Powers Issues -- L-R

[PhilFleischmann]

I'd say Life Support: Longevity should be 1 point for "long-lived," 2 points for "very long-lived," and 3 points for "unaging." The GM can determine what qualifies for the first two categories; I'd tend to go with 250 and 1000 years as suggested lifespans.
Yeah, and if the GM really needs to have greater granularity, such as having Elves live longer than Dwarves, you can always use half-points*: 1 point for 250 years, 1.5 points for 500 years, 2 points for 1000 years, and 2.5 for 2000 years.

*Yes. Half-points. Deal with it. Don't be such a wuss.

[Vulcan]

Agreed. It may annoy some people, but the cost of LS might have to vary depending on the nature of the campaign.

But it doesn't do much good to just say, "X is too expensive." Give the price structure that you would recommend.

Here's a rough suggestion for the cost(s) of LS off the top of my head that seems a bit more reasonable:

Reduced Eating 1-3 points (as it is now)
Reduced Sleeping 1-3 points (as it is now)
Safe Environments 1-2 points each (as it is now)
Aging: 1 point for double lifespan, 2 points for up to 10x lifespan, 3 points for immortality
Breathing: 1 point for 1 END/turn holding breath, 2 for 1 END/minute, 3 for 1 END/5 minutes, 4 for 1 END/20 minutes, 5 for 1 END/hour, 6 for 1 END/6 hours, 7 for no need to breathe. 2-3 points for each unusual environment you can breathe in depending on how common the environment is, e.g., 3 points to breathe under water.

Thus "full" LS (without the immunities) would cost only 25 points, rather than 30, and the immunities would be:

All Diseases for 5 points
All Poisons for 5 points
One or Some subset of diseases/poisons for 1-4 points each

Thus Full Life Support would cost 35 points, rather than 50.

How's that?

Much better. Especially the chop on 'immune to disease/poison.

[BobGreenwade]

Yeah, and if the GM really needs to have greater granularity, such as having Elves live longer than Dwarves, you can always use half-points*: 1 point for 250 years, 1.5 points for 500 years, 2 points for 1000 years, and 2.5 for 2000 years.

*Yes. Half-points. Deal with it. Don't be such a wuss.I don't think your disclaimer was really necessary -- nobody raised any objections (at least, that I can recall) when I suggested the use of half-points over in the General rules thread.

[CTaylor]

Greater granularity really isn't needed. Short, long and forever are good enough for aging, a concept that almost never comes up in any setting of any genre for any adventure.

[Tonio]

Greater granularity really isn't needed. Short, long and forever are good enough for aging, a concept that almost never comes up in any setting of any genre for any adventure.

Right. I don't think Dwarves not lasting quite as much as Elves merits having them pay less for their longevity. Both last substantially longer than humans; both eventually die (well, depends on the mythos).

[James Gillen]

May I reccomend that Immortality for a PC actually be a disad?

after all you are risking eternity for xp. not a good trade IMNSHO.

I'd say 5 points for no menopause, arthritis, etc. is worth it.

jg

[AnotherSkip]

Just how long have you had menopause and arthritis anyways JG?


Aging is not the only source for Artritis, my younger brother had arthritis at the age of 15, not even outta high school!!!!


I think there was one case ever in my gaming experience of characters needing the full 1000+ yr lifespan aloted to Elves. in D&D none the less. never seen it before or since in 26+ years.

[BobGreenwade]

Aging is not the only source for Artritis, my younger brother had arthritis at the age of 15, not even outta high school!!!!So have I. And my wife's had it since birth, or nearly so.

But that's Juvenile Rheumetoid Arthritis. Other forms of arthritis (my wife also has Osteo Arthritis) still manifest as one of the signs of aging, along with menopause, osteoperosis, and a host of other maladies, not to mention the general bodily deterioration represented by the current Age Disadvantage.

[Vulcan]

But as several people have pointed out, Immune to Aging is pretty much a background, not a game-affecting power. Our game has been going for nearly 20 years (same world, different campaigns), and character aging has NEVER been an issue.

The only time Immue to Aging comes into play as a game mechanic is when an NND uses it as a defense, or someone buys a big Drain defined as 'aging', and takes the limitation that it 'doesn't affect targets with immune to aging.' If there is no such limitation on the power, guess what? You just became the 'physically' oldest Immortal ever. Your only recourse is if the GM decides to let it function a a defense even though it shouldn't, based on the special effects of the power.

In short, even 3 points is a bit high in my opinion.

[PhilFleischmann]

I don't think your disclaimer was really necessary -- nobody raised any objections (at least, that I can recall) when I suggested the use of half-points over in the General rules thread.
Well, not on this thread, but I've seen it plenty of times. People have been proposing multiplying everything by four to get rid of quarter fractions, etc. I was just trying to preemptively address the complaints of those with an irrational fear of very simple fractions. We're not talking about things like 89/173, and I certainly wouldn't want to introduce fractions like that into the game, but this is 1/2, 0.5. Little kids know what a half is.

Greater granularity really isn't needed. Short, long and forever are good enough for aging, a concept that almost never comes up in any setting of any genre for any adventure.
That's why I said, "if the GM really needs greater granularity." You can't unilaterally say that it isn't needed, just that *you* don't need it. And the majority of GMs probably don't need it. But it's there in those cases where the GM wants it.

In my 5e Fantasy campaign, Gnomes have 1 point of Longevity (200 years), Dwarves have 2 (400 years), and Elves have 3 (800 years). Any PC (even humans) can buy 1 extra point of Longevity to have a "heroically long life". I may want to keep that level of differentiation in 6e, but I might not.

[Paragon]

But as several people have pointed out, Immune to Aging is pretty much a background, not a game-affecting power. Our game has been going for nearly 20 years (same world, different campaigns), and character aging has NEVER been an issue.

The only time Immue to Aging comes into play as a game mechanic is when an NND uses it as a defense, or someone buys a big Drain defined as 'aging', and takes the limitation that it 'doesn't affect targets with immune to aging.' If there is no such limitation on the power, guess what? You just became the 'physically' oldest Immortal ever. Your only recourse is if the GM decides to let it function a a defense even though it shouldn't, based on the special effects of the power.

In short, even 3 points is a bit high in my opinion.

Possibly so, but if the above attacks are Limited in a consistent enough fashion so that its functioning as an occaional defense, its probably not any less useful than, say, immunity to environmental heat; you can go whole campaigns without seeing that one be relevant, too.

[CTaylor]

The point isn't that I prefer things one way or another, but rather that the game its self and the hobby doesn't need to have careful step by step point values for aging like the 5th edition Life Support rules have it. Others have put it well above: 3 points is too much. 1 point to age a lot slower, 2 to not age at all works fine. At the 1 point level that can be 150-1500 years; for all the impact it has on any game in any setting for any genre at any time that's all the rules you need.

[Vulcan]

Possibly so, but if the above attacks are Limited in a consistent enough fashion so that its functioning as an occaional defense, its probably not any less useful than, say, immunity to environmental heat; you can go whole campaigns without seeing that one be relevant, too.

Fair Enough.

[Vulcan]

The point isn't that I prefer things one way or another, but rather that the game its self and the hobby doesn't need to have careful step by step point values for aging like the 5th edition Life Support rules have it. Others have put it well above: 3 points is too much. 1 point to age a lot slower, 2 to not age at all works fine. At the 1 point level that can be 150-1500 years; for all the impact it has on any game in any setting for any genre at any time that's all the rules you need.

Agreed. Unless a campaign is deliberately set up to skip large (decades or more) chunks of time on a semi-regular basis, there is precious little game difference beween 'lives a normal human lifespan,' 'lives a very long time,' and 'lives forever.'

[Paragon]

Agreed. Unless a campaign is deliberately set up to skip large (decades or more) chunks of time on a semi-regular basis, there is precious little game difference beween 'lives a normal human lifespan,' 'lives a very long time,' and 'lives forever.'

I can't disagree; I always thought GURPS grossly overcharged for this for much the same reason; its one of those things that looks impressive but the actual game effect ranges from minimal to nonexistant. Come to think of it, Unisystem has some of the same problem (though there its bundled with some extra benefits so its not quite as bad).

[CTaylor]

Well it's one of those powers that in real life could be worth a lot, but in game terms is pretty meaningless.

[AnotherSkip]

I agree that it could be worth points, but like many other supposed absolutes it
A. really isn't
B. IF it was it would be really boring.
C. you have to spend points to _avoid_ one of three disads most of which in a normal campaign would be a non-issue.

Whihc is the reason why i suggest it really should be a disadvantage, you spend so much of you life watching others glow with life then fade away.

[steamteck]

But as several people have pointed out, Immune to Aging is pretty much a background, not a game-affecting power. Our game has been going for nearly 20 years (same world, different campaigns), and character aging has NEVER been an issue.

The only time Immue to Aging comes into play as a game mechanic is when an NND uses it as a defense, or someone buys a big Drain defined as 'aging', and takes the limitation that it 'doesn't affect targets with immune to aging.' If there is no such limitation on the power, guess what? You just became the 'physically' oldest Immortal ever. Your only recourse is if the GM decides to let it function a a defense even though it shouldn't, based on the special effects of the power.

In short, even 3 points is a bit high in my opinion.


Depends on the game. My campaigns are so long lived ,that aging is a problem. They've run for over 2 decades real time and CENTURIES game time. I do realize that's VERY unusual though.
I can see certain styles of games having lots of time pass between adventures etc too.

[Paragon]

Depends on the game. My campaigns are so long lived ,that aging is a problem. They've run for over 2 decades real time and CENTURIES game time. I do realize that's VERY unusual though.
I can see certain styles of games having lots of time pass between adventures etc too.

That's really the issue though; when setting costs you have to aim at some sort of golden mean of games, or prices show no sane relationship, and games that have a long cycle time with the same characters just don't seem to be at all common in the hobby (barring special cases like Pendragon).

[Kdansky]

Stuff that is technically beneficial, but probably useless in the scope of the game costs either 1 cp or 0 cp in my games. Immortality is 1 cp. "lives 300 years" is 0 cp.

[steamteck]

That's really the issue though; when setting costs you have to aim at some sort of golden mean of games, or prices show no sane relationship, and games that have a long cycle time with the same characters just don't seem to be at all common in the hobby (barring special cases like Pendragon).

fair enough, I've always played in games where time passes but I guess its unusual. How about disease resistance? Its crazy overpriced for my games. Is there a general feeling on that?
In fantasy or age of sail games travel can take months. doesn't that chew up other groups players lifespan?

[Paragon]

fair enough, I've always played in games where time passes but I guess its unusual. How about disease resistance? Its crazy overpriced for my games. Is there a general feeling on that?



I expect its there by parallelism with poison, and is again, primarily about protecting against certain NNDs and other flawed powers.



In fantasy or age of sail games travel can take months. doesn't that chew up other groups players lifespan?

In a lot of fantasy games, characters can transit much faster through magical means, and even when they can't, how often does a given group travel long distances? If you have a bunch of PCs in their 20's, how many times would they need to do this before it mattered (and that's even if Hero had aging rules, which it really doesn't; there's no hard line of when any penalties start to cut in, though if you were hard nosed you could force the Age disadvantage effects after 40. But as I say above, unless people start with older characters, I suspect few campaigns last long enough for people to reach their 40's, and in those that do age is likely ignored anyway in any effects).

Basically, you have to have some combination of long running (in-world time) campaigns, older characters at start, and a simulationist view of aging before this matters, and I just don't have much indication that's a common combination in the hobby in general, let alone in Hero (which is mildly cinematically biased).

[Vulcan]

Yeah, both 'Immune to Disease' and 'Immune to Poison' are both overpriced at 10 points. In many cases, you're better off with 10 pts. Power Defense, it'll protect against a lot of the same attack mechaincs and it will come into play a LOT more often.

[Hugh Neilson]

In fantasy or age of sail games travel can take months. doesn't that chew up other groups players lifespan?

What is the actual advantage? Do all the other players have to make new characters starting with no xp while Inza the Immortal continues on with all her accumulated xp and this troop of wet-behind-the-ears young pups? Or does everyone make new characters when the old characters get, well, old?

[nexus]

What is the actual advantage? Do all the other players have to make new characters starting with no xp while Inza the Immortal continues on with all her accumulated xp and this troop of wet-behind-the-ears young pups? Or does everyone make new characters when the old characters get, well, old?

Yeah, Hero doesn't really have GURPS like Aging rolls (actually I'm not sure if GURPS does anymore). I guess in long term, very realistic campaigns, the GM could impose Age Maxima and prorate abilities that exceed it but I haven't personally seen that done.

[AnotherSkip]

i think that is precisely why it doesnt matter, one guy spends 4 cp once the first round is over with EVERYONE ELSE WILL BUY IMMORTALITY (at least those that really value their characters). from then on it becomes background.

Frankly i find immortality like KS: 17th Century Italian Love Poetry 17-.

[AnotherSkip]

I was in a Vampire campaign (immortal right?) we had all the time in the world! It was over in less than two game time months and not much more than one! some nights lasted 2 sessions! with xp at the end of every one.

kinda how stuff is running around here.

[Paragon]

Yeah, both 'Immune to Disease' and 'Immune to Poison' are both overpriced at 10 points. In many cases, you're better off with 10 pts. Power Defense, it'll protect against a lot of the same attack mechaincs and it will come into play a LOT more often.

I think there's some issues that probably come up here because of 5e combining the pre-5e "immunities" in Talents with Life Support; it was admittedly weird having the big discrepancy between the two, but he seems to have essentially priced the Life Support power based on them being used in heroic scale games (where its possible the toxin immunities might actually be worth what you pay for them, though its hard to picture the disease ones being so, outside of a somewhat specialized campaign).

[Chris Goodwin]

I think there's some issues that probably come up here because of 5e combining the pre-5e "immunities" in Talents with Life Support; it was admittedly weird having the big discrepancy between the two, but he seems to have essentially priced the Life Support power based on them being used in heroic scale games (where its possible the toxin immunities might actually be worth what you pay for them, though its hard to picture the disease ones being so, outside of a somewhat specialized campaign).

I am remembering a very memorable Fantasy Hero campaign where a dwarf and a lizard man, both with Immunity to alcohol, tried to drink each other and everyone else under the table.

[AnotherSkip]

yeah but Immunity to alcohol costs less than "I can drunk fight "!


There are some pricing issues that need to be ironed out, tempiture levels & Certain talents versus Immunities

[Talon]

Q: Should Mental Powers provide Mental Awareness for free?

I think it makes the game simpler and more atomic, so I'm in support of it.

Q: Should Missile Deflection and Reflection be changed?

I think you make several good points in the DH article. Of the options you mention there, I don't like the the idea of combining Dodge with Missile Reflection -- it is an exception to the rules which would just cause confusion.

I think if you add Range by default, it solves the "inferior Dodge" problem by providing a functionality that Dodge cannot (stopping attacks directed at other people).

I would also say rather than the current table, start with affecting all attacks and let players limit as they see fit.

[Talon]

Life Support: Poisons and Diseases should just be one cost each with any subdivisions handled by Limitation.

As others have pointed out, the cost of "no need to sleep" is at odds with Lightsleep.

Also, have a line item for "Full Life Support", as it is frequently purchased.

Mental Powers: I like (and have used) Bob's suggestion in post #30 about paying 1:1 for "adder effects" that you always want to have take effect (if you always want targets to forget their Mind Control actions, just pay 20 points; -3 to all Breakout rolls, 15 points).

I agree that the Classes of Mind rules need to be redone.

Multiform: All forms should be forced to purchase Multiform (doing so allows you to more easily alter the form-switching requirements for different forms).

Power Defense: Characters should be encouraged to buy this with a SFX Limitation, but the all-encompassing version should be an option.

Regeneration: As mentioned under Healing, Regeneration should cost 10 points to move the BODY Recovery rate one level up on the Time Chart. As a more generalized Power, it could be bought for other Characteristics and Powers to move their Recovery from Drains up one level per 10 points (or 5 points x Characteristic cost).

[Talon]

Leaping: Leaping should, like Gliding, be Limited Flight (which will keep with the 2 AP per 1" cost rate).

Mental Powers: Since Mental Powers are here...it would be a nice house rule to have an "effect of 10" rule for using Mental Powers on willing targets:

-- Telepathy allows communication
-- Mind Scan lets you find establish a link for other powers (you still have to hit)
-- Mental Illusions let you create a false image which can convey information

[steamteck]

What is the actual advantage? Do all the other players have to make new characters starting with no xp while Inza the Immortal continues on with all her accumulated xp and this troop of wet-behind-the-ears young pups? Or does everyone make new characters when the old characters get, well, old?


well yes they do make new ones often sons and daughters of the old ones. That being said, anti-aging is usually obtainable by most characters given them an excuse to buy some longevity.:D

[steamteck]

Yeah, both 'Immune to Disease' and 'Immune to Poison' are both overpriced at 10 points. In many cases, you're better off with 10 pts. Power Defense, it'll protect against a lot of the same attack mechaincs and it will come into play a LOT more often.


poison isn't so bad just a little high but I can't imagine anyone being so aggressive and detailed with diseases myself but then I'm on the weird end of longevity so what do I know..

[AnotherSkip]

perhaps in order to reduce the "mee too' aspect of Power Defense perhaps it should be only to defend against attacks related to a concept similar to Elemental Control.

Or perhaps it defends against alterations to the characters archetype.

Thus if the character was being changed from a frog into a fish he would be a prince among frogs or a fighter would still be a combat intensive bird rather than a magical bird. thus someone could have Power defense that defended their looks as a pretty princess but wouldn't help against being turned into a beautiful songbird to sing for evil magi....

[Talon]

perhaps in order to reduce the "mee too' aspect of Power Defense perhaps it should be only to defend against attacks related to a concept similar to Elemental Control.

I think these are all cool ideas...and that they are all covered by limiting existing Power Defense. It's an easy campaign rule to prohibit all-encompassing Power Defense without special permission.

[AnotherSkip]

Ah, but the problem is POw def is The way to defend against every thing else why should you be able to buy a defense that defends against all sorts of special stuff which costs the same as Lack of weakness which defends against one or two things?

and realistically why buy a limited version on a small batch of points? it isn't llarge enough to justify a saving in many ways.

[Paragon]

I've thought for a long time that the vast majority of characters with Power Defense justify it on a fraction of the things the power actually protects against, or put another way, its almost always too broad for the reason its on the character.

[BobGreenwade]

I've thought for a long time that the vast majority of characters with Power Defense justify it on a fraction of the things the power actually protects against, or put another way, its almost always too broad for the reason its on the character.I've rarely had a problem with it, in the sense that I rarely see characters with all-encompassing Power Defense and those who have had it had good conceptual reasons behind it, but that's probably just me and the people I've played with.

I think that, inasmuch as this is a problem, a simple statement in the description of Power Defense that it's usually taken with a Limitation as to what Special Effects of attacks it defends against should suffice to handle it.

[Paragon]

I've rarely had a problem with it, in the sense that I rarely see characters with all-encompassing Power Defense and those who have had it had good conceptual reasons behind it, but that's probably just me and the people I've played with.



Given its not the case in published character, I'd have to say so.



I think that, inasmuch as this is a problem, a simple statement in the description of Power Defense that it's usually taken with a Limitation as to what Special Effects of attacks it defends against should suffice to handle it.

I don't think so and I'll tell you why; if there's two ways to do something, one of which requires an extra step and one doesn't, the latter is what many people will do out of simplicity and/or laziness. As such I'd suggest its probably better in this case (and this probably is better cost balanced too, to tell the truth) to have the default case be narrow and broaden it with an Advantage.

[Vulcan]

I think power defense is underused (it is ceratinly underallowed in our game) because of it's universal nature. I think one of two things should be done.

1) Examples and reccomendations in the book that power defense be allowed with limitations based on FX (i.e. Power defese vs heat to apply to Tranform: you to burnt to death).

2) The limited form of power defense becomes the default, and applying it to multiple FX takes an advantage.

Damage Reduction limited by FX should also apply vs. Power Attack effects of the same FX as well, in my opinion. A character with 75% DR vs. electrcity should take minimal effect from a STUN drain defined as a taser, after all. Perhaps as an adder to DR?

[PhilFleischmann]

Perhaps we should think of Power Defense in a similar way that we think of the Power Skill - as a definable defense according to the individual character, the setting, and the genre. Just as a fantasy game might have a Magic Skill that wizards have which shows how good they are at magic, there could be a Magic Defense, as a particular instance of Power Defense. So "Power Defense" would just be a generic name for some other specific type of defense which a character defines just like he does with "Power Skill."

[Vulcan]

That's a pretty good idea too.

[CTaylor]

That is a step in the right direction, although I'd offer that it might be a bit too expensive with that narrow a definition - but not necessarily.

[BobGreenwade]

That is a step in the right direction, although I'd offer that it might be a bit too expensive with that narrow a definition - but not necessarily.Whatever the result, it should continue to cost 1 Character Point per 1 point of defense, to keep it in line with other defenses often used in AVLD attacks and such.

[Vulcan]

Sure, but is that before or after limiting to narrow special effects?

[schir1964]

Sure, but is that before or after limiting to narrow special effects?
Obviously it would be after.

If we extrapolate from the current common defenses we have:
Defense... vs Physical (SFX) Damage Only = 1 Point
Defense... vs Energy (SFX) Damage Only = 1 Point
Defense... vs Pure Magic (SFX) Damage Only = 1 Point
Defense... vs Supernatural (SFX) Damage Only = 1 Point (For Zornwill (8^D))
Defense... vs Transmutation (SFX) Damage Only = 1 Point
...
And so forth.

As long as you have Adjustment Powers default to having a defined Target SFX that they affect, then I think things would balance out. Players would buy the appropriate defenses for the Setting/Campaign World and the GM would still have the flexibility to create threats that the characters have to overcome.

Just An Opinion

- Christopher Mullins

[Vulcan]

Sounds like a plan to me.

[Hugh Neilson]

Just what we need...another way to unbalance your AVLD.

"it's versus resistant sonic transmutative power defense".

[Talon]

And then how do you differentiate between SFX that are common, uncommon, and rare?

The "limit it down" philosophy of Hero is a nice one. Make Power Defense more expensive if you must, but it's much more flexible to apply Limitations based on the rarity of the SFX.

[Vulcan]

Just what we need...another way to unbalance your AVLD.

"it's versus resistant sonic transmutative power defense".

I would tell the player that both sonic and transmutative power defense would apply.

I personally don't think resistant needs to be applied to any special defenses, an RKA AVLD Does Body should be handled just fine by standard special defense. You're getting a lethal enough power as it is by making it AVLD; you don't need to ignore the vast majority of special defenses as well as all standard ones.

YMMV, of course.

[schir1964]

Concerning Against Very Limited Defense:

My experience has been that AVLD is something that is used only in rare cases or where the SFX is such that the attack would have an uncommon or odd Defense that can affect it. A perfect example of this is where a Tornado (Wind Control Attack: TK Grab & Throw) that qualifies for an AVLD vs Anchored Strength. The target must Grab something to Anchor themselves in order to attempt to resist the attack, otherwise they are simply blown away.

Thus, due to the nature of AVLDs, they get extra scrutiny from the GM and are a "by GM permission only" type of Advantage anyways. So I don't see this an anymore unbalancing than a NND or Zero Endurance Persistent Succor. The GM has to monitor these things anyway to fit his campaign.

Of course, other GMs may do things differently and have a different history concerning this. Not my problem. I can only attest to how I run my games.


Concerning SFX Differentiation:

Again, this falls into the realm of the GM for his games (as it should be). Just like the GM now has to decide what Limitations are really worth, in spite of what the book may have listed as the default value. Only In Strong Gravitational Field will have a different value depending on the Setting/Genre. Just like the Uncommon/Common/Very Common Advantage Values of Adjustment Powers are decided now, although instead of Adjusting the actual value, the GM Determines the commonality of any SFX posed by the player thus affecting Advantage Value to be applied to the power.

Thus, the GM will determine the base Commonality of the SFX Defenses for their game and they become the default value of 1 Defense Per Point, then any SFX posed by the player that might be narrower than base SFX would get a Limitation, and any SFX posed by the player that might be broader than the base SFX would get an Advantage. Just the way it works now in various areas of the rules. This is just making it more consistent in application.

And Once Again, All Just A Pointless Opinion

- Christopher Mullins

[Vulcan]

I would say there is a very good point to your opinion: if we're going to adopt this idea for 6E, there needs to be some GM guidelines about how to price power defense.

I would think that 'Common' would be good at 1 pt. defense/1 cp, Uncommon might be 3/2, and Rare at 2/1.

Comments welcome.

[Hugh Neilson]

I would tell the player that both sonic and transmutative power defense would apply.

I personally don't think resistant needs to be applied to any special defenses, an RKA AVLD Does Body should be handled just fine by standard special defense. You're getting a lethal enough power as it is by making it AVLD; you don't need to ignore the vast majority of special defenses as well as all standard ones.

YMMV, of course.


I agree that 6e should explicitly eliminate the issue of "resistant special defenses". There are none. Flash Defense is Flash Defense. The "resistant Power Defense" type concepts only create an arm's race.

[AnotherSkip]

Just what we need...another way to unbalance your AVLD.

"it's versus resistant sonic transmutative power defense".

perhaps AVLD should be against a base thing (Power defense in this case) for +1/2 (or more), +1/2 more for only vs resistant Power Defense and +1/2 more for only vs a limited SFX. Thus giving us higher prices (and thusly perhaps less dice) for a more rare variants of AVLD.
Besides, doesn't FF give you resistant Power def anyways?

[Paragon]

Just what we need...another way to unbalance your AVLD.

"it's versus resistant sonic transmutative power defense".

If AVLDs were actually costed based on the frequency of Defense, I wouldn't have an issue with that; they'd just have to pay more for the priveledge.

[Hugh Neilson]

If AVLDs were actually costed based on the frequency of Defense, I wouldn't have an issue with that; they'd just have to pay more for the priveledge.

Using my example :idjit:, you may as well make it an NND, since that costing would drop the dice available down to the point that no one with the defense takes damage anyway.

I'm reminded of a friend who had characters drafted with vulnerabilities to things like "green froglike martians wielding solar powered cold weapons" and "octogenarian Norwegian architects wielding hammers" :eek:

And the GM who said "I'm only giving you 5 point for 2X, not 10" :drink:

As I recall, that was the game where we had unlimited disad's - and each of our characters took Psychs making them passionately devoted to at least two or three other characters in the group so it would be difficult to Mind Control us into attacking one another.

Mind you, the GM's math was poor, so he slipped a decimal point on a villain who ended up doing 10d6 of heavily advantaged BOD drain... [and, IIRC, that was 10d6 of BOD, not of character points]

[Vulcan]

perhaps AVLD should be against a base thing (Power defense in this case) for +1/2 (or more), +1/2 more for only vs resistant Power Defense and +1/2 more for only vs a limited SFX. Thus giving us higher prices (and thusly perhaps less dice) for a more rare variants of AVLD.
Besides, doesn't FF give you resistant Power def anyways?

If you buy it through the FF, I think. I suspect most characters don't have FF in the first place, much less Power Defense through FF. And the majority of characters that do have FF don't buy Power Defense through it either.

[Paragon]

Using my example :idjit:, you may as well make it an NND, since that costing would drop the dice available down to the point that no one with the defense takes damage anyway.



Just demonstates the problem with Active Point limits, as that's frequently close to true anyway; its easy for any of the exotic defenses to be high enough that you do little or nothing with many AVLDs.

[IndianaJoe3]

And then how do you differentiate between SFX that are common, uncommon, and rare?
The Ultimate Energy Projector has a table with the frequency of various effects. It's a good starting point.

[Vulcan]

Perhaps a summarized version could make it's way into the core book?

[Tech]

I'm not sure whether Regeneration should go here or on the thread for H, since technically it's a subset of Healing; but since we've gone this far I might as well continue.

The thing that bothers me about Regeneration as a subset of Healing, is not that it attempts to model a specific effect through an elaborate modification of another Power; it's not the only example of that in the system, although perhaps the most involved. It's that to create that effect it has to ignore the default rules for Healing, i.e. the cap on the maximum that can be Healed. I have to question the point of going through a long process to create something by the rules, if you end up bending the rules anyway.

While I think that going back to the old way of buying Regeneration has merit (perhaps including all the Healing-specific Modifiers that apply to Regen), I did experiment with adding a variant of the Cumulative Advantage (+1/2) to the existing build for Regeneration, as a way of accounting for the ability to keep adding BODY until the character is completely Healed.

Interestingly, if you do add that additional Advantage and keep all the other Modifiers, the Real Cost of regenerating 1 BODY per Turn would be 10 points... exactly the same as under 4E. ;)

Having seen the progression of the Regeneration power since Champions 1st edition to 5th, I am in agreement with Lord Liaden's observation. It doesn't bother me that Regeneration isn't a power in of itself now, it bothers me that it is so juryrigged so as to force the power to work. It needs to be recreated, perhaps as it's own power. Regardless, now is the time to fix this.

[Kdansky]

Yes, Regeneration is just messy right now. If it was it's own power, we could even play around with it. You know, Regeneration against Flash or Transfer or UAA or whatever.

[Vulcan]

For 5E, the Regeneration rules worked well enough. But for 6E I would like to see the kludges ironed out. Go to something that doesn't need to be 'optional ruled' to make it work.

[Southern Cross]

Same here.I'd also like to see Instant Chance treated as a Limited form of Shape Shift,instead of abusing Transform.

[Vulcan]

That's not a bad idea... There's already an 'instant change' adder in shapechange for 0-phase actions. Shapechange to sight, Instant Change, would have to be 0-END Pesistent, "only to change clothes".

[BobGreenwade]

That's not a bad idea... There's already an 'instant change' adder in shapechange for 0-phase actions. Shapechange to sight, Instant Change, would have to be 0-END Pesistent, "only to change clothes".I'd like to see this as the main method for instantly changing clothes. Transform and using Speed Skill Levels are two alternates that could be used depending on SFX, but this Shape Shift-based method should be the default.

[Vulcan]

Shapeshift to sight (10 pts.) and touch (3 pts - I assume that most character's costumes are not going to feel like t-shirt&jeans - or a suit!), Instant Change (+5 pts), Costs END only to change (+1/4), Persistent (+1/2); 31 Active. Limitations....

Limitations...

Well, it looks like I've just face-planted straight into the main problem with Shapeshift as Instant change. Even taking out 'touch' it's 26 points.

Or you can leave off Persistent, and blow your secret ID the first time you get stunned...

[James Gillen]

Well, that just brings up the larger issue that Shape Shift is way too expensive for a cosmetic effect.

jg

[Vulcan]

Good point. Perhaps there should be extra costs for greater degrees of change?

[The Main Man]

I agree that Shape Shift is too expensive.

Maybe half the price would work better.

[BobGreenwade]

Shapeshift to sight (10 pts.) and touch (3 pts - I assume that most character's costumes are not going to feel like t-shirt&jeans - or a suit!), Instant Change (+5 pts), Costs END only to change (+1/4), Persistent (+1/2); 31 Active. Limitations....

Limitations...

Well, it looks like I've just face-planted straight into the main problem with Shapeshift as Instant change. Even taking out 'touch' it's 26 points.

Or you can leave off Persistent, and blow your secret ID the first time you get stunned...Well, there's always Clothing Only (-2) for starters. That by itself reduces the Real Cost to 10 points -- which, as I recall, was the cost for Instant Change (any clothing) in earlier editions.

[Talon]

The problem I have with Instant Change via Shape Shift is the implication that you can Shape Shift into Armor (or other Foci)...the whole point of Instant Change is going from out of costume to in-costume -- you go from not having your costume to having it.

[Vulcan]

You can shapeshift a cripple into a superhuman, a being of light/shadow/fire/etc, or (with linked growth) into Godzilla! 'Creating' or 'summoning' a foci isn't that big a deal in my opinion.

[James Gillen]

No, that's Transform. Shape Shift is a cosmetic effect on yourself. Affecting others requires Transform. Which is another one of the problems I had with using Transform for Instant Change (it affects your own gear) and in retrospect points up the issues with 5th Ed. Shape Shift, in that Transform is actually the more convenient and efficient model for the effect now.

jg

[Markdoc]

The problem I have with Instant Change via Shape Shift is the implication that you can Shape Shift into Armor (or other Foci)...the whole point of Instant Change is going from out of costume to in-costume -- you go from not having your costume to having it.

We've always been pretty clear that if you can have OIHID or focus, but not both, since OIHID affects the accessibility of focuses too much. With that limit, I'm not too worried about instant change affecting focuses.

cheers, Mark

[The Main Man]

Perhaps Shape Shift should naturally Cost END Only To Activate and Revert when Stunned or Knocked Out, but it can take a Costs END To Maintain limitation for -1/4.

[levi]

Has there been any discussion about the all-or-nothing nature of Mental Powers?

If not, I'd like to hear / offer suggestions to improve Mental Powers and make them more incrimental in effectiveness.

[steamteck]

We've always been pretty clear that if you can have OIHID or focus, but not both, since OIHID affects the accessibility of focuses too much. With that limit, I'm not too worried about instant change affecting focuses.

cheers, Mark

I think its a perfectly valid build for say powered armor which takes a while to put on and can't be carried in a briefcase as opposed to power bands or such.. If its officially not then there needs to be a new limitation to cover this IMO.

[Vulcan]

Has there been any discussion about the all-or-nothing nature of Mental Powers?

If not, I'd like to hear / offer suggestions to improve Mental Powers and make them more incrimental in effectiveness.

There was an earlier suggestion about removing the 'declare a level' rule on mental powers, allowing for partial effects if you get EGO+ instead of EGO+30. It seems reasonable to me, and has a definite impact without totally altering the established mechanics of mental powers.

It will take a bit of writing to give some examples of how it would work, though.

[Vulcan]

I think its a perfectly valid build for say powered armor which takes a while to put on and can't be carried in a briefcase as opposed to power bands or such.. If its officially not then there needs to be a new limitation to cover this IMO.

OIHID and focus can come together occasionally (based soley on concept - say, a Hero ID with a sword that could be taken away), but for the most part I agree with Markdoc here. The two overlap a bit much for comfort most of the time. But that's a judgement call for the GM and the player to work out.

Real Armor (-1/4, 5Ep.334) covers some of what you're talking about, as well as maintenance requirements, general comfort, and such. For power armor that's not a bad idea - unless the power armor can be instant changed, at which point Real Armor looses a lot of it's punch.

[steamteck]

OIHID and focus can come together occasionally (based soley on concept - say, a Hero ID with a sword that could be taken away), but for the most part I agree with Markdoc here. The two overlap a bit much for comfort most of the time. But that's a judgement call for the GM and the player to work out.

Real Armor (-1/4, 5Ep.334) covers some of what you're talking about, as well as maintenance requirements, general comfort, and such. For power armor that's not a bad idea - unless the power armor can be instant changed, at which point Real Armor looses a lot of it's punch.

I use real armor Liberally. I would add OIHID when its the 300 Kg powered armor that needs to be carried around in a minivan and has to be "launched" basically for example. I feel that's a whole level higher on inconvenience. As you say GM call.

[Hugh Neilson]

Has there been any discussion about the all-or-nothing nature of Mental Powers?

If not, I'd like to hear / offer suggestions to improve Mental Powers and make them more incrimental in effectiveness.

As a rather easy one, change all mental powers to be Cumulative by default, with no maximum, and make them 10 points per d6. Then add a -1 limitation "all or nothing".

Want it more complex? Cap them at 4x the max on the dice (which is where a +1 Cumulative advantage would put them) and allow the max to be doubled for every +1/4 advantage, halved for a -1/4 limitation or quartered for a -1/2 limitation.

I like the idea of making mental powers Cumulative by default, for consistency with other powers (like Transform, which also started out all or nothing).

[Vulcan]

Not sure I do. If I'm understanding this right, then anyone could be affected, no matter how high their EGO - or Mental Defense, for that matter.

Perhaps the points past EGO could be cumulative?

[The Main Man]

I also like the idea of Cumulative Mental Powers (I had an idea of it earlier in this or another thread).

The long and the short of it is that if Transform assumes that if you did enough BODY to kill you opponent then you may as well be able to transform them then Mental Powers could work on an EGO-based principle.

I think that Mental Powers could work well if they operate as a hybrid of current Mental Powers, Transform, and Adjustment Powers.

1. They must meet or exceed a target's EGO like current Mental Powers.
2. They are cumulative like Transform.
3. They fade like Adjustment Powers.

[James Gillen]

Has there been any discussion about the all-or-nothing nature of Mental Powers?

If not, I'd like to hear / offer suggestions to improve Mental Powers and make them more incrimental in effectiveness.

Try looking up Chris Goodwin's thread on modeling Mental Powers with the Sense rules.

jg

[Chris Goodwin]

Try looking up Chris Goodwin's thread on modeling Mental Powers with the Sense rules.

jg

Right here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64260).

[levi]

Absolutely fantastic line of thought Chris!! Way beyond the types of fixes I might've suggested. I really like the way that mechanic flows with the game, my only (very minor) concern is AP limits, but I guess you could set Skill Roll Limits to keep Mental Powers as Senses in line with other Powers. Is that the way you would approach it?

[Chris Goodwin]

Absolutely fantastic line of thought Chris!! Way beyond the types of fixes I might've suggested. I really like the way that mechanic flows with the game, my only (very minor) concern is AP limits, but I guess you could set Skill Roll Limits to keep Mental Powers as Senses in line with other Powers. Is that the way you would approach it?

Sure. Either Skill Roll limits or Perception Roll limits (which would encompass "mundane" Perception as well as Mental Powers, and note that at high levels both can be used to circumvent mysteries and spoil scenarios in other ways).

At any rate, yes it's reasonable to cap them, however they end up working.

[schir1964]

Adjustment Powers
I think Adjustment Powers should be broken down into the components that are common to all and make them easily added or subtracted as needed to create the various types of Adjustment Powers.

I would start with the lowest common denominator for the base ability and then add on from there.

Adjustment Power (Adjustment)
Power adds or subtracts points from a target ability (must be defined at purchase).
Power affects a any ability of a specific SFX one power at a time (must be defined at purchase).
Components


Constant
Self Only
Maximum Effect: Maximum that can rolled on the dice purchased.
Costs Endurance: Adjustment Power affects target for as long as endurance.
Cost: 5 Points Per 1d6


Modifiers


Fade Rate (-1/4 Per 1d6): Effect fades xd6 Points after post 12 recovery (1d6 Set Effect = 3 Points or 1 Body).
Extended Fade Rate (+1/2 Per Step Extended): Fade effect is extended via the Time Chart.
Others Only (+1/2): Power may be used on others only (not on self). Power has no range (must touch target).
Self And Others (+1): Power may be used on self and others. Power has no range (must touch target).
No Dice Maximum (+1/2): No dice roll maximum effect restriction.
Instant Power (-1/2): Power and effect is instant.
Restoration (+1): Effect is permanent for any power that below its original value.
Reuse Restriction (-1/2): Once Maximum is reached the effect can not be used against the same power again until such time has passed where the power would have restored normally on its own.
Other Standard Modifiers Apply Where Applicable


These would be the basic components needed to build any current adjustment power.

Thus:
Regeneration (10 Points)
Regeneration restores Body up to the original value.


1d6 (5 Points): 1d6 Effect (Set Effect = 1 Body) vs Lethal Damage.
Zero Endurance (+1/2)
Persistent (+1/2)
Restoration (+1)
No Dice Maximum (+1/2)
Instant Power (-1/2)
Affects One Power Only (-1/2)
Delayed Effect (-1/2): After every post 12 recovery.


I realize that this extreme will probably never be implemented, and I'm sure some of my modifier values are probably way out of whack, but I did want to at least share what I feel the system is capable of. Thanks.

- Christopher Mullins

[The Main Man]

Interesting idea nonetheless. :thumbup:

Actually, you unintentionally inspired an idea for me: what if the Powers were organized primarily by category and then by letter?

[Vulcan]

It would make mentalists a lot easier to build; you wouldn't have to keep flipping back and forth through the powers section. I'm not sure if it would make a lot of difference for many other builds though.

But I can live with it either way.

[levi]

Adjustment Powers
I think Adjustment Powers should be broken down into the components that are common to all and make them easily added or subtracted as needed to create the various types of Adjustment Powers.

[snipped for brevity]

I realize that this extreme will probably never be implemented, and I'm sure some of my modifier values are probably way out of whack, but I did want to at least share what I feel the system is capable of. Thanks.

- Christopher Mullins

I really like this idea, I think it could be applied to all groups of Powers and cut the Powers Section of the 6E book down by 2/3. You could use that space to provide a mini-USPD for the most common Powers of each group.

[BobGreenwade]

Adjustment Powers
I think Adjustment Powers should be broken down into the components that are common to all and make them easily added or subtracted as needed to create the various types of Adjustment Powers.I wouldn't make this the book-official method of doing it, but I think this could be a good "top-level" method for making sure Adjustment Powers are reasonably balanced with each other.

[AnotherSkip]

I think its a perfectly valid build for say powered armor which takes a while to put on and can't be carried in a briefcase as opposed to power bands or such.. If its officially not then there needs to be a new limitation to cover this IMO.

How about Gradual Effect for a limitation (ok i got the Chestplate and helmet on.... Where the heck did my boots go?!?!?!)

[JmOz]

Lets get rid of Power Defence. I'm serious, I hate this power, it makes no sense from a character PoV, name me a f/x that can work to explain why it protects from any kind of altering, from getting ligiments cut to magicaly being turned into a frog...

If we don't get rid of it require it to take on a single F/X

[Netzilla]

Lets get rid of Power Defence. I'm serious, I hate this power, it makes no sense from a character PoV, name me a f/x that can work to explain why it protects from any kind of altering, from getting ligiments cut to magicaly being turned into a frog...

If we don't get rid of it require it to take on a single F/X

That's what I require in my campaign. Power defense must specify what SFX it works against. So, a resistance to poisons doesn't protect against magical drains or vampiric blood loss.

[Hugh Neilson]

A discussion coming out of a thread on Hero System brings up a possibility for modifying Adjustment Powers that takes Power Defense out of the equation. Here's some excerpts:

One of the useful things that has come out of this discussion is that I've realised I'd like to see a power that can damage END, just like we damage STUN now. Perhaps we could have a +0 advantage 'Damage to END' normal attacks? With a (say) +1/4 or +1/2 advantage for 'damages END and STUN.

The reason it would be useful is that END is the only characteristic other than STUN and BODY that recovers using REC.


We have Adjustment powers to simulate it, of course, but I don't see a compelling reason we couldn't have such a construct. In fact, what if we expanded it further? Attack powers affect STUN by default, but what if they instead could affect whatever characteristic or power you selected, under the following parameters:

- the damage to END is 1:1. The damage to all other abilities is based on their CP cost. So a 12d6 EB vs SPD would roll an average of 42, maybe offset by 22 Defenses, so the target loses 2 SPD (20 character points)

- the damage recovers using REC (in CP for items other than END and STUN), even if the ability in question does not normally recover using REC.

- As a +0 advantage (or maybe higher), the power can recover 5 CP per PS 12, regardless of whether the target is otherwise entitled to recover, and in addition to any normal recovery. This can be stepped up as is currently the case for adjustments.

- the existing ADJ power advantages for damaging more than one thing would also apply.

This would eliminate Drain. We could add advantages or limitations to replace the rest of the adjustment powers. No more Power Defense. You want your attack to have a non-standard defense, you can make it NND or AVLD. We'd need to deal with Transform somehow, but it could be very similar.

To make this work, I think positive adjustment powers would also work against PD/ED by default, but you could make them NND and, in my view, handwave the defense on the basis that the target does not wish to activate his defense power to reduce a beneficial effect.

[JmOz]

or make the defence "target does not want it"

[Southern Cross]

Interesting ideas...
However,re the idea of limiting Power Defense to a specific FX,wouldn't it be better to purchase it as Power Defense with a specific Limitation "Only versus attacks with a specific FX"?
As for the "tearing ligaments" problem,why can't you buy Drain vs. DEX with the following Limitation "not vs. resistant PD"?
Then you have to worry about the Dim Mak power.Personally,I don't like the writeup for the Death Touch.I'd have bought it as an Uncontrolled NND Drain,with the defense being "Opponent must have stable (or zero) ki".

[Klaus Mogensen]

Perhaps Power Defense could be redefined as a kind of bodily integrity; i.e., the character's body resists being twisted or transformed.

- Klaus

[rjcurrie]

Perhaps Power Defense could be redefined as a kind of bodily integrity; i.e., the character's body resists being twisted or transformed.

- Klaus

That's how I always viewed it.

[BobGreenwade]

Perhaps Power Defense could be redefined as a kind of bodily integrity; i.e., the character's body resists being twisted or transformed.An entry in USPD2 (one of my contributions, as if that means anything) uses precisely that Special Effect. Nearly any other Special Effect for Power Defense (magic being one other exception) should require a Special Effect-based Limitation.

In fact, I'd recommend a statement to that effect in the rulebook: "Power Defense most often takes a Limitation as to what Special Effects it defends against. For example, a character who is highly resistant to poison would likely not be equally resistant to magic or biokinesis."

[The Main Man]

It makes sense to me.

There should be some kind of SFX chart to judge values like in the Champions book but in each genre book to help gauge values.

[tesuji]

Perhaps Power Defense could be redefined as a kind of bodily integrity; i.e., the character's body resists being twisted or transformed.

- Klaus


Except that the broad range of effects tht use adjustment powers to create covers a lot more than just "body alteration"

itching powder for dex drains is one.
movement suppress/drains for various forms of rock-to-mud spells or web spells (some could be done by other means of course.)
Suppress flight for wind tricks
suppress move for gravity tricks
etc

My tendency as GM and what i encourage for my players is definitely to choose an sfx for their powDef IF they buy it but i let them know i am FAR more likely to buy my various drains and adjustment powers as NND with a defense thats thematic to the sfx rather than just leave it up to power defense.

If i were rewriting the rules, an NND-like counter would become standard for adjustment powers and power defense would go away.

[BobGreenwade]

Perhaps Power Defense could be redefined as a kind of bodily integrity; i.e., the character's body resists being twisted or transformed.

- Klaus

Except that the broad range of effects tht use adjustment powers to create covers a lot more than just "body alteration"

itching powder for dex drains is one.
movement suppress/drains for various forms of rock-to-mud spells or web spells (some could be done by other means of course.)
Suppress flight for wind tricks
suppress move for gravity tricks
etcI could see Special Effect Klaus mentions working against the itching powder, and I don't think someone with that Special Effect would be likely to have any form of Flight (though you never know). For the other two, there's a potential point there, though I'd be more likely to build those attacks as Change Environment.

It also occurs to me that there should be some noted difference between Power Defense that protects one's equipment, and Power Defense that does not. Offhand I'd say that the latter is the default (part of the Focus Limitation) and an Advantage is required for the former.

[Xotl]

Luck is a fascinating power but it, perhaps more than any other, needs a bit more clarification and limited power examples in the main rulebook to make it work. As it stands now the examples in 5th show you when you can use it, but nothing really tells you about the things later supplements have said it can do, like Luck: Only to Avoid Certain Death, Only For Escapes (and a bunch of others I can't remember right now).

Even just adding Doctor Fang Shen's power (from Masterminds and Madmen) to the sidebar would help a lot I think, as in addition to illustrating possibilities it's a standard villain ability many a GM will want to know how to model anyway.

[megaplayboy]

My thoughts on mental powers in general:
Get rid of Ego attack, subsume it under energy blasts as a +1 advantaged variant.
Get rid of Mind Scan and replace it with Detect Mind, discriminatory, targeting, N-ray, 360, blah blah blah--the current system is too clunky, imo, and you literally are giving a target two chances to avoid the effects of any power used through mind scan.

For the remaining 3 mental powers--MC, MI, Telepathy--tweak the existing mechanic a bit, and permit mentalists the option of actively maintaining their powers, which changes the breakout roll to a "skill vs. skill" or "Ego vs. Ego" roll. This makes their powers a bit more effective, when they choose to bear down on a target.

luck should perhaps have a different mechanic--maybe every d6 rolled is actually tallying up your points of beneficial, temporary, random effect?

[Vulcan]

My thoughts on mental powers in general:
Get rid of Ego attack, subsume it under energy blasts as a +1 advantaged variant.
Get rid of Mind Scan and replace it with Detect Mind, discriminatory, targeting, N-ray, 360, blah blah blah--the current system is too clunky, imo, and you literally are giving a target two chances to avoid the effects of any power used through mind scan.

Not to mention being able to scan the entire world for a specific mind, but unable to scan for any mind behind this door right in front of me...

[Hugh Neilson]

My thoughts on mental powers in general:
Get rid of Ego attack, subsume it under energy blasts as a +1 advantaged variant.

So I pay +1 for an attack with line of sight range, invisible to all but mental senses, which targets using EGO instead of DEX and acts against Mental Defense.

And I pay +1 1/2 for an attack with normal range modifiers, visible to three senses, which targets using DEX and acts against Mental Defense.

Is this reasonable?

[Vulcan]

I would like to see the cost of EGO attack reflect what it can do as well.

Considering the relative costs of EGO attack (10 AP per d6), EB BOECV LOS (12.5 AP per d6) and EB AVLD LOS (15 AP per d6 - and still uses DEX to target!), this is not an inconsiderable point.

[megaplayboy]

So I pay +1 for an attack with line of sight range, invisible to all but mental senses, which targets using EGO instead of DEX and acts against Mental Defense.

And I pay +1 1/2 for an attack with normal range modifiers, visible to three senses, which targets using DEX and acts against Mental Defense.

Is this reasonable?

it could be a larger advantage, perhaps as high as +2. It does no knockback, which offsets the advantage ever so slightly.

[Xotl]

My thoughts on mental powers in general:
Get rid of Ego attack, subsume it under energy blasts as a +1 advantaged variant.

I like the idea of eliminating it as a separate power and folding into a generic attack power, but not the notion of then just reconstructing it in its entirety there as a single advantage. Right now Ego Attack is too pre-built: I think a better approach would to toss BOECV with all its all-or-nothing package deal of abilities and make a stripped-down "Uses Ego not Dex" option, using that as the basis for any mental attack, and then letting the player build from there. There's no reason why an Ego Attack must be invisible and AVLD and unlimited range - let the player decide all that and build it like he wants. Of course, the final cost has to be such that someone would ever buy that construct...

This also has the advantage of bringing any ego attack power and the advantages that would make it up in line with one another.

Get rid of Mind Scan and replace it with Detect Mind, discriminatory, targeting, N-ray, 360, blah blah blah--the current system is too clunky, imo, and you literally are giving a target two chances to avoid the effects of any power used through mind scan.

I agree: Mind Scan is pretty clunky and still, as Vulcan illustrates, can't do what you'd think it should even after all that rules text. In addition, as you show, there's already a way to do what Mind Scan is supposed to, and probably better than the actual power can.

[Hugh Neilson]

it could be a larger advantage, perhaps as high as +2. It does no knockback, which offsets the advantage ever so slightly.

AVLD does not do BOD and therefore does no knockback.

[BobGreenwade]

Get rid of Mind Scan and replace it with Detect Mind, discriminatory, targeting, N-ray, 360, blah blah blah--the current system is too clunky, imo, and you literally are giving a target two chances to avoid the effects of any power used through mind scan.I'd have both options available, with an explicit statement in the description on Mind Scan that a character could also buy Detect Mind with Targeting and all the rest to achieve a similar effect, with each approach having its own advantages and disadvantages.

[Vulcan]

it could be a larger advantage, perhaps as high as +2. It does no knockback, which offsets the advantage ever so slightly.

Neither do EB's when BOECV or AVLD; since they do not BODY...

Edit: Hugh beat me to part of it...

[The Main Man]

When considering the idea of subjective Skill Rolls, I wonder if BOECV might become obsolete and players must instead choose which CHAR the power is based off of at Power Creation.

In this case, the fact that a Power is based off of EGO is just a matter of choice, but not necessarily an advantage.

OTOH, they still would have to buy LOS, IPE, and AVLD (Mental Defense) for the attack, which would still be a whopper.

[PhilFleischmann]

Not to mention being able to scan the entire world for a specific mind, but unable to scan for any mind behind this door right in front of me...
Can't you do this anymore? I always thought you could use Mind Scan to determine the number of minds in a given area, such as the room on the other side of a door.

[Xotl]

Can't you do this anymore? I always thought you could use Mind Scan to determine the number of minds in a given area, such as the room on the other side of a door.

Not sure if you could in older editions, but 5th revised allows it on pg. 207. 5th ed Ultimate Mentalist however makes it clear that you're by default looking for a specific mind, rather than just minds in general. UM also provides an option to look for a type of mind rather than an individual ("nearest psychic" and "nearest child" are the given examples, though "nearest criminal" is right out), as well as a couple of more exacting options.

Offhand a specific Detect Mind build seems to work better while being more able to be tailored to what you want (add targeting, megascale etc as you desire, rather than having a host of modifiers by default and no way of creating a build without them). Just using Detect Mind would also result in cutting a two-page rules construct for one smaller, much simpler mechanic as well, though I haven't played with the notion or really thought it through. Does it fail in some way that anyone can see?

[Vulcan]

We've used Sense Mind a couple of times in our games. It works much better than Mind Scan.

I would, however, say that Indirect or N-Ray would be needed to scan through walls because otherwise it becomes a bit too powerful... especially with Targeting Sense.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I'd have both options available, with an explicit statement in the description on Mind Scan that a character could also buy Detect Mind with Targeting and all the rest to achieve a similar effect, with each approach having its own advantages and disadvantages.
Let's please not have too many ways of doing the same thing (or nearly the same thing). Hero is intimidating enough as it is.

- Klaus

[Markdoc]

Let's please not have too many ways of doing the same thing (or nearly the same thing). Hero is intimidating enough as it is.

- Klaus

That's my feeling as well. All too many of these discussions seem to gravitate towards "OK, let's include both (or all 4) ideas". The idea with 6th is (I hope) to streamline the system, and clean up the few rough patches, not make it larger and kludgier than it already is.

The idea is not to make an ever larger and more complicated toolkit out of which GMs are forced to construct their own increasingly, less-compatible games. Fortunately I think Steve L. realises that this would be a good way to kill off the Hero line, so I'm not too concerned about that, but still.

cheers, Mark

[The Main Man]

I like the idea of Detect Mind better than Mind Scan too.

As for counting minds, just get Lighting Calculator (probably with a limitation) and buy Rapid to speed it up.

[Chris Goodwin]

I like the idea of Detect Mind better than Mind Scan too.

Me three. (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64260)

[megaplayboy]

When considering the idea of subjective Skill Rolls, I wonder if BOECV might become obsolete and players must instead choose which CHAR the power is based off of at Power Creation.

In this case, the fact that a Power is based off of EGO is just a matter of choice, but not necessarily an advantage.

OTOH, they still would have to buy LOS, IPE, and AVLD (Mental Defense) for the attack, which would still be a whopper.

20 points per d6? 3d6 of ego attack for 60 points. With a push, 3.5d6. With a pushed haymaker, 4.5d6. If you surprise someone out of combat, you double the stun, so a maxed out, out-of-combat, ego attack would do 54 stun...enough to knock out everyone except the team brick.

I would probably make one modification to mitigate the 50% drop in cost-effectiveness for mentalists: the damage would be compared to the target's EGO rather than CON for purposes of stunning. That would seem to more closely mirror what mind blasts do in the comics anyway.

You'd have to make mental defense less common in most campaigns, though, or else combat would just suck for egoists.

[Xotl]

the damage would be compared to the target's EGO rather than CON for purposes of stunning. That would seem to more closely mirror what mind blasts do in the comics anyway.

This is such a cool idea and I'm kicking myself for not thinking of it a long time ago.

[BobGreenwade]

I've toyed somewhat with the idea of "Alternate Characteristics For Stunning" as a Power Modifier, such as what's developed for Combat Values (not just DEX and EGO, but INT and PRE as posited in TUM; I could also see it for COM) and Entangle breakouts (again, found most readily in TUM).

[Xotl]

20 points per d6? 3d6 of ego attack for 60 points. With a push, 3.5d6. With a pushed haymaker, 4.5d6. If you surprise someone out of combat, you double the stun, so a maxed out, out-of-combat, ego attack would do 54 stun...enough to knock out everyone except the team brick.

You'd have to make mental defense less common in most campaigns, though, or else combat would just suck for egoists.

I feel like replying to the rest of this, on second thought. I'm not sure basing an analysis of Ego attack at 20pts per die on the most optimistic scenario possible is a good idea: while you could get 54 points if the stars align, more likely you're getting 11 points of damage in your normal combat scenario before defenses, which isn't that great at all for 60 points even if it is against Ego.

Of course how to solve this isn't really clear, since I'd like to be able to build something in 6th like today's ego attack off of a basic attack power using bog-standard advantages rather than having a separate construct, which in turn means you can't just handwave a set Ego attack cost that makes it useable. I don't believe that all Ego attacks must be invisible and AVLD and LOS though, and think that the current manner of handling it that forces those choices by default is unnecessarily restrictive.

In reference to what The Main Man was saying, I do think that mental powers shouldn't have to pay for choosing Ego over Dex at least. Markdoc & Hugh Neilson worked out a proposal a while back that really had me enthused: it basically stated whenever you buy any attack power, any attack power, you choose what it uses to hit (Dex or Ego) and what it rolls against (Dex or Ego). This would be done as part of just building the power, and doesn't cost anything - it's part of determining how the power works like selecting Real Weapon or whatever. It would easily allow things like hypno-ray guns (dex/ego) and psi bolts (ego/dex), and of course most attacks would be dex/dex while pure mental constructs would be ego/ego.

It would be a nice step towards a universal attack power as well, for those who want to go down that road, though if you don't, that fact doesn't take away from the suggestion IMHO.

[Vulcan]

20 points per d6? 3d6 of ego attack for 60 points. With a push, 3.5d6. With a pushed haymaker, 4.5d6. If you surprise someone out of combat, you double the stun, so a maxed out, out-of-combat, ego attack would do 54 stun...enough to knock out everyone except the team brick.

I would probably make one modification to mitigate the 50% drop in cost-effectiveness for mentalists: the damage would be compared to the target's EGO rather than CON for purposes of stunning. That would seem to more closely mirror what mind blasts do in the comics anyway.

You'd have to make mental defense less common in most campaigns, though, or else combat would just suck for egoists.

I could get behind this. All the other metal powers compare against EGO, why should EGO attack be different?

[megaplayboy]

Perhaps for an additional 5 points per d6, the ego attack would do damage against the target's ego like a normal attack does to body, so on an average roll of 3d6(75 active points worth of ego attack), the target would take 10 or 11 stun and lose 3 points of ego. If there's no negative ego, then it just becomes more difficult for the target to commit to act, once their ego falls below 8 or so. And of course it would enhance the effectiveness of the attacker's other mental powers, if any.

[Vulcan]

Oh, no! I don't go that far in supporting 'EGO attack works against EGO!

That construct means mentalists use EGO attacks to soften the target up for a mind control/reading. And since Mental Defense isn't all that common it makes mentalists a little too powerful for my taste.

[AnotherSkip]

Let's please not have too many ways of doing the same thing (or nearly the same thing). Hero is intimidating enough as it is.

- Klaus

suggesting the absolute opposite of the HERO system are we?

[The Main Man]

Whoa, I just had a wacky idea.

When dealing with Mental Powers:
INT = DEX
EGO = CON/BODY
PRE = STR

[The Main Man]

20 points per d6? 3d6 of ego attack for 60 points. With a push, 3.5d6. With a pushed haymaker, 4.5d6. If you surprise someone out of combat, you double the stun, so a maxed out, out-of-combat, ego attack would do 54 stun...enough to knock out everyone except the team brick.
.

Actually, Haymaker and Push both ignore Power Advantages.

So you would actually gain (in this build's case) 6d6 so a "3d6 Ego Attack" would become 9d6 with a pushed Haymaker.

Not bad if you ask me.

[Vulcan]

Actually, Haymaker and Push both ignore Power Advantages.

So you would actually gain (in this build's case) 6d6 so a "3d6 Ego Attack" would become 9d6 with a pushed Haymaker.

Not bad if you ask me.

Haymakers add 4 DC, not 4 Dice. Pushing adds points (10 for superheroic games) - the 5E book says 'character points' but 'active points' is implied by the example (Defender applies a -1/2 limitation to his STR, so 10 character points should yield 15 active points...).

Neither one says anything about ignoring Power Advantages.

Under Damage Classes it says:

"The basic rule for Damage Classes is: 1 DC equals 5 Active Points in the Power."

....:nonp:

Flipped a couple pages and there it is. "Damage bonuses from haymakers, Martial Maneuvers, and Combat Skill Levels are not affected by advantages." and "For example, if a character is using a Martial Strike (+2 DC's) to increase he damage done by his knjfe (HKA 1/2d6), the knife does 1d6 Killing Damage regardless of whether the knife is an ordinary HKA, an Armor Piercing HKA, an HKA with +1 Increased Stun Multiple, or what have you."

We've been playing that wrong in our games...:eek: My poor ninja with the 2d6 HKA AP Pen should have been doing 4d6, not 3d6+1...




So does anyone have anything official on whether pushing gets pro-rated for advantage?

[The Main Man]

Haymakers add 4 DC, not 4 Dice. Pushing adds points (10 for superheroic games) - the 5E book says 'character points' but 'active points' is implied by the example (Defender applies a -1/2 limitation to his STR, so 10 character points should yield 15 active points...).

Neither one says anything about ignoring Power Advantages.

Under Damage Classes it says:

"The basic rule for Damage Classes is: 1 DC equals 5 Active Points in the Power."

....:nonp:

Flipped a couple pages and there it is. "Damage bonuses from haymakers, Martial Maneuvers, and Combat Skill Levels are not affected by advantages." and "For example, if a character is using a Martial Strike (+2 DC's) to increase he damage done by his knjfe (HKA 1/2d6), the knife does 1d6 Killing Damage regardless of whether the knife is an ordinary HKA, an Armor Piercing HKA, an HKA with +1 Increased Stun Multiple, or what have you."

We've been playing that wrong in our games...:eek: My poor ninja with the 2d6 HKA AP Pen should have been doing 4d6, not 3d6+1...




So does anyone have anything official on whether pushing gets pro-rated for advantage?

If I read him correctly he was referring to my post about a possible build for Ego Attack as an EB build.

In this case, Push (assuming that it's superheroic) would add +2d6 (5:1d6) while Haymaker would be unaffected since none of the advantages affects its damage.

Must be a miscommunication.

[PhilFleischmann]

Can't you do this anymore? I always thought you could use Mind Scan to determine the number of minds in a given area, such as the room on the other side of a door.

Not sure if you could in older editions, but 5th revised is somewhat vague on the question. 5th ed Ultimate Mentalist however makes it clear that you're looking for a specific mind, rather than just minds in general. UM also provides an option to look for a type of mind rather than an individual ("nearest psychic" and "nearest child" are the given examples, though "nearest criminal" is right out), as well as a couple of more exacting options.
I don't have 5ER, or UM, just FREd. And I finally remembered to look it up, and it's right there on page 134 under the "Lock-On" section, the bottom paragraph on the page.

Yes, you CAN use Mind Scan to determine the number of minds in a target area (within 10%) with a successful ECV Attack roll against a DECV of 3.

(Unless this was another one of those non-change-changes in 5ER.)

[Xotl]

I don't have 5ER, or UM, just FREd. And I finally remembered to look it up, and it's right there on page 134 under the "Lock-On" section, the bottom paragraph on the page.

Yes, you CAN use Mind Scan to determine the number of minds in a target area (within 10%) with a successful ECV Attack roll against a DECV of 3.

(Unless this was another one of those non-change-changes in 5ER.)

No, it's in 5ER as well (pg. 207): I just missed it unfortunately. Normal ECV modifiers for the amount of people in the search area still apply. I've corrected my original post.

[Hugh Neilson]

I don't have 5ER, or UM, just FREd.

Bit of an aside, but imagine how confused the boards will be after 6e adds another possible rulebook people are drawing their basis for discussion of the rules from. Hopefuly, 6er is a long time coming. ;)

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Mind Control:

It occurs to me that it would probably be good to include a shortened, broad-stroke version of the Emotion Control table from USPD and TUM. Not the full version taking up a half-page to a page, of course; just a single set of entries giving examples of the levels of emotional effect this can have, reserving the larger tables for a 6th Edition version of TUM and/or USPD.

[Lord Liaden]

Sorry if this was mentioned already on the thread and I missed it, but I've noticed a problem with the Extended Breathing portion of Life Support. It's often used in published character builds to represent aquatic air-breathing creatures who can operate under water for lengthy periods without taking another breath; but as this still just amounts to holding one's breath, and by the rules for doing so one can't take any Recoveries, creatures with Extended Breathing which exert themselves in any way under water will quickly exhaust their Endurance.

I recommend looking at alternate ways to run Extended Breathing in such cases. I suggest something along the lines of Long Term Endurance loss, where the creatures are allowed to take Recoveries, but still lose the minimum Endurance due to holding their breath until they have the chance to rest and breathe normally.