Powers Issues -- A-E [Archive] - Page 2 - HERO Games Discussion Boards

casualplayer

Apr 3rd, '08, 06:38 PM

Unless the power involved is uncontrolled or otherwise detached from the character. Does an Entangle go away when you change multipower slots?

Maybe 6th Ed would be a good time to revisit why Entangle doesn't require Continuous or Uncontrolled? Perfect chance to make the power into the Ranged Grab it's meant to be and then Advantage it up to what you actually want.

Pesky power has been hamstrung for decades because it was initially just cobbled together to simulate webbing and ice constructs and has been conscripted to do so much more.

CTaylor

Apr 3rd, '08, 06:44 PM

I always saw telekinesis as the ranged grab and entangle for stuff like nets. Fire and forget.

ajackson

Apr 3rd, '08, 07:12 PM

Gary

Apr 3rd, '08, 07:57 PM

Nice munchkinry! I call it the "round-off munchkin", but you forgot the cost of Uncontrolled. Without the Reduced END, it's a 51-point power. 51/10/2 = 2.55, which rounds to 3 END per phase.

You got me there! :)

However, it's easy enough to have a 11/12 FF with these advantages. Net cost of 4 pts for 23 pts of resistant defense and then you pay 1 End per phase. Or you can simply purchase some ultracheap End Reserves to power it... :eg:

Paragon

Apr 4th, '08, 12:28 PM

Maybe 6th Ed would be a good time to revisit why Entangle doesn't require Continuous or Uncontrolled? Perfect chance to make the power into the Ranged Grab it's meant to be and then Advantage it up to what you actually want.

Pesky power has been hamstrung for decades because it was initially just cobbled together to simulate webbing and ice constructs and has been conscripted to do so much more.

In 1e it _was_ a maintained power, but that was both silly for most constructs, and frankly, overpriced to fix, given how many targets can shrug out of most Entangles almost casually.

PhilFleischmann

Apr 5th, '08, 01:54 PM

You got me there! :)

However, it's easy enough to have a 11/12 FF with these advantages. Net cost of 4 pts for 23 pts of resistant defense and then you pay 1 End per phase. Or you can simply purchase some ultracheap End Reserves to power it... :eg:
Hmmm... Let's count the munchkin round-offs:

23 base points, +1/2 for Uncontrolled = 34.5 "END-Costing Points" -> 3.4 END, rounds to 3 (one). And 1/2 END makes the price of the power 40.25, rounds to 40 (two), /10 for the Ultra Slot = 4, costing 3/2 = 1.5 rounds to 1 (three) END.

Good job, munchkin! It might just work on less experienced GMs than me. But I used to pull this kind of stuff myself, so I know how to spot it in others. I have several methods to handle this. The first, and simplest is to round things off only once, so the END cost in my games would be 34.5/10/2 = 1.725, which rounds to 2.

And don't think I didn't notice how if you had but one additional point of defense, a 12/12 FF, the base cost would have been 24, the Uncontrolled would take it to 36, which would have an END cost of 3.6 rounding to 4.

ajackson

Apr 5th, '08, 05:56 PM

Hmmm... Let's count the munchkin round-offs
Yes, it's munchkin. What's your point? Munchkinness has nothing to do with legality.

casualplayer

Apr 5th, '08, 06:21 PM

In 1e it _was_ a maintained power, but that was both silly for most constructs, and frankly, overpriced to fix, given how many targets can shrug out of most Entangles almost casually.

Entangles are relatively fragile because they do stick around without having to be maintained and would dominate the game if they were both resilient and resource-cheap. Continuous Uncontrolled is a Stop Sign combo, and it's built into Entangle as things currently are.

I want a power that sets a threshold, defines a method of overcoming that threshold and suggests some Skills that may assist. I want a power that can be handcuffs, neurotoxins and mental paralysis. I want mental mazes that have to be escaped by INT effort with Deduction rolls supplimenting. I want a power that only has a BODY score if I buy it through Physical Manifestation or a Focus. I want a power that can simulate restraints that require constant exertion and concentration and can also simulate a fire-and-forget shackle, so give me the base power and I'll add Advantages like Cost END Only to Activate, Uncontrolled and Continuous if I feel they are appropriate.

Gary

Apr 6th, '08, 12:09 AM

Hmmm... Let's count the munchkin round-offs:

23 base points, +1/2 for Uncontrolled = 34.5 "END-Costing Points" -> 3.4 END, rounds to 3 (one). And 1/2 END makes the price of the power 40.25, rounds to 40 (two), /10 for the Ultra Slot = 4, costing 3/2 = 1.5 rounds to 1 (three) END.

Good job, munchkin! It might just work on less experienced GMs than me. But I used to pull this kind of stuff myself, so I know how to spot it in others. I have several methods to handle this. The first, and simplest is to round things off only once, so the END cost in my games would be 34.5/10/2 = 1.725, which rounds to 2.

And don't think I didn't notice how if you had but one additional point of defense, a 12/12 FF, the base cost would have been 24, the Uncontrolled would take it to 36, which would have an END cost of 3.6 rounding to 4.

That's what smart players do. They use the roundoffs in their favor. Unless you FORCE a player to always purchase the most inefficient number of points, this is simply what players do.

If you allow only 1 roundoff, then it would be 10/10 FF Uncontrolled 1/2 End. That's still 20 pts of resistant defense for 3 pts. I'm not sure why you feel that it's balanced.

AnotherSkip

Apr 6th, '08, 05:31 AM

Getting effective use out of your points IS a part of the game and not munchkinny at all. If the points had no value then give me 10K and everyone else 250 and ill build my character JUST as effective as everyone else. (seriously, I do do things like that you should see my background skills list)

CTaylor

Apr 6th, '08, 07:37 AM

Paragon

Apr 7th, '08, 08:52 AM

I agree, people throw the word munchkin and powergamer around a lot, it sort of loses it's meaning. Being efficient and trying not to spend too much on an effect, or being creative and building something interesting without throwing points at something is not a bad trait.

Yes. It can be a fine line, but there's a difference between "I'd like to get the effect I need for this character without excess spending" and trying to get something for nothing.

Tonio

Apr 8th, '08, 07:03 AM

Yes. It can be a fine line, but there's a difference between "I'd like to get the effect I need for this character without excess spending" and trying to get something for nothing.

I always thought that what differentiated a munchkin from an efficient spender was "character concept". Munchkins either ignored any sort of character concept, or picked one simply because it allows for more powerful and/or more efficient builds, while a non-munchkin sticks to concept, whether he decides to spend his points efficiently or not. Getting the most out of your FF points is not munchkinny if your character concept calls for a FF. Ditto for taking non-persistent, visble armor rather than 0 END FF. Going for KA instead of EB to represent your "Photonic Blast" simply because KAs are "better" is munchkinny, though.

Paragon

Apr 8th, '08, 08:37 AM

I always thought that what differentiated a munchkin from an efficient spender was "character concept". Munchkins either ignored any sort of character concept, or picked one simply because it allows for more powerful and/or more efficient builds, while a non-munchkin sticks to concept, whether he decides to spend his points efficiently or not. Getting the most out

I can't get on board that, because I think the word "game" in roleplaying game is as important as "roleplaying"; if playing the character I want is annoying enough (which can be the case with some concepts because of limits of system) I'll change concept. I don't consider that a munchkin choice, but simply a recognition that no matter how cool the concept, if its not going to work out mechanically, trying to do it is beating my head on a wall (and I'm willing to extend "not going to work out mechanically" to include concepts that cost too much for their operating procedure relative to effectiveness compared to others).

Tonio

Apr 8th, '08, 09:21 AM

I can't get on board that, because I think the word "game" in roleplaying game is as important as "roleplaying"; if playing the character I want is annoying enough (which can be the case with some concepts because of limits of system) I'll change concept. I don't consider that a munchkin choice, but simply a recognition that no matter how cool the concept, if its not going to work out mechanically, trying to do it is beating my head on a wall (and I'm willing to extend "not going to work out mechanically" to include concepts that cost too much for their operating procedure relative to effectiveness compared to others).

I didn't explain myself properly, sorry!

What I meant by "sticking to concept, whether the points are spent efficiently or not" was NOT that a non-munchkin would stick to concept, even if that meant spending points inefficiently, but that spending points efficiently does not make you a munchkin, as long as you're still building to concept. Like I mentioned in my post, non-persistent, visible Armor instead of FF is fine... desperately trying to come up with a justification of why your werewolf's claws are AVLD vs Resistant Smell/Taste Flash Defense is munchkinny.

By "sticking to concept" I didn't mean a blind, obsessive, strict adherence to a concept, and by "munchkin" I didn't mean any deviation from the original concept in the name of point efficiency. I should've been more clear.

Powergamer... well, I've always understood that phrase (in pen & paper RPGs, anyway) to mean someone who doesn't care (much) for concept, and makes that clear. The munchkin will try to convince you he's building to concept, and will try to fool his GM into letting him abuse the rules. The Powergamer is clear about wanting to build a powerful character, will abuse loopholes if allowed, but he'll be up-front and honest about it.

Paragon

Apr 8th, '08, 09:40 AM

By "sticking to concept" I didn't mean a blind, obsessive, strict adherence to a concept, and by "munchkin" I didn't mean any deviation from the original concept in the name of point efficiency. I should've been more clear.

Fair enough.

Powergamer... well, I've always understood that phrase (in pen & paper RPGs, anyway) to mean someone who doesn't care (much) for concept, and makes that clear. The munchkin will try to convince you he's building to concept, and will try to fool his GM into letting him abuse the rules. The Powergamer is clear about wanting to build a powerful character, will abuse loopholes if allowed, but he'll be up-front and honest about it.

Well, there are, effectively, both pathological and non-pathological power gamers; the latter want in-game power, want their characters to be buff, and may want a level of power not entirely compatible with the GM's view of how powerful PCs should be, but still pay some heed to characterization and their impact on the game as a whole (including other players). Pathological powegamers (like pathological versions of most stylistic preferences) don't really care about anything but what they focus on, including the overall health of the game.

CTaylor

Apr 8th, '08, 01:39 PM

Kdansky

Apr 8th, '08, 10:02 PM

I always thought that what differentiated a munchkin from an efficient spender was "character concept". Munchkins either ignored any sort of character concept, or picked one simply because it allows for more powerful and/or more efficient builds, while a non-munchkin sticks to concept, whether he decides to spend his points efficiently or not. Getting the most out of your FF points is not munchkinny if your character concept calls for a FF. Ditto for taking non-persistent, visble armor rather than 0 END FF. Going for KA instead of EB to represent your "Photonic Blast" simply because KAs are "better" is munchkinny, though.

I like the approach, but your example is exactly the wrong one. In this case, it's valid for anyone to complain. "Why should I pay 10 points more to get the same as the other guy? Is his concept *better*? No, it's not!"

Munchkinny would be to abuse certain loopholes in the rules which are unavoidable sometimes. Armorpiercing 1 pip KA; Flight 1" Trigger: When I Start Falling; Things like that. Complaining about Thing A being more expensive than Thing B, even though A is at best equivalently powerful, that is Efficient Spender.

Paragon also says it very well.

PhilFleischmann

Apr 9th, '08, 05:33 PM

It isn't just the choice of powers that raises the munckin alert for me. It's that the power happens to have just the right number of base points, and just the right combination of Advantages and Limitations that the player winds up getting three round-offs in his favor on point cost and/or END cost, and none that round against him. Now that could just be a coincidence, but how many of these "coincidences" have to occur before a GM becomes suspicious?

ajackson

Apr 9th, '08, 05:43 PM

Now that could just be a coincidence, but how many of these "coincidences" have to occur before a GM becomes suspicious?
An unlimited number. They're obviously not coincidences, but they also aren't marks of munchkinism per se.

PhilFleischmann

Apr 9th, '08, 05:57 PM

You said the exact opposite in your last post:

Yes, it's munchkin. What's your point? Munchkinness has nothing to do with legality.

Yes, violating the rules of the game isn't munchkin - it's cheating.

Munchkin is squeezing every last ounce of efficiency out of your points, within the rules, thus creating a character that is more powerful than his points indicate. One way to do this is the "round-off" method. I used to do it all the time, myself.

casualplayer

Apr 9th, '08, 07:26 PM

I would like 6th Ed. to have no munchkins. Make it so.

James Gillen

Apr 10th, '08, 12:47 AM

I would like 6th Ed. to have no munchkins. Make it so.

No.

Gary

Apr 10th, '08, 05:19 AM

You said the exact opposite in your last post:

Yes, violating the rules of the game isn't munchkin - it's cheating.

Munchkin is squeezing every last ounce of efficiency out of your points, within the rules, thus creating a character that is more powerful than his points indicate. One way to do this is the "round-off" method. I used to do it all the time, myself.

Do you consider people who buy Str divisible by 5, Dex divisible by 3, or Int and Con ending in 3 or 8 to be "munchkins"?

ajackson

Apr 10th, '08, 09:13 AM

Munchkin is squeezing every last ounce of efficiency out of your points, within the rules, thus creating a character that is more powerful than his points indicate. One way to do this is the "round-off" method. I used to do it all the time, myself.
Well, it depends on what definition of munchkin you're using. By that definition, munchkinism isn't really a problem, so who cares if it's munchkin?

casualplayer

Apr 10th, '08, 11:10 AM

No.

Awww, c'mon. Pretty please.

Munchkinism is gaming the system instead of playing the game. It has its place but ultimately you're "beating" a game while playing in God Mode and that makes for a boring story. I game to craft tales that I would want to retell and an audience would be anxious to hear.

Pretty sure Munchkinism doesn't start with any of the letters found between A-E.

James Gillen

Apr 10th, '08, 01:04 PM

Pretty sure Munchkinism doesn't start with any of the letters found between A-E.

That's assuming munchkins care about spelling.

JG

CTaylor

Apr 10th, '08, 04:24 PM

I'd like to see Clairsentience folded into enhanced senses. Instead of being a separate power, you could just buy these elements as sense modifiers:

DISTANT: places your senses at a distant location rather than from yourself - indirect in a sense, but it must be within line of site. You could in effect put your ears over across the room, and listen from there. This would require an attack roll for the hex perhaps, and range as a normal power rather than typical sense range. Then from that location you use normal sense range modifiers.

This would let people buy weird "look around corner" type of powers, remote sensing with drones, cameras, etc.

Perhaps 5 points for sense, 10 for sense group for the price, perhaps.

REMOTE: As distant, above, but indirect, you can place your sense anywhere you want within the range, bought as a normal range attack. An attack roll might be used. This would be the full "clairsentience" power: buy this on a sense, and it's now clairsentient.

Perhaps 10 points for a sense, 20 for the full sense group equalling present Clairsentience cost.

Then you could take the other clairsentience elements such as postcognition and add them in to the sense categories. You can sense the past with your eyes in this area, but not remotely.

For looking into the path I suggest using the steps up the time chart in the past as a PER modifier, by the way. It's a house rule I've used a while: the longer ago the event was, the more hazy the information.

AnotherSkip

Apr 12th, '08, 07:18 AM

Instead of N-Ray vision.
how about Penetrating or Piercing Sense thus in addtion to the requirement that there be a simple and commonly used defense against the enhanced sense then it could be argued that hardening the defenses in question could negate the Penetrating sense without resorting to tons of unusual metals abounding.

For example Inhuman has Sonar abilities he bought his penetating thus with a whisper of power he could pierce the concealment of the well designed puzzle box and solve the puzzle without resorting to an x ray like vision description however his abilities are stopped by sound proofing as well as hardened defenses.

Then the various x-ray type visions would be examples and not the base thought powers.

Guelphite

Apr 17th, '08, 07:19 AM

BobGreenwade

Apr 17th, '08, 07:56 AM

Hi all,
I was wondering about changing hearing and making it into a targeting sense.
Since I lost my hearing in my right ear (a really bad head cold did this), I have problems distinguishing which direction the sound came from.

Thanks.It's not really "Targeting," but rather "Directional." I think making Directional a sub-function of Targeting has some merit as an idea, though; maybe it could cost 5 points for a single Sense, and 10 for a Sense Group (half of Targeting). That would allow the Sense to be used in the manner described for blinded characters (subjected to Sight-based Flash and Darkness); if the character doesn't have a Directional Sense like Hearing, he's at an even greater penalty.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 17th, '08, 08:33 AM

Hi all,
I was wondering about changing hearing and making it into a targeting sense.
Since I lost my hearing in my right ear (a really bad head cold did this), I have problems distinguishing which direction the sound came from.

Thanks.

It's not really "Targeting," but rather "Directional." I think making Directional a sub-function of Targeting has some merit as an idea, though; maybe it could cost 5 points for a single Sense, and 10 for a Sense Group (half of Targeting). That would allow the Sense to be used in the manner described for blinded characters (subjected to Sight-based Flash and Darkness); if the character doesn't have a Directional Sense like Hearing, he's at an even greater penalty.

Range provides Directional; Targeting lets you locate the target exactly. I think there's a way in the rules-as-written to buy a Ranged Sense without the Directional part.

Paragon

Apr 17th, '08, 10:36 AM

It's not really "Targeting," but rather "Directional." I think making Directional a sub-function of Targeting has some merit as an idea, though; maybe it could cost 5 points for a single Sense, and 10 for a Sense Group (half of Targeting). That would allow the Sense to be used in the manner described for blinded characters (subjected to Sight-based Flash and Darkness); if the character doesn't have a Directional Sense like Hearing, he's at an even greater penalty.

In fact, I'd been sort of faking this effect with Discriminatory in building spells that located things; I'm not clear on what, this side of Targeting, actually does that precisely within the system as-is.

Paragon

Apr 17th, '08, 10:37 AM

Range provides Directional; Targeting lets you locate the target exactly. I think there's a way in the rules-as-written to buy a Ranged Sense without the Directional part.

I was under the impression all range did was to allow you to be aware of the data outside of touch range.

Guelphite

Apr 17th, '08, 11:56 AM

So in game terms how would I explain my disadvantage?
Signed
Confused

JmOz

Apr 18th, '08, 04:37 PM

AnotherSkip

Apr 25th, '08, 05:59 AM

As a minor, Frequently Physical disad

Ok, on what I wanted to talk about

I don't like END reserve, can we talk about a few ideas to improve it?

My problem is that many times concept demands an END reserve, but charges is a better deal, I know originaly it was a limitation, and I wonder if maybe we should take a close look at charges to figure out a model for it, the whole Sometimes advantage or limitations, of course there would be some of the openings for abuse

Thoughts? I really don't know what to do with this, but I do see it as a problem...

how about starting off with the for 5 points doubles rules then for 5 points you could have twice the End you have now and call that an end reserve?
then perhaps allow a few modifiers? ie OIF to make it a part of the suit. Hmm but by doing this, what happens if the character buy's additional body this way or stun?

dmoonfire

Apr 26th, '08, 10:16 AM

I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of discussion about making bags of holding, pocket dimensions (even the large ones from the Hawk and Fisher series), or Alan Dean Foster's Slipt. I know there is a ton of ways of doing it, at least according to the forums, but it would be nice to have something specifically extra-dimensional and container-like.

Christougher

May 3rd, '08, 07:14 PM

Change Environment:

Lift the restriction against creating beneficial effects.

Drop the ability for Telekinesis, Damage, etcetera. That's what Linked Powers are for.

Drop the artificial requirement for Images "Only to Create Light".

Heck, fold Images into Change Environment. You can then use this power to affect stats and stat rolls.

Trebuchet

May 3rd, '08, 07:33 PM

Change Environment:

Drop the artificial requirement for Images "Only to Create Light".iI totally agree. I'd at least like to see Change Environment be able to counter adverse affects. IOW, it might not provide bonuses but it should be able to counter or neutralize penalties from environmental conditions; such as negating the Sight penalties for night or fog.

Christougher

May 3rd, '08, 07:36 PM

Borrowing from the Characteristics thread: If PD and ED are combined into a single DEF stat, we should take the time to combine Armor and Force Field into a single Defense power.

Resistant Mental, Power, and Flash Defense should also be allowed, and the Protects Carried adder should be kept. This reduces the Armor vs Force Field issue to Special Effect.

Defense should be Visible and Cost END like most powers, and if priced at 2 AP per DEF, maintains a parity such that 60 AP of defense provides the maximum allowed defense against a 60 AP attack.

Southern Cross

May 3rd, '08, 09:10 PM

I'm with Trebuchet and Christougher.I also think that a Visible Power with No Range should be easier to give Invisible Power Effects to- i.e. IPE would be bought at half normal cost.
For example:
+10 DEF Armor: would be bought as +10 External DEF, 0 END Persistent(+1),Normally Invisible (+1/4),Always On (-1/2) (45 Active,30 Real).

Balabanto

May 8th, '08, 08:17 AM

Tonio

May 8th, '08, 08:36 AM

Well, this feeds directly into the post I was going to make.

According to Steve, armor doesn't have to be visible when you buy it.

I think this is a colossal mistake, and here's why.

1) Invisible Persistent Force Field costs no different. (10/10 Armor, 30 Points). 10/10 0 END, Persistent, Fully Invisible Force Field, 30 points.

2) It allows people the luxury of defining one power as another power.

Examples: I define my damage resistance or armor as an invisible force field.

I define my RKA as an Energy Blast.

Why is this bad?

It's bad because NND and AVLD exist. Bad enough some guy just paid points for a power which the GM tells him "Okay. you know he's covered in an invisible force field."

Martial Artist says "Helleluleah! Finally!" and he leaps up to him and strikes with his nerve strike, doing...NOTHING.

This is counterintuitive to the fun quotient of the game.

It's also counterintuitive to what the power says.

Armor should be armor

Force Fields should be force fields.

Damage Resistance should be just that.

I'm not gonna argue as to whether Armor being invisible by default and FF being visible by default is a good thing... but what your argument really points out is a flaw in defining NNDs against game mechanics. NNDs should always be against SFXs. Even if they're defined against game mechanics, the GM should adjust that based on common sense. If the NND is defined against "Force Field", and a character has Armor defined as a field of force, the NND should bounce. If a character has FF defined as a metal plate covering, the NND should work.

Building powers with different Powers (note capitalization) is perfectly fine. Armor isn't "hard, physical plating covering my body", although it can be defined as such. Armor is "resistant defenses", and it costs no END, and is Persistent, and is not visible. Force Field is "resistant defenses", and it costs END, and is not Persistent, and is visible. Any power (lowercase "p") representing resistant defenses can conceivably be built with either Armor or FF (or even straight up PD/ED/Damage Resistance). Common sense should always apply, though... to prevent Armor, Costs END (abusive) and FF, 0 END, Persistent, IPE (overcosted).

Christougher

May 8th, '08, 10:00 AM

1) Invisible Persistent Force Field costs no different. (10/10 Armor, 30 Points). 10/10 0 END, Persistent, Fully Invisible Force Field, 30 points.

Major math mistake there: 10/10 Force Field: 20 AP 0 END Persistent(+1) Fully Invisible(+1) that's 60 points, not 30.

Armor should be armor

Force Fields should be force fields.

Damage Resistance should be just that.

No, those are all just the special effect of Resistant defenses.

Balabanto

May 8th, '08, 12:31 PM

NND is broken if you look at the rules that way.

Force field is an NND defense.

Armor is an NND defense.

Damage Resistance is an NND Defense.

There are others, but those are three of the most common.

You are right about the math error, however, I would like to point out that this is actually a second problem. For armor, those advantages are "Free." You don't have to pay for them if you define your "Invisible Force Field" as Armor.

Tonio

May 8th, '08, 12:41 PM

NND is broken if you look at the rules that way.

Force field is an NND defense.

Armor is an NND defense.

Damage Resistance is an NND Defense.

There are others, but those are three of the most common.

Again, NNDs aren't broken that way... building NNDs that way is broken. Defenses for NNDs should not be Powers, they should be SFXs. Sometimes it's OK to use Powers (or Advantages or Limitations) in there, but only when the SFX it represents is clear, or when no other Power, Advantage, or Limitation will conceivably overlap (i.e. Hardened Defenses... there's no other way to build that particular effect). Building an NND against Force Field (the Power), Armor (the Power), or Damage Resistance (the Power) is broken. Building one against Resistant Defenses is not (not a good idea, maybe, but not broken). Building one against Resistant, Physical Defenses is ok, too (again, probably not a good idea). Building it against Force Fields (the SFX) is fine, too. A Force Field (the Power) defined as a field of force would stop it. One defined as an aura of fire would not. Armor (the Power) defined as a field of force would also stop it.

The problem isn't with NND, it's with using it wrong.

It's like taking a Vulnerability to Energy Blasts (the Power).

ajackson

May 8th, '08, 02:14 PM

Defenses for NNDs should not be Powers, they should be SFXs.
I disagree. Defenses for NNDs should be Powers, not SFXs. The problem is that Force Field (or Armor) isn't really an appropriate choice for a defense against an NND to start with (in fact, in my experience pretty much nothing except Life Support is an appropriate choice).

Hugh Neilson

May 8th, '08, 06:02 PM

It's also counterintuitive to what the power says.

Armor should be armor

Force Fields should be force fields.

Damage Resistance should be just that.

Energy Blasts should never be permitted to act against anything but Energy Defense.

Flash should be restricted to bright lights.

Darkness should never block anything but sight, and only normal sight at that.

Running should never involve wheels.

Armor piercing attacks should only reduce Armor, not other defenses.

Elemental Controls should be available only for actual elements - if it's not on the periodic table, it's not legitimate!

In other words, I disagree. I consider it fundamental to Hero that SFX are as or more important as the mechanic used to define them.

I'm not gonna argue as to whether Armor being invisible by default and FF being visible by default is a good thing... but what your argument really points out is a flaw in defining NNDs against game mechanics. NNDs should always be against SFXs. Even if they're defined against game mechanics, the GM should adjust that based on common sense. If the NND is defined against "Force Field", and a character has Armor defined as a field of force, the NND should bounce. If a character has FF defined as a metal plate covering, the NND should work.

Exactly!

ideasmith

May 9th, '08, 11:15 AM

According to Steve, armor doesn't have to be visible when you buy it.
I think this is a colossal mistake, and here's why.

Armor has been Invisible, and Force Field Visible, at least since 1986, and you are the first person I've noticed complaining about it.

2) It allows people the luxury of defining one power as another power.

Yes it does. HERO is so flexible that there are multiple builds for almost any ability you can imagine. Removing this feature would also remove this systems flexibility. HERO is aimed at gamers who like that flexibility. If HERO is revised to remove that flexibility, the systems fans will be enraged (Fuzion,anyone?).

Tonio

May 9th, '08, 11:54 AM

Armor has been Invisible, and Force Field Visible, at least since 1986, and you are the first person I've noticed complaining about it.

Nah, lots of people have pointed that out before, specifically how Armor gets Advantages for free. It's not a huge deal, and all it does, I think, is point out how the "END-costing powers are visible, non-END-costing ones are not" rule is slightly off.

Yes it does. HERO is so flexible that there are multiple builds for almost any ability you can imagine. Removing this feature would also remove this systems flexibility. HERO is aimed at gamers who like that flexibility. If HERO is revised to remove that flexibility, the systems fans will be enraged (Fuzion,anyone?).

Right. =)
This does bring with it an added responsibility, tho, in that you have know when to use Powers and when to use SFX, and when to use both.

ideasmith

May 9th, '08, 12:14 PM

Nah, lots of people have pointed that out before, specifically how Armor gets Advantages for free. It's not a huge deal, and all it does, I think, is point out how the "END-costing powers are visible, non-END-costing ones are not" rule is slightly off.

By my calculations, if the total in other Advantages exceeds +6, the Invisible Persistent Force Field will be cheaper.

Edit: Okay, that is a bit nitpicky.

Hugh Neilson

May 9th, '08, 07:27 PM

Nah, lots of people have pointed that out before, specifically how Armor gets Advantages for free. It's not a huge deal, and all it does, I think, is point out how the "END-costing powers are visible, non-END-costing ones are not" rule is slightly off.

To me, the problem is that Costs END bundles in Visible (requiring +1 of advantages to offset) and nonpersistent (requiring an added +1/2 advantage to eliminate) in addition to costing END (requiring +1/2 to offset).

Mechanically, why take Costs END for -1/2 when Visible and Nonpersistent will save the same points and you don't spend END?

I'd like to see better symmetry in advantages and limitations. If IPE is really worth +1, Visible is way too low at -1/4.

Southern Cross

May 9th, '08, 08:47 PM

I agree-I once calculated that if making a Force Field Normally Invisible was only a +1/4 Advantage,than an Always On,Normally Invisible Force Field would have the same Real Cost as Armor.You could build one Power that could simulate both Armor & Force Field.

PhilFleischmann

May 10th, '08, 12:48 PM

If IPE is really worth +1, Visible is way too low at -1/4.
That's the problem: IPE is definitely NOT worth +1 for non-Attack Powers. I'm not sure it's even worth +1/4.

ideasmith

May 10th, '08, 01:40 PM

That's the problem: IPE is definitely NOT worth +1 for non-Attack Powers. I'm not sure it's even worth +1/4.

The HERO rules do (usually) assume that a modifiers value is not affected by what it modifies. This assumption has obvious benefits. And obvious problems.

PhilFleischmann

May 10th, '08, 02:02 PM

The HERO rules do (usually) assume that a modifiers value is not affected by what it modifies. This assumption has obvious benefits. And obvious problems.
That's the (IMO incorrect) assumption that 5th edition makes. Let's hope that 6th doesn't. The only "benefit" I can see is simplicity. IMO, fairness takes precedence over simplicity.

A foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds. Things that are different need to be treated differently.

Hugh Neilson

May 10th, '08, 02:35 PM

For that matter, is it really worth a +1/2 advantage for your power to only be visible to sight, or +1/4 to only be visible and audible, but not detectable by a third sense?

Paragon

May 11th, '08, 12:49 PM

That's the (IMO incorrect) assumption that 5th edition makes. Let's hope that 6th doesn't. The only "benefit" I can see is simplicity. IMO, fairness takes precedence over simplicity.

A foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds. Things that are different need to be treated differently.

Its not an issue limited to 5th though; Hero's always run in that direction. I don't disagree that you sometimes can't apply a one-size-fits-all cost and have it make any sense though.

Toranoko

May 11th, '08, 03:04 PM

What about Extra-Dimensional Movement? This seems to be a power that opens up huge cans of worms (big, nasty worms with sharp teeth -- which is quite a feat for worms!) wherever it appears.

*nods*

I would like to see Extra-Dimensional movement changed a bit myself. I will present two "case studies" and then try to suggest a solution ...

1) A PC that has a base in a "pocket dimension" wants to send innocents there to protect them from the combat; they can then return as soon as the combat is over. This is not an "attack" in the traditional sense of the word since she never sends enemies to her base -- only innocents, and then only to protect them.

2) A self-created world in a Crossworlds-Fantasy (Cyberbpunk + High Fantasy) genre' has an easily accessible "fourth dimension" (through which the worlds train systems run) as well as the Cyberspace "dimension" and the "traditional" dimensions (shadow, light, Heavens, Hells, Hungry Ghost, ...).

The only solution I can come up with is an "easiness" cost. As a metaphor, getting from Interstate I80 to I5 is easier than getting from I 10 to a Canadian interstate. I would also suggest making the costs more consistent with Teleport (i.e. both 5 pts per level or both +1/4 advantage per doubling, especially since they often share a common special effect (e.g. Teleporting by shifting to the dimension of Shadow and taking a step ...

On a similar note (not truly differentiable), Gates seem to have an especially disproportionate cost when dealing with vehicles (e.g. 20 points on the Vehicle, but 100+ when external). As a specific example, my Fourth Dimensional Trains find it easier to move themselves than to move through a Gate, which happens to be the exact opposite of the effect I'm going for. (As a second example, think of Babylon 5 (TM) and Hyperspace ...).

John Price

Paragon

May 12th, '08, 08:30 AM

For that matter, is it really worth a +1/2 advantage for your power to only be visible to sight, or +1/4 to only be visible and audible, but not detectable by a third sense?

The answer is "sometimes" for a stealth or Invisibility oriented build, I'd say the targeting sense block is easily worth what it costs. The others--perhaps not so much, and neither is worth that much on a build not set up to take advantage of it.

But that's the bottom line with costing in general; they always make some assumptions about the typical case, and IPE assumes the character will be set up to take advantage of it.

ajackson

May 12th, '08, 10:26 AM

For that matter, is it really worth a +1/2 advantage for your power to only be visible to sight, or +1/4 to only be visible and audible, but not detectable by a third sense?
IPE is generally only worthwhile for effects that target other people. On powers that have a target of Self it should probably be +1/4.

AnotherSkip

May 23rd, '08, 06:57 AM

ideasmith

May 23rd, '08, 08:00 AM

Balabanto

May 23rd, '08, 01:21 PM

Desolidification is already broken. In my game, you have to define 3 SFX or a broad group that affects you.

Why?

Because of the Vulnerability chart and the way it defines attacks. A very common attack is worth more points. So technically, a very common attack would be worth the full value.

The way this should work is that you have to name a number of effects equal to the commonality of the effect.

Very Common: 1

Common: 2, or 1 common and 2 rares

Rare: 3

This balances Desolidification out against the guy who says "Well, my character is affected by disruption rays and disruption fields."

Hugh Neilson

May 24th, '08, 06:04 AM

Oies So I was screwing up over on the general boards and channeling the old 4th rules on Desolid.

after selflessly berating myself I have a question
Should Desolid with the BOECV Modifer actally be a disadvantage? after all you lose a lot and it isn't worth 80 points to be unaffected by the "mental World" if it is only worth 40 to be unaffected by Physical and Energy.

So what do you guys think.

Perhaps Desolid should be made more granular, including Mental desolid, such that you can purchase it in smaller increments to gain portions of the ability, much like Life Support (eg. "Desolid to physical world", "Desolid to Mental world", "Pass through barriers"). I'd also like to see the ability to affect the solid world become a modifier to Desolid, rather than to attacks - it changes the utility of being desolid more than it changes the attack.

Desolidification is already broken. In my game, you have to define 3 SFX or a broad group that affects you.

Why?

Because of the Vulnerability chart and the way it defines attacks. A very common attack is worth more points. So technically, a very common attack would be worth the full value.

The way this should work is that you have to name a number of effects equal to the commonality of the effect.

Very Common: 1

Common: 2, or 1 common and 2 rares

Rare: 3

This balances Desolidification out against the guy who says "Well, my character is affected by disruption rays and disruption fields."

"Why can they make a potato chip in less than a second and it takes us months to design software?"

I don't see how Vulnerability pricing has anything to do with the effects that a Desolid character is exposed to. An NND has to be defined with sufficiently common defenses that block it. Desolid has to be defined with a sufficiently common attack group that effects it. It doesn't mean both must be equally common.

One could as easily say that Desolid must have a Rare effect that overrides it, and allow a limitation for more common effects. I've never found Desolid unbalances my games, since it basically means removal from combat. It's a great scouting power, but equal points invested in Clairsentience can achieve superior results in many cases. Define its SFX as "the character's ghostly form travels to where he wants to see events (limitation: time to activate based on distance) and returns.

Balabanto

May 24th, '08, 09:20 PM

Wow, Hugh. You must never have seen a character who did this before.

Phase 12. I am attacked. Abort to desolid.

Phase 3. I am still desolid. I start my haymaker. Phase 4, just before my haymaker lands, I shift my multipower into density increase as part of my attack action.

The problem is that Desolidification is so much better than high DCV that it isn't funny. If you have Desolidification, it's like having dodge against everything in the world.

There's a lot of ways to mess with the combat rules using Desolidification.

Plus, the game is only so much fun if desolidification is too frequent.

Hugh Neilson

May 24th, '08, 09:25 PM

Wow, Hugh. You must never have seen a character who did this before.

Phase 12. I am attacked. Abort to desolid.

Phase 3. I am still desolid. I start my haymaker. Phase 4, just before my haymaker lands, I shift my multipower into density increase as part of my attack action.

I wouldn't allow that approach. In my view, once the character has started the Haymaker, his phase is over. All that's left is for the attack to be resolved. The time delay between initiating the action and it taking effect does not allow the character to take any other actions - including zero phase actions - while waiting for the attack to take effect.

BobGreenwade

May 25th, '08, 08:16 AM

I wouldn't allow that approach. In my view, once the character has started the Haymaker, his phase is over. All that's left is for the attack to be resolved. The time delay between initiating the action and it taking effect does not allow the character to take any other actions - including zero phase actions - while waiting for the attack to take effect.I'm with Hugh here. I've always believed that switching Multipower slots, or performing any similar action, in mid-Haymaker is illegal -- and if it isn't, it darn well should be.

ideasmith

May 25th, '08, 08:34 AM

I'm with Hugh here. I've always believed that switching Multipower slots, or performing any similar action, in mid-Haymaker is illegal -- and if it isn't, it darn well should be.

Or in the middle of any Action. You would have to cancel the Haymaker to abort to "turn off Desolid" (which I would construe as a defensive action; it prevents Desolid opponents from attacking you).

AnotherSkip

May 26th, '08, 06:00 AM

Turning off the desolid is merly a side effect of adjusting the Multipower. I would probably have the ruling of the haymakes starts on Dex 1 of phase 3(still optimising) and has to have everything o phased (including pushing strength and any multipower slot switching) done at that point. however this is when you expend End also. the good news is that if DR Destroyer is warming up his negablast and aiming at you on 4 you can go desolid on 4 as an abortive defensive action or pray that you don't lose anything because he might roll low.

which does bring up having a MP with IPE could be very very useful.

Hugh Neilson

May 26th, '08, 06:13 AM

Turning off the desolid is merly a side effect of adjusting the Multipower.

Adjusting the Multipower is a zero phase action, the same as turning off the Desolid. Both would require you to Abort to undertake outside your phase. In my view, your phase ended when you began the Haymaker, not when it lands.

I would probably have the ruling of the haymakes starts on Dex 1 of phase 3(still optimising) and has to have everything o phased (including pushing strength and any multipower slot switching) done at that point. however this is when you expend End also. the good news is that if DR Destroyer is warming up his negablast and aiming at you on 4 you can go desolid on 4 as an abortive defensive action or pray that you don't lose anything because he might roll low.

You could also have aborted to dive for cover, or some other defensive action.

As well, my rule is that DEX 1 does not exist as a tangible, detectable point in time. If the DEX 15 agents moved, and no one else announces a move, it's Phase 4. It's too late to go back and say "wait, I wanted to use my action before Phase 3 ended". There's no announcer who broadcasts "Coming up next - Phase 4" so you get a last chance to act in Phase 3.

Hugh Neilson

May 26th, '08, 06:14 AM

which does bring up having a MP with IPE could be very very useful.

Are you saying that, if I have a 60 AP multipower with a 12d6 EB and a 6d6 Fully IPE EB, I'm somehow better off to Haymaker the 6d6 EB up to 10d6 than just fire the 12d6 EB without penalties?

AnotherSkip

May 27th, '08, 04:58 AM

If Doc Destroyer Can't tell whether you are Desolid or Haymakering your EB it might be useful.

AnotherSkip

May 27th, '08, 05:04 AM

Here is a different point: why dont we drain the transmit on our hearing sense instead of building darkness fields to transmitting hearing for one character in order to represent someone being silenced?

Hugh Neilson

May 27th, '08, 05:09 AM

If Doc Destroyer Can't tell whether you are Desolid or Haymakering your EB it might be useful.

If my normal 12d6 EB (non-haymakered) isn't going to do the job, my Haymakered 6d6 IPE EB, now up to 10d6, won't be superior.

Kdansky

May 27th, '08, 08:36 PM

12d6 vs 10d6 haymaker IPE
Both have their uses. In the first case, you do 20% more damage (duh) and don't suffer any -5 DCV for haymaker. In the second case, you might just be able to sneak an IPE Attack in without anyone noticing that you are attacking. And you don't lose 50% of your attack power, only one sixth.

Switching powers in an MP *during* a haymaker? I am extremly certain that is illegal. You cannot do Zero-Phase Actions during an Attack Action. You can do it before, but not mid-strike. So you can either haymaker while desolid for 0 dice, or you can haymaker while not desolid, for 16 dice give or take. And with give or take I mean: You either give them, or take them... :)

AnotherSkip

May 28th, '08, 06:20 AM

the IPE Point was Doc can't tell if you are winding up to lay down the smackdown or you are pretending to set it up so that he tries to blast you before you lay the loving on him.

AnotherSkip

May 28th, '08, 07:05 AM

Does damage resisitance have to be only for damage could it be used for grabs? IE only 1/2 the body rolled on the grab dice count against the defender if they have 50% DR Grab effects. closer to a slippery effect IMNSHO.

CTaylor

May 28th, '08, 11:54 AM

Not really a 6th edition topic, but I'd certainly allow it; at the non-resistant cost level too. Neat idea.

ideasmith

May 28th, '08, 05:20 PM

Not really a 6th edition topic, but I'd certainly allow it; at the non-resistant cost level too. Neat idea.

Seems like a 6th edition topic to me. The current rules limit Damage Reduction to affecting damage. Should 6th edition rules do the same?

Adding Grab/Entangle to the Damage Reduction categories seems like a good idea, though a name change for Damage Reduction would seem to go with it, and there might be other side effects I haven't considered.

CTaylor

May 28th, '08, 06:06 PM

ideasmith

May 28th, '08, 06:19 PM

I'm not sure the rules limit damage reduction to damage, but if they do I've modified them heavily in my game for other effects (flash, drains, etc). Anything you can count should be fair game for damage reduction.

5ER page 143, although Body Drains and Stun Drains count as damage and, per page 144, Mental Damage Reduction is an exception.

Balabanto

May 30th, '08, 01:09 PM

I'm not sure the rules limit damage reduction to damage, but if they do I've modified them heavily in my game for other effects (flash, drains, etc). Anything you can count should be fair game for damage reduction.

See my earlier post on why Damage Reduction is broken.

Vulcan

May 30th, '08, 04:26 PM

Munchknness... sigh.

Most of us go through this phase sooner or later (usually sooner). The need to make every CP scream as we streach it out to make it go as far as it can is a common characteristic of most players at some time in one's gaming career.

The best cure for that is one that a GM I played with told us. Mario simply said, "Rape the rules all you want, guys. But remember, I'll be using the same standards on my NPC's..."

We had the most reasonably built set of characters I have ever seen in a PC group for that game. And he stayed true to his word, even when we went up against Mechanon (and think about all the nasty things that could be done to make him more point-effiecient), we weren't in over our heads - any more than any other group in the same spot, that is.

Vulcan

May 30th, '08, 04:47 PM

On the Armor/Force Field/rPD issue...

I've always seen Armor as being a visible thing. In fact, the idea of having invisible armor seems counterintuitive... isn't that what buying damage resistance is supposed to be for?

A force field is something the character does, he puts it up and maintains it. Make it 0END, Invisible, whatever, there's still an active element to it. The defese keeps the attack from reaching the person entirely.

Armor is either worn (plate mail, a bullet-proof vest) or otherwise visble (scaly hide, rocky skin). An IIF concealed armor is hidden under other clothing - strip off the outer layer and it's still visible.

Damage resistance is how Superman stays bulletproof even as Clark Kent. It doesn't make you look different, it just makes you resist killing attacks.

So in this case, yes, armor is somwhat cheaper than a persistent force field. At the same time, the benefits are slightly different as well. A force field might make a great defense against mustard gas, which would be absorbed right into the skin of someone with armor or rPD. Such things come up a lot when dealing with NND's. And that's why I think the three powers should remain separate and distinct.

Now, if Damage Resistance becomes a +1/2 advantage Resistant and Armor and FF loose their inherent resistance, then the balance of things change. Assuming armor cost doesn't change, then 10/10 Armor, Resistant becomes 45 AP. 10/10 FF, 0END Persistant, Resistant, becomse 50 AP. A pretty balanced result, don't you think? rPD retains its role as bulletproof skin, Armor (and costs the same as armor, once you get past the starting 'free' PD), the others have clearly defined rolls, and there you go.

Paragon

May 31st, '08, 01:23 PM

Vulcan

May 31st, '08, 02:18 PM

We all knew that Mario knew the rules just as well as we did. And he wasn't restricted to 350 points, either.

AnotherSkip

Jun 1st, '08, 08:30 AM

Armor is the generally accepted way to build Invulnerability, not Damage resistance because after all you cannot buy more DR than you have PD & ED, therefore why bother buying them up at the same cost ratio as Armor power when by having a separate power you can get something for the same points and split up your defenses for targeting against Drains/Supresses?

Paragon

Jun 1st, '08, 11:15 AM

We all knew that Mario knew the rules just as well as we did. And he wasn't restricted to 350 points, either.

That was just as true in the cases I refered to.

Klaus Mogensen

Jun 1st, '08, 02:44 PM

I have a problem with the way END Reserve works (unless this was changed between 5e and 5er):

When buying an END Reserve with slow recovery, you get a -½ limitation on the REC cost per step on the Time Table the recovery is slower. However, this can never be cheaper than just buying REC 1 without any limitations (1 point), and this will lead to as quick recovery as REC 5 per minute (3 points), REC 25 per 5 minutes (12 points), REC 100 per 20 minutes (40 points), etc.

In other words, there is never any cost reduction in taking slow recovery on an END Reserve. Anything that limits a power should be worth points.

One fix is to require a minimum of e.g. REC 16, which means that you would get cost breaks for taking limitations. Or let REC be a fixed fraction of the END in the pool (which IIRC it was before 4e).

- Klaus

Vulcan

Jun 1st, '08, 07:19 PM

That was just as true in the cases I refered to.

Maybe there was also a greater level of respect there as well...

ajackson

Jun 1st, '08, 08:36 PM

On the Armor/Force Field/rPD issue...

I've always seen Armor as being a visible thing. In fact, the idea of having invisible armor seems counterintuitive... isn't that what buying damage resistance is supposed to be for?
Given that armor has exactly the same cost as the same amount of PD, ED, and damage resistance, armor is logically just a package of those three effects.

ideasmith

Jun 1st, '08, 09:04 PM

Armor is either worn (plate mail, a bullet-proof vest) or otherwise visble (scaly hide, rocky skin). An IIF concealed armor is hidden under other clothing - strip off the outer layer and it's still visible.

Per 5ER, page 102, powers that inherently cost no END are invisible unless bought with the Limitation Visible. Armor is given as an example.

Paragon

Jun 2nd, '08, 08:24 AM

Maybe there was also a greater level of respect there as well...

At which point the implied threat shouldn't have been necessary.

Vulcan

Jun 2nd, '08, 10:24 AM

Per 5ER, page 102, powers that inherently cost no END are invisible unless bought with the Limitation Visible. Armor is given as an example.

I'm not saying that it isn't now. I just think that it shouldn't be (perhaps this is a good example of a change for 6ED). Otherwise, why bother with Damage Resistance?

Vulcan

Jun 2nd, '08, 10:25 AM

At which point the implied threat shouldn't have been necessary.

Hmm... didn't think of it that way. I guess because the way he said it sounded more like a joke that we took semi-seriously.

Paragon

Jun 2nd, '08, 10:47 AM

I'm not saying that it isn't now. I just think that it shouldn't be (perhaps this is a good example of a change for 6ED). Otherwise, why bother with Damage Resistance?

Well, as long as figured characteristics still exist, it serves to make defense already bought resistant without having to buy more, which you couldn't do if you only had armor. If figureds don't exist, in practice there wouldn't be much point in DR.

Paragon

Jun 2nd, '08, 10:50 AM

Hmm... didn't think of it that way. I guess because the way he said it sounded more like a joke that we took semi-seriously.

And its possible that was all it was intended as. Its just as likely it was a warning/thread couched in a socially acceptable way.

Vulcan

Jun 2nd, '08, 12:54 PM

Well, as long as figured characteristics still exist, it serves to make defense already bought resistant without having to buy more, which you couldn't do if you only had armor. If figureds don't exist, in practice there wouldn't be much point in DR.

It just seems to me that there is too much overlap between 'Invisible' armor and Resistant on PD/ED. Please understand, I know (now) that it works the way you're saying in 5ER. I'm just sayting that perhaps it is something that should be changed in 6E.

To my understanding, PD and ED pretty much represent your skin/bones/other body parts that help you shrug off damage. Buying Damage Resistance makes this defense 'cut-proof/bullet-proof/radiation-proof' or whatever without changing its appearance.

Invisible Armor is ridiculously cheap for the points. A simple change to make it visible makes armor much more balanced vs. Force Field.

ideasmith

Jun 2nd, '08, 01:31 PM

It just seems to me that there is too much overlap between 'Invisible' armor and Resistant on PD/ED. Please understand, I know (now) that it works the way you're saying in 5ER. I'm just sayting that perhaps it is something that should be changed in 6E.

Or maybe just change the name so that gamers don't make confusing assumptions about the special effects?

Invisible Armor is ridiculously cheap for the points. A simple change to make it visible makes armor much more balanced vs. Force Field.

That change would make Armor completely redundant: It would have the same effects as PD + ED + Damage Resistance with the Limitation Visible, except that it would be more expensive.

Klaus Mogensen

Jun 3rd, '08, 04:20 AM

That change would make Armor completely redundant: It would have the same effects as PD + ED + Damage Resistance with the Limitation Visible, except that it would be more expensive.
I have no problems with some Powers becoming redundant. Armor, PD/ED+DR, and FF are rather too similar as it is.

Regarding visibility, I rather like an idea that has been suggested, of only offensive Powers being normally visible.

- Klaus

Paragon

Jun 3rd, '08, 08:22 AM

It just seems to me that there is too much overlap between 'Invisible' armor and Resistant on PD/ED. Please understand, I know (now) that it works the way you're saying in 5ER. I'm just sayting that perhaps it is something that should be changed in 6E.

And as long as there's a concept of free PD and ED from other attributes, I'm saying I don't think its a good idea. If anything, I consider Armor the redundant power.

(This doesn't say I'm altogether thrilled with the way the cost structure of Force Field interacts with either of them, but that's a separate issue).

Invisible Armor is ridiculously cheap for the points. A simple change to make it visible makes armor much more balanced vs. Force Field.

This only follows if you think it should be more expensive, however, and I really don't.

Tonio

Jun 3rd, '08, 09:37 AM

And as long as there's a concept of free PD and ED from other attributes, I'm saying I don't think its a good idea. If anything, I consider Armor the redundant power.

Yup, Armor is entirely redundant. Nonetheless, it's a good Power to have, since very often players will want to buy the PD/ED/DR combo together. It simplifies buying that; rather than take 3 powers under the same description, you can just buy the one.

It wouldn't bother me at all if it went away; I enjoy complex builds built out of simple, atomic elements. But I realize not everybody does, and I realize having pre-built constructs is a good thing, especially if they're used often.

(This doesn't say I'm altogether thrilled with the way the cost structure of Force Field interacts with either of them, but that's a separate issue).

Yup! The issue there is actually the tie between END use and visibility. If such a tie is to exist, then the cost of the Costs END Limitation should be adjusted to reflect that. A better solution, I think, would be to remove that tie.

This only follows if you think it should be more expensive, however, and I really don't.

There is no rationale behind making Armor more expensive if PD, ED, and Damage Resistance are to stay at the same cost. If it were more expensive (or if it were visible while PD/ED/DR stay non-visible), buying Armor would be shooting yourself in the foot: you could always buy PD/ED/DR for the same effect at less cost (or for the same cost with free IPE).

Paragon

Jun 3rd, '08, 10:11 AM

Yup, Armor is entirely redundant. Nonetheless, it's a good Power to have, since very often players will want to buy the PD/ED/DR combo together. It simplifies buying that; rather than take 3 powers under the same description, you can just buy the one.

I don't disagree; I was mostly just noting if one absolutely had to go, as long as you have figured Characteristics, Armor is the more disposable one.

Yup! The issue there is actually the tie between END use and visibility. If such a tie is to exist, then the cost of the Costs END Limitation should be adjusted to reflect that. A better solution, I think, would be to remove that tie.

Of course at that point you either have to reassess a lot of costs, or use some other criterion for visibility.

There is no rationale behind making Armor more expensive if PD, ED, and Damage Resistance are to stay at the same cost. If it were more expensive

I was more suggesting that I didn't think the net value of 2 DEF resistant should be more than the three points it currently costs.

Tonio

Jun 3rd, '08, 11:30 AM

I don't disagree; I was mostly just noting if one absolutely had to go, as long as you have figured Characteristics, Armor is the more disposable one.

Of course at that point you either have to reassess a lot of costs, or use some other criterion for visibility.

I was more suggesting that I didn't think the net value of 2 DEF resistant should be more than the three points it currently costs.

Yah. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was mostly expanding on what you said. =)

Vulcan

Jun 3rd, '08, 02:36 PM

Or maybe just change the name so that gamers don't make confusing assumptions about the special effects?

That change would make Armor completely redundant: It would have the same effects as PD + ED + Damage Resistance with the Limitation Visible, except that it would be more expensive.

Ahh, no. Resistant PD/ED still looks like your normal skin. Sometimes that effect is enough to justify the difference.

ideasmith

Jun 3rd, '08, 04:21 PM

Ahh, no. Resistant PD/ED still looks like your normal skin. Sometimes that effect is enough to justify the difference.

Under the current rules Armor and Resistant PD/ED have both identical costs and identical game effects.

You want to give Armor a built-in -1/4 Limitation (Visible), without changing the cost.

This makes for two builds, identical except that one of them has free Invisible Effects, which have the same exact cost.

You consider this reasonable because one of the builds "looks like your normal skin".

Vulcan

Jun 3rd, '08, 05:17 PM

Yeah, put that way it does sound kinda silly.

At the same time, however, both PD/ED resistant and Armor are absolute bargans compared with Force Field. 10/10 Armor (and matching resistant PD/ED, barring figured characteristics) is 30 points. In the RAW, this build as-is can be constructed as bullet-proof skin - of course, higher or lesser values for higher or lesser calibers apply.

Using FF to do the same thing requires +1/2 0END; +1/2 Persistent; and +1 Fully Invisible Power. The 10/10 Force Field, delivering exactly the same concept, is 60 points. Is it really twice as effective? I think not.

ideasmith

Jun 3rd, '08, 05:43 PM

Vulcan

Jun 3rd, '08, 08:06 PM

You really can't drop it below 1 for 1. That's about as cheap as it gets.

But just to see, let's compare it against some attack powers.
1) EBlast. 5 points per die, yeilding 3.5 STUN and 1 BODY average. FF is usually (roughly) split down the middle, so 5 pts of FF yields 2.5/2.5 on the average. The damage that gets through is 1 STUN, 0 BODY. Point per point, FF stacks up quite well as a defense against EB (12dEB vs. 30/30 FF = 12 STUN, pretty much negligible at that point level). You get the same result against raw STR.

2) RKA. 15 points per die, yeilding 3.5 BODY and 9.25 STUN. Again, FF is split 7.5/7.5. Roughly 1.75 STUN and no BODY gets through per die - and you get a lot less of them. At 60 AP, the RKA will average 7.5 STUN. Unless the STUN lotto comes up big for the RKA, it's pretty much going to bounce off an equal point FF.

3) HA. 5 Active but 3.3 Real. Factor in STR, it becomes 2d6 for 8.3 points. Aganist the point-matching 4.1/4.1 FF, average penetration is 4.2 STUN (or an effective 2.1 points per die). At the 60 point level, that's 25.2 STUN getting through. That's going to leave a mark, and quite possible Stun some people. On the other hand, the average FF user has either flight, EB, or both...

4)HKA. 15 Active per die, adding STR is at the same cost. Like the RKA, against the same active points of FF is going to require the STUN lotto to pay off. On the other hand, it's possible a GM might allow the HKA to get a bit higher than the RKA. Down side? Same as HA...

And remember, up to this point you're only going against HALF the FF. The other half that doesn't apply to the attack (PD vs lightsaber, ED vs bullets) has been factored out already.

5) Drains and EGO attacks. At 10 points per die, these are expensive. And while many FF users will not have put points in defending aginst these attacks, the option does exist. And point-for-point, FF will COMPLETELY negate these powers. Flash has the same problem. Sure, it's only 5 points per die, but only the 'body' counts. Even a MAX roll yields only 2 segments flashed, more than nullified by HALF it's cost in FF.
On the other hand, it's far more likely that the 'exotic' sections of a FF will be a LOT lower than the base PD/ED of a FF. But you never know...

Hmm... point-for-point, FF sounds cheap, actually. Sure, adding on 1/2END, 0END, and Persistent makes the attacks hurt more, but still, FF isn't bad.

So what does that say about armor, with its automatic 0END Persistent Fully Invisible?

Southern Cross

Jun 3rd, '08, 08:09 PM

Personally,I think that if you have to buy a total of +2 In Advantages in order to have a Force Field that works identically to Armor,there is a flaw in the game.

Vulcan

Jun 3rd, '08, 08:12 PM

And hopefully, 6ED will be about fixing such flaws without ruining the feel of the game.

AnotherSkip

Jun 4th, '08, 05:14 AM

5) Drains and EGO attacks. At 10 points per die, these are expensive. And while many FF users will not have put points in defending aginst these attacks, the option does exist. And point-for-point, FF will COMPLETELY negate these powers. Flash has the same problem. Sure, it's only 5 points per die, but only the 'body' counts. Even a MAX roll yields only 2 segments flashed, more than nullified by HALF it's cost in FF.
On the other hand, it's far more likely that the 'exotic' sections of a FF will be a LOT lower than the base PD/ED of a FF. But you never know...

Well, untill you include Flash Vs all Sight then it is 15 for the first Die.....

Perhaps Flash ought to be 3 points per resistant point because only the body counts.....

Paragon

Jun 4th, '08, 08:40 AM

Ahh, no. Resistant PD/ED still looks like your normal skin. Sometimes that effect is enough to justify the difference.

Unless you apply a limitation, so does Armor. I'm starting to think you're just hung up on the name.

Paragon

Jun 4th, '08, 08:42 AM

Personally,I think that if you have to buy a total of +2 In Advantages in order to have a Force Field that works identically to Armor,there is a flaw in the game.

I somewhat agree; I'm just unconvinced that the price of Armor/DR is the culprit. I suspect part of the problem is that IPE is overpriced for non-attack powers.

Hugh Neilson

Jun 4th, '08, 09:08 AM

I somewhat agree; I'm just unconvinced that the price of Armor/DR is the culprit. I suspect part of the problem is that IPE is overpriced for non-attack powers.

I agree. I would also suggest a large part of the problem is that, as Hero evolved and added things like Persistent, the ramifications on the value of Costs END versus 0 END were not considered. Costs END comes bundled with Non-Persistent and Visible, so you're adding the END cost for no added point savings.

Paragon

Jun 4th, '08, 09:24 AM

I agree. I would also suggest a large part of the problem is that, as Hero evolved and added things like Persistent, the ramifications on the value of Costs END versus 0 END were not considered. Costs END comes bundled with Non-Persistent and Visible, so you're adding the END cost for no added point savings.

Yeah, that sort of problem is almost inevitable in a rules system that accrues rather than is really designed from start, and like it or not, that's been the history of Hero after about 2nd edition.

Hugh Neilson

Jun 4th, '08, 03:22 PM

Yeah, that sort of problem is almost inevitable in a rules system that accrues rather than is really designed from start, and like it or not, that's been the history of Hero after about 2nd edition.

And perhaps 6th Ed should be used as an opportunity to correct the imbalances that have accrued since that time.

ajackson

Jun 4th, '08, 03:48 PM

I suspect part of the problem is that IPE is overpriced for non-attack powers.
Or perhaps it's overpriced on powers with a target of self. It might be reasonable to say "all powers that affect others are visible" rather than "all powers that cost END are visible". This would make the default FF invisible (unless bought as Visible), but it would also get rid of oddities such as Missile Deflection being invisible.

ideasmith

Jun 4th, '08, 05:35 PM

Or perhaps it's overpriced on powers with a target of self. It might be reasonable to say "all powers that affect others are visible" rather than "all powers that cost END are visible". This would make the default FF invisible (unless bought as Visible), but it would also get rid of oddities such as Missile Deflection being invisible.

Missile Deflection is Self Only (5ER page 208)

Vulcan

Jun 4th, '08, 06:57 PM

I somewhat agree; I'm just unconvinced that the price of Armor/DR is the culprit. I suspect part of the problem is that IPE is overpriced for non-attack powers.

I tend to agree with you there.

Paragon

Jun 5th, '08, 08:47 AM

And perhaps 6th Ed should be used as an opportunity to correct the imbalances that have accrued since that time.

Its the best argument in favor of radical changes I can think of, even if some of the suggested changes I find seriously off-putting.

Paragon

Jun 5th, '08, 08:48 AM

Paragon

Jun 5th, '08, 08:49 AM

I tend to agree with you there.

Of course part of the problem there is that you're already getting down close to the bottom end of modifier costs there, so there's only so much more you can go and actually make the distinction.

PhilFleischmann

Jun 5th, '08, 01:11 PM

That turns pretty tightly on what it means for a power to "effect others" though, and as noted Hero isn't as good about defining target self as it could be.
And it also depends on what we mean by "visible". There are two (at least) aspects to visibility, and they are even described in the IPE Advantage. The power itself can be visible or not, and the effects of the power can be visible or not. The latter doubles the cost of IPE (IIRC). In the case of Armor/FF or other defense powers, the power itself might not be visible, but it can be clearly seen that the user is taking less damage somehow.

If you shot a high-power gun at someone at point-blank range and they aren't hurt, isn't that a visible power, at least in some sense?

schir1964

Jun 5th, '08, 02:36 PM

Using FF to do the same thing requires +1/2 0END; +1/2 Persistent; and +1 Fully Invisible Power. The 10/10 Force Field, delivering exactly the same concept, is 60 points. Is it really twice as effective? I think not.
Force Field does have one benefit that Normal PD/ED and Armor don't mimic. The benefit of being able to add any type of Defense to the power. I can't remember if added Defense types default to being Resistant when placed inside or not.

This doesn't address the difference in cost, just a note on one of the differences that 5th Edition made more pronounced in the wording.

- Christopher Mullins

CTaylor

Jun 5th, '08, 07:01 PM

Force Fields also protect objects carried, armor does not.

ajackson

Jun 6th, '08, 01:55 AM

Force Fields also protect objects carried, armor does not.
You base this on just what? My copy of 5e (I don't have revised) says: "A Force Field only protects the character with the power. It doesn't protect anything or anyone the character carries (except Foci)". It's a +10 point adder to protect carried items.

CTaylor

Jun 6th, '08, 08:08 AM

Exactly: Foci, and you can pay to have it protect anything you carry. Armor doesn't protect foci in your hands.

Paragon

Jun 6th, '08, 08:50 AM

And it also depends on what we mean by "visible". There are two (at least) aspects to visibility, and they are even described in the IPE Advantage. The power itself can be visible or not, and the effects of the power can be visible or not. The latter doubles the cost of IPE (IIRC). In the case of Armor/FF or other defense powers, the power itself might not be visible, but it can be clearly seen that the user is taking less damage somehow.

If you shot a high-power gun at someone at point-blank range and they aren't hurt, isn't that a visible power, at least in some sense?

That's been an argument I've seen about when SFX exceed what you should get as a freebie; if you have two people with resistant defense, one of whom bounces bullets and the other who seems to be taking damage (but it simply doesn't effect him much) is the latter getting something for free he shouldn't?

This actually comes up with my namesake character, who's a massive regenarator with a decentralized nervous system and a lot of functional redundency; to build him properly I'd usually buy some resistant defense to emulate that, but its not obvious what's going on to superficial observation.

Paragon

Jun 6th, '08, 08:52 AM

Exactly: Foci, and you can pay to have it protect anything you carry. Armor doesn't protect foci in your hands.

Yes, but the question you have to ask is whether in the cases where that matters buying extra defense for your focus wouldn't be just as cheap.

CTaylor

Jun 6th, '08, 12:00 PM

Sure, I don't think that this aspect of force field justifies the disparity in price, but it is an aspect that has to be considered.

Kdansky

Jun 11th, '08, 07:48 PM

Another one from me on the topic of Adjustment Powers:

+2 to Maximum Effect for +1 cp.

Does Not Work Well. It's cheap for Transfer, well-priced for Aid, Drain (and Healing) and way too expensive for Absorb, Succor and Suppress. I won't comment on Succor and Suppress much more, because I already stated that they are quite broken (cost-wise).

I propose: +1/4 for Double Maximum Effect. Or the Telepathy approach where one buys dice which only work to increase Maximum Effect (-1, -1 1/2 or so). Both scale in relation to the cost of the base power. I personally like the first one more, but it has the ugly effect of exploding Active Points and scaling a bit too well, possibly multiple doublings don't work as multiple doublings (too high values). So if you get +1 Maximum Effect, you don't get x16 Max, but only x4 (x2, x3, x4, x5 for each +1/4). That's counterintuitive to the rest of the system though.

And to add to that: Absorption really needs something to make it worthwile in the general case. Sure, if you put variable Effect for +1 (all my Magnetic Powers) on it, it's good, but the generic "into Strength" sucks. You get 6 Maximum Effect for 5 points. I'd rather have 5 points which are there all the time and don't require me to get hit first. After all, 60 Strength + full stun is a lot better than 62 strength + half stun (due to having been hit TWICE).

Hugh Neilson

Jun 12th, '08, 06:18 AM

Another one from me on the topic of Adjustment Powers:

+2 to Maximum Effect for +1 cp.

Does Not Work Well. It's cheap for Transfer, well-priced for Aid, Drain (and Healing) and way too expensive for Absorb, Succor and Suppress. I won't comment on Succor and Suppress much more, because I already stated that they are quite broken (cost-wise).

I propose: +1/4 for Double Maximum Effect. Or the Telepathy approach where one buys dice which only work to increase Maximum Effect (-1, -1 1/2 or so). Both scale in relation to the cost of the base power. I personally like the first one more, but it has the ugly effect of exploding Active Points and scaling a bit too well, possibly multiple doublings don't work as multiple doublings (too high values). So if you get +1 Maximum Effect, you don't get x16 Max, but only x4 (x2, x3, x4, x5 for each +1/4). That's counterintuitive to the rest of the system though.

Even if it doubles for every +1/4 and someone spends +1 (16x max effect), is this the end of the world? 1d6 STR Aid, x16 max effect will cost 20 points. It will take about 27 to 28 rolls to get to that maximum. It will take more than that, since there will be fades in the interim. You need a reduced fade rate (more advantages, so more cost) to avoid that fade rate. So make it 25 for a 5/5 minute fade rate.

As long as the GM is paying attention to abusive builds (x4,096 max effect; fade rate per century), it should not be overly problematic. Maybe we simply cap the advantage - 16x maximum effect seems like plenty - any more and the only real impact is to facilitate abusive builds.

BobGreenwade

Jun 12th, '08, 08:14 AM

Really high maxima for Adjustment Powers, IMO, only becomes a problem in the case of Absorption -- and I, personally would like to see some way to eliminate the maximum from Absorption (not as a base rule, but as an Advantage or high-cost Adder). I've seen plenty of situations like that in the source material -- not enough to make it the default case, of course, but enough that it should be possible, including the climax of a story I've just finished.

Paragon

Jun 12th, '08, 08:32 AM

Even if it doubles for every +1/4 and someone spends +1 (16x max effect), is this the end of the world? 1d6 STR Aid, x16 max effect will cost 20 points. It will take about 27 to 28 rolls to get to that maximum. It will take more than that, since there will be fades in the interim. You need a reduced fade rate (more advantages, so more cost) to avoid that fade rate. So make it 25 for a 5/5 minute fade rate.

As long as the GM is paying attention to abusive builds (x4,096 max effect; fade rate per century), it should not be overly problematic. Maybe we simply cap the advantage - 16x maximum effect seems like plenty - any more and the only real impact is to facilitate abusive builds.

Really, most of the problem with increased maximum are from combinations of increased maximum and long duration; I'm not sure I've ever seen that combination on an adjustment power that wasn't abusive to one degree or another.

Vulcan

Jun 12th, '08, 05:53 PM

Hugh Neilson

Jun 12th, '08, 08:12 PM

Energy to CON, only vs. electricity, fade rate 5/min.

My wife had to buy up the fade rate on her electrical character's absorption so she could 'pre-charge' it, since the GM never used electical attacks on her, even when he could.

Ahem. Make that, Energy to END, not CON.

I know those GM's. They're the ones who complain that the PC's never design interesting powers (while ensuring those that do never get any benefit from them, see above), complain about players using out of character knowledge (when all their villains base their decisions on a full knowledge of the PC character sheets) and complain that their players choose tactics in combat that their characters logically wouldn't (but design scenarios so any tactical mistake dooms the PC's), aren't they?

Perhaps 6e (just to veil this in something on topic) might discuss role playing combat choices, and GMing to reward players who take actions that are in character, rather than the most tactically sound choice when viewed objectively and dispassionately.

Vulcan

Jun 12th, '08, 08:30 PM

Yeah, some extra xp for playing in character would be nice... I prefer saving the world from getting blowed up real good, though, so maximum tactics it is.

Kdansky

Jun 12th, '08, 11:02 PM

Hugh Neilson

Jun 13th, '08, 05:08 AM

Actually, you are probably right there. It does not really matter if you buy up your Maximum Effect to a ridiculous value. At that point, it's already quite obvious that it's broken. So the GM will have to handle it. I think I'll allow

Absorb, into END or STUN with +1 ("pseudoconstant") for limitless maximum effect, but only at standard fade rate.

I think this is the appropriate advantage level. 1d6 Absorb, No Maximum (+1) costs double.

2d6 Absorb, 1/2 to STAT and 1/2 to Absorb MAX, would add 1 to STR and 2 to my Absorb Max for every 2 BOD absorbed, stepping the max up at the same rate my STAT goes up, so no effective maximum.

Same cost, but the advantage makes it easier to implement.

Paragon

Jun 13th, '08, 09:42 AM

Energy to CON, only vs. electricity, fade rate 5/min.

My wife had to buy up the fade rate on her electrical character's absorption so she could 'pre-charge' it, since the GM never used electical attacks on her, even when he could.

Ahem. Make that, Energy to END, not CON.

If that isn't abusive, its only because Aiding Con is such a loser in general because of the lack of figured stats. If you did the same thing to Stun pips for example, I'd indeed call it abusive (and I'm assuming here that since it was a response to my post it had increased maximum). That's because the simple fact is you can end up with a boosted ability that's cheaper than the normal version, and the long duration means it almost never matters. Even with Con, depending on how high the Maximum was raised, it may have been too good a deal.

Vulcan

Jun 13th, '08, 04:16 PM

Sorry to confuse you, Paragon. I corrected it at the bottom: it absobs to END, not to CON.

CTaylor

Jun 14th, '08, 09:22 AM

Perhaps 6e (just to veil this in something on topic) might discuss role playing combat choices, and GMing to reward players who take actions that are in character, rather than the most tactically sound choice when viewed objectively and dispassionately.
Reply With Quote

I ran a Halloween slasher movie game once where the characters had two choices: act like intelligent gamers, or act like the characters in a slasher movie (i.e. idiots) and each time they did so they got a hero point. Only one picked the idiot option, but he did as well as the others.

Hugh Neilson

Jun 14th, '08, 10:48 AM

I ran a Halloween slasher movie game once where the characters had two choices: act like intelligent gamers, or act like the characters in a slasher movie (i.e. idiots) and each time they did so they got a hero point. Only one picked the idiot option, but he did as well as the others.

It begs the question why the rest bothered playing. If you don't like playing the genre, why bother being in the game?

Paragon

Jun 14th, '08, 11:45 AM

Sorry to confuse you, Paragon. I corrected it at the bottom: it absobs to END, not to CON.

Then I'd say if it had extended maximum it is abusive; it can almost certainly manufacture extra End at little or no trouble to the user and at a discount.

Paragon

Jun 14th, '08, 11:46 AM

It begs the question why the rest bothered playing. If you don't like playing the genre, why bother being in the game?

Some people feel genres change more with the medium than others do.

Vulcan

Jun 14th, '08, 12:06 PM

Then I'd say if it had extended maximum it is abusive; it can almost certainly manufacture extra End at little or no trouble to the user and at a discount.

Mainly she just uses it to push, her powers are a little below the campaign average so it helps keep her in the fight.

But yeah, it certainly could be abusive in the hands of a munchkin. That's why a GM has to sit on it carefully.

Paragon

Jun 14th, '08, 01:03 PM

Mainly she just uses it to push, her powers are a little below the campaign average so it helps keep her in the fight.

But yeah, it certainly could be abusive in the hands of a munchkin. That's why a GM has to sit on it carefully.

Well, honestly, any abusive construct can be okay in the hands of an otherwise suboptimal build; that doesn't make them not intrinsically abusive. Being sub-campaign really doesn't tell me its a good reason to give someone END on the cheap.

Vulcan

Jun 14th, '08, 01:42 PM

Paragon

Jun 14th, '08, 02:27 PM

She's an electrical character, it makes sense in concept that she can absorb electrial power from somewhere else to help fuel her own powers.

Did I forget to mention the absorbtion was limited to electical effects?

In terms of slow fade Absorption, in practice that makes little difference since you just top off before it ever starts.

With fade per round or per minute types of absorption that's relevant, but its pretty much moot when you get much longer than that.

Vulcan

Jun 14th, '08, 09:23 PM

In terms of slow fade Absorption, in practice that makes little difference since you just top off before it ever starts.

With fade per round or per minute types of absorption that's relevant, but its pretty much moot when you get much longer than that.

No argument there. I would be real hesitant to allow fade rates past the one minute mark for pretty much anything. Or to ask for it, either.

Markdoc

Jun 14th, '08, 11:25 PM

No argument there. I would be real hesitant to allow fade rates past the one minute mark for pretty much anything. Or to ask for it, either.

Perhaps a solution for 6E would be to reduce the base cost of the power (allowing decent buffs) but greatly increase the cost of changing the fade rate, so that long term buffs are not cost effective?

cheers, Mark

AnotherSkip

Jun 15th, '08, 04:55 AM

CTaylor

Jun 15th, '08, 07:39 AM

Perhaps a solution for 6E would be to reduce the base cost of the power (allowing decent buffs) but greatly increase the cost of changing the fade rate, so that long term buffs are not cost effective?

Or a sliding scale, everything past a campaign-defined breakpoint gets more expensive (so it stays at 1/4 per step up the time chart up to an hour then doubles or something). Each campaign will have different rules - I don't happen to have a problem with long term buffs, other GMs clearly do.

Hugh Neilson

Jun 15th, '08, 08:29 AM

No argument there. I would be real hesitant to allow fade rates past the one minute mark for pretty much anything. Or to ask for it, either.

Looked at another way, 3d6 Aid END, fade rate 5 points per hour, self only costs 40 points and enances END by 36 points, with a very slow fade rate. The same 40 points would buy +80 END. Which is more useful?

Markdoc

Jun 15th, '08, 08:11 PM

Looked at another way, 3d6 Aid END, fade rate 5 points per hour, self only costs 40 points and enances END by 36 points, with a very slow fade rate. The same 40 points would buy +80 END. Which is more useful?

To one person? The extra END. To the Team? The Aid (2d6 without the self only, for the same cost). That's the point, really. I don't think Aid was intended to be primarily a self-buff power, but in 4E, self-buff builds were pretty abusive, particularly those that affected multiple stat.s IIRC, Steve indicated that as a prime reason for nerfing Aid. I think you and I agree that it was nerfed too severely, but I can see Steve's point. Something in between would be nice.

cheers, Mark

Hugh Neilson

Jun 16th, '08, 05:56 AM

To one person? The extra END. To the Team? The Aid (2d6 without the self only, for the same cost). That's the point, really. I don't think Aid was intended to be primarily a self-buff power, but in 4E, self-buff builds were pretty abusive, particularly those that affected multiple stat.s IIRC, Steve indicated that as a prime reason for nerfing Aid. I think you and I agree that it was nerfed too severely, but I can see Steve's point. Something in between would be nice.

I definitely agree that Self Only has too low a limitation in 5e. The main problem I saw in 4e was not as much multiple stats, but STUN Aid, END Aid and similar which avoided the recovery rules because Aid incorporated Healing with no limits.

1d6 Aid, Stun and END, 0 END, continuous, persistent meant a 5 SPD character recovered an average of 14 STUN and 28 END per turn,and recovered it regardless of how deeply KO'd he might be.

2d6 Aid, fade 5/hour for 40 points can add 24 END to each teammate. For less than 40 points, you could buy +24 END, UBO with +3.25 in advantages. I suspect that would be enough to add 24 points of non-fading END to all your teammates with the advantages that remove the need for LoS.

AnotherSkip

Jun 16th, '08, 07:26 AM

Maybe we should compare various stats UBO Vs Aid and come up with a compromise.

Perhaps 7 pts per die an various adjustment powers rather than 5 or 10, sure it makes the math harder but that may be the price for better balance.

Paragon

Jun 16th, '08, 08:38 AM

No argument there. I would be real hesitant to allow fade rates past the one minute mark for pretty much anything. Or to ask for it, either.

Well, by themselves most of them tend to be harmless because the base costs are high enough you don't really gain a whole hell of a lot over the base value (a 1d6 END Aid at fade/5 minutes costs 15 points and yields 12 END max; hard for that to be abusive even with the top-off ability it provides), but as soon as increased maximum gets into the mix it gets far, far more dodgy; the only question is how soon.

Vulcan

Jun 16th, '08, 09:48 AM

Well, by themselves most of them tend to be harmless because the base costs are high enough you don't really gain a whole hell of a lot over the base value (a 1d6 END Aid at fade/5 minutes costs 15 points and yields 12 END max; hard for that to be abusive even with the top-off ability it provides), but as soon as increased maximum gets into the mix it gets far, far more dodgy; the only question is how soon.

Fair enough. But then, our GM sits on these sort of things pretty throughly so it never really comes up.

CTaylor

Jun 16th, '08, 12:11 PM

Looked at another way, 3d6 Aid END, fade rate 5 points per hour, self only costs 40 points and enances END by 36 points, with a very slow fade rate. The same 40 points would buy +80 END. Which is more useful?

An aspect that is not considered very often. Aids are more likely to be dispelled, END can't be. Aids are temporary and take time to establish, END doesn't. Aid is pretty well balanced as is, a GM can always say "that's too slow a fade time for my game." Again, I have to come down on the side of "let's not limit the toolkit to fit your personal campaign."

PhilFleischmann

Jun 16th, '08, 06:21 PM

How abou +1/2 for each step up the time chart , thus on a 5 point absorption for 1d6 so for +2 you would lose 5 pts/hr, +3/day. hmmm 20points for +1d6 active to something wherein you lose 1 point every 4 hrs +.....

That's sort of like what I was going to suggest. But it's really only the first one or two steps down the time chart that make the biggest difference. I'd say +1/2 for fade 5/minute, +1 for 5/5 min, and +1/4 for each step beyond that.

Also the low cost of the advantage to add to multiple abilities is a problem IMO. How 'bout a flat +1/2 for each additional ability added to? So Aid two things is a +1/2, Aid three things is +1, Aid four things is +1.5 etc.

AnotherSkip

Jun 17th, '08, 05:32 AM

are we talking Split add (ie divide the points from the roll among multi stats) or dupe add (the roll applies to both stats)?

And Go with keeping the same flow from your time chart, +1/2 for 2 stats, +1 for 3 stats, +1/4 for 4, +1/4 for whatever amount beyond that. Kinda putting a bump in the road to power, LIMITLESS POWER YEAHHHHHHHH!!!!!

:hush:Ooopps sorry didn't mean to get carried away there.

Paragon

Jun 17th, '08, 09:37 AM

An aspect that is not considered very often. Aids are more likely to be dispelled, END can't be. Aids are temporary and take time to establish, END doesn't. Aid is pretty well balanced as is, a GM can always say "that's too slow a fade time for my game." Again, I have to come down on the side of "let's not limit the toolkit to fit your personal campaign."

The problem is its not just personal campaigns, but a lot of them. A game system in the end has to make its mind up what's going to serve the majority of its users; if it really tries to serve all of them,