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.
Transfer (+1, +1 1/2): Effect that transfers points from self to target or target to self which must be defined at purchase. From Power Of SFX to Single Power (+1). From Power Of SFX to Power Of SFX (+1 1/2).
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.

[ghost-angel]

Life Support

Actually a suggestion/idea of Sean Waters.

add Life Support: Electricity to the list of effects.
It should work similar to the Heat, Cold, Radiation ones already in place, and would IMO round out the suite of Environmental Effects Life Support we have now.

[nexus]

Life Support

Actually a suggestion/idea of Sean Waters.

add Life Support: Electricity to the list of effects.
It should work similar to the Heat, Cold, Radiation ones already in place, and would IMO round out the suite of Environmental Effects Life Support we have now.

That's not a bad idea, maybe even include an open ended LS <Specific Environmental Effect> for anything the GM's want to add for specific settings like LS: Necrotic Energy zones or whatever.

Edit: It could make the Taser issue a little easier to resolve. NND vs LS: Electricity.

[PhilFleischmann]

Life Support

Actually a suggestion/idea of Sean Waters.

add Life Support: Electricity to the list of effects.
It should work similar to the Heat, Cold, Radiation ones already in place, and would IMO round out the suite of Environmental Effects Life Support we have now.
What would that mean? I know what a cold environment is. I know what a hot environment is. But what's an electrical environment?

Remember, LS is not the same as a defense. Most forms of electricity would be actual attacks (taser, lightning, high voltage wires), for which LS doesn't do anything.

[ghost-angel]

Electrical wires, any non-damage causing Electrical effect, static fields, as mentioned it could 'solve' the Taser issue.

I dunno - use your imagination.

I pulled the idea from Chapter 3 section on Environmental Effects and Sean Waters' post in Game Discussion thread. Electricity is listed as an Environmental Effect in that section.

[PhilFleischmann]

Electrical wires, any non-damage causing Electrical effect, static fields, as mentioned it could 'solve' the Taser issue.
Electrical wires are not an environment - they're a potentially dangerous thing that might be in an environment, just like fire or a hot stove. LS doesn't protect you from sticking your hand in a fire, not should it from grabbing a live electrical wire.

What's a non-damaging electrical effect? Static electricity fields? Are humans harmed by static electricity notmally? Perhaps all humans have LS: Static by default, but non-humans don't necessarily. Other than that, what would it do besides prevent your socks from sticking together?

And a Taser is specifically an attack - LS doesn't apply.

[ghost-angel]

Hot Stove: Life Support High Temp.

huh, well, that's a weird example ;)


Or all those attack with Life Support: Cold (like ice attacks).

Seems there is precedent for LS as a form of defense. I fail to see why you think it's a bad idea to add into the system.

[PhilFleischmann]

OK, maybe I'm missing something here. Electricity is simply not an environment.

I don't even know what this means:

Hot Stove: Life Support High Temp.

Or this:

Or all those attack with Life Support: Cold (like ice attacks).

[ghost-angel]

You've never once seen a write-up for a power that has NND with the defense being Life Support: Heat or Life Support: Cold?

Ever? Once?

[Hugh Neilson]

Electrical wires are not an environment - they're a potentially dangerous thing that might be in an environment, just like fire or a hot stove. LS doesn't protect you from sticking your hand in a fire, not should it from grabbing a live electrical wire.

Immune to Heat covers fire, in my opinion, not just the hot stove or a warm day. It does not cover an energy blast with special effects of heat or fire.

LS: Electricity would cover electricity occurring in the environment, including wall sockets, power lines and lightning bolts. But not electrical attacks.

Now, a Taser could be build the same way as a Heat Stroke attack. Taser: xd6 NND - LS: Electricity. In that case, LS: Electricity becomes a defense against the NND.

Haven't there also been concerns that people living below high tension power lines may be exposed to long-term health risks? LS: Electricity (or perhaps electromagnetism) seems as reasonable as LS: Radiation.

[Chris Goodwin]

You've never once seen a write-up for a power that has NND with the defense being Life Support: Heat or Life Support: Cold?

Ever? Once?

That's an artifact of the NND, not the Life Support protecting from it. Regular Powers with "Not Vs. Life Support X" are treated similarly.

You could have an NND with the defense being Target Is Painted Blue. Doesn't make blue paint a Defense Power.

[ghost-angel]

That's an artifact of the NND, not the Life Support protecting from it. Regular Powers with "Not Vs. Life Support X" are treated similarly.

You could have an NND with the defense being Target Is Painted Blue. Doesn't make blue paint a Defense Power.

Which wasn't my point in any remote fashion. And is a tangent that's really not worth going down.

Hugh got what I was going after. I'm sure Steve will get my actual point.

But thanks for trying.

[Chris Goodwin]

Which wasn't my point in any remote fashion. And is a tangent that's really not worth going down.

Hugh got what I was going after. I'm sure Steve will get my actual point.

But thanks for trying.

And you missed mine.

Life Support doesn't inherently protect against attacks. The fact that it does protect against certain NNDs has nothing to do with the Life Support and everything to do with the NND.

LS: High Heat doesn't protect against environmental effects that are built as attacks, unless they're explicitly Not Vs. Life Support, either via Limitation or as a result of being NND.

Fire as an environmental effect is typically built as an attack, using Energy Blast or RKA. Whether it includes the built in Not Vs. Life Support is debatable but I don't think the default writeup includes that. It definitely doesn't protect against the Human Torch's fire attacks, unless those are bought Not Vs. Life Support.

[ghost-angel]

And you missed mine.

Life Support doesn't inherently protect against attacks. The fact that it does protect against certain NNDs has nothing to do with the Life Support and everything to do with the NND.

LS: High Heat doesn't protect against environmental effects that are built as attacks, unless they're explicitly Not Vs. Life Support, either via Limitation or as a result of being NND.

Fire as an environmental effect is typically built as an attack, using Energy Blast or RKA. Whether it includes the built in Not Vs. Life Support is debatable but I don't think the default writeup includes that. It definitely doesn't protect against the Human Torch's fire attacks, unless those are bought Not Vs. Life Support.

Now that we've recovered the blindly obvious.

I pointed out some uses it could have. I also pointed out some aspects of surroundings (like a hot stove) that are covered under Life Support Safe Environments, and some that are covered under NND Definitions (like ice attacks with Life Support Safe Environment).

So obviously we can expand the idea to electricity, and clever GMs can either find some environmental uses for it (Hugh suggested light sockets or fields from high tension lines) or help expand how we look at some attacks (Sean Waters brought up the idea originally for an alternate built idea of Electrical Whips from Spacer's Toolkit.)

I wasn't intended to create a Life Support that inherently protected against attacks - I was looking at the idea of expanding how we look at various aspects of Environment Effects (electricity being specifically defined as one in 5ER) and what we can do with them.

If you feel like arguing have fun talking to yourself, I was suggesting an idea for Steve.

[IndianaJoe3]

That's not a bad idea, maybe even include an open ended LS <Specific Environmental Effect> for anything the GM's want to add for specific settings like LS: Necrotic Energy zones or whatever.

Edit: It could make the Taser issue a little easier to resolve. NND vs LS: Electricity.

I like this idea. It's a good way to model a character's mastery of his special effects, or an animal's adaptation to its natural habitat.

LS: Uncommon Environment - 1 pt
LS: Common Environment - 2 pts
LS: Very Common Environment - 3 points
Can recover END normally - +2 pts

[Hugh Neilson]

I note that 5er defines a severe sunburn as inflicting both STUN and BOD, with no defense, which only recovers on a daily basis. Despite being defined as a form of attack, I'd say LS: Extreme Heat provides immunity to this damage.

Any condition that inflicts damage will be defined as an attack - it inflicts Xd6 of damage. How else would you define damage to be inflicted? The purpose of Life Support is to mitigate against these harmful environmental effects.

Looking at 5er, it is not clear that LS would protect one against a bonfire. I suggest that 6e clarify that it does - regardless of whether such a clarification is a change to the existing intent of the rules.

[ghost-angel]

A Character With Life Support Safe Environment does not take damage from that type of environmental condition, or from a Change Environment that creates that condition.

Sounds like it provides a limited form of defense against the environment to me - it may not be a Defense Power Mechanically, but it's still a defense against ill effects.

RE: Hugh's suggestion of clarification, it does mention that being dunked in lava is not covered by LS: Heat, I would put Bonfire under the same issue. . .

[PhilFleischmann]

RE: Hugh's suggestion of clarification, it does mention that being dunked in lava is not covered by LS: Heat, I would put Bonfire under the same issue. . .
And I would put Hot Stove and Electrical Outlet under the same issue.

[ghost-angel]

Why not put extremely high temperatures under there too... super heated air can cause second degree burns - as can sunlight itself. . .
Seems to me under this line LS: High Temp doesn't protect you against, well, anything.

[Hugh Neilson]

Sounds like it provides a limited form of defense against the environment to me - it may not be a Defense Power Mechanically, but it's still a defense against ill effects.

RE: Hugh's suggestion of clarification, it does mention that being dunked in lava is not covered by LS: Heat, I would put Bonfire under the same issue. . .


And I would put Hot Stove and Electrical Outlet under the same issue.


Why not put extremely high temperatures under there too... super heated air can cause second degree burns - as can sunlight itself. . .
Seems to me under this line LS: High Temp doesn't protect you against, well, anything.

Other than high heat, what causes lava to inflict damage?

A sunburn is caused not by heat but by ultraviolet radiation. What prevents it? LS - High Heat or LS: Radiation?

Or, perhaps, nothing does since it does damage and would therefore be an attack.

Life support should be useful. How many characters get more benefits from 50 points of life support than would be provided by, say, +15/+15 rDEF and +5 Power Defense? Is it as useful as a 10d6 Energy Blast, or 10d6 of Luck?

Life Support needs to have in-game benefits to justify its cost. Those benefits should include resistance to damage from effects other than attacks in combat.

[PhilFleischmann]

Why not put extremely high temperatures under there too... super heated air can cause second degree burns - as can sunlight itself. . .
Seems to me under this line LS: High Temp doesn't protect you against, well, anything.
Yes, it protects you from superheated air, and sunlight too. In other words, high temperature *environments*. A hot stove is not an environment, neither is an electrical outlet, or a taser, or a bonfire, or a fireball spell.

[schir1964]

Yes, it protects you from superheated air, and sunlight too. In other words, high temperature *environments*. A hot stove is not an environment, neither is an electrical outlet, or a taser, or a bonfire, or a fireball spell.
Do you consider the surface of the sun an environment or not?

- Christopher Mullins

[Klaus Mogensen]

I note that 5er defines a severe sunburn as inflicting both STUN and BOD, with no defense, which only recovers on a daily basis. Despite being defined as a form of attack, I'd say LS: Extreme Heat provides immunity to this damage.

Any condition that inflicts damage will be defined as an attack - it inflicts Xd6 of damage. How else would you define damage to be inflicted? The purpose of Life Support is to mitigate against these harmful environmental effects.
I think we can distinguish between a damaging attack and a damaging environment based on how long exposure is required to take damage.

Attacks do damage instantly (or nearly so) - certainly in less than a turn.

Dangerous environments require at least a turn, and more likely several minutes, to be harmful.

- Klaus

[PhilFleischmann]

Do you consider the surface of the sun an environment or not?
I suppose. But it's not something that LS: Heat would protect you from. I think Klaus sums it up well.

LS: Heat means you can live indefinitely in the Sahara Desert, assuming you have enough food and water. You don't need sunscreen or clothes, and you could even wear a winter coat if you like.

It does not mean you can live in a burning fire.

2 points is not enough to live on the surface of the sun.

[schir1964]

Okay, so we now have the following terms redefined to differentiate them:


Attack: Must cause damage within a segment or phase by default
Dangerous Environment: Requires a minimum one turn before causing damage.
Non-Dangerous Environment: ???


So how do you define a Non-Dangerous Environment?

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

I think we're now going too far - too much detail creates book keeping and removes Dramatic Sense from the system.

Yay Chart Hero!

[Hugh Neilson]

I suppose. But it's not something that LS: Heat would protect you from. I think Klaus sums it up well.

LS: Heat means you can live indefinitely in the Sahara Desert, assuming you have enough food and water. You don't need sunscreen or clothes, and you could even wear a winter coat if you like.

It does not mean you can live in a burning fire.

2 points is not enough to live on the surface of the sun.

First, is "living on the surface of the sun" something that often comes up in your games? What are the benefits that make it worth more than 2 points?

Second, you'd also need Radiation (2 points), Vacuum (2 points) and Self Contained Breathing (10 points) for a total of 16 points.

Back to the Sahara, how does LS: High Heat protect you from sunburn? Sunburn is caused by UV rays (radiation), not heat. If we're splitting hairs fine enough to say LS Heat lets you live in an oven, but you're still burned by the hot stove or a match, then differentiating between heat and radiation (already two different versions of Life Support) seems a much more relevant differentiation.

[The Main Man]

I suggest this: the "environment" is a specifically invocative set of rules dictated by situation - they are not strictly power constructs.

Rarely does one build an electric stove, volcano, or underwater - there are rules for them, but no power constructs.

Also, while a hot stove is not an environment it could easily be argued that they are a part of their environment.

So I personally would allow a character with LS: High Temperarures to swim in lava, at least in a Supers campaign.

[nexus]

I note that 5er defines a severe sunburn as inflicting both STUN and BOD, with no defense, which only recovers on a daily basis. Despite being defined as a form of attack, I'd say LS: Extreme Heat provides immunity to this damage.

Any condition that inflicts damage will be defined as an attack - it inflicts Xd6 of damage. How else would you define damage to be inflicted? The purpose of Life Support is to mitigate against these harmful environmental effects.

Looking at 5er, it is not clear that LS would protect one against a bonfire. I suggest that 6e clarify that it does - regardless of whether such a clarification is a change to the existing intent of the rules.


Yes, it protects you from superheated air, and sunlight too. In other words, high temperature *environments*. A hot stove is not an environment, neither is an electrical outlet, or a taser, or a bonfire, or a fireball spell.


I suggest this: the "environment" is a specifically invocative set of rules dictated by situation - they are not strictly power constructs.

Rarely does one build an electric stove, volcano, or underwater - there are rules for them, but no power constructs.

Also, while a hot stove is not an environment it could easily be argued that they are a part of their environment.

So I personally would allow a character with LS: High Temperatures to swim in lava, at least in a Supers campaign.

Yeah the issue is the "environment" vs "Attack" is not really defined in game mechanics terms and it becomes even more clouded since LS is a very popular power to defend against NNDs. Similar debate came up recently on the Champions board over if LS: High Radiation should protect a character against getting radiation sickness from the exposure to a nuclear blast assuming they could survive the other effects/Should the Radiation sickness effect be constructed as NND vs LS HR.

Same deal with living on the sun. Technically, that is a climate just an extreme one. How about living on the moon. At the last LS Vacuum, Radiation would be required there and those effects are written up as inflicting damage.

Attacks could be defined as "Damage/negative effects that are at least theoretically possible to avoid" They work against a Defensive Value or need to hit the area the character occupies.

Environments are part and parcel with the location/area. There damage cannot be avoided by Defensive values. you can't "Dodge" the heat on Venus or the pressure, poisonous atmosphere. Any effects Change Environment would be included by default if applicable.

This still leaves some fringe cases like a hot stove, light socket or natural lightening but that's what GMs are for. Also there would be "realism" issues. It would be off for creatures that live on a star to still be ko'ed/injured by the Human Torch, for instance. Life Support is one of the few Absolutes Hero System has. It works against Environments (which don't cost anyone points excluding CE but that needs a Defense and LS fits the bill) but there is not equilvalent for dealing with Attacks for game balance reasons.

[steamteck]

The official line of LS is that the character still takes damage from attacks because of shock, so the abruptness of the effect might be relevant. Stepping from his cool spaceship to the jungles of Venus might may even or acclimated hero dizzy for just a moment but then hes OK.

[PhilFleischmann]

Okay, so we now have the following terms redefined to differentiate them:
Who's "we"?



Attack: Must cause damage within a segment or phase by default
Dangerous Environment: Requires a minimum one turn before causing damage.
Non-Dangerous Environment: ???


So how do you define a Non-Dangerous Environment?
All the people I've ever played HERO games with have spoken English. We understand the meanings of simple English words. If it helps you to have game-definitions, then go for it. I am confident in my own understanding and common sense, so I don't need them.


First, is "living on the surface of the sun" something that often comes up in your games? What are the benefits that make it worth more than 2 points?
It was the example given by Chris, not by me. It's completely irrelevant to my point.


Second, you'd also need Radiation (2 points), Vacuum (2 points) and Self Contained Breathing (10 points) for a total of 16 points.
OK. So what? It seems to me to be more appropriate to build it as LS: Vacuum and Radiation and No Breathing (or Can Breathe Solar Atmosphere), and a buttload of ED.


Back to the Sahara, how does LS: High Heat protect you from sunburn?
By GM handwaving.


Sunburn is caused by UV rays (radiation), not heat. If we're splitting hairs fine enough to say LS Heat lets you live in an oven, but you're still burned by the hot stove or a match, then differentiating between heat and radiation (already two different versions of Life Support) seems a much more relevant differentiation.
If you want to split those hairs, feel free to do so. None of this has anything to do with my point.

Remember, it's a game, and it has balance considerations. Someone who can withstand the heat of the surface of the sun (even if not the vacuum, radiation, etc.), should logically be immune to just about all fire/heat based attacks. But that doesn't quite work from a game perspective. If a guy can stand on the sun and still be hurt by a flame thrower, it's up to the player/GM to justify that. The specific genre/campaign/character considerations are not my issue.

[schir1964]

Who's "we"?
We, is you and Klaus, obviously. You are usually very perceptive so I find it odd you couldn't figure this out.

But if you need something more explicit...

Klaus posted:

I think we can distinguish between a damaging attack and a damaging environment based on how long exposure is required to take damage.

Attacks do damage instantly (or nearly so) - certainly in less than a turn.

Dangerous environments require at least a turn, and more likely several minutes, to be harmful.
Which you then posted immediately after...

I suppose. But it's not something that LS: Heat would protect you from. I think Klaus sums it up well...
Now if you didn't agree with Klaus's definitions, perhaps you should have said so instead of saying that he sums it up well... which implies that you are in agreement with his post, which consisted of making these definitions for these terms.

I was just trying to get a better understanding on the guidelines/rules you and Klaus used when making decisions about when something is considered an attack or when something is considered an environment.

I ask a simple question and restate some definitions that you say you agree with, and you take it as some kind of offense or attack and respond with sarcasm and snide remarks.

Never mind...

- Christopher Mullins

[JmOz]

I want to revisit an idea I mentioned on the first page

I feel that right now the way missile deflection is handled is counter intuitive to the hero system. Where most of the defences in the game are based on "type" such as Physical, energy, mental, etc... this power is based on F/x (thrown item, simple projectile, complex projectile, all range).

What I propose is to make it based on the type instead. So you can take it for physical, or energy, or mental, etc...

I would guesstimate that the value should be 15 points per type. any thoughts?

Limitations could reduce the versitility down to just thrown items, or what have you...

[Hugh Neilson]

All the people I've ever played HERO games with have spoken English. We understand the meanings of simple English words. If it helps you to have game-definitions, then go for it. I am confident in my own understanding and common sense, so I don't need them.

Given the level of debate on this issue, it sounds like some form of definition is reasonable.


OK. So what? It seems to me to be more appropriate to build it as LS: Vacuum and Radiation and No Breathing (or Can Breathe Solar Atmosphere), and a buttload of ED.

Then why not a smaller buttload of ED (perhaps limited to "only vs heat") rather than LS: High Heat to protect one against the effects of high heat?


By GM handwaving.

If you want to split those hairs, feel free to do so. None of this has anything to do with my point.

So pointing out that radiation, not heat, causes sunburns is "splitting hairs", but having a lit match hurt a character supposedly "Immune to High Heat" who can live comfortably in a blast furnace is not?


Remember, it's a game, and it has balance considerations. Someone who can withstand the heat of the surface of the sun (even if not the vacuum, radiation, etc.), should logically be immune to just about all fire/heat based attacks. But that doesn't quite work from a game perspective. If a guy can stand on the sun and still be hurt by a flame thrower, it's up to the player/GM to justify that. The specific genre/campaign/character considerations are not my issue.

No one is arguing for automatic immunity from attacks. Automatic immunity to a stove element or a bonfire, on the other hand, seems quite reasonable for a character who can survive on the surface of the sun. But I'lll admit my game doesn't feature a lot of characters attempting to defeat their foes by forcing them to touch stove elements.

If you want something TRULY illogical, mechanically, a character can shut off his Life Support at will (it's Persistent, but neither Always On nor Inherent), so the character who can walk around on the surface of the sun can CHOOSE to shut his LS off and be fatigued by a hot summer day.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I feel that right now the way missile deflection is handled is counter intuitive to the hero system. Where most of the defences in the game are based on "type" such as Physical, energy, mental, etc... this power is based on F/x (thrown item, simple projectile, complex projectile, all range).

What I propose is to make it based on the type instead. So you can take it for physical, or energy, or mental, etc...
For one thing, 'thrown' isn't an SFX, it is any attack where STR is used to propel a dead object as a ranged attack. There are special rules for this sort of attack (balanced/unbalanced, aerodynamic, non-aerodynamic, etc.). From a game-balance POV, it makes sense to make deflection of thrown items cheaper than other deflections, since thrown attacks usually don't cost points (they are a free accessory from having STR).

For another, 'physical' and 'energy' are also very much SFX, so your change will simply swap one kind of SFX for another (granted, one that is better supported by the rules than e.g. 'simple projectiles').

However, it may be a very good idea to look into Missile Deflection and other powers to ensure that there aren't too many different groupings of SFX and 'real' mechanics. Some streamlining would be nice.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

For one thing, 'thrown' isn't an SFX, it is any attack where STR is used to propel a dead object as a ranged attack. There are special rules for this sort of attack (balanced/unbalanced, aerodynamic, non-aerodynamic, etc.). From a game-balance POV, it makes sense to make deflection of thrown items cheaper than other deflections, since thrown attacks usually don't cost points (they are a free accessory from having STR).

"Thrown objects" also includes powers such as Thor's hammer. It is an SFX base. And many sci fi games include energy beam weapons that don't cost points - often much more common than arrows or bullets.


For another, 'physical' and 'energy' are also very much SFX, so your change will simply swap one kind of SFX for another (granted, one that is better supported by the rules than e.g. 'simple projectiles').

I agree.

I would like to see Missile Deflection and the Block maneuver merged. Missile Deflection then becomes a power (or a talent, or a skill, or whatever you want it to be) which permits use of Block against ranged attacks. The "reflects" adders would also be applicable to "Block", whether or not your Block has been upgraded to work against ranged attacks.

[The Main Man]

I would like to see Missile Deflection and the Block maneuver merged. Missile Deflection then becomes a power (or a talent, or a skill, or whatever you want it to be) which permits use of Block against ranged attacks. The "reflects" adders would also be applicable to "Block", whether or not your Block has been upgraded to work against ranged attacks.

Count me in.

I might argue that Missile Deflection should become a Skill instead of a Power since as you say it is basically a Ranged extrapolation of Blocking.

Furthermore, I don't know if it is already covered in the rules or not but I think that Ranged Combat Skill Levels should work with Missile Deflection.

[James Gillen]

I think it's counted as a Power on the grounds that most characters can't catch bullets or even arrows in flight. If ANYbody could learn it, it would be a Skill.

JG

[Netzilla]

I think it's counted as a Power on the grounds that most characters can't catch bullets or even arrows in flight. If ANYbody could learn it, it would be a Skill.

JG

I could see it as a Power with a Heroic-level Talent/Super Skill (Arrow Catching) built from it.

[PhilFleischmann]

We, is you and Klaus, obviously. You are usually very perceptive so I find it odd you couldn't figure this out.
Well where I come from, "we" is first person plural. If it doesn't include you, then you shouldn't use the term "we."

You are the one who seems to want to make these into hard and fast game-mechanical definitions. I may have misunderstood you, but I really don't think it's necessary. What consitutes an environment, as opposed to a potentially dangerous thing in the environment is IMO, best left to common sense, as it may easily vary depending on game style, genre, setting, and even character concept. I don't think the system should make those determinations and apply them to all games.


I was just trying to get a better understanding on the guidelines/rules you and Klaus used when making decisions about when something is considered an attack or when something is considered an environment.
Fine. Here you go:
A desert is an environment.
The arctic is an environment.
Underwater is an environment.
The vacuum of space is an environment.
In some campaigns, the surface of the sun might be an environment.
In some types of games, a dust storm might be an environment.
A hot stove is not an environment.
A bonfire is not an environment.
A lit match is not an environment.
A bolt of lightning is not an environment.
An electric outlet is not an environment.
A plant with sharp thorns on it is not an environment.

If you disagree with any of my assessments above, that's fine. It's not something we need to argue about.


I ask a simple question and restate some definitions that you say you agree with, and you take it as some kind of offense or attack and respond with sarcasm and snide remarks.
I think we have misunderstood each other here. I was not offended, nor did I mean to be snide.


Given the level of debate on this issue, it sounds like some form of definition is reasonable.
I'm not so sure it is reasonable, because those definitions will differ between games, and quite reasonably so.


Then why not a smaller buttload of ED (perhaps limited to "only vs heat") rather than LS: High Heat to protect one against the effects of high heat?
That would be fine, too. It's sort of what LS already is.


So pointing out that radiation, not heat, causes sunburns is "splitting hairs", but having a lit match hurt a character supposedly "Immune to High Heat" who can live comfortably in a blast furnace is not?
Correct. "Splitting hairs" was your term, not mine. Whether you wish to separate sunburn from from LS: Heat is your choice. And I would assume (and hope) that you would make that determination based on genre/setting/style considerations. "Ultraviolet Radiation" would be a meaningless term in most fantasy worlds, for example. The various fantasy/space opera/comic-book tropes can (and IMO usually should) take precedence over real-world physics.

The second example you give (being hurt by a lit match when you can live comfortably in a blast furnace), is not "splitting hairs," it's just conceptually inconsistant. If you can find a way to justify it, that's great. If a GM allows a character total immunity to all fire-based attacks (such as lit matches)with just LS: Heat, that's his choice, but it seems unbalanced to me.


No one is arguing for automatic immunity from attacks. Automatic immunity to a stove element or a bonfire, on the other hand, seems quite reasonable for a character who can survive on the surface of the sun. But I'lll admit my game doesn't feature a lot of characters attempting to defeat their foes by forcing them to touch stove elements.
Neither does mine. But it's not up to me to decide that for other GMs' games. My games also do not feature a lot of action on the surface of the sun either.

[schir1964]

Well where I come from...
Snipped the snide comments.


You are the one who seems to want to make these into hard and fast game-mechanical definitions...
No. I was restating Klaus's definitions for how to discern the difference between an Environment and an Attack.

I am not making them into hard and fast game-mechanical definitions. Only Steve Long can do that for the Hero System. Anything posted here that differs from the Rules As Written at best is a well accepted House Rule. Such as the House Rule where multiple uses of an Adjustment Power (with a Fade Rate) on the same target fade as one unit instead of each one fading independently.



Fine. Here you go:
A desert is an environment.
The arctic is an environment.
Underwater is an environment.
The vacuum of space is an environment.
In some campaigns, the surface of the sun might be an environment.
In some types of games, a dust storm might be an environment.
A hot stove is not an environment.
A bonfire is not an environment.
A lit match is not an environment.
A bolt of lightning is not an environment.
An electric outlet is not an environment.
A plant with sharp thorns on it is not an environment.
Okay, so now we (meaning you (8^D)) have a different set of guidelines for discerning between an Environment and an Attack.

In this case it is a matter of scope/area/volume/persistence (SFX) as opposed to basing it on existing game mechanics (Klaus's Definition).


Environment: A medium which Characters may exist within (given appropriate life support as needed).
Attack: Damage causing effect that Characters may not exist within.


These are your Guidelines/Rules for determining what is an Environment and what is an Attack. Fair enough, that is all I was asking for.

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

I am not making them into hard and fast game-mechanical definitions.
OK, I guess I misunderstood you.


In this case it is a matter of scope/area/volume/persistence (SFX) as opposed to basing it on existing game mechanics (Klaus's Definition).


Environment: A medium which Characters may exist within (given appropriate life support as needed).
Attack: Damage causing effect that Character may not exist within.


These are your Guidelines/Rules for determining what is an Environment and what is an Attack. Fair enough, that is all I was asking for.
I'm not sure how that helps you, or what point you were trying to make. But to be precise, those are *your* interpretations of my guidelines/rules. I don't necessary disagree with them, but I probably wouldn't describe them the way you did. If I may anticipate your next question: "Then how would you describe them?" I guess the only answer I can give you is that I wouldn't. I simply use common sense, based on game balance and the various genre/setting/etc. considerations.

[James Gillen]

I could see it as a Power with a Heroic-level Talent/Super Skill (Arrow Catching) built from it.

In 5th Edition terminology, a Talent and Super-Skill are much the same thing, which is why 5E Talents are reverse-engineered from Powers, to show how it's done. Certain Super-Skills are allowed per genre (like a Martial Artist catching arrows) and the GM decides which ones are allowed.

JG

[Netzilla]

I could see it as a Power with a Heroic-level Talent/Super Skill (Arrow Catching) built from it.In 5th Edition terminology, a Talent and Super-Skill are much the same thing, which is why 5E Talents are reverse-engineered from Powers, to show how it's done. Certain Super-Skills are allowed per genre (like a Martial Artist catching arrows) and the GM decides which ones are allowed.

JG

Yep. Keeping it as a power allows for the wilder super-heroic/wuxia style Missile Reflection & Deflection builds. However, for the less over-the-top genres it makes sense to have a heroic level Talent/Super Skill/Heroic Gift/whatever else you want to call it. Missile Deflection ain't just for supers and ancient masters.

"It's all in the reflexes." -- Jack Burton

[schir1964]

I'm not sure how that helps you, or what point you were trying to make.
I wanted to get a rough idea of the guidelines you use to discern the difference between an Environment and an Attack. This is the second time (maybe third) that I've said this.

You gave me some examples. I analyzed them, and distilled them down to the essence of your guideline (based solely on the information you given thus it is only as good as the information provided), which is easy to remember and can be used, by any GM, to recreate your example list given. Thus, a rough guideline.


But to be precise, those are *your* interpretations of my guidelines/rules.
So? The same is true of your reading and responses to my posts. An obvious fact although not really relevant to the discussion.


I don't necessary disagree with them, but I probably wouldn't describe them the way you did.
Well, if you wanted them described a certain way, you should have done it yourself. But as you said later in this post, you refuse to do so. Even if you did, it probably wouldn't be as clear or as concise for me to digest and understand as I've done above. This doesn't mean my description is better than yours, just that it works better for me in using your guidelines since that is how I chose to sum up your guidelines.


If I may anticipate your next question: "Then how would you describe them?" I guess the only answer I can give you is that I wouldn't.
Which is why I wasn't going to ask you anything further on this. If you were going to actually give a more definitive answer, you would have done so in your first response to my question.


I simply use common sense, based on game balance and the various genre/setting/etc. considerations.
Which is your answer to many questions put to you about your campaigns with little else to go on. Which doesn't help any other GM utilize your guidelines to run a game similar to yours. Frankly, for myself, I think I would have to sit in on several of your games and watch you and see how you actually handle various campaign situations before I could even come anywhere close to running a game the way you do. But that is just me.

Thanks for the information.

- Christopher Mullins

[Chris Goodwin]

A noun is a person, place, or thing.


A desert is an environment.
The arctic is an environment.
Underwater is an environment.
The vacuum of space is an environment.
In some campaigns, the surface of the sun might be an environment.
In some types of games, a dust storm might be an environment.
A hot stove is not an environment.
A bonfire is not an environment.
A lit match is not an environment.
A bolt of lightning is not an environment.
An electric outlet is not an environment.
A plant with sharp thorns on it is not an environment.


Places are environments; things are attacks. Or other way around; environments are places, attacks are things.

(Transform is a Change Thing and/or Change Person, compare to Change Environment.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Fine. Here you go:
A desert is an environment.

I can't buy LS: Desert. I can buy LS: Extreme Heat, but this provides me with no protection from the cold of the desert night, or the lack of water. The desert is also full of poisonous scorpions. If I buy LS: Scorpion Poison, am I immune to their stings, which I suggest are attacks, under your interpretation?

In fact, the arctic is also a desert. Desert is defined in terms of annual rainfall, not temperature. My LS: High Heat does not serve me well in the Arctic!


The arctic is an environment.
Underwater is an environment.
The vacuum of space is an environment.
In some campaigns, the surface of the sun might be an environment.
In some types of games, a dust storm might be an environment.

So you acknowledge a dust storm could be an environment, but a lightning storm apparently could not be, as you are opposed to LS: Electricity.


A hot stove is not an environment.
A bonfire is not an environment.
A lit match is not an environment.

The hot sun of the desert is not "an environment" either. It is a component of an environment. If my character, who is immune to high heat, is in Nunavut, he is in the arctic environment. If he is then locked into a room which is heated to the boiling point of water, I suggest he is unharmed because he is immune to high heat, despite the fact he is still in the Arctic environment.


The second example you give (being hurt by a lit match when you can live comfortably in a blast furnace), is not "splitting hairs," it's just conceptually inconsistant. If you can find a way to justify it, that's great. If a GM allows a character total immunity to all fire-based attacks (such as lit matches)with just LS: Heat, that's his choice, but it seems unbalanced to me.

Your assumption is that a lit match is an attack. Despite the fact one might have to roll to strike an unwilling target with that match, and that it might be defined as doing damage, I would not be inclined to treat it as an attack. In fact, I could see a Change Environment ability which ignites flammable objects, defined as "summoning a bunch of lit matches". This is something LS is specifically defined as permitting the target to ignore.

Game balance is maintained - the character with a 12d6 FireBolt attack still hurts our target with LS: High Heat. But logic is also maintained - leaning against a hot stove doesn't cause any harm to the character immune to high heat.


Neither does mine. But it's not up to me to decide that for other GMs' games. My games also do not feature a lot of action on the surface of the sun either.

Emphasis added. Given that statement, I suggest we SHOULD add LS: Electricity. This makes the option available for GM's to use as they see fit. Phil, you can simply decide that it's not an option for your game.

[The Main Man]

Sounds like there should be more rhetorical emphasis on "dramatic reality" within the beginning of 6e.

[PhilFleischmann]

The desert is also full of poisonous scorpions. If I buy LS: Scorpion Poison, am I immune to their stings, which I suggest are attacks, under your interpretation?
Yes. Because you've bought immunity to a particular type of poison, under the Poison Immunities section of Life Support. It does not fall under the Safe Environments section of Life Support.


So you acknowledge a dust storm could be an environment, but a lightning storm apparently could not be, as you are opposed to LS: Electricity.
I'm not opposed to it. I just don't understand what it could mean that makes sense. What is a lightning storm? A storm with lighning strikes in it. If an LS can make you immune to the lightning strikes, can you also by LS to be immune to hailstorms? Thus making you immune to golfball or larger sized objects falling from a great height on you? After all, a hailstorm is just an environment with a bunch of hailstones falling in it.

[mudpyr8]

Movement per Turn

Get away with move per phase altogether. Purchase move per turn.

Assuming that "pushing" accounts for 20-25% of world record movement in a sprint, and is Non-Combat (NC), we get:

Swimming base 0m, NCM 4m, World Record 10m (buying 6m over NCM; 102 sec is record for 200m freestyle = 24m/turn NC)
1 pt = +1m

Running base 24m, NCM 36m, World Record 46m (buying 10m over NCM, 131 sec is record for 1000m = 92m/turn NC, 9.69 sec is record for 100m = 123m/turn NC)
1 pt = +2m

Leaping base is 1m, 1pt = +0.25m, NCM 3m, World Record 4m (buying 1m over NCM; 8.95m is record). Because the points are so low, it might be easier to define leaping as non-combat with a base of 2m, 1pt = +0.5, NCM 6m, World Record 8m (buying 2m over NCM), and requires a half move in the phase before the leap. Combat leaping would be half this, standing half, and vertical half.

If you allow Running to increase Leaping, then these numbers are wrong as well. Maybe from that standpoint Leaping has a base of 1m and costs 4pts/+1 with a NCM of 2. There is no non-combat leaping, but your Running can increase it and whether you are moving combat or non-combat would be defined by that. If you got a bonus to your leap equal to Running/20m, then this works perfectly. I ran a 14 sec 100m and did 5.1m in the Long Jump in high school. That 85m/turn running, divided by 20m = +4.25 on my base of 1m = 5.25m. World Record sprinting is about 120m/turn = +6m on a base of 2-3m = 9m. So, then Leaping is just combat leap at 1m for most characters, if they get a full run (24m/turn) then they would get +1m, going to non-combat (48m/turn) they would get +2.5m = 3.5m which is about what most people can do in a running long jump. No change for standing leap, although maybe a full phase non-combat standing leap should be double base. Vertical should be 1/4 of long jump (statistically it is .28).

The most you could move in a single phase is your movement/SPD. That can be either combat or non-combat movement as appropriate.

Pushing for Active Points/END I'm not sure works for movement because of how cheap it is. Perhaps success (5 END) = +10%, each point = +2% at +1 END. Skill levels with movement could be added to the EGO roll to determine the success of the push (but then couldn't be used for other maneuvers in a phase).

I know, especially when it comes to vehicles and mounts that SPD & movement create some challenges. By defining movement per turn, those challenges go away. There is an issue with dividing move per turn by SPD to determine how far a character can move in a phase, but that seems simple compared to some of the other math that is required doing move per turn.

I think it is also keeps in the spirit of moving away from figured characteristics and the hidden value associated with their parents. SPD becomes simply the number of actions you get to take and not a movement multiplier. If you want to move fast... buy movement. If you want to act fast... buy speed.

[Hugh Neilson]

Yes. Because you've bought immunity to a particular type of poison, under the Poison Immunities section of Life Support. It does not fall under the Safe Environments section of Life Support.

But immunity to all poisons doesn't give me immunity to the Villain of the Week's venom blast. Small attack from scorpion - immune. Attack from actual opponent - not immune.

Sounds a lot like differentiating between a match and a FireBolt.


I'm not opposed to it. I just don't understand what it could mean that makes sense. What is a lightning storm? A storm with lighning strikes in it. If an LS can make you immune to the lightning strikes, can you also by LS to be immune to hailstorms? Thus making you immune to golfball or larger sized objects falling from a great height on you? After all, a hailstorm is just an environment with a bunch of hailstones falling in it.

And a duststorm is just an environment with a bunch of dust particles flying around in it. Again, a matter of degree.

[PhilFleischmann]

But immunity to all poisons doesn't give me immunity to the Villain of the Week's venom blast. Small attack from scorpion - immune. Attack from actual opponent - not immune.
So how do you determine what's an actual opponent and what isn't? Could the scorpion be considered an actual opponent? How about a giant scorpion?


Sounds a lot like differentiating between a match and a FireBolt.
I'm not the one differentiating between a match and a FireBolt.


And a duststorm is just an environment with a bunch of dust particles flying around in it. Again, a matter of degree.
Individual dust particles don't hurt people. Individual lightning bolts and hailstones do.

[The Main Man]

I agree that Movement should be abstracted from SPD and that it should be measured in meters/Turn.Taking the current human norm of 6" Combat Running at SPD 2, we would have 12"/Turn --> 24m/Turn --> 1 CP/2m Running/Turn.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Taking the current human norm of 6" Combat Running at SPD 2, we would have 12"/Turn --> 24m/Turn --> 1 CP/2m Running/Turn.

Better to look at it another way: We should base human norm/max on realistic figures, then price Running so that the cost of increasing from human norm to human max is about what it is now (i.e., about 8 points).

Human max Running noncombat should be about a 4-minute mile, or 80m/turn, or 40m/turn combat move. I'm not in all that great a shape, but I can run 5 km in 30 minutes, or 33m/turn noncombat move. Let's call it 16m/turn combat. +24 m/turn should then cost 8 points, i.e., 1 cp per 3 m/turn Running.

Or if we assume that I'm a bit below HERO norm (base characteristics are after all supposed to be somewhat above average), we can set base Running at 20m/turn with +5m/turn for 2 cp.

Also see my suggestion for a MOVE characteristic here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1778695&postcount=4428).

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

So how do you determine what's an actual opponent and what isn't? Could the scorpion be considered an actual opponent? How about a giant scorpion?

That's the issue in a nutshell. If the scorpion is considered an actual opponent, LS: Scorpion Venom is pretty much useless (or we should also allow LS: Fire Powers, albeit at a higher cost assuming fire attacks will be more common). If it is not, we need to draw the line somewhere - or maybe we accept that scorpion venom is sufficiently uncommon that immunity to even the venom of the elephant-size scorpion is unable to harm the character. Otherwise, we're down to highly limited defenses (which will block the little scorpion, but only blunt to giant one).


Individual dust particles don't hurt people. Individual lightning bolts and hailstones do.

If no one particle does damage, then no damage is taken. Individual particles must do some damage for the storm as a whole to inflict damage.

[BobGreenwade]

The only problem I have with decoupling Movement from SPD is how it would operate in active play. Right now you just look at your character sheet every time your Phase comes up, and that tells you how far you can move. Divide by 2, round up, and that's your Half Move. Under the current system you'd have to divide by your SPD, and what happens when the division isn't even? There'd have to be a system in place to calculate that quickly and easily.

Other than that I like the idea in principle; it fits logic and balance.

[James Gillen]

The only problem I have with decoupling Movement from SPD is how it would operate in active play. Right now you just look at your character sheet every time your Phase comes up, and that tells you how far you can move. Divide by 2, round up, and that's your Half Move. Under the current system you'd have to divide by your SPD, and what happens when the division isn't even? There'd have to be a system in place to calculate that quickly and easily.

That's one of the general issues I have with SPD.

JG

[The Main Man]

The only problem I have with decoupling Movement from SPD is how it would operate in active play. Right now you just look at your character sheet every time your Phase comes up, and that tells you how far you can move. Divide by 2, round up, and that's your Half Move. Under the current system you'd have to divide by your SPD, and what happens when the division isn't even? There'd have to be a system in place to calculate that quickly and easily.

Other than that I like the idea in principle; it fits logic and balance.
I do have to agree that even I see active play as a stumbling block to the idea.

[PhilFleischmann]

If no one particle does damage, then no damage is taken. Individual particles must do some damage for the storm as a whole to inflict damage.
That's not true. Dust storms can do quite a bit of damage, while individual particles of dust don't. Just like you can put a small ice cube on your skin and it does no real damage, if you covered your entire body with ice, especially for a prolonged period, you could die.

[Netzilla]

If no one particle does damage, then no damage is taken. Individual particles must do some damage for the storm as a whole to inflict damage.That's not true. Dust storms can do quite a bit of damage, while individual particles of dust don't. Just like you can put a small ice cube on your skin and it does no real damage, if you covered your entire body with ice, especially for a prolonged period, you could die.

A single particle of dust does have an impact and generates friction; you just have to have very sensitive equipment to measure it. A dust storm multiplies this effect due to 1) volume of dust and 2) higher wind speed.

A single cube of ice will cause that portion of your skin to cool by a measurable amount. Covering your whole body in ice causes your whole body to cool in a similar fashion. The danger comes from 1) the effect being over your whole body rather than a single 1/2" of skin and 2) the greater volume of ice taking longer to evaporate, thus continuing the cooling process for a longer period. This is basically multiplying the effect of a single ice cube. I don't think your analogy does what you want it to do.

Now, what, exactly, is the argument against having the following power added to the 6e rules:

Life Support vs Single Environment
* 3 points for a common damaging environment (?)
* 2 points for an uncommon damaging environment (radiation/heat/cold)
* 1 points for a rare damaging environment (high pressure)

Thus, if someone wants to define electricity as an environment (such as standing near a large dynamo), they can do so. You're still free to not allow it in your games. I'm pretty sure that's all that's really being suggested.

[PhilFleischmann]

I don't think your analogy does what you want it to do.
From your details, it seems that my analogy does exactly what I wanted it to do. In HERO System terms, how much damage does a particle of dust do? An ice cube?


Now, what, exactly, is the argument against having the following power added to the 6e rules:

Life Support vs Single Environment
* 3 points for a common damaging environment (?)
* 2 points for an uncommon damaging environment (radiation/heat/cold)
* 1 points for a rare damaging environment (high pressure)
None whatsoever!


Thus, if someone wants to define electricity as an environment (such as standing near a large dynamo), they can do so. You're still free to not allow it in your games. I'm pretty sure that's all that's really being suggested.
And what damage does standing near a large dynamo do to you?

[Klaus Mogensen]

The only problem I have with decoupling Movement from SPD is how it would operate in active play. Right now you just look at your character sheet every time your Phase comes up, and that tells you how far you can move. Divide by 2, round up, and that's your Half Move. Under the current system you'd have to divide by your SPD, and what happens when the division isn't even? There'd have to be a system in place to calculate that quickly and easily.
I have an idea that might work:

Buy movement per phase as now.
Divide the SPD chart into four 3-segment Rounds (otherwise no change; people still go in the same segments)
You can only move non-combat (x3) if you spend an entire Round on it, regardless of how many phases you would normally get in the Round (even none).

Non-combat is x3 so that even SPD 12 characters can't combat move faster than their non-combat move.

The Round structure is also useful for continuing effects:

You only pay END for continuing effects once per Round (why should the Force Fields of fast characters cost more END?)
Continuing damage does damage once per Round, regardless of the attacker's SPD
1 Round can replace 1 Phase on the Time Table (a phase isn't a very well defined interval)


- Klaus

[Netzilla]

From your details, it seems that my analogy does exactly what I wanted it to do. In HERO System terms, how much damage does a particle of dust do? An ice cube?

Ah, you're arguing the mechanical definition of damage. I don't think Hugh was suggesting that a single dust particle does a measurable amount of Stun or Body. Thus, you two were arguing past each other, in my estimation.


None whatsoever!Okay, then I don't know what it is you're arguing against as far as 6E goes. It does seem that you're arguing against something.


And what damage does standing near a large dynamo do to you?

Some studies show long-term exposure to high voltage causes an increased risk for cancer and birth defects. Similarly, electrical exposure can cause muscle spasms (while it would have to be very high to cause such without direct contact I'd guess it's still possible). The brain, itself, is an electro-chemical "device" that can theoretically be effected by powerful enough electrical fields (seizures and the like). While all speculative, they're all plausible enough for comic books & Hollywood; thus plausible enough for RPGs if you ask me.

All of these are secondary[1] and tertiary[1] effects analogous to secondary and tertiary effects of high heat (dehydration due to sweat, fainting from raised body temp), high radiation (cancer), high pressure (difficulty breathing, getting the bends when leaving) and so forth.

[1] - Secondary and tertiary from a game mechanics standpoint.

[schir1964]

From your details, it seems that my analogy does exactly what I wanted it to do. In HERO System terms, how much damage does a particle of dust do? An ice cube?
1 Pip (If Breathed, which is what a Dust Storm forces one to do unless they filter it out somehow).

This universally applies to any medium that is breathed that the lungs were never designed to handle (grains of sand, liquids, toxic gases).

This is why this particular analogy supports Hugh's view and tends to disprove your view as you've described it. That is not what you intended obviously, but that is what this analogy does.

Just My Humble Opinion

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

Ah, you're arguing the mechanical definition of damage. I don't think Hugh was suggesting that a single dust particle does a measurable amount of Stun or Body. Thus, you two were arguing past each other, in my estimation.
It doesn't even have to be STUN or BODY - anything that might have an effect in a game will do. I know what an extremely hot environment can do. I know what an extremely cold environment can do. I know what radiation and vacuums can do. Etc.


Okay, then I don't know what it is you're arguing against as far as 6E goes. It does seem that you're arguing against something.
I simply asked a question (five pages ago), that you have finally started to answer with this:


Some studies show long-term exposure to high voltage causes an increased risk for cancer and birth defects. Similarly, electrical exposure can cause muscle spasms (while it would have to be very high to cause such without direct contact I'd guess it's still possible). The brain, itself, is an electro-chemical "device" that can theoretically be effected by powerful enough electrical fields (seizures and the like). While all speculative, they're all plausible enough for comic books & Hollywood; thus plausible enough for RPGs if you ask me.
I'm not an expert on such things. I'd never heard of such effects from simply being around electricity. Is the computer in front of me doing me harm? The electric wires in my walls, lights, refrigerator, tv? Or do I have to be near a large dynamo? How long will it take to suffer ill effects from standing next to a dynamo, as opposed to being exposed to arctic temperatures, for example?

It does however seem unlikely that these effects would be included in a HERO game, but GMs are certainly free to do so. And yes, in such a game, LS: High-Voltage Electircal Field might be a viable environment to purchase with Life Support.

Likewise in a fantasy or horror game, "Evil" might be an environment. Being in an "haunted" or "demon-infested" area might have some affect on a character's soul, which some LS Safe Environment might protect against.

[PhilFleischmann]

1 Pip (If Breathed, which is what a Dust Storm forces one to do unless they filter it out somehow).
If that was true, we'd all be dead.

[schir1964]

If that was true, we'd all be dead.
Common sense leads us to the conclusion that people who breathe dust (grains of sand) with no filtering in a dust storm will die.
Common sense leads us to the conclusion that people who breathe water will die.
Common sense leads us to the conclusion that people who breathe methane will die.

Based on this, I guess your dead PhilFleischmann. (8^D)

That specific analogy you provided doesn't support your position. Just choose another that does.

- Christopher Mullins

[IndianaJoe3]

The only problem I have with decoupling Movement from SPD is how it would operate in active play. Right now you just look at your character sheet every time your Phase comes up, and that tells you how far you can move. Divide by 2, round up, and that's your Half Move. Under the current system you'd have to divide by your SPD, and what happens when the division isn't even? There'd have to be a system in place to calculate that quickly and easily.

I would think that you would figure that out during character creation. For example: Zephyr (SPD 5) buys 32" of Flight per Turn. That works out to 6" per Phase, with 2" left over. The GM rules (arbitrarily) that Zephyr gets to move 7" during Phases 5 and 12. His half move is 3" (32/10, rounded off).

Adjusting SPD or Movement Powers complicates things a bit, but not unmanageably so.

[PhilFleischmann]

Are you trolling, or are you having a hard time following the conversation?

Every time you inhale, you take in at least one dust particle. You said this would do 1 pip of damage.

[Netzilla]

It doesn't even have to be STUN or BODY - anything that might have an effect in a game will do. I know what an extremely hot environment can do. I know what an extremely cold environment can do. I know what radiation and vacuums can do. Etc.

Ever been in a dry & dusty field on a windy day? Amounts of dust much less than a dust storm can cause significant difficulty breathing and seeing. A dusty room can cause watery eyes (low level Flash effect) and sneezing/coughing fits (DEX drain) for several minutes. Smoke is basically dust and the two have the same basic game effects.



I simply asked a question (five pages ago), that you have finally started to answer with this:


Some studies show long-term exposure to high voltage causes an increased risk for cancer and birth defects. Similarly, electrical exposure can cause muscle spasms (while it would have to be very high to cause such without direct contact I'd guess it's still possible). The brain, itself, is an electro-chemical "device" that can theoretically be effected by powerful enough electrical fields (seizures and the like).

I'm not an expert on such things. I'd never heard of such effects from simply being around electricity. Is the computer in front of me doing me harm? The electric wires in my walls, lights, refrigerator, tv? Or do I have to be near a large dynamo? How long will it take to suffer ill effects from standing next to a dynamo, as opposed to being exposed to arctic temperatures, for example?First, your TV, electrical wires, etc do not create a high voltage "environment" unless you're in direct contact with the wiring (though there are still those out there concerned with long-term, close-proximity exposure) . As for how long, studys have only been going on for the last couple decades and like most things environmental, there's a great deal of controversy on the subject. If you're interested, it's not hard to find data. A fairly balanced look at the issue:

http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/emf.htm

Besides, as I stated before:


While all speculative, they're all plausible enough for comic books & Hollywood; thus plausible enough for RPGs if you ask me.


It does however seem unlikely that these effects would be included in a HERO game, but GMs are certainly free to do so. Muscle spasms and epileptic fits would certainly seem game-mechanics worthy. They're the same kinds of effects you can find from tazers (spasms) and electro-shock "therapy" (seizures). However, as I stated before, it would require an extremely high-electricity environment to induce such effects without direct contact (as in not naturally found on Earth, though science fiction settings could be a whole different story).


And yes, in such a game, LS: High-Voltage Electircal Field might be a viable environment to purchase with Life Support.

Likewise in a fantasy or horror game, "Evil" might be an environment. Being in an "haunted" or "demon-infested" area might have some affect on a character's soul, which some LS Safe Environment might protect against.Okay, so why all the debate again? Why, exactly, are you asking folks to justify LS: High Electricity and LS: Dust if you have no intension of including it in your games and don't care if others do?

[Netzilla]

I would think that you would figure that out during character creation. For example: Zephyr (SPD 5) buys 32" of Flight per Turn. That works out to 6" per Phase, with 2" left over. The GM rules (arbitrarily) that Zephyr gets to move 7" during Phases 5 and 12. His half move is 3" (32/10, rounded off).

Adjusting SPD or Movement Powers complicates things a bit, but not unmanageably so.


Until you bring Adjustment Powers into it.:ugly:

[IndianaJoe3]

Until you bring Adjustment Powers into it.:ugly:

They complicate everything anyway. :rolleyes: I think the benefits outweigh the potential complications.

[schir1964]

Are you trolling, or are you having a hard time following the conversation?

Every time you inhale, you take in at least one dust particle. You said this would do 1 pip of damage.
Phil, you are deliberately being obtuse, argumentative, and ignoring portions of my posts in order to take the original point and twist it into something completely different and then claim it doesn't make sense.

1) Every time I inhale, I do not breathe a Grain Of Sand or Grains Of Sand. Got it? Are we good so far?
2) The discussion is about your example: A Dust Storm (presumably in a desert environment, thus, breathing Grains Of Sand).
3) Yes, breathing bits of rocks does damage to your lungs, and you tend not to exhale them. The more you breathe, the more damage is done.
4) Now, in hero terms, breathing a single grain of sand each phase will do 1 Pip of damage, but on your Post 12 Recovery you heal all that damage.
5) Finally, in hero terms, breathing in 100 grains of sand every 12 seconds will kill you in short order.

Seems a close enough simulation for a make believe game.

If you read this post seriously, with an open mind, you really shouldn't have a problem with it. It might not be for your games, and it might not be for mine, but there is nothing faulty with this line of thinking.

That specific analogy you provided doesn't support your position. Just choose another that does.

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

Ever been in a dry & dusty field on a windy day? Amounts of dust much less than a dust storm can cause significant difficulty breathing and seeing. A dusty room can cause watery eyes (low level Flash effect) and sneezing/coughing fits (DEX drain) for several minutes. Smoke is basically dust and the two have the same basic game effects.
Thank you. That was exactly my point.


First, your TV, electrical wires, etc do not create a high voltage "environment" unless you're in direct contact with the wiring (though there are still those out there concerned with long-term, close-proximity exposure) . As for how long, studys have only been going on for the last couple decades and like most things environmental, there's a great deal of controversy on the subject. If you're interested, it's not hard to find data.
I'm not particularly interested. I've been living among electric powered devices all my life and haven't noticed any negative effects. I can certainly appreciate that "there's a great deal of controversy on the subject" but that tends to support my point. There's no equivalent controversy over what arctic temperatures can do, or UV rays, or extreme heat, or dust storms.


Okay, so why all the debate again?
You tell me. All I did was ask a simple question: What is an "Electrical Environment" and what harm does it do to normal people without any Life Support? You're the first person to make any serious attempt at answering the question.

Other people tried to claim that a lightning storm is an electrical environment (which it may be by your definition), indicating the damage caused by being struck by lightning. I merely pointed out that a lightning strike is not an environment; it's a single dangerous thing that might be in an environment and I don't at all argue that it can't do significant harm. If there's some bad effect from merely being around lightning strikes without actually being hit, not one (other than you) has pointed that out.


Why, exactly, are you asking folks to justify LS: High Electricity and LS: Dust if you have no intension of including it in your games and don't care if others do?
I was never asking anyone to justify LS: Dust Storms - I was the one who first brought up that example (and I even suggested it on another thread).
I asked people to justify LS: High Electricity because I really had never heard of any ill effects from being around electricity before, let alone any significant enough to model in the HERO System. Sure, everyone's heard of electric shocks from sticking your finger in a socket, or touching a bare live wire, or being hit by lightning, but those are individual hazards, not environments.

[Netzilla]

I'm not particularly interested. I've been living among electric powered devices all my life and haven't noticed any negative effects. I can certainly appreciate that "there's a great deal of controversy on the subject" but that tends to support my point. There's no equivalent controversy over what arctic temperatures can do, or UV rays, or extreme heat, or dust storms.

So, you'll ask what the effects of exposure to high voltage environments are (such as living near high voltage wires and the like) but when pointed to research on the subject, you're not actually interested. You'll just assume that "living among electric powered devices" (devices that I previously noted (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1779534#post1779534) don't constitute a high voltage environment) allows you to dismiss the idea out of hand.

As for the controversy, many damaging things were surrounded by controversy in the past (smog, asbestos, lead paint, safe levels of radiation exposure, etc), so what? We're talking about a game here. I will once again repeat that meme that you seem to be avoiding:


While all speculative, they're all plausible enough for comic books & Hollywood; thus plausible enough for RPGs if you ask me.


You tell me. All I did was ask a simple question: What is an "Electrical Environment" and what harm does it do to normal people without any Life Support? You're the first person to make any serious attempt at answering the question.Actually, Hugh mentioned high-tension power lines a while ago (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1776408&postcount=401):


Haven't there also been concerns that people living below high tension power lines may be exposed to long-term health risks? LS: Electricity (or perhaps electromagnetism) seems as reasonable as LS: Radiation.

Also, I doubt all the other posters have just been yanking your chain this whole time.


Other people tried to claim that a lightning storm is an electrical environment (which it may be by your definition), indicating the damage caused by being struck by lightning. I merely pointed out that a lightning strike is not an environment; it's a single dangerous thing that might be in an environment and I don't at all argue that it can't do significant harm. If there's some bad effect from merely being around lightning strikes without actually being hit, not one (other than you) has pointed that out.I don't know about lightning storms, myself. LS wouldn't protect you from individual lightning strikes (IMC), but if a storm lasts long enough (such as might be the case in some fantasy and sci-fi environments) and throws around enough electrons, then you could get effects similar to those documented from living under high-tension power lines. Likewise a powerful enough EM blast shorts out all kinds of electronics without direct contact. A powerful enough EM burst could theoretically induce seizures. A lightning strike strong enough to produce an EM burst on this level would have to be amazingly powerful and probably couldn't happen on Earth but is still ripe for sci-fi and fantasy fodder.


I was never asking anyone to justify LS: Dust Storms - I was the one who first brought up that example (and I even suggested it on another thread).
I asked people to justify LS: High Electricity because I really had never heard of any ill effects from being around electricity before, let alone any significant enough to model in the HERO System. Sure, everyone's heard of electric shocks from sticking your finger in a socket, or touching a bare live wire, or being hit by lightning, but those are individual hazards, not environments.Then it seems that your debate isn't really about 6e so much as it's about how you and other people adjudicate what is an environment and what is an attack.

[Vulcan]

Looking at all the sound and fury here, I'm starting to think 5E had it right. Don't try to get too specific about the difference between attack and environment and let the GM's sort it out. There are just too many nuances that can be argued indefinitely but add up to little practical gain in utility.

Then we can just agree to let whoever's GMing this week have his rules his way in his game and we don't have to argue about it anymore.

[schir1964]

...Also, I doubt all the other posters have just been yanking your chain this whole time...
Repped for the entirety of this post.

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

So, you'll ask what the effects of exposure to high voltage environments are (such as living near high voltage wires and the like) but when pointed to research on the subject, you're not actually interested. You'll just assume that "living among electric powered devices" (devices that I previously noted (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1779534#post1779534) don't constitute a high voltage environment) allows you to dismiss the idea out of hand.
I'm sorry. That isn't what I meant. While I am skeptical on the adverse effects of electric fields, I am perfectly willing to accept that some GMs might want to incorporate such thing into their games. It is not at all inappropriate for them to do so. I just was unaware of any such effects. That's all I meant. I'm not interested enough to do my own further research into the subject, but I did sincerely want an answer. Your answer satisfies me sufficiently.


Actually, Hugh mentioned high-tension power lines a while ago (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1776408&postcount=401):
Yes, but he didn't give any indication of what those effects might be. A vague rumor that something might be harmful is not enough IMO to justify an LS Environment.


Also, I doubt all the other posters have just been yanking your chain this whole time.
Whatever it is, they weren't answering the question.


I don't know about lightning storms, myself. LS wouldn't protect you from individual lightning strikes (IMC),
Then we are in complete agreement.


Then it seems that your debate isn't really about 6e so much as it's about how you and other people adjudicate what is an environment and what is an attack.
Which is a relevent thing to consider for the 6e rules, especially if we're talking about expanding the options for Life Support environments.

[Netzilla]

I'm sorry. That isn't what I meant. While I am skeptical on the adverse effects of electric fields, I am perfectly willing to accept that some GMs might want to incorporate such thing into their games. It is not at all inappropriate for them to do so. I just was unaware of any such effects. That's all I meant. I'm not interested enough to do my own further research into the subject, but I did sincerely want an answer. Your answer satisfies me sufficiently.

Fair enough.


Then we are in complete agreement.Close enough to not need continued cluttering up of the 6e threads, anyway.

[AnotherSkip]

Actually bad wiring, can lead to an Electrical Environment by generating EMF fields, these can cause among other things: sensations of creepy crawlies or a feeling of being watched. In situations involving people who do not realize what is going on much more serious problems can develop, starting with feelings of being watched generally, and eventually causing paranoia and finally if untreated long enough, death.

These can be detected and corrected by any Electrician. Note: if you watch ghost hunters on SCI-Fi channel it seems that Ghosts can temporarily generate fields of EMF energy without a supporting electrical source, however it appears to be an environmental side effect. In addition storm activity seems to help ghosts generate phenominon.

Seems like a good enough reason to include LS: Electrical Environments to me since some opponents can generate them and they can occur in the real world as well as having notable effects and can be both detrimental and utilised.

as a side note some people seem to be resistant to this moreso than others, just like Carcinogens don't affect people equally. Which doesn't make this any less of an environmental argument.

[ajackson]

Sufficiently potent EMF fields could cause harm to humans by inductive heating effects; however, such fields are fairly rare, and in many cases (e.g. sticking your body into a microwave) would qualify as attacks. Also, many special effects for ED will stop EMF fields naturally (pretty much any metal blocks EMF fields). Even if you believe in the risks of weak EMF fields, the proposed effects are so minor (ooh, a small chance of developing cancer in 20 years if you're exposed to this for a several hours a week) that it doesn't seem worth points.

[AnotherSkip]

Sufficiently potent EMF fields could cause harm to humans by inductive heating effects; however, such fields are fairly rare, and in many cases (e.g. sticking your body into a microwave) would qualify as attacks. Also, many special effects for ED will stop EMF fields naturally (pretty much any metal blocks EMF fields). Even if you believe in the risks of weak EMF fields, the proposed effects are so minor (ooh, a small chance of developing cancer in 20 years if you're exposed to this for a several hours a week) that it doesn't seem worth points.

going to have to fairly well disagree with you on this one. But JIC i'll check with the Double Degreed Electrician and the Engineering masters soon to be Doctrate I game with (try to remember to do so sat). The prosposed effects of "you can go mad" would occur much sooner than the cancer in 20 years. and at much lower levels than microwave attack.

Heck didn't Microwaves get 'discovered' by a guy standing in front of a radar dish with a candy bar in his pocket? so much for "Microwave attacks".

[Netzilla]

Sufficiently potent EMF fields could cause harm to humans by inductive heating effects; however, such fields are fairly rare, and in many cases (e.g. sticking your body into a microwave) would qualify as attacks.

Dramatic Realism != Real Life



Also, many special effects for ED will stop EMF fields naturally (pretty much any metal blocks EMF fields). Many special effects for ED will also stop intense cold and radiation naturally.


Even if you believe in the risks of weak EMF fields, the proposed effects are so minor (ooh, a small chance of developing cancer in 20 years if you're exposed to this for a several hours a week) that it doesn't seem worth points.Among the proposed effects are: seizures, convulsions and paranoia; all of which would come on much quicker than 20 years. Having been near exposed electrical wiring without actually touching it, I can confirm the skin crawling sensation personally. It's strong enough to be rather distracting (worth penalties on PER roll if you're trying to do something other than patch said wiring; it does, however, serve as a good warning to unplug the lamp before you try working on it).

Besides, what are the near-term effects of low level (low enough to not be an attack) radiation exposure?

[Hugh Neilson]

Besides, what are the near-term effects of low level (low enough to not be an attack) radiation exposure?

In the source material? Developing Super Powers. That seems like something it's not advantageous to be immune to!

[Netzilla]

Besides, what are the near-term effects of low level (low enough to not be an attack) radiation exposure?
In the source material? Developing Super Powers. That seems like something it's not advantageous to be immune to!

:nya:

[ajackson]

Among the proposed effects are: seizures, convulsions and paranoia; all of which would come on much quicker than 20 years.
Sounds like mind control, possibly vs Con. The 'skin crawling' effect from being near electrical wiring is just a successful Perception roll; psychological effects from perception are usually resolved as mind control.

[Netzilla]

Sounds like mind control, possibly vs Con. The 'skin crawling' effect from being near electrical wiring is just a successful Perception roll; psychological effects from perception are usually resolved as mind control.

Okay, then:
* REC & END loss due to intense heat is just Drain vs REC.
* Shivering & frostbite from intense cold are Mind Control vs CON and Drain Body respectively.
* Drowning/Inability to breath is a compliated combination of Suppress REC & Drain END followed by Drain STUN followed by Drain BODY.
* High Pressure is 1 pip Continuous NND Does Body (stopped by Desolid or Density Increase)

Pretty much all of the Environmental Effects on pgs 438 through 442 can be created with power builds (some more complicated than others). However, the appropriate Life Support (as pointed out on pg 443) explicitly defends against them. Why would Electricity be any different?

Also, you failed to answer this question:


Besides, what are the near-term effects of low level (low enough to not be an attack) radiation exposure?

[ghost-angel]

wow, all that over a simple suggestion for expanding a potentially useful rule.

Also - everyone went Forward from LS: Electricity in that it was being asked what does LS: Elec do?

When I made the suggestion I was going backwards. . .

Per the OP from Sean Waters he was wondering how to create insulation against various electrical attacks. The idea was struck...

How can I more easily create Electrical Whips, Tazers, Static Fields etc without resorting to overly complex builds. Well, what about using some form of Life Support.

If I can turn a Tazer Build into NND:LS-Electricity it's simple, easy, and helps simulate a number of other things.

Electricity is listed under the Environmental Effects chapter/section of the rules as well. (along with Heat, Cold, Radiation . . .). Why not extend LS.

Also - look at the discussion regarding the Scorpion Attack vs VenomVillain Attack.
It's not really an issue of "which is an attack and which falls under Life Support" - it's an issue of how the Attacks are built.
Scorpion Venom is like built as "Venom Damage; NND-LS:Immunity" as your PD/ED likely doesn't much apply to venom damage to begin with. The stinger on the other hand, that's gonna be a different build.
VenomVillain on the other hand, may very well build like this: "ConcentratedVenom; AVLD:Power Defense" or any number of other builds.

Builds are ultimately a campaign by campaign issue - and opening the rules up more can do nothing but provide more options to work with, suggest more builds to better simulate your ideas of how things can and should work.

I mean, Resistant Power Defense - how often do you see Killing Attacks vs Power Defense? Almost never, but there it is, possible within the rules. An option.

Why opposition to an option that opens up more ideas? I don't get it. I wasn't even suggesting changing how anything worked. . .

[PhilFleischmann]

How can I more easily create Electrical Whips, Tazers, Static Fields etc without resorting to overly complex builds. Well, what about using some form of Life Support.
It seems to me that the easiest way to create Tasers and Electric Whips is to just use EB vs Energy Defense. Building it as an NND vs a non-standard LS environment leads to another problem: how far can these LS emvironments go? Can I build a light-based weapon as NND not vs LS: Light? Can I build an Evil Aura weapon as NND not vs. LS: Evil Auras? A plotdevicium weapon as NND not vs. LS: Plotdevicium?

Opening up LS to other types of environments is not a bad idea, but it leads to a whole new issue. There has to be some limits to what environmental immunities are available. For 6e, I'd like to see the same environment categories as there are currently, but with some text explaining how these categories can be changed to suit different campaigns. In a standard modern or superhero setting, use them as-is, for a darker setting, add the electric field and other things possibly hazardous. For a fantasy/horror setting, add an "evil energy" environment. For pre-modern technology settings, eliminate radiation and vacuum. etc.

[ajackson]

Pretty much all of the Environmental Effects on pgs 438 through 442 can be created with power builds (some more complicated than others). However, the appropriate Life Support (as pointed out on pg 443) explicitly defends against them. Why would Electricity be any different?
To some degree, it isn't, and there's a decent argument for eliminating most forms of 'safe environment' life support and replacing them with limited defense, or possibly a 'defense vs SFX' power (i.e. it acts like any defense type, but only against that special effect), since that conveniently eliminates a lot of arguments about just what is an environmental effect and what is an attack.

However, to the degree to which there is a difference, it is this: 'heat' and 'cold' are common well-defined environmental conditions that most campaigns will run into. 'vacuum' and 'radiation' are common well-defined environmental conditions that a large subset of campaigns will run into. 'Electricity' is a poorly-defined condition that will essentially never occur outside of a plot device or NPC power.

[ajackson]

How can I more easily create Electrical Whips, Tazers, Static Fields etc without resorting to overly complex builds.
Energy Blast, Stun Only. Seriously, tazers aren't NNDs, armor stops them just fine.

[ghost-angel]

*sigh* yeah - nevermind. I'm sure Steve gets where I'm going.
(I build Tazers as Entangle personally, which ALSO isn't the point I was making.)

[mudpyr8]

Movement per Turn

Get away with move per phase altogether. Purchase move per turn.

Assuming that "pushing" accounts for 20-25% of world record movement in a sprint, and is Non-Combat (NC), we get:

Swimming base 0m, NCM 4m, World Record 10m (buying 6m over NCM; 102 sec is record for 200m freestyle = 24m/turn NC)
1 pt = +1m

Running base 24m, NCM 36m, World Record 46m (buying 10m over NCM, 131 sec is record for 1000m = 92m/turn NC, 9.69 sec is record for 100m = 123m/turn NC)
1 pt = +2m

Leaping base is 1m, 1pt = +0.25m, NCM 3m, World Record 4m (buying 1m over NCM; 8.95m is record). Because the points are so low, it might be easier to define leaping as non-combat with a base of 2m, 1pt = +0.5, NCM 6m, World Record 8m (buying 2m over NCM), and requires a half move in the phase before the leap. Combat leaping would be half this, standing half, and vertical half.


So we dove in and tested Movement per Turn and, well, it didn't work out so well. The nature of the speed chart really prevents it from being smooth and creates all sorts of weirdness.

For example, if you have two characters, one with SPD 2 and 24m/turn (standard) and one with SPD 4 and 36m/turn, if the most you can move in a single phase is Move/SPD, then in Phase 12 the SPD 2 guy can actually move farther than the SPD 4 higher move character and thus reach a close object more quickly. That doesn't work at all.

If you started the turn on segment 1, that might solve the issue, come to think of it.

However, thinking this through, there is a very simple solution that gets us to near real-world results: 1" = 1m. Apply this to everything, movement, range, area affect. This was the result of our playtest that we are now going with and so far it is working fabulously. It does mean that your average person is a bit slower than normal (24m NC/turn instead of a more appropriate 60-70m), but I suppose that balances with faster people moving at more realistic speeds.

Anyway, still needs some work but that might work out in the end.

[Lord Liaden]

Just a brief suggestion regarding Leaping.

The "hang time" in the air for noncombat Leaping, particularly as Noncombat Multipliers are added, is inconsistent with Noncombat Movement via other forms, and makes Leaping a poor choice for a "travel" Power compared to other Movement. If you intend to keep this feature of Leaping, e.g. as a game-balance factor due to its cheap cost, perhaps you could allow some sort of "Rapid" Modifier that players could purchase to offset that additional time in the air, as you can already buy off the inaccuracy of Leaping. Alternatively, you could follow the example of Teleportation, where any Noncombat Movement inherently requires an additional Phase, but that time doesn't increase with further NCM Adders.

[IndianaJoe3]

For example, if you have two characters, one with SPD 2 and 24m/turn (standard) and one with SPD 4 and 36m/turn, if the most you can move in a single phase is Move/SPD, then in Phase 12 the SPD 2 guy can actually move farther than the SPD 4 higher move character and thus reach a close object more quickly. That doesn't work at all.

How about giving everyone the same fraction (say, a quarter) of their per-turn movement in the initial Segment 12? Fast guy (from your example) can move 9m, slow guy can move 6m, and the glitch is disposed of.

[Klaus Mogensen]

How about giving everyone the same fraction (say, a quarter) of their per-turn movement in the initial Segment 12? Fast guy (from your example) can move 9m, slow guy can move 6m, and the glitch is disposed of.
Or how about you can decide how much of your movement-per-turn allotment you use every time you've got a phase? I.e., you can burn everything in a single phase if you want, or distribute it more or less evenly among all your phases.

Or slightly more complex, but less staccato: Divide a turn into four rounds of three segments. You get to move your movement allotment once per round, no matter how many phases you've got that round. If you don't have a phase, movement takes place after all other actions for that round; otherwise you can distribute it as you want between your phases for that round.

Or redefine SPD as the number of attacks you can make in a turn. In a 3-segment round, you may move your allotment and make as many attacks as your SPD allows for that round, all at once. This will actually simplify things greatly with no great bunching of attacks except for very high SPDs.

- Klaus

[IndianaJoe3]

Here are my final thoughts on Powers (L-R).

Lack of Weakness
LoW is now a Talent.

Life Support
Safe Environment may now be purchased for any environmental effect.
LS: Uncommon Environment - 1 point
LS: Common Environment - 2 points
LS: Very Common Environment - 3 points
Can recover END normally - +2 pts

[JamesG]

I’m not sure if the Piercing Power from Dark Champions is being considered for inclusion in the base rules, but if it is I think its cost needs to be looked at.

Piercing is essentially a “limited” form of the attack it is applied to. The difference is points in the attack in excess of the target’s defense go towards damaging the target, while excess Piercing points have no effect. So a point of Piercing should always cost less than a point of damage for the attack power it is applied to. But for many of the types of Piercing described in Dark Champions, the cost of Piercing is higher.

For instance, the cost of a point of Piercing against normal defenses is 2 CPs. But a normal damage attack is 5 CPs per d6, for an average cost of 5/3.5=1.43 CPs per point. There isn’t a reason to buy Piercing at a cost of 2 CPs a point, since regular damage is cheaper and more useful.

Instead of basing the cost of Piercing on the Defense being Pierced, it should be based on the per d6 cost of the base attack.

For instance:

For 1d6=5 CP attacks, Piercing could cost 4 CPs for 3 points of Piercing. (Making the cost 1 for 1 would probably be too good a deal).

For 1d6=10 CP attacks, Piercing could cost 5 CPs for 2 points of Piercing.

For 1d6=15 CP attacks, Piercing could cost 4 CPs for 1 points of Piercing.

Since the cost of Piercing is added to the attack before Advantages are applied, we don’t need to worry about how Advantages impact the CP cost per d6 of the attack. The cost of Piercing would simply be calculated based on the CP cost per d6 of the base attack, without regard to power modifiers.

[JamesG]

I think a discussion on modeling a “sealed environment” should be added to the rules for Life Support. For instance someone in a totally sealed spacesuit is immune to all diseases, poisons, etc as long as they are airborne (or spaceborne). But if he’s injected with a disease, or bitten by a poisonous snake, he has no LS against those attacks (assuming the attacks penetrate the suit and then his skin, of course). Also, someone with a sealed helmet, but who is otherwise normally dressed, is immune to toxins etc that must be inhaled, but would not be immune to toxins that can be absorbed through the skin. Probably all that is needed is appropriate limitations for the different levels of “sealed” (like head only, full body, etc.) and some discussion on the topic in general.

[Klaus Mogensen]

For 1d6=5 CP attacks, Piercing could cost 4 CPs for 3 points of Piercing. (Making the cost 1 for 1 would probably be too good a deal).
I'm not sure it would be too good. After all, buying Piercing points instead of damage dice makes the damage less volatile - you're less likely to roll X points above average, and hence less likely to stun or do Body.

Let's look at a simple example: The likelihood of doing Body with 2d6 vs. 10 rDEF compared with the likelihood of doing Body with 1d6K vs. 5 rDEF (i.e., 10 rDEF reduced to 5 by 5 points of Piercing at 3 points each).

2d6 vs. 10 rDEF: average Body through defenses is 1/9. Max Body is 2.
1d6 vs. 5 rDEF: average Body through defenses is 1/6. Max Body is 1.
Not that big a difference - and the Stun will be much greater for the 2d6 roll.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

At the least, Piercing could perhaps be presented as an Adder.

[Steve Long]

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

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

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