small doggie-door)
20 28 cm
25 21 cm
30 16 cm
35 12 cm
40 9 cm (drain pipe)
45 6.7 cm (mail slot)
50 5 cm (2-inch plumbing pipe)
So it isn't too overly powerful. You'd need a whole lot of Stretching to fit through a keyhole or under a door.

And I also allow Stretching with No Range to indicate the ability to squeeze down narrower without granting extra reach (ala Marvel Comic's villain Cobra).

Other Powers S-T issues:

Rebuild Shapeshift so that it isn't based on sense groups. It needs to be based on actually changing shape. There are many aspects to "shape" that can change, each of which couls be purchased "ala carte":

1. Actual overall shape (Plasticman)
2. Surface color
3. Surface texture
4. Surface temperature
5. Voice sound
6. Other sounds made (footsteps, etc.)
7. Odor

Note that #'s 1 and 3 are "visible" to both the touch and sight group. #1 could even be visible to Radar or Sonar (Radar and Hearing groups). #4, in addition to being detectable by Touch, is also detectable by Infravision (sight group). The way in which the "shape" of objects or characters interacts with the senses does not fit neatly into specific sense groups. It just makes it more confusing to buy shape via senses.

A house rule I've been thinking about, that could be added is some way to include size changes easily within Shapeshift. I'm thinking of a simple +5 Adder for each doubling/halving of mass/size. This would not grant all the advantages of Growth or Shrinking (like added STR, reach, BODY, etc.), but would simply allow for "static" forms that are other-than-human-sized.

Summon - As I mentioned in the Perks thread, Disadvantages on Summoned creatures should reduce the cost of the summon - assuming they really do make the summoned creature less useful. All other things being equal, a summoned being that is Susceptible to Holy Water is less useful than one that isn't.

Suppress - As others have mentioned, this is probably too cheap as-is. Umlimited accumulation and at range for half the price of Drain, and the only downside is paying END each phase.

Transform - As I've mentioned on threads prior to 6E discussion, the categories (Cosmetic, Minor, Major) are not well-defined and useful. Cosmetic, for the same price as EB, is ridiculously expensive, and utterly useless. "Stop! In the name of the law, or I'll turn your hair blue!" A cosmetic Transform is better built as a SFX of another power, or perhaps a small Adder at most. IMO, the categories should be:

Minor (5 points per d6) - a minor inconvenience to the target, such as loss of a non-targeting sense, loss of the use of one arm, partial hindrance of movement
Major (10 points per d6) - a serious hindrance to the target: blindness, inability to walk, loss of a major power
Total (15 points per d6) - like a kill, or a knockout, completely takes the target out of the fight: turn to stone, total paralysis, turned into a small helpless animal

The idea is that for 5 points per die, you can do something annoying to the target that has a minor combat effect. For 10 points per die (like an NND or Drain), you can put them at a serious disadvantage, but they still have a fighting chance. And for 15 points per die (like a Killing attack), you can completely incapacitate them. Yes, Transform is not only used to hinder an opponent in combat, but the above examples can provide a guideline of the extent of changes possible at each of the three levels.

[ajackson]

WHAT? Yeah. Replacing DEF with PD makes no sense.
Sure it does. If your Mole Machine uses a giant diamond-tipped drill to tunnel through the earth, it goes vs PD. If it uses a giant laser cutting torch, it goes vs ED. I can also think of several NND special effects for tunneling (put NND tunneling the game, and Desolid doesn't even really need to exist).

[Pteryx]

Q: Should Shrinking and Growth be done differently?

As I've said in the other threads: impliment SIZ, and then yes!


Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?

Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?

This is an intuitive enough thing to have as part of the Growth/Shrinking and Stretching abilities that I don't think one should be forced to make a circuitous build to make them do that. Make it an Advantage specific to these three powers -- or keep its lack a Limitation.


Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Probably not. Unlike with Gliding, Swinging doesn't intuitively come across as a close relative of Flight to me, or even as necessarily being a special power as opposed to a skill, even despite Spider-Man.


Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book?

I don't think so. Pulp heroes, swashbucklers, and pirates spring right to mind as users of Swinging who aren't superheroic. Leave it in the core.


Another possibility might be to make Swinging an Agility Skill. When you buy it, you’re assumed to have a swingline; if that gets taken away you can use environmental swinglines (e.g., vines in a jungle) at a Skill Roll penalty. Since by far the most common special effect for Swinging is “it’s a skill I have,” turning it back into a Skill might make some sense.

This I could certainly see a point to doing, and I wouldn't mind it.


Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?

No. It's considerably simpler to keep this way.

Powers not listed:
Shape Shift, as it stands now, is really deceptively named and at times schizophrenic about what it's trying to do. It's a Sensory Power disguised as a Body-Affecting Power with a handful of token nods to the latter idea which still come across as sensory-based. Please decide which it actually is and write it up accordingly. Or even split it into two powers, Shape Shift and Personal Illusion.

The All or Nothing Limitation from Transform would be a great addition to the options for all Adjustment powers. Heck, my pet approach to sleep spells in the absence of a dedicated mechanic for it is All or Nothing Suppress STUN wrapped in some kind of duration package.

On the subject of Summon, I can only say this: Steve, I know you're a cat person -- I am too -- but please, don't sell dogs short so much in the Bestiary this time! The difference in price between them and dogs is ridiculous, and mostly seems to stem from dogs being understatted. Be sure to give them more variety, too; terriers are not the same as beagles even if they are the same size. -- Pteryx

[Tonio]

Transform - As I've mentioned on threads prior to 6E discussion, the categories (Cosmetic, Minor, Major) are not well-defined and useful. Cosmetic, for the same price as EB, is ridiculously expensive, and utterly useless. "Stop! In the name of the law, or I'll turn your hair blue!" A cosmetic Transform is better built as a SFX of another power, or perhaps a small Adder at most. IMO, the categories should be:

Minor (5 points per d6) - a minor inconvenience to the target, such as loss of a non-targeting sense, loss of the use of one arm, partial hindrance of movement
Major (10 points per d6) - a serious hindrance to the target: blindness, inability to walk, loss of a major power
Total (15 points per d6) - like a kill, or a knockout, completely takes the target out of the fight: turn to stone, total paralysis, turned into a small helpless animal

The idea is that for 5 points per die, you can do something annoying to the target that has a minor combat effect. For 10 points per die (like an NND or Drain), you can put them at a serious disadvantage, but they still have a fighting chance. And for 15 points per die (like a Killing attack), you can completely incapacitate them. Yes, Transform is not only used to hinder an opponent in combat, but the above examples can provide a guideline of the extent of changes possible at each of the three levels.

I think you underestimate Cosmetic Transforms. Yes, turning the bad guy's hair blue is a Cosmetic Transform, but so is turning your partner into one of the bad guy's agent's exact look-alike. Or into someone else entirely. (Flawless Disguise skill, semi-permanent, too.) Or changing your passport so your name and picture are different. Or turning water into wine.

Not all Cosmetic Transforms were created equal! =)

[Hugh Neilson]

I think you underestimate Cosmetic Transforms. Yes, turning the bad guy's hair blue is a Cosmetic Transform, but so is turning your partner into one of the bad guy's agent's exact look-alike. Or into someone else entirely. (Flawless Disguise skill, semi-permanent, too.) Or changing your passport so your name and picture are different. Or turning water into wine.

Not all Cosmetic Transforms were created equal! =)

I think many GM's would balk at these being cosmetic transforms. Transform seems to suffer from a problem similar to many mental powers. For mental powers, every effect of any significance commonly is adjudicated to require Ego +30, devaluing the mental power. Of course, whether a specific effect should require ego +10 or ego +30 seems to depend on whether one is the target or user of the mental power.

For Transform, we seem to restrict "cosmetic" to the blue hair example and similarly useless effects, requiring the higher levels be purchased for anything of substance. Frankly, the ability to turn someone's hair blue seems about as valuable as the fact that you glow lightly when your force field is on, and should carry the same cost - nothing. We're quick to point out that you get no points back from Limitations that don't limit, or Disadvantages that don't meaningfully disadvantage. But we're much slower to suggest the ability to do something that has no meaningful impact should reasonably carry no meaningful cost.

I'd like to see 6e expand on the examples of both the Ego + X levels and the various Transform categories to provide value commensurate with the costs of these powers, and hopefully mitigate the tendency to push up the cost/rolls required to achieve any meaningful effect.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Transform....

I've generally played the categories as follows:

Cosmetic - No change to the character sheet. You can change the target's hair from blonde to brunette, but not to blue (that would make it a Distinctive Feature). You can change your target's gender -- if your society treats both genders equally enough that it doesn't cause a Social Limitation. Clothing can be changed for color, style, cut, and so forth.
Minor - Rearrange the points on the character sheet, up to the number of pips on the dice. This might allow, for example, giving your target wings, bought as Flight with the Restrainable Limitation, coupled with DF: Winged Person.
Major - Unlimited rearrangement of the character sheet (within reason, subject to GM approval), adding or subtracting points on the character's sheet, up to the number of pips on the dice. This becomes extraordinarily powerful with an "anything to anything" Transform, but then again such an effect is also quite expensive.

[Chris Goodwin]

Looks good, except I'd word it that Minor lets you rearrange their points, and Major lets you give them a whole new character sheet.

[ajackson]

Another power in this area: Telepathy

In the genre, Telepathy is really an enhanced sense, not an attack power. Mind probe might be an attack power, though it actually tends to act more like extra-dimensional movement than like Hero system telepathy, so that's not a big objection either. A more consistent mechanic would seem to be:
Enhanced Sense: Telepathy: 5 or more points
You have the ability to detect thoughts. At the basic level, this merely tells you that the subject is thinking. With Discriminatory, you can tell different people apart, and can determine in a general sense what the subject is thinking about. With Analyze, you can pick up specific thoughts. Ranged and Sense are also very common modifier. Telepathy normally only gives superficial thoughts; getting information from the subject should be treated like Interrogation or Conversation (ponder: should telepathy just be treated as bonus levels with those skills?)

[Chris Goodwin]

A notion I've had recently re: Shapeshift. It would seem to me that Shapeshift should be based on Discriminatory Senses rather than Targeting Senses (because Shapeshift doesn't actually stop someone from targeting the Shapeshifter). The issue here is that pretty much all of a human's Senses are Discriminatory in some way. The result of all that is that it seems to me that Shapeshift Sense Groups should cost less.

Here's what I've got so far:


Cost Effect
---- ------
3 Change to a single Sense, including Unusual Senses
3 Change to a single Sense Group minus one Sense in that Group
5 Change to a full Sense Group
10 Change to all Human Sense Groups except one, or change to all
Human Sense Groups minus one Sense in each Group
15 Change to all Human Sense Groups
20 Change to all Sense Groups except Unusual


The whole idea of buying to levels that leave out one Sense, or one Sense Group, is that you see all the time in the source material where someone with a boatload of Enhanced Senses is the only one who can (usually smell) the Shapeshifter. (See also Wolverine vs. Mystique)

More about Shapeshift later.

[James Gillen]

A notion I've had recently re: Shapeshift. It would seem to me that Shapeshift should be based on Discriminatory Senses rather than Targeting Senses (because Shapeshift doesn't actually stop someone from targeting the Shapeshifter). The issue here is that pretty much all of a human's Senses are Discriminatory in some way. The result of all that is that it seems to me that Shapeshift Sense Groups should cost less.

Here's what I've got so far:


Cost Effect
---- ------
3 Change to a single Sense, including Unusual Senses
3 Change to a single Sense Group minus one Sense in that Group
5 Change to a full Sense Group
10 Change to all Human Sense Groups except one, or change to all
Human Sense Groups minus one Sense in each Group
15 Change to all Human Sense Groups
20 Change to all Sense Groups except Unusual


The whole idea of buying to levels that leave out one Sense, or one Sense Group, is that you see all the time in the source material where someone with a boatload of Enhanced Senses is the only one who can (usually smell) the Shapeshifter. (See also Wolverine vs. Mystique)

More about Shapeshift later.

I'd only buy this if we ditched the concept of starting with ONE limited shape and then putting Adders on (up to +20) for additional shapes. Right now with all the bells and whistles, Shapeshift is one of the more expensive Powers in the game, especially with Reduced END or Persistent (which you need for a shift that doesn't go away when you're Stunned). With the (more reasonable) costs on 5th Edition Multiform, that's a lot more cost-effective than a Power that's basically Super-Disguise.

JG

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd only buy this if we ditched the concept of starting with ONE limited shape and then putting Adders on (up to +20) for additional shapes. Right now with all the bells and whistles, Shapeshift is one of the more expensive Powers in the game, especially with Reduced END or Persistent (which you need for a shift that doesn't go away when you're Stunned). With the (more reasonable) costs on 5th Edition Multiform, that's a lot more cost-effective than a Power that's basically Super-Disguise.


That's actually the direction my thoughts are going. I'll have more written up later, but basically the idea is that the Power allows you to take any shape. You can buy "fixed" and "floating" forms that allow you recall forms with no INT or Disguise roll required, but aren't limited to them; you can take a Limitation on the Power if you're limited to a certain number of forms.

[James Gillen]

That's actually the direction my thoughts are going. I'll have more written up later, but basically the idea is that the Power allows you to take any shape. You can buy "fixed" and "floating" forms that allow you recall forms with no INT or Disguise roll required, but aren't limited to them; you can take a Limitation on the Power if you're limited to a certain number of forms.

I think that's more fair. There are several examples of shapeshifting that are only animals or only humanoids but very rarely "only one person."

JG

[CTaylor]

SHRINKING: Cut the price and benefits in half. I understand why they did it, but it doesn't make sense, being half as tall doesn't equal +2 concealment and +2 DCV, it simply does not. Remove the "growth momentum" nonsense as well; buy that as an attack if you want.

STRETCHING: Eliminate momentum damage; buy extra HTA if you want that. Consider lowering the cost too, 5/1"?

TELEKINESIS: This is about moving objects, not about hitting or smashing, those should be separate powers. Lower the cost and eliminate those damage aspects.

Oh, and make the fine manipulation roll an INT roll, not based on the power of the TK. Why does being able to lift a ship make you better at fine work than lifting a tin can?

TRANSFORMATION: Several changes here. First, transforming someone's mind should not require based on ECV or any special changes. Second, affecting three different aspects of a character should not require three different transform attacks. Here's how I'd structure it:

Cosmetic Transformation: 3 points per D6

Examples: Turn someone's eyes green, their hair curly, change a pattern on a shirt, make money cleaner, make the air smell nicer

Minor Transformation: 5 points per D6

A simple change that does not alter substance; Examples: Turn someone's skin brown, their hair bald, change the design of a shirt, make change from money, make the air free of poisons

Major Transformation: 10 points per D6

A significant change that does not greatly alter basic substance; Examples: Turn someone's skin transparent, their hair into celery, change a shirt into a leather trenchcoat, turn money into equal value of gold, make air into a noxious gas

Total Transformation: 15 points per D6

A complete change of any kind; Examples: Turn someone into an ashtray, change a shirt into a dragon, make money into ten filled coffee cups, make air into an equal volume of liquid acid

The costs, of course, are negotiable.

TUNNELING: Break into two separate elements, so you can tunnel through 1 defense at 18" movement or vice versa. At present it only goes one way.

[Paragon]

I'd only buy this if we ditched the concept of starting with ONE limited shape and then putting Adders on (up to +20) for additional shapes. Right now with all the bells and whistles, Shapeshift is one of the more expensive Powers in the game, especially with Reduced END or Persistent (which you need for a shift that doesn't go away when you're Stunned). With the (more reasonable) costs on 5th Edition Multiform, that's a lot more cost-effective than a Power that's basically Super-Disguise.

JG

Yeah. Its honestly reached the point where unless the GM is dragging his feet horrendously about use of Multiform, using Shapeshift is pretty much an idiots game for almost any purpose. The "one other shape only" cost with multiple senses is particularly overpriced when you start to compare them.

[Chris Goodwin]

Yeah. Its honestly reached the point where unless the GM is dragging his feet horrendously about use of Multiform, using Shapeshift is pretty much an idiots game for almost any purpose. The "one other shape only" cost with multiple senses is particularly overpriced when you start to compare them.

I haven't costed them out, but IIRC Invisibility costs the same for adding Senses and Sense Groups as Shapeshift. And, except for the "vs. Touch" providing actual physical form change, there's no instance in which Shapeshift does more for you than Invisibility.

[Chris Goodwin]

As for Transform, I'm trying to work Shapeshift and Multiform into Transform; the work I've done so far almost extends Transform into a weird Usable As Attack modifier. You would buy Shapeshift or Multiform as an Adder to Transform (or other way around, I'm not sure yet), allowing you to us the actual Power against them once they're Transformed. I'm at a point where I both like and don't like where it's going.

[ajackson]

As for Transform, I'm trying to work Shapeshift and Multiform into Transform; the work I've done so far almost extends Transform into a weird Usable As Attack modifier.
That's not really that weird, and in several ways makes more sense than the current mechanic. The point value of using an ability normally should be a function of how useful it is for you. The point value for using an ability as an attack should be a function of how debilitating that effect would be. There's no strong reason to assume that these two numbers are closely related.

Thus, extra-dimensional-movement, usable as an attack, is quite clearly a total transformation, since it's generally extremely debilitating. Shrinking, usable as an attack, is by itself a cosmetic transformation, or even an advantage.

[Chris Goodwin]

That's not really that weird, and in several ways makes more sense than the current mechanic. The point value of using an ability normally should be a function of how useful it is for you. The point value for using an ability as an attack should be a function of how debilitating that effect would be. There's no strong reason to assume that these two numbers are closely related.

Thus, extra-dimensional-movement, usable as an attack, is quite clearly a total transformation, since it's generally extremely debilitating. Shrinking, usable as an attack, is by itself a cosmetic transformation, or even an advantage.

Sure. The problem with it is that you lose the whole "Transform on inanimate objects" deal, unless you extend the "Usable As Attack" portion to cover that. For instance, you lose the ability to Transform a lump of dirt into something useful. A possible solution is to use either the Create Object Power that we'll probably see in 6e, or the Summon Power, with something like OIF Of Opportunity, Expendable.

[Vondy]

At present transform and shapeshift overlap a great deal (there are threads we've had on this). Some distinctions between them - or some merger for some kinds of effects - will need to occur in the coming system.

[Paragon]

I haven't costed them out, but IIRC Invisibility costs the same for adding Senses and Sense Groups as Shapeshift. And, except for the "vs. Touch" providing actual physical form change, there's no instance in which Shapeshift does more for you than Invisibility.

A big part of it is an artifact of the "one size fits all" nature of the sensory adders. These work (as best I can tell) pretty well for Invisibility and Darkness, since they're most of what those powers are about; they work a bit less well for Images and Flash, but are still tolerable. But by the time you got to Shapeshift, they just bloat the heck out of the cost compared to the overall benefit of the power.

[Chris Goodwin]

A big part of it is an artifact of the "one size fits all" nature of the sensory adders. These work (as best I can tell) pretty well for Invisibility and Darkness, since they're most of what those powers are about; they work a bit less well for Images and Flash, but are still tolerable. But by the time you got to Shapeshift, they just bloat the heck out of the cost compared to the overall benefit of the power.

Right. To analogize them to work with Shapeshift, you'd want to buy it for Non-Discriminatory and Discriminatory Senses/Groups... problem being, all of a human's senses are Discriminatory at at least the "partial Discriminatory" level.

[ajackson]

A big part of it is an artifact of the "one size fits all" nature of the sensory adders.
Ponder if those should actually be advantages -- i.e. invisibility to one sense is a 20 point power, +1/4 for an additional sense, +1/2 for an additional sense group. Other powers might then have different base costs. Full darkness as another 20 point power is probably reasonable, but various sorts of dimness could be fewer points, and Images should probably have a different base cost depending on how convincing the images are. Currently Shapeshift is actually just Images (No Range, only for disguise).

[Paragon]

Ponder if those should actually be advantages -- i.e. invisibility to one sense is a 20 point power, +1/4 for an additional sense, +1/2 for an additional sense group. Other powers might then have different base costs. Full darkness as another 20 point power is probably reasonable, but various sorts of dimness could be fewer points, and Images should probably have a different base cost depending on how convincing the images are. Currently Shapeshift is actually just Images (No Range, only for disguise).

Its complicated. I think that would work really well for fixed base cost powers like Invisibility or Shapeshift, where it keeps the relationship between the base cost and the enhanced version. It might well be overly expensive on powers where other properties increase the cost of the power like Darkness or Flash, though.

[ajackson]

Its complicated. I think that would work really well for fixed base cost powers like Invisibility or Shapeshift, where it keeps the relationship between the base cost and the enhanced version. It might well be overly expensive on powers where other properties increase the cost of the power like Darkness or Flash, though.
Well, if Darkness had a radius more like Change Environment, an advantage would be fine. Flash is a problem, but frankly, extra senses on Flash isn't terribly worthwhile anyway.

[Paragon]

Well, if Darkness had a radius more like Change Environment, an advantage would be fine. Flash is a problem, but frankly, extra senses on Flash isn't terribly worthwhile anyway.

I agree the problem with Darkness is how its area is handled. As to Flash--that would seem to me that they should be cheaper, not more expensive.

[CTaylor]

Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?

No, it's freebie points, for no reason. Strip it.

Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?

See above.

Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

It's too complex to build as flight, I'd avoid doing this simply because explaining it and building it would take as much time as just writing up the power.

Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book?

If you made it a modified flight, this would be the place to put it.

Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid

No.

[James Gillen]

I haven't costed them out, but IIRC Invisibility costs the same for adding Senses and Sense Groups as Shapeshift. And, except for the "vs. Touch" providing actual physical form change, there's no instance in which Shapeshift does more for you than Invisibility.

"I'm here to relieve you."
"Aren't you William Shatner?"
"You got a problem with that?"

[Sean Waters]

I almost forgot... my pet peeve in the Hero System: Telekinesis.

In the aforementioned interest of "decoupling" abilities, get rid of the "Telekinetic Punch and Squeeze" effect, and allow TK to lift and move objects (or, with the correct Modifiers, substances and/or energy ) only. The Punch and Squeeze effects are better bought using Energy Blast.

That done, reduce the cost to 1 point per 1 STR. That will be 60 points to lift what 60 STR will lift at range, but no direct damage, Figured Characteristics, Characteristic Rolls, or the rest.

The problem is cost and 'logic':

40 STR TK is 60 points. An 8d6 EB needs to be indirect to match the TK. I'm never quite clear on the level of indirect you take for this, but it is at least + 1/2 and that would be OK but arguably (as it can get round or through pretty much any barrier) +3/4 (although it always STARTS at the character, the indirect effect is as if it had not) and that would not.

Moreover if someone with TK that doesn't do damage picks up car and says they want to hit someone with it, or drop it on someone, how do you rule that? Effectively you either say 'you can't' or bow to 'logic' and then you've simply limited TK with 'direct damage requires an appropriate object of opportunity'.

It would also (and depending on your PoV you might think this is good or bad) prevent the use of martial arts with TK.

[Sean Waters]

Stretching is horribly overpriced, but even so we should EITHER treat stretching as a movement power (and adjust the cost to 2 points for 1" accordingly) or remove the stretching damage and buy a seperate linked HtH attack.

Also get rid of the 'does not cross intervening space'. That's just weird.

Shrinking 'growth damage' should be dealt with as a triggered attack.

Shapeshift should (IMO) allow the assumption of any shape as standard (maybe a slightly higher base cost, but only a bit) and allow limitations if you can only change to a limtied number or type of shape.

The ability to actually deform physically (as opposed to being able to appear to do so to senses) should be an adder that can apply to EITHER shapeshift or stretching.

Sean 'Mr Opinion' Waters

[Shoutybloke]

Transform- inspired by the possesion thread in in fantasy hero forum.
Are mental transforms so awesomly powerful that they need to cost 30 pts per die? seems a bit excessive to me.

[GamePhil]

=Are mental transforms so awesomly powerful that they need to cost 30 pts per die? seems a bikt excessive to me.

Well, yes and no. Yes, a BOECV Major Transform is probably powerful enough to be 30 points per die. However, I don't believe that Mental Transforms should necessarily need to be BOECV: just because it's transforming your mind doesn't mean it should need to bypass DCV, range mods, and so on.

[CTaylor]

Are mental transforms so awesomly powerful that they need to cost 30 pts per die? seems a bit excessive to me.

In no way. Not even close, and I pointed that out above. Nor is it reasonable to require 60 points per D6 to turn someone completely (body, soul, mind) into something else. The logic of transform is that if you can kill someone, you may as well be able to make them something else. The 5th edition logic is that turning someone into a block of salt with no mind or soul is worth killing someone four times over. Huh?

[GamePhil]

In no way. Not even close, and I pointed that out above. Nor is it reasonable to require 60 points per D6 to turn someone completely (body, soul, mind) into something else. The logic of transform is that if you can kill someone, you may as well be able to make them something else. The 5th edition logic is that turning someone into a block of salt with no mind or soul is worth killing someone four times over. Huh?

Five times over, you also need BOECV on the Spirit Transform, making it 75 points. As I said, I don't think you should have to buy BOECV on the Mind or Spirit Transforms, although they will often be appropriate.

That said, I have no problem with Mind/Body/Spirit. Just because the most boring example of doing the equivalent of killing them may look overpriced doesn't mean that all forms of the attack are. You can do anything with the target you want, why would you just "kill" him?. Moreover, to get the equivalent using a Killing Attack would require AVLD, Does Body, which make the Active costs similar (assuming no need for BOECV), but the Killing Attack would take Does No Stun, so the Real Points would be somewhat less. I'm reasonably happy with that.

[Sean Waters]

In no way. Not even close, and I pointed that out above. Nor is it reasonable to require 60 points per D6 to turn someone completely (body, soul, mind) into something else. The logic of transform is that if you can kill someone, you may as well be able to make them something else. The 5th edition logic is that turning someone into a block of salt with no mind or soul is worth killing someone four times over. Huh?

The trouble is the 'logic' does not hold because:

1. Transform does not work against normal/resistant defences - it works against power defence, so the cost is out of whack from the start.

2. An enemy changed to a friend is far more useful than a dead enemy.

3. An ally changed to a more powerful ally is (WAY!) more useful than a dead ally.

I do agree that it is a bit excessive to have to buy the transform three times (not four) to do the do...so we could have advantages:

One of (Body, Mind, Soul): normal cost

Two of (Body, Mind, Soul): +1/2

Three of (Body, Mind, Soul): +1

In many games a Body+Mind transform is more than enough to accomplish a 'total' transform, even if souls exist in your campaign.

[CTaylor]

You have some valid points, but the thing is, I'm not inventing the logic behind Transformation, I'm pointing out what the rules were built on by the game designers. In old versions of the rules I even think it said that specifically.

And really: how often can anyone afford a transform that works in combat, with the effects you list.

And the reason I say four is because to transform someone mentally in the rules right now, you have to buy vs ECV on it: double the cost. That's four, even if all your points were completely valid, and it was a real issue in anyone's games... to pull it off, you'd have to have a gargantuan power: 360 active points or so. Nuh uh

[Sean Waters]

You have some valid points, but the thing is, I'm not inventing the logic behind Transformation, I'm pointing out what the rules were built on by the game designers. In old versions of the rules I even think it said that specifically.

And really: how often can anyone afford a transform that works in combat, with the effects you list.

And the reason I say four is because to transform someone mentally in the rules right now, you have to buy vs ECV on it: double the cost. That's four, even if all your points were completely valid, and it was a real issue in anyone's games... to pull it off, you'd have to have a gargantuan power: 360 active points or so. Nuh uh

If you are aiming for a one hit solution. Hero normally requires 2-4 hits before you can take someone out of combat. If I was building a power that turned someone to stone, body mind and soul, and I wanted it combat effective, I'd have a major transform, probably 2d6 or 3d6 (physical), and back that up with a 1 point continuous transform for mental and soul: you turn the body to stone, they are out of combat anyway, so it doesn;t matter if the mind and soul take a little longer to convert.

That way 2-4 hits should transform more or less anyone in combat and I can probably squeak it in at under 60 active points.

[CTaylor]

Sean, that's true but my point is still there: it costs way, grossly too much, insanely so. This is like charging 50 points per D6 of energy blast, you can build ways to make it not be so awful but it's still grossly, insanely too expensive, almost insultingly so.

[PhilFleischmann]

If I was building a power that turned someone to stone, body mind and soul, and I wanted it combat effective, I'd have a major transform, probably 2d6 or 3d6 (physical), and back that up with a 1 point continuous transform for mental and soul: you turn the body to stone, they are out of combat anyway, so it doesn;t matter if the mind and soul take a little longer to convert.
If you're turning someone's body to stone (or a block of salt), why would you even bother transforming their mind and soul? 4d6 "major" Transform - 60 points. Two average hits for someone with 8-14 BODY should do it.

If you deliberately buy something that you don't need, and that doesn't do you any good, it's not the rules' fault that it's too expensive. Buy what you need (reason from effects), and don't buy what you don't need.

[CTaylor]

From what I understand you have to do enough to kill them outright: get them to negative body. So it's more than 4D6. So yeah, it's the rule's fault it's too expensive. The rules are bad, I hope that changes next edition.

[PhilFleischmann]

From what I understand you have to do enough to kill them outright: get them to negative body. So it's more than 4D6. So yeah, it's the rule's fault it's too expensive. The rules are bad, I hope that changes next edition.
Yes. That's exactly what I presented: Two average hits with 4d6 Transform - 14 each. 14+14=28, which would be at least 2x BODY for anyone with up to 14 BODY.

[CTaylor]

OK true, but I was arguing for a single attack to do the job, which was the situation he was presenting: combat attack to make someone change completely. Which would take a huge amount of dice (in any case, with the present rules, it would still be a 240 active point power with 4D6)

[Chris Goodwin]

OK true, but I was arguing for a single attack to do the job, which was the situation he was presenting: combat attack to make someone change completely. Which would take a huge amount of dice (in any case, with the present rules, it would still be a 240 active point power with 4D6)

Sure, but that's like arguing that Killing Attacks are too expensive because it costs too much to kill someone with one shot. Yes, it would, and that's kind of the point. One-shotting someone, whether to death or to Transformation, should be expensive.

[Sean Waters]

If you're turning someone's body to stone (or a block of salt), why would you even bother transforming their mind and soul? 4d6 "major" Transform - 60 points. Two average hits for someone with 8-14 BODY should do it.

If you deliberately buy something that you don't need, and that doesn't do you any good, it's not the rules' fault that it's too expensive. Buy what you need (reason from effects), and don't buy what you don't need.


Because I was building to someone else's example, and my point is the rules are not too expensive, even then.

Hell, why bother changing someone to a block of salt when you could turn them into a loyal slave? I don't think that having mental transforms BOECV is a requirement, just a suggestion (but I could well be wrong on that - I'm working from memory)

[Sean Waters]

Sean, that's true but my point is still there: it costs way, grossly too much, insanely so. This is like charging 50 points per D6 of energy blast, you can build ways to make it not be so awful but it's still grossly, insanely too expensive, almost insultingly so.

I think transform is insanely powerful, so the cost does not bother me. In fact I'd probably up it or restrict the power some other way.

Please don't be insulted.

[Tonio]

I think transform is insanely powerful, so the cost does not bother me. In fact I'd probably up it or restrict the power some other way.

I think part of the problem with Transform is that it's not "insanely powerful", it just CAN be insanely powerful. As you've said, turning someone into your loyal slave is an insanely powerful ability, but it's just as expensive as turning someone into a block of salt (less powerful, about as powerful as killing someone), or making them blind (certainly less powerful).

We might need finer granularity than just the three tiers we currently have.

[Blue Jogger]

Hmm, reading these posts on Transform suggest that we might need to revise the categories for Transform to allow for different genres. Since the basic complaint is X points per die is too cheap/too expensive for MY campaign.

5 points per die - These are for transforms that have no noticeable combat or campaign effects. In some campaigns, the ability to make frozen yogurt (frogurt) would easily fit here. However, if it was a desert campaign, this might be considered 15 points per die (water is so scarce that creating even frozen yogurt is the different between life-or-death).

10 points per die - Between 5 and 15.

15 points per die - This is the standard transform, based on Killing Attack. These transforms are equal to killing the character or object in question. In some genres, turning someone into stone should be cheaper than killing them, since it is actually less likely to kill and is just a minor inconvenience (Hey, Bob called turned to stone, better go back to town and get a scroll of Stone to Flesh.)

30 points per die - These are for transformations that are actually a fate worse than death (or one that reverses said transformation). Transforming someone into a creature that is no longer under the player's control (say into a sex-craved succubus, or murderous demon) is actually worse than simply killing them. These are for truly horrid transformations and their cure. Transforming a person into frogurt that kills the person almost instantly and prevents standard resurrection magics from working. The only cure is a Miraculous Transformation that can resurrect them from the remains of melted frogurt.

Now, the only problem is matching them up for a particular campaign/genre.

5 points - Silly
10 points - Annoying
15 points - Deadly
30 points - Horrid / Miraculous

[CTaylor]

I think transform is insanely powerful, so the cost does not bother me. In fact I'd probably up it or restrict the power some other way.

I can see that, I just agree with Tonio, and that's why I came up with a total transform instead of the major transform, which costs more dice. The cost is the same for an annoying or amusing transformation as a really powerful one, which is why there's a problem with the power. Add in the "three different forms" and mental transform and the power goes from absurd to the absolutely broken, even by your cost standards.

[Hugh Neilson]

5 points per die - These are for transforms that have no noticeable combat or campaign effects. In some campaigns, the ability to make frozen yogurt (frogurt) would easily fit here. However, if it was a desert campaign, this might be considered 15 points per die (water is so scarce that creating even frozen yogurt is the different between life-or-death).

It bothers me to tell a player they should spend 5 points per die for something that has no noticable effects. How much should he pay to have red hair?

[PhilFleischmann]

OK true, but I was arguing for a single attack to do the job, which was the situation he was presenting: combat attack to make someone change completely. Which would take a huge amount of dice (in any case, with the present rules, it would still be a 240 active point power with 4D6)
No. 4d6 x 15 = 60 points, like I said before. If you deliberately spend points on something you don't need, that's your fault, not the rules'.

[PhilFleischmann]

It bothers me to tell a player they should spend 5 points per die for something that has no noticable effects. How much should he pay to have red hair?
Exactly. 5 points per die should accomplish something useful, comparable to an Energy Blast. 10 points per die should be comparable to a Drain or an NND. The same way that 15 points per die should be comparable to a Killing Attack.

[nexus]

Q: Should Shrinking and Growth be done differently?

Steve’s Thoughts: See the “Powers F-K” post for discussion of this issue.


I think Shrinking and Growth could be combined into one power: Size Alteration. Being able to shrink or grow only would be a limitation. Shrinking should, IMO, reduce Strength and Attack damage by default with an Adder or Advantage where it doesn’t. I know many classic comic book examples don’t have this problem but it seems reasonable as a default and Shrinking, compared to Growth is more useful for about the same cost.



Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?

Steve’s Thoughts: If we’re consistent about decoupling things (Figureds from Primaries, Mental Awareness as a freebie, etc.), then growth momentum damage should also be removed. It should be bought as a supplementary ability.


This makes sense but it would probably be a good idea to mention it in the power description (how to buy it).



Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?

Steve’s Thoughts: If we’re consistent about decoupling things (Figureds from Primaries, Mental Awareness as a freebie, etc.), then velocity damage should also be removed. It should be bought as a supplementary ability.


Same a previous answer.



Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Steve’s Thoughts: I’ve heard this suggested, and the idea is not without merit, but I’m not entirely sold on it. I think there’s an ease-of-use benefit to keeping it a separate Power.


If Gliding is folded in Flight I think Swinging could fit there as well.



Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?

Steve’s Thoughts: As with my discussion of Absorption in another thread, my answer is “No, I don’t think so.” I think it’s helpful to keep it as a separate Power.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. Including some of the options from Ultimate Energy project might be helpful as well.

[Markdoc]

OK true, but I was arguing for a single attack to do the job, which was the situation he was presenting: combat attack to make someone change completely. Which would take a huge amount of dice (in any case, with the present rules, it would still be a 240 active point power with 4D6)

And a damn good thing too! That's a game-ending power right there. It should be enormously expensive!

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

And a damn good thing too! That's a game-ending power right there. It should be enormously expensive!

cheers, Mark

Exactly. No one would argue that 60 points should reliably kill tough opponents in one shot, or otherwise remove them from the combat. Why should it be possible to remove him by turning him into a newt? This is a similar issue often raised with mental powers - you can't reliably get a +30 effect with severely penalized breakout rolls in one shot. No kidding. Make it Cumulative with some increases to the maximum and you can reliably obtain such a result in 3-4 hits - the same as it takes to KO the target.

[CTaylor]

Mark: enormously expensive, yes, but that enormously so? And keep in mind: thats not a one-shot power that's half of a two-shot power, presuming they have no power defense which is cheap as dirt. In other words, what's the max energy blast in the game you allow? 60 points? 80 points? So you will let someone have a 12-14D6 blast? How many of those will it take to drop the average bad guy in your game, including agents? Two?

Cut it in half. That's the power level we're talking about for this transform.

[Vondy]

Exactly. No one would argue that 60 points should reliably kill tough opponents in one shot, or otherwise remove them from the combat. Why should it be possible to remove him by turning him into a newt?

In what genre?

And no, its not a joke question.

A .50 Caliber sniper rifle is 3d6+1 RKA (50 Points).

I would think, in a heroic game, being hit in the chest with one should equate to "adios ----bird."

Lets say I have a 4d6 RKA (60 Active Points). I shoot someone in the chest with it. On average, I do 14 Body and 35 Stun. With a normal attack its 12 Body and 42 Stun. And lets say you get the big roll - a whopping 24 Body and 120 Stun. Is a transform really that much more dangerous? Why shouldn't it be possible to have the same dramatic impact on a character by turning him into a newt?

I think people are paranoid about transforms. It should, at 15 points per die, be no more or less effective than a killing attack - and when you take into account how much body has to be overcome, and the free countdown to death (without intervention) killing attacks provide when you hit negative body, and the fact that you get some effect for your body from killing attacks before that point, its pretty much a wash. You don't get any effect (or a chance to stun your opponent) with a transform until you totally finish them. If you use any optional damage rules killing attacks become even more effective, even when just a few dice of killing damage are in play.

I don't think its the effectivenes of transforms that bother people as much as it is the ignomity. Most people would rather be decapitated than be a newt. People want to define their characters, not have them redefined for them, and would rather be dead. And yet, since all transforms have to be reversible or allow recovery without the express permission of the GM... they're a hell of a lot less permanent.

And back to genre: some powers are priced fine for superheroic games, but are even more prohibitive due to fewer available points in heroic games. Add in that people get their weapons for no points in heroic games and it gets even worse. Why would someone buy the newt power, exactly - even at 60 points?

[Paragon]

I don't think its the effectivenes of transforms that bother people as much as it is the ignomity. Most people would rather be decapitated than be a newt. People want to define their characters, not have them redefined for them, and would rather be dead. And yet, since all transforms have to be reversible or allow recovery without the express permission of the GM... they're a hell of a lot less permanent.

I think there's also a countermeasures issue. In most campaigns where there's actually any chance of getting a 3D6+1 killing attack actually showing up, there's usually access to armor that will at least mitigate the chance of a one shot kill (it doesn't take much to do so, really).

There's no similar guarentee that Power Defense will be as universally accessible; even with superheroes its often hard to rationalize, and a non-magician in a fantasy setting me be completely out of luck with coming up with it. As such, it can be an attack for which there is not response.

[ajackson]

Exactly. No one would argue that 60 points should reliably kill tough opponents in one shot, or otherwise remove them from the combat.
Part of the problem with Transform (and Mind Control) is that the difference between important characters and mooks is too small. 60 points should be able to one-shot an agent; not necessarily kill, but take out of the fight.

The natural response to this is to make Transform cheaper, and make Power Defense (and Mental Defense) much more common. If the average superhero has Power Defense and Mental Defense of 10-15, there's suddenly a significant difference between a hero and a mook.

[Vondy]

I think there's also a countermeasures issue. In most campaigns where there's actually any chance of getting a 3D6+1 killing attack actually showing up, there's usually access to armor that will at least mitigate the chance of a one shot kill (it doesn't take much to do so, really).

There's no similar guarentee that Power Defense will be as universally accessible; even with superheroes its often hard to rationalize, and a non-magician in a fantasy setting me be completely out of luck with coming up with it. As such, it can be an attack for which there is not response.


These are management issues, not costing issues.

[Paragon]

These are management issues, not costing issues.

I don't think you can entirely separate them that way. If something is, in practice, going to have more power than its raw numbers suggest, that's an issue of balance and costing too, whatever the theoretical model says.

[Hugh Neilson]

In what genre?

And no, its not a joke question.

I agree the question is valid. In whatever game, however, I don't believe it is good to have "one shot kills the PC" powers floating around. The Transform has much less common defenses than the sniper rifle.

Agreed - they didn't stay stable over 5 editions because there was something wrong with them!Lets say I have a 4d6 RKA (60 Active Points). I shoot someone in the chest with it. On average, I do 14 Body and 35 Stun. With a normal attack its 12 Body and 42 Stun. And lets say you get the big roll - a whopping 24 Body and 120 Stun. Is a transform really that much more dangerous? Why shouldn't it be possible to have the same dramatic impact on a character by turning him into a newt?[/quote]

If you get that really big roll (24 BOD) on the Transform, you'll transform anyone the KA would have killed. That's more likely by a factor of six than 24 BOD and 120 STUN (one less die to roll).


And back to genre: some powers are priced fine for superheroic games, but are even more prohibitive due to fewer available points in heroic games. Add in that people get their weapons for no points in heroic games and it gets even worse. Why would someone buy the newt power, exactly - even at 60 points?

Why should they pay 60 points for a 4d6 RKA in that same campaign? That, to me, highlights the issue of free weapons more than any pricing issue. Add a Wand of Transfiguration (4d6 Transform into a newt) to your weapons list, and the character need not pay for his 4d6 Transform - he just needs the appropriate weapon familiarity.

[CTaylor]

Assuming you treat wands as a familiarity, it doesn't require a magic skill roll, and your target is a small animal that would be transformed with 4D6.

[Markdoc]

In what genre?

And no, its not a joke question.

A .50 Caliber sniper rifle is 3d6+1 RKA (50 Points).

I would think, in a heroic game, being hit in the chest with one should equate to "adios ----bird."

Which is fair enough - rDEF is pretty common as defence though. A good quality Flak jacket can easily turn "adios ----bird." into "Why don't you lie down for a bit?"

Transform, OTOH goes against a pretty uncommon defence - so yes, I think it should be significantly more expensive than RKA. This is not just off-the-shelf paranoia: I have seen transform abused pretty heavily in some of our early games (and even done it myself :o)

cheers, Mark

[Paragon]

Which is fair enough - rDEF is pretty common as defence though. A good quality Flak jacket can easily turn "adios ----bird." into "Why don't you lie down for a bit?"

Transform, OTOH goes against a pretty uncommon defence - so yes, I think it should be significantly more expensive than RKA. This is not just off-the-shelf paranoia: I have seen transform abused pretty heavily in some of our early games (and even done it myself :o)

cheers, Mark

And the general design of the game seems to agree; after all, if you make that killing attack AVLD, it'd cost considerably more than Transform. Now you also get Stun out of the killing attack, but once you've got an attack that can kill outright against an exotic defense, do people care that much?

[CTaylor]

One more time: the fact that a power can be abused does not mean that there necessarily is anything wrong with the power. That's why there are those stopsigns in the rules: some powers need close examination.

Also, the fact that a power can be abused does not mean every application of that power should cost absurd amounts to achieve an effect.

[Paragon]

One more time: the fact that a power can be abused does not mean that there necessarily is anything wrong with the power. That's why there are those stopsigns in the rules: some powers need close examination.



I think its fair to ask if a given power or component of a power serves enough of a purpose to justify its potential for abuse, though.

[Chris Goodwin]

One more time: the fact that a power can be abused does not mean that there necessarily is anything wrong with the power. That's why there are those stopsigns in the rules: some powers need close examination.

Also, the fact that a power can be abused does not mean every application of that power should cost absurd amounts to achieve an effect.

No, but the ability to one-shot a character should cost a lot.

1d6 of Transform will Transform almost any character with less than 6 Power Defense. Eventually.

[CTaylor]

And a 1D6 blast will kill a character. If they don't have more than 1 PD or ED. Eventually. See where I'm going here?

The structure makes lesser but signifcant effects the same as gigantic effects. In other words, giving someone unluck costs as much as turning them into a puddle of goo. To make matters worse, to make someone be and think they're a puddle of goo costs an astronomical amount.

If an average attack can kill the average character, then an average transform to make the average character into anything else should cost no more.

[Tonio]

And a 1D6 blast will kill a character. If they don't have more than 1 PD or ED. Eventually. See where I'm going here?

Well, yes, but characters start out with more than 1PD/ED. They start out with 2, which is enough to stop being killed by a 1d6 blast, ever. =)


The structure makes lesser but signifcant effects the same as gigantic effects. In other words, giving someone unluck costs as much as turning them into a puddle of goo. To make matters worse, to make someone be and think they're a puddle of goo costs an astronomical amount.

If an average attack can kill the average character, then an average transform to make the average character into anything else should cost no more.

I disagree. From the point of view of the target, sure, being "something else" is either better or the same as being dead. But from the point of view of the attacker, turning the target into "something else" can be humongously more useful than killing them, so it shouldn't necessarily cost as much.

[Chris Goodwin]

And a 1D6 blast will kill a character. If they don't have more than 1 PD or ED. Eventually. See where I'm going here?

The structure makes lesser but signifcant effects the same as gigantic effects. In other words, giving someone unluck costs as much as turning them into a puddle of goo. To make matters worse, to make someone be and think they're a puddle of goo costs an astronomical amount.

If an average attack can kill the average character, then an average transform to make the average character into anything else should cost no more.

My point is, the average attack can kill the average character -- usually in 3-4 shots. If you want to one-shot your target, it should be expensive, whether you want to kill them or turn them into something else.

[CTaylor]

Sure, but since we were discussing the cost of 1-shotting anyone, that was the context of my comments.

[Vondy]

Which is fair enough - rDEF is pretty common as defence though. A good quality Flak jacket can easily turn "adios ----bird." into "Why don't you lie down for a bit?"

Transform, OTOH goes against a pretty uncommon defence - so yes, I think it should be significantly more expensive than RKA. This is not just off-the-shelf paranoia: I have seen transform abused pretty heavily in some of our early games (and even done it myself :o)

cheers, Mark

Transform is a stopsign power. Built into are its temporary as opposed to permanent (decapitation, anyone?) effects, the need to define a way to reverse it, and the fact that all of these things require the GM to sign off on them before you even think about it. The only way a major transform will permanently affect a character is if the GM allows it to. Not so losing limbs or your head (short of having a power to counteract the effect).

Also, and I may be misremembering, but don't you have to overcome body X2 to actually accomplish anything? Hence those insane 7-8d6 major transforms some published beasties are published with? This, as opposed to taking someone down at BodyX1 and having them die without being stabalized without having to do anything? Even if its Body X1, I think my previous comments stand: its a stopsign for a reason and has temporary effects without express GM permission.

As I said: its a management issue. I think its costed fine as is. There is no reason it needs to be ridiculously expensive. The fact that its only stopped by exotic defenses does not impress me. I don't hear these whines about mental defense, which is also exotic (and sometimes hard to justify) and mental powers weigh in at 5:1 and 10:1. Or Flash, which can completely change the tide of a battle on a few dice, let alone the big ones. Killing attacks have a common defense because they are common themselves.

Transform is a rare power, it requires permission, and it has temporary effects (or an escape clause) - it should have relatively rare (read: exotic) defenses.

[Enforcer84]

My thoughts on Tunnelling.

Wow. I'm surprised no one has actually brought this up. This is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, THE least purchased power in the entire game.

Let's look at why.

1) Tunnelling is perceived by many players as stupid. Yeah, I hate to say it, but it's true, people look at tunnelling and say "Yeah, that's either a villainous power, or a dirty one."

2) Tunnelling is cost prohibitive. Let's look at the cost of tunnelling. 1" of Tunnelling costs 5 points. 1 DEF of Tunnelling costs 3 points. Would you rather have 15" of flight, or 6" of Tunnelling through 6 DEF. A normal house can have more than 6 DEF. This is really not very exciting.

3) Tunnelling is only effective when you build weird characters or buy weird powers. Example: Shaped Charge to Blow a door. It is so much more effective to buy this as Tunnelling with 1" of movement and a heap of DEF that compared to Killing Attack, it just blows it away.

My suggestions: Lower the cost for an inch of movement to 2 per hex (Or MU if you take my other suggestion), and standardize it with every other movement power in the game. DEF is not free. You still get 1 DEF for every " of movement, but now that costs 2 points instead of 3. Tunnelling is not that fast, but it still should still be able to somewhat compete with other movement powers without breaking the game.

The truth: No one cares enough about the Tunnelling power to really give it a serious look, IMHO.

But these fixes need to happen.

I have many characters purchase tunnelling when it would be appropriate for their theme. Infact, 100% of the characters I've made in which it would be thematically appropriate have bought Tunnelling.

I have no problem with it's efficiency.

[Markdoc]

Also, and I may be misremembering, but don't you have to overcome body X2 to actually accomplish anything?

SNIP

As I said: its a management issue. I think its costed fine as is.

As do I, for these two reasons. I'm not arguing that it should be made more expensive: I'm cool with it as it is. I'm arguing that it should not be made cheaper.

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

As do I, for these two reasons. I'm not arguing that it should be made more expensive: I'm cool with it as it is. I'm arguing that it should not be made cheaper.

cheers, Mark

Um... yeah.

There are already cheaper versions of the power for less dramatic effects; and I agree: its costed correctly at present.

[CTaylor]

As do I, for these two reasons. I'm not arguing that it should be made more expensive: I'm cool with it as it is. I'm arguing that it should not be made cheaper.

And I'm arguing two things:

1) there needs to be more granularity in Transform, a step in between turning someone into a puddle of goo and making someone taller.

2) the cost for mental transforms (requiring BOECV) and the three-step "total transform" is grossly, insanely too high.

[Paragon]

And a 1D6 blast will kill a character. If they don't have more than 1 PD or ED. Eventually. See where I'm going here?

The structure makes lesser but signifcant effects the same as gigantic effects. In other words, giving someone unluck costs as much as turning them into a puddle of goo. To make matters worse, to make someone be and think they're a puddle of goo costs an astronomical amount.



Well, I'd argue part of the problem here is too much is piled into the third category of Transform; there are a lot of things you have to use it to do that should go in the second category, IMO.

[Vondy]

2) the cost for mental transforms (requiring BOECV) and the three-step "total transform" is grossly, insanely too high.

In terms of major mental transforms it is incredibly expensive, but are most mental transforms really major ones? I've found very few people use cosmetic and minor transforms at all even though they can achieve a great deal. I think one of the real issues is that the practical differences between the levels of transform and what they can and can't do aren't defined really well.

[splooger]

I'd like to see an animate object power. The current way of building it with transform or telekinesis is too clunky.

[Opal]

I'd like to see an animate object power. The current way of building it with transform or telekinesis is too clunky.Why not just Summon with a limitation that there needs to be something apropriate to 'animate?'

[splooger]

Why not just Summon with a limitation that there needs to be something apropriate to 'animate?'

Well, if you do that, then you aren't actually animating the objects, you're simply summoning objects out of thin air.

[CTaylor]

It works, though: its a game effect, you turned the item (as a focus) into the summon, of the same item, but animated. It's kludgy but it will work.

[BobGreenwade]

It works, though: its a game effect, you turned the item (as a focus) into the summon, of the same item, but animated. It's kludgy but it will work.I completely don't get this. How would you do it with creating, say, a chair?

[Opal]

Well, if you do that, then you aren't actually animating the objects, you're simply summoning objects out of thin air.It's an F/X thing. You buy the ability to summon things out of thing air, which is more powerful and versatile than the ability to animate existing things, then you 'limit it down' to the functionality of animating them. You're 'animating' exiting items. As long as your summoned creatures are strong enough to move or destroy the item you're animating, the fact that the 'animated' item might be in a different place or destroyed when your summon ends isn't really an issue, either.

[CTaylor]

You summon a chair that's animate; basically I'd do it by building a template of "animated object" powers that adds points to a thing, then build my summon with a broad category of types (+1 probably). You could get away with just the template cost if all you do is summon ordinary objects, but if you animate more useful things such as a computer or a car, you'd probably need more points in the summon to simulate their abilities.

In other words: build a creature called "animated object" with the basic abilities such an object would have, perhaps with a few variants based on size and durability. Then you build the summon power with "all animated objects" and you have the ability to summon every variant.

[BobGreenwade]

You summon a chair that's animate; basically I'd do it by building a template of "animated object" powers that adds points to a thing, then build my summon with a broad category of types (+1 probably). You could get away with just the template cost if all you do is summon ordinary objects, but if you animate more useful things such as a computer or a car, you'd probably need more points in the summon to simulate their abilities.

In other words: build a creature called "animated object" with the basic abilities such an object would have, perhaps with a few variants based on size and durability. Then you build the summon power with "all animated objects" and you have the ability to summon every variant.Then a chair would be built as a creature, using a full character sheet, but with the Physical Limitation Inanimate? Isn't that a bit complicated for something that basic?

[GamePhil]

Then a chair would be built as a creature, using a full character sheet, but with the Physical Limitation Inanimate? Isn't that a bit complicated for something that basic?

I'm sorry, but weren't they discussing how to actually animate a chair? When did summoning an inanimate chair come up?

As for how to do it with Summon, you just Summon a creature that only has the DEF and Body of a chair and no other Characteristics. If it should ever become necessary to purchase a Power to create a chair, which I don't see happening. On the other hand, you could fold Entangle into Summon with such a system, so it might not be useless.

[CTaylor]

Then a chair would be built as a creature, using a full character sheet, but with the Physical Limitation Inanimate? Isn't that a bit complicated for something that basic?

No, it's just a chair. This is just a way to animate objects, not my personal choice, but it would work.

[BobGreenwade]

I'm sorry, but weren't they discussing how to actually animate a chair? When did summoning an inanimate chair come up?My misread. Somehow when the word "animating" was used earlier, my brain transfigured the word into "creating" or "summoning." Sorry. :doi:

[Kevin Roberts]

Here is a request, make Telekiness a mental power.
Yes, in 4th edition, there are optional rules for using telekiness based on ego and not having it cost more and it having the same visual effects as telepathy and ego.
I do not know right now what 5th edition books has this optional rule in it.

[nexus]

Well, if you do that, then you aren't actually animating the objects, you're simply summoning objects out of thin air.

The SFX is that an object is animated. It's reasoning from effect. The character could get a Limitation: OIF: Object of opportunity to reflect this.

[nexus]

Here is a request, make Telekinesis a mental power.

Yes, in 4th edition, there are optional rules for using telekinesis based on ego and not having it cost more and it having the same visual effects as telepathy and ego.

I do not know right now what 5th edition books has this optional rule in it.

The Ultimate Mentalist, IIRC

I'd say leave it standard. Telekinesis as a generic ability fits for some many special effects that aren't mental in nature.

[nexus]

I'm sorry, but weren't they discussing how to actually animate a chair? When did summoning an inanimate chair come up?

As for how to do it with Summon, you just Summon a creature that only has the DEF and Body of a chair and no other Characteristics. If it should ever become necessary to purchase a Power to create a chair, which I don't see happening. On the other hand, you could fold Entangle into Summon with such a system, so it might not be useless.

Maybe not specifically a chair (though I could see it being a minor magical spell) but the ability to create mundane objects could be very useful.

[casualplayer]

As befuddled and outraged as I was initially by the 5th Ed. change for constructing characters with permanent size differences from human norm, I've become a convert and think that the evolution should be towards that method for all size change, permanent and transitory. Size change is an SFX that suggests a suite of abilities and disadvantages but should not shackle the character to that grouping. Sidebar it, offer detailed, easily modified templates but please don't codify it into something that has to filed down to fit.

Stretching is precisely the ability to exert your STR at a distance away from your core self and should be costed as if it were Str Ranged, with the expense proportionate to the character's STR. If I didn't feel like I was tilting windmills, I would suggest that the prohibition against STR Ranged be lifted and classic Stretching be moved to the sidebar, likely constructed as STR Ranged, Limited Power: Affected as if HTH Attack/Attackable Focus, Must Cross Intervening Distance. Especially adept stretchers would add degrees of Indirect or velocity damage and other bells and whistles, but those bells and whistles should not be intrinsic and intrusive.

[Paragon]

I still don't see why the Growth/Shrinking Always On and Inherent method wasn't a better choice on the whole; it allowed a lot more meaningful twiddling than the Disadvantage method does.

[CTaylor]

I think the power+inherent gives consistency and specific rules to how to do things, which ironically the people who are saying "ditch it" often are the same ones who are saying "we need more specific rules." We have them for growth and shrinking. Shrinking costs too much and gives too much benefit, but the system works as is.

[casualplayer]

"Shrinking" makes you harder to see, harder to hit, easier to conceal and able to negotiate a smaller aperture. This could be done with Skill Levels more easily than the current construct. If you want, throw in a Side Effect or Dist. Feature to represent the weight/reach/STR reduction. "Growth" is the inverse and could be done with STR + reach with negative skill levels towards being nimble, seen, concealed or hit.

[CTaylor]

This could be done with Skill Levels more easily than the current construct. If you want, throw in a Side Effect or Dist. Feature to represent the weight/reach/STR reduction. "Growth" is the inverse and could be done with STR + reach with negative skill levels towards being nimble, seen, concealed or hit.

Or, you could just buy it with Shrinking and Growth, as is, in the system. Which gives you predictability, ease of building, and the same system from creature to creature, instead of reinventing the wheel with several extra paragraphs of explanation. I mean there's this big push toward making things more compact and simpler, how does ditching these powers and making everyone build the same thing with 5 different structures achieve that goal?

[palaskar]

Tunneling: I have NEVER seen anybody actually purchase this. This suggestion:

Lower the cost for an inch of movement to 2 per hex (Or MU if you take my other suggestion), and standardize it with every other movement power in the game. DEF is not free. You still get 1 DEF for every " of movement, but now that costs 2 points instead of 3. Tunneling is not that fast, but it still should still be able to somewhat compete with other movement powers without breaking the game...

Sounds good. Give us a few wacky Tunneling builds too, like Megascale Tunneling (to the Earth’s core!) or Superman’s “spinning drill” Trick, or, damn, there really aren’t that many others I can think of, other than the Landshark (tunneling sharks with only their fins visible.)

Transform - As I've mentioned on threads prior to 6E discussion, the categories (Cosmetic, Minor, Major) are not well-defined and useful. Cosmetic, for the same price as EB, is ridiculously expensive, and utterly useless. "Stop! In the name of the law, or I'll turn your hair blue!" A cosmetic Transform is better built as a SFX of another power, or perhaps a small Adder at most. IMO, the categories should be:

Minor (5 points per d6) - a minor inconvenience to the target, such as loss of a non-targeting sense, loss of the use of one arm, partial hindrance of movement
Major (10 points per d6) - a serious hindrance to the target: blindness, inability to walk, loss of a major power
Total (15 points per d6) - like a kill, or a knockout, completely takes the target out of the fight: turn to stone, total paralysis, turned into a small helpless animal

Hmm, good points. Cosmetic should be folded into Instant Change, then. 5 or 10 points, depending on flexibility.

Whoops, missed the points on: Yes, turning the bad guy's hair blue is a Cosmetic Transform, but so is turning your partner into one of the bad guy's agent's exact look-alike. Or into someone else entirely. (Flawless Disguise skill, semi-permanent, too.) Or changing your passport so your name and picture are different. Or turning water into wine.

Cosmetic should then be separated into Instant Change types – change hairstyle, etc. – and actually useful Cosmetic Changes, which still cost 5 pts. Per.

Enhanced Telepathy sense is something I agree with.

[Chris Goodwin]

Transform - As I've mentioned on threads prior to 6E discussion, the categories (Cosmetic, Minor, Major) are not well-defined and useful. Cosmetic, for the same price as EB, is ridiculously expensive, and utterly useless. "Stop! In the name of the law, or I'll turn your hair blue!" A cosmetic Transform is better built as a SFX of another power, or perhaps a small Adder at most. IMO, the categories should be:

You're aware that on Transform dice you count the total, not just the BODY? 4d6 Transform will transform the average normal in two shots.

[Sketchpad]

You're aware that on Transform dice you count the total, not just the BODY? 4d6 Transform will transform the average normal in two shots.
It's funny, I'd used Transform wrong for the longest time and always wondered why people thought it was so nasty ... ;)

[Chris Goodwin]

It's funny, I'd used Transform wrong for the longest time and always wondered why people thought it was so nasty ... ;)

I'm starting to wonder why people think it's so expensive.

[Paragon]

I'm starting to wonder why people think it's so expensive.

Probably because a lot of concepts don't seem to work rationally with cumulative Transforms, and any All-or-Nothing one _is_ expensive. You can argue it should be, but there it is.

[nexus]

S/FX can help. The transform hits and takes a few seconds to work. (two or more segments/phases).

[Paragon]

S/FX can help. The transform hits and takes a few seconds to work. (two or more segments/phases).

That still shouldn't mean you need to make two attacks; it'd just be a Continuous Transform (which isn't much better on cost issues).

Personally, I think the pricing on the power is fine, but too much gets pushed into the higher versions; there are things (like granting Unluck) that clearly don't belong in the top end Transform, but that's still the tendency. Top end transforms should be reserved for things that are either really beneficial or really disabling, not things that work like long term versions of transient attack powers.

[nexus]

That still shouldn't mean you need to make two attacks; it'd just be a Continuous Transform (which isn't much better on cost issues).


I don't mean that the character gets to avoid an Attack roll but that the players can visualize the transformation taking more or less in narrative sense. But I'm generally of the opinion that dice rolls are abstraction like when an attack misses it might have hit but didn't do any appreciable damage.

[Paragon]

I don't mean that the character gets to avoid an Attack roll but that the players can visualize the transformation taking more or less in narrative sense. But I'm generally of the opinion that dice rolls are abstraction like when an attack misses it might have hit but didn't do any appreciable damage.

I think in a game that makes as much distinction between DCV and Defense as Hero does, that doesn't follow, honestly.

[Chris Goodwin]

Probably because a lot of concepts don't seem to work rationally with cumulative Transforms, and any All-or-Nothing one _is_ expensive. You can argue it should be, but there it is.

Okay. How much should it cost to knock someone unconscious with one hit and keep them unconscious for two months? Because that's what we're talking about with Transform. You want to turn someone into a rock (for example) and have them recover at the rate of their REC in Body per month. We'll assume the particular target has 10 BODY and 10 REC, and further assume the target has no Power Defense.

For Transform, you want to do 20 BODY in one shot. At Standard Effect, 3 BODY per die, that's 7d6, for 21 BODY. 7d6 Major Transform, Target to Rock. 105 Base Points. If you want to assume the target has 10 Power Defense, we'll make it an even 30 BODY for 10d6, 150 Base Points.

Let's give the "knocking unconscious" part the benefit of some doubt; we'll take him down only enough to remove him from combat, say REC every 1 Minute. -30 STUN. Let's assume our target above has 60 STUN, 20 nPD, 15rPD; these aren't too out of the ordinary. Since we want to take him down to -30 STUN in one shot, we need to hit him for a total of 135 STUN. If we're doing it with normal dice, we can let the sheer number of dice flatten out the curve and assume 3.5 STUN per die. 39 normal dice should do it. 195 points. If you want to play the STUN lotto, we'll assume you're rolling a 5. 27 BODY. 8d6, maybe buy a +1 STUNx to make sure you hit the Powerball. 120 base, 150 Active.

Still think Transform is too expensive?

If you want to one-shot your target, you have to compare one-shots to one-shots. Period.

[ajackson]

Okay. How much should it cost to knock someone unconscious with one hit and keep them unconscious for two months?
The cost problem isn't with major transform. It's with lesser effects than that. There's currently no mechanic other than Transform to generate moderate hindering effects, and Minor Transform is often still overpriced in that role, not to mention that Major Transform is often arbitrarily required for something that isn't anywhere near as crippling as being taken out.

[Chris Goodwin]

The cost problem isn't with major transform. It's with lesser effects than that. There's currently no mechanic other than Transform to generate moderate hindering effects, and Minor Transform is often still overpriced in that role, not to mention that Major Transform is often arbitrarily required for something that isn't anywhere near as crippling as being taken out.

All right, I'll give you that. You can "moderately hinder" someone for a Phase or two for 15-30 Base Points (Flash and Entangle will both do that). Whereas with Transform, you're pretty much limited to "moderately hindering" someone for a month or until they're hit with the magic stick or whatever, and still paying for the privilege.

I'm still not convinced Transform is too expensive, but we could use some finer control (which might be worth Limitations). You pay the same whether the reversion condition is hitting them with the magic stick (which could happen in two Phases or two years) or letting them recover the BODY.

[CTaylor]

Transform is either a pretty good deal or a horribly overpriced junkfest depending on what you want to do with it, which says to me that the price structure is poorly done. Making someone limp for 2 weeks is as expensive as making them have no legs at all; that's a problem. There needs to be a step between minor and major transforms as they are now written.

See, even with this example:


4d6 Transform will transform the average normal in two shots.

A 4D6 blast will knock the average normal out entirely in two shots. Is that worth the same thing as making their eyes different colors? Changing their shirt into a more ugly one? Therin lies the problem; the cost structure and what you get for it.

[nexus]

How about a sliding scale for effect?

Cosmetic Transformation must exceed one half Body/Ego/Con

Minor must exceed those

Major must double them.

[Paragon]

Okay. How much should it cost to knock someone unconscious with one hit and keep them unconscious for two months? Because that's what we're talking about with Transform. You want

This whole post misses the point.

1. It doesn't matter whether its priced right on game balance terms; if it makes certain effects prohibitively expensive (and it does) some people are going to have issues with it.

2. It makes it prohibitive in many cases even when it _isn't_ overpowered. If you have a Transform that wears off in a round, its still going to be ruddy pricey just because the system isn't liable to give it enough of a Limitation not to be; and even if it does, it runs into Active Point ceilings that are currently about the only default power level cap system used in the system. This bites some constructs elsewhere, but its very visible here.

And as I noted, a world of sins is piled into Major Transform, some of which are clearly not in the power level of others. Any impairing effect ends up there if its of long duration whether it completely takes them out or just makes life hard on them.

So I'm quite willing to say that Transform is sometimes priced right, but often is way overcharging for what it does.

[ajackson]

All right, I'll give you that. You can "moderately hinder" someone for a Phase or two for 15-30 Base Points (Flash and Entangle will both do that). Whereas with Transform, you're pretty much limited to "moderately hindering" someone for a month or until they're hit with the magic stick or whatever, and still paying for the privilege.
Which is also a problem. What we really need to do is come up with a power structure that means we don't need to use Transform. I proposed an Inflict (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1550921&postcount=100) power structure in the General Powers thread, and there was also some discussion of using Drain to apply disadvantages over in the the A-E thread.

At that point, Transform becomes a special effect of, typically, either Aid or Inflict/Drain (under special conditions, it could also be things like Summon). I'm not sure we actually need transform as a distinct game mechanic.

[BobGreenwade]

Transform is either a pretty good deal or a horribly overpriced junkfest depending on what you want to do with it, which says to me that the price structure is poorly done. Making someone limp for 2 weeks is as expensive as making them have no legs at all; that's a problem. There needs to be a step between minor and major transforms as they are now written.

See, even with this example:


4d6 Transform will transform the average normal in two shots.

A 4D6 blast will knock the average normal out entirely in two shots. Is that worth the same thing as making their eyes different colors? Changing their shirt into a more ugly one? Therin lies the problem; the cost structure and what you get for it.Are you taking into account the cost differentiation among Cosmetic, Minor, and Major Transforms? Or am I misreading something here?

[CTaylor]

Another option is to make Transform less expensive, have another step (total) that does what major at its worst does now, and put an adder in for how long the transformation lasts rather than presuming it's just as long as you decide.

Cosmetic: 3 pts/D6
Minor: 5 pts/D6
Major: 10 pts/D6
Total: 15pts/D6

Transformation "heals" at rec/day by default, each 5 points adder moves this up the time chart. At 1 year per recovery the GM can rule it does not heal normally and requires a special way to remove it. A limitation can make the transform go away with some special circumstances in addition to the time (kiss by a princess, find a four leaf clover, etc).

[ajackson]

Transformation "heals" at rec/day by default, each 5 points adder moves this up the time chart.
I'd start much further down the time chart; there's a legitimate role for transformations that only last a few phases.

The time chart is slightly problematic anyway; it's got some false granularity. There are basically five durations of interest:

Lasts 1 phase
Lasts several phases, but not for a complete fight.
Lasts the duration of the fight, but unlikely to be relevant later.
Lasts long enough to be relevant in the next few scenes.
Lasts long enough that removing it is an adventure.

I would probably chop the time chart, at for things like fade rate, to Phase, Turn, Minute, Hour, Permanent.

[PhilFleischmann]

You're aware that on Transform dice you count the total, not just the BODY? 4d6 Transform will transform the average normal in two shots.

Palaskar was quoting my post in his. This whole passage came from one of my earlier posts on this thread:


Transform - As I've mentioned on threads prior to 6E discussion, the categories (Cosmetic, Minor, Major) are not well-defined and useful. Cosmetic, for the same price as EB, is ridiculously expensive, and utterly useless. "Stop! In the name of the law, or I'll turn your hair blue!" A cosmetic Transform is better built as a SFX of another power, or perhaps a small Adder at most. IMO, the categories should be:

Minor (5 points per d6) - a minor inconvenience to the target, such as loss of a non-targeting sense, loss of the use of one arm, partial hindrance of movement
Major (10 points per d6) - a serious hindrance to the target: blindness, inability to walk, loss of a major power
Total (15 points per d6) - like a kill, or a knockout, completely takes the target out of the fight: turn to stone, total paralysis, turned into a small helpless animal
I don't claim to speak for Palaskar, but all I said was that *Cosmetic* Transforms are too expensive. EB and "Turn someone's hair blue" are the same price. Under the current rules, blinding someone and turning them to stone are both considered "Major" transforms, and so they're the same price, even though one is significantly more useful than the other. That's the issue I was trying to address.

And yes, I'm aware that it's the total on the dice.

[CTaylor]

I'd start much further down the time chart; there's a legitimate role for transformations that only last a few phases.

Well my thinking was that most effects that transform are used to simulate can be done in the short term (less than a day) with other powers such as drain, images, darkness, and so on. Transformation by it's definition is meant to be more long term, and the cost of moving from a phase up the time chart to any reasonable time (like a month, the present equivalent in the rules) would be absurdly high unless you made the adder quite cheap.

[ajackson]

Transformation by it's definition is meant to be more long term.
Only because that's the Hero convention. In its most basic implementation, Transformation is either a pure Drain/Inflict (reduce traits/cause disad) or a combination of Inflict and Aid (if it has both positive and negative effects), and its duration could easily be no greater than normal stun damage.

[Hugh Neilson]

This whole post misses the point.

1. It doesn't matter whether its priced right on game balance terms; if it makes certain effects prohibitively expensive (and it does) some people are going to have issues with it.

My character should be completely invulnerable and able to shater mountains or slay entire cities with but a glance. Would you also say the price on that should be reduced below "prohibitively expensive", or is the problem my character concept, rather than pricing?


2. It makes it prohibitive in many cases even when it _isn't_ overpowered. If you have a Transform that wears off in a round, its still going to be ruddy pricey just because the system isn't liable to give it enough of a Limitation not to be; and even if it does, it runs into Active Point ceilings that are currently about the only default power level cap system used in the system. This bites some constructs elsewhere, but its very visible here.

Here I agree, and I'd like to see Transform broadened. For 5 points per d6,Transofrm should have some effect. For 15 points per d6, it should have an effect that is extreme. A lot of transforms should be 10 points per die.

Mental powers have the same issue - everything is ruled to be Ego +30.

I'd also agree with a price break for Tranforms that heal significantly faster.

[Paragon]

Only because that's the Hero convention. In its most basic implementation, Transformation is either a pure Drain/Inflict (reduce traits/cause disad) or a combination of Inflict and Aid (if it has both positive and negative effects), and its duration could easily be no greater than normal stun damage.

I'm not sure that really covers the ground; among other things, Transforms can grant things that don't exist at all, and tend to be absolute; they don't accumulate positive or negative effects, at best they hit a threshold of accumulated effect and then actually become present.

So I don't think that's going to really cover it.

[Paragon]

My character should be completely invulnerable and able to shater mountains or slay entire cities with but a glance. Would you also say the price on that should be reduced below "prohibitively expensive", or is the problem my character concept, rather than pricing?


I'd say that if you don't see that as excessive, you're going to say its with the pricing--and in more limited cases, I might be prone to agree with you. For example, I don't think being completely immune to some forms of attack is necessarily a hideous balance issue, and the fact its not doable at all (except with certain end runs) and even approximating it is highly expensive is not a virtue. As an example, being even highly resistant to fire is bloody expensive in the system, and I can't but have some sympathy for people who find such a common trope that pricey excessive. This is a bit farther along on that, but it still stands out.





Here I agree, and I'd like to see Transform broadened. For 5 points per d6,Transofrm should have some effect. For 15 points per d6, it should have an effect that is extreme. A lot of transforms should be 10 points per die.



Yeah.


Mental powers have the same issue - everything is ruled to be Ego +30.


That's at least interpetational though; the definition of what constitutes "strongly apposed" is less nailed down than what constitutes a Major Transform. The Blinding example pretty much sets the lower edge of Major Transforms, and the very name the top end of Cosmetic Transforms (which are grossly overpriced for what they do).



I'd also agree with a price break for Tranforms that heal significantly faster.

And you need to do it in some fashion other than just a Limitation, or its often meaningless, as are a lot of attack Limitations in terms of making a power actually available.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'd say that if you don't see that as excessive, you're going to say its with the pricing--and in more limited cases, I might be prone to agree with you. For example, I don't think being completely immune to some forms of attack is necessarily a hideous balance issue, and the fact its not doable at all (except with certain end runs) and even approximating it is highly expensive is not a virtue. As an example, being even highly resistant to fire is bloody expensive in the system, and I can't but have some sympathy for people who find such a common trope that pricey excessive. This is a bit farther along on that, but it still stands out.

To the issue of "fire", I feel the limitation "only vs one SFX" is vastly underpriced at -1/2, so I'm not going to debate that issue.


And you need to do it in some fashion other than just a Limitation, or its often meaningless, as are a lot of attack Limitations in terms of making a power actually available.

For purposes of how fast it recovers, I'd like to see a structure that is not a limitation. Practically, this probably means a series of options for Transform, where you start with the level of effect (Cosmetic; Minor; Moderate; Major) and modify that per die cost based on how quickly it recovers to get a base cost per die. That's not likely to always generate a cost evenly divisible by 5, but so what?

[ajackson]

And you need to do it in some fashion other than just a Limitation, or its often meaningless, as are a lot of attack Limitations in terms of making a power actually available.
That's why I argued for a short base duration. Advantages are always meaningful.

[Paragon]

To the issue of "fire", I feel the limitation "only vs one SFX" is vastly underpriced at -1/2, so I'm not going to debate that issue.



Personally, I thought it was too low-ball at -1; unless a damage form is almost the expected case (and I think with electricity in the mix, assuming that about fire is overly strict), it strikes me that it shouldn't even be costing half the general case.




For purposes of how fast it recovers, I'd like to see a structure that is not a limitation. Practically, this probably means a series of options for Transform, where you start with the level of effect (Cosmetic; Minor; Moderate; Major) and modify that per die cost based on how quickly it recovers to get a base cost per die. That's not likely to always generate a cost evenly divisible by 5, but so what?

I'd be fine with that kind of approach, even if its a bit complex.

[Paragon]

That's why I argued for a short base duration. Advantages are always meaningful.

The only issue I have with that, and its minor, is I always find it a bit baroque when the common forms of a power are the ones with an Advantage on it. But there's no help for that as long as Active Points are the only halfway decent metric for power capping.

[CTaylor]

SHAPESHIFT: I prefer the complexity of change rules over the "number of form" rules at present.

SHRINKING: See Density Increase and Growth.

This power is poorly built in any case; being half as tall does not make you nearly impossible to hit (+2 DCV is a huge advantage if both combat values are equal such as in the case of two normals). You're not that much harder to see either. Half the bonuses and drawbacks to 1 instead of 2; half the cost and the power is properly built. It's not worth 60 points to be 1" tall.

Oh, and get rid of the growth momentum.

STRETCHING: I love the "does not cover intervening space" advantage, that makes certain fascinating builds possible in a way that they are not otherwise. This is a good power, it is distinct from telekinesis in that the character is actively present rather than remotely active. It's a good power that is rather prominent in source material as well.

Eliminate the pointless velocity damage bonus.

TRANSFER: This should still drain points out of characters even if you've maxed the amount you can add (or at least an advantage should make it possible).

TRANSFORM: One more pitch:

Remove the requirement for BOECV to do mental transforms
Change the "3 component" transform structure to be an advantage rather than simply buying Transform over and over. +1/2 probably is sufficient.
Change the structure of transform to be shorter in duration with an adder to last longer, I suggest starting at a day with 5 points for each step up the time chart for the duration.
Change the basic structure to be like this (I've explained the steps earlier in this thread):
Cosmetic Transform 3 points per D6
Minor 5/D6
Major 10/D6
Total 15/D6

This gives greater granularity to the power and with the duration adder keeps the cost up there. Certain transforms right now are absurdly expensive for what you get, or reasonably priced for what you get because the cost structure is too tight.

TUNNELING: Split the movement and the defense penetrated completely like entangle so you can have a 12," 2 defense tunneling power.

[Vondy]

I'm sorry, but weren't they discussing how to actually animate a chair? When did summoning an inanimate chair come up?



PS: Cartoonist.

There, we're done.

[BobGreenwade]

Regarding Velocity Damage from Shrinking and Stretching:

After some thought, I'd drop these from the base Powers, but make them allowable with an Adder or Advantage (rather than making them removable from the base power with a Limitation). Figure out how much it would cost to build a Hand-to-Hand Attack of the appropriate amount, Linked to the Power and with other appropriate Limitations, and cost it accordingly. This would (arguably) be a simpler way to do it than to force a complete HA build each time around.

[novi]

A couple thoughts on stretching:

Removing velocity damage is probably the way to go, though it seems to me that the cost is a bit high at that point.

Also, stretching grants another thing obscure and not touched upon - flexibility, namely it is mentioned in the rules that even 1" of stretching allows one to escape from many types of restraints without a roll. For instance, p142 of Dark Champions, the talent Flexibility, which is only 2 points to be able to automatically make many Contortionist rolls. While correct according to current rules, something about that strikes me as off.

Along similar lines, the current rules for simulating Mr. Fantastic's ability to squeeze through any non-air-tight crack also strike me as a bit of a cludge. Desolidification, doesn't protect against damage, can't pass through solid objects? It feels overly complicated, and high on the active points. And I'm not even sure how it fits in thematically and mechanically with Desolidification, since many instances of Desolid characters have nothing to do with it.

So I'd suggest something to cover both of those cases, not sure if it needs it own power listing or just an adder under stretching. But it would probably look like:

10 Points: The character is so flexible that they automatically succeed at any Contortionist roll, as long as it's possible under the rules for the skill. As of the Ultimate Skill, it's impossible to squeeze through an area narrower than jail bars. It also makes restraints and bonds, as well as some entangles, useless against the character. Against grabs, that would take some playtesting, either giving like a +6 bonus to the skill roll or just a flat +4d6 to the roll, I'm guessing.

20 Points: The character's body is completely malleable, able to bend into any shape and fit through any opening. Has all the benefits of the previous level. The ability to bend into any shape is similar to Shapeshift vs Touch, but isn't as precise as that power. It doesn't give any special Disguise ability, though it's use may grant bonuses to a Disguise roll.


I think this cleans up the costs and builds for those sort of things, and fits with the trend of eliminating freebies.

It strikes me that if you do all that, Stretching is probably correctly priced at 3 points per 1".

[CTaylor]

I agree, the cost of stretching is a bit excessive. For what it accomplishes, it's too costly: it should be pared back. Mr Fantastic would cost hundreds of points for his ability to reach a long ways alone.

It occurs to me that stretching is merely strength at range, with a limitation "continuous physical connection" that you can buy off with the appropriate advantage. That's not going to cost you more than 2 points per 5 strength. Even at 100 strength that's only 40 points, and your range will be 200" at that point. Granted, it breaks a fundamental rule (strength cannot be purchased with range) but even 3 points per 1" seems a bit much when you look at the build.

An adder that allows you to reach through or ooze through small areas is a great idea, but I figure 5 and 10 is enough, particularly if Desolid is adjusted to lower it's cost and effectiveness.

[Gary]

Stretching is a bit more than just Str at Range. You can use it for any No Range attacks such as Drains or HKAs, not just Str.

I think 3 pts per 1" is an appropriate cost if you get rid of ECs and remove the velocity damage. The White Elephant in the room of course is that in an existing EC, it will cost 1.5 pts per 1" which is probably way too cheap. Of course if you get rid of ECs, the problem is solved... :eg:

[PhilFleischmann]

TRANSFER: This should still drain points out of characters even if you've maxed the amount you can add ...
Right!

[CTaylor]

You can use it for any No Range attacks such as Drains or HKAs, not just Str.

Well... true, but strength is how the game expresses your ability to interact with the world physically; I could live with 3 points per 1" though.

[James Gillen]

Right!

I dunno, the purpose is TRANSFER, not Drain plus Aid, since (as I've said before) when we 'fixed' Aid by making it 10 points per die, that made Transfer automatically cheaper than the two other Powers together (15 points per where Drain is 10 per and Aid WAS 5 per). So I consider Transfer underpriced as is.

JG

[ajackson]

I dunno, the purpose is TRANSFER, not Drain plus Aid, since (as I've said before) when we 'fixed' Aid by making it 10 points per die, that made Transfer automatically cheaper than the two other Powers together (15 points per where Drain is 10 per and Aid WAS 5 per). So I consider Transfer underpriced as is.
Well, the Aid associated with the Transfer has some pretty major limitations. In particular, it's self-only, requires you to drain someone, and requires the drain to actually be successful.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, the Aid associated with the Transfer has some pretty major limitations. In particular, it's self-only, requires you to drain someone, and requires the drain to actually be successful.

2d6 Transfer: 30 points, 3 END

2d6 Aid, Costs END (-1/2), Self Only (-1/2), Linked to Drain (-1/4), limited to points drained (-1/4) 20 AP, 8 rp

2d6 Drain, 1/2 END 25 AP, Linked to Aid (-1/4) 25 AP, 20 rp

Total 45 AP, 28 rp, and it drains when you max out your Aid.

Transer should continue to drain.

[James Gillen]

2d6 Transfer: 30 points, 3 END

2d6 Aid, Costs END (-1/2), Self Only (-1/2), Linked to Drain (-1/4), limited to points drained (-1/4) 20 AP, 8 rp

2d6 Drain, 1/2 END 25 AP, Linked to Aid (-1/4) 25 AP, 20 rp

Total 45 AP, 28 rp, and it drains when you max out your Aid.

Transer should continue to drain.

All you're doing is proving my point: It's cheaper in AP and almost the same in real cost. Even then it should be Aid with no END plus Drain at X1 1/2 END. ;)

JG

[nexus]

Right!

Transfer could be folded into Drain as an Adder or Advantage, maybe even Adjustment Powers in general could get a "Transferrence" Advantage.

[BobGreenwade]

Transfer could be folded into Drain as an Adder or Advantage, maybe even Adjustment Powers in general could get a "Transferrence" Advantage.I like the idea of a Transference Advantage for Drain and Suppress; for Dispel, not so much. For additive Adjustment Powers (Aid, Succor, Healing) I think it'd be a Limitation.

[CTaylor]

Yeah I agree, although it might take as much time to explain the advantage "Transfer" as it does to explain the power. Plus, advantages often end up being cheaper than cost/die (because of the mathematics of multiple advantages), so that's something to consider.

Incidentally, I'll repeat what I said a few weeks back: this game really, really needs a reflect power, it just is brutal to build and is a part of the rules.

A power that acts in reverse of vulnerabilities would be useful as well (makes beneficial effects more potent), but I'm not sure how that would be built or how common it would be. If you let people use Aid to temporarily turn off disads, perhaps a weird variant would be to use Aid to reverse vulnerabilities as well.

[Tonio]

Incidentally, I'll repeat what I said a few weeks back: this game really, really needs a reflect power, it just is brutal to build and is a part of the rules.

What do you mean by a reflect power? Like Missile Reflection, the existing power? Or like that, but also applicable to HTH attacks? Or passive (no need to roll)?

[Paragon]

What do you mean by a reflect power? Like Missile Reflection, the existing power? Or like that, but also applicable to HTH attacks? Or passive (no need to roll)?

I'd like something that did the latter; I was trying to convert a spell from another system last night, and its just not doable in any self-evident way.

[Tonio]

Well, that could be accomplished if the Backlash Advantage to Force Wall were tweaked so that it reflected attacks against it always, not just when they came from a target englobed in one. Then you could just make a FW that surrounded you, Transparent to whatever type of damage you didn't want to reflect, and add the tweaked Backlash Advantage. That'd work nicely, I think.

[nexus]

I like the idea of a Transference Advantage for Drain and Suppress; for Dispel, not so much. For additive Adjustment Powers (Aid, Succor, Healing) I think it'd be a Limitation.

True, I just tossed that out as a quick suggestion not a full blown example so I didn't get into the nitty gritty :)

But yeah, it would be a limitation on some powers. I I think it should allow for variations like transfers that don't involve the power user too.

[ajackson]

I like the idea of a Transference Advantage for Drain and Suppress; for Dispel, not so much.
Actually, adding transference to dispel has a fairly straightforward meaning: as dispel takes out a single use of an ability, dispel with transference means you can instead move a power to a new target. Of course, this doesn't transfer the ability to maintain the power, so it vanishes at the end of the segment unless it is a lasting effect such as aid or an uncontrolled power.

In fact, Dispel (Transferrence) is one way to implement a Reflect power.

[CTaylor]

What do you mean by a reflect power? Like Missile Reflection, the existing power? Or like that, but also applicable to HTH attacks? Or passive (no need to roll)?

Something like the old reflect power from Champions 3 I think it was, that would bounce back at the person who attacked you at least part of the attack regardless of it being a missile attack or not. Missile reflection works, sort of, but only against missiles. There needs to be a power that works on any of a given special effect or class of attack (energy, physical, ajustment, mental, etc).

Perhaps a number of dice you roll giving you the active cost that's reflected (3 pts/die) or that gives you the body which equals set amounts such as dice, (much more/die).

[Tonio]

Something like the old reflect power from Champions 3 I think it was, that would bounce back at the person who attacked you at least part of the attack regardless of it being a missile attack or not. Missile reflection works, sort of, but only against missiles. There needs to be a power that works on any of a given special effect or class of attack (energy, physical, ajustment, mental, etc).

Perhaps a number of dice you roll giving you the active cost that's reflected (3 pts/die) or that gives you the body which equals set amounts such as dice, (much more/die).

I see. Just as a clarification, though, Missile Reflection can work against more than just "missiles". You can buy it so it works on all ranged attacks.

(Not saying this is the solution you're looking for... it won't work with HTH or Mental attacks, and it requires you to blow an action, and to roll to hit. But it's an option for some concepts.)

[CTaylor]

I see. Just as a clarification, though, Missile Reflection can work against more than just "missiles".

Hmm looking at the rules I see that Missile Deflection specifically and overtly states it only works against ... missiles or attacks built with the special effect of missiles, what am I missing here?

[nexus]

Missile Deflection works on "any ranged attacks" not just projectiles if buy it to the full level.

"A character with this power can block or otherwise avoid Ranged Attacks."

There isn't a power that does the same thing for HTH powers though.

[CTaylor]

"A character with this power can block or otherwise avoid Ranged Attacks."

With the special effect of missiles, as I understand it. Any ranged attack (such as energy blasts) with the special effect of "missile."

[ajackson]

With the special effect of missiles, as I understand it. Any ranged attack (such as energy blasts) with the special effect of "missile."
What types of effects can be deflected depends on how many points you put in the power. With full points, it can deflect any targeted ranged attack.

[nexus]

With the special effect of missiles, as I understand it. Any ranged attack (such as energy blasts) with the special effect of "missile."

You can purchase Missile Deflection to effect any Ranged Attack. It is not restricted to just "missiles" as in projectiles.

5 Thrown attack
10 Arrows
15 Bullets, Shrapnel
20 Any Ranged Attack

It's an oddball power because its effectiveness is based around Special Effects. A 20d6 attack with sfx Throwing a Rock could be stopped by 5 points of Missile Deflection but a 5d6 Telekinetic bolt would require 20 point though mechanically they're the same thing.

[CTaylor]

I understand what you're saying I just disagree: it says any ranged attack because it means "any sort of missile" not "anything whatsoever that happens to be at range"

[nexus]

What in the power causes you to make that assumption? It's never been stated as working that and is used to deflect Any Ranged Attack in official write ups when brought to the full level.

"For 20 Points the character can deflect any Ranged Attack than can be deflected. This includes but its not limited too Energy Blasts, Killing Attacks, most attacks brought with Advantage Ranged and many NND and AVLDs."

Further on its lists attacks which cannot be Deflected

Attacks which target Ego

Area of Effect and Explosion attacks

Entangles (without GM permission)

Attacks the character does not perceive.

HTH attacks including attack brought with No Range Limitation

The GM my waive these based on SFX

I don't seen a limitation about that says the attack how to be a "missile" by which I assume you mean a physical projectile.

There is a Limitation "Doesn't work against Heavy Missiles" that renders MD ineffective against objects too heavy for the character to life with his Unpushed Strength but it doesn't prevent him from using it against other Ranged Attacks.

[BobGreenwade]

I understand what you're saying I just disagree: it says any ranged attack because it means "any sort of missile" not "anything whatsoever that happens to be at range"Nexus is correct. The book says "any Ranged attack" because it means "any Ranged attack," according to the list it gives. If Steve had meant that the Power only worked if the Special Effect of the incoming attack is a missile, he would have written that.

[James Gillen]

Missile Deflection works on "any ranged attacks" not just projectiles if buy it to the full level.

"A character with this power can block or otherwise avoid Ranged Attacks."

There isn't a power that does the same thing for HTH powers though.

Doesn't Block do that? And aren't there "Brick" Martial Art styles where the Block basically simulates the character's ability to take any punch no matter how hard it is?

JG

[nexus]

Doesn't Block do that?


Block doesn't allow for a hand to hand to be reflected or redirected at another target. The missile deflection tangent began with a complaint about the difficulty of building an attack reflection power in Hero and Missile Deflection/Reflection was brought up.



And aren't there "Brick" Martial Art styles where the Block basically simulates the character's ability to take any punch no matter how hard it is?

JG

Yes, there are. There's a Take it on the Chin "Martial Block" in Cinematic Brawling and a Toughness Block in the Brick Tricks MA. But they're not really relevant to this discussion they're not Powers. Most defensive powers in Hero are based around the size of the attack. Missile Deflection/Reflection stands out in that regard and it also stands out because it's cost is based on sfx.

[CTaylor]

What in the power causes you to make that assumption?

Two things.

First, the fact that spending 20 points shouldn't be enough to make you effectively immune to almost every single ranged attack in the book (any would include adjustment powers, flash, but not AE, EGO, or entangle as the book specifically excludes those).

Second, this paragraph from page 209 of the rules:


The GM may expand or waive these rules in light of special effects. For example, if an Area Effect attack or Entangle is carried in a bullet or grenade, the GM should probably let the character Deflect it (and the attack should take the Can Be Deflected Limitation; see page 114).

Reason 2.5 would be the very existence of the Can Be Deflected Limitation, which does not restrict the attack in any place in its description to arrows and bullets. This rule does not say that Missile Deflection bought at the 20 point level assumes all attacks can be deflected nor does it give an exemption to the above suggestion for GMs for that level of the power.

Missile Deflection is for deflecting missiles not just any attack. The rules strongly imply that it has to be a missile. The fourth level of this build doesn't make you able to deflect flame throwers and laser blasts. It lets you deflect any sort of missile no matter how fast or of what construction.

[Tonio]

Two things.

First, the fact that spending 20 points shouldn't be enough to make you effectively immune to almost every single ranged attack in the book (any would include adjustment powers, flash, but not AE, EGO, or entangle as the book specifically excludes those).

Second, this paragraph from page 209 of the rules:



Reason 2.5 would be the very existence of the Can Be Deflected Limitation, which does not restrict the attack in any place in its description to arrows and bullets. This rule does not say that Missile Deflection bought at the 20 point level assumes all attacks can be deflected nor does it give an exemption to the above suggestion for GMs for that level of the power.

Missile Deflection is for deflecting missiles not just any attack. The rules strongly imply that it has to be a missile. The fourth level of this build doesn't make you able to deflect flame throwers and laser blasts. It lets you deflect any sort of missile no matter how fast or of what construction.

Flamethrowers, no, since they're AE Cone or Line (or should be). Laser blasts, yes. Missile Deflection is for deflecting ranged attacks. At the lower levels, only relatively slow moving physical missiles. At the highest level, any (most?) sorts of direct ranged attacks. The "Can Be Missile Deflected" Limitation is there for those types of attacks that can't normally be missile deflected, like AE's and Entangles, which, by virtue of their SFX, should logically be deflectable.

Your first point would be equally applicable to the Block maneuver, which makes you immune to nearly every HTH attack.

The paragraph in the rules about how the GM should consider expanding the set of deflectable attacks deals with expanding, not reducing, the set. It suggests how some normally non-deflectable attacks could/should be made deflectable if their SFX suggests it. Missile De/Reflection deals with direct, targetted attacks which move from the attacker to the target. Some powers don't usually fit that description, so they're non-deflectable by default. The GM should consider making them deflectable if SFX suggests it. The fact that missiles are probably the most common direct, targetted attacks that move from the attacker to the target doesn't mean they're the only ones, or that the power is restricted to dealing with them.

If you read closely, the 15pt version allows you to deflect "any physical projectile", that is, any missile. The 20pt version must be an upgrade to that, and it is, since it allows you deflect any ranged attacks (except those in the exception list).

[ajackson]

Two things.

First, the fact that spending 20 points shouldn't be enough to make you effectively immune to almost every single ranged attack in the book (any would include adjustment powers, flash, but not AE, EGO, or entangle as the book specifically excludes those).
It doesn't. It gives you a block defense against any ranged attack that takes an attack roll. Missile deflection is highly prone to being inferior to Martial Dodge.

[nexus]

Two things.

First, the fact that spending 20 points shouldn't be enough to make you effectively immune to almost every single ranged attack in the book (any would include adjustment powers, flash, but not AE, EGO, or entangle as the book specifically excludes those).


It does not make you immune to them. It give you the chance to Block them. The block maneuver does this for HTH attacks for free. You must use an Attack action and then you have chance. Missile Deflection doesn't work automatically. A Martial Dodge is often superior except Missile Deflection effectively give the character two chances at Defense since the attack still has to beat their DCV.




Reason 2.5 would be the very existence of the Can Be Deflected Limitation, which does not restrict the attack in any place in its description to arrows and bullets. This rule does not say that Missile Deflection bought at the 20 point level assumes all attacks can be deflected nor does it give an exemption to the above suggestion for GMs for that level of the power.


Can be Deflected is a Limitation for Power that can't normally be Deflect (Entangles, Area of Effect, Flash, etc). The powers listed right above that paragraph you quoted. It's not for Ranged Attacks in general. There is No mention of an innate sfx limitation.



Missile Deflection is for deflecting missiles not just any attack. The rules strongly imply that it has to be a missile. The fourth level of this build doesn't make you able to deflect flame throwers and laser blasts. It lets you deflect any sort of missile no matter how fast or of what construction.

Yes, it does.

It's not what the rules "imply". It's what the say. Look at the example in the power itself where the character Sidewinder doesn't Missile Deflect a Flame Blast. Why? Not because it's not a Missile but because of Area of Effect. This is stated explicitly. No where in the power description or examples does it ever say that it's limited to a certain sfx.

[Paragon]

Well, that could be accomplished if the Backlash Advantage to Force Wall were tweaked so that it reflected attacks against it always, not just when they came from a target englobed in one. Then you could just make a FW that surrounded you, Transparent to whatever type of damage you didn't want to reflect, and add the tweaked Backlash Advantage. That'd work nicely, I think.

That seems like an overly baroque way to have to do it, though, when all I want is some amount of damage to bounce back at the target. The only thing that makes it tricky is if you apply a simple Advantage to DEF, its pretty useless, as the amount you'll stop will likely be too little to bother the target, too.

[Paragon]

I'm honestly astounded that this is under discussion. The text doesn't seem the least ambiguous to me, a ranged damage attack that isn't area can be deflected with the top end Deflect. There's nothing to even suggest that just because you've called something a laser beam its not effected there.

(I'd like to go on record as suggesting this is only an issue in the first place because of the historical artifact that Missile Deflect changes cost based on nothing but SFX descriptor, and that'd be a good thing to punt in 6e).

[CTaylor]

Well, here's the thing, when you look at the level of deflect in question (20 points) it reads as follows:

-Character can also deflect any ranged attack that can be deflected (See Text) and the text box which follows specifically notes that the way for these attacks to be deflected is if they are in a missile such as a bullet or grenade.


the character Sidewinder doesn't Missile Deflect a Flame Blast. Why? Not because it's not a Missile but because of Area of Effect.

Correct, you cannot missile deflect AE attacks... unless they're bought as "can be deflected" but that has nothing to do with the argument at hand - at no level can you deflect AE attacks, that's a separate feature of the power.

[Tonio]

Well, here's the thing, when you look at the level of deflect in question (20 points) it reads as follows:

-Character can also deflect any ranged attack that can be deflected (See Text) and the text box which follows specifically notes that the way for these attacks to be deflected is if they are in a missile such as a bullet or grenade.

I'm pretty sure the "See Text" refers to the list that says you can't deflect AE's, Entangles, etc. I think reading it otherwise requires some effort, too.

[Chris Goodwin]

Well, here's the thing, when you look at the level of deflect in question (20 points) it reads as follows:

-Character can also deflect any ranged attack that can be deflected (See Text) and the text box which follows specifically notes that the way for these attacks to be deflected is if they are in a missile such as a bullet or grenade.



Correct, you cannot missile deflect AE attacks... unless they're bought as "can be deflected" but that has nothing to do with the argument at hand - at no level can you deflect AE attacks, that's a separate feature of the power.

So what is it you are looking for Missile Deflection/Reflection to do that it doesn't already do?

[nexus]

Well, here's the thing, when you look at the level of deflect in question (20 points) it reads as follows:

-Character can also deflect any ranged attack that can be deflected (See Text) and the text box which follows specifically notes that the way for these attacks to be deflected is if they are in a missile such as a bullet or grenade.


That refers to the specific list of attacks that are not area of effect.



Correct, you cannot missile deflect AE attacks... unless they're bought as "can be deflected" but that has nothing to do with the argument at hand - at no level can you deflect AE attacks, that's a separate feature of the power.

It points out that normally a flame blast can be deflected. Long is pretty thorough with his his examples. A point is made about AE not about the sfx of the power. If the power only effects "missiles" as you suggest then using a Flame blast as in an example that illustrates Area of Effect attacks can't be deflected is somewhat pointless.

[nexus]

I'm honestly astounded that this is under discussion. The text doesn't seem the least ambiguous to me, a ranged damage attack that isn't area can be deflected with the top end Deflect. There's nothing to even suggest that just because you've called something a laser beam its not effected there.

(I'd like to go on record as suggesting this is only an issue in the first place because of the historical artifact that Missile Deflect changes cost based on nothing but SFX descriptor, and that'd be a good thing to punt in 6e).

Agreed.

[ghost-angel]

Reason 2.5 would be the very existence of the Can Be Deflected Limitation, which does not restrict the attack in any place in its description to arrows and bullets. This rule does not say that Missile Deflection bought at the 20 point level assumes all attacks can be deflected nor does it give an exemption to the above suggestion for GMs for that level of the power.

Missile Deflection is for deflecting missiles not just any attack. The rules strongly imply that it has to be a missile. The fourth level of this build doesn't make you able to deflect flame throwers and laser blasts. It lets you deflect any sort of missile no matter how fast or of what construction.

There's no implication involved.

Missile Deflection: 20pts "Character can deflect any ranged attack that can be deflected"

I don't see any ambiguity in that.
p209 provides a list, none of the attacks on that list are done by SFX - they are all by Mechanic (EGO Attack, Targeting A Hex, Entangle, Non-Perceived Attacks, HTH Attack).

The "Can Be Deflected" Limitation is specifically for any of the above Examples on p209 that the builder feels should be Deflected/Reflected normally (AoE Attacks built into an arrow for example, or Entangle Bullets, or any number of other SFX they are trying to simulate Mechanically).

Any ambiguity in the Power you see is being placed there wholly by you.

[CTaylor]

"Character can deflect any ranged attack that can be deflected"

I don't see any ambiguity in that.

Be either. The distingishing point is that can be deflected which then is followed by a suggestion of things that cannot ever be deflected unless they are bought specifically with the special effect of being a missile! Thus: things that can be deflected are missiles.

Seems kind of clear to me: that's why it's called MISSILE Deflection. Steve could clear this up easy enough, if he could find the time, it just looks pretty clear from where I sit: you guys are grossly overpowering the 20 point level of missile deflection. I mean that's like saying the first three dice of energy blast work as is, and at the 4th die it gains AE Autofire personal immunity armor piercing.

Does that really make sense to you?

[ghost-angel]

Be either. The distingishing point is that can be deflected which then is followed by a suggestion of things that cannot ever be deflected unless they are bought specifically with the special effect of being a missile! Thus: things that can be deflected are missiles.

Seems kind of clear to me: that's why it's called MISSILE Deflection. Steve could clear this up easy enough, if he could find the time, it just looks pretty clear from where I sit: you guys are grossly overpowering the 20 point level of missile deflection. I mean that's like saying the first three dice of energy blast work as is, and at the 4th die it gains AE Autofire personal immunity armor piercing.

Does that really make sense to you?

It also says "See Text" and then on the VERY NEXT PAGE it lists THINGS THAT CANNOT BE DEFLECTED.

Read the entire power before inferring ambiguity. All of the things listed that cannot be Missile Deflected are specific Mechanics.

[nexus]

Edit: Too confrontational.

[CTaylor]

It also says "See Text" and then on the VERY NEXT PAGE it lists THINGS THAT CANNOT BE DEFLECTED.

Correct, and then in essence it says "to make these possible to deflect these, make the missiles." Bob Greenwade has asked Steve Long about this very question, I expect in a while we'll have an answer.

Seriously though: you figure for five points you can go from "specific examples of only missiles and projectiles that can be deflected" to "anything?" Five points?

[ghost-angel]

Seriously though: you figure for five points you can go from "specific examples of only missiles and projectiles that can be deflected" to "anything?" Five points?

Doesn't really matter how many points it is...

The book is pretty clear Any Ranged Attack means Any Ranged Attack.
Exceptions are EGO Attack, Attacks That Target A Hex (AoE, Explosion), Entangle, Unpercieved Attacks, Hand To Hand Attacks.

Let's do a test, let's assume the guy in front of you fires the following two attacks:

Energy Blast: Arrow. (phyiscal attack vs PD)
Ego Attack: No. Targets A Hex: No. Entagle: No. Unperceived: No. Hand To Hand Attack: No. Conclusion: May be missile deflected at the 20pt Level.

Energy Blast: Laser Beam. (non-physical attack vs ED)
Ego Attack: No. Targets A Hex: No. Entangle: No.Unperceived: No. Hand To Hand Attack: No. Conlusion: May be missile delfected at the 20pt Level.

Remember Missile Deflection/Reflection is an OCV vs OCV Attack Roll. 20pts buys you a chance at Deflection. You may want to spend some more points on Skill Levels though.

[CTaylor]

Doesn't really matter how many points it is...

Really? The cost of a power is irrelevant to you? In any case your test is presuming the conclusion, you are assuming that the power doesn't require a special effect of missile or projectile then repeating the statement. That isn't particularly convincing.

In any case here's a few examples to consider:

A rain of arrows, fifty per hex in a seven hex spread, can this be deflected with missile deflection? No, because it's an area effect attack. One arrow could be, at the 10 point level.

An ego attack, can this be deflected with missile deflection? No, because it's an ego attack. However, if someone threw a needle with a drug in it that was an ego attack, you could at the 5 point level (thrown objects).

Why bring this up? Because when you look at the list of things that cannot be deflected they apply to every level of Missile Deflection not just the 20 point level. The difference between what can be deflected and what cannot is the special effect.

[ghost-angel]

Really? The cost of a power is irrelevant to you? In any case your test is presuming the conclusion, you are assuming that the power doesn't require a special effect of missile or projectile then repeating the statement. That isn't particularly convincing.

In any case here's a few examples to consider:

A rain of arrows, fifty per hex in a seven hex spread, can this be deflected with missile deflection? No, because it's an area effect attack. One arrow could be, at the 10 point level.

An ego attack, can this be deflected with missile deflection? No, because it's an ego attack. However, if someone threw a needle with a drug in it that was an ego attack, you could at the 5 point level (thrown objects).

Why bring this up? Because when you look at the list of things that cannot be deflected they apply to every level of Missile Deflection not just the 20 point level. The difference between what can be deflected and what cannot is the special effect.

If the needle based EGo Attack can be deflect because it is a needle it gets to add Can Be Deflected.

Dude, the book is clear as day. Sorry, you're flat out wrong. In every which way. See ya.

Any Missile has nothing to do with SFX. It's all in the Mechanical Builds applied to things.

[CTaylor]

If the needle based EGo Attack can be deflect because it is a needle it gets to add Can Be Deflected.

Correct, which is my point: same thing for powers at the 20 point level. I wish Steve would answer this (and his emails) but I suspect he's really, really busy right now.

[nexus]

May I suggest moving this to Hero System Rules discussion since this isn't even the right thread to talk about Missile Deflection 6th Edition let alone 5th.

[Paragon]

Seems kind of clear to me: that's why it's called MISSILE Deflection.


And energy blasts are called ENERGY blasts but aren't specifically energy.

I think your reading is incredibly reaching honestly, and while its not completely impossible that Steve redefined the power from prior editions, I can't see him doing so, and I can guarentee you that wasn't the way it worked in prior editions, because I've seen the very authors of the game treat it otherwise.

[nexus]

And energy blasts are called ENERGY blasts but aren't specifically energy.

I think your reading is incredibly reaching honestly, and while its not completely impossible that Steve redefined the power from prior editions, I can't see him doing so, and I can guarentee you that wasn't the way it worked in prior editions, because I've seen the very authors of the game treat it otherwise.

I agree. Regardless of if you agree or not with Steve Long's design choices or not he's too good of a game writer to leave out a detail like completely revising a power in a manner that seems counter to how Hero Powers generally work.

[ghost-angel]

This is why every single Power needs to be renamed to remove SFX connotations.