Powers Issues -- F-K

[ajackson]

But I could live with something like "10 points to be able to hover, +2 points per 1" of Flight".
I'd probably go with something like:
Flight: 10 points +2 points per inch of movement
You have the ability to fly or hover.
Limitation: Must Half-Move: -1/2. You must always move a distance at least equal to your half-move, every round. If you want your minimum movement to be less than that, only apply this limitation to part of your flight.
Limitation: Must Full-Move: -1. As above, but minimum speed is your full combat move.

[casualplayer]

I'd probably price Flight as a flat base cost plus 2 points per inch of move. Same for Teleport. Many of the benefits you get from flying are independent of how fast you fly; for example, even 1" of flight means you'll never need to make a Climb roll.

I've had many a GM ask me why my character had Climbing when he could Fly. Then I bypassed a sensor array set to Detect Flight by Climbing the escarpment. Another occasion I was able to use Climbing to get out of the effect radius of hyper-gravity. :D It's never wasted points, just wasted opportunity.

[CTaylor]

Killing attacks cost the same per DC as normal attacks.

While accurate, that doesn't address what I was pointing out: you get 1D6 for each 5 points of blast, you get 1 body of KA for 5 points. If you want a full die, you pay three times as much. Complaining that killing attacks do more body and stun assumes the same dice.

[ajackson]

While accurate, that doesn't address what I was pointing out: you get 1D6 for each 5 points of blast, you get 1 body of KA for 5 points. If you want a full die, you pay three times as much. Complaining that killing attacks do more body and stun assumes the same dice.
No, it assumes the same DCs. A 4d6 RKA will average more body against all targets and more stun against many targets than a 12d6 EB.

[Netzilla]

I've done a few analysis of Killing Attacks vs Normal Attacks at multiple levels and have posted them here in the 6th edition threads. In all cases except against the poorest defended foes, it's shown that Killing Attacks (as they currently stand) are the best choice for knocking out an opponent. Often the difference is quite dramatic.

For those who have missed those postings before, here they are:

Detailed comparison of Normal, Current Killing, Current Killing w/ Hit Locs & Steve Long's Stun Lotto:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1553378#post1553378

Compairing Normal, Current Killing & a Proposed Killing Advantage at both the Heroic and Superheroic levels
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1566275#post1566275
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1566283#post1566283
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1566285#post1566285
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1566286#post1566286

Analysis of how much the average rolled Bod increases vs the amount the average Stun decreases for Current Killing & the proposed Killing Advantage:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1566658#post1566658
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1567658#post1567658

[CTaylor]

Huh, so you're saying that a 4D6 (average effect of 14) with a 2.5 average stun multiple (average stun 35) is doing more stun than a 12D6 (average effect of 42 stun) then?

[ideasmith]

Huh, so you're saying that a 4D6 (average effect of 14) with a 2.5 average stun multiple (average stun 35) is doing more stun than a 12D6 (average effect of 42 stun) then?

After subtracting defenses, I think he meant. At least that's how the usual argument goes.

[CTaylor]

But how on earth are you going to know what the defenses of a given campaign or type of game is?

[Hugh Neilson]

But how on earth are you going to know what the defenses of a given campaign or type of game is?

To me, that's one reason the KA is more maligned in Supers games (which tend to have high defense to DC ratios) than in fantasy games (where lower defense to DC ratios are more common).

It's not too tough to plug in the defense levels you expect and do the analysis. At defenses of about 2 per DC, it's about equal, but the volatility of the KA allows more results that will Stun the typical target. With higher defenses, the KA is superior at inflicting STUN damage after defenses.

[Balabanto]

The problem is that the KA actually does more damage over a spread of rolls.

Follow this logic through.

I fire 6 10d6 EBs at a target 6 times. He's an average character in a game where the average SPD is 5, DEX is 23, and the average attack is 50 points. He has 25 points of defenses.

I deal 60 total damage to that character.

Now lets do that again with 3d6+1 RKA. Forget the hit location chart because those rules are optional.

I do 12 x1, which is 0. 12x1 which is 0. 12x2 which is 0. 12x3 which is 36. 12x4 which is 48, and 12x5 which is 60. That's 11+23+35. 9 more stun.

BUT. KA's have the ability to end combats early and quickly, and the higher you go up the power curve, the faster it goes. Let's do this again at 75 points, assuming 30 points of defenses.

I do 23x6 or 138 Stun total with the EB.

But now, with the KA, I deal 18x1, 18x2 (6), 18x3 (24), 18x4 (42) and 18x5 (90) That's 162 stun.

And I have a greater potential to stun the target outright for CON, and take away his next action to boot. :)

The problem here isn't just the stun lotto, because even if you use hit locations, it's the way the damage is calculated through multipliers.

BUT. There is a simple and easy expedient that I have been thinking about for many years.

Ready? Here it is.

Killing Attack costs 20 points per die.

Let's review those multipliers again when we do this.

At 50, the Killing Attack is now 2.5 dice. So now, that's 9x1, 9x2,9x3,9x4,9x5. So that's 2, 11, and 20 or 33 Stun over 6 attacks. Now Energy Blast becomes a better power unless you're trying to kill someone.

At 75, The killing attack is now 4d6-1, or 13x1, 13x2, 13x3, 13x4, 13x5, or 9+22+35. That's 66 Stun as opposed to 138.

What's the solution? Resistant Defense caps. Make certain that the amount of resistant defense characters have is slightly lower, because there are actually very few attacks in the game that deal killing damage. In a campaign where you have the mightiest of the mighty, and people are throwing 5d6 RKA's (100 points with this modification), those people will still deal comparable damage, but people won't put an RKA on their sheet because its more efficient.

The other advantage here is that it balances the Killing Attack out against the Martial Arts killing damage class, which unconfuses people and unifies the math.

[ajackson]

Huh, so you're saying that a 4D6 (average effect of 14) with a 2.5 average stun multiple (average stun 35) is doing more stun than a 12D6 (average effect of 42 stun) then?
After applying defenses, yes. The problem is more pronounced with smaller attacks (2d6 RKAs are vastly more effective than 6d6 EBs), but against 30 defenses, a 12d6 EB will average 12 stun, an 4d6 RKA will average 13 stun. Against 35 defense, the 12d6 EB will drop to 7, the RKA will still be averaging 10.5.

[CTaylor]

And again, the defenses vary by campaign and setting, and individual character. So the analysis is impossible to do.

[casualplayer]

And again, the defenses vary by campaign and setting, and individual character. So the analysis is impossible to do.

Ummm, no matter what the campaign specific defenses are the comparable results stand alone and Killing Damage produces higher STUN results more often than Normal Damage. No one is arguing STUN inflicted, just STUN dealt across a sample.

Anecdotally, I one-shot Mechanon with 13 DCs of Killing Attack once. That's not even possible with 13d6 Normal.

[CTaylor]

So you're saying that in a game of cowboys where nobody has armor and a superheroic game where the average character has decent defenses and almost everyone has resistant defenses, an attack that averages less stun for the same character points will do more stun in every game?

[BobGreenwade]

A couple of the books (FH, I think, and TUEP) have given a special Advantage for Flash to extend the duration of each Flash pip to 1 Turn for a +2 Advantage. I'd like to see this in the new rulebook; in fact, I think it might just be worthwhile (with a Stop or even Do Not Enter sign) to just make it a +1 Advantage per step down the Time Chart.

[Balabanto]

So you're saying that in a game of cowboys where nobody has armor and a superheroic game where the average character has decent defenses and almost everyone has resistant defenses, an attack that averages less stun for the same character points will do more stun in every game?

In a game of cowboys, most people don't shoot for knockout. Your goal is to KILL people. And you know, that's a case where you really shouldn't worry about how much stun you're doing, because your goal should be to KILL people. Plus, in a game of cowboys, it's not a superheroic game. People don't have to pay points for their firearms.

[ajackson]

And again, the defenses vary by campaign and setting, and individual character. So the analysis is impossible to do.
No, it isn't. You can say, without knowing anything about the campaign:

'If target defense exceeds 2.33 * base DC, a killing attack will average more damage than a normal attack'. In addition, if target defense+con exceeds 3.5*base DC, the KA will have a better chance of stunning the target.

In my experience, most games have defense levels in the 2-2.5 * DC, which means straight-up KAs at the power level average about the same as normal attacks. The problem tends to be either autofire attacks, or attacks that are well below the power level (i.e. attacks from agents/mooks). A 9mm pistol has a meaningful chance to do stun to a 30 Def brick, and a simple M-16 will do a very large amount of damage.

[Hugh Neilson]

A couple of the books (FH, I think, and TUEP) have given a special Advantage for Flash to extend the duration of each Flash pip to 1 Turn for a +2 Advantage. I'd like to see this in the new rulebook; in fact, I think it might just be worthwhile (with a Stop or even Do Not Enter sign) to just make it a +1 Advantage per step down the Time Chart.

So I'd need 1 pip of Flash at +2 (15 points) to Flash someone for a turn, where I'd normally need 12 pips at no advantage (60 points) to Flash someone for a turn. Despite the fact that the former is far easier defended with Flash defense, that price disparity seems a bit off. Seems like adding a 1d6 Flash (1 pip = 1 turn) to an existing attack power through the MPA rules, or even Link, would create an effect powerful well beyond its point cost.

[Klaus Mogensen]

So you're saying that in a game of cowboys where nobody has armor and a superheroic game where the average character has decent defenses and almost everyone has resistant defenses, an attack that averages less stun for the same character points will do more stun in every game?

I believe that's what he says.

Killing attacks average low Stun because there's a one in three change of getting a Stun multiplier of 1. For a 3d6Ka, this might be 10 Body, 10 Stun. But for defenses of (say) 20, it doesn't matter if you do 10 Stun or 20 Stun; after defenses are subtracted, it is zero.

Let's compare 8d6NA (which is the highest I have numbers for) and 3d6-1KA. Both are DC8.

On the surface, 8d6NA does more Stun (average 28) than 3d6-1KA (average 25.33).

However, vs. e.g. DEF 18, the story is different. Then 8d6NA does 10.028 Stun average through defenses - almost a straight subtraction of 18 from 28 because very few results fall under 18.
3d6-1KA vs. DEF 18 is 10.588 Stun average - a bit more.

With higher DEF, this difference becomes more pronounced. The difference becomes even more pronounced if we also look at the chance of stunning opponents. If opponent has 18 DEF and 25 CON, you have a 0.03% chance to stun him with 8d6NA, but a 17.44% chance with 3d6-1KA - even if the defenses are resistant.

[CTaylor]

'If target defense exceeds 2.33 * base DC, a killing attack will average more damage than a normal attack'.

Which means you're presuming defense which differs from campaign to campaign, character to character, and genre to genre. So while you can come up with a formula that says something, it's meaningless to actual play experience and thus rule building.

Killing attacks average less stun and more body than energy blasts. That's the best we can say without getting into specifics in a game.

[BobGreenwade]

So I'd need 1 pip of Flash at +2 (15 points) to Flash someone for a turn, where I'd normally need 12 pips at no advantage (60 points) to Flash someone for a turn. Despite the fact that the former is far easier defended with Flash defense, that price disparity seems a bit off. Seems like adding a 1d6 Flash (1 pip = 1 turn) to an existing attack power through the MPA rules, or even Link, would create an effect powerful well beyond its point cost.This would be the reason it has a Stop Sign on it even now.

[ajackson]

Killing attacks average less stun and more body than energy blasts. That's the best we can say without getting into specifics in a game.
No, the best we can say is 'Killing attacks average less stun and more body against low defenses, and more stun against high defenses'.

[steamteck]

No, the best we can say is 'Killing attacks average less stun and more body against low defenses, and more stun against high defenses'.


Actually they AVERAGE less just have the potential to do more. The stun lotto lets you down when you really need it at least as often as it helps you out in my experience.

[ajackson]

Actually they AVERAGE less just have the potential to do more.
No, they AVERAGE more, at least if you're talking mean or median.

[Hugh Neilson]

How about "They average less STUN rolled before defenses. However, their average STUN inflicted on the target after defenses is higher against targets with high defenses."

Practically, the average rolled on the dice is unimportant. It's the average that gets through and injures the target which is relevant.

To illustrate without using actual KA and Normal results, assume your opponent has 20 Defenses and 40 STUN. Would you rather:

- roll 25 STUN before defenses every time?
- have 1/6 of your rolls come up each of 0, 9, 18, 27, 36 and 45 STUN?

The first will average 25 and get 5 points through on each hit. It will take 8 hits to take the target out.

The second will average 22.5 (10% less) before defenses, but on average will get 8 points through. It will take an average of 5 hits to take the target out.

If we assume the target has a CON of, say, 15, then we also get a 2 in 6 chance of Stunning him with the lower average, but higher volatility, result.

How does a lower average convert to faster damage? Simple - if you're going to roll under his defenses, you do exactly the same damage regardless of how far under. But if you roll over his defenses, rolling higher means getting more damage through.

[Mini-Nukette]

For Damage Attacks, what if:

Damage Class
Each Damage Class (DC) equates to 1 Damage Dice rolled.

Normal Damage Attacks
Normal Attacks do all Normal Body Damage dice (NBD dice) damage. For Normal Body Damage dice, the total of the Dice roll is the STUN damage.

Then, you counts One's as 0 Body damage, Two-Five as 1 Body damage, and Sixes as 2 Body damage - as per normal.

Killing Damage Attacks
Killing Attacks roll one in three (rounded down, to a minimum of one) of their DC dice as Killing Body Damage dice (KBD dice) instead of NBD dice. The total on the dice rolled is the STUN Damage.

Then, you count BODY damage on the NBD dice rolled as normal, but on the KBD, you count One-Four as 1 Body damage, and Five-Six as 2 Body damage. This is easiest done by rolling two different colors - say, white for Normal dice and Red for Killing Damage dice.

Applying Normal Attack Damage
1) Against Normal Damage Attacks, all applicable Defense (both Normal and Resistant) is added together to determine the character's Total Defense.

2) First, reduce the BODY damage received by up to this Total Defense. So, if Total Defense equals or exceeds the BODY damage being dealt, then all of the BODY damage will be absorbed.

3) If any Total Defense is left, subtract it from the STUN damage being dealt.

Applying Killing Attack Damage
1) Against Killing Damage Attacks, reduce from the Body Damage dealt by up to a like amount of the character's Resistant Defense. The remaining BODY damage is how much the character suffers. Therefore, if the character's Resistant Defense equaled or exceeded the BODY damage being dealt, it absorbs it all.

2) If any Resistant Defense is left (if it exceeded the BODY damage being dealt in step 1)), add it to up to a like amount of Normal Defense possessed by the character and subtract the total from the STUN Damage being dealt.

3) If no Resistant Defense is left (or the character had none to start with) then reduce the STUN damage by 2 per point of the remaining Normal Defense (less any that was used alongside Resistant Defense in step 2) above).

*

This means you can purchase Killing and Normal Damage attacks at 5 Character Points per DC, and character's always get to apply Normal Defense versus the STUN damage of Killing attacks (though at reduced effect) but suffer all the BODY damage unless they have some Resistant Defense.

Possibly you could also then apply any remaining Normal Defense (if it managed to absorb all the STUN damage) against Killing Body Damage at three points of Normal Defense per BODY damage.

[Klaus Mogensen]

While we are looking at options, what about:

Normal Damage: Roll as now.

Killing Damage: A +1/4 advantage. Roll like Normal Damage, but Stun that gets through defenses is compared to Body in addition to Con. If it exceeds Body, the character gets a Wound (with an additional Wound for every extra Body/2 that gets through). 3 Wounds causes a character to be Dying; any further Wounds kill instantly.

Optional damage effects like Impairing and Disabling can be tied to Wounds rather than Body damage.

What is now counted as Body (~ 1 per die) becomes Impact and is mainly used for structural damage and knockback.

Rather than a Stun and a Body track, you will have a Stun and three Wound boxes.

There is no need for resistant defenses in the rules - you just buy More Body.

Example: A Skilled Normal (PD 4, Con 13, Body 10) gets hit by a 4d6 Killing Attack. 15 Stun is rolled. After PD is subtracted, this leaves 11 Stun. This is not greater than Con, so the character isn't stunned, but it is greater than Body, so the character receives a Wound. Ouch. Two more such hits will leave him dying.

Compare this to a current 1d6+1KA. This will do ~ 4½ Body. Two or three hits are required to kill the Skilled Normal.

This may have to be calculated in more detail, but I think something similar could work.

- Klaus

[jtelson]

How about "They average less STUN rolled before defenses. However, their average STUN inflicted on the target after defenses is higher against targets with high defenses."

Practically, the average rolled on the dice is unimportant. It's the average that gets through and injures the target which is relevant.

To illustrate without using actual KA and Normal results, assume your opponent has 20 Defenses and 40 STUN. Would you rather:

- roll 25 STUN before defenses every time?
- have 1/6 of your rolls come up each of 0, 9, 18, 27, 36 and 45 STUN?

The first will average 25 and get 5 points through on each hit. It will take 8 hits to take the target out.

The second will average 22.5 (10% less) before defenses, but on average will get 8 points through. It will take an average of 5 hits to take the target out.

If we assume the target has a CON of, say, 15, then we also get a 2 in 6 chance of Stunning him with the lower average, but higher volatility, result.

How does a lower average convert to faster damage? Simple - if you're going to roll under his defenses, you do exactly the same damage regardless of how far under. But if you roll over his defenses, rolling higher means getting more damage through.

Hmmm, it looks like you've got a 7DC normal attack vs an 8DC Killing attack

If we're looking at 7 DCs (Avg 25 Normal Stun), then the KA average is 8,8,16,24,32,40 with an average over 20 of 12 thus an average per hit of 6 still better against the set defences than Normal attack. 8DC normal would average 9 per hit (28.5) which is slightly better than the 8 you'd get from the Killing Attack.

[Hugh Neilson]

Hmmm, it looks like you've got a 7DC normal attack vs an 8DC Killing attack

To illustrate without using actual KA and Normal results, assume your opponent has 20 Defenses and 40 STUN. Would you rather:

Emphasis added. It was not my intent to compare any specific DC's, or even compare KA vs normal attack, but simply to illustrate the impact volatility has.


If we're looking at 7 DCs (Avg 25 Normal Stun), then the KA average is 8,8,16,24,32,40 with an average over 20 of 12 thus an average per hit of 6 still better against the set defences than Normal attack. 8DC normal would average 9 per hit (28.5) which is slightly better than the 8 you'd get from the Killing Attack.

However, if you want to compare (and the comparison is less than perfect as we've eliminated the volatility of all but the stun multiple die), I would note the following:

- the average of a 7DC normal attack is 24.5, not 25.
- a 7 DC killing attack is disadvantaged by the fact the last DC adds only 1 BOD, rather than 1 1/6 when we buy even dice of KA
- even so, the KA is inflicting 6 STUN on average, while the normal attack manages only 75% of that result at 4.5.

A better comparison is probably 6DC's. Normal averages 21. KA averages 7 and 7,7,14,21,28,35

vs 12 defenses (2 def per DC) the normal attack gets through 9 STUN on average. The KA gets 8.33 on average.

vs 15 defense (2.5 defense per DC) the normal attack averages 6 and the KA averages 6.5

vs 18 defense (3 defense per DC) the normal attack averages 3 and the KA averages 5

What's the typical DEF to DC? I'd say it's more than 2x, but games vary. Of course, where defenses are low, both attacks will do some STUN - the normal attack has an 8% advantage over the KA with 2x DC. Where they are high (3x), the KA enjoys a 67% advantage. If I have to take an 8% shortfall against mooks to enjoy a 67% advantage against the boss villains, it seems like a good choice. Of course, a Multipower allows the best of both worlds.

[jtelson]

Emphasis added. It was not my intent to compare any specific DC's, or even compare KA vs normal attack, but simply to illustrate the impact volatility has.

Apologies, I believed your qualifier was to indicate you were using numbers that could be rolled (Rounded Averages) rather than statistical averages (Thus 25 normal rather than 24.5). With that erroneous assumption in place the only things that jumped out were a) Not looking at apples to oranges (A larger DC attack would be expected to have an advantage) and b) If we brought the KA down to 7 it was still better but if we brought the Normal atack up to 8 it became better. Which seemed interesting.

[Hugh Neilson]

Not looking at apples to oranges (A larger DC attack would be expected to have an advantage) and b) If we brought the KA down to 7 it was still better but if we brought the Normal atack up to 8 it became better. Which seemed interesting.

The worst case for a KA is to have 2 more DC's than a multiple of 3, since each DC in between adds only 1 BOD instead of the average 1 1/6 it should on average. Bump up to 9 DC's and the KA will again be superior, probably by a wider margin than 8 DC's.

Note that I say "probably" because adding enough DC's will eventually make the suggested 20 defenses low, rather than high, and the normal attack wins at low defense levels.

[steamteck]

No, they AVERAGE more, at least if you're talking mean or median.


(1d6 X 1d6-1)per 15 points averages more than 3d6 per 15 points? Pull out all your little charts but it just isn't so. You get more extremes is all.

[ajackson]

(1d6 X 1d6-1)per 15 points averages more than 3d6 per 15 points? Pull out all your little charts but it just isn't so. You get more extremes is all.
Average after applying defenses is higher.

Note that the main reason this is all a problem isn't really with the hero-scale KAs; a 4d6 RKA isn't really that much better than a 12d6 EB (it has a better chance of stunning a typical target, but it only averages higher damage if the target has a defense of 27+, and against agents the EB is typically more useful because it's reliable and can be spread easily). However, under the standard stun lottery, it's unreasonably difficult to be bulletproof. To get the average stun of a 6d6 attack under 1 requires 23 defense. To get the average stun of a 2d6 RKA under 1 requires 35 defense.

[ideasmith]

A suggeston for Killing Attacks in genres in which bulletproofing is common:

A Killing Attack will only inflict STUN if at least 1 BODY gets through the targets resistent defences.

This would make Killing attacks significantly weaker, but that seems appropriate to the relevent genres.

[CTaylor]

GROWTH: Again, Inherent+Growth makes obvious, blatant sense for characters always a different size. If you have a problem with the power, adjust it, don't simply tell people to not use it in the most clear and obvious manner.

INSTANT CHANGE: Telling how to build this in a rules-bending power of Transformation is not a superior method. It takes at least as much space to describe Instant Change using Transform as it would to just have the power; this should be restored.

KILLING ATTACKS: I'd like to see both of these folded into a single power rather than RKA and HKA. The abbreviations would survive the change, but they do almost exactly the same thing and take up extra space for no good purpose. Make it a 15 point per D6 power that has to take either "ranged" or "strength adds to damage" and be done with it. And no, this isn't an advantage on energy blast; leave it as a separate attack.

[BobGreenwade]

Rather than quote CTaylor's most recent post, I'll just say that I agree with it altogether.

[ajackson]

GROWTH: Again, Inherent+Growth makes obvious, blatant sense for characters always a different size. If you have a problem with the power, adjust it, don't simply tell people to not use it in the most clear and obvious manner.
Agreed. The main reason Permanent Growth is problematic is because the Strength doesn't give figured stats, making it a fool's bargain to buy permanent Growth. Adjusting Strength (either as x2 cost, or stripping figs) would make Growth balanced without any particular additional rules.

INSTANT CHANGE: Telling how to build this in a rules-bending power of Transformation is not a superior method. It takes at least as much space to describe Instant Change using Transform as it would to just have the power; this should be restored.
About the only reason to have a Transform mechanic for Instant Change is because it makes Usable Against Others Instant Change rationally balanced. However, UAO is problematic for lots of reasons; singling out Instant Change for fixing isn't worth doing.
KILLING ATTACKS: I'd like to see both of these folded into a single power rather than RKA and HKA. The abbreviations would survive the change, but they do almost exactly the same thing and take up extra space for no good purpose. Make it a 15 point per D6 power that has to take either "ranged" or "strength adds to damage" and be done with it. And no, this isn't an advantage on energy blast; leave it as a separate attack.
I don't really care what killing attack gets called, though I would like to see it parallel Energy Blast, one way or another (i.e. if KA is modified as you suggest, EB/HA should be merged in the same way).

[Gary]

Regeneration should cost something like 20 pts for the first Body and 5 pts for each additional Body. The first Body is by FAR the most valuable.

[CTaylor]

That sounds like a decent idea, the expense should be the initial purchase, especially in terms of rate of regen. My primary problem with the rate of regen is that it's too slow for combat effect; there needs to be a way to have it work per phase, even if it's incredibly expensive. You could start at regeneration per hour and have it 5 points per step down the time chart faster (so regen/phase would be +25 points) or something.

[BobGreenwade]

Personally I'm of a mind that Regeneration should be built as though it was an Adder (or possibly as an Advantage) to REC -- including the Can Heal Limbs and Regeneration components.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Regeneration should cost something like 20 pts for the first Body and 5 pts for each additional Body. The first Body is by FAR the most valuable.
This idea should be generalized, because there are many Powers where you get a lot of the advantage at the most basic level. 1" of Flight makes you immune to falling and obsoletes Climbing; 1" of Teleport can get you out of any grab and most traps/prisons; etc.

- Klaus

[Gary]

This idea should be generalized, because there are many Powers where you get a lot of the advantage at the most basic level. 1" of Flight makes you immune to falling and obsoletes Climbing; 1" of Teleport can get you out of any grab and most traps/prisons; etc.

- Klaus

Especially if you take the 1" Flight or Teleport and add scads of Advantages such as Usable as Attack or Megascale to it... ;)

[CTaylor]

I agree, actually. The overall cost should remain as close as possible to the same as it is at present, but many powers are more useful at the initial level than at increased levels. I think that was the idea behind the minimum cost of powers, it just didn't always make sense for every power. Minimum costs would make powers have a base level you had to get past in order to have them at a minimum level but not all powers should have a minimum cost.

[PhilFleischmann]

1" of Flight makes you immune to falling and obsoletes Climbing;
That depends on how far you need to climb. 1" per phase is very slow. And for falling, it would depend on how fast you're falling before you start to turn on your 1" flight.

[CTaylor]

1" flight to climb reminds me of City of Heroes levitation :) Although if you got enough of those speed enhancing adders, that really was a great build.

[Klaus Mogensen]

That depends on how far you need to climb. 1" per phase is very slow.
At SPD 4, 1"/phase = 2.4 kph. This is between one-half and one-third normal walking speed for most people; quite impressive for climbing, I'd say.

And for falling, it would depend on how fast you're falling before you start to turn on your 1" flight.
Well, no amount of Breakfall skill is going to help you much if you're falling at terminal velocity. And 1" Flight costs the same as a single level of Breakfall.

- Klaus

[PhilFleischmann]

At SPD 4, 1"/phase = 2.4 kph. This is between one-half and one-third normal walking speed for most people; quite impressive for climbing, I'd say.
Congratulations on beating a normal person. Good luck beating King Kong up the Empire State Building.

Well, no amount of Breakfall skill is going to help you much if you're falling at terminal velocity. And 1" Flight costs the same as a single level of Breakfall.
And 1" of flight will not stop or even slow down your terminal velocity fall. Acceleration is 5" downward. If you manage to slow your fall by 1" (per *phase*, remember, not per second), you're going to continually re-accelerate back to terminal velocity faster than you can decelerate.

Remember also that upward Flight speed is halved (and that includes flying against a downward fall).

[ajackson]

And 1" of flight will not stop or even slow down your terminal velocity fall. Acceleration is 5" downward.
So? Any amount of flight reduces that acceleration to 0. You don't fall while flying.

[CTaylor]

So? Any amount of flight reduces that acceleration to 0. You don't fall while flying.

True, but you have to decelerate to 0" falling speed, you don't lose it instantly.

[ajackson]

True, but you have to decelerate to 0" falling speed, you don't lose it instantly.
True. I was just protesting the 're-accelerate' comment.

[BobGreenwade]

True, but you have to decelerate to 0" falling speed, you don't lose it instantly.On the other hand, having 1" Flight can prevent you from having any falling to decelerate from. :)

[Tonio]

On the other hand, having 1" Flight can prevent you from having any falling to decelerate from. :)

Especially with a Trigger (when I start falling)!

[Mini-Nukette]

The way I've read Actions, 1" of Flight is 2m/Turn, regardless of how many Phases the character has in that Turn from SPD. A Full-Phase Action is using more than half of your inches of movement, and a Half-Phase Action is using up to half of your inches of movement.

So each 1" of movement speed is 0.6km/h max, no matter your SPD or form of movement, barring non-combat velocity mode.

The number of Phases a character has does effect how quickly they can accelerate to their maximum movement/decelerate to a stop, however.

You can decelerate up to 5" per 1" moved - so over the first segment of a fall, of 5", a character with 1" Flight could decelerate to a 0" fall (1" deceleration per hex fallen through.) Probably they would abort their next Phase to do this immediately. The character would have still fallen/flown 5 meters down before coming to a hover.

Alternatively, the character could accelerate - on the first hex fallen through, he has matched the rate of decent. On the next hex of movement (which he dived into), he can bring himself to a halt. 3 meters fallen/flown.

I'd imagine the type of Flight Power - wings, magical, jet pack - would also have a bearing on how you'd break out of a fall, at the GM's discretion.

[Chris Goodwin]

The way I've read Actions, 1" of Flight is 2m/Turn, regardless of how many Phases the character has in that Turn from SPD.

This is incorrect. 1" of Flight is 2m per Phase.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Originally Posted by Klaus Mogensen
At SPD 4, 1"/phase = 2.4 kph. This is between one-half and one-third normal walking speed for most people; quite impressive for climbing, I'd say.
Congratulations on beating a normal person. Good luck beating King Kong up the Empire State Building.
Well, base Climbing skill speed is 1"/phase, so it seems you will have trouble beating King Kong with that. And even one level of Climbing is as expensive as 1" of Flight, which allows you to basically climb air and also provides a no-rolls-required Breakfall ability that doesn't even have the limitations of the skill.

- Klaus

[Mini-Nukette]

In that case, I definitely think that decoupling SPD and Movement Rate for determining how fast a character can go would be logical.

For running...

6" with SPD 1 = 12 m/s. Faster than an Olympic 100m Sprinter (10-12m/s). Plus thats an Olympic Sprinter on a flat race track.

6" x2 ncv for a character with 1 SPD = 24 m/s. Faster than a galloping horse (9-17m/s)

For any beginning character, thats impressive training indeed!

With SPD multiplying on top...

6" with SPD 3 = 36 m/s. Faster than a cheetah (30m/s), without using ncv.

6" x2 ncv with SPD 4 = 96 m/s. Close to the maximum speed of an Enzo Ferrari (97.2m/s)

This seems very excessive, without an actual Power.

[CTaylor]

And even one level of Climbing is as expensive as 1" of Flight, which allows you to basically climb air and also provides a no-rolls-required Breakfall ability that doesn't even have the limitations of the skill.

While I agree that flying is superior to climbing, climbing doesn't cost Endurance, has no loud, obvious special effects, and cannot be dispelled, drained, or suppressed. It has its advantages that flight does not.

[Klaus Mogensen]

6" with SPD 1 = 12 m/s. Faster than an Olympic 100m Sprinter (10-12m/s).
No, 6" with SPD 1 = 1 m/s. 1 turn = 12 seconds.

Human maximum (10"/phase and SPD 4) is a bit excessive, though. At x2 non-combat, this comes to 160 m in 12 seconds or 48 kph (30 mph).

This is one of several good reasons to decouple movement from SPD and buy it as kph. Human non-combat max Running should be around 30 kph (100 m in 12 seconds).

- Klaus

[schir1964]

Since Climbing is being discussed, I'll thrown in my insignificant comment on it.

I think Climbing should be redefined and made a Power.

Or more specifically, I think that normal realistic climbing that is dependent on Tools and Experience should be relegated to Knowledge/Profession skills. This is due to the fact that normal realistic climbing rate is completely dependent on terrain and equipment available for traversing the terrain type. Climbing rate has very little dependence on an actual unique skill. Climbing skill is the knowledge of the tools involved and experience in climbing which is more closely associated with the Background Type Skills. So I see no reason to have the skill give a rate of vertical climb since that should be affected by the terrain, weather, and climbing tools available.

Now for the ability to Climb without the need for any climbing tools with a guaranteed climbing rate (even on sheer surfaces), there should be a Climbing Power. The power could have different adders or components to allow for easy building of different type of climbing or restrictions as necessary.

This way, for Heroic campaigns, climbing rate will be determined by the GM as it should be, but in Superheroic campaigns you can have characters traverse vertical surfaces at a separate rate than other movement types.

Just Another Insignificant Idea

- Christopher Mullins

[Mini-Nukette]

No, 6" with SPD 1 = 1 m/s. 1 turn = 12 seconds.

Oops, of course. :doi:

[ajackson]

While I agree that flying is superior to climbing, climbing doesn't cost Endurance, has no loud, obvious special effects, and cannot be dispelled, drained, or suppressed. It has its advantages that flight does not.
Nothing in the rules says you cannot use stealth while flying -- obvious special effect just means that it's obvious to anyone who sees you that you're using a power, which is pretty much always the case with flight. Also, I fail to see where the idea that climbing doesn't cost END comes from; other everyman movement powers do. As for being dispelled, drained, or suppressed, that's true, but more than made up for by the ability to assign situational penalties.

[CTaylor]

Skills don't cost END, and powers have visible, audible power effects when used, you can try to be sneaky with a crackling force field on, but people will notice you nevertheless. Same thing with flight.

[schir1964]

Skills don't cost END, and powers have visible, audible power effects when used, you can try to be sneaky with a crackling force field on, but people will notice you nevertheless. Same thing with flight.
While technically correct, any action that takes a minimum of 1 STR requires at least 1 END Expenditure. Thus, any skill that requires obvious exertion of STR will by default expend at least 1 END.

Skills with Obvious exertion of STR


Acrobatics
Weightlifting (KS)
Dodge
Climbing (Pulling oneself up a cliff requires lifting a portion of one's own weight)



Obviously, none of these actually cost END by definition, but require STR, thus cannot be performed without actually expending END.

More A Common Sense Rule Than Anything

Addendum: Climbing has the same visible SFX that character's innate Running/Swimming/Leaping/STR has. Innate Running and Swimming are technically not Powers, Skill, nor are they even Characteristics, yet I doubt you get to use these without any END Expenditure.

- Christopher Mullins

[Chris Goodwin]

In that case, I definitely think that decoupling SPD and Movement Rate for determining how fast a character can go would be logical.

For running...

6" with SPD 1 = 12 m/s. Faster than an Olympic 100m Sprinter (10-12m/s). Plus thats an Olympic Sprinter on a flat race track.

6" x2 ncv for a character with 1 SPD = 24 m/s. Faster than a galloping horse (9-17m/s)

For any beginning character, thats impressive training indeed!

With SPD multiplying on top...

6" with SPD 3 = 36 m/s. Faster than a cheetah (30m/s), without using ncv.

6" x2 ncv with SPD 4 = 96 m/s. Close to the maximum speed of an Enzo Ferrari (97.2m/s)

This seems very excessive, without an actual Power.

Uhhh, what? Methinks you're misunderstanding the rules.

One Turn is 12 Segments. Each Segment is 1 second. A Phase is variable length depending on a character's SPD. A character gets a number of actions (Phases) during the Turn equal to his SPD. Segments are not the same as Phases.

A character with 1 SPD (very slow) goes once in a 12 second Turn. 6" Running at SPD 1 is 12 meters per Phase -> 1 Phase per Turn -> 12 meters per Turn -> 1 meter per second. Noncombat is 2 meters per second. That's a pretty decent jog for most people, but an all-out sprint for someone very slow.

An average character with 10 DEX and 2 SPD and 6" of movement moves 24 meters in 12 seconds, or 48 running at full noncombat. That's 4 meters per second, or slightly less than 20mph. Which, to be honest, is pretty fast for a totally normal person, but we'll let that slide.

[CTaylor]

I think you could make an argument that some skills should use strength and thus take END, according to the rules, skills do not.

[schir1964]

I think you could make an argument that some skills should use strength and thus take END, according to the rules, skills do not.
Which is why I started my post with...

"While technically correct"

I think most posters, including you, will agree that there are many ways to use the rules as written, and while being completely book legal, will be deemed illegal by the GM due to common sense in application of those rules.

I think this is one of those times. You may not. But that doesn't change the reality that Skills by the book don't cost END and that common sense application of those rules will result in an END Cost when certain skills are used.

- Christopher Mullins

[ajackson]

Skills don't cost END, and powers have visible, audible power effects when used, you can try to be sneaky with a crackling force field on, but people will notice you nevertheless. Same thing with flight.
It's not the climbing skill that takes END -- it's the 1" of move that takes END.

And you're simply wrong about the force field. What the book says is: The player decides exactly how the Power appears, but it must be obvious that a Power is being used and where it comes from. This does not say you cannot be stealthy; it says that if someone sees you, they can tell you have a force field up. If you look at the example of Flight it says Another example of a special effect is Flight, defined as a spell which leaves a glowing energy trail. The trail helps the character by alerting other PCs to his presence and position, but also does the same thing for his enemies. If powers always made you visible to your enemies, this statement wouldn't make sense; thus, the implication is that powers do not automatically make you visible to your foes.

[CTaylor]

The description of special effects is pretty clear: they are easily perceptible with three senses when active. That means your flight leaves a glowy trail and roars (or smells funny and makes everyone tingle, or something) plus one other sense. You can't sneak while using powers unless you specifically buy them to be able to be sneaky in them, or they don't fall under the special effects rule (armor, for instance). Pretty much anything that costs END is easily noticeable when in effect.

Powers are automatically perceptible by the three senses they cover when they are used. You can't sneak while flying any more than a helicopter can.

[BobGreenwade]

The description of special effects is pretty clear: they are easily perceptible with three senses when active. That means your flight leaves a glowy trail and roars (or smells funny and makes everyone tingle, or something) plus one other sense. You can't sneak while using powers unless you specifically buy them to be able to be sneaky in them, or they don't fall under the special effects rule (armor, for instance). Pretty much anything that costs END is easily noticeable when in effect.

Powers are automatically perceptible by the three senses they cover when they are used. You can't sneak while flying any more than a helicopter can.The book only says it has to be perceptible; it doesn't say it has to be loud.

That said, clearly there needs to be some clarification on this matter in the rulebook, with either a Noisy Limitation or a Stealth-Capable Advantage (probably an element of IPE).

[AnotherSkip]

Hmmmmm.....

NOpe I dont agree with CTaylors interpretation.
Supes flight does make it obvious he is flying but he can be stealthy as he is doing it too.

In fact nearly every form of non-mechanical flight (ie other forms of flight with out other obvious disads) in movies and TV (Heroes, Superman, Magneto, JLA etc, Rogue in th comics, Ms. Marvel/Binary ) that character while it is OBvious he is flying, and obvious he/she is doing it (and not something else or a device) it isn't 3 senses to the wind.

In addition having Stealth Skills (like Batman and Spidey) does mean you can use obvious powers while being stealthy. Batman especially has many abilities that he can use that are obviously obvious but he can be stealthy at the same time.

[Hugh Neilson]

The description of special effects is pretty clear: they are easily perceptible with three senses when active. That means your flight leaves a glowy trail and roars (or smells funny and makes everyone tingle, or something) plus one other sense. You can't sneak while using powers unless you specifically buy them to be able to be sneaky in them, or they don't fall under the special effects rule (armor, for instance). Pretty much anything that costs END is easily noticeable when in effect.

Powers are automatically perceptible by the three senses they cover when they are used. You can't sneak while flying any more than a helicopter can.

The book only says it has to be perceptible; it doesn't say it has to be loud.

That said, clearly there needs to be some clarification on this matter in the rulebook, with either a Noisy Limitation or a Stealth-Capable Advantage (probably an element of IPE).

I agree we need to define "perceptible". If your flight is Visible to hearing, then I think it should be harder for you to be stealthy when flying. If it is visible to different sense groups, that changes the stealth model.

Would you let someone run full-tilt "stealthily"?

Would you allow someone whose flight is visible to, say, Sight (you can see I'm flying like you can see I'm running), Mental senses (it's telekinetic) and smell (brimstone) use Stealth to sneak past a mentalist or a bloodhound? If not, then allowing someone whose flight is visible to hearing cancel that visibility with a stealth roll seems unreasonable.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to apply a penalty for visible abilities to apply a penalty to Stealth, just like we would apply a penalty for trying to run stealthily.

[Hugh Neilson]

NOpe I dont agree with CTaylors interpretation.
Supes flight does make it obvious he is flying but he can be stealthy as he is doing it too.

What three senses is it visible to? By the books, it needs IPE to fall below three sense groups. Only one is covered by "obviously he's flying - he's in the air". By the books, most characters in comics and other media have flight visible to only one sense group, which is an advantage under the rules.

I would have no problem redefining the visibility rules to accommodate the fact that most non-offensive powers tend to be less visible in the source materials AND the value of such powers being less visible seems lower than the IPE advantage implies. But that would be a change to the rules. It is not the way they are presently written.

By the way, Supes never seems to get tired when flying. Neither to his flying brethren, for the most part. Should Flight get 0 END for free as well?

[nexus]

I agree we need to define "perceptible". If your flight is Visible to hearing, then I think it should be harder for you to be stealthy when flying. If it is visible to different sense groups, that changes the stealth model.

Would you let someone run full-tilt "stealthily"?

Would you allow someone whose flight is visible to, say, Sight (you can see I'm flying like you can see I'm running), Mental senses (it's telekinetic) and smell (brimstone) use Stealth to sneak past a mentalist or a bloodhound? If not, then allowing someone whose flight is visible to hearing cancel that visibility with a stealth roll seems unreasonable.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to apply a penalty for visible abilities to apply a penalty to Stealth, just like we would apply a penalty for trying to run stealthily.

A simple Rule of thumb could be every 5 Active points of Power used is a -1 to Stealth/Concealment/Cloak checks against the relevant Sense groups?

[CTaylor]

A simple Rule of thumb could be every 5 Active points of Power used is a -1 to Stealth/Concealment/Cloak checks against the relevant Sense groups?

That might work, it would give you a chance, if you were ridiculously capable. Seriously, special effects have to be visible or you can just shrug at the cost of invisible power effects.

By the way, "sight" can't simply mean "you see the result of using of my power," it means you see me usingp my power. Invisible power effects don't have invisible results, they are just not perceptible while in use. Superman has invisible power effects on his flight: he doesn't glow or hum or anything while flying.

If you interpreted the rules as "someone can see me flying so it has a visible power effect" that would mean buying invisible power effects would make it look like you weren't actually flying: you would seem to be on the ground or not moving at all, somehow. That's not how it works.

[nexus]

Additional thought: Taking the "Visible" limitation on a power that's normally visible would eliminate any chance of stealthy use. If the power is not normally visible, the the previous rule would apply to it.

[Hugh Neilson]

By the way, "sight" can't simply mean "you see the result of using of my power," it means you see me usingp my power. Invisible power effects don't have invisible results, they are just not perceptible while in use. Superman has invisible power effects on his flight: he doesn't glow or hum or anything while flying.

If you interpreted the rules as "someone can see me flying so it has a visible power effect" that would mean buying invisible power effects would make it look like you weren't actually flying: you would seem to be on the ground or not moving at all, somehow. That's not how it works.

While that's what the rules say, it seems not to be how they are applied. Can you provide examples of official Hero writeups with IPE to fly like Superman?

[ajackson]

The description of special effects is pretty clear: they are easily perceptible with three senses when active.
Running is a standard power, and thus visible to three senses. Thus, by your argument, it is impossible to be stealthy while walking on the ground.

[ajackson]

By the way, "sight" can't simply mean "you see the result of using of my power," it means you see me using my power.
What do you base this on? 'Visible' means "It is obvious that a power is being used, and where it comes from", not that the power itself is necessarily visible.
If you interpreted the rules as "someone can see me flying so it has a visible power effect" that would mean buying invisible power effects would make it look like you weren't actually flying: you would seem to be on the ground or not moving at all, somehow. That's not how it works.
No, that is how it works, which means IPE on flight tends to be incoherent.

[schir1964]

I think what ajackson is getting at is that we have a two mechanics that are overlapping when they shouldn't.

And I now think I understand where CTaylor is coming from on this.

Mechanic 1: Invisibility Power - Affects the ability to perceive a character. Nothing else, just the character. But the power is purchased working against various senses (Sight, Hearing, and so forth).
If I buy Invisibility vs the Hearing Group, what does that mean?
What if buy Flash vs Hearing (Booming Voice) Persistent, Always On, Inherent, is it now covered by the Invisibility?
If not, why not?
If a normal person can deafen another by yelling in their ear, and Invisibility prevents that, why not an Inherent Booming Voice?


Mechanic 2: Invisible Power Effects - Affects the ability to perceive SFX. Nothing else, just the SFX that is generated by something purchased. Again, the Advantage si is purchased to work against various senses (Sight, Hearing, and so forth).
If character does something (uses an ability) and it is apparent that they are doing something that is not normally possible, can this ability ever use the Advantage IPE or are they forced to use Invisibility?
Should there be two mechanics that overlap or should there be just one?
How would a single mechanic handle both?

Hmmm....

- Christopher Mullins

[Klaus Mogensen]

What three senses is it visible to? By the books, it needs IPE to fall below three sense groups. Only one is covered by "obviously he's flying - he's in the air". By the books, most characters in comics and other media have flight visible to only one sense group, which is an advantage under the rules.

I would have no problem redefining the visibility rules to accommodate the fact that most non-offensive powers tend to be less visible in the source materials AND the value of such powers being less visible seems lower than the IPE advantage implies. But that would be a change to the rules. It is not the way they are presently written.
I think the easiest fix is to say that Sight counts as two sense groups. Perhaps "Normal Sight" and "Extraordinary Sight". IIRC, M&M does something like that.

By the way, Supes never seems to get tired when flying. Neither to his flying brethren, for the most part. Should Flight get 0 END for free as well?
Very few superheroes seem to get tired unless they exert themselves. Perhaps they simply have REC enough to cover normal END expenditure. All flying characters I ever made in Hero had enough REC to cover the cost of flying non-combat at full SPD.

BTW, would it make sense to make END spend Pushing long-term END? Then you would really feel the effort.

- Klaus

[CTaylor]

Thus, by your argument, it is impossible to be stealthy while walking on the ground.

Technically, according to the rules, you're right, but obviously there's an exemption for normal powers human beings ordinarily have.

I don't have every character ever built with they Hero system, nor does it particularly matter: if you want to fly without making any special noise or images, if you want to fly without alerting people, you have to buy invisible power effects. Or you can as a GM rule that movement powers doesn't apply.

Simply showing the effects of using your powers (flying, causing damage, etc) is not sufficient for the visible power effects. You can't say "well it doesn't need invisibility because people can see me teleport!" or "My energy blast makes no sound and has no visible effect, but it doesn't need invisible SFX because it causes the target to take damage!"

[ajackson]

Technically, according to the rules, you're right, but obviously there's an exemption for normal powers human beings ordinarily have.
Or, you could simply be misinterpreting what "visible to 3 senses" means.
Simply showing the effects of using your powers (flying, causing damage, etc) is not sufficient for the visible power effects. You can't say "well it doesn't need invisibility because people can see me teleport!" or "My energy blast makes no sound and has no visible effect, but it doesn't need invisible SFX because it causes the target to take damage!"
I don't even understand what the first example is supposed to mean, and in the case of blast the part you're missing is that the source of the power is supposed to be obvious. As long as it's obvious to onlookers that character A just blasted character B, it's not important what the effect looks like. Similar, as long as it's obvious to onlookers that a character is using flight, it's unnecessary to take IPE.

[AnotherSkip]

I think that A jackson has alot of it.

Supes flight is not IPE becauseit is obvious HE is the one in control of the flight. you see that, you can feel that (which explains Lois's looks when she catches a ride from supes), (and maybe mentally sense that too).
Of course By the rules since you can have certain senses that are specially built to be their own little sense group you could just have all three stuck there legally.
stealth shouldn't suffer such big penalties as -1/5 active, that is waaaaaay too much. and unrealistic, after all that would mean that the military snipers that port around the sniper rifles who are good enough to hide so "invisibly" that 10 feet away on camera you can't even see the littleist sign of them with their 12 active points of armor and 90 point guns (plus every thing else im forgetting means that they probably have much more in active points in "powers") are at a -20 to their skill rolls (100/5=20). which means that they have to have 36+ on their stealth, concealment and probably shadowing rolls. verry point inflative concept there.

and no the sniper rifles are not IPE, reduced perhaps but not supressed to invisibility.

[Netzilla]

Given the current debate on Stealth & Movement Powers, I decided to check the book to see what it has to say. Unfortunately, there's not a lot.


Stealth applies equally to all forms of movement. No mode of movement is inherently "stealtheir" than any other.

So, this flat-out states that Running does not get special consideration over other forms of movement. Thus, since Running is visible to 3 senses like any other 'Power' that costs END without needing to glow, roar, etc, the same would seem to be true of the other modes of movement.


Moving Object +1

Interesting. This would seem to imply that every use of Stealth (within LoS of the watcher) is effectively at a -1 penalty. I'm not sure that's what is meant to be implied but it could just mean that you're better off using your stealth where other people can't draw LoS to you.


Run (6"+) +1
Fast walk (3") +0
Normal walk (2") -1
Careful walk (1") -2


Given this and my first quote above, the same modifiers would seem to apply with other modes of movement. Thus, if you're flying slowly (2"-) others would have a harder time hearing you. Conversely, the faster you fly (6"+), the easier you are to hear. We could extrapolate this out, so that either every doubling past 6" or every +3" gives an additional +1 to hearing modifiers.

However, SFX does seem to count for something, because on the same table you have a 'Vehicles' entry:

Hovercar +1
Spaceship taking off +5
Truck +3


Of course, vehicles are noisy for a lot of reasons other than movement, but I suspect the intended implication is the noise from the engine. However, as characters generally aren't vehicles, I'd suggest using the movement modifiers to hearing given in the previous quote as our guide.

[Hugh Neilson]

stealth shouldn't suffer such big penalties as -1/5 active, that is waaaaaay too much. and unrealistic, after all that would mean that the military snipers that port around the sniper rifles who are good enough to hide so "invisibly" that 10 feet away on camera you can't even see the littleist sign of them with their 12 active points of armor

Actually, as armor costs 0 END by default, it is not visible by default.

and 90 point guns (plus every thing else im forgetting means that they probably have much more in active points in "powers") are at a -20 to their skill rolls (100/5=20). which means that they have to have 36+ on their stealth, concealment and probably shadowing rolls. verry point inflative concept there.

Powers are only visible in use. The gun is not visible until it is fired. Then, it either has IPE (and most sniper weaponry is silenced) or it is visible and obvious (good luck being stealthy while firing an AK-47 into the air).

and no the sniper rifles are not IPE, reduced perhaps but not supressed to invisibility.

Bu the rules, it appears they are, as their usage is not obvious to three sense groups.

[BobGreenwade]

Maybe instead of filing up this thread (which is supposed to be about how 6th Edition should work, specifically with Powers in the alphabetical range of F-K) with a debate on the 5th Edition rule on Power visibility and Invisible Power Effects, what should be done is:

(1) Agree that the text could be clearer on this point, and request something more explicit;

(2) Offer up our suggestions, recommendations, and other ideas on how it should, or at least could, work, regardless of what's currently said or intended in 5th Edition; and

(3) Ask the question in the handy-dandy 5th Edition Rules Questions forum, which the Line Developer and author of the rulebook has conveniently put onto this board for precisely this kind of thing.

[Netzilla]

(2) Offer up our suggestions, recommendations, and other ideas on how it should, or at least could, work, regardless of what's currently said or intended in 5th Edition; and


:oWell, I kinda-sorta did that:
We could extrapolate this out, so that either every doubling past 6" or every +3" gives an additional +1 to hearing modifiers.

What do you mean that folks might miss that one line buried in the middle of a 20+ line message? It's there. Honest. It's a chance for people to practice and improve their Perception Roll. ;)

I'm sorry.

[BobGreenwade]

:oWell, I kinda-sorta did that:


What do you mean that folks might miss that one line buried in the middle of a 20+ line message? It's there. Honest. It's a chance for people to practice and improve their Perception Roll. ;)

I'm sorry.I did catch that, and I apologize for not mentioning it initially. It's actually a more-than-decent start to actually hashing out a simple, elegant solution.

[Netzilla]

I did catch that, and I apologize for not mentioning it initially. It's actually a more-than-decent start to actually hashing out a simple, elegant solution.

Well, my post was mostly tongue-in-cheek because I was contributing to the off-topic drift with most of my post.

Okay, back to the topic of offering actual suggestions. With Movement visibility it's apparent to me that the intent is that the faster you move, the more audible you are. This does bring up the question of, what happens if your movement is not 'visible' to Hearing perception? Do those Perception Mods no longer apply? It would seem so.

Personally, I'm leaning toward moving those modifiers away from Hearing Perception and instead making them Stealth Penalties. Most of the time, if you're not actually using Stealth, most folks shouldn't have a problem spotting/hearing you. If you're running up behind someone with no attempt to be quiet, they're going to hear you. I don't think a roll is mandated in that case. On the other hand, if you're trying to run with Stealth, then a Stealth vs Perception roll-off makes sense.

Now, what scale of modifiers should we use? I'd suggested 2 possibilities in my earlier post. Here's what the Stealth Penalties would look like with those two scales:


Moving 1" = +2 Stealth
Moving 2" = +1 Stealth
Moving 3-5" = +0 Stealth


-1 for every doubling of movement

Moving 6-11" = -1 Stealth
Moving 12-23" = -2 Stealth
Moving 24-47" = -3 Stealth
etc


Seems you can go ludicrously fast while still having a decent Stealth roll.

-1 for every 3" extra

Moving 6-9" = -1 Stealth
Moving 10-12" = -2 Stealth
Moving 13-15" = -3 Stealth
etc


Can get pretty high pretty quick, but how many Stealth-based characters expect to use 15+" of movement while sneaking around?

You could also base the bonus/penalty off of a % of your Combat move:

<= 1/6 Move = +2
1/3 Move = +1
Less than full move = +0
Full to 150% move = -1
151% - 200% move = -2
201-250% move = -3
etc


Seems like it might be a bit more work than it's worth and it seems like it would make Stealth Speedsters a bit too easy to build.

In summery, I'd recommend that 6th Edition:
* Explicitly state that movement-based Perception modifiers apply to all forms of movement and not just Running.
* Change them from Perception modifiers to Stealth modifiers.
* Explicitly expand the modifiers past 6" in 3" steps.

[CTaylor]

what should be done is:

Good thinking, particularly the first part about needing clarification.

[Tonio]

Since Climbing is being discussed, I'll thrown in my insignificant comment on it.

I think Climbing should be redefined and made a Power.

Or more specifically, I think that normal realistic climbing that is dependent on Tools and Experience should be relegated to Knowledge/Profession skills. This is due to the fact that normal realistic climbing rate is completely dependent on terrain and equipment available for traversing the terrain type. Climbing rate has very little dependence on an actual unique skill. Climbing skill is the knowledge of the tools involved and experience in climbing which is more closely associated with the Background Type Skills. So I see no reason to have the skill give a rate of vertical climb since that should be affected by the terrain, weather, and climbing tools available.

Now for the ability to Climb without the need for any climbing tools with a guaranteed climbing rate (even on sheer surfaces), there should be a Climbing Power. The power could have different adders or components to allow for easy building of different type of climbing or restrictions as necessary.

This way, for Heroic campaigns, climbing rate will be determined by the GM as it should be, but in Superheroic campaigns you can have characters traverse vertical surfaces at a separate rate than other movement types.

Just Another Insignificant Idea

- Christopher Mullins

You mean like Clinging? :D

[CTaylor]

Climbing has always seemed problematic to me too, but that's for another section of the message board.

[schir1964]

You mean like Clinging? :D
Clinging allows you use running to for vertical movement. What I proposed is a new movement type for vertical movement.

Clinging is still a valid power with the addition of what I proposed.

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Climbing has always seemed problematic to me too, but that's for another section of the message board.
Correct. Sorry for the drift.

- Christopher Mullins

[Mini-Nukette]

Quick suggestion. Force Fields: BODY Damage stopped by a Force Field Power doesn't count towards Knockdown/back.

[ajackson]

Quick suggestion. Force Fields: BODY Damage stopped by a Force Field Power doesn't count towards Knockdown/back.
Nah. If you want that, just link knockback resistance to your force field. Or buy a force wall.

[BobGreenwade]

Quick suggestion. Force Fields: BODY Damage stopped by a Force Field Power doesn't count towards Knockdown/back.

Nah. If you want that, just link knockback resistance to your force field. Or buy a force wall.Either that, or allow Force Field to have an equivalently-costed Advantage. (I'd prefer the Linked KBR myself.)

[CTaylor]

The advantage would be cleaner and take up less space, but it seems to be extraneous.

[ideasmith]

On Healing: Regeneration:

2 requests:

- First, could you make regeneration a -0 modifier to Healing? Having a Power Basis choice restircted based on what Power Modifiers will be applied just feels weird.

- More important, could you tone down the prerequisites? Hero System should be keeping prerequisites to a minimum, and regeneration has 5 of them (Reduced Endurance, Persistent, Extra Time, Self Only, Standard Effect). Extra Time obviously needs to be a prerquisite. I may have missed something with one of the others. However, most of them should be part of 'standard' regeneration, but not compulsary.

[BobGreenwade]

On Healing: Regeneration:

2 requests:

- First, could you make regeneration a -0 modifier to Healing? Having a Power Basis choice restircted based on what Power Modifiers will be applied just feels weird.

- More important, could you tone down the prerequisites? Hero System should be keeping prerequisites to a minimum, and regeneration has 5 of them (Reduced Endurance, Persistent, Extra Time, Self Only, Standard Effect). Extra Time obviously needs to be a prerquisite. I may have missed something with one of the others. However, most of them should be part of 'standard' regeneration, but not compulsary.Standard Effect isn't really a Modifier, so if we combined Reduced Endurance (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), and Self Only (-1/2), we could simplify matters somewhat by just calling Regeneration a +1/2 Advantage to Healing.

And I'd like to see a similar approach to Gate (for Teleportation and XDM; but also it should be applicable to other Movement Powers, and to Clairvoyance and other Senses). I'll bring that up in greater detail in the Advantages thread (which is more appropriate) a little later.

[Mini-Nukette]

Either that, or allow Force Field to have an equivalently-costed Advantage. (I'd prefer the Linked KBR myself.)

The thought behind Force Field preventing some Knockback was that in most film/comic SFX, it prevents damage before it actually hits the target (even if the FF doesn't extend very far from the surface.) KBR stops a set amount of BODY causing knockback, whereas the FF would only stop the knockback from the BODY it prevents 'getting through.'

Maybe I'm tying Force Field and Force Wall too closely together in my minds eye SFX.

[nexus]

I'm hesitant to add built in perks to specific powers when it seems to be based on assuming a certain sfx for that power. The Force Field (and Armor) Powers can represent allot of things. It would also be much more effective than knockback resistance.

Also you could argue some "force" must be getting through a Force Field since the character takes Stun damage even if the Body doesn't get through. Characters with force field special effects do get knocked off their feet/knocked back fairly often without appearing to take Body in Hero System terms. I know Body is an abstraction and their natural defenses might have absorbed what got through the field but I think it's a valid point since FF with that perk would make suffering knockback for character with it very uncommon.

[Vondy]

I'm hesitant to add built in perks to specific powers when it seems to be based on assuming a certain sfx for that power.

Rant on!

I am adamantly opposed to it. The powers are abstract mechanical constructs you define in concrete form and specific function by applying advantages, limitations, and special effects to them at design time. It doesn't take on the qualities of any genre or fictional example until those additional issues have been hammered out.

/rant off!

[ajackson]

The thought behind Force Field preventing some Knockback was that in most film/comic SFX, it prevents damage before it actually hits the target (even if the FF doesn't extend very far from the surface.)
Pretty much all comic book 'Force fields' are force walls. In any case, the general philosophy of Hero involves making effects as atomic as possible (i.e. they do only one thing).

[Gary]

One idea I have for Flight is to change how vertical acceleration works. Instead of halving Flight straight up, I would suggest simply subtracting 5" from your Flight if you're moving vertically. If you have 5" or less of Flight, you can maintain the same level but can't move upwards except in non-combat time.

So someone with 10" base Flight can accelerate 5" straight up, or 15" straight down. Someone with 3" base Flight can't accelerate upwards except in noncombat time but can accelerate 8" straight down.

I think this idea reflects gravity better. It doesn't make sense that gravity can slow someone with 50" of Flight by 25" but someone with 10" of Flight is merely slowed by 5".

[AnotherSkip]

i thought all vertical movement did the halving thing?
representing the cincematic experience that going up is just more difficult.... or is it something else?

[Gary]

i thought all vertical movement did the halving thing?
representing the cincematic experience that going up is just more difficult.... or is it something else?

That's what the rules are currently. I'm just proposing an alternative. Someone with 50" Flight should not have 25" straight up or 100" straight down. I think it should be 45" or 55" to reflect gravity more accurately and this change would be just as cinematic.

[Balabanto]

It is at this time that I would like to petition for the return of a single power for Instant Change.

Breaking it up into a transformation attack and a shapeshift power has done the following things.

1) It confuses people. Am I a shapeshift instant change or a transformation instant change?

2) It kind of weakens Only in Hero ID to the point where it's no longer viable as a conception based disad. Shazam! Huh?

3) The shapeshift version of this is prohibitively expensive to create and does strange things with enhanced senses, and does very little, while the transformation version is, while effective, only really usable on your clothes.

Returning this to it's earlier edition roots will, I feel, benefit the game more than it takes things away. Is Only in Hero ID really that abusive when properly interpreted? No.

[Tonio]

It is at this time that I would like to petition for the return of a single power for Instant Change.

Breaking it up into a transformation attack and a shapeshift power has done the following things.

1) It confuses people. Am I a shapeshift instant change or a transformation instant change?

2) It kind of weakens Only in Hero ID to the point where it's no longer viable as a conception based disad. Shazam! Huh?

3) The shapeshift version of this is prohibitively expensive to create and does strange things with enhanced senses, and does very little, while the transformation version is, while effective, only really usable on your clothes.

Returning this to it's earlier edition roots will, I feel, benefit the game more than it takes things away. Is Only in Hero ID really that abusive when properly interpreted? No.

Yeah, I think the general consensus is that folding Instant Change into Transform was a Bad Thing. =/

The only thing it really fixed was Instant Change, Usable Against Others! :D

[Balabanto]

Which according to the rules of usable against others, can't actually function because every power in the game that's UAO is automatically protecting against itself.

[ideasmith]

Which according to the rules of usable against others, can't actually function because every power in the game that's UAO is automatically protecting against itself.

This sounds like a house rule. If not, what page of 5ER is it on?

[Tonio]

Which according to the rules of usable against others, can't actually function because every power in the game that's UAO is automatically protecting against itself.

Well, I meant that more as a joke than anything... but I'm not sure that rule was there back when we had Instant Change. Additionally, you could still target characters without instant change. This was actually the most unbalanced way to use it... target, say, Batman, and he'd be left without all his gadgets and stuff.

[Tonio]

This sounds like a house rule. If not, what page of 5ER is it on?

Hm, you're right! The example listed (Flight, UAA) defines its defenses as Flight, Desolid, or PowDef, but it doesn't say anywhere that the power itself must be included in the defenses.

[James Gillen]

It is at this time that I would like to petition for the return of a single power for Instant Change.



[raises hand]

[David Blue]

It is at this time that I would like to petition for the return of a single power for Instant Change.
[raises hand]

Mini-rant: I hate the way that Hero is evolving as a system that handles supers reluctantly, grudgingly and consequently ineptly, as exceptions to a "universal" system that ought really to be about gun-fu, stuff bought from military catalogs etc..

The elimination of the perfectly good powers Regeneration and Instant Change in favor of perversely clunky constructs is a symptom of this. The elimination of a proper Instant Change is the worst symptom of the wrong attitude, because classic Instant Change is such a harmless piece of genre accommodation. Everybody knows what it's about and why it's so useful, and there was never any outcry to get rid of it in the first place.

If it isn't possible to accommodate something as harmless as Instant Change in Hero, I would like Champions split off as its own game, with one book for genre and powers, and the powers conforming to the genre: back to the future!

[CTaylor]

Well, Instant Change had some odd quirks and Steve Long was trying to fix them (instant change usable as an attack is dirt cheap and you can really mess someone up with it in the right circumstances, or at least embarrass them greatly). Regeneration was just an attempt to fold the power into healing so it wasn't cluttered. Neither change was really needed, however.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, Instant Change had some odd quirks and Steve Long was trying to fix them (instant change usable as an attack is dirt cheap and you can really mess someone up with it in the right circumstances, or at least embarrass them greatly).

Easy fix - "UAA cannot be applied to Instant Change". All fixed.

As for regeneration, I would have liked to see the reduced reuse duration advantages mathed out to dovetail with the Regeneration construct. Per turn should have been +1. Regen would then be 2/3 of 1d6 Healing (2 points standard effect instead of 3), 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Reuse 1/turn(+1) = 20 AP Self Only (-1/2), Full turn (-1 1/4?) to get the same per BOD cost we have now.

[CTaylor]

Indeed I prefer the old instant change (as noted pages back) and the old regen as well.

[ideasmith]

Indeed I prefer the old instant change (as noted pages back) and the old regen as well.

The choice here isn't between the old version and the current version. The choice is between the current version and some new(er) version. Steve Long made that clear in Rule 12 of the Rules Of The 6th Edition Forum.

[CTaylor]

Doesn't matter, he stated everything was open to discussion, and I think the majority of players would prefer to see the old versions returned, regardless of what he says in rule 12.

[ideasmith]

Doesn't matter, he stated everything was open to discussion, .

Oh really? Where? And if so, then why does he contradict this repeatedly? (Note: "up for consideration" is not the same thing, especially since his description thereof emphasizes new, if possibley whacky, suggestions).

and I think the majority of players would prefer to see the old versions returned, .

That may well be the case. However, I don't see Steve Long being convinced of that.

[CTaylor]

I guess when I read this post by Steve Long:

Everything is up for consideration.

There are no sacred cows here, no forbidden ground, no boundaries limiting where I’m going to go in my quest to make the HERO System rules even better — and therefore no restrictions on what you can suggest to me.

That meant "everything is on the table" not "everything except these few subjects you don't want to discuss."

[ideasmith]

I guess when I read this post by Steve Long:



That meant "everything is on the table" not "everything except these few subjects you don't want to discuss."

You are taking that out of context. Even construing it as you do:



These rules have the same force and effect as the overall Rules of Conduct for the Hero Discussion Boards. So, if you violate them, you may get warnings or infractions.

12. We will not under any circumstances be returning to the 4th Edition (or earlier) way of doing things. If it worked before I would have kept it. So please don’t suggest reverting to the old forms of Regeneration, Instant Change, Damage Shield, or anything else — it will not happen, and asking for it just wastes everyone’s time and bandwidth.

13. If I say that discussion on a topic is closed, stop posting about it immediately. The final decision on the content of the 6E rules rests with me, and me alone; this book is not being written or designed by committee. Once I’ve made up my mind there’s not point in anyone wasting time talking about it further.

[CTaylor]

I guess he didn't mean "There are no sacred cows here, no forbidden ground, no boundaries limiting where I’m going to go" when he said that then, eh? Too bad too, because those would all be better ways to go, and I would guess that if he asked 1000 hero players, over 900 would agree with me. Something he, and you, might want to consider.

[Hugh Neilson]

I guess he didn't mean "There are no sacred cows here, no forbidden ground, no boundaries limiting where I’m going to go" when he said that then, eh? Too bad too, because those would all be better ways to go, and I would guess that if he asked 1000 hero players, over 900 would agree with me. Something he, and you, might want to consider.

Suggest a better way to do it, rather than "put it back" and you may get better reception to the idea.

In fact, perhaps Instant Change should be dovetailed with a mechanic that reduces the time required for tasks in general. That would add something the game could use, and dovetail Instant Change in nicely.

[ideasmith]

I guess he didn't mean "There are no sacred cows here, no forbidden ground, no boundaries limiting where I’m going to go" when he said that then, eh? Too bad too, because those would all be better ways to go, and I would guess that if he asked 1000 hero players, over 900 would agree with me. Something he, and you, might want to consider.

One thing to consider:

While the subject of 'changing things back' is closed...

................the subject of 'changing things further' is not.

The current versions of Regeneration and Instant Change are imperfect and subject to improvement. Since your favorite fix is unavailable, why not think about other possible fixes?

[James Gillen]

One thing to consider:

While the subject of 'changing things back' is closed...

................the subject of 'changing things further' is not.

The current versions of Regeneration and Instant Change are imperfect and subject to improvement. Since your favorite fix is unavailable, why not think about other possible fixes?

Fair enough, given that the fact that Steve was able to cite these examples by name means he's already quite aware that people don't like them. :D

JG

[ajackson]

Easy fix - "UAA cannot be applied to Instant Change". All fixed.
Better fix: change how UAA works. It's not unreasonable, per se, for UAA to work as an attack. It's just unreasonable for it to be a 10 point power. The basic problem with UAA is that the utility of being able to use a power is not strongly related to the utility of being able to force someone else to use a power.

[AnotherSkip]

Suggest a better way to do it, rather than "put it back" and you may get better reception to the idea.

In fact, perhaps Instant Change should be dovetailed with a mechanic that reduces the time required for tasks in general. That would add something the game could use, and dovetail Instant Change in nicely.

how about Instant Change as a Skill then once we figure out how long it Should take to get in and out of costume then we can apply modifers for moving it down the time chart and buy + to the skill only to counteract the penalties for moving it down the time chart. and then IIRC you can't UAA a skill.....

[Klaus Mogensen]

how about Instant Change as a Skill then once we figure out how long it Should take to get in and out of costume then we can apply modifers for moving it down the time chart and buy + to the skill only to counteract the penalties for moving it down the time chart. and then IIRC you can't UAA a skill.....
I think it may be more suited as a Talent, which can be extended to allow doing other non-combat actions faster than normal, like skimming vast amounts of data quickly (the way Data does in Star Trek). In fact, Lightning Calculator can be seen as an example of this general Talent.

A possible writeup:

Lightning Speed
This Talent allows a character to do a specific non-combat task much faster than normal. It must be something the character is normally capable of, either as a common human ability or as a Power. Lighning Speed cannot duplicate any existing Power, Talent, Advantage, or Adder (such as non-combat movement multipliers).
For every point spent, the character can perform the selected type of task one step faster on the Time Chart. For three points, the character would thus be able to do something that normally requires 5 minutes as a full-phase action.
Actions requiring "1 segment" can be performed with a ½-phase action. Faster actions (a step faster than "1 segment") can be performed with 0-phase action.

Examples:

Lightning Calculator: The character can perform mathematical operations quickly in his head that normally would require a long time with paper and pencil. Typical cost: 3 Character Points (~ x100 speed)
Instant Change: The character can change into and out of a simple costume as a 0-phase action for 3 Character Points (1 turn -> 0-phase action) or into and out of complex body armor or similar as a 0-phase action for 5 character points (5 minutes -> 0-phase action)
Cramming: The character acquire familiarity (8-) with any non-combat skill through several hours of study. This requires access to a library or teacher. Unless character points are spent to make a leaned skill permanent, it will be lost once the character starts cramming for another skill. Cost: 3 Character Points (1 month -> 6 hours)
Data Search: The character can quickly sift through vast amounts of data, in a library or on a computer database, looking for specific information. Typical cost: 4 Character Points (1 Day -> 5 Minutes)
Rapid Rearrange: The character can rapidly move objects around in his close vicinity. All the affected objects must be within a half move of the character, he must be able to lift them with casual Strength, and they must not actively resist being moved (no attack roll required). Typical cost: 4 points (5 minutes -> 1 phase)


- Klaus

[James Gillen]

I think it may be more suited as a Talent, which can be extended to allow doing other non-combat actions faster than normal, like skimming vast amounts of data quickly (the way Data does in Star Trek). In fact, Lightning Calculator can be seen as an example of this general Talent.

A possible writeup:

Lightning Speed
This Talent allows a character to do a specific non-combat task much faster than normal. It must be something the character is normally capable of, either as a common human ability or as a Power. Lighning Speed cannot duplicate any existing Power, Talent, Advantage, or Adder (such as non-combat movement multipliers).
For every point spent, the character can perform the selected type of task one step faster on the Time Chart. For three points, the character would thus be able to do something that normally requires 5 minutes as a full-phase action.
Actions requiring "1 segment" can be performed with a ½-phase action. Faster actions (a step faster than "1 segment") can be performed with 0-phase action.

Examples:

Lightning Calculator: The character can perform mathematical operations quickly in his head that normally would require a long time with paper and pencil. Typical cost: 3 Character Points (~ x100 speed)
Instant Change: The character can change into and out of a simple costume as a 0-phase action for 3 Character Points (1 turn -> 0-phase action) or into and out of complex body armor or similar as a 0-phase action for 5 character points (5 minutes -> 0-phase action)
Cramming: The character acquire familiarity (8-) with any non-combat skill through several hours of study. This requires access to a library or teacher. Unless character points are spent to make a leaned skill permanent, it will be lost once the character starts cramming for another skill. Cost: 3 Character Points (1 month -> 6 hours)
Data Search: The character can quickly sift through vast amounts of data, in a library or on a computer database, looking for specific information. Typical cost: 4 Character Points (1 Day -> 5 Minutes)
Rapid Rearrange: The character can rapidly move objects around in his close vicinity. All the affected objects must be within a half move of the character, he must be able to lift them with casual Strength, and they must not actively resist being moved (no attack roll required). Typical cost: 4 points (5 minutes -> 1 phase)


- Klaus

The nice thing about this is that it actually bases on precedent in the rules.

JG

[AnotherSkip]

Ah but the thing is I can argue that Firefighters are taught how to do this at a non-impossible level and most would argue that talents cannot be taught.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Ah but the thing is I can argue that Firefighters are taught how to do this at a non-impossible level and most would argue that talents cannot be taught.
I'm not sure what you argue that Firefighters are taught. Anyway, many of the Talents seem like something you could be taught, e.g. as part of martial arts training (though, arguably, it might not be something everybody can be taught).

- Klaus

[BobGreenwade]

I think it may be more suited as a Talent, which can be extended to allow doing other non-combat actions faster than normal, like skimming vast amounts of data quickly (the way Data does in Star Trek). In fact, Lightning Calculator can be seen as an example of this general Talent.

A possible writeup:

Lightning Speed
This Talent allows a character to do a specific non-combat task much faster than normal. It must be something the character is normally capable of, either as a common human ability or as a Power. Lighning Speed cannot duplicate any existing Power, Talent, Advantage, or Adder (such as non-combat movement multipliers).
For every point spent, the character can perform the selected type of task one step faster on the Time Chart. For three points, the character would thus be able to do something that normally requires 5 minutes as a full-phase action.
Actions requiring "1 segment" can be performed with a ½-phase action. Faster actions (a step faster than "1 segment") can be performed with 0-phase action.

Examples:

Lightning Calculator: The character can perform mathematical operations quickly in his head that normally would require a long time with paper and pencil. Typical cost: 3 Character Points (~ x100 speed)
Instant Change: The character can change into and out of a simple costume as a 0-phase action for 3 Character Points (1 turn -> 0-phase action) or into and out of complex body armor or similar as a 0-phase action for 5 character points (5 minutes -> 0-phase action)
Cramming: The character acquire familiarity (8-) with any non-combat skill through several hours of study. This requires access to a library or teacher. Unless character points are spent to make a leaned skill permanent, it will be lost once the character starts cramming for another skill. Cost: 3 Character Points (1 month -> 6 hours)
Data Search: The character can quickly sift through vast amounts of data, in a library or on a computer database, looking for specific information. Typical cost: 4 Character Points (1 Day -> 5 Minutes)
Rapid Rearrange: The character can rapidly move objects around in his close vicinity. All the affected objects must be within a half move of the character, he must be able to lift them with casual Strength, and they must not actively resist being moved (no attack roll required). Typical cost: 4 points (5 minutes -> 1 phase)


- KlausWell done! As others have noted, this may need a little tweaking, but this would also be good for Speed Reading, Lightning Calculator, and similar abilities.

[AnotherSkip]

I'm not sure what you argue that Firefighters are taught. Anyway, many of the Talents seem like something you could be taught, e.g. as part of martial arts training (though, arguably, it might not be something everybody can be taught).

- Klaus

If you have ever watched Sky High (Disney Superhero movie with all kinds of good actors well as lot's of classic super powers and some comedy) there is a scene wherein all the sidekicks practice Instant Change, including a failure, which could be unluck kicking in or a really really bad skill roll.

[James Gillen]

Don't most firefighters slide down the pole, hit a lever on the wall and come down suited up like Batman?

jg

[Markdoc]

Don't most firefighters slide down the pole, hit a lever on the wall and come down suited up like Batman?

jg

Uh, dude, I don't think I've even seen a firefighter dressed like Batman. That'd be kind of weird*. No, they have helmets and these big bulky coats.....

cheers, Mark




"Quick, Robin! Activate the Bat-fire-extension ladder!"

[Vulcan]

Instant change as a talent, related to cramming, speed-reading, lightning calculator... I like it.

[AnotherSkip]

I'd lay pretty good odds I could arrange to see a firefighter show up as Batman.. he's a buddy of mine and his kids LOVE superheros. Get to know some firefighters before October, if ya want to see one for yourself Sheesh!

(Though not to real fire, the man has a job to do)

[Doc Democracy]

Not 100% sure where to take this. I'm going in here as I think there should be a healing power and that starts with H regardless of what power is currently being used to deal with that issue.

I have just posted something in the main forums and thought it was worth repeating here.

I think that the current healing power is too cumbersome and bureaucratic. I would prefer having a properly defined healing power and the one I have in mind is the ability to stimulate a recovery in someone. You make an attack roll and, if successful, the person recovers STUN and END as if it was post segment 12. You could get an advantage that would allow REC/10 recovery of BODY.

I would make healing a half phase action (but it would ended your phase).

Doc

[Klaus Mogensen]

Not 100% sure where to take this. I'm going in here as I think there should be a healing power and that starts with H regardless of what power is currently being used to deal with that issue.
I wonder if there might be an idea in having a "Inverse Effect" advantage? Healing would then be HA or EB with "Inverse Effect" + "NND: defense is being unhurt" (since without NND, normal defenses would apply).

Can't offhand think of any other uses that aren't already duplicated by existing Powers (Darkness/Light, Growth/Shrinking, Suppress (Power), etc.). Might be worth toying with the idea, though.

- Klaus

[Vulcan]

I wonder if there might be an idea in having a "Inverse Effect" advantage? Healing would then be HA or EB with "Inverse Effect" + "NND: defense is being unhurt" (since without NND, normal defenses would apply).

Can't offhand think of any other uses that aren't already duplicated by existing Powers (Darkness/Light, Growth/Shrinking, Suppress (Power), etc.). Might be worth toying with the idea, though.

- Klaus

Owww...:nonp:
My head hurts trying to figure out where that could lead

[AnotherSkip]

Hmm... it could certainly cut down on the main powers list, though it could produce weird results like darkness field that when inversed would prevent all negative vision mods or would it prevent Per rolls from failing?

[Vulcan]

No, please, don't do this to my head....

[Netzilla]

Hmm... it could certainly cut down on the main powers list, though it could produce weird results like darkness field that when inversed would prevent all negative vision mods or would it prevent Per rolls from failing?

Depends, there was a suggestion at some point to drop Darkness as a separate power and roll it under Change Environment. If you do that and you allow CE to give bonuses as well as penalties, there's no need to apply the Inverse modifier as the inverse is simply CE with the opposite special effect and a bonus rather than a penalty.

Otherwise, the current definition of Darkness is that it makes a given area impenetrable to a given sense group. It seems to me that the inverse of this would make the area penetrable to a given sense. So, Darkness w/ Inverse would essentially be used to make an area transparent to a given sense group.

Also, it makes sense that there would be some powers to which the Inverse advantage would not apply: Images, Mind Control and Transform come to mind fairly quickly.

[AnotherSkip]

Sooo if you bought Darkness to hearing Inversed THEN if a tree fell in a forest with that field up who would hear it?

[Netzilla]

Sooo if you bought Darkness to hearing Inversed THEN if a tree fell in a forest with that field up who would hear it?

The squirrels & birds living in it, the person who put up the Inverse Darkness to Hearing field (you never mentioned it being Persistent or anything) and the person cutting down the tree (assuming it didn't fall on its own). The real question is how you keep that woodchuck from absconding with it after all your hard work. :p

[Tonio]

The squirrels & birds living in it, the person who put up the Inverse Darkness to Hearing field (you never mentioned it being Persistent or anything) and the person cutting down the tree (assuming it didn't fall on its own). The real question is how you keep that woodchuck from absconding with it after all your hard work. :p

Can woodchucks actually chuck wood, though? And if so, how much would they chuck?

[Chris Goodwin]

Can woodchucks actually chuck wood, though? And if so, how much would they chuck?

Per FAQ entry by Steve, (http://www.herogames.com/rulesFAQ.htm?ruleset=&section=&keywords=woodchuck&dateString=) assuming STR 0 or below, 2 cords per hour.

[AwesomusPrime]

Just to weigh in as a new GM on the HKA +STR issue:

None of my PCs are using KAs but many of the enemies do. As a result I've come across issues with trying not to slaughter my PCs with NPCs who weren't properly concieved.

At any rate one of the solutions was to say that the added STR damage is no