Powers Issues -- A-E

[Hugh Neilson]

So? How is that an even tradeoff? You're trading something positive for something negative.

How so? Do I need someone to be slavishly loyal if his goals and objectives are the same as my own? We're both after the same thing - we should be able to work together to get it.

No you can't. A new independent item requires points to be spent. Sure, you could theoretically get someone to spend their points for you, but then why not let them do that every time? And yes, you might be able to recover a stolen item, but you can't recover a destroyed item.

A sword in a heroic game is an independent item. You purchase it with money.

No. That's not how Independent works.

Player: "I'll spend 15 more points to get 7 more Mjolnirs in case I lose one."
GM: *SMACK* :slap:

Nothing on 5er p 456 precludes application of the "+5 doubles equipment" rule to independent items, any more than the Duplication rules prohibit use of the +5 doubling rules to circumvent the "dead duplicates = points gone" rules.

How often do they get killed off anyway? Not very, IME. The Independent limitation pretty much means that you *are* going to lose the item at some point, otherwise it's not limiting. Duplicates, OTOH, do not *have* to be lost ever, if you take care of them properly, i.e., build them to survive the combats they're likely to be in, and don't use them as lab rats or cannon fodder. It's not at all the same as Independent - you aren't "asking" the GM to eventually take it away from you.

If it hardly ever happens, why is it so critical, in your eyes, that this restriction remain. If it pretty much never happens, it should make pretty much no difference if the restriction is removed from the default structure of the power. If it is a material risk, then it's on a rough par with "independent", a situation I find inappropriate. If it isn't, then its removal should have no significant impact, and is mandated for consistency if for no other reason.

[Talon]

My point: The current Duplication cost seems more appropriate for the default of "dead Duplicates come back eventually".

"Dead Duplicates come back quickly" should cost more.

But it doesn't have to be "permanently losable" any more than your character's death has to be permanent. Hell, even Bucky and Jason Todd have come back to life! I've mentioned, several times now, a number of ways to get back dead duplicates.

Yes -- and they are too expensive IMO. Specifically, they have the problem that Regeneration has in general -- the cost difference between Resurrecting in a minute down to month is pretty small.

Thus, they work perfectly for "comes back quickly", but not for "comes back eventually". "Comes back eventually" should be the default.

Don't you agree that a duplicate you can automatically get back if it dies should cost more than one that you don't automatically get back if it dies?

I do. The default should be "comes back eventually". "Never comes back" should be a LimIitation.

I generally assume that most of the powers et al. in the book are balanced as written. You're welcome to present an argument for why Duplication is too expensive now, for not being able to automatically get a dead duplicate back.

Since we are talking about 6E and changes to the rules, this seems like the right place to bring up things that seem to be costed wrong. It's a judgment call, I don't have mathematical analysis or numbers to back it up.

Suppose you're playing in a really gritty game and your character's arm gets chopped off. Do you automatically grow back a new one? For free? After all, your arm is not your entire character.

In most games (Skywalker's hand, for example), I would imagine the default is that the points come back somehow. For a gritty game, I would expect the GM to state up front that this is not the case, so the players are not put out when it happens.

The principle of "you don't lose points permanently unless you ask for it" seems like a good default for the system. That doesn't mean GMs can't change that default.

[PhilFleischmann]

How so? Do I need someone to be slavishly loyal if his goals and objectives are the same as my own? We're both after the same thing - we should be able to work together to get it.
Right. Which is why a duplicate is more than just a slavishly loyal summoned creature. The latter tries to do what you say as best as it can understand what you want and is capable of. The latter essentially *is* you.

And another limitation of Summon as opposed to Duplication that I didn't mention earlier: not only does the GM control the summonee, but the GM also has control over what kinds of creatures are even available to summon.

A sword in a heroic game is an independent item. You purchase it with money.
Completely irrelevent. The character didn't pay points for the sword in the first place, nor did he put the Independent limitation on it.

Nothing on 5er p 456 precludes application of the "+5 doubles equipment" rule to independent items,
Not on that page perhaps, but it does say that a Limitation that isn't limiting isn't worth points. A -2 lim that can be bought off with 5 points is pure munchkinry. And likewise, good old common sense says there's only one Hammer of Thor. Look under the rules for unbreakable foci - the whole point is they're supposed to be unique items.

If it hardly ever happens, why is it so critical, in your eyes, that this restriction remain.
To prevent munchkinry. So you can't buy an all-offence-no-defense duplicate for extra attacks and have it automatically come back whenever you want.

My point: The current Duplication cost seems more appropriate for the default of "dead Duplicates come back eventually".

"Dead Duplicates come back quickly" should cost more.
....
Thus, they work perfectly for "comes back quickly", but not for "comes back eventually". "Comes back eventually" should be the default.
....
I do. The default should be "comes back eventually". "Never comes back" should be a LimIitation.
That's fair enough. But then how does one decide on precisely when "eventually" happens? Or even generally? Days? Months? Years? ~One week per 10 points? Something relating to how the dupe was killed?

[Hugh Neilson]

Right. Which is why a duplicate is more than just a slavishly loyal summoned creature. The latter tries to do what you say as best as it can understand what you want and is capable of. The latter essentially *is* you.

A slavishly loyal automoton lacks your survival instinct and your psychological limitations. That's why it costs twice as much.

And another limitation of Summon as opposed to Duplication that I didn't mention earlier: not only does the GM control the summonee, but the GM also has control over what kinds of creatures are even available to summon.

He also controls what player characters purchase, so he controls what duplicates are available to summon, or even whether duplicates can be summoned at all. Why would a PC not be able to Summon a creature which is an exact duplicate of himself, and slavishly loyal? There is no reason for duplication to even exist as a separate power.

Not on that page perhaps, but it does say that a Limitation that isn't limiting isn't worth points. A -2 lim that can be bought off with 5 points is pure munchkinry. And likewise, good old common sense says there's only one Hammer of Thor. Look under the rules for unbreakable foci - the whole point is they're supposed to be unique items.

So is OAF not a limitation when I can spend 5 points to double them? Note that the +5 = twice as many rule applies ONLY to foci - if it makes focus "not a limitation", I would suggest the rule would say so. Not every Independent item is unique or unbreakable.

To prevent munchkinry. So you can't buy an all-offence-no-defense duplicate for extra attacks and have it automatically come back whenever you want.

You can have an all ofense no defense Summoned creature that's slavishly loyal and comes back whenever you want. Why is buying this as a 100% different Duplicate the end of the world, but buying it as a Summon is not problematic?

That's fair enough. But then how does one decide on precisely when "eventually" happens? Or even generally? Days? Months? Years? ~One week per 10 points? Something relating to how the dupe was killed?

The default needs to be set. The same applies to foci, actually. Maybe Common and Dramatic Sense dictate. Maybe the default is 24 hours. A Summon can die and be resummoned immediately, so the issue goes away if we make Duplication a sample power build with Summon.

[PhilFleischmann]

A slavishly loyal automoton lacks your survival instinct and your psychological limitations. That's why it costs twice as much.
No. It costs twice as much, because it's slavishly loyal.

Why would a PC not be able to Summon a creature which is an exact duplicate of himself, and slavishly loyal?
Because it makes no sense.

So is OAF not a limitation when I can spend 5 points to double them?
Simply doubling a focus does not negate the focus limitation.

You can have an all ofense no defense Summoned creature that's slavishly loyal and comes back whenever you want.
You can if the GM says that such a creature exists that you can summon. I wouldn't.

Why is buying this as a 100% different Duplicate the end of the world, but buying it as a Summon is not problematic?
"End of the world"? Are you having a conversation with someone else?

The default needs to be set. The same applies to foci, actually. Maybe Common and Dramatic Sense dictate. Maybe the default is 24 hours. A Summon can die and be resummoned immediately, so the issue goes away if we make Duplication a sample power build with Summon.
I'm not so sure the issue "goes away". The 5-for-1 powers can pack quite a punch for relatively few points. It is appropriate for there to be tight reins on them. Under the current rules, Summon and Duplication each have their own reins. One can be summoned again pretty much whenever, but it's controlled by the GM, and only certain types of things are available. The other is controlled by you, and built by you, but you have to "take care of it" because if it dies, if doesn't just come back to life whenever you want. Take your pick. You're getting 5 points of power for 1 one point. Expect there to be a serious catch.

[Hugh Neilson]

No. It costs twice as much, because it's slavishly loyal.

My Duplicate has the same morals, goals and objectives I do. Absent a psych limitation like Self Loathing, it should be pretty loyal. And it costs hald what the slavishly loyal Summoned creature does. But, if I double the cost of my Duplicate, it`s still under my control, and it can have any abilities I want.

The Slavishly Loyal Summoned Creature and the 100% Different Duplicate are looking very similar.

Because it makes no sense.

If Summon had been around for an edition before Duplication, Duplication would never have been put in place - we would have just used Summon. There is no reason for Duplication to be a separate power. It does exactly the same thing - allows another creature to be brought into being. It should likely be Devoted, not Slavishly Loyal, but this could vary depending on the SFX. Madrox`duplicates don`t always do what he wants, while Multiplex`s happily die for their creator.

Simply doubling a focus does not negate the focus limitation.

Then there is no reason you can`t double an Independent focus.

You can if the GM says that such a creature exists that you can summon. I wouldn't.

USPD uses the Omega Beams. Other books Summon missiles. As a GM, I`m going to scrutinize summoned creatures, like any other aspect of the character, but I`m not going to tell the player Summon will only work for creatures I`ve designed and he can`t design his own. Your games may be more restrictive in this regard.

I'm not so sure the issue "goes away".

If Duplication is folded into Summon, dead duplicates are recoverable just like dead Summon creatures. End of issue.

The 5-for-1 powers can pack quite a punch for relatively few points. It is appropriate for there to be tight reins on them. Under the current rules, Summon and Duplication each have their own reins. One can be summoned again pretty much whenever, but it's controlled by the GM, and only certain types of things are available. The other is controlled by you, and built by you, but you have to "take care of it" because if it dies, if doesn't just come back to life whenever you want. Take your pick. You're getting 5 points of power for 1 one point. Expect there to be a serious catch.

Both summon other creatures to act on your behalf rather than augmenting your own personal abilities. Can they be abused? Sure. Pretty much anything can be abused. But making Duplication (but not any of the other 5:1 powers) automatically independent overpenalizes the character whose concept does not involve duplicates being invulnerable while failing to penalize the character whose duplicates have high BOD and good defenses at all.

IOW, even if I believed the problem you cite to be significant, the so-called solution solves pretty much nothing. A much better solution is the word No. No, I would not allow an all offense no defense kamikaze Summon. No, I will not allow an all offense no defense kamikaze Duplication.

[Talon]

I'm not so sure the issue "goes away". The 5-for-1 powers can pack quite a punch for relatively few points. It is appropriate for there to be tight reins on them. Under the current rules, Summon and Duplication each have their own reins. One can be summoned again pretty much whenever, but it's controlled by the GM, and only certain types of things are available. The other is controlled by you, and built by you, but you have to "take care of it" because if it dies, if doesn't just come back to life whenever you want. Take your pick. You're getting 5 points of power for 1 one point. Expect there to be a serious catch.

I prefer "GM's discretion", with a range of one or more sessions (or several days game time; obviously the GM is free to alter this as he sees fit) as the stated range. I think it's better to keep the range vague because for some campaigns, one day can be an eternity while in others weeks go by quickly.

If someone absolutely has to have a dependable recovery time, then the existing options you mentioned are there.

[Hugh Neilson]

I prefer "GM's discretion", with a range of one or more sessions (or several days game time; obviously the GM is free to alter this as he sees fit) as the stated range. I think it's better to keep the range vague because for some campaigns, one day can be an eternity while in others weeks go by quickly.

If someone absolutely has to have a dependable recovery time, then the existing options you mentioned are there.

In my view, folding Summon and Duplication into the same power, with the same defaults, is the most rational approach. I would be quite open to the prospect of restricting Summon, however, so the character cannot keep Summoning fresh versions of the desired creature.

[Hugh Neilson]

The 5-for-1 powers can pack quite a punch for relatively few points. It is appropriate for there to be tight reins on them. Under the current rules, Summon and Duplication each have their own reins. One can be summoned again pretty much whenever, but it's controlled by the GM, and only certain types of things are available. The other is controlled by you, and built by you, but you have to "take care of it" because if it dies, if doesn't just come back to life whenever you want. Take your pick. You're getting 5 points of power for 1 one point. Expect there to be a serious catch.

Let's look at two characters. One, Duplo, is a 290 point character, plus 60 points for one 300 point duplicate (actually a 290 point duplicate - the same character without Duplication, but he can use his first 10 xp to improve both the duplicate and himself). He has a 12d6 attack (assumed campaign norm, but no versatility), 25 PD/ED, 10 resistant (assumed campaign norm), a 23 DEX and a 4 SPD (low end of campaign norm assumed).

The second, Uno, is a 350 point character identical to the first, except that he doesn't have the duplicate. Instead, he used the extra 60 points to buy:

- +5 PD and +5 ED, resistant (15 points)
- +6 DEX (18 points)
- +1 SPD (4 points after DEX)
- either +3d6 to his attack at 0 END, or conversion of his attack into a 3 slot multipower (22 - 24 points - he'll make up the 1 point difference with END or COM).

Sure, having an "extra character" is powerful. So are other things you can do with an extra 60 points. Pit these two characters against one another. Duplo needs a 9- to hit (37.5%), gets 8 chances per turn and gets 12 STUN past defenses. Uno needs a 13- to hit (83.8%), gets 5 chances per turn and gets 27.5 STUN past defenses, and has a shot at stunning.

Duplo inflicts an average of 36 STUN per turn. Uno gets an average of 115.225 STUN per turn - and Duplo's average falls when Uno KO's one duplicate.

Duplo could Dodge whenever Uno swings, but that takes his speed advantage down markedly, and Uno still hits on a 10-. Other tactics can swing the battle one way or the other, but I don't see a huge advantage to Duplo in this structure.

[Talon]

In my view, folding Summon and Duplication into the same power, with the same defaults, is the most rational approach. I would be quite open to the prospect of restricting Summon, however, so the character cannot keep Summoning fresh versions of the desired creature.

Seems reasonable to me. How would you handle the "Duplicates are PCs, Summons are NPCs" distinction?

[Hugh Neilson]

Seems reasonable to me. How would you handle the "Duplicates are PCs, Summons are NPCs" distinction?

Draw the line between the PC running the Summoned creature (with GM interference as necessary) and the GM running it (with PC input as necessary) at some level of the Amicable advantage.

[Istaran]

Draw the line between the PC running the Summoned creature (with GM interference as necessary) and the GM running it (with PC input as necessary) at some level of the Amicable advantage.

Perhaps have at an equal point cost the options:
"Slavishly loyal": the summoned creature does what you tell it to with no concern for its own well being.
"Same will": the summoned creature shares your personality and desires. The player controls it as it thinks the same as the PC. However it must have the same psych lims as the PC (unless the GM is willing to allow a different set of psych lims to replace them) and has a similar desire to avoid death, pain, etc.

[AnotherSkip]

Here's two answers, take your pick, depending on which way you want to look at it:

2) You aren't "forced" to have independent on your Duplication. You can bring your killed duplicate back to life in many ways (which I've already mentioned): Resurrection, buying additional duplicates for +5, etc. You don't even have to buy the Resurrection yourself - some other character with Resurrection Healing can do it. The duplicate is a character that, if killed, has as much opportunity to come back to life as any other character - either through player actions (using Resurrection for example), or by the GM, for plot reasons.

The Difference between Force wall and Duplication is that if Your Force Wall Is "Killed" you Don't lose the power to make more Force Walls or Entanges or whatever.

[BobGreenwade]

I think the bottom line on the losing Duplicates matter is really this: a lot of players are uncomfortable with it, several SFX of the Power call for something else happening, and some solution -- probably one of the several proposed -- is needed for Sixth Edition.

[Vulcan]

I would go with folding Summon and Duplicate into the same power. Then Duplication would be bought with 'same mind' or 'PC controlled' or something similar (a hefty advantage, I'm sure) Independant could be taken for duplicates/summons that never return if killed. The rate at which 'killed' duplicates/summons renew could be set at a reasonable spot on the time chart and then moved up or down as usual.

Sound like a (general) plan?

[BobGreenwade]

I would go with folding Summon and Duplicate into the same power. Then Duplication would be bought with 'same mind' or 'PC controlled' or something similar (a hefty advantage, I'm sure) Independant could be taken for duplicates/summons that never return if killed. The rate at which 'killed' duplicates/summons renew could be set at a reasonable spot on the time chart and then moved up or down as usual.

Sound like a (general) plan?If nothing else, I'd say it's a good start.

[PhilFleischmann]

The Slavishly Loyal Summoned Creature and the 100% Different Duplicate are looking very similar.
Yes. They are very similar. They are in fact entirely the same except that:

one is controlled directly by the player and the player is likely to have more freedom in how it is built, and
the other can be brought back without restriction after being killed.

The choice is yours. Pick whichever one fits your concept better.

If Summon had been around for an edition before Duplication, Duplication would never have been put in place - we would have just used Summon. There is no reason for Duplication to be a separate power.
I don't have a problem with that. It could have neither advantage as a default (and probably cost less), and then have two possible Advantages that you can purchase for it: "Controlled (and built) by the Player", and "Can be Re-created Freely if Killed". You can then apply one, both, or neither of these Advantages to the new, combined, power.

Then there is no reason you can`t double an Independent focus.
Yes, there is: it negates the *Independent* Limitation.

As a GM, I`m going to scrutinize summoned creatures, like any other aspect of the character, but I`m not going to tell the player Summon will only work for creatures I`ve designed and he can`t design his own.
Neither am I. But there's more freedom in character creation for PCs (which is what a Duplicate essentially is), than for the controlling of NPCs (which is what a Summonee is). IOW, a Duplicate can be anything a PC "base character" can be. A Summonee, being run by the GM, is more subject to GM scrutiny - for genre, setting, and other considerations.

If Duplication is folded into Summon, dead duplicates are recoverable just like dead Summon creatures. End of issue.
And I suppose if Summon is folded into Duplication, then summoned creatures are controlled by the player. That's certainly a possibility, but I think each of these powers are well-balanced as-is. This would make them more powerful/useful, and IMO, they should therefor cost more.

But making Duplication (but not any of the other 5:1 powers) automatically independent overpenalizes the character whose concept does not involve duplicates being invulnerable while failing to penalize the character whose duplicates have high BOD and good defenses at all.
The character whose duplicates have high BODY and defenses is already "penalized" because he had to pay more points to get that high BODY and defenses, or have less points to spend in other areas.

IOW, even if I believed the problem you cite to be significant, the so-called solution solves pretty much nothing.
I'm not sure what "solution" you're referring to here.

Let's look at two characters. One, Duplo, ....
The second, Uno, ....
Yeah, so?

The Difference between Force wall and Duplication is that if Your Force Wall Is "Killed" you Don't lose the power to make more Force Walls or Entanges or whatever.
Huh? What does this have to do with anything? It seems to me that the main difference between Duplication and Force Wall is that one creates a duplicate and the other creates a force wall.

[Hugh Neilson]

Yes, there is: it negates the *Independent* Limitation.

It no more *negates* the limitation than it *negates* the focus limitation. One OAF broken - no ability to access the power until it is retrieved. if you paid +5 to have two items, you still have one. One OAF Independent broken - no ability to access the power. if you paid +5 to have two items, you still have one. Show me in the rules where it is stated that you cannot have multiple Independent foci using the "+5 for doubling" rule.

IOW, a Duplicate can be anything a PC "base character" can be. A Summonee, being run by the GM, is more subject to GM scrutiny - for genre, setting, and other considerations.

PC's are also subject to GM scrutiny for genre, setting, and other considerations.

The character whose duplicates have high BODY and defenses is already "penalized" because he had to pay more points to get that high BODY and defenses, or have less points to spend in other areas.

Is the character whose summoned creatures have high BODY and defenses also "penalized" because he had to pay more points to get that high BODY and defenses, or have less points to spend in other areas? There's no difference here. If the Summoned creature dies, spend a half phase and he's back. If the Duplicate dies, too bad - you're out the points. That's a pretty significant risk difference for precisely no cost difference.

Now I suppose if you run a Summoned creature for which the player has paid for the Amicable, Slavishly Loyal advantage in such a way that it's vastly less useful to the player than a duplicate that does as he wants would be, then there is a difference. But I think that slavishly loyal summoned creature will be quite helpful and do exactly what it is told. That is what the player paid for.

And I have no problem with the player running that loyal Summoned creature. I can always step in if he's taking actions that are inappropriate to
the creature. Just as I can step in if his duplicates' actions are inconsistent with their psychological limitations.

I'm not sure what "solution" you're referring to here.

The "if it dies you lose the points" solution - which really isn't a solution at all - glad you agree! ;)

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? It seems to me that the main difference between Duplication and Force Wall is that one creates a duplicate and the other creates a force wall.

Both the Duplicate and the Force Wall can be destroyed. Only one cannot be recreated. One character paid for the power to create a duplicate. A second paid for the power to create a Force Wall. A third paid for the ability to "create" an ally with Summon. Only one is unable to re-use his power if the thing he creates is destroyed. You clearly find that reasonable. I, and apparently AnotherSkip, don't.

[nexus]

I'd like to see Extra Limbs more codified. An extra arm with hand is generally more useful for fine manipulation than a tentacle or prehensile tail but the latter might be more useful in some situations. An extra leg might not really be an advantage at all for some characters. One thing I've adopted as House Rule is that Extra Limbs is Inherent by default and Not Inherent is a -1/4

[Vulcan]

I agree, Inherent on an extra limb should be the default. 'Supress Power' isn't going to remove a limb - that would be more like a KA!:eek:

[AnotherSkip]

or a transform at the Least!

[BobGreenwade]

One thing I've adopted as House Rule is that Extra Limbs is Inherent by default and Not Inherent is a -1/4I agree, Inherent on an extra limb should be the default. 'Supress Power' isn't going to remove a limb - that would be more like a KA!:eek:I agree also. It's much more natural for a limb to be Inherent, and I can't think of a lot of examples (some, but not a lot) where Extra Limbs would be non-Inherent.

[Chris Goodwin]

I agree, Inherent on an extra limb should be the default. 'Supress Power' isn't going to remove a limb - that would be more like a KA!:eek:

I dunno.

Sword of Sharpness: Drain Extra Limb, 6d6, AVLD vs. rPD, Recovers Per Century.....

[nexus]

The problem with that build is that can't cut off any "free" limbs only ones the character paid points for.

[Chris Goodwin]

The problem with that build is that can't cut off any "free" limbs only ones the character paid points for.

Drain Limbs (All Powers Of Special Effect, One At A Time).

The rules provide an optional method for Draining a character's default Senses, for which he has not paid points. Essentially, the "Active Cost" of each Sense is the amount the character gets back in Character Points if he takes a Physical Limitation for the lack of the Sense. The same process could be used for limb loss.

[PhilFleischmann]

It no more *negates* the limitation than it *negates* the focus limitation. One OAF broken - no ability to access the power until it is retrieved. if you paid +5 to have two items, you still have one. One OAF Independent broken - no ability to access the power. if you paid +5 to have two items, you still have one. Show me in the rules where it is stated that you cannot have multiple Independent foci using the "+5 for doubling" rule.
"A Limitation that isn't limiting does not save any points." Independent means when you lose it, you have pay points to get it back. You have to pay *all* the points to get it back, not just 5.

PC's are also subject to GM scrutiny for genre, setting, and other considerations.
Yes. But PCs are not the same as NPCs. PCs are the "stars of the show" and are often very unique in their construction. Much greater freedom is usually given to them.

Is the character whose summoned creatures have high BODY and defenses also "penalized" because he had to pay more points to get that high BODY and defenses, or have less points to spend in other areas? There's no difference here. If the Summoned creature dies, spend a half phase and he's back. If the Duplicate dies, too bad - you're out the points. That's a pretty significant risk difference for precisely no cost difference.
But there's a rules/play difference - the Player controls one and not the other.

The "if it dies you lose the points" solution - which really isn't a solution at all - glad you agree! ;)
You mean the existing rules? That's what you mean by a "solution"? I thought that's what you considered the problem. And BTW, you don't "lose the points" as I've said now many times. +5 points gets you another (or as many as you had before).

Both the Duplicate and the Force Wall can be destroyed. Only one cannot be recreated. One character paid for the power to create a duplicate. A second paid for the power to create a Force Wall. A third paid for the ability to "create" an ally with Summon. Only one is unable to re-use his power if the thing he creates is destroyed. You clearly find that reasonable. I, and apparently AnotherSkip, don't.
They're completely different powers. They don't have the same rules that govern them. Lot's of powers can be "destroyed": Entangles, Mind Controls, Powers in a Breakable Focus. Different powers do different things. There's no reason to assume they all have to be treated the same.

[AnotherSkip]

"They're completely different powers. They don't have the same rules that govern them. Lot's of powers can be "destroyed": Entangles, Mind Controls, Powers in a Breakable Focus. Different powers do different things. There's no reason to assume they all have to be treated the same.
And in every oter case but Duplication you get the points back

Frankly Duplo should go away Summon is soo much nicer


I would also argue that Triplicate Girl (now the Duo Damsel) Actually cashed in her Duplication points for Brainiacs Force field belt with a nifty story....

[Hugh Neilson]

"A Limitation that isn't limiting does not save any points." Independent means when you lose it, you have pay points to get it back. You have to pay *all* the points to get it back, not just 5.

"the Character Points spent on it are lost forever". The character points spent on the first item were its cost. The CP spent on the second item was +5. In other words, I do not concur with your interpretation of the rule. An "unbreakable focus, enchanted item or the like" are noted as unusual, and the character should get the GM's permission.

You mean the existing rules? That's what you mean by a "solution"? I thought that's what you considered the problem. And BTW, you don't "lose the points" as I've said now many times. +5 points gets you another (or as many as you had before).

You cited a problem which arises if the duplicates are not "dead is gone". I responded that the solution you favour - the RAW - is no solution at all.

And you have lost the 5 points you paid to get the second duplicate. You have paid an extra 5 points, but have only one duplicate, not two. Even the sample powers include illogical examples - why would a Telekinetic Sidekick created from mental energy be permanently lost if 'killed'? The energy never recovers? That character can now only have 7 or 15 duplicates, not 8 (without killing off another 7)?

They're completely different powers. They don't have the same rules that govern them. Lot's of powers can be "destroyed": Entangles, Mind Controls, Powers in a Breakable Focus. Different powers do different things. There's no reason to assume they all have to be treated the same.

They are all treated the same - the points are not lost. The EFFECTS of the power can be destroyed. The power itself cannot. Duplication should function the same way - the duplicate itself can be destroyed, but the ability to create a duplicate should not be subject to destruction.

[nexus]

Drain Limbs (All Powers Of Special Effect, One At A Time).

The rules provide an optional method for Draining a character's default Senses, for which he has not paid points. Essentially, the "Active Cost" of each Sense is the amount the character gets back in Character Points if he takes a Physical Limitation for the lack of the Sense. The same process could be used for limb loss.

That's kind of reaching for an effect using an optional rule that could be built in a pretty straight forward manner with HKA/Transform or using the Impairing/Disabling Rules, IMO. You could make up an optional rules for that but there are a couple of ways to handle limb severing already and for another thing that effect "cuts off" limbs but doesn't do any Body or Stun so it doesn't injure the target. How would it interact with Healing effects in that case? I wouldn't allow it personally but YMMV.

[Chris Goodwin]

That's kind of reaching for an effect using an optional rule that could be built in a pretty straight forward manner with HKA/Transform or using the Impairing/Disabling Rules, IMO. You could make up an optional rules for that but there are a couple of ways to handle limb severing already and for another thing that effect "cuts off" limbs but doesn't do any Body or Stun so it doesn't injure the target. How would it interact with Healing effects in that case? I wouldn't allow it personally but YMMV.

Not arguing you can't use HKA or Transform. I just got a bit of a chuckle at using Drain Limbs (All Powers, One At A Time) vs. rPD to represent lopping off limbs....

[PhilFleischmann]

And in every oter case but Duplication you get the points back
Well, you never lost them in the first place. Just like you don't "lose the points" in your EB after you've fired it. Sure, you could buy an EB with 1 charge which never recovers, in which case, you use it once and then forever "lose the points". And of course, you will have bought that one-use EB for 5-1 cost, just like you do with a Duplicate. Coincidence?

You cited a problem which arises if the duplicates are not "dead is gone". I responded that the solution you favour - the RAW - is no solution at all.
No solution to a non-problem. Follow the rules - no problem. Break the rules - problem. The name of that problem is "munchkinism."

Even the sample powers include illogical examples - why would a Telekinetic Sidekick created from mental energy be permanently lost if 'killed'?
Because that's how you bought it. If you want Telekinesis, then buy Telekinesis - at full price. If you want to get your TK powers at 40-80% discount, then be prepared for the consequences.

They are all treated the same - the points are not lost. The EFFECTS of the power can be destroyed. The power itself cannot. Duplication should function the same way - the duplicate itself can be destroyed, but the ability to create a duplicate should not be subject to destruction.
But the duplicate *is* the power - an extra pair of eyes, ears, hands, etc., that you can use: more actions, more attacks. A Summon, OTOH, is the ability to bring forth an NPC - which you don't control.

5-for-1 powers come with restrictions. If you don't want those restrictions, then pay full price like everyone else. Just like taking "One Charge which Never Recovers" can get you any other power for 5-for-1 cost. I have no sympathy for someone who just wants to get their powers cheaper with no restrictions.

[Kdansky]

Sean just wrote this in the 5th forums:

I personally like the idea of life support being used as a sort of limited invulnerability, but it would mean a radical restructuring.

Basically I'd allow invulnerability to 1DC/5 APs of any sfx build for 1 point for uncommon sfx, like vertigo, sonics, vibration, pressure and so on, 2 points for common sfx, like cold, light (specifically), radiation (obviously that is a bit campaign dependent) and 4 points for common sfx, like fire, a broad range of the EMR (excluding infra red, obviously), knives (well attacks that are based on cutting the surface, non-penetrating impact (fists, for instance, and other blunt weapons) or bullets (well, high velocity impact based projectiles).

That may sound insanely generous, but I'm working from the basis that, for instance, to be invulnerable to 12DCs of blunt impact trauma (e.g. punches from someone up to 60 STR) is going to cost 40 points. Well, investing 40 points in pd is going to do the trick, and if it were limited so that ONLY blunt impact trauma was protected against that has to be -1, so you could invest up to 80 points for the same cost, which is functional invulnerability anyway.

Against uncommon sfx, where I see this being used more, an investment of 20 points makes you invilnerable to 20 DCs, or up to 100 points of power.

Now we have a way of purchasing scaled immunity to certain effects. We'd have to think about how we treat advantages on powers your have LS for, and whether we work against active or real cost, but my preference would be simplicity: 1d6 or 5 AP of the base power, so if you have a highly advantaged small power, the immunity will work effectively, even if the actual cost is enormous. I'm very suspicious of massed advantages.

Clean and easy to understand immunity/invulnerability. Expanded LS. Sweet.

I have to say this is the cleanest approach I have yet seen to Life Support and Invulnerability at the same time. I would *so* love to see this.

[The Main Man]

Well, you never lost them in the first place. Just like you don't "lose the points" in your EB after you've fired it. Sure, you could buy an EB with 1 charge which never recovers, in which case, you use it once and then forever "lose the points". And of course, you will have bought that one-use EB for 5-1 cost, just like you do with a Duplicate. Coincidence?

And just like you suggested with Duplication, the player can spend a few points to increase those Charges (in this case he's buying off part of the Limitation).

[Vulcan]

Well, you never lost them in the first place. Just like you don't "lose the points" in your EB after you've fired it. Sure, you could buy an EB with 1 charge which never recovers, in which case, you use it once and then forever "lose the points". And of course, you will have bought that one-use EB for 5-1 cost, just like you do with a Duplicate. Coincidence?

"YES! That's what a coincidence is!" (Sorry, I heard a comedian use that line once and have been waiting for a chance to break it out myself...)

But there is Summon, the 5-1 power where having one killed does not lead to the loss of points...

No solution to a non-problem. Follow the rules - no problem. Break the rules - problem. The name of that problem is "munchkinism."

So because I don't want the points from my 'shadow' Duplicate to be lost when someone 'kills' it - but the Summoner can bring in a creature, throw it to it's death, and bring in another one just like it as often as he wants - that makes me a munchin player? :mad:

Because that's how you bought it. If you want Telekinesis, then buy Telekinesis - at full price. If you want to get your TK powers at 40-80% discount, then be prepared for the consequences.

But that's not how he bought it, he bought it as a Duplicate. So if it dies, he looses points? But the guy who did the same thing with Summon doesn't? And this is fair how?

But the duplicate *is* the power - an extra pair of eyes, ears, hands, etc., that you can use: more actions, more attacks. A Summon, OTOH, is the ability to bring forth an NPC - which you don't control.

EXACTLY! I animate my shadow as a Duplicate. TK guy mentally creates a Duplicate. Both are direct extensions of our minds and wills. Both are basically substanceless, easily recreated.

BUT WE LOOSE POINTS WHEN THEY DIE! Or are at least forced to spend more points to get to use the power again.

On the other hand, Captain Summon can throw away Summoned creatures left and right and always can Summon more!

Explain to me just how this is balanced?

5-for-1 powers come with restrictions. If you don't want those restrictions, then pay full price like everyone else. Just like taking "One Charge which Never Recovers" can get you any other power for 5-for-1 cost. I have no sympathy for someone who just wants to get their powers cheaper with no restrictions.

To heck with cheaper, I just want the option to buy it at all. Either an 'extension of your own mind' advantage to Summon (a level up from 'fanatically loyal' or whatever the top level currently is), or a 'Duplicate returns' advantage on Duplication.

You seem to have it in your mind that I am trying to get something in the system for the purpose of munckining it. Please remove that thought from your mind, it is incorrect. I want a tool in the box to create character build that makes sense, and isn't penalized by the involuntary application of the "Independant" (or "Never Recovers") limitation.

[schir1964]

The continuing argument over Duplication vs Summon seems to be fueled by not addressing a difference in definitions. Until this is resolved, I don't think the arguments will progress any further.

The Difference In Definitions:


Side 1: Duplication and Summon are different.


Duplication: The Player is guaranteed Direct 100% Control over the actions of the character in game play.
Summon: The Player is not guaranteed Direct 100% Control over the actions of the character in game play. The GM dictates what the character will or won't do within the intent of the build (even with Slavishly Loyal).


Side 2:: Duplication and Summon are the same.


Duplication: The Player gets another character to solve tasks and interact with the campaign world and will benefit the player.
Summon: The Player gets another character to solve tasks and interact with the campaign world and will benefit the player.




Which definition is correct and should be used for the discussion?
Herein lies the problem.

GMs pretty much handle Duplication in game the same way. The definition of Duplication is clear cut as to who is in the control of the character and under what circumstances.

However, with Summon different GMs may handle Summon in game differently. Some GMs may insist on Controlling the character summoned, while other GMs may give Control of the character to the player and only intervene if they character exceeds what the GM deems appropriate (which may be very rare or occasionally).

Depending on one's experience as a player, and how a GM handles the Summon power, one definition may be true for one, but the other definition will be true under the other.

Just An Observation

- Christopher Mullins

[The Main Man]

The continuing argument over Duplication vs Summon seems to be fueled by not addressing a difference in definitions. Until this is resolved, I don't think the arguments will progress any further.

The Difference In Definitions:


Side 1: Duplication and Summon are different.


Duplication: The Player is guaranteed Direct 100% Control over the actions of the character in game play.
Summon: The Player is not guaranteed Direct 100% Control over the actions of the character in game play. The GM dictates what the character will or won't do within the intent of the build (even with Slavishly Loyal).

Side 2:: Duplication and Summon are the same.


Duplication: The Player gets another character to solve tasks and interact with the campaign world and will benefit the player.
Summon: The Player gets another character to solve tasks and interact with the campaign world and will benefit the player.


Which definition is correct and should be used for the discussion?
Herein lies the problem.

GMs pretty much handle Duplication in game the same way. The definition of Duplication is clear cut as to who is in the control of the character and under what circumstances.

However, with Summon different GMs may handle Summon in game differently. Some GMs may insist on Controlling the character summoned, while other GMs may give Control of the character to the player and only intervene if they character exceeds what the GM deems appropriate (which may be very rare or occasionally).

Depending on one's experience as a player, and how a GM handles the Summon power, one definition may be true for one, but the other definition will be true under the other.

Just An Observation

- Christopher Mullins

To me, there's too many similarities between them to keep them separate.

[schir1964]

To me, there's too many similarities between them to keep them separate.
So, what is your experience as a player?
How have you handled Summon as a GM?

- Christopher Mullins

[The Main Man]

So, what is your experience as a player?
How have you handled Summon as a GM?

- Christopher Mullins

I have never personally played with Summons but as a GM I generally let a player control the Summon until they run out of tasks, at which point I take over.

Based on that standard, and keeping in mind that that is only my standard, a limitation akin to Charges could be created for a unified power.

[Vulcan]

The continuing argument over Duplication vs Summon seems to be fueled by not addressing a difference in definitions. Until this is resolved, I don't think the arguments will progress any further.

The Difference In Definitions:


Side 1: Duplication and Summon are different.


Duplication: The Player is guaranteed Direct 100% Control over the actions of the character in game play.
Summon: The Player is not guaranteed Direct 100% Control over the actions of the character in game play. The GM dictates what the character will or won't do within the intent of the build (even with Slavishly Loyal).

Side 2:: Duplication and Summon are the same.


Duplication: The Player gets another character to solve tasks and interact with the campaign world and will benefit the player.
Summon: The Player gets another character to solve tasks and interact with the campaign world and will benefit the player.

There is another differnce. Summoning can be done over and over again, no matter how many Summoned creatures are killed off, for no extra point cost, no matter how little sense it makes for the concept - no recourse. Duplicates killed are killed forever unless more points are spent, no matter how much sense it makes for the concept - no recourse.

Both are very similar. Both provide extra characters for a base of 5-1 cost. So I think that making Duplication a variation on Summon is a pretty good idea. And if you make 'extension of the original's mind' a +2 Advantage, and 'killed creatures cannot be re-summoned' a -2 limitation (in line with 'Independant' and 'Charges never recover'), then you end up with exactly the same Real Cost as Duplication has now. Sure, the AP cost will be higher, but a simple note in the power description that 'use of this power should be judged by the capabilities of the creatures summoned rather than on artifical means such as AP caps' should handle that nicely.

And brings me back to the 3-5 proposal I made earlier, well before someone all but accused me of wanting a 'munckin' build...

[schir1964]

...Both are very similar. Both provide extra characters for a base of 5-1 cost. So I think that making Duplication a variation on Summon is a pretty good idea. And if you make 'extension of the original's mind' a +2 Advantage, and 'killed creatures cannot be re-summoned' a -2 limitation (in line with 'Independant' and 'Charges never recover'), then you end up with exactly the same Real Cost as Duplication has now. Sure, the AP cost will be higher, but a simple note in the power description that 'use of this power should be judged by the capabilities of the creatures summoned rather than on artifical means such as AP caps' should handle that nicely.
What about Multiform?

Technically, one could combine all three powers into a single power with Adders/Subtractors/Advantages/Limitations to differentiate them.

- Christopher Mullins

[The Main Man]

What about Multiform?

Technically, one could combine all three powers into a single power with Adders/Subtractors/Advantages/Limitations to differentiate them.

- Christopher Mullins

I suggested that earlier too.

It could be a +1 Advantage to indicate a second character or maybe vice versa: a -1/2 Limitation.

[Vulcan]

I'm not sure Multiform is quite close enough to Duplicate/Summon to be rolled in without overcomplicating things - but I do see your point.

The main capability of Duplicate/Summon is the capability to take multiple independant actions at a time. Multiform lacks that capability.

Of course, this is complicated by the fact that Duplication has an advantage that allows you to change the build of the Duplicates - and that Summons are almost always different from the base character.... Hmm. Forgot to take that into account; does the new power default to the Duplication rule (advanage to change the build) or the Summon rule?

Although that is another big reason for change. Getting the ability to freely bring back Summoned creatures and the ability to have a 100% different Summoned creature for free is a HUGE advantage to Summon, MORE than compensating for any GM interference in the way the Summoned creature might act.

[PhilFleischmann]

But there is Summon, the 5-1 power where having one killed does not lead to the loss of points...
And a summoned creature is not entirely under your control.

So because I don't want the points from my 'shadow' Duplicate to be lost when someone 'kills' it - but the Summoner can bring in a creature, throw it to it's death, and bring in another one just like it as often as he wants - that makes me a munchin player? :mad:
Not necessarily. Don't take it personally. I've already suggested many ways you can get your duplicate back, if that's what you want. If you build a duplicate that can be easily killed, or put your duplicate into situations where it's likely to be killed, and don't pay for some ability to bring it back if killed; and yet you don't want to ever lose it, then maybe you're a munchkin, or maybe you've built your duplicate poorly, or maybe you're using bad tactics.

But that's not how he bought it, he bought it as a Duplicate. So if it dies, he looses points? But the guy who did the same thing with Summon doesn't? And this is fair how?
Having already answered this question several times now, I will leave it for you to figure out. Hint: it has to do with the difference between a PC and an NPC.

Explain to me just how this is balanced?
The answer is right there in my last post, if you care to read it.

To heck with cheaper, I just want the option to buy it at all.
And you have several options for doing so that I've already mentioned. Feel free to read my earlier posts.

You seem to have it in your mind that I am trying to get something in the system for the purpose of munckining it. Please remove that thought from your mind, it is incorrect. I want a tool in the box to create character build that makes sense, and isn't penalized by the involuntary application of the "Independant" (or "Never Recovers") limitation.
Again, please don't take it personally. I wasn't characterizing you. The tools you need are already in the box. It's up to you to decide if the price to use them is worth the benefit. It is up to you to build your character so it makes sense for your concept. If the bottom line cost is more than you want to pay, then it is up to you to decide what parts of your concept you can live without until you gain enough XP to buy them.

[Hugh Neilson]

And a summoned creature is not entirely under your control.

If it's Slavishly Loyal it does exactly what it's told. That's better than I'd get from a second "me" in many cases. There may be some differences, but these generally balance out.

There is, in my view, insufficient difference between a "slavishly loyal summoned creature" and a "100% different duplicate" to justify slapping an effective Independent limitation on one with no difference in cost. In your game, it seems better to Summon a "slavishly loyal" creature with all the same psychological limitations, and the same personality (as defined by the SFX of the power) than to buy Duplication. If you are running the "duplicates", you should still logically be running them as duplicates of my character - pretty much the exact same way I would be running them.

I've already suggested many ways you can get your duplicate back, if that's what you want. If you build a duplicate that can be easily killed, or put your duplicate into situations where it's likely to be killed, and don't pay for some ability to bring it back if killed; and yet you don't want to ever lose it, then maybe you're a munchkin, or maybe you've built your duplicate poorly, or maybe you're using bad tactics.

Assuming it's identical to my character, I hope I didn't build it to be easily killed. Since it is IDENTICAL to my character, it should have the ability to come back from the dead only if my character also has that ability. It should not otherwise have that ability. It should not spring back to life - it should be possible, however, for me to summon a NEW duplicate. If my SFX are such that, once my Duplicate (or my Summoned Creature) is killed, I cannot create another duplicate (or Summon a new Creature), the limitation which simulates such results mechanically is Independent. Independent should not be imposed by virtue of the mechanic "duplication". A -2 limitation is not mandated to offset any inherent advantage in the Duplication power.

Having already answered this question several times now, I will leave it for you to figure out. Hint: it has to do with the difference between a PC and an NPC.

So if I let you control the Duplicate, which has all my psych lims, and my personality, and therefore can reasonably only be played to behave with the same goals, objectives and tactics of my character, do I get a -2 limitation on my Duplication because it is now as much an NPC as a Summoned creature? That sounds extremely unbalanced to me, but it also seems a logical extrapolation of your position.

The fact that we disagree with you on whether it should be necessary to construct a variant duplicate for the privilege of not losing the points should the duplicate meet an unfortunate end does not make those suggesting this limitation is inappropriate a pack of munchkins.

[PhilFleischmann]

If it's Slavishly Loyal it does exactly what it's told.
Not quite. It *tries* to do what it's told *as it understands* the order.

That's better than I'd get from a second "me" in many cases.
I don't see how.

In your game, it seems better to Summon a "slavishly loyal" creature with all the same psychological limitations, and the same personality (as defined by the SFX of the power) than to buy Duplication.
How are you specifying the personality of the summoned creature? Using the "Specific Creature Summoned" Advantage for an additional +1? Otherwise, you don't get to specify the personality and individual psych lims of the summoned creature. And if the summoned creature dies, in most cases, it doesn't come back to life, you just summon a different one (with a different personality) next time.

If you are running the "duplicates", you should still logically be running them as duplicates of my character - pretty much the exact same way I would be running them.
I'll run them according to the way you bought them. If they're non-specific summonees, I'll choose their personalities.

Assuming it's identical to my character, I hope I didn't build it to be easily killed. Since it is IDENTICAL to my character, it should have the ability to come back from the dead only if my character also has that ability. It should not otherwise have that ability.
And it need not be identical to your character. A limited ressurection power need not cost very much at all. If only your duplicate has it, that's only a +1/4 Advantage for the "up to 25% different".

It should not spring back to life - it should be possible, however, for me to summon a NEW duplicate. If my SFX are such that, once my Duplicate (or my Summoned Creature) is killed, I cannot create another duplicate (or Summon a new Creature), the limitation which simulates such results mechanically is Independent. Independent should not be imposed by virtue of the mechanic "duplication". A -2 limitation is not mandated to offset any inherent advantage in the Duplication power.
It comes back to life or not based on what you bought it to do. If you didn't buy some means to bring it back, then you don't get it back. It isn't "imposed" - you made the choice how to build it.

So if I let you control the Duplicate, which has all my psych lims, and my personality, and therefore can reasonably only be played to behave with the same goals, objectives and tactics of my character, do I get a -2 limitation on my Duplication because it is now as much an NPC as a Summoned creature? That sounds extremely unbalanced to me, but it also seems a logical extrapolation of your position.
I'm not sure what you mean here. If I control the Duplicate? Why would I? It's your Duplicate - you control it.

The fact that we disagree with you on whether it should be necessary to construct a variant duplicate for the privilege of not losing the points should the duplicate meet an unfortunate end does not make those suggesting this limitation is inappropriate a pack of munchkins.
Nor did I say you were.

[Hugh Neilson]

I don't see how.

128 Slavishly Loyal summoned creatured will lay themselves, one by one, across a pool of lava so I can cross safely on their backs. NFW would I lay myself across a pool of lava to allow "me" to cross on my back. A Slavishly Loyal creature can be commanded to do things that I would never do.

How are you specifying the personality of the summoned creature? Using the "Specific Creature Summoned" Advantage for an additional +1? Otherwise, you don't get to specify the personality and individual psych lims of the summoned creature. And if the summoned creature dies, in most cases, it doesn't come back to life, you just summon a different one (with a different personality) next time.

I'll run them according to the way you bought them. If they're non-specific summonees, I'll choose their personalities.

I'm summoning "other me's". Do some wolves show up with "fear of sheep" in your game because you're the GM and you control the limitations of the Summoned creature, or do they show up with standard wolf mental abilities and sensibilities? I summon "other me's" which have the same mental processes I have.

And it need not be identical to your character. A limited ressurection power need not cost very much at all. If only your duplicate has it, that's only a +1/4 Advantage for the "up to 25% different".

If I'm paying for 25% of points different, I may as well get all the points my base character spent on Duplication, so my base character may as well be less powerful than my Duplicate(s).

It comes back to life or not based on what you bought it to do. If you didn't buy some means to bring it back, then you don't get it back. It isn't "imposed" - you made the choice how to build it.

It is imposed by the nonsense rule that says "unlike any other power without the Independent limitation, you lose the points in duplication if your duplicate gets killed".

I'm not sure what you mean here. If I control the Duplicate? Why would I? It's your Duplicate - you control it.

Because it has the limitation "controlled by GM". That's the same limitation Summon has, which you believe offsets the Independent limitation imposed by Duplication. If they're both worth -2, why can't I take the second limitation on my Duplicates?

[Kdansky]

I have to say it is utterly ludicrous that one has to buy Ressurection on a Duplication Power to do Naruto Shadow Clones / Kagebunshin. That is very far from SFX (after all, they don't ressurect) und incredibly complicated. Also, it does not scale well, since ressurection costs roughly 20 points, but the higher points the clones have, the better they become.

Duplication/Summon should become a single Power which has Modifiers for "I control the thing" and for "it does not really die if it dies". That way, we get rid of highly another reduntant spot in the rules, add functionality (the one requested here) and remove the weird Independent limitation on Duplication.

Also, there is only the GM preventing utter abuse like:

Summon Slave, Independent (makes it really cheap and equivalent to Duplication), Slavishly loyal
+10 points for 4 copies, in case one dies, you can still buy another 4 copies for 5 points.

Slave: EGO 10 to make it easy to control
Powers: Mind Link with summoner (5cp)
Physical Limitation: Follows every command given through mind link and has no free will (-25 cp)

Don't you think that's horribly crude?

[AnotherSkip]

We also ought to roll in Followers to Summon and Duplicate, having a mix and match of advantages and limitations as I outlined much earlier.
Besides isn't there a comment about Followers being replaceable which pretty much throws out It's 1/5 and the Players don't control it and all the other yammering difference others claim is balanced?

[Hugh Neilson]

Duplication/Summon should become a single Power

Agreed

which has Modifiers for "I control the thing"

agreed - I'd price this as "slavishly loyal"

and for "it does not really die if it dies".

I think this should be the default - abilities that can be permanently lost should be Independent, so the modifier is for "if it dies, it's gone forever".

The only question remaining is whether there should be any kind of discount for "the summoned creature is identical/partially identical to the summoner", as Duplication costs less the closer the duplicates are to their originator. I'm on the fence in that regard. On the one hand, I don't find duplication to be overpriced for what it does, and there is certainly an advantage being able to summon something that can do things you can't. On the other hand, it creates another layer of complexity, and Summon doesn't assess how different the summoned creature is from the summoner (and there will always be SOME overlap - we all buy characteristics).

[PhilFleischmann]

128 Slavishly Loyal summoned creatured will lay themselves, one by one, across a pool of lava so I can cross safely on their backs.
Oh. That's how you interpret "slavishly loyal"? Well, in my campaign they wouldn't.

NFW would I lay myself across a pool of lava to allow "me" to cross on my back. A Slavishly Loyal creature can be commanded to do things that I would never do.
Why not? If it's your duplicate that you control, and you want to step on its back to cross lava, there's nothing to stop you from doing so. Yes, it's a dumb thing to do, but you could if you wanted to.

I'm summoning "other me's". Do some wolves show up with "fear of sheep" in your game because you're the GM and you control the limitations of the Summoned creature, or do they show up with standard wolf mental abilities and sensibilities? I summon "other me's" which have the same mental processes I have.
No. In my games, as in real life, wolves do not have "fear of sheep". Which is not to say they all have the same personality. You do not summon "other you's" unless you paid for the Specific Creature Advantage. And as a GM, I'd first have to decide that there exist "other you's" for you to summon, which is already pretty dubious. You can certainly summon other's of your species, presumably human, but they won't all have the same mental processes.

It is imposed by the nonsense rule that says "unlike any other power without the Independent limitation, you lose the points in duplication if your duplicate gets killed".
But no other power *is* Duplication. Other powers don't get "killed".

Because it has the limitation "controlled by GM". That's the same limitation Summon has, which you believe offsets the Independent limitation imposed by Duplication. If they're both worth -2, why can't I take the second limitation on my Duplicates?
Go right ahead.

I thought we had already agreed that Duplicates don't get killed that often (especially if thy're built and played intelligently). And I don't constantly look for ways to kill off players' duplicates. And I would say that any GM that deliberately tries to kill off duplicates is not being fair. The same is not quite true for Independent powers - which *will*, with perfect fairness, be taken away eventually.

[The Main Man]

We also ought to roll in Followers to Summon and Duplicate, having a mix and match of advantages and limitations as I outlined much earlier.
Besides isn't there a comment about Followers being replaceable which pretty much throws out It's 1/5 and the Players don't control it and all the other yammering difference others claim is balanced?

That's been one of my lingering thoughts.




Another thing that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet: IIRC, Duplicates do not have "Summoning Sickness."

[Hugh Neilson]

Oh. That's how you interpret "slavishly loyal"? Well, in my campaign they wouldn't.

I interpret "slavishly loyal" as "slavishly loyal". This is the advantage level used to create robots and zombies whose only thought is to obey their summoner absolutely. Could a robot in your campaign not be programmed to destroy itself should its master so command? Do Zombies in your game possess survival instincts?

Why not? If it's your duplicate that you control, and you want to step on its back to cross lava, there's nothing to stop you from doing so. Yes, it's a dumb thing to do, but you could if you wanted to.

Why not? Good role playing. Regardless of how important it is to cross that lava, I can't imagine many people being willing to lay down their lives in an excruciatingly painful manner to accomplish that goal. My character - including his identical duplicates - has a survival instinct, so he's not going to do it (unless my character's personality says he would actually do this, in which case it may be the original laying in that lava with a bunch of duplicates as one duplicate runs over the lava to accomplish whatever goal merited such extreme actions).

No. In my games, as in real life, wolves do not have "fear of sheep". Which is not to say they all have the same personality. You do not summon "other you's" unless you paid for the Specific Creature Advantage. And as a GM, I'd first have to decide that there exist "other you's" for you to summon, which is already pretty dubious. You can certainly summon other's of your species, presumably human, but they won't all have the same mental processes.

"Others of my species" who have exactly the same character build, as Summon requires an advantage to deviate from the specific character build. None of those wolves are exceptionally strong, fast, old or sickly - they all have the same stats. Yet you want them to have a wide array of personality traits.

But no other power *is* Duplication. Other powers don't get "killed".

SUMMONS GET KILLED!

I thought we had already agreed that Duplicates don't get killed that often (especially if they're built and played intelligently). And I don't constantly look for ways to kill off players' duplicates. And I would say that any GM that deliberately tries to kill off duplicates is not being fair. The same is not quite true for Independent powers - which *will*, with perfect fairness, be taken away eventually.

First off, in your little world, I see it is impossible for a character to have a "kamikaze Duplicates" concept unless their player is not building and playing them intelligently. It seems to me that could be a perfectly reasonable construct. Better build it as a Summon in your game. And I suggest that they can be Summoned from the same place your Duplicates would come from!

In my view, if killing a duplicate would be very rare, then it seems like imposing the "they don't come back" limitation serves principally to impose a significant penalty on the character unlucky enough to have a duplicate killed. There's no point mandating an inherent limitation unless that inherent limitation both has meaning and serves to balance the ability. Giving a character 5x as much power in exchange for a 1 in 5 chance they will be radically depowered at some time isn't the recipe for a good, well balanced game. It's like having a character who starts off radically less powerful than other PC's, but progresses to radically more powerful. On average, he's equal, but in practice he spends most of the game being either useless or omnipotent, with very little in between.

Rather than "if a duplicate dies, he stays dead", I would rather see a rule that provides for the recovery of dead duplicates (probably just the same as Summon - as I would fold Duplication into Summon), perhaps with the note that the killing of a duplicate might alternatively be a good premise for a 'radiation accident' - you lost your Duplicate and get to spend the points somewhere else.

[Vulcan]

SUMMONS GET KILLED!

While I understand what you're saying, the point Phil was trying to make was that a killed Summon does not cost the character any points...

[Hugh Neilson]

While I understand what you're saying, the point Phil was trying to make was that a killed Summon does not cost the character any points...

No, that's the point the rest of us are trying to make. If a Summoned creature is killed, the Summoner does not lose the Summon power, or any portion thereof. If a Duplicate is killed, we feel the Duplicator should does not lose the Duplication power, or any portion thereof. If the Duplication power is subject to permanent loss, that is implemented with the Independent limitation.

[PhilFleischmann]

Another thing that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet: IIRC, Duplicates do not have "Summoning Sickness."
Yes, and another two things that haven't been pointed out:

1) Summon costs END, and Duplication does not.
2) A summoned creature will perform a certain number of tasks, while a duplicate will do whatever you want for as long as you want.

And related (call it 2a), is the unspecified effect of the Amiable Advantage. The Antagonistic Limitation is more clearly defined with penalties to the control roll of -1, -3, and -6, for -1/4, -1/2, and -3/4 limitations, respectively. Strong Willed gives a -2 or -4 for -1/4 or -1/2 lim, and Weak Willed gives +1 or +2 for +1/4 or +1/2 advantage. No such numbers are given for Amiable. The book does say that you can't take Strong Willed along with Amiable, which implies that even an Amiable summonee may require an EGO-vs-EGO roll to control, but it isn't clear.

I interpret "slavishly loyal" as "slavishly loyal".
Which tells me absolutely nothing.

This is the advantage level used to create robots and zombies whose only thought is to obey their summoner absolutely.
Which depends on what you mean by "absolutely". There are no absolutes in HERO, remember? According to Aasimov, robots aren't supposed to wantonly allow themselves to be destroyed.

Could a robot in your campaign not be programmed to destroy itself should its master so command? Do Zombies in your game possess survival instincts?
It's possible, but not guaranteed. It depends on the specifics of the game/setting/genre, and the nature of the particular summonee.

Why not? Good role playing. Regardless of how important it is to cross that lava, I can't imagine many people being willing to lay down their lives in an excruciatingly painful manner to accomplish that goal.
But you can imagine a slave doing so? Do people lose their survival instinct just because they're slavishly loyal?

"Others of my species" who have exactly the same character build, as Summon requires an advantage to deviate from the specific character build. None of those wolves are exceptionally strong, fast, old or sickly - they all have the same stats. Yet you want them to have a wide array of personality traits.
Personality is not a stat.

SUMMONS GET KILLED!
No: summoned *creatures* get killed. Force Walls get knocked down. Entangles get broken. Missiles get deflected. Armor gets pierced and penetrated. It isn't the Power itself that is getting killed in all these cases. For Duplication, unlike any other Power, the duplicate *is* the power.

First off, in your little world, I see it is impossible for a character to have a "kamikaze Duplicates" concept unless their player is not building and playing them intelligently.
Well, I can't account for what you see. You seem to frequently "see" things "in my little world" that aren't there. I never made any statement about characters' concpets. If a character has a concept of kamikaze duplicates, that's just fine. However, Duplication may not be the best way to build that concept.

In my view, if killing a duplicate would be very rare, then it seems like imposing the "they don't come back" limitation serves principally to impose a significant penalty on the character unlucky enough to have a duplicate killed.
No. It serves to encourage players to take care of their duplicates as they would their PCs, because that's exactly what they are.

There's no point mandating an inherent limitation unless that inherent limitation both has meaning and serves to balance the ability.
I agree. I think the mortality of duplicates is quite meaningful and also balancing.

Rather than "if a duplicate dies, he stays dead", I would rather see a rule that provides for the recovery of dead duplicates ...
That's certainly a fine possibility.

[Hugh Neilson]

Yes, and another two things that haven't been pointed out:

1) Summon costs END, and Duplication does not.
2) A summoned creature will perform a certain number of tasks, while a duplicate will do whatever you want for as long as you want.

A Summoned creature and a Duplicate spend the rest of their phase orienting. It should be possible to buy this off.

Absent certain advantages, each duplicate requires a half phase while Summon calls up all the creatures at once. It should be possible for either power to work like the other.

Duplicates recombine at will, but require an advantage to speed the process or to allow this at range. Summon requires use of a task on non-amicable Summons to send them back. Again, I think each should be able to simulate the other.

And related (call it 2a), is the unspecified effect of the Amiable Advantage. The Antagonistic Limitation is more clearly defined with penalties to the control roll of -1, -3, and -6, for -1/4, -1/2, and -3/4 limitations, respectively. Strong Willed gives a -2 or -4 for -1/4 or -1/2 lim, and Weak Willed gives +1 or +2 for +1/4 or +1/2 advantage. No such numbers are given for Amiable. The book does say that you can't take Strong Willed along with Amiable, which implies that even an Amiable summonee may require an EGO-vs-EGO roll to control, but it isn't clear.

Actually, it's "amicable".

If the Summoner purchases this advantage, the Summoned being is friendlier. He requires no EGO roll to control it - it wants to help the Summoner and do his bidding, within limits.

Which depends on what you mean by "absolutely". There are no absolutes in HERO, remember? According to Aasimov, robots aren't supposed to wantonly allow themselves to be destroyed.

I mean what the rules say.

However, for a +1 Advantage, the Summoned being is Slavishly Devoted to the Summoner and will do whatever he asks without question or complaint

That's what was paid for. That's what the Summoned being does.

It's possible, but not guaranteed. It depends on the specifics of the game/setting/genre, and the nature of the particular summonee.

But you can imagine a slave doing so? Do people lose their survival instinct just because they're slavishly loyal?

The nature of the particular summonee determines whether Slavishly Devoted is appropriate. If it is, see the rules for such Summons, above. If it is not, the next lower advantage would be appropriate.

No: summoned *creatures* get killed. Force Walls get knocked down. Entangles get broken. Missiles get deflected. Armor gets pierced and penetrated. It isn't the Power itself that is getting killed in all these cases. For Duplication, unlike any other Power, the duplicate *is* the power.

Summon allows creatures to be summoned (or created - what are the SFX?). If the creature is killed, the power remains. Creatures can be summoned again.

Force Wall allows walls to be created. If they are knocked down, they can be recreated. The power remains.

Entangle allows entangles to be created. If they are broken, they can be recreated. The power remains.

Missiles can be fired again after one is deflected. Armor continues to defend after being penetrated.

Summon allows duplicatesto be created (or summoned - what are the SFX?). If the duplicate is killed, I believe the power should remain. Creatures can be summoned/created again. It should be the default that duplicates can be created/summoned again. There is no reason to build "independent" into duplication.

Well, I can't account for what you see. You seem to frequently "see" things "in my little world" that aren't there. I never made any statement about characters' concpets. If a character has a concept of kamikaze duplicates, that's just fine. However, Duplication may not be the best way to build that concept.

So creating duplicates should use a power other than Duplication? Seems a strong indication that Duplication and Summon are variants of the same power, which I believe 6e should recognize.

No. It serves to encourage players to take care of their duplicates as they would their PCs, because that's exactly what they are.

They are powers of the PC. Just like followers, summons or anything else.

I agree. I think the mortality of duplicates is quite meaningful and also balancing.

And that is where we disagree.

[Vulcan]

No. It serves to encourage players to take care of their duplicates as they would their PCs, because that's exactly what they are.

And what about a game with a rather high character lethality (like the one I'm playing in now)? A duplicating character lost 3 out of four duplicates (along with half the party) to a HUGE bomb that the PC's didn't know about until it was far too late for most of them to escape.

Afterwards, the dead PC's could bring in new (granted, starting-points) characters. The living PC's (who had enough movement to escape, or were close enough to one to be carried out) were fine.

The duplicator was out several duplicates until he could spend more points. Hardly fair, that. He also opted to start a new character, rather than play a 'lame duck.'

So are the players in this game to be punished because the GM has a major thing for Iron Age games?

[PhilFleischmann]

Summon allows creatures to be summoned (or created - what are the SFX?). If the creature is killed, the power remains. Creatures can be summoned again.
Yes. That was my whole point from several pages ago.

So creating duplicates should use a power other than Duplication?
Reason from effects. There was a spell from the 4e FH "Animal Control" college that "summoned" birds to fly in and interpose themselves between you and enemy attacks. This was bought as Force Field - because that's what the power did - rather than Summon Slavishly Loyal (and highly effective at Blocking) birds.

They are powers of the PC. Just like followers, summons or anything else.
But they're not like anything else. They are characters, with character sheets, controlled by the Player - PCs.

And that is where we disagree.
Hmmm... Do you find that the mortality of PCs (non-duplicates) is meaningful and balancing? I do.

And what about a game with a rather high character lethality (like the one I'm playing in now)? ....
The duplicator was out several duplicates until he could spend more points. Hardly fair, that. He also opted to start a new character, rather than play a 'lame duck.'

So are the players in this game to be punished because the GM has a major thing for Iron Age games?
That's a GM call, based on the various game considerations. There are several options, which I've mentioned over and over in the last few pages. The most basic one that comes to mind for this scenario is the fact that since this base character survived, and many of his teammates didn't, he'll have gained some experience points. Did they at least stop the bad guy's evil plans? Were the innocent people of Campaign City saved from harm? A tremendous sacrifice was made, very dramatic (and hopefully with good role-playing). Well, for a mere 5 of those XP (which the new starting characters don't have), the duplicator can get a whole new batch of duplicates, along with any that survived. He had 4, and 3 died, so he spends 5 points and gets 4 new ones. Now he has 5 duplicates!

[Vulcan]

That's a GM call, based on the various game considerations. There are several options, which I've mentioned over and over in the last few pages. The most basic one that comes to mind for this scenario is the fact that since this base character survived, and many of his teammates didn't, he'll have gained some experience points. Did they at least stop the bad guy's evil plans? Were the innocent people of Campaign City saved from harm? A tremendous sacrifice was made, very dramatic (and hopefully with good role-playing). Well, for a mere 5 of those XP (which the new starting characters don't have), the duplicator can get a whole new batch of duplicates, along with any that survived. He had 4, and 3 died, so he spends 5 points and gets 4 new ones. Now he has 5 duplicates!

Assuming the GM gives 5 in one lump :eek:... we get 3 for 'saving the world' so 1-2 is more like what we get for such things...:rolleyes:

[PhilFleischmann]

Assuming the GM gives 5 in one lump :eek:... we get 3 for 'saving the world' so 1-2 is more like what we get for such things...:rolleyes:
It doesn't matter how many he gives you in one lump. Do you always spend them as soon as you get them? Spending them by ones and twos? Do you never save up for a larger purchase? Is 5 really so much to save up? Do you not get any extra reward for the massive death sacrifice you made? Would the GM not give any consideration to the sacrifice of three duplicates for the good of the innocent people of Campaign City? Or was this massive character death an indication of failure? Or bad tactics or poor decision making on the part of the PCs? And should that not have any consequences? Does five points seem too much to bring three dead duplicates back to life? And of course, the five-points was only one method of getting your duplicates back. There are others that have already been mentioned.

[Hugh Neilson]

It doesn't matter how many he gives you in one lump. Do you always spend them as soon as you get them? Spending them by ones and twos? Do you never save up for a larger purchase? Is 5 really so much to save up? Do you not get any extra reward for the massive death sacrifice you made? Would the GM not give any consideration to the sacrifice of three duplicates for the good of the innocent people of Campaign City? Or was this massive character death an indication of failure? Or bad tactics or poor decision making on the part of the PCs? And should that not have any consequences? Does five points seem too much to bring three dead duplicates back to life? And of course, the five-points was only one method of getting your duplicates back. There are others that have already been mentioned.

Emphasis added. First, I suggest you re-read the post. I'm not seeing "heroic sacrifice". I'm seeing "high lethality campaign". Second, if the character should be REWARDED for the massive sacrifice for the goof the innocent people of Campaign City, how is requiring him to spend his next 5 XP to get back to where he started a REWARD? Would subtracting 1d6 from the Energy Projector's EB be a fitting reward in similar circumstances, or removing 2" of the Speedster's 1/2 END running?

It seems to me the requirement to spend XP to re-purchase the abilities he had before is in the nature of an XP penalty, not a reward.

Duplication is the only power that contains this "can be lost permanently - spend points to get it back" limitation by default. I remain of the opinion that no power should have that as a default.

[PhilFleischmann]

Duplication is the only power that contains this "can be lost permanently - spend points to get it back" limitation by default. I remain of the opinion that no power should have that as a default.
No it's not the only power than can be lost permanently. All of them can. Through an event called "character death". I remain of the opinion that death should have consequences, and the potential danger of death should influence how characters are built.

[PhilFleischmann]

On a completely different topic: Enhanced Senses

I think it might be a good idea for 6th to take another look at Active vs. Passive senses. Are they really worth the same amount? It seems to me that Passive has an advantage (=greater utility) than an Active sense, because you don't give off any "pings" that might alert enemies to your location. I don't see what benefit there is to an Active sense that compensates for this.

(And in case it isn't obvious, the conclusion to draw, assuming I'm correct, is that Passive senses should cost more than Active senses.)

[Southern Cross]

Passive senses can only be used when there is an active energy source-i.e. Ultraviolet Vision requires an outside source of UV radiation.

[PhilFleischmann]

But it doesn't have to be an energy source at all. Passive Sonar works all the time. You always sense the physical objects around you without "pinging".

And wouldn't UV vision be less useful if it gave your location away to anyone who also had UV vision?

[Klaus Mogensen]

But it doesn't have to be an energy source at all. Passive Sonar works all the time. You always sense the physical objects around you without "pinging".
I assume that if there is no ambient sound, you can't use Passive Sonar. However, I seem to recall that in earlier editions, Passive Sonar was more expensive than Active Sonar.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

No it's not the only power than can be lost permanently. All of them can. Through an event called "character death". I remain of the opinion that death should have consequences, and the potential danger of death should influence how characters are built.

Yet the death of a summoned creature is a death that lacks such consequences and the potential danger of death thus has no influence on the construction of that power.

And the impact of death on the character is quite different from the impact of character death on the player. The player creates a new character. Many, if not most, players would rather play a new character than play one that limps along behind the others because he's at a lower power level. Death of a character creates the former structure. Loss of the duplication power creates the latter.

One argument is that the new character would start off with no xp, but my experience is that most gaming groups do not have PC's with widely divergent power levels, and new characters start with xp at a level perhaps slightly below that of the established characters, but not a long way below. And many defenders of "starting all new characters at first level" are quick to argue that the new character rapidly catches up (ie the other characters shepherd him through adventures he could never survive with a group of characters at his own power level). Why the seasoned group takes on the wet behind the ears rookie instead of recruiting someone more experienced is never explained. I read it as "He's a Player Character" syndrome.

To me, the death of a duplicate is not materially different from the death of a summoned creature. In fact, Summon one Slavishly Loyal (or even highly amicable) creature is, in play, pretty much indistinguishable from having one Duplicate who is 100% (or even 75%) different from the base character. Try both builds as a GM and see if the players can guess which was which.

For one to provide "death of creature = loss of points" and the other to forgive this makes no sense, at least in my opinion. But we've heard my opinion, your opinion and lots of other opinions. The only one we haven't heard that will really matter is Steve Long's.

[Vulcan]

Emphasis added. First, I suggest you re-read the post. I'm not seeing "heroic sacrifice". I'm seeing "high lethality campaign".

Thank you for pointing that out.

For a few more specifics to the scenario, the bomb in question darn near FILLED a warehouse (actually it was a bunch of bombs set to detonate togethe). We were there to rescue a kidnapped Congressman from a 'charismatic mutant leader' - who had been replaced by a psychotic shapechanger. (I note in passing, we didn't find out that there even was a psychotic shapechanger working for the real enemy for three more sessions.) He had set the bombs not just to kill us, and the Congressman, but also as many of the mutant followers of the charismatic leader as he could.

He got quite a few.

The only reason my tissue-paper defense martial artist survived was because I was planning on going after the person behind this whole plot (unfortunately without knowledge of his full resources), so I never entered the warehouse.

Second, if the character should be REWARDED for the massive sacrifice for the good the innocent people of Campaign City, how is requiring him to spend his next 5 XP to get back to where he started a REWARD? Would subtracting 1d6 from the Energy Projector's EB be a fitting reward in similar circumstances, or removing 2" of the Speedster's 1/2 END running?

As I recall, the survivors averaged 2 XP. Epsilon (the duplicator in question) got 1.5 and would have needed to be renamed Beta after the bomb.

And the impact of death on the character is quite different from the impact of character death on the player. The player creates a new character. Many, if not most, players would rather play a new character than play one that limps along behind the others because he's at a lower power level. Death of a character creates the former structure. Loss of the duplication power creates the latter.

One argument is that the new character would start off with no xp, but my experience is that most gaming groups do not have PC's with widely divergent power levels, and new characters start with xp at a level perhaps slightly below that of the established characters, but not a long way below. And many defenders of "starting all new characters at first level" are quick to argue that the new character rapidly catches up (ie the other characters shepherd him through adventures he could never survive with a group of characters at his own power level). Why the seasoned group takes on the wet behind the ears rookie instead of recruiting someone more experienced is never explained. I read it as "He's a Player Character" syndrome.

Unfortuantely our GM is a 'start over at 1st level' - or starting points, as the case may be - kinda guy. Although I do note that 'starting points' increased from 250 to 275 over the course of the game.

My first character (the tissue-paper DEF martial artist) went from 250 to over 400 points over that same period. Two other characters are in the same ballpark on points. The new characters are hard-presses to survive, much less compete, with the well-established ones.

The GM seems to think it's their reward for not starting new characters. On behalf of the players whose characters died... http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/pbt.gif

If only the campaigns weren't so darned interesting...

To me, the death of a duplicate is not materially different from the death of a summoned creature. In fact, Summon one Slavishly Loyal (or even highly amicable) creature is, in play, pretty much indistinguishable from having one Duplicate who is 100% (or even 75%) different from the base character. Try both builds as a GM and see if the players can guess which was which.

Depends on how long-term the character is. If he gets whacked in his first appearance, it might become obvious when he doesn't 'summon' more minions. Over the long run, the players might never know, because the GM can 'give' as much XP as he wants to the NPC's to keep them at the power level he wants.

For one to provide "death of creature = loss of points" and the other to forgive this makes no sense, at least in my opinion. But we've heard my opinion, your opinion and lots of other opinions. The only one we haven't heard that will really matter is Steve Long's.

Agreed.

[Hugh Neilson]

Unfortuantely our GM is a 'start over at 1st level' - or starting points, as the case may be - kinda guy. Although I do note that 'starting points' increased from 250 to 275 over the course of the game.
************************************************** ********
Over the long run, the players might never know, because the GM can 'give' as much XP as he wants to the NPC's to keep them at the power level he wants.

Pure aside, but I always have to question why the villains don't start at 0 xp, like the heroes...

[Vulcan]

The GM can just say 'this guy's been around for years, he's gotten a boatload of XP.'

[PhilFleischmann]

I assume that if there is no ambient sound, you can't use Passive Sonar. However, I seem to recall that in earlier editions, Passive Sonar was more expensive than Active Sonar.

- Klaus
Unless you're in a vacuum, there's always ambient sound - air vibrations, the way Daredevil's sonar works.

And yes, passive used to be more expensive than active, but they cost the same in 5th.

Remember that a passive sense like UV Vision isn't for the purpose of detecting UV radiation, it's for the purpose of detecting physical objects. We don't see light for the purpose of seeing light, we use the light to see the things around us. Similarly with Passive Sonar (or even Active Sonar) - it's not just "detect sound waves," it's *use* sound waves to detect objects.

[The Main Man]

Unless you're in a vacuum, there's always ambient sound - air vibrations, the way Daredevil's sonar works.

And yes, passive used to be more expensive than active, but they cost the same in 5th.

Remember that a passive sense like UV Vision isn't for the purpose of detecting UV radiation, it's for the purpose of detecting physical objects. We don't see light for the purpose of seeing light, we use the light to see the things around us. Similarly with Passive Sonar (or even Active Sonar) - it's not just "detect sound waves," it's *use* sound waves to detect objects.
Good point.

Why do I sense a revolution in senses?:think:

[AnotherSkip]

Unless you're in a vacuum, there's always ambient sound - air vibrations, the way Daredevil's sonar works.

And yes, passive used to be more expensive than active, but they cost the same in 5th.

Remember that a passive sense like UV Vision isn't for the purpose of detecting UV radiation, it's for the purpose of detecting physical objects. We don't see light for the purpose of seeing light, we use the light to see the things around us. Similarly with Passive Sonar (or even Active Sonar) - it's not just "detect sound waves," it's *use* sound waves to detect objects.

However in certain circumstances he has better abilities because of ambiance. more points limited or side effects?

[PhilFleischmann]

However in certain circumstances he has better abilities because of ambiance. more points limited or side effects?
Neither. Just circumstance modifiers. The same way we can see better in a brightly-lit room than in a dimly-lit room.

[BobGreenwade]

Why do a sense a revolution in senses?:think:Well, my contribution to the next Haymaker! APAzine includes an extensive work-up on the sense of Smell, and if Steve reads through it (he gets a comp copy because of his position) there may be a bit of a shake-up in the area of Senses.

Said article is also the source for many of the suggestions I've made recently, especially but not exclusively those related to Senses and Sense-Affecting Powers.

[The Main Man]

Well, my contribution to the next Haymaker! APAzine includes an extensive work-up on the sense of Smell, and if Steve reads through it (he gets a comp copy because of his position) there may be a bit of a shake-up in the area of Senses.

Said article is also the source for many of the suggestions I've made recently, especially but not exclusively those related to Senses and Sense-Affecting Powers.

Where can I find this "Haymaker!"?

[mattingly]

BoloOfEarth is the best guy to talk to about that, or go to www.haymaker.org.

[The Main Man]

Thanks :thumbup:

[BobGreenwade]

I had a brainstorm the other day, and have been ruminating on it for a bit (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor). Its main application is to Dispel, though the principle applies to all subtractive Adjustment Powers (Drain, Suppress, and the "take away" portion of Transfer).

I was trying to think of a way to simulate the infliction of pain that doesn't involve reducing the opponent's STUN. Normally we assume that, if something inflicts pain, it involves STUN damage, so doing it without STUN damage is generally modeled by doing STUN damage with a Limitation that it doesn't actually reduce STUN but only provides the sensation -- in other words, "Only For Stunning," so if the STUN damage rolled exceeds the target's CON then the target is Stunned even though he actually took no STUN damage.

It occurred to me that if you want to keep a character Stunned, you reduce his CON to below 0. If his CON is -1, then he's constantly Stunned because in every Phase he's taking more STUN than his CON (since 0 > -1). To Stun him for one Phase, use Dispel (more on this following); to Stun him for longer, use Drain; to keep him Stunned constantly, use Suppress.

So I started to wonder what would happen if Dispel was to be applied to other Characteristics, or at least the Primary Characteristics. Logically, each effect would last only until the target's next Phase; whether it included the next Phase or not would depend on the Characteristic:

STR: Target drops everything he's carrying in his hands, and falls down if he's using muscle-based movement. If the target is operating a vehicle, he immediately loses control.

DEX: Target is immediately DCV 0 (before any Size Modifiers), and goes last on his next Phase even if he just made a successful Block. If he made a Full Move his last Phase, he falls down. All Agility Skills fail until he completes his next Phase.

CON: Target is Stunned, with all its effects.

BODY: Target has a "near-death experience," being to all appearances fully dead until his next Phase. All Constant and Persistent Powers shut off.

INT: Target becomes disoriented, and cannot communicate nor use any of his Senses. He must take a Half Phase to reorient himself the next Phase. All Mental Powers shut off. All Intellect Skills will fail until he completes his next Phase.

EGO: All Constant Powers shut off. Mental Powers take maximum effect. Unless targeted with Mind Control, will automatically do the first thing he's told to do on his next Phase. If he has an Enraged-related roll (either to go or recover) it automatically succeeds.

PRE: Runs away on his next Phase, as though affected by the maximum effect of a Presence Attack. All Interaction Skill Rolls automatically fail until he completes his next Phase. Character may not attempt a Presence Attack.

COM: Enemies are more likely to attack, and allies less likely to defend. All Interaction Skill Rolls automatically fail until he completes his next Phase. (This one has lesser effect because it's so much easier to achieve.)

I know this isn't quite smooth, and probably needs adjustment (no pun intended), but it's a general line of thought that can simulate many effects with one simple, pre-existing mechanic.

[The Main Man]

I had a brainstorm the other day, and have been ruminating on it for a bit (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor). Its main application is to Dispel, though the principle applies to all subtractive Adjustment Powers (Drain, Suppress, and the "take away" portion of Transfer).

I was trying to think of a way to simulate the infliction of pain that doesn't involve reducing the opponent's STUN. Normally we assume that, if something inflicts pain, it involves STUN damage, so doing it without STUN damage is generally modeled by doing STUN damage with a Limitation that it doesn't actually reduce STUN but only provides the sensation -- in other words, "Only For Stunning," so if the STUN damage rolled exceeds the target's CON then the target is Stunned even though he actually took no STUN damage.

It occurred to me that if you want to keep a character Stunned, you reduce his CON to below 0. If his CON is -1, then he's constantly Stunned because in every Phase he's taking more STUN than his CON (since 0 > -1). To Stun him for one Phase, use Dispel (more on this following); to Stun him for longer, use Drain; to keep him Stunned constantly, use Suppress.

So I started to wonder what would happen if Dispel was to be applied to other Characteristics, or at least the Primary Characteristics. Logically, each effect would last only until the target's next Phase; whether it included the next Phase or not would depend on the Characteristic:

STR: Target drops everything he's carrying in his hands, and falls down if he's using muscle-based movement. If the target is operating a vehicle, he immediately loses control.

DEX: Target is immediately DCV 0 (before any Size Modifiers), and goes last on his next Phase even if he just made a successful Block. If he made a Full Move his last Phase, he falls down. All Agility Skills fail until he completes his next Phase.

CON: Target is Stunned, with all its effects.

BODY: Target has a "near-death experience," being to all appearances fully dead until his next Phase. All Constant and Persistent Powers shut off.

INT: Target becomes disoriented, and cannot communicate nor use any of his Senses. He must take a Half Phase to reorient himself the next Phase. All Mental Powers shut off. All Intellect Skills will fail until he completes his next Phase.

EGO: All Constant Powers shut off. Mental Powers take maximum effect. Unless targeted with Mind Control, will automatically do the first thing he's told to do on his next Phase. If he has an Enraged-related roll (either to go or recover) it automatically succeeds.

PRE: Runs away on his next Phase, as though affected by the maximum effect of a Presence Attack. All Interaction Skill Rolls automatically fail until he completes his next Phase. Character may not attempt a Presence Attack.

COM: Enemies are more likely to attack, and allies less likely to defend. All Interaction Skill Rolls automatically fail until he completes his next Phase. (This one has lesser effect because it's so much easier to achieve.)

I know this isn't quite smooth, and probably needs adjustment (no pun intended), but it's a general line of thought that can simulate many effects with one simple, pre-existing mechanic.

I've often pondered that kind of stuff too and it gets me to thinking how much more fun it is to reduce things besides BODY.:eg:

But I like these ideas.:thumbup:

[PhilFleischmann]

I was trying to think of a way to simulate the infliction of pain that doesn't involve reducing the opponent's STUN. Normally we assume that, if something inflicts pain, it involves STUN damage, so doing it without STUN damage is generally modeled by doing STUN damage with a Limitation that it doesn't actually reduce STUN but only provides the sensation -- in other words, "Only For Stunning," so if the STUN damage rolled exceeds the target's CON then the target is Stunned even though he actually took no STUN damage.

It occurred to me that if you want to keep a character Stunned, you reduce his CON to below 0. If his CON is -1, then he's constantly Stunned because in every Phase he's taking more STUN than his CON (since 0 > -1). To Stun him for one Phase, use Dispel (more on this following); to Stun him for longer, use Drain; to keep him Stunned constantly, use Suppress.
Great idea, but you forgot one thing: Defenses. You have to take >CON *after Defenses* to be Stunned. A Normal person with 2 PD/2 ED would need to be at -3 CON to be Stunned continuously. If you've got 20/20, you'd need to be Drained down to -21 CON.

[Southern Cross]

And you forgot that reducing Primary Characteristics other than BODY requires an Adjustment Power,such as Dispel,Drain or Suppress.As the normal defense against Adjustment powers is Power Defense,the characters Pd & ED wouldn't apply against this effect.

[The Main Man]

Great idea, but you forgot one thing: Defenses. You have to take >CON *after Defenses* to be Stunned. A Normal person with 2 PD/2 ED would need to be at -3 CON to be Stunned continuously. If you've got 20/20, you'd need to be Drained down to -21 CON.

Good catch.

I did think of one conundrum though.

If a character's STUN is Dispelled, then they temporarily have no STUN.

But since STUN is a Persistent Power, it should be able to be reactivated on the victim's next available Phase.

But the character has no STUN, so they can't get up!:eek:


Am I overlooking this and it's just a matter of Recovery?:confused:

[BobGreenwade]

Great idea, but you forgot one thing: Defenses. You have to take >CON *after Defenses* to be Stunned. A Normal person with 2 PD/2 ED would need to be at -3 CON to be Stunned continuously. If you've got 20/20, you'd need to be Drained down to -21 CON.

And you forgot that reducing Primary Characteristics other than BODY requires an Adjustment Power,such as Dispel,Drain or Suppress.As the normal defense against Adjustment powers is Power Defense,the characters Pd & ED wouldn't apply against this effect.Actually, Phil's closer to right about this one. The Power Defense defends against the Drain or Suppress for the effect itself, but to achieve the desired effect you'd typically have to add the lesser of the character's natural PD and ED.

However, Ego Attacks and AVLDs also do STUN, so Mental Defense, Lack of Weakness, and all forms of Flash Defense could be added to that as well. Take the lowest fro