Powers Issues -- A-E

[Steve Long]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Powers that begin with A-E that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about these Powers that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?

Steve’s Thoughts: Arguably Absorption is nothing more than a Limited form of Aid. But I think it’s helpful to keep it as a separate Power. If it takes over two pages of text to describe something, doing it as a Limited form of another Power doesn’t really help matters, methinks.


Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?

Steve’s Thoughts: An argument could be made that self-only Aids are a bit too expensive, and that therefore an increase in the Limitation value would be a good idea. OTOH, Self Only is (-1/2) everywhere else, so increasing it here would create an inconsistency.


Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea at least has some surface merit, since they’re largely the same Power. Presumably this new Power (let’s call it “Resistant Defense”) would work more or less like Force Field; you’d buy it to 0 END and Persistent to create Armor (thus making Armor more expensive than it is now, since now it gets Persistent for free). This would make it possible to buy “Armor” in an Elemental Control and have some other minor effects.

Overall I can’t say I’m totally convinced this change is necessary. It wouldn’t bother me to keep them separate. As always I’m interested to hear what the fans have to say.


Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t particularly favor this idea and am not going to implement it unless someone comes up with a persuasive argument in its favor. I think the HERO System works better without absolutes stronger than the Absolute Effect Rule. Given what 100% Damage Reduction would have to cost, it’s not as if you can’t spend the same amount of points and effectively be invulnerable anyway... if the GM’ll let you. :)


Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?

Steve’s Thoughts: This is an idea worth considering. Damage Resistance basically functions as an Advantage anyway; it was just easier to handle it as a Power than a naked Advantage under previous incarnations of the HERO System. Now that rules for naked Advantages are better defined and people are more comfortable with them, switching to a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage makes sense.


Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any need for this, but every now and then I see someone posting something about potentially splitting Desolidification up into two or more Powers, so I figured it couldn’t hurt to raise the issue. Desolidification tends to be something of a conceptual nightmare from time to time (curse you, Kitty Pryde!), but overall I think it works fine.


Q: Does Duplication need any changes or revisions?

Steve’s Thoughts: While I think the 5ER version of Duplication is better than what’s come before, it still needs some work. Off the top of my head, one thing that immediately occurs to me is that the cost differential (1-for-5 to 1-for-1) and similar elements of the Power cause mathematical problems that we should find a way to avoid. I can’t say that at this precise moment I have an exact solution worked out, but I will by the time I’m writing 6E. In some respects this might make the Power more similar to Summon, but I think there are enough differences between the two concepts that they’re worth keeping separate.


Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?

Steve’s Thoughts: I can’t say I’m convinced this is necessary, but it might have some merit. It would help to define exactly which Senses are and aren’t blocked by solid physical objects.

[Bloodstone]

Darkness - I think the name of this power is misleading, since it implies a single SFX against a single sense group. People new to the system wanting to create a zone of Silence do not think Darkness to Hearing group. Perhaps rename it something like "Sense Blocking" or "Jamming" or something similar.

Energy Blast - Put me down as one that would liek this renamed as "Blast" or "Ranged Attack".

[Michael Hopcroft]

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

[Andrew Cermak]

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

I think certain dimensions (like the "Wish" dimension) need to cost more (perhaps many more) points to access.

[nexus]

Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?

Steve’s Thoughts: I can’t say I’m convinced this is necessary, but it might have some merit. It would help to define exactly which Senses are and aren’t blocked by solid physical objects.

I'm really convinced N-ray ( or maybe Barrier Bypassing to make it more generic) would work better as a modifier to a sense. I've been using it that way and it seems cleaner and more inline with the "system logic" than building it as a Detect.

[Adventus]

Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?

Steve’s Thoughts: I can’t say I’m convinced this is necessary, but it might have some merit. It would help to define exactly which Senses are and are not’t blocked by solid physical objects.

I would like a better explanation of different ways it can be used. Right now, the explanation leads to people only thinking of something like Superman's x-ray vision power. For example, in a recent thread someone requested a way to do "True Sight" from AD&D in the hero system. The constructs being presented were clunky and expensive. I suggested using Nray perception defined as being unable to see thru Reality. i.e. You would not see the illusion. you would see what is really there.

Something that occurred to me while typing this post. I would like to bring up clairvoyance/clairaudience and Nray perception. Both powers allow you to see what is one the other side of a barrier. Clairvoyance/audience could be built as Nray perception with the Indirect advantage hooked on and Usable at Range. And if you wanted to it at very long range, just add Megascale. Just something to consider.

I think it should be a modifier. I also think it should have to be bought separately for each sense. And it should be fairly expensive. It would also help with darkness power as well. I would also suggest having to buy discriminate and analyze with it for better perception. If you don't make it a modifier, it should cost extra to not be part of a sense group.

[JmOz]

Something slightly radical

Darkness goes away, it is now built with the CE power

As long as we are on the issue, lets let CE do positive effects, current system of no positive effects seems somewhat counter intuitive

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd like to see some changes to END Reserve. As it is, most Powers with END Reserve on them end up, in the words of Ron Edwards, "paying to suck". In other words, it's possible to pay more points for an ability with less utility. I'm honestly not quite sure how to implement something better, though; file this under "nice to have" rather than "I'll get right on that".

(While we're on the subject, maybe a general thing to watch out for is areas where "paying to suck" happens.)

[CourtFool]

Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction...

I understand your hesitation on this, Steve. But why not put that decision into the hands of the GM? Slap a Stop Sign and a cost on it and let those that want it in the game deal with Pandora and her stupid box. It would not add that much extra work on your part and would be a nice consolation to gamers who want absolutes.

[incrdbil]

Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea at least has some surface merit, since they’re largely the same Power. Presumably this new Power (let’s call it “Resistant Defense”) would work more or less like Force Field; you’d buy it to 0 END and Persistent to create Armor (thus making Armor more expensive than it is now, since now it gets Persistent for free). This would make it possible to buy “Armor” in an Elemental Control and have some other minor effects.

Overall I can’t say I’m totally convinced this change is necessary. It wouldn’t bother me to keep them separate. As always I’m interested to hear what the fans have to say.

I'd say combine them. Armor is so much better than force field. I think I said it elsehwere before I sa w this--just adding ym voice where it matter.



Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t particularly favor this idea and am not going to implement it unless someone comes up with a persuasive argument in its favor. I think the HERO System works better without absolutes stronger than the Absolute Effect Rule. Given what 100% Damage Reduction would have to cost, it’s not as if you can’t spend the same amount of points and effectively be invulnerable anyway... if the GM’ll let you. :)

Death to absolutes! absolutely, 100% of the..time..oh, wait a second...

Ok, as an option, if you have to have invulnerability to something, this power is the one to start with..with lots of stop signs, warnings, buzzers, and advice to the GM.

[vincemcd]

I'll put this here under "Energy Blast," though it also applies to HKA, RKA, and HTH Attack.

Make all of these a single damage-dealing power: "Attack," "Damaging Attack," or whatever else to call it. "Ranged" is already a +1/2 Advantage. Make "Killing Attack" (or some other name) another +1/2 Advantage specific for this power. If the option to "add STR to damage" persists, make it yet another +1/2 Advantage for this power.

All four of these powers do basically the same thing - do a specific amount of STUN and BODY damage, mitigated by the target's defenses (resistant or otherwise). Why make four powers out of it?

This dovetails with the suggestion to make "Resistant" a +1/2 Advantage applied to defenses.

[James Gillen]

I understand your hesitation on this, Steve. But why not put that decision into the hands of the GM? Slap a Stop Sign and a cost on it and let those that want it in the game deal with Pandora and her stupid box. It would not add that much extra work on your part and would be a nice consolation to gamers who want absolutes.


I think DR already has a stop sign (or should) or at least a magnifying glass. ;)

JG

[Jhamin]

I understand your hesitation on this, Steve. But why not put that decision into the hands of the GM? Slap a Stop Sign and a cost on it and let those that want it in the game deal with Pandora and her stupid box. It would not add that much extra work on your part and would be a nice consolation to gamers who want absolutes.

Because when something is in the book, no matter how many gongs and flares are around it, it is now a part of the game.

Up until now, Hero has not had any absolutes. The moment one is in the main book in black and white it will be an assumed part of the system.

[Enforcer84]

I think DR already has a stop sign (or should) or at least a magnifying glass. ;)

JG
So no other changes need to be made. Put the 75+ AP Plateu for 100% and have a nice day. ;)


Either that or force a roll for people who want to fly. I mean obviously they can't every time that'd be an absolute.


Right now I'm being absolutely dorky.:p

[Enforcer84]

Because when something is in the book, no matter how many gongs and flares are around it, it is now a part of the game.

Up until now, Hero has not had any absolutes. The moment one is in the main book in black and white it will be an assumed part of the system.
really? What DEF stops Desolidification these days? Is that not an absolute?




...I gotta stop this. :)

[OzMike]

I'll put this here under "Energy Blast," though it also applies to HKA, RKA, and HTH Attack.

Make all of these a single damage-dealing power: "Attack," "Damaging Attack," or whatever else to call it. "Ranged" is already a +1/2 Advantage. Make "Killing Attack" (or some other name) another +1/2 Advantage specific for this power. If the option to "add STR to damage" persists, make it yet another +1/2 Advantage for this power.

All four of these powers do basically the same thing - do a specific amount of STUN and BODY damage, mitigated by the target's defenses (resistant or otherwise). Why make four powers out of it?

This dovetails with the suggestion to make "Resistant" a +1/2 Advantage applied to defenses.

And perhaps make the base unit cost 3 points instead of 5. That would mean we would have the following cost changes per DC if we use the 5th ed names:

EB: 4.5pts (Ranged)
Hand Attack: 4.5 pts (STR adds to damage)
HKA: 6pts (STR adds to damage, Killing)
RKA: 6pts (Ranged, Killing)

[Kdansky]

Why not start with A? :) Something to do for me. :)



Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?
I would keep them separated and simpler. Both powers are already rather complicated. Also "only up to damage done" is really a weird limitation, as it is not directly proportional to the power, depends on what sort of damage and so on. I believe Aid constructs would get outrageously complicated. But then, I could easily live with it.


Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?
Should Self Only be more than that everywhere else too? There are really not many powers that make sense with this, as most already are Self Only. Also, the difference in utility is usually HUGE. It would also be possible to add free perks for this: "If Aid has Self Only, it ceases to be an Attack Action and becomes a half move action (or even free action (usable only once per phase)) instead." Then one could buy extra time and go back to Attack Action again.
That sparks the thought: Could we have some constructs to change powers from not using an attack action anymore? Currently we do that with trigger, but it's clumsy. Like the DnD "Swift Action" metamagic.


Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

Yes. It does not really make sense that they are separate. OTOH, one could exspand the differences.


Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?
I don't think it's necessary. 30 resistant defense (45), persistent (+1/2), 0 end (+1/2): 90 cp. That's the same.


Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?
Yes, it's much cleaner. Also, it makes advantaged resistant defenses cheaper. Either way on that.


Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?
I would like to have it split up into "walk through walls" and "intangible to attacks", just because that are two completely different effects and keeps AP costs down. Which actually makes sense. Just because you cannot be attacked does not mean you pay extra for "movement", does it?


Q: Does Duplication need any changes or revisions?
Definitely keep summon, if you have to, drop Duplication. I would like to have the simpler multiform cost structure, because it's simpler. Duplication has to be excessively eyeballed anyway, a complicated cost does not make much of a difference.

Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?
honestly can't comment on that...

[The Main Man]

Absorption
Absorption is not the same as Aid; it's more like Transfer, which is like an amalgam of Aid and Drain.

What if Absorption was a Power Modifier for Transfer, like a Damage Shield perhaps?


Armor and Damage Resistance
PD/ED + Damage Resistance = Armor
Armor + Costs END = FF
FF + AOE ~ FW

It boils down to Normal Physical Defense and Normal Energy Defense.

There could be a power just called Defense, which costs 2 CP per point.
It could be a Figured Characteristic = (STR + CON)/10 = (STR/5 = PD + CON/5 = ED)/2

There could be a Power Limitation like Energy/Physical Damage Only (-1).


Damage Reduction

100% :thumbdown I like that HERO lacks absolutes for the most part, but there should be emphasis placed on the role of Damage Reduction.

An example of this is giving a tip about taking single or limited versions of Damage Reduction, because if a player takes both Physical and Energy they may as well buy more BODY and STUN, but if they take only one, then they have more reason to buy it.


Darkness
I agree; Darkness is a limited form of Change Environment, so it should be assimilated into it.

Perhaps CE could provide a more limited form of Darkness at base, with Single Sense and whole Sense Group options.


Extra-Dimensional Movement
This power has become very convoluted over the years, starting simple but then progressing to the Speed/Mind Zone and Time Travel complications.

It needs to be structured in a way that specific effects can be determined by it, or else have tips on doing such things.


Extra Limbs
Something always struck me as odd that you can have any number of Extra Limbs all for the same cost, yet they serve a rather limited function overall.

[Chris Goodwin]

I would like to see some absolutes (primarily always hits and invulnerability) because there are perfectly valid character concepts that can't easily be done without them. They can almost be done, if you're okay with playing, f'rinstance, a pre-Crisis Superman who is almost invulnerable to almost everything.

Because some people might want to run games at this level, and why should The Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit keep them doing this?

[The Main Man]

I would like to see some absolutes (primarily always hits and invulnerability) because there are perfectly valid character concepts that can't easily be done without them. They can almost be done, if you're okay with playing, f'rinstance, a pre-Crisis Superman who is almost invulnerable to almost everything.

Because some people might want to run games at this level, and why should The Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit keep them doing this?

Not to get too OT, but something about you saying "The Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit " got me thinking: that should be right on the cover.

Whereas there are all of these "Ultimate" books, they all bow down to the king: the core book.

That being said, it should say right on the cover: HERO System: The Ultimate Gamer's Toolkit.

[Edsel]

Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?
No.


Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?
No.


Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

No, I like them being distinct from one another.


Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?
I'd rather see some sort of distinct and restricted Invulnerability power than this. I an not a fan of absolutes in any case.


Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?
Yes, I like this idea.


Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?
I am happy with is as written.


Q: Does Duplication need any changes or revisions?
This is one of the most rarely used powers seen in the games my group plays. Of course that may be saying something in itself. Personally I have no strong opinion on this.


Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?
I guess it could become an Advantage of some sort but I don't see enough of a problem with it to make changing it worthwhile.

[The Main Man]

Where does Summon end and Duplication begin?

Duplication can be a special effect for Summon.

[SSgt Baloo]

Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea at least has some surface merit, since they’re largely the same Power. Presumably this new Power (let’s call it “Resistant Defense”) would work more or less like Force Field; you’d buy it to 0 END and Persistent to create Armor (thus making Armor more expensive than it is now, since now it gets Persistent for free). This would make it possible to buy “Armor” in an Elemental Control and have some other minor effects.

I've always assumed Armor was Pd/Ed with Damage resistance. Force Field isn't "Armor that costs End", but I guess it could be. I think all three concepts, DR, Armor, and Force Field should be modeled around the same power (Pd/Ed with advantages) rather than three different powers.


Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t particularly favor this idea and am not going to implement it unless someone comes up with a persuasive argument in its favor. I think the HERO System works better without absolutes stronger than the Absolute Effect Rule. Given what 100% Damage Reduction would have to cost, it’s not as if you can’t spend the same amount of points and effectively be invulnerable anyway... if the GM’ll let you. :)

I think you should include it as an optional rule, perhaps with an On-Beyond-Stopsign warning: "This power is really, really not recommended unless the campaign (not just the player) really needs it. If you really want to be "invulnerable", just buy a whole bunch of resistant defense and maybe some life support." See Desolidification below for more on this subject.


Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?

Steve’s Thoughts: This is an idea worth considering. Damage Resistance basically functions as an Advantage anyway; it was just easier to handle it as a Power than a naked Advantage under previous incarnations of the HERO System. Now that rules for naked Advantages are better defined and people are more comfortable with them, switching to a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage makes sense.

See my response above regarding Force Field and Armor.


Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any need for this, but every now and then I see someone posting something about potentially splitting Desolidification up into two or more Powers, so I figured it couldn’t hurt to raise the issue. Desolidification tends to be something of a conceptual nightmare from time to time (curse you, Kitty Pryde!), but overall I think it works fine.

I tend to agree. However, if you do end up splitting Desolidification, the "impervious to normal harm" function should be folded into Damage Reduction. This way you can get some sort of "invulnerability" (Still an on-beyond-Stopsign power) without conceding anything that isn't already there. More-or-less, anyway.


Q: Does Duplication need any changes or revisions?

Steve’s Thoughts: While I think the 5ER version of Duplication is better than what’s come before, it still needs some work. Off the top of my head, one thing that immediately occurs to me is that the cost differential (1-for-5 to 1-for-1) and similar elements of the Power cause mathematical problems that we should find a way to avoid. I can’t say that at this precise moment I have an exact solution worked out, but I will by the time I’m writing 6E. In some respects this might make the Power more similar to Summon, but I think there are enough differences between the two concepts that they’re worth keeping separate.

Duplication is much more complicated than it needs to be. Either just state that all duplicates are identical (including the duplication power) or just make folks buy a Summon that summons identical characters. If they're not the same as the base character, they aren't really duplicates anyhow, are they?


Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?

Steve’s Thoughts: I can’t say I’m convinced this is necessary, but it might have some merit. It would help to define exactly which Senses are and aren’t blocked by solid physical objects.

Yes, and then there's glass, which is transparent to sight, but can block hearing. I'd say change it from N-Ray Vision to Penetrating Senses or some such and give more examples of how it might be used.

[Balok]

I haven't played or run a "desolidified" character under 5e, but it seems to me that defining it in terms of levels might be useful in allowing a GM to understand "how desolidified" that character is - i.e. what materials and effects he can penetrate. It moves it from a kind of absolute to a more granular power. Of course, it means the need to add some sort of "extra PD/ED, only to affect desolidified characters" advantage to replace "Affects Desolidified" for objects, I guess, to model specialized materials and fields designed to keep out the intangible that are not otherwise of superior construction. The levels and price could be set so that a 40 point expenditure buys enough levels to penetrate common materials, but for those who wanted more, or less, intangible characters, that option would exist.

[Chris Goodwin]

I haven't played or run a "desolidified" character under 5e, but it seems to me that defining it in terms of levels might be useful in allowing a GM to understand "how desolidified" that character is - i.e. what materials and effects he can penetrate. It moves it from a kind of absolute to a more granular power. Of course, it means the need to add some sort of "extra PD/ED, only to affect desolidified characters" advantage to replace "Affects Desolidified" for objects, I guess, to model specialized materials and fields designed to keep out the intangible that are not otherwise of superior construction. The levels and price could be set so that a 40 point expenditure buys enough levels to penetrate common materials, but for those who wanted more, or less, intangible characters, that option would exist.

On the one hand, that's a trip back to 3rd edition. Which may not be desirable.

On the other hand, I did suggest as much here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1542533&postcount=21) and it would fit nicely with my suggestion for altering Advantages and Limitations.

[misterdeath]

Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?

Um. Well, you could make a case that Absorption is just Aid, triggered when hit by an attack, self only, only up to the damage done, etc. But, um, I've already got Regeneration. So, while it could be done, I don't think it SHOULD be done.


Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?

Only if we're going to a decimal version of Limitations, so it can be about a -0.6. I don't think it's worth the change otherwise.


Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

Especially cool if you combine PD and ED into DEF.


Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?

In certain Genres, for certain characters it could be necessary. Having to kluge together Desolid, 0 END, Persistant, only vs attacks of a special effect, and letting it work without requiring the corresponding "+2 effects real world" is just that, a kluge.

That being said, I can do the kluge. So, if the prevailing opinion is "no go", no skin off my nose.


Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?

Hmmm. I'll have to think about this. I'm a little concerned about "ease of entry" for new players.



Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?

As noted, this is one of the few absolutes in the system. Short of turning it into a funky sort of Tunneling, don't know what to do about it.

Plus, it's the 100% DR kluge.


Q: Does Duplication need any changes or revisions?

Your idea sounds shiny.


Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?


Neat idea. Go for it.

D

[Lord Liaden]

Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?

Steve’s Thoughts: Arguably Absorption is nothing more than a Limited form of Aid. But I think it’s helpful to keep it as a separate Power. If it takes over two pages of text to describe something, doing it as a Limited form of another Power doesn’t really help matters, methinks.

I think that's fair. However, I have found that the benefits of Absorbing to a character, at least at base level (i.e. without Advantages spreading the result to several Characteristics or Powers) are usually noticeably less for the points than if the character just bought more of the same Characteristic or Power for the same amount of Character Points; and even more so if said additional abilities are Limited to work similarly to Absorption.

IMO Absorption would be more fairly priced if it 3 points for each 1d6, or else had a mandatory Limitation as with Hand-To-Hand Attack.



Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?

Steve’s Thoughts: An argument could be made that self-only Aids are a bit too expensive, and that therefore an increase in the Limitation value would be a good idea. OTOH, Self Only is (-1/2) everywhere else, so increasing it here would create an inconsistency.

When I consider this question, I look at two examples from the 5E rulebook. Force Wall, Self Only, is -1/2, but the book recommends that No Range usually be taken with it (in fact it's hard to imagine FW Self Only that wouldn't be No Range, but I'm sure some enterprising player could come up with a rationale). So in almost all cases Self Only for FW is effectively -1 anyway. The other example is Mental Illusions, for which the Limitation, Self Only, is -1. Granted the effect of Self Only (just to change the user's appearance) is somewhat different than in some other examples, since the Power is still being targeted at another person; nonetheless, an inconsistency already exists.

When dealing with Aid, there are two possible uses; on oneself, or on other people. Range isn't even a factor here. IMHO confining it to one or the other is the very essence "Power Loses Half Its Effectiveness," or a -1 Limitation.



Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t particularly favor this idea and am not going to implement it unless someone comes up with a persuasive argument in its favor. I think the HERO System works better without absolutes stronger than the Absolute Effect Rule. Given what 100% Damage Reduction would have to cost, it’s not as if you can’t spend the same amount of points and effectively be invulnerable anyway... if the GM’ll let you. :)

The argument for me comes from the optional use of Desolidification to simulate a restricted form of invulnerability. While I personally have never had a problem with this approach, people who do dislike it have complained that: (1) you have to Limit it to just preventing Damage from a specific attack; (2) you have to waive the "Affects Physical World" requirement for the character's other abilities; (3) you have to decide whether to allow "Affects Desolidified" attacks to affect this character if they apply to the same effect that he's invulnerable to. IMO those complaints have merit - that's a lot of exceptions to make to achieve this effect.

If you're going to allow any type of invulnerability option in the system at all, extending Damage Reduction to 100%, but perhaps mandating that it only be allowed for specific types of Damage as with Desolidification, would seem to be simpler and more logical. Consider, too, that there are some types of characters and campaigns, such as cosmic-level supers or fantasy deities, for whom absolute invulnerability might be a viable concept, e.g. "walking on the sun," where buying enough DEF to realistically grant that ability would require ludicrously high point expenditure. For campaigns like this, the higher point cost for DR versus Desolid would actually weigh in its favor. Such characters usually already have tons of points to play with, and Desolid becomes relatively extremely cheap for such a potent effect. (Also see below.)



Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any need for this, but every now and then I see someone posting something about potentially splitting Desolidification up into two or more Powers, so I figured it couldn’t hurt to raise the issue. Desolidification tends to be something of a conceptual nightmare from time to time (curse you, Kitty Pryde!), but overall I think it works fine.

I'm reminded of pre-4E Growth. As originally presented it granted more or less the same benefits it does in its current definition, but also increased Running (long legs) and extra OCV in HTH (for large fists and feet). Those abilities were later trimmed out, and while some players are unhappy with the "shuffling feet syndrome" of very large creatures moving extremely slowly, or having to buy a separate AOE Advantage for their STR, I like the greater customizability of the Power in allowing you to choose which abilities fit your concept.

I assumed that similar thinking was behind the increased and decreased size templates in 5E for creatures naturally larger or smaller than normal. Rather than having to take a whole package of abilities for Growth or Shrinking or Density Increase, one can tailor the abilities and Disadvantages to match the concept.

Desolidification has two major benefits, movement and resistance to damage. Putting them together predisposes the Power to a specific concept of what it means to be "desolid". Many conceptions don't require both, in fact would not work with both.



Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?

Steve’s Thoughts: I can’t say I’m convinced this is necessary, but it might have some merit. It would help to define exactly which Senses are and aren’t blocked by solid physical objects.

Since some Enhanced Senses, such as Detects and Spatial Awareness, can already perceive through solid objects as a default, I would say that further consistent definition would be helpful, whether or not the Modifier approach is adopted.

[yamamura]

(curse you, Kitty Pryde!)

That did it, I am mad now. You can curse Cyclops, you can curse Spiderman but I will not stand you cursing Kitty Pryde;)

No in all seriousness I have no problem with desolid as is other then changing the name: intangibility. Now a couple of people mentions the ability to walk through walls yet be vulnerable to attacks can be built using teleport imho.

Just curious and please IM me on this but most characters that I know of that can walk through walls (ghosts and that really neat X-Man Kitty Pryde), can't be harmed by most attacks.

[Super Squirrel]

So far no one has gotten into too much depth for the argument regarding Damage Reduction of 100%.

The GM should make the decision. With many powers, the GM should be given ultimate say in whether or not a power is allowed. 100% Damage Reduction is best left to the GM to decide whether or not to include and may also need some sort of sidebar stating that allowing of that power can, and often will, become game breaking.

Hero System is about building anything and that includes simulating existing things. There are countless examples in comics and movies of characters who are totally immune to one thing or another. Superman is invulnerable. The evil crazy warlock is impervious to harm. Emma Frost has a diamond form. The problem is, Superman is being thrown through layers of the Earth's crust. The Warlock might get hit by a 4d6 RKA and the Stun Lotto might just be a 5. Emma Frost has to put up with the Xavier Institute being blown up on a regular basis. The ability to simulate full invulnerability can quickly, under current methods end up costing a ton of points and may not be what the player or GM want.

Even with an active cap in the game of say, 60 points, a 4d6 RKA can on a good roll do up to 120 points of STUN. +120 Points of PD and +24 Points of Damage Resistance means you are looking at 144 points to simulate immunity versus powers up to 60 Active Points.

But I think another tell that this should be in the game is by looking at Resurrection Healing. Resurrection is a STOP ability that requires that in order to take, their must be a common set of circumstances when Resurrection does not work. This is, essentially a -1/2 to -1 Limitation worth a value of -0.

Looking back at the list of example characters mentioned above. Superman is completely invulnerable except in the presence of Kryptonite or when being hit by Magic. The warlock is completely vulnerable when the moon is full. Emma Frost's diamond form can, in fact, be shattered or, otherwise, you can wait until she is no longer in that form.

Having an invulnerable character with a weakness that makes them vulnerable is a very common trope of superheroes. And because it is there, I say let it be available to the GM to enable in his games. But that invulnerability should require some sort of condition when it is not in effect and this conditional limitation shouldn't reduce the cost of the power at all.

[Balok]

On the one hand, that's a trip back to 3rd edition. Which may not be desirable.Is it? How fallible of me! :) No, I'd guess that if it's already been tried and discarded it's no good. It has been so very long since I have played 3rd edition that I had forgotten that.


On the other hand, I did suggest as much here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1542533&postcount=21) and it would fit nicely with my suggestion for altering Advantages and Limitations.You know, I remember reading that post because I remember liking the simplicity of that approach. But I do not remember reading about desolidification there. I must have done so and then turned it around here.

I apologize. No plagarism was intended.

[Andrew Byers]

Duplication could use a little refinement, clarification, and streamlining, but I would hate to see its cost altered to the point where a starting level super could no longer afford to buy the ability to duplicate, say, 64 (relatively low-powered) duplicates. The costs got massively ramped up in 4th ed. (from 3rd ed.) and I'd hate to see that hapen again. I think the overall cost is about right in 5th ed.

[Chris Goodwin]

Is it? How fallible of me! :) No, I'd guess that if it's already been tried and discarded it's no good. It has been so very long since I have played 3rd edition that I had forgotten that.

You know, I remember reading that post because I remember liking the simplicity of that approach. But I do not remember reading about desolidification there. I must have done so and then turned it around here.

I apologize. No plagarism was intended.

No worries! I don't think I came out and mentioned it like that, but I did suggest multiple "levels" of Desolidification for point accounting purposes. If they can have a game effect, so much the better :D but in 3rd edition, you bought Desolid based on how much BODY per Phase you could move through, at 5 points per BODY.

[BobGreenwade]

Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?

Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?

Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?On these three items, I'm with you: though attractive in some ways, it's not an especially helpful change.
Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?This is one area where I think an absolute for the Hero System could be included -- though admittedly it should be a "Stop Sign" ability, or even have a "Do Not Enter" sign for how abusive it could be. The effect may be achievable for the same cost using the Absolute Effect Rule, but this has the benefit of being both simpler and accident-proof.
Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?I think this is a very sensible idea.
Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?I personally am ambivalent on this issue.
Q: Does Duplication need any changes or revisions?A wee while back I posted a table giving values for "intermediate numbers" of Duplicates (also applicable to Followers, Multiform, Summon, and such). For example, if one could have x2 for +5 points and x4 for +10 points, why not x3 for +8 points? I can't think of any other changes I'd make, though.
Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?I do think that this could be helpful in allowing Senses other than Normal Sight to penetrate barriers.

On another note regarding Enhanced Senses, Microscopic Vision should definitely be re-costed to match Telescopic Vision, but affecting Size Modifiers instead of Range Modifiers.

[JmOz]

I did not see it, but I have never liked the "Independent" part of Duplication, if your dup dies you are out of a major chunk of points, as if it had the independent modifier to it. I can think of just as many F/X where you should be able to make new ones, than those that I can't. Also in play, if it ever comes up ever, the PC who spent a major chunk of points on this ability and looses it with out receiveing compensation has become the sidekick to the group. For the record I feel this way about most times where you can permenatly loose points, the only exception is limitations where, them be de breaks, as you are getting normal a major -2 lim on those abilities to start with

[BobGreenwade]

I did not see it, but I have never liked the "Independent" part of Duplication, if your dup dies you are out of a major chunk of points, as if it had the independent modifier to it. I can think of just as many F/X where you should be able to make new ones, than those that I can't. Also in play, if it ever comes up ever, the PC who spent a major chunk of points on this ability and looses it with out receiveing compensation has become the sidekick to the group. For the record I feel this way about most times where you can permenatly loose points, the only exception is limitations where, them be de breaks, as you are getting normal a major -2 lim on those abilities to start withThis is a good point. I say, either let a "killed" duplicate heal back like BODY normally, or allow a Power Modifier to allow the character to recover them somehow.

[Hugh Neilson]

Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?

Steve’s Thoughts: Arguably Absorption is nothing more than a Limited form of Aid. But I think it’s helpful to keep it as a separate Power. If it takes over two pages of text to describe something, doing it as a Limited form of another Power doesn’t really help matters, methinks.

Following the philosophy of retaining powers that could be simulated by other powers, but only in cumbersome fashion, Absorb should change. It encompasses Self Only and its cost should change as that limitation suggests.


Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?

Steve’s Thoughts: An argument could be made that self-only Aids are a bit too expensive, and that therefore an increase in the Limitation value would be a good idea. OTOH, Self Only is (-1/2) everywhere else, so increasing it here would create an inconsistency.

It should be evaluated for utility. Paying 6 2/3 points for 1d6 of Aid that takes two attack actions to add 6 points to a stat and watch it quickly fade when the character could pay 6 points to have a permanent boost of 6 points to that stat is simply not reasonable. To me, that needs to trump consistency.


Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea at least has some surface merit, since they’re largely the same Power. Presumably this new Power (let’s call it “Resistant Defense”) would work more or less like Force Field; you’d buy it to 0 END and Persistent to create Armor (thus making Armor more expensive than it is now, since now it gets Persistent for free). This would make it possible to buy “Armor” in an Elemental Control and have some other minor effects.

I'd take this a step further and eliminate both powers. You buy PD, ED and Damage Resistance, and it's the same as Armor. Add Costs END, and you get a force field. These should be sample powers for Characteristics as Powers.

Your comments on Armor highlight a problem with 0 END Persistent Invisible Power Effects carrying a cost far greater than the savings from Costs END, which eliminates all of those aspects. Perhaps Visibility, in particular, needs to be a default on the power separated from whether it costs END.


Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t particularly favor this idea and am not going to implement it unless someone comes up with a persuasive argument in its favor. I think the HERO System works better without absolutes stronger than the Absolute Effect Rule. Given what 100% Damage Reduction would have to cost, it’s not as if you can’t spend the same amount of points and effectively be invulnerable anyway... if the GM’ll let you. :)

The option should exist. This is the approach for full invulnerability. It's expensive and it should be. Make it only against a single SFX, and price that limitation in accordance with the utility lost (ie varying with frequency of the SFX, much like vulnerabilities) and it is practical to be immune to, say, sonics or fire. A character who wants to be immune to physical, energy and mental attacks will likely not be viable in all but the highest power games, but such a character is extremely powerful, so it should be expensive.


Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?

Indifferent. If it is, that's an even better reason to toast Armor and Force Field as separate powers, since this will add to cost inconsistency when advantages are involved.


Q: Does Duplication need any changes or revisions?

Steve’s Thoughts: While I think the 5ER version of Duplication is better than what’s come before, it still needs some work. Off the top of my head, one thing that immediately occurs to me is that the cost differential (1-for-5 to 1-for-1) and similar elements of the Power cause mathematical problems that we should find a way to avoid. I can’t say that at this precise moment I have an exact solution worked out, but I will by the time I’m writing 6E. In some respects this might make the Power more similar to Summon, but I think there are enough differences between the two concepts that they’re worth keeping separate.

Duplication would make an excellent sample power for Summon. I can see keeping a separate power for ease of use, but it should dovetail with Summoning mechanics.

[Utech]

Duplication

I'm going to propose a radical change. (I know you're not much looking for radical changes, but if this ain't the time...) It's late and this idea just popped into my head.

Perhaps Duplication should be dropped and replaced with two new Powers: Combine (loosely based on Mind Link) and Possess (loosely based on Telepathy). The idea is to see if approaching Duplication from the other side gives you more opportunities for interesting character creation.

I've tried to flesh out Combine below. Keep in mind those are quick notes made without giving them a lot of thought; not a solid proposal, but a starting point. I did not flesh out Possess, but I imagine it much like Combine but for use as an Attack Power.

Combine would allow a character to merge with other willing characters. The Combined entity would pool abilities.
Combine would allow a player to build as many characters as their GM would allow and merge them into one. It would also allow for beings such as Green Slimes or insect swarms that can easily absorb and assimilate similar beings. Depending on how far you want to go with this, you could even allow characters to Combine with inanimate objects (e.g. a spirit Combining with a corpse; a water elemental who can Combine with a body of water).

Possess would allow a character to attack others and -- if successful -- merge with them. The Possessor would "disappear" and be able to use the abilities of the Possessed character whether the Possessed character liked it or no. Like Telepathy, there would be different levels of Possession. Each level would give the Possessor access to more of the Possessed character's abilities. You may or may not want Possess to pool abilities the way Combine would. You may or may not want Possessed characters to have breakout rolls (or similar) to expel the Possessor -- or turn the tables!
Possess would allow players (or GMs) to create "parasite" characters who latch onto a host and control him.

Combine
Type: ?
Duration: Persistent
Target: Target's DCV
Range: No Range
Costs END: No
Cost: See Table

A character with Combine can physically merge with a receptive (willing) being, thereby allowing the free sharing of abilities.

To Combine with another being, the character must physically touch the target and must succeed with an OCV Attack Roll. The target must be completely willing and passive (DCV 0), otherwise the Combine fails outright.
By default, all Characteristics, Powers, Skills, Talents, etc. shared by the Combined characters are averaged. If one or more of the Combined characters lacks a particular Characteristic, Power, Skill, Talent, etc., possessed by the other Combined characters, he is considered to have zero points in that ability for the purposes of averaging. If a character has a lowered Characteristic, Power, Skill, Talent, etc. (e.g. has suffered a loss of STUN; has used END), that ability averages with the other Combined characters at its lowered level. (Note that some all or nothing Powers, such as many facets of Life Support do not average well. A GM may rule that such Powers function at limited capacity or not at all.)
Combined characters generally heal injuries or recover from Drains or Flash attacks at the same rate they would normally do when not Combined. Under certain circumstances, however, a GM may rule that after decombining, a character regains some or all of his injuries.
If one partner is Mind Controlled or suffering from Mental Illusions prior to Combining, the Combined entity is considered Mind Controlled or suffering from Mental Illusions at the same level -- but the Combined entity is entitled to an automatic breakout roll.
If one partner is Entangled or Grabbed prior to Combining (and depending on the special effects of a character's Combine), the GM may allow him to escape automatically or may grant him STR bonuses solely for purposes of determining if he can escape.

Combination partner(s)
5 points = Character can combine with a single other character, defined when he buys the power.
10 points = Character can combine with any one character in a group of characters, defined when he buys the power (e.g. all Green Slimes; all swarms composed of bees)
15 points = Character can combine with any other living being.
20 points = Character can combine with any physical object -- animate or inanimate.
25 points = Character can combine with anything.

Number of simultaneous combinations
+0 points = Character can combine with one other character at a time
(similar breakdown as per Mind Link for additional combinations)

Advantages and Adders
No Ability Averaging (+1): This Advantage allows the Combined characters to use the best Characteristics, Powers, Talents, Skills, etc. among them rather than averaging those scores.
Additive Abilities (+2): This Advantage allows the Combined characters to (wherever possible) add their Characteristics, Powers, Talents, Skills, etc. together rather than averaging those scores.

Limitations
Must Share Abilities (-1/2): This Limitation means that if any Combined partners lack a Characteristic, Power, Skill, Talent, etc. the Combined entity lacks it as well.

[BobGreenwade]

I'll agree with Utech that some form of Combine should be in the rulebook, though I'm not crazy about the proposed structure. Take something from TUV/TUMM.

[gregghelmberger]

My devoutest hope for this edition is that you fix Extra-Dimensional Movement as it pertains to "Wishing" and similar powers. For me, this is the single most grating aspect of Hero 5th. Having wishes transport you to a dimension where things are as you want them to be is both aesthetically and mechanically unsound. Aesthetically, I want MY dimension to change, I don't want to be sent to another dimension where things are different; this is a major point for me personally. Mechanically it tends to make wishes and similar effects too cheap points-wise for the effect they give.

My solution would be to give this a whole new power based on the Transform power, but more expensive. It would be scalable like Transform, but allow you to make more dramatic and wholesale changes in the game-world. To have a trivial wish power might cost a base 15 or 20 points, but to have a really major wish (comparable in scope, say, to D&D's Wish spell) might cost a base 100 points or more.

[Thia Halmades]

Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?

You CAN do this; I certainly see the argument for it (it's an AID that only AIDs these stats based on the point values absorbed from these attacks) so in that sense, sure, it can be done, but I don't see a big 'need' for it. Thinking on it, I have to wonder what that change would look like. However, Absorb isn't terribly common (I've never used it, but I haven't been playing long) so other than people getting confused as to where to find it if they need it, I'd shrug and go "Meh, won't really affect me."


Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?

I don't think so; the power of Aid and the innate benefit of it was never, to me, about the power of giving it to someone else. Many of the uses that I think of for it are, in fact, Self Only (-1/2) so the commonality of it means that -1/2 feels about right.


Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

I had posted this elsewhere, but absolutely, yes. I think that a lot of powers should be built with a measure of "absolute consistency," so that if I go backwards from THIS power I'll get back to the core of THAT power. Armor/Force Field/Force Wall (okay, I admit, I don't know HTH Force Wall could get rolled in here, now that I've thought about it, other than a heavily modified AOE) but that's at the core of many of my thoughts about how to polish the system.


Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?

Yeno. Simply, I rather like that lack of absolutes -- other than Desolid (which even then isn't ENTIRELY absolute, but all of this chains together in my head). In many cases people purchase Desolid as a means of having "invulerability" to a certain special effect. So for me, I'd like to see Desolid changed to "Intangibility" or "Phasing" and have it completely redefined to account, by canon, for the things that we're already doing (such as Evasion, from Fantasy HERO). It's not invulnerability per se but I'd like to see Desolid redefined to better account for that, and in turn, Damage Reduction & Resistance can to an extent take care of themselves.


Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?

Well, all you're doing is making your own PD/ED resistant, yes? That to me says "Advantage," however, it's much SIMPLER to do it as a Power that you sink points into and then make it cost the same; so I don't see a compelling reason to change this, myself.


Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?

Not removed, but refined. See above post; I really think that the invulerability everyone is seeking is right there in Desolid; properly defined, that's what it does. However, it makes you totally intangible; so you can't do "bullets off the chest" but you can do "super dodge." I'd like to see an improved level of understanding and functionality for those kinds of things brought into it.


Q: Does Duplication need any changes or revisions?

One Lord Captain is enough for a roomful of people. IOW: I don't know the rules on this well enough to comment. :D


Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?

We're struggling with Detects and such now; for example, we're having trouble with the builds and costs of Detects in general. I'll poll the unit and get more concrete thoughts on it, but this has come up a lot lately, and warranted mentioning for that reason. As far as N-Ray, no-one in my group has it, but I would think that -- this might sound kind of retarded -- it's almost "Sight" with a variation on "Penetrating" added to it; it penetrates through THESE barriers, but not THOSE barriers. Rather than having to pick some element, we can make it more granular. Up to such-and-such thickness of these materials, and so on.


Q: And what about that other E power: Extra Dimensional Movement?

This is the ugly one. Right now, XDM is knitted into a number of things that just aren't working, system wise, for us. For one, all other movement powers cost X per Inch of movement; XDM does not -- and cannot -- work that way. However, it's also incredibly cheap for what it does; Banishing someone to their Home Dimension is CHEAP once you've slapped on Usable as Attack, it's still fairly cheap (I think it clocked at 40 Real) which is just as "lethal" in terms of a straight up fight as, say, Transform.

Additionally, all of the "time" powers are wrapped into it for the most part. I would really love to see XDM modified to account for ... I'm not sure. Higher cost? More granularity? Making it more expensive as an attack power for things like "Send Bozo back to the Circus from Whence He Came?" I know what I'm going for, but not sure how to express it.

And Time. I'd like to see Time Powers introduced as their own creature, whether simply a dedicated section of the text (Stop, Reverse, Speed Up, etc.) or what have you. Sure, I can do Fly in Amber (Suppress SPD to 0, Continuing Charge) but that's not quite the same thing as Time Stop. So while "Time Control" would be under "T," we have it rolled in under XDM, which is under "E."

[JmOz]

this is about two powers, one falls in this range, the other in the next, I am only posting it here however, as the two are linked

Entangle should no longer make walls, however an adder to FW should permit it to in a similar way as Entangle now makes walls, essentialy you can add Body to a FW and make it semi-permenent...Change the name of Force Wall to just Wall or Barrior...

[Thia Halmades]

this is about two powers, one falls in this range, the other in the next, I am only posting it here however, as the two are linked

Entangle should no longer make walls, however an adder to FW should permit it to in a similar way as Entangle now makes walls, essentialy you can add Body to a FW and make it semi-permenent...Change the name of Force Wall to just Wall or Barrior...

That's not a bad point, actually -- although I like the idea of a brief entangle that can make walls, I also like the idea of a long term barrier system, which we don't have yet. I'm more about adding functionality and streamlining mechanics.

[BobGreenwade]

On the topic of making barriers....

Maybe this could be the primary function of a new Create Object Power.

Create Object should also be handy for making bridges and stuff, as long as there are rules for how much mass such a bridge can hold at once.

[JmOz]

On the topic of making barriers....

Maybe this could be the primary function of a new Create Object Power.

Create Object should also be handy for making bridges and stuff, as long as there are rules for how much mass such a bridge can hold at once.

Good point, the question then becomes should we remove the current force wall power for a limited version of create object

[BobGreenwade]

Good point, the question then becomes should we remove the current force wall power for a limited version of create objectI'd say no; if anything is done along these lines, let Force Wall become an Advantaged form of Force Field.

[steamteck]

Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?

Steve’s Thoughts: This is an idea worth considering. Damage Resistance basically functions as an Advantage anyway; it was just easier to handle it as a Power than a naked Advantage under previous incarnations of the HERO System. Now that rules for naked Advantages are better defined and people are more comfortable with them, switching to a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage makes sense.



.

Wouldn't this make it more complex to make characters where the resistant and normal defense are different. Many of my builds work that way to say represent rigid hard armor that its tougher to stun people through. Otherwise if I'm wrong and its just as easy ,six of one 1/2 dozen of the other.

[Stephen_H-G]

Extra-Dimensional Movement needs to be split into two powers, I think. As of right now it serves two functions: travel and reality warping.

Because I feel these are concepts both different in conception and in-game effect they need to be separated. Perhaps the reality-warping aspects of the power could be rolled into Transform. At the very least the power needs to be re-named as the name "Extra-Dimensional Movement" suggest movement while the wish example is more accurately changing what is around you rather than moving to a different place. If using Extra-Dimensional Movement for wishing or the like, wouldn't it make sense to require the purchase of Area Effect or Usable Against Others? Say you are wishing for something incongruous. Would it not be strange that you are "traveling" to a dimension in which this incongruous thing has always been there?

I think the very description of the power as a "catch-all" points to its weakness. I feel that a catch-all is at odds with the philosophies underlying the Hero System.

[steamteck]

Y

. Rather than having to pick some element, we can make it more granular. Up to such-and-such thickness of these materials, and so on.



I really like that idea for n-ray vision i like it a lot.:thumbup:

[Xotl]

Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?

Steve’s Thoughts: I can’t say I’m convinced this is necessary, but it might have some merit. It would help to define exactly which Senses are and aren’t blocked by solid physical objects.

Yes please. It adds the ability to do things we couldn't before, and that's one of the major points of a new edition. As you mention, the resulting clarity would be welcome as well.


Darkness - I think the name of this power is misleading, since it implies a single SFX against a single sense group. People new to the system wanting to create a zone of Silence do not think Darkness to Hearing group.

I strongly agree with this. Hearing Darkness just makes my new players go 'HUH?"

[Opal]

Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?I'm still not convinced Aid is a great idea. Folding anything into a mechanic as questionable as Aid doesn't strike me as a great idea.

Absorbtion is a pretty common idea in some genres (supers, magic) and should be retained in an easy to use power in it's own right.


Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?Self-only Aid should just be a partially limitted power. Why by Aid to your EB, when you can just buy some more EB with an activation time??


Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?You could eliminate armor and force field, and just have everyone buy PD/ED & Damage Resistance.

But, since you're trying to apeal to new players, I'd advise against it.



Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?
Yes. It'd be wildly expensive, and it should be manditory that one defined special effect be able to bypass it (as with Desolidification).


Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?Making it a Naked Power Advantage? No. In fact, it would make more sense to re-define common Naked Power Advantage ideas as actual powers that work more like Damage Resistance.

[ajackson]

A radical suggestion on Absorption and Aid: why not simply remove these powers? Absorption is just 'Limited Power: ability only activates when powered up by being attacked'. Aid is just 'Limited Power: takes an action to activate', plus Usable By Others if used to help people. The exception to this is Absorption/Aid into Body/End/Stun, but incorporating healing into Aid has always been a bit iffy.

[Balabanto]

Duplication needs to be redone somehow. I've never been happy with the way this works, because of the multiple actions, etc that a character with duplication gets, and pound for pound, the duplicated character is more powerful than just about every other concept in the game.

A solution might be that for every duplicate you have, the cost of every characteristic and power increases by five. It doesn't look like a lot, but if you want 10 duplicates, suddenly, you can't afford to build a ridiculous guy with a SPD of 5 or 6.

[James Gillen]

I strongly agree with this. Hearing Darkness just makes my new players go 'HUH?"

Literally. :D

[Beowulfe]

I totally agree with combining HA, EB, HKA, and RKA into one power called Attack or something like that. In base form, Attack is the HA. Advantages can be added to make it ranged, killing or ranged killing. It seems there was kind of a move to do this when EB got the limitation "only in hand to hand". Why go backwards? Create a base from which everything else builds on. Break it down to the most common denominator.

Also apply this to defense. Combine Armor, Force Field and Force Wall. As has been stated before all are just PD/ED with advantages. Which also answers the question about Resistant Defenses, just make it an advantage. I think making it an advantage simplifies things. Then you do not worry about if I have advantage x with my PD, I also have to add it to DR.

[OzMike]

I've been thinking about 100% Damage Reduction. Based off the current costs it should be something like 120 pts for 100% Resistant Damage Reduction, Energy (or Physical or Mental). That sounds like a lot but if you consider that starting characters are built on 350pts not so much.

However, if we use that 120pts as a starting point and consider the wanting to limit it to specific SFX we get something like this:

90pts - 100% Damage Reduction, Common SFX (based off a -1/2 limitation applied to 120pts) e.g. Fire
60pts - 100% Damage Reduction, Uncommon SFX (based off a -1 limitation applied to 120pts) e.g. Sonics
40pts - 100% Damage Reduction, Rare SFX (based off a -2 limitation applied to 120pts) e.g. Time? It's not a common direct attack in games I've played in anyway.

I think that provides the kind of thing we're looking for if we do want to go with something that is a convention of all kinds of dramatic fictional texts.

[Hugh Neilson]

However, if we use that 120pts as a starting point and consider the wanting to limit it to specific SFX we get something like this:

80pts - 100% Damage Reduction, Common SFX (based off a -1/2 limitation applied to 120pts) e.g. Fire
60pts - 100% Damage Reduction, Uncommon SFX (based off a -1 limitation applied to 120pts) e.g. Sonics
40pts - 100% Damage Reduction, Rare SFX (based off a -2 limitation applied to 120pts) e.g. Time? It's not a common direct attack in games I've played in anyway.

I think that provides the kind of thing we're looking for if we do want to go with something that is a convention of all kinds of dramatic fictional texts.

Fixed your math...

Agree in concept; disagree in implementation. The rule is -1/2 for a single SFX. WHY? Is full resistance (or partial reduction, or extra defenses) vs fire only really 2/3 as beneficial as the same level of resistance against all energy attacks? If "Sonics only" costs half as much as all energy attacks, shouldn't "not sonics" also costs half as much?

I agree the scale needs to slide with the relative frequency of the attacks, which will vary by game, but I think the limitations need to be much higher to accurately reflect the utility sacrificed.

[tomd1969]

Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t see any need for this, but every now and then I see someone posting something about potentially splitting Desolidification up into two or more Powers, so I figured it couldn’t hurt to raise the issue. Desolidification tends to be something of a conceptual nightmare from time to time (curse you, Kitty Pryde!), but overall I think it works fine.


I think that Desolid really needs to be looked at again. My biggest problem with it is its 40 pt cost. In my own games, I increase the cost of this to 75 pts to make it more in line with the costs of the other Defensive and Attack Powers. IMO, it's just simply too effective (even with the caveat of the "reasonably common attacks" (RCA) rule. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "I go Desolid" per game session. It's become a running joke (Me: "Segment 12!" My Players (in unison): "I go Desolid!"). Also, think about this: increasing the cost of Desolid also increases the End Cost....

[Super Squirrel]

90pts - 100% Damage Reduction, Common SFX (based off a -1/2 limitation applied to 120pts) e.g. Fire
60pts - 100% Damage Reduction, Uncommon SFX (based off a -1 limitation applied to 120pts) e.g. Sonics
40pts - 100% Damage Reduction, Rare SFX (based off a -2 limitation applied to 120pts) e.g. Time? It's not a common direct attack in games I've played in anyway.

In honor of the no absolutes, I think that a Common Condition that attacks do not apply against should be required and offer no discount.

[Opal]

I don't think the cost of Desloidification is out of line, while it allows you to ignore most attacks and barriers, it also makes you incapable of interacting with the rest of the world, that's pretty serious.

[watson]

Suggestion: Create an adder for Enhanced Senses that allows the sense to be used from an adjacent hex.

That way, you can make things like eyestalks, gun cameras, and periscopes without having to resort to clumsy Clairsentience builds.

[Balabanto]

I'm actually going to go out on a limb here.

Damage Reduction....

Should be completely reworked. The elegance of the original design of the game began to break down once you introduced damage reduction.Unlike other things in the game, the way I think this should work is that Damage Reduction should be broken into 10 percent increments, with 70 percent being the maximum. This is the resistant version. The nonresistant version costs 10 points per unit. Resistant costs 15

What the heck am I talking about? You say. How the *BLEEP?* can he even suggest such a crazy thing?

Well, hold on a minute and let the old geezer who runs 3-5 champions games per week per year talk for a second. :)

1) Math is easier. Everyone knows how to divide by ten. It's quick, it's simple, and it doesn't make your eyes pop out. Multiply by 1 to 7 to get your percentage and you're done.

2) Low powered games eat the dirt on Damage Reduction. If you DON'T allow it, concepts get hosed, but if you DO, your game balance will be thrown off because of agents vs. villains logic, which I'll explain in a moment.

3) High powered games especially eat the dirt on Damage Reduction. In a high powered game, everyone and their mother has damage reduction, because the more dice the enemies put out, the more exponentially powerful damage reduction becomes. Now it becomes harder to afford big damage reduction in low powered games, and in higher powered games, it still costs meatloads of points.

Now the percentage that you get is directly related to the type of game you're playing in. I personally wouldn't allow damage reduction above 70 percent, and a more conservative person I tried hashing this out with suggested that it stop at 60.

What is agents vs. villains logic? What I discovered over years of playtesting the damage reduction rules was this:

1) When fighting big flunkies (Supervillains) or Master Villains, the character with damage reduction is superior, because there's a limited number of foes throwing big attacks at him. We'll assume that the villain throws 14d6 (Very high, but not unreasonable.)

Character 1 has 16/16 and 1/2 Damage reduction, Character 2 has 30 points of Defense.

49-16=33/2=16

Character 2 has 30 points of Defense. He takes 19.

Now, if your character has 50 stun (I chose this because this is normal human maximum) after three shots, Character 2 is unconscious, and Character 1 is still on his feet with 2 stun left.

BUT...

2) When fighting agents, a damage reduction based character goes down in a hurry.

Let's look at this situation again.

Character 1 gets hit by 4 8d6 EBs, which average 28 stun. He takes 24.

Character 2 takes 0.

So...who's the Brick?

My argument is that this power needs to be better scaled. Much better scaled. If you want to grandstand against the master villain, buy damage reduction. That's the flaw in the design of this power. And the mightier the game you play in, the more powerful under the current rules Damage Reduction becomes.

[Netzilla]

Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?

I agree that making it an Aid modifier would be overly complicated.


Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?

I think that one of the problems with the current Advantage/Limitation system is that some modifiers are deemed to be the same value in all situations. I think more text needs to be devoted to explaining that in some situations different Modifiers can be worth more or less than indicated. One example of this is the way Reduced END changes based upon weather or not the attack is Autofire. Minor variations like this or changing Self Only to be worth more on an Aid is less of an inconsistency than it is an acknowledgment that some things vary from the norm.


Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

Almost certainly. Pick one and build the other off of it. You can keep them as separate listings in the Powers list, but mathematically they should work out to the same cost. Heck, you can argue that they're actually modifications on just normal PD/ED. Make Resistant a +3/4 modifier. Then you end up with:

Force Field: PD/ED, Resistant (+3/4), Costs END (-1/2), Visible (-1/4) = 1 RP each.
Armor: PD/ED, Resistant (+3/4) = 1.75 RP each; or 4 for 7.

This creates a greater degree of internal consistency in the pricing of defenses.


Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?

I think that this would at least need to be limited to only a specific Special Effect (Fire, Electricity, Demon Powers). Even at that, I don't think it should be truly absolute. I think that this would require the creation of a new attack Advantage, Irresistible, that negates Damage Reduction (of course the God of Fire can burn a fire elemental; he outranks it in the cosmic hierarchy). You then can put the Hardened Advantage on DR to counter levels of Irresistible, just like you currently have the AP/Pen vs Hardened mechanic now. Or you could argue that Dispel vs DR and DR, Difficult to Dispel already does this.

The main advantage I see to this is that, sometimes, in order to buy enough Armor, only vs Fire, to be immune to the campaign limit of Fire, you end up with an Active Cost so high that it either exceeds the campaign limit or it can't be put into a Power Framework and thus ends up costing more points than its worth. If the absolute limit on attacks is 30 DC (some master villains in the Champs universe), then you'd need 105 ED Armor just to be able to soak the average Energy Blast damage roll at that level. That's 70 Active Points. If you rate Only vs Fire at -2, you have a 23 RP cost. If you want to avoid the max that could be rolled, you have to account for the 10d6 RKA fire with its max 300 stun: 300 ED Armor is 300 AP and 100 RC). Compare that to Desolid, Only vs Fire and you can see why no one wants to buy that much Armor.


Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?

If you make it only +1/2, then you make it cheaper to buy PD/ED Resistant than it is to buy Force Field.

10 PD, Resistant (+1/2) (15 AP), Costs END (-1/2), Visible (-1/4) = 9 RC
Force Field, 10 PD = 10 AP/RC
Armor, 10 PD (15 AP), Costs END (-1/2), Visible (-1/4) = 9 RC

10 RC vs 9 RC isn't a huge difference, but as defense levels increase, the gap gets larger. I think it would just be more elegant if the costs worked out equal, even if they aren't officially written up as variations on the same power.


Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?

I like the variant in The Ultimate Metamorph, myself. I'd like to see that variant moved into the core rules as an option at least.

[Vondy]

I feel clairvoyance is overpriced in the current version - prohibitively so. I also wonder if it should actually be a power, or whether it should be included under the options/adders/advantages for extant sense groups. Retrocognition and Precognition could also be handled this way. Senses can already be transdimensional, so why not remote or temporally displaced? It falls in with the spirit of streamlining, and makes a certain amount of internal sense (to me at least).

[Opal]

I feel clairvoyance is overpriced in the current version - prohibitively so. I also wonder if it should actually be a power, or whether it should be included under the options/adders/advantages for extant sense groups. You mean like "why can't I just buy Indirect on my sight?" It's not a crazy idea, but, while Clair may be too expensive, that alternative would likely be too cheap.

[Vondy]

You mean like "why can't I just buy Indirect on my sight?" It's not a crazy idea, but, while Clair may be too expensive, that alternative would likely be too cheap.


How so?

At present senses have tons of adders that can be tacked on. Correct princing is a simple matter of setting the correct price. At present N-Ray for the sight group, which is effectively indirect, is 10 points. Basic clairvoyance (which is remote) could be 10 points with increases in range costing 2-3 points per range increase. Retrocognition and precognition can be separate adders with their own cost. And if 10 points isn't high enough, raise it.

I'm also curious what "too cheap" means. In the current edition the power is effectively out of the heroic price range unless its loaded with limitations, and it can be "ugly" for superheroic characters, too. Just how much should it cost? Have you tried to build a character with a sensor suite or superman-esque senses? Its gawdawful expensive already.

I'm asking an honest question. It was never this expensive in previous versions, and the price jump wasn't so much based on how much it was worth as the fact that their was a desire to make it more granular and sense by sense.

[Chris Goodwin]

E for Enhanced Senses --

Steve, how about a way for swapping between PER rolls and Requires a Skill Roll? For instance, build a sense that is based on a Skill Roll, that you would make the Skill Roll instead of the PER Roll.

[Vondy]

E for Enhanced Senses --

Steve, how about a way for swapping between PER rolls and Requires a Skill Roll? For instance, build a sense that is based on a Skill Roll, that you would make the Skill Roll instead of the PER Roll.

This isn't in there? I know you can use characteristic rolls instead of skill rolls. You can't use perception rolls?

[Opal]

I'm also curious what "too cheap" means. Clairsentience has a number of possible aplications. One is gathering information, something which can de-rail plots and can be controlled by GM fiat or charging more for it. Another is targetting mental powers. The cost/difficulties of getting a Clair 'lock' on someone for that purpose needs to be comparable to Mind Scanning someone to be reasonable. Of course, you could just make Clair non-targetting, and clear up the latter.

[Chris Goodwin]

This isn't in there? I know you can use characteristic rolls instead of skill rolls. You can't use perception rolls?

Oh, I'm talking going the other way around. For senses, using a Skill Roll instead of a Perception Roll to sense something.

You can use a Characteristic Roll (or, IIRC, a PER Roll) with RSR to activate a Power, including an Enhanced Sense.... but once you have it activated, you still use a PER Roll to sense something.

[Susano]

How about allowing 100% Damage Reduction versus a set effect (Fire, Blades, Cold, Bullets, and so on)? This would allow one to build certain character concepts without kludging together Armor and DR.

[Vondy]

How about allowing 100% Damage Reduction versus a set effect (Fire, Blades, Cold, Bullets, and so on)? This would allow one to build certain character concepts without kludging together Armor and DR.


I know the general notion is to collapse rather than expand powers, but why not take the cost of the current desolid version of invulnerability and turn it into its own power: invulnerability vs. special effect with some modification to cost based on the breadth or narrowness of the effect. The reason I suggest this is that DR currently works versus PD/ED/MD, which are mechanics rather than effects. Adding a level that works versus effects rather than mechanics seems a bit out of place. On the other hand, it may be that DR should be reworked to work against effects with the cost based on how broad those effects are (with the broadest effect equating to the extant categories). I don't know. It just seems odd to have one level of a power work differently than the other levels to me.

[The Shadow]

Am I alone in thinking that Dispel is (in most applications) grossly overpriced for what it does?

I was making a mage character in a low-level superheroic game a few months back... and I was just stunned how many AP it took to make a simple D&D-style Dispel Magic spell.

Yeah, I spend an awful lot of points to... turn your magic powers off. When you can turn them back on your next turn. Mmmhmmm. Admittedly, it's rather nice if one's opponent happens to be flying magically at the time or whatever, but sheesh.

EDIT: Thinking on this a bit more, perhaps there should be a "power countering" option available by default. Any power could be used to counter another appropriate power. Dispel would simply pick up from there, letting you Dispel wider groupings.

[Chris Goodwin]

E is for Ego Attack

Should we keep it? When I started playing, I found myself a bit surprised at its existence when you had Energy Blast and Based On ECV.

You can build a Power that, mechanically, acts exactly as Ego Attack, using Energy Blast and existing Modifiers. If Ego Attack had never existed in the system, this would be the "official" way to build a mental attack or blast of some kind.

So, stay or go? My vote is, it's one for the "Where Did It Go?" section.

[megaplayboy]

E is for Ego Attack

Should we keep it? When I started playing, I found myself a bit surprised at its existence when you had Energy Blast and Based On ECV.

You can build a Power that, mechanically, acts exactly as Ego Attack, using Energy Blast and existing Modifiers. If Ego Attack had never existed in the system, this would be the "official" way to build a mental attack or blast of some kind.

So, stay or go? My vote is, it's one for the "Where Did It Go?" section.

I tend to agree. Why not put it directly under "energy blast", with a specific advantage cited for it? You could also have a variety of mind blasts, with one being the standard BOECV, works against mental defense variety; another being visible and normally targeted, but still against mental defense; an area effect version, etc.
The "no range, visible, normally targeted" psychic sledgehammer would be fun...

[megaplayboy]

what about a "pre-emptive" version of Damage Reduction, that worked before applying other defenses? It would have to be much more expensive than Regular DR, of course, but it might be a good way to simulate nigh-invulnerability (particularly if appropriate limitations were applied).
25% reduction should be about half again as expensive
50% should be about twice as expensive
75% should be about 2.5 to 4 times as expensive

the desol based invulnerability (Desol, only to protect(-1), 0 END, Persistent) costs about 40 points. 40 points is a nice chunk of change, so that's probably a reasonable cost point for invulnerability to one sfx.

[SSgt Baloo]

EDIT: Thinking on this a bit more, perhaps there should be a "power countering" option available by default. Any power could be used to counter another appropriate power. Dispel would simply pick up from there, letting you Dispel wider groupings.

I've always thought that the Superheroic trope of stopping/blocking an opponent's energy blast using your own as a counter should be allowed in some form. At least, it should be in genres that this trope is appropriate for.

[Susano]

I've always thought that the Superheroic trope of stopping/blocking an opponent's energy blast using your own as a counter should be allowed in some form. At least, it should be in genres that this trope is appropriate for.

I put that in Ninja Hero and Steve adapted it for UEP.

[Thia Halmades]

I put that in Ninja Hero and Steve adapted it for UEP.

Is that in there, Mike? I never saw it in either book. :mad:

[Susano]

Is that in there, Mike? I never saw it in either book. :mad:

"Contest of Power"

[Hugh Neilson]

E is for Ego Attack

Should we keep it? When I started playing, I found myself a bit surprised at its existence when you had Energy Blast and Based On ECV.

You can build a Power that, mechanically, acts exactly as Ego Attack, using Energy Blast and existing Modifiers. If Ego Attack had never existed in the system, this would be the "official" way to build a mental attack or blast of some kind.

So, stay or go? My vote is, it's one for the "Where Did It Go?" section.

This is one that highlights the overcosting of certain advantages.

Ego Attack: 10 points for 1d6.

Energy Blast, Based on ECV, Invisible to all but Mental senses 13.75 points for 1d6

Energy Blast, AVLD Mental Defense, Range: Line of Sight, Invisible to all but Mental senses - 18.75 points for 1d6

[BobGreenwade]

E is for Ego Attack

Should we keep it? When I started playing, I found myself a bit surprised at its existence when you had Energy Blast and Based On ECV.

You can build a Power that, mechanically, acts exactly as Ego Attack, using Energy Blast and existing Modifiers. If Ego Attack had never existed in the system, this would be the "official" way to build a mental attack or blast of some kind.

So, stay or go? My vote is, it's one for the "Where Did It Go?" section.I have a mild preference for it staying around, but if it were to be dumped for the reasons you give I wouldn't complain. (Especially if the "Mental Power" Advantage from TUM were retained.)

[The Shadow]

I'd like to see some changes to END Reserve. As it is, most Powers with END Reserve on them end up, in the words of Ron Edwards, "paying to suck". In other words, it's possible to pay more points for an ability with less utility. I'm honestly not quite sure how to implement something better, though; file this under "nice to have" rather than "I'll get right on that".

Hear, hear! When you get down to it, END Reserve is just limited END and REC. Why not treat it that way?

Put a Limitation of "Only For Using Powers" on END and "Only For Regaining END Reserve" on REC. (And possibly others as well, like slow recovery.) Then individual powers can take a -1/2, "Only From END Reserve". If someone has an enormous END Reserve, the GM can rule that it's only worth a -1/4, or nothing at all.

It should still have its own section as a Power, just be treated more consistently.

[The Main Man]

Force Wall should become FF with Area of Effect with a +1/2 modifier called "Wall" which makes the power act as Force Wall already does.

Right. Say you have 1 rPD/rED Costs END (-1/2) = 3 AP, 2 CP.
AOE (Radius, most likely, 1" in this case; +1) --> 6 AP, 4 CP
New "Wall" Advantage (+1/2) --> 7.5 AP, 5 CP

This is mathematically identical to buying a 1" long, 1" tall, 1 PD/ED Force Wall.

[rjcurrie]

Force Wall should become FF with Area of Effect with a +1/2 modifier called "Wall" which makes the power act as Force Wall already does.

Right. Say you have 1 rPD/rED Costs END (-1/2) = 3 AP, 2 CP.
AOE (Radius, most likely, 1" in this case; +1) --> 6 AP, 4 CP
New "Wall" Advantage (+1/2) --> 7.5 AP, 5 CP

This is mathematically identical to buying a 1" long, 1" tall, 1 PD/ED Force Wall.

Why should it become a modifier on Force Field rather than remaining a separate Power? Just because it can doesn't mean it should.

[ajackson]

A typical comic book force wall acts like an object which can be damaged or broken, not like a simple defense. Actually, comic book force fields often act that way as well; it might be worth having a more generic 'destructible barrier' type defense (also usable for ablative armor).

[BobGreenwade]

Enhanced Senses is where we find the costing for Normal Senses, so...

I'd rather like to see Normal Senses built using Detect, rather than by "buying off Disadvantages." The latter may seem sensible for normal characters who have the Disadvantages, but for Vehicles, Computers, and other devices a Detect-based method seems more logical.

I don't feel strongly about it (though I once did), but I'm wondering how folks would feel about that.

[JohnTaber]

A typical comic book force wall acts like an object which can be damaged or broken, not like a simple defense. Actually, comic book force fields often act that way as well; it might be worth having a more generic 'destructible barrier' type defense (also usable for ablative armor).

This is the option I like. In fact I think Entangle and Force Wall could potentially be combined into a barrier or some such power. Will rep for food.

[The Main Man]

Why should it become a modifier on Force Field rather than remaining a separate Power? Just because it can doesn't mean it should.

Why have Force Field when you can buy Armor that Costs END (-1/2)?

It's about simplification and eliminating redundancy.

I've also stated earlier that I think that defense needs an overhaul on simplification.

[Opal]

Why have Force Field when you can buy Armor that Costs END (-1/2)?

It's about simplification and eliminating redundancy.Buying a FF straight up istead of re-inventing it from Armor every time /is/ simpler.

[The Main Man]

Buying a FF straight up istead of re-inventing it from Armor every time /is/ simpler.
But it is still redundant.

Taken another way, why by FF Reduced END (0 END; +1/2) when you can buy Armor?

So you can circumvent the Elemental Control rules?

[Opal]

Taken another way, why by FF Reduced END (0 END; +1/2) when you can buy Armor?Well, cynically, one reason is because you can make it Hardened for fewer points. Then again, it's still glowy, and maybe you wanted a glowy zero end protective effect.

But, the real point is that you don't have to: If you want armor, you can buy armor, not re-construct it from FF, if you want a FF, you can buy it, not re-construct it from armor. For that matter, if you wanted to reduce the game to it's axiomatic powers, you wouldn't have either. Just Damage Resistance. If you wanted a Force Field, you'd buy extra PD & ED linked to Damage Resistance, with Cost End on the whole thing. If you wanted Armor, you'd buy extra PD & ED in the same focus with your Damage Resistance.

[The Main Man]

For that matter, if you wanted to reduce the game to it's axiomatic powers, you wouldn't have either. Just Damage Resistance. If you wanted a Force Field, you'd buy extra PD & ED linked to Damage Resistance, with Cost End on the whole thing. If you wanted Armor, you'd buy extra PD & ED in the same focus with your Damage Resistance.
Exactly my point as posted way earlier.:thumbup:

I was positing an alternate build for Force Wall based on the current rules, but I would argue the same logic for such a deconstruction.

[Opal]

Then every player who wants a FF or Armor has to re-invent it, every time.

[GamePhil]

Then every player who wants a FF or Armor has to re-invent it, every time.

That would just be a matter of creating some sort of "new base Power" rule, so that you'd just construct Powers from the rules that would then be further modified. Simple example: buy Armor, Costs END, and call that Force Field, which then costs 1 pt/PD or ED.

Not a perfect example since you'd probably modify it further, but it's what I'd do if I wanted the short list of "real" powers combined with the simplicity of the longer list.

[Kdansky]

Then every player who wants a FF or Armor has to re-invent it, every time.

And now every player who wants a Drain that costs End has to reinvent it every time. Which is perfectly fine. I always think about "which power do I want" and next: "Should it cost end" and then I have to look up if that power costs end or not and slap an advantage/limitation on it. That's stupid. It would be way easier if no power did cost end in the beginning (or better: they all cost end) and that's it. Also safes quite a bit of confusion.

Also, if we merge Armor and FF, it gets really clunky if we add Force Wall too. And arguably, a wall is not the same as resistant defenses (and the functionalities are quite different, because one can be broken down but absorbs all stun and the other can't).

End reserve: bye bye. If you want to take it to simulate something, take charges (or in very unusual circumstances: limited end) or fuel charges. If you want to play the system, take End reserve, because it's too cheap.

Or rather: END/REC is way too expensive! End: 1:5!!

[Adventus]

This is one that highlights the overcosting of certain advantages.

Ego Attack: 10 points for 1d6.

Energy Blast, Based on ECV, Invisible to all but Mental senses 13.75 points for 1d6

Energy Blast, AVLD Mental Defense, Range: Line of Sight, Invisible to all but Mental senses - 18.75 points for 1d6

You forgot no knockback -1/4.

[Lucius]

Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power
Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?

First, I don’t think you can discuss one without the other.

Hero had 100% Damage Reduction long before 25%, 50%, or 75% existed. It was in the original Champions, and it’s always been called Desolidification.

You are right that Desolidification can be a “conceptual nightmare.” One of the most fundamental problems is that it is actually two separate powers: A Defense Power (essentially 100% Damage Reduction) and a Movement Power (a form of No Normal Defense Tunneling.)

I like to compare the concept, actually, to Armor Piercing and No Normal Defense. You explain the concept of Armor Piercing to someone new to the system: they may think, “Okay, so a + ½ Advantage lets me ignore ½ of the defense….so can a +1 Advantage let me ignore ALL the defense? Woo hoo, unstoppable attack, here I come!” Well, not quite. The + ½ Advantage gets you Armor Piercing, but the +1 Advantage doesn’t get you Armor Ignoring, or No Defense. It gets you No Normal Defense. Sure, you ignore defenses – but there is some One Thing That Stops You Cold. That’s the trade-off for getting an “absolute” attack, sometimes it absolutely fails.

And if you have 100% Damage Reduction – or Desolid as it’s called – you also have One Thing that still effects you, and on top of that, you can’t make any attacks or exert most powers without a very expensive Advantage on them. That is, again, the trade-off for having an “absolute” defense.

So in short: yes, you should have 100% Damage Reduction, but it should work by and large as it always has; some reasonable special effect ignores it, and while it’s in play, your own abilities are curtailed unless you buy a +2 Advantage on them. And there should also be, if not exactly No Normal Defense Tunneling, some form of a Movement Power that ignores solid barriers. Then your standard “ghost” type character would have both, but characters that should have one or the other can buy them separately.

Lucius Alexander

And an Invisible Desolidified Palindromedary

[Lucius]

Because when something is in the book, no matter how many gongs and flares are around it, it is now a part of the game.

Up until now, Hero has not had any absolutes. The moment one is in the main book in black and white it will be an assumed part of the system.

First Point: Hero has always had absolutes. It's also always had a general bias towards scalable powers and away from absolutes, but absolutes in Hero are not an absolute novelty.

Second Point: You're aboslutely right, putting something in the book, no matter with what warnings, is opening Pandora's box - well, not really, but it's putting the box where she'll see it and where she WILL open it if she gets her hands on the key. Look at Automaton Powers: The book clearly said "Do Not Use" and they wound up on some player character sheets anyway.

Lucius Alexander

Hiding the box in the palindromedary's saddle bags.

[Lucius]

Then every player who wants a FF or Armor has to re-invent it, every time.

Every player who wants any power has to re invent it every time. That's what the Hero System IS.

Lucius Alexander

Constantly reinvinting the palindromedary

[Lucius]

Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?



Well, I'm in favor of revisiting all the "orphan mechanics" and the "Addervantage" of Damage Resistance is a lonely orphan. If you're not going to extend the concept to other Addervantages, I say we should change this one.

Try this idea on; since you want to eliminate Figureds anyway, and do a little streamlining, get rid of ED and PD as characteristics. That does not mean "normal" people don't have them; Running is a Power and everyone has it. Make Armor the basic defense power. Force Field is Armor that costs END, and gets its own write up as part of the Armor power. Being Non-Resistant is a LIMITATION that reflects the mandatory limitation on Hand to Hand Normal Attack that makes it different from Hand to Hand Killing Attack (have I mentioned I think that limitation should be larger, and split into "Roll dice for STUN" and "Stopped by non-resistant defenses" limitations?)

Conversely, you can have a Defense power that, like the attack powers, is not seperated into different Energy and Physical versions, just has Physical Vs Energy as a "toggle" you have to pick when you buy the power - in fact, like Armor and Force Field already are. Resistant can become an Advantage, and Killing can become an Advantage as well (Again, preferably two Advantages: a "roll for BODy" Advantage and the sort of limited "Attack Vs Limited Defense" Advantage that means non-Resistant defenses don't stop it.) In this case however, the cost of STR must be revisited again, because if 1d6 Normal Damage costs a straight 5 pts, then 1d6 Normal Damage plus lift, throw, grapple, etc. etc. obviously should cost more. That's why I favor making "Normal" and "Nonresistant" as Limitations, rather than making "Killing" and "Resistant" Advantages.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary tells me I need to start thinking about something other than the upcoming 6th Edition.....

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, cynically, one reason is because you can make it Hardened for fewer points. Then again, it's still glowy, and maybe you wanted a glowy zero end protective effect.

Why should anyone buy Armor that Costs END when they can make it visible and nonpersistent for the same point value as making it Cost END and thus become visible amd nonpersistent?

[Hugh Neilson]

You forgot no knockback -1/4.

AVLD and BOECV attacks do no BOD so they do no knockback by default.

[Kdansky]

Why should anyone buy Armor that Costs END when they can make it visible and nonpersistent for the same point value as making it Cost END and thus become visible amd nonpersistent?
Yes, thats a huge problem. One should be allowed to buy Visible (usually only a very small drawback), Nonpersistant (that one is quite a drawback, when you go below 0 stun for a moment and then a KA hits you, you will know) normally when taking Costs End. Quite simple.

[CorPse]

It's become a running joke (Me: "Segment 12!" My Players (in unison): "I go Desolid!"). Also, think about this: increasing the cost of Desolid also increases the End Cost....

I've never heard of anything like this. Do many/all of your players have Desolid?

I know a lot of GM's that would simply not let more than one or two characters have Desolid. Or... he or she would make sure that the various baddies in the campaign world started bringing those Affects Desolid guns w/ them.

[CorPse]

Suggestion: Create an adder for Enhanced Senses that allows the sense to be used from an adjacent hex.

That way, you can make things like eyestalks, gun cameras, and periscopes without having to resort to clumsy Clairsentience builds.

Not a bad idea...

[CorPse]

E is for Ego Attack

Should we keep it? When I started playing, I found myself a bit surprised at its existence when you had Energy Blast and Based On ECV.

You can build a Power that, mechanically, acts exactly as Ego Attack, using Energy Blast and existing Modifiers. If Ego Attack had never existed in the system, this would be the "official" way to build a mental attack or blast of some kind.

So, stay or go? My vote is, it's one for the "Where Did It Go?" section.

This actually makes a crapload of sense... especially if 6e is meant to focus on streamlining... that way Mind Blast could be one of the example powers and we're off and running.

[CorPse]

So, I powered through the thread this evening.

As my Papa used to say, for many of these issues, "I don't have a dog in that fight." However, here is what I have to offer...

In general:
Streamlining and collapsing of dynamics should be done as much as is practical.

In specific:
Duplication--anything done to make this simpler or more balanced w/ other similar constructs (Summon, etc.) would be welcome.
Combining Armor & FF--ambivalent on this one. I can see both sides, but I'll have to think about it a lot to come to some sort of conclusion for myself.
Damage Resistance becomes Resistant (+1/2 Advantage)--This just makes sense to me.
Desolid--I'd like to see it a little more granular. Not the old 5pt. system, but not the 40pt. all or nothing power, either.
N-ray as a Sense Mod--Sure. Makes sense.

[Scott Destroyer]

Hi all,

My thoughts on Steve's list:


Absorption - leave it a seperate power; however, I think the Adjustment Powers in general need a LOT of work.
Self-Only for Aid - Aid in general is too expensive; Self-Only should get no special exception for Aid.
Armor and Force Field combined - Yes, please.
Damage Reduction to 100% - No, but it could easily and usefully be made more granular; say, buyable in 5% to 10% increments up to 90% or 95%.
Damage Resistance converted to Advantage - Yes, please.
Desolidification - Seems fine as-is to me.
Duplication - Does need some work. I'd probably lower or eliminate the "Altered Duplicate" cost, change "Independent" aspects; not sure what else.
N-Ray as Sense Modifier - No; this should be entirely SFX/Sense Group related. Vision requires direct line of sight (absent mirrors), other senses (except no-range Touch) only need some open path between subject and sensor. Only perceiving into/out of sealed containers/areas should require N-Ray Perception for non-Sight Group Senses.


On other subjects that have arisen:


Extra-Dimensional Movement - Splitting away the reality-alteration aspects seems a good idea - though it might make Amberite-clones more expensive... :)
D&D "True Sight" - Detect Illusions/Shapeshifters/"Alignment", Sight Group. Perhaps w/PER roll pluses to offset minuses for Images. That's "clunky"?
END Reserve "paying to suck" - This generally only happens if the entire REC of the Reserve is limited in some way, or it has a really tiny max END. Seems simple enough not to build one that way.
Energy Blast - I'm all in favor of consolidation of the attack powers. Single attack power, no range by default, Killing damage a cheap form of AVLD, weird "pips on die are BODY damage with seperate STUN multiplier die" rolling for Killing damage eliminated entirely.
Multiple actions making Duplication too powerful - no, they don't, since a target's defenses apply seperately to each Duplicate's attacks.
Adder for Enhanced Senses to allow extending range slightly - I'd make this some form of Stretching ("Senses Only", perhaps?).
Ego Attack - get rid of it. Generic Attack Power BOECV.
Force Wall as Force Field w/AOE or other Modifiers - Sounds good to me, except of course that I'd have Force Field gone and it'd be "Generic Defense Power w/Range/AOE/etc.".

[GamePhil]

heh heh. Scott Destroyer. heh heh heh.


[list]
Extra-Dimensional Movement - Splitting away the reality-alteration aspects seems a good idea - though it might make Amberite-clones more expensive... :)


Could you give an example? I was trying to phrase a request for EDM to have broader cost break-downs, so that it could include things like the Speed Zone and what not in the core rules. Maybe, lots of people don't like that concept and I'm not fully sold, but would like to see how it might look, or if necessary how another Power that filled that role would.



D&D "True Sight" - Detect Illusions/Shapeshifters/"Alignment", Sight Group. Perhaps w/PER roll pluses to offset minuses for Images. That's "clunky"?


Maybe, but there is a point where you just have to take the Clunky power and make it work. I wouldn't mind seeing some form of rules for Building New Base Powers (maybe a Framework, but probably not) from existing ones, though. Then just build it once and use that as the new Power, applying Modifiers to the new cost. Saves us from having too many, too specific Powers while eliminating a lot of the complex builds (Damage Shield, regardless of how it's built (barring just calling it that), comes to mind)

I think I may have repeated myself, there, not sure so I'll leave it for now.



END Reserve "paying to suck" - This generally only happens if the entire REC of the Reserve is limited in some way, or it has a really tiny max END. Seems simple enough not to build one that way.


True, but you shouldn't have to. Opal had some rules years ago for placing Limitations on Powers that came from Limited END Reserves, I'd like to see something like that. If END Reserves are kept at all, which I'm not sure they should be.

No comments come to mind on the rest.

[IndianaJoe3]

Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?

Let's get outside the box on Damage Reduction. No, further outside the box. Keep going. :nonp: OK, that's good.

Replace DRed with the defensive power limitation, "Leaky". The defense lets some of the damage through (25% of damage taken for a -1/2 lim, 50% for a -1, and 75% for a -3). (The exact values may need some tweaking.) The basic idea is that some damage gets through, but the character isn't completely overwhelmed.

OK, back in the box.

[McCoy]

First, I don’t think you can discuss one without the other.

Hero had 100% Damage Reduction long before 25%, 50%, or 75% existed. It was in the original Champions, and it’s always been called Desolidification.

You are right that Desolidification can be a “conceptual nightmare.” One of the most fundamental problems is that it is actually two separate powers: A Defense Power (essentially 100% Damage Reduction) and a Movement Power (a form of No Normal Defense Tunneling.)
I think you might be onto something there, maybe make the walking through walls tunneling with an advantage and seperate it from the immunity to damage.

[GamePhil]

Replace DRed with the defensive power limitation, "Leaky". The defense lets some of the damage through (25% of damage taken for a -1/2 lim, 50% for a -1, and 75% for a -3). (The exact values may need some tweaking.) The basic idea is that some damage gets through, but the character isn't completely overwhelmed.


I like the idea, but see issues (hey, there had to be some comment or this would be a Me Too post, frowned upon in this forum).

Make sure that it's mentioned that this Defense is applied last.

It runs afoul of Active Point and Defense caps, and shouldn't any more than DR does now, so some kind exception may have to be made if those are kept.

At those levels of Limitation, and getting the same original costs, 3/4 rDR will give you 60 DEF (of whichever type) but 1/2 and 1/4 will only give you 40 (which isn't a problem, really, since 3/4 is such a jump in cost).

[IndianaJoe3]

I like the idea, but see issues (hey, there had to be some comment or this would be a Me Too post, frowned upon in this forum).

Make sure that it's mentioned that this Defense is applied last.

It runs afoul of Active Point and Defense caps, and shouldn't any more than DR does now, so some kind exception may have to be made if those are kept.

At those levels of Limitation, and getting the same original costs, 3/4 rDR will give you 60 DEF (of whichever type) but 1/2 and 1/4 will only give you 40 (which isn't a problem, really, since 3/4 is such a jump in cost).

Letting it be applied first gives some interesting effects - the character will always take some damage, even if it's only a quarter. And I agree that it pops defense caps, but it isn't as powerful as its AP cost might seem - 60 DEF, 50% reduction would still let half of all damage through (and all of it after a certain point).

One additional benefit of this approach is that it doesn't get relatively cheap in high-powered games - no more buying 75% DR simply because you can.

[Supreme Serpent]

Ego Attack - leave as a distinct power. Changing it to a paragraph of Advantages strikes me as unnecessary, undesirable, and is about as 'streamlining' as rolling Instant Change into Transform was.

[Zephrosyne]

I think the rules for Entangles affecting other characteristics besides Strength and Ego (as per Ultimate Mentalist) should be in the core rulebook. This really helps in simulating a lot of superhuman abilities. I also think the +1 version of the Advantage, Takes No Damage From Attacks (as per Ultimate Mentalist), should also be included in the core rulebook.

[OzMike]

Ego Attack - leave as a distinct power. Changing it to a paragraph of Advantages strikes me as unnecessary, undesirable, and is about as 'streamlining' as rolling Instant Change into Transform was.

I think that it should be changed to an advantaged attack power, because essentially that's what it is. Perhaps if sample powers were included as part of the body text rather than sidebars it could be one of the sample powers, and would stand out more.

[Balabanto]

See my previous post on Damage Reduction for how some of this stuff could work.

[The Main Man]

Count me in for making Ego Attack just Energy Blast BOECV, granted I am also in the camp for a completely consolidated "Attack" power.

[SAVeira]

Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?

Yes, as it is too useful as a separate power.


Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?

No, as I believe an form of Aid should be expensive.


Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

No problem either way.


Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. "Invulnerability"), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?

No. I do not believe in abolutes for the HERO System.


Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?

Either way works for me, as a Power or as an Advantage.


Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?

Maybe make it more expensive and have levels of Desolidification, instead of Limitations.


Q: Does Duplication need any changes or revisions?

Yes, but exact what escapes me.


Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?

Sure if you can come up with a good name for it.

[Southern Cross]

Actually,I think that the ability to travel in time should be a separate power from EDM,as EDM with the Time Travel Adder cannot be used to travel to other dimensions.

[dsatow]

Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?

Absorbtion as done now seems pretty stable.

Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?

I don't think self only should be increased in value. As it is, people use it as a way of generating spot defenses a lot. I think also precedent is pretty strong here.

Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

The major reason to keep them separate is the fact that force field costs end and has a visible effect. Armor costs no end and does not need a visible effect. Those two things alone differentiate them enough that changes shouldn't be necessary.

Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?

That's bad. Absolutes in combat are generally bad. The end result would be that so many people in cons would start taking this power that I would be sick to GM at cons.

That said, I knew a GM who would allow 1/8 and 1/16 for the appropriate doublings. While not useful in the low level games, it was useful in the galactic level games. Personally, I am not convinced. Also, I think personally, no matter what the reduction, all attacks which get past defenses should do a minimum of one stun no matter how halved.

Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?

I agree, a 1/2 advanatge would be useful. I would also suggest a 1/2 advantage for attacks to go against resistant defenses. Basically allow EB to go against resistant PD/ED for a 1/2 advantage.

Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?

Not really.


Q: Does Duplication need any changes or revisions?

I don't mind the math corrections but personally, I'd rather see it as a form of summon. Except for the death part, its basically a summon single type loyal being. I think the death part is more a limitation on the duplication, kind of like Independant or feedback.


Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?

I think N-ray should just be a modifier (kind of like NND for senses). Thus you can have N-Ray hearing allowing you to hear through solids or n-ray smell butthats getting a bit perverted.

Other
Again, I reiterate, please cap succor.

[Scott Destroyer]

Hi again,


Originally Posted by GamePhil:
Could you give an example?

An example of "reality-alteration aspects" of Extra-Dimensional Movement? That just refers to use of EDM to simulate wishing-type powers, where the effect is "I travel to a dimension that is exactly like this one in all ways except that a wish I just made is fulfilled." The members of the royal family of Amber in Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber actually have dimension travel powers that work a lot like that, which is why I mentioned them. Still, despite the Amberites, I think building wishing with EDM is a bit kludgy and undercosted. If I were to use an existing Power to build wishing abilities, I'd probably do it something like the Word of Unmaking is done in The Mystic World - a massive triple linked Physical/Mental/Spiritual Transform of literally the entire universe (which is built there with MegaScale for its Area of Effect at the +10 Advantage level!).

Glad you like my handle, BTW... :)


Originally Posted by GamePhil:
there is a point where you just have to take the Clunky power and make it work.
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear; someone was complaining about the clunkyness of building True Sight in HERO, and I was trying to point out that a simple Detect of the stuff True Sight detects, plugged into the Sight Group with the Simulated Sense Groups rule, actually doesn't seem particularly clunky.


Originally Posted by Supreme Serpent:
Ego Attack - leave as a distinct power. Changing it to a paragraph of Advantages strikes me as unnecessary, undesirable, and is about as 'streamlining' as rolling Instant Change into Transform was.
Ah, but you wouldn't need a whole paragraph if BOECV were changed as I suggest in the Advantages thread, to fully make a power a Mental Power in all respects ;) - just Attack Power BOECV (and Ranged, if the unified attack power starts out without range). Seems easy enough.

[Chris Goodwin]

An example of "reality-alteration aspects" of Extra-Dimensional Movement? That just refers to use of EDM to simulate wishing-type powers, where the effect is "I travel to a dimension that is exactly like this one in all ways except that a wish I just made is fulfilled." The members of the royal family of Amber in Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber actually have dimension travel powers that work a lot like that, which is why I mentioned them. Still, despite the Amberites, I think building wishing with EDM is a bit kludgy and undercosted. If I were to use an existing Power to build wishing abilities, I'd probably do it something like the Word of Unmaking is done in The Mystic World - a massive triple linked Physical/Mental/Spiritual Transform of literally the entire universe (which is built there with MegaScale for its Area of Effect at the +10 Advantage level!).

I've often thought wishes could be done with Transforms, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the universe; almost all of them can be handled by simply switching the wisher's points around. For instance, "I wish I were better looking?" Poof, Transform to switch 5 points into COM. "I wish I were wealthy!" Poof, switch 10 points into Wealth. "I wish for world peace," would require at least a planetwide Transform, but I don't think many characters wish for that, and I also don't think there are enough dice in the world anyway.....

[The Main Man]

My Absorption analysis:

1) Absorption can become a Triggered Aid construct

2) Absorption becomes a more distinct power if it provides Defense

3) FReD/5eR already has Armor constructs that are linked to Absorption anyway

4) Conclusion: Absorption becomes a Triggered Aid construction and the player buys Linked Armor (or whatever that ends up being).

5) Addendum: The fact that such a construct can link the Armor to the Aid dice leads me to think that in the "Toolkitting Tips" section there should be something that addresses these concepts of HERO so that a player can really "get it" after a proper read-through.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Wishes....

I generally model a Wish as a VPP. Transforms are good in some cases; if Create Object is added, that's good too; for world peace, use MegaScale Mind Control; if you wish someone was dead, then an RKA with appropriate Advantages (MegaRange, Accurate, NND, etc.). Only use XDM "to a dimension where the wish is true" as a failsafe.

[rjcurrie]

My Absorption analysis:

1) Absorption can become a Triggered Aid construct

2) Absorption becomes a more distinct power if it provides Defense

3) FReD/5eR already has Armor constructs that are linked to Absorption anyway

4) Conclusion: Absorption becomes a Triggered Aid construction and the player buys Linked Armor (or whatever that ends up being).

5) Addendum: The fact that such a construct can link the Armor to the Aid dice leads me to think that in the "Toolkitting Tips" section there should be something that addresses these concepts of HERO so that a player can really "get it" after a proper read-through.

Again I think Absorption is enough of a separate concept to warrant its own power. The proposed build here is not intuitive and will serve to confuse players.

[Opal]

True, but you shouldn't have to. Opal had some rules years ago for placing Limitations on Powers that came from Limited END Reserves, I'd like to see something like that. If END Reserves are kept at all, which I'm not sure they should be.I was never quite satisfied with them, but I have used them occassionally, particularly for the sort of magic where you have 'mana' that you use up with each spell.

<http://www.mactyre.net/october/HERORULE/VARIANTS.ZIP>

END Reserve:
Powers that are designated to draw off an END Reserve can
draw off the character's END as well, but only when the END
Reserve is completely depleted. For a +1/4 advantage the power
can draw off any reserve that is designated for it or the
character's own END or any combination as desired. Powers that
can only draw from an END Reserve get a limitation based on the
nature of the Reserve (see Power Modifiers below).

END Reserve only -0 to -2 <NEW>
A power that is dependent upon an inferior END reserve (one
that has very little END or a heavily limited REC) deserves some
break in cost. This limitation is a complicated but relatively
fair and accurate way to recognize the disadvantages that can be
associated with an END reserve. There are a number of factors
that make an END Reserve limiting. Total those that are
applicable, never exceeding -2. A positive (advantage) result
counts as -0, since any advantage is represented in the points
invested in END Reserve.

Low END: Divide the total END in the Reserve by the amount of
END needed to use each of the powers getting the limitation
that can be run concurrently. Count END before Extra END
limitations but after Reduced END advantages. Compare the
result to the following table:
Multiple Limitation
x1 -1
x2 -3/4
x3 -1/2
x4 -1/4
x8 0
x16 +1/4
x32 +1/2

Limited REC: One half of the total limitations on the Reserve's
REC can be applied to the END Reserve Only limitation.
Obviously, limitations shared by both the REC and the power
are not included. Neither are any limitations that do not
effect how often recovery occurs - such as
Visible,Independent,or Side Effects.

Reducing Power: Powers drawing on the Reserve can use no more
active points then are currently left in the END Reserve.
The value of the limitation varies based on how much more
END there is in the Reserve than Active points in the power:

x1 -1
x1 1/2 -3/4
x2 -1/2
x3 -1/4
x4+ -0

Maximum Output: Normally, all of the END in a Reserve can be
used in a single phase, if necessary. Reserves with a
Maximum Output can only provide a set amount of END per
phase. The END of the reserve gets a limitation based on
how many of the powers it provides END for can be used at
once. Divide the Max Output by the total END required each
phase (as in the Low END lim.) and compare the result to the
chart below:

Multiple Lim
x1 - x1/2 -1/4
x1/2 - x1/4 -1/2
x1/4 or less -3/4

[Sean Waters]

Armour and force field do similar stuff BUT, absolutely everywhere but for AP caps (including frameworks) Armour is the better bet as it comes with IPE and Persistent free of charge in effect.

If we really enforced AP caps then I'd say keep it, but we don't (except in frameworks) in the vast majority of cases IMO - from simply being a member of these boards the impression I get is that almost everyone is very lax indeed in enforcing AP caps, in favour of DC caps, or DEF caps.

I'd be inclined to keep force field and get rid of armour, but then you might as well just buy up your PD and ED and make it resistent (with Damage Resistance or the mooted 'resistant' advantage) and you have armour once more, in effect.

The answer is complex because it is going to depend on other factors, specifically what we are going to do with frameworks: can, for instance, you put powers that don't cost END into ECs in 6th?

One option is to remove both FF AND Armour and just do it with resistant PD and ED. It certainly has the advantage of simplicity...

[The Main Man]

Perhaps powers that normally do not cost END are visible when Costs END (-1/2) is applied; you cannot double dip and take Visible as well.

[Sean Waters]

I'm agin, personally.

I don't see a need for invulnerability constructs, either built this way or :sick: as desolidification.

Any kind of invulnerability is not going to scale so there will come a point where it is the only sort of defence worth having.

Part of the attraction of damage reduction is that it works against everything, NNDs, AVLDs, AP, stun drain, whatever. I've argued before that it is not a true defence but a way of buying extra STUN and BODY at a massive discount.

If a form of invulnerability is needed then we could take what is attractive from DR (the broad spectrum applicability, which enormously simplifies character design) and apply it to a defence that scales.

Say you can buy armour with an advantage so that it resists ALL forms of stun and body reduction, not just ones that work against normal and resistant defences.

If that sounds like too much of a stretch for Armour, create a Universal Defence power (there is something of this sort in TUEP, IIRC), say 2 points for 1 point of defence against stun or body damage from ANY normal source, and a +1/2 advantage to make it resistant.

[Sean Waters]

Perhaps powers that normally do not cost END are visible when Costs END (-1/2) is applied; you cannot double dip and take Visible as well.

That is the rule now, but you could buy armour like this:

Armour 20/20 (60 AP)

Visible -1/4
Non-persistent -1/4

For 40 points: the same as 20/20 FF, and it is visible and non persistent BUT doesn't cost END...

[Sean Waters]

This never seemed quite right: the cost of the REC is arguably too high and the cost of the END is certainly too low.

The power is thematically useful, but I think the cost needs to be seriously rebalanced. There is nothing, for instance, to stop you selling back your 40 END to zero and using the 20 points you gain to buy a 10 REC/100 END Reserve that everything you spend END on runs off (including STR, for example). OK this prevents you burning Stun for END and makes drowning a lot scarier, but the cost break on END in a reserve still seems very excessive.

I'd suggest 1 point gets you 4 END would do the trick. Maybe 1 gets you 5.

[ideasmith]

Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?

Steve’s Thoughts: An argument could be made that self-only Aids are a bit too expensive, and that therefore an increase in the Limitation value would be a good idea. OTOH, Self Only is (-1/2) everywhere else, so increasing it here would create an inconsistency.


Self Only should be a -1 Limitation when applied to Telepathy, and a -2 Limitation when applied to Body Drain.



Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea at least has some surface merit, since they’re largely the same Power. Presumably this new Power (let’s call it “Resistant Defense”) would work more or less like Force Field; you’d buy it to 0 END and Persistent to create Armor (thus making Armor more expensive than it is now, since now it gets Persistent for free). This would make it possible to buy “Armor” in an Elemental Control and have some other minor effects.

Overall I can’t say I’m totally convinced this change is necessary. It wouldn’t bother me to keep them separate. As always I’m interested to hear what the fans have to say.


Armor also gets Invisible Power Effects for free.

[Hugh Neilson]

That is the rule now, but you could buy armour like this:

Armour 20/20 (60 AP)

Visible -1/4
Non-persistent -1/4

For 40 points: the same as 20/20 FF, and it is visible and non persistent BUT doesn't cost END...

It's also exactly the same cost as Armor Costs END with less of the drawbacks. To me, that highlights the problem with advantages and limitations that aren't equivalantly costed.

[James Gillen]

I tend to agree. Why not put it directly under "energy blast", with a specific advantage cited for it? You could also have a variety of mind blasts, with one being the standard BOECV, works against mental defense variety; another being visible and normally targeted, but still against mental defense; an area effect version, etc.
The "no range, visible, normally targeted" psychic sledgehammer would be fun...

I dunno if anybody else has noticed that EGO Attack is basically an EB with BOECV and AVLD vs. Mental Defense, and it only costs as much per die as an NND. ;)

JG

[James Gillen]

Every player who wants any power has to re invent it every time. That's what the Hero System IS.

Lucius Alexander

Constantly reinvinting the palindromedary

In the immortal word of Keanu Reeves: "Whoa."

jg

[James Gillen]

I've often thought wishes could be done with Transforms, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the universe; almost all of them can be handled by simply switching the wisher's points around. For instance, "I wish I were better looking?" Poof, Transform to switch 5 points into COM. "I wish I were wealthy!" Poof, switch 10 points into Wealth. "I wish for world peace," would require at least a planetwide Transform, but I don't think many characters wish for that, and I also don't think there are enough dice in the world anyway.....


One day, Prince Charles found a magic lamp, and when he rubbed it, a genie popped out, and announced, "For liberating me, I grant you one wish!"
Charles said, "I wish for peace on Earth!"
The genie said, "That is beyond even my power."
Charles said, "All right... my wife, Camilla... she's not very attractive, and isn't well liked by the public, and everyone's sore that she got between me and Diana. Can you try to rehabilitate her public image?"
The genie said, "Lemme think about that peace on Earth thing again..."

[GamePhil]

I dunno if anybody else has noticed that EGO Attack is basically an EB with BOECV and AVLD vs. Mental Defense, and it only costs as much per die as an NND. ;)

JG

BOECV already includes AVLD as part of it, though. Whether that's fair is another issue (I actually think it is, in that it's not caused trouble).

However, it is EB with BOECV and +3/4 Invisible Power Effects, plus gives you Mental Awareness as a small bonus.

[Sean Waters]

I dunno if anybody else has noticed that EGO Attack is basically an EB with BOECV and AVLD vs. Mental Defense, and it only costs as much per die as an NND. ;)

JG

I've noticed and it doesn't bother me at all :)

[Chris Goodwin]

I dunno if anybody else has noticed that EGO Attack is basically an EB with BOECV and AVLD vs. Mental Defense, and it only costs as much per die as an NND. ;)

Doesn't BOECV make the attack automatically go against Mental Defense? I know it makes it Stun Only.

[Gideon]

Simply put:

I think the ability to see through walls should be removed from Spacial Awareness.

Now considering that this was a change made between the 5E and the 5ER books, I can only hope that it was a misprint, but still please remove it.

[Balabanto]

Simply put:

I think the ability to see through walls should be removed from Spacial Awareness.

Now considering that this was a change made between the 5E and the 5ER books, I can only hope that it was a misprint, but still please remove it.

Agreed. This has created some of the most ridiculous situations ever to grace a game.

[Pteryx]

Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?

Steve’s Thoughts: Arguably Absorption is nothing more than a Limited form of Aid. But I think it’s helpful to keep it as a separate Power. If it takes over two pages of text to describe something, doing it as a Limited form of another Power doesn’t really help matters, methinks.

I have to agree with you there.


Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?

Doesn't seem like the need's great enough.


Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

I would say yes, and consider carefully the costs.


Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?

I'm fine with this.


Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?

I could see the point in splitting it into its two component parts as others have suggested.


Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?

I'm in favor of this. After all, it really isn't a seperate sense usually.

As for others not listed:

Change Environment: Lose the arbitrary restrictions (light/darkness as a special effect, buffing, etc.).

Darkness: Rename this to "Sensory Block". As others have said, the current name suggests a special effect and a specific Sense.

Dispel: Why is this based on Powers first, not special effects first? How many effects could equally Dispel a lightning bolt and a bullet?

Endurance Reserve: While I'm thrilled that you added in my Double Endurance Cost idea, I note there's no way to make the costs seperate for the two forms of END.

Energy Blast: As mentioned elsewhere, "Blast" or "Normal Blast" would be better IMO. -- Pteryx

[dsatow]

Just thinking aloud.

If N-Ray was banished and NND could modify senses, then to make N-ray you would do a Detect (3 pts), based on sight (0 pts), with the NND advantage(+1)? N-Ray for 6 points? Maybe you'd have to say it was 270 degrees and Ranged? That's the only way it would make it cost about right with NND on all of it?

Personally, I am thinking you make NND Senses an adder for +10 for a single sense. Want N-Ray group, +20 points. I could see someone wanting something like an N-Ray Spacial Awareness or N-Ray detects for sensing something (you see it in SF where they scan a building or ship and get a mostly complete layout.).

[GamePhil]

Dispel: Why is this based on Powers first, not special effects first? How many effects could equally Dispel a lightning bolt and a bullet?


I've seen plenty of valid builds with the Power being first, although they are normally Limited. Drain STR, only vs. biological STR, comes to mind. The reverse would be Drain Biological Power, Only vs. STR, so I consider it a wash.

Also, requiring a Power that interacted at its base with Special Effects seems off to me, but that's purely aesthetic.

[CTaylor]

AID: add the ability to give powers to other people that they do not already have using the Aid structure. Call it Bestow or something, like the Succor option, but this should be part of the game. It's balanced enough already, all you have to do is block the multiple powers advantages so it only can grant one at a time.

CHANGE ENVIRONMENT: this should be able to grant beneficial powers (+1 to perception, etc).

DRAIN: Drain could be used to grant "negative powers" such as unluck or other disadvantages by draining someone to negative points sufficient to equal the point value. This would need hashing out (disads that affect defenses would need to be halved in effect, etc) but it would add an incredibly useful - this too could be like the succor, call it curse or something.

ENHANCED PERCEPTION: N-Ray should be a sense modifier, not a sense. N-Ray + sense, not a stand alone (so you can have N-Ray Detects, etc)

[CTaylor]

Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?

The more trouble it is to define a power, the more it should be its own power (see Instant Change here). I agree: leave as is.

Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?

No, the cost is fine for that. Other limitations you hacked in half (like single-command mind control) are another issue, but self only is what I see it at

Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

That would be fine with me, they are functionally equivalent anyway. It would simplify matters as well.



Yes, but qualified: there needs to be an advantage officially in the game to ignore levels of damage reduction (like +1/4 per level it ignores). Probably you would need to define damage reduction to work less or be ignored by a kind of attack as well (the reverse of NND).

[b]Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?

I'm thinking of this in reverse: make resistance with a limitation not add to your PD and ED, just give you resistant defenses up to the amount purchased, for a -1 limitation.

Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?

It's fine as is, although I suggest you offer a way to have desolid that lets you buy "affects solid" cheaper. Buying desolidification to adjustment attacks only (or what have you) doesn't justify +2 advantage on all your attacks. Could be a differently named variant that makes the advantage reduce to +1.

Q: Does Duplication need any changes or revisions?

Officially state that if a duplicate dies you don't permanently lose the points. That's absurdly, pointlessly harsh. Make the points "heal" back like Body if you must, but don't make them permanently gone.

Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?

As I've stated above, yes, it's an obvious step. I use it that way now anyway.

[MPT]

Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?

I like the idea of spliting this into a Defense and a Movement power.

Q: Does Duplication need any changes or revisions?

Combine this with Summon as any differences between the two powers can be taken care of with adders.

Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?

Definately. This would then allow you to add Limitations to it so that you could only N-Ray through Earth for Earth Elemental etc.

Suggestion: Create an adder for Enhanced Senses that allows the sense to be used from an adjacent hex. That way, you can make things like eyestalks, gun cameras, and periscopes without having to resort to clumsy Clairsentience builds.


Makes sense.

[IndianaJoe3]

CHANGE ENVIRONMENT: this should be able to grant beneficial powers (+1 to perception, etc).
This might be too powerful. However, I think it should be allowed to remove penalties if it restores a normal environment. (This would be the canonical way to create light.) :D


DRAIN: Drain could be used to grant "negative powers" such as unluck or other disadvantages by draining someone to negative points sufficient to equal the point value.I agree that the game would benefit from a way to do this, but I don't think that this is it. What would you be Draining? Lack of Unluck?:rolleyes:


ENHANCED PERCEPTION: N-Ray should be a sense modifier, not a sense. N-Ray + sense, not a stand alone (so you can have N-Ray Detects, etc)Yeah, that's the way to do it.

[ajackson]

This might be too powerful. However, I think it should be allowed to remove penalties if it restores a normal environment. (This would be the canonical way to create light.)
Considering that you can get +1 Perception, usable by others, AE radius, for 7 points +0.75 points per x2 radius, it's hard to see how change environment giving +1 Perception could be a major balance problem. Larger bonuses could be a problem, of course.

[GamePhil]

I agree that the game would benefit from a way to do this, but I don't think that this is it. What would you be Draining? Lack of Unluck?:rolleyes:


You'd be Draining Luck, pretty clearly. You picked the one example there was an answer to, but I get your point.

When you use Aid to give someone an Adder, what are you Aiding, the lack of that Adder? That's already in the rules, it would be a simple matter to expand it to take into account giving people Powers or Disadvantages they don't have, and might be a better way to do these things than lump them under Transform. It might not, though.

[IndianaJoe3]

You'd be Draining Luck, pretty clearly. You picked the one example there was an answer to, but I get your point.
The problem with this is that Luck and Unluck are not mutually exclusive - a character can have both.:doi:


When you use Aid to give someone an Adder, what are you Aiding, the lack of that Adder? That's already in the rules, it would be a simple matter to expand it to take into account giving people Powers or Disadvantages they don't have, and might be a better way to do these things than lump them under Transform. It might not, though.When you use Aid to give someone an Adder, you are Aiding the Power that gets the Adder. Aid (explicitly) cannot give a character a power he doesn't already have. (5e recommends either Transform or UBO for that.) I think any change to that could be very easily abused.

[ideasmith]

Edit: Sorry, forgot rule 10.

[PhilFleischmann]

Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?
No. It works differently and only leads to confusion for new players. Combining two powers together and then making the description twice as long to cover "both" doesn't really gain us anything. It's not the absolute number of powers that can make the rules difficult to learn, but the lack of clarity and organization of those rules. If two things are different, let them be separate, especially when they work differently (like Aid and Succor).


Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?
No. "Self Only" is only a circumstancial limitation. An Aid that can only be used on oneself is still very useful. If you want to use your Aid on Jim, then Jim has to be there. You never need worry about that for yourself. You don't even need to make an attack roll to hit yourself.


Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?
Probably doesn't make too much difference either way. I'd say keep them separate, since people (new players) will often think of them as different powers.


Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?
Yes, with a Stop Sign. If a GM doesn't want to allow it in his game, he doesn't have to, but no sense in excluding this tool from the toolkit for those games where it's appropriate. It's also a good opportunity to increase granularity. I've expanded the DR table for my games:


Percent Regular Resistant
25 (3/4) 10 15
50 (1/2) 20 30
66.7 (1/3) 30 45
75 (1/4) 40 60
83.3 (1/6) 50 75
90 (1/10) 60 90
95 (1/20) 70 105
100 (0) 80 120

Values of Damage Reduction above 75% should be examined carefully by the GM. In my games they are used only in two circumstances: a) Big Bad NPCs, or b) by PCs but with a "single special effect only" Limitation. Thus a character could be absolutely immune to fire-based damage, for example.

I also think it would be easier to understand if DR was expressed in terms of fraction of damage *taken* rather than percented of damage avoided. (These are the numbers I included in parentheses.)


Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?
Again, it probably doesn't make much difference. See my answer to Armor, above.


Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?
I don't see any problem with it as-is.

[PhilFleischmann]

Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?
I don't see any problem with it as-is. The only thing might be to increase the granularity - letting it scale by the DEF of the solid objects you can walk through. Although DEF, might not be the best measure of how difficult it is to walk through something (especially is objects are given separate PD and ED). Maybe density instead.


Q: Does Duplication need any changes or revisions?
Yes, but I'll give my full thoughts on that later.


Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?
Yes, definitely. The way it's defined now is confusing and inconsistant. It would be better to simply say that all senses have "barriers" - things that block perception with that sense: opaque objects for sight, vibration-absorbing objects for sound, non-porous objects for smell, etc. Then let "N-Ray" be a modifier that allows sensing through these barriers. And it's even an opportunity to increase granularity: +5 points to sense through the normal barriers, but still have less common barriers that block the sense (such as seeing through wood, plastic, plaster, and opaque liquids, but not stone or metal), and +10 points to sense through all barriers except a fairly rare few (such as classic X-Ray vision - through everything except lead, gold, and very dense materials).

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Desolidification.

Someone mentioned that they like the way it was handled in TUMM -- the "Alternate Desolidification," which sort of "grandfathers in" the pre-4th Ed way of doing it. I just reviewed that section, and I agree -- assuming it doesn't take up too much space.

[Hugh Neilson]

No. "Self Only" is only a circumstancial limitation. An Aid that can only be used on oneself is still very useful. If you want to use your Aid on Jim, then Jim has to be there. You never need worry about that for yourself. You don't even need to make an attack roll to hit yourself.

All true. However:

- Even if Jim is not there, my unlimited Aid can still be used on myself. Hero tends to deal with groups, not solo characters.

- You need not make an attack roll on a target who allows you to make contact with him either.

- 30 points of Aid (3d6) costs 30 points. A -1/2 limitation reduces this to 20 points. So, for 20 points, choose between the following:

(a) Using an average of two attack actions, you can increase your PRE by 18. It will gradually fade away so you need to use another attack action every turn to maintain it.

(b) You have an extra 20 PRE all the time.

Which one is more powerful for the same cost (note that I select PRE because it does not also grant figured characteristics...)

[GamePhil]

(a) Using an average of two attack actions, you can increase your PRE by 18. It will gradually fade away so you need to use another attack action every turn to maintain it.

(b) You have an extra 20 PRE all the time.



The trouble is that there are plenty of uses for Aid that are much more powerful than the one you have selected. A 2d6 Aid against a set of abilities that includes PRE is one example. Also, note that Aid fades normally, even if it is in a Multipower and you shift slots, while the PRE would go away immediately.

[PhilFleischmann]

- 30 points of Aid (3d6) costs 30 points. A -1/2 limitation reduces this to 20 points. So, for 20 points, choose between the following:

(a) Using an average of two attack actions, you can increase your PRE by 18. It will gradually fade away so you need to use another attack action every turn to maintain it.

(b) You have an extra 20 PRE all the time.

Which one is more powerful for the same cost (note that I select PRE because it does not also grant figured characteristics...)
That also assumes Normal Characteristic Maxima doesn't kick in. Points gained through Aid are never halved due to NCM.

45 points could buy 3d6 of Aid, with the maximum increased to 48. A -1/2 limitation reduces this to 30. So for 30 points, choose between the following:

(a) Using an average of 4-5 attack actions, you can increase your PRE by 48. It will fade, etc.

(b) You have an extra 30 PRE all the time (or less if NCM is in effect).

And there's also the Advantages of Aiding multiple things simultaneously, or Aiding one of many things, choosable whan you need them, and Reduced Fade Rate.

If Aid, Self Only gets too cheap, it will be better than just buying the characteristics or powers normally. In the most basic case, such as the one you described, yes, it would be better to take +20 PRE, with a Limitation, than a Self Only Aid. When using the full power and flexibility of the various Aid options, it becomes more appropriate to use Aid.

[Hugh Neilson]

That also assumes Normal Characteristic Maxima doesn't kick in. Points gained through Aid are never halved due to NCM.

45 points could buy 3d6 of Aid, with the maximum increased to 48. A -1/2 limitation reduces this to 30. So for 30 points, choose between the following:

(a) Using an average of 4-5 attack actions, you can increase your PRE by 48. It will fade, etc.

(b) You have an extra 30 PRE all the time (or less if NCM is in effect).

And there's also the Advantages of Aiding multiple things simultaneously, or Aiding one of many things, choosable whan you need them, and Reduced Fade Rate.

If Aid, Self Only gets too cheap, it will be better than just buying the characteristics or powers normally. In the most basic case, such as the one you described, yes, it would be better to take +20 PRE, with a Limitation, than a Self Only Aid. When using the full power and flexibility of the various Aid options, it becomes more appropriate to use Aid.

Perhaps I'm just simple minded, but I think that abilities should be functional at their basic levels, not priced out of the market because a much more complex construct might be underpriced if we don't. Price the "basic model" accurately, and price the add-on's 9or selloffs) in accordance with the value they add (or subtract).

[Mini-Nukette]

Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea at least has some surface merit, since they’re largely the same Power. Presumably this new Power (let’s call it “Resistant Defense”) would work more or less like Force Field; you’d buy it to 0 END and Persistent to create Armor (thus making Armor more expensive than it is now, since now it gets Persistent for free). This would make it possible to buy “Armor” in an Elemental Control and have some other minor effects.

Overall I can’t say I’m totally convinced this change is necessary. It wouldn’t bother me to keep them separate. As always I’m interested to hear what the fans have to say.

I might suggest:

Resistant Defense
Standard Power/Defense Power
Duration: Constant
Range: Self Only
Costs END: Yes
Cost: 1 character point for every 3 points of Resistant Defense

Protects Items
Standard Power/Defense Power
Duration: Persistent
Range: Self Only
Costs END: No
Cost: 1 character point to allow 2 points of Normal or Resistant Defense to also protect worn or carried Foci and gear
Must be Linked to a Defense Power with a higher or equal Active Cost. This Power automatically counts as the lesser Power and gains no limitation point cost offset for being Linked.

So for +½ Reduced Endurance(0 END) +½ Duration(Persistent) +½ Invisible(Sight Group) advantages you get create a Power such as Tough Hide, similar to current Armor Power.
[2½ CP for every 3 points of Resistant Defense, Persistant 0 END cost. For example, +6/6 ED/PD would cost 10 CP, whilst +30/30 ED/PD would cost 50 CP.]

Linking the Protects Items to Resistant Defense you can make a Power similar to Force Field.
[1 CP for every 3 points of Resistant Defense, Constant, costs END, and 1 CP for every 2 points of Defense that can be applied to protecting worn or carried items, ie +6/6 ED/PD would cost 10 CP, 4 CP for the Resistant Defense and 6 CP for the Protects Items, whilst +30/30 ED/PD would cost 50 CP, 20 CP for the Resistant Defense and 30 CP for the Protects Items.]

[AnotherSkip]

Something slightly radical

Darkness goes away, it is now built with the CE power

As long as we are on the issue, lets let CE do positive effects, current system of no positive effects seems somewhat counter intuitive

As long as we are talking about CE lets drop the adder for having two differing modifiers in a single CE. It makes zero sense to me from a math standpoint, after all I can buy 2 CE with differing mods and Linked or one that is 10 points more expensive + no Linked. no need for Lightning calculator on that one... in addition it makes zero sense from the mechanics standpoint since buying the defense (environmental movement) includes no adder for multible penalties negated.
And duplicating differing environments is what CE is really about.


And if you do Add in CE positives then may I suggest no modifier for two differing adders for the same reason?

Now the adjustable adder mod is a good idea. I like it.

[BobGreenwade]

I agree re: removing the Multiple Combat Effects Adder from Change Environment. It's just a cost kludge that doesn't really counterbalance anything.

[CTaylor]

I agree; I've always ignored that particularly pointless rule. And if you think about it, Change Environment already allows you to create positive effects: raising the temperature in a cold area, for example. Changing it so you can, say, (legally) add +1 to all holy spell skill rolls cast in a radius is a reasonable construction and would not hurt the game.


Perhaps I'm just simple minded, but I think that abilities should be functional at their basic levels, not priced out of the market because a much more complex construct might be underpriced if we don't.

Well stated. There seems to be at least a few people on this board that want the game to function without a GM.

[PhilFleischmann]

Right! And at the very least, CE should allow for the negation of environmental penalties, like generating wind to blow away fog and increase visibility.

[CTaylor]

Well, and that's just the thing: at present in the rules you could build a change environment that created a breeze, which would blow away a cloud of poison, based on the special effect. You can already in the rules make beneficial effects. There just needs to be some more careful rules about how to do so, I think.

[BobGreenwade]

Here are a few thoughts regarding Extra Limbs.

I've long been bothered by the fact that one can have as many Extra Limbs as one wants, regardless of how many that is, for a flat 5 points. To my mind, having (for example) twelve arms is clearly better than having four. The big question is exactly how much better that is; I don't really go along with "every Extra Limb gives +1 OCV in Hand-to-Hand combat" from the earlier editions.

So what does having extra limbs give you? Currently, it gives additional "slots" for Grabbing and holding things.

Okay, yeah, that doesn't seem like much. In fact, in a Champions game, it's frankly next to nothing, unless I also have super-strength and want to Grab and Throw four opponents at the same time (using rules for Sweep). In heroic-level games, it means that my four-armed character can handle four weapons instead of two (or two two-handed weapons instead of just one), or that he can handle a weapon, a flashlight, a dog leash, and a door key all at the same time. Though that's not helpful very often, when it is helpful it can be pretty significant.

But then again, what could Extra Limbs provide?

Let's suppose we have a rule that Sweep is only -1 for each attack after the first up to the number of additional limbs he's using, and -2 for each attack after that. Thus, if your Human martial artist character is attacking five different targets in hand-to-hand combat, he can use both hands and a foot, so the first is normal, the second is at -1, the third is at -2, the fourth is at -4, and the fifth is at -6. For my four-armed character the fourth is at -3 and the fifth is at -4.

For just a bit more work I'm sure there could be more quantified effects for Extra Limbs, and so we could change the cost to 2 points for a manipulative limb (hand) and 1 point for a prehensile limb (tail or tentacle).

Also I'm of the thought that Extra Limbs should be considered Inherent by default, and Limited if they're not. The vast majority of cases has them as a natural, built-in part of a character's body, unlikely to be attacked by any Adjustment Powers, so having to include that Advantage seems to make little sense.

[Tonio]

Also I'm of the thought that Extra Limbs should be considered Inherent by default, and Limited if they're not. The vast majority of cases has them as a natural, built-in part of a character's body, unlikely to be attacked by any Adjustment Powers, so having to include that Advantage seems to make little sense.

When I read this, I initially thought "of course!"... then I thought about it a bit more. I've probably written up more characters with non-Inherent Extra Limbs than I have otherwise. Also, I can think of a bunch of characters that could use Extra Limbs, given their concept, but haven't, whether by decision, oversight, or lack of imagination, or something else. Granted, I'm talking Superhero genre. For Heroic level, I'm sure it'd be mostly Inherent, though.

Since no other Power is inherently Inherent (hee hee), I'd say keep Extra Limbs non-Inherent by default.

[CTaylor]

I understand the argument, but Extra Limbs are cheap enough as is, spending 7 rather than 5 points for an inherent set hardly seems burdensome.

[Tonio]

I understand the argument, but Extra Limbs are cheap enough as is, spending 7 rather than 5 points for an inherent set hardly seems burdensome.

I don't think the argument stems from the cost, but rather from concept. Bob is arguing, I think, that since Extra Limbs are usually (mostly) used to build extra limbs that are Inherent, the Power should be Inherent by default.

[BobGreenwade]

I don't think the argument stems from the cost, but rather from concept. Bob is arguing, I think, that since Extra Limbs are usually (mostly) used to build extra limbs that are Inherent, the Power should be Inherent by default.I'm actually "suggesting" rather than "arguing," but basically that's correct. :)

[CTaylor]

Sure, I know, but really... it's a pretty minor point, given the minute cost.

[Opal]

The big question is exactly how much better that is; I don't really go along with "every Extra Limb gives +1 OCV in Hand-to-Hand combat" from the earlier editions.I never had a problem with it. I'd use it to model TWFing. HKA: OAF knife; Extra Limb: OAF, second knife. Relatively few GMs insisted someone could grab the 'HKA knife' first. Amusingly, it's now 5 pts for a second focus.


So what does having extra limbs give you? Currently, it gives additional "slots" for Grabbing and holding things.Most grabs also "grab two limbs," so it may also immunize from that aspect of grabs.

[BobGreenwade]

Sure, I know, but really... it's a pretty minor point, given the minute cost.It's mostly a logic thing, and the issue of putting the extra couple of words on the character sheet.

But I agree that it's a minor point.

[CTaylor]

Extra Limbs can also give you a lot more multiple power attacks, depending on how the attacks are built. They'll let you dual wield while hanging from a tree branch, hold someone and dial the phone, etc.

[Balabanto]

Here are a few thoughts regarding Extra Limbs.

I've long been bothered by the fact that one can have as many Extra Limbs as one wants, regardless of how many that is, for a flat 5 points. To my mind, having (for example) twelve arms is clearly better than having four. The big question is exactly how much better that is; I don't really go along with "every Extra Limb gives +1 OCV in Hand-to-Hand combat" from the earlier editions.

So what does having extra limbs give you? Currently, it gives additional "slots" for Grabbing and holding things.

Okay, yeah, that doesn't seem like much. In fact, in a Champions game, it's frankly next to nothing, unless I also have super-strength and want to Grab and Throw four opponents at the same time (using rules for Sweep). In heroic-level games, it means that my four-armed character can handle four weapons instead of two (or two two-handed weapons instead of just one), or that he can handle a weapon, a flashlight, a dog leash, and a door key all at the same time. Though that's not helpful very often, when it is helpful it can be pretty significant.

But then again, what could Extra Limbs provide?

Let's suppose we have a rule that Sweep is only -1 for each attack after the first up to the number of additional limbs he's using, and -2 for each attack after that. Thus, if your Human martial artist character is attacking five different targets in hand-to-hand combat, he can use both hands and a foot, so the first is normal, the second is at -1, the third is at -2, the fourth is at -4, and the fifth is at -6. For my four-armed character the fourth is at -3 and the fifth is at -4.

For just a bit more work I'm sure there could be more quantified effects for Extra Limbs, and so we could change the cost to 2 points for a manipulative limb (hand) and 1 point for a prehensile limb (tail or tentacle).

Also I'm of the thought that Extra Limbs should be considered Inherent by default, and Limited if they're not. The vast majority of cases has them as a natural, built-in part of a character's body, unlikely to be attacked by any Adjustment Powers, so having to include that Advantage seems to make little sense.

Buy Digital Hero #27. Kraken is an example of a Villain with Extra Limbs and stretching. In theory, this is not that obnoxious, but in practice, it's broken. A high STR score and tons of extra limbs can occasionally lead to entire groups being crushed.

Phase 12: Grab Fred.

Phase 3: Grab Joe. Slam Fred into Joe.

Phase 5: Grab Harry. Slam Harry, Joe, and Fred together.

In practice, this is how the villain is actually used. As you can see, unless the players figure this out quick (And they sometimes forget in Lieu of Polestar or the other villains on the team), Kraken is the King of Combat Train Wrecks because of a high STR and Extra Limbs. And it only takes Rapid Attack HTH to make this situation twice as bad. That's five points.

Did I just say my own villain was accidentally kind of broken? Yes. Yes I did.

The other problem with Extra Limbs is how many of them a character has. If the character's extra limbs are physical, then there's only a reasonable number of them that can fit on his or her frame.

If, however, the limbs are made out of Shadowstuff, Energy, or assembled random mass (Adjacent Metal, reconstituted humans, whatever...), the character should have to pay more for that kind of extra limb, because they're not limited by what can reasonably fit on his or her frame.

There should be an additional adder of +10 for Extra Limbs that can be created and removed at will. Extra limbs that you don't have all the time are a huge additional benefit in most games, because suddenly, people don't say "Oh my god, he's got X extra limbs!" when you walk down the street to get a cola.

[casualplayer]

Extra Limbs is an SFX made into a power and should go away. Make a rule that characters suffer a -2 CV/-2 CHAR Roll/-2 DC penalty to making/maintaining any STR/manip action past the first and then people who want to be able to make/maintain several STR/manip actions well can buy PSLs to counteract the disadvantage.

[CTaylor]

Eh, you're only a problem against Kraken if everyone attacks him within HTH range at once. That's sort of asking for trouble, like lining up for a shooting gallery.

[Opal]

Extra Limbs /and/ Stretching, and aparently, high enough STR to keep supers grabbed dependably. Yep, that's nasty. The high STR is key, though. Keeping someone grabbed for 3 phases isn't easy, unless they're particularly vulnerable to that tactic (not that strong, and didn't take Escape or Contortionist).

[Hugh Neilson]

Extra Limbs /and/ Stretching, and aparently, high enough STR to keep supers grabbed dependably. Yep, that's nasty. The high STR is key, though. Keeping someone grabbed for 3 phases isn't easy, unless they're particularly vulnerable to that tactic (not that strong, and didn't take Escape or Contortionist).

Or Teleport, or Desolid, or a Damage Shield, or an attack which can be used while Grabbed (eyebeams work just fine on a tentacle surrounding my waist). And that's before assuming any assistance from teammates, and that the Grabber hits every time.

[CTaylor]

Even stretching is gonna have to cost a fortune, and grabbing people makes you a huge target. It's something you could build a big villain around, but that's his specialty and it ought to be problematic for the bad guys, or there's no point in having the power to begin with.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not the extra limbs that is the problem here, it's what else you buy and how and what you do with them that makes them powerful. Just having another set of arms isn't powerful in and of its self, thus it's not worth many points.

[casualplayer]

Buy Digital Hero #27. Kraken is an example of a Villain with Extra Limbs and stretching. In theory, this is not that obnoxious, but in practice, it's broken. A high STR score and tons of extra limbs can occasionally lead to entire groups being crushed.

Phase 12: Grab Fred.

Phase 3: Grab Joe. Slam Fred into Joe.

Phase 5: Grab Harry. Slam Harry, Joe, and Fred together.

In practice, this is how the villain is actually used. As you can see, unless the players figure this out quick (And they sometimes forget in Lieu of Polestar or the other villains on the team), Kraken is the King of Combat Train Wrecks because of a high STR and Extra Limbs. And it only takes Rapid Attack HTH to make this situation twice as bad. That's five points.

Did I just say my own villain was accidentally kind of broken? Yes. Yes I did.

Well, way to friggin' go, Battlin' B! :mad: If the Champions Gurus are letting that stuff slide, what hope is there for the new generation? :D

[James Gillen]

Extra Limbs is an SFX made into a power and should go away.

So are most Adjustment Powers, but no one complains about them. :D

JG

[casualplayer]

So are most Adjustment Powers, but no one complains about them. :D

JG

You have a profoundly disturbing definition of "no one." :D

[palaskar]

Q: Should Absorption be removed and simply folded into Aid as a special form of that Power?

I really don’t know. I just want to keep Adjustment Powers logarithmic…no getting beat on/Transfering a bunch of normals and getting +80 to a stat, or the like.

Q: Should the Self Only (-1/2) Limitation for Aid be increased in value?

No, I think self-aids are not too expensive. Consider the “Hourman” build, where the character take IIC Foci plus 1 Continuing Charge Lasting 1 Hour plus Self Only Aid. That’s probably a LOT of Aid…

Q: Should Armor and Force Field be combined into one Power?

Steve’s Thoughts: This idea at least has some surface merit, since they’re largely the same Power. Presumably this new Power (let’s call it “Resistant Defense”) would work more or less like Force Field; you’d buy it to 0 END and Persistent to create Armor (thus making Armor more expensive than it is now, since now it gets Persistent for free). This would make it possible to buy “Armor” in an Elemental Control and have some other minor effects.

Overall I can’t say I’m totally convinced this change is necessary. It wouldn’t bother me to keep them separate. As always I’m interested to hear what the fans have to say.

I like being able to buy Armor in an EC. Why couldn’t we do it before?

Armor should not default to No Visible Effect; then you get abuse like Armor, Visible for the T-2, which really should be Damage Reduction plus a bit of Armor (because it’s metal) plus Regeneration (because it’s liquid metal.)

Force Field should default to “protects the stuff you’re carrying up to 1/10 your weight.” Really, this is the only reason I’d buy Force Field as is; it protects all those cool Foci.

Oh, and FF/Armor/Force Wall should not stack, but only take the highest, since protection is logarithmic..but that’s probably covered in another thread.


Q: Should Damage Reduction be extended to allow for 100% Damage Reduction (a.k.a. “Invulnerability”), at least as to one chosen special effect or Power type?

Probably not total, but an example of Immunity would be nice. The easy way is 75PDr/75EDr, only versus special effect or power type.

However, this is waaay too costly.

Let’s say it’s Invulnerability vs. fire (-1/2). 75/75 armor is 225 points. -1/2 for fire == 150 points. This would be reasonable in a large Elemantal Control, though, which is perhaps the point.

Q: Should Damage Resistance be removed as a Power in favor of a Resistant (+1/2) Advantage for abilities that provide Normal Defense (such as regular PD and ED)?

Well, it’s less confusing this way, but there’s no way to model characters with a little PDr/EDr and lots of PD and ED (everybody in DBZ.)

Q: Should any functionality be removed from Desolidification, or the Power changed in any significant way?

No – just because you need it to model Kitty Pride, if anything. However, notes should be made for “Invulnerability Desolid” – nuke-proof force fields, total regenation, perfect defenses, and the like.

Q: Does Duplication need any changes or revisions?

I like the 5-for-1 rule. It’ certainly less of a headache than base 20, then 5-for-1 rule. I’d be nice if you wrote up a “Damage Shield Duplication” (for Multiple Man) just to show up the wacky things you can do with HERO.

Q: For Enhanced Senses, should “N-Ray” (i.e., the ability to perceive through solid objects) be changed to some sort of Sense Modifier?

No. I don’t see why you would do this; it makes perfect sense as is.

Darkness: I like the new name, as people tend to think of Darknes as just that; Jamming or Sense Blocking opens up people’s minds.

Energy Blast: I like it as is; for other stuff you can use RKA.

Extra-Dimensional Movement: God save us all. Pick up an old copy of The Primal Order and see how much can be done with this. You can move from one dimension, travel there, then come back to the same place; move from here but always go to the same place in another dimension; or both.

Then there’s the Amber/Q effect where changing dimensions actually allows you to affect physical laws – this calls for a Cosmic Consciousness type write-up…maybe as a Megascale Transform the size of the universe? Yes, ludicrous I know, but we’re talking about the Q here….

Oh yeah, and Time Stop. Good stuff. No more “SPD Transfer, area affect” or “SPD Aid” (which is how GURPS wrote up Wild Card’s Prospero’s [name?] Astral Form Time Stop.)

Combine and Possess: Why didn’t we have these before? They fill in a gap I never knew HERO had. Now all we need is an “Animate Objects” power and an “Astral Form” power (because the first is annoying to build, and the second people disagree on how to build: Clairvoyance? Desolid? Mind Scan?)

Create Object: Yes, please. Otherwise, we need an ungodly expensive Images power to do it.

Blocking EBs with EBs: makes sense for some genre. For those, it should be allowed. Oh, “Contest of Power.” Nevermind.

Bouncing EBs: There should be a distinction between “Destructive” EBs (where everything that gets bounced off takes damage) and “Non-Destructive” EBs (where only the final target takes damage.)

The first is good for building Cyclops’s eye beams, the second, most thrown RKAs.

Leaky: I like it, IndianJoe3. It’s how the Tick was modeled; 60/60 defense, but with “Leaky” to represent how he occasionally got stunned.

Change Environment: +1 modifier per level is how I’ve always thought of it.

Drain to negative Characteristics: Absolutely not. HERO breaks down when you go below 0, because it’s logarythmic (sp!) This raises all sorts of horror for Transfer, frex.

Extra Limbs: What about Extra Limbs, UAO? It’s more powerful than you think…you can make people hit themselves in the face (or the groin, if you prefer), choke themselves, grab themselves…

Things like this and Kraken should probably be written up as Power Tricks.

Adjustment Powers: Really, I want them to add or subtract logarythimcally (sp?), and not lower characteristics below zero. These prevent things like Transfers and Absorption from being ultra-powerful.

[ajackson]

A thought on the duration of adjustment powers: I'm not sure that +1/4 per step on the time chart is really a useful concept. Generally speaking, once the effects of an effect last the duration of the encounter (say, fade rate 5/minute), additional steps are of pretty limited relevance (basically, it only matters if it's not gone by the next time the power in question needs to be used). I'd be tempted by a duration chart that's something like:
+1/4: fade 5/minute
+1/2: fade 5/hour
+3/4: fade 5/week
+1: indefinite duration.

Aid probably shouldn't normally go above the +1/2 level.

[Chris Goodwin]

ajackson, I like your thoughts on durations, with two possible things to note: that unaugmented REC of BODY happens on a per month basis, and that there's a lot of Adjustment SFX that can leverage the per-month thing to represent a lot of SFX. On the other hand, that "per month" could as easily be "per day" or "between sessions" to represent most of what we see in heroic fiction (I mean, does Arnold ever wait around a month to get his REC in BODY back? Uhh, no!). I'll also note that 3rd edition used "per session" or "in between sessions" to represent a lot of what we do now with "per day" (primarily Charges).

[CTaylor]

I'd say that detrimental abilities could have different fade rates than beneficial ones; in other words, while it doesn't fundamentally matter if your drain comes back every week or every month in most cases, it does matter a lot if your aid fades every 20 minutes or everyday. So the two structures would probably have to be different in terms of cost.

[ajackson]

I'd say that detrimental abilities could have different fade rates than beneficial ones.
That's not entirely unreasonable, but practically speaking, unless your power is on charges, the meaningful durations are:

Lasts less than the length of the combat (fade 5/turn)
Can be activated before an expected fight, and lasts the fight (fade 5/min)
Can be activated before going out on patrol or otherwise doing something that might result in an unexpected fight at some point.
Can be activated daily and kept active all day.
Lasts longer than that.

In general, Aid with any duration other than (1) or (2) is probably unbalanced, and the GM should require the power to be bought in another way (generally speaking, by just buying the power outright, with a limitation for how you maintain it).

[CTaylor]

It's pretty common in fantasy gaming to have a buff that effectively lasts all day; the only place that this becomes a concern for GMs is in Superheroic games, but I'm not convinced it needs to. After all, someone did pay the points for the power, it's not like everyone is getting it for free.

[ajackson]

It's pretty common in fantasy gaming to have a buff that effectively lasts all day.
Sure. However, there's no reason to build it as an aid. Just build it as a regular power, possibly on continuing charges, or possibly just take a small lim (or physlim) that the power only functions if you spend a few minutes a day prepping the spell.

To be honest, I'm not sure that the Aid power is even needed in the game. Just take a regular power with some sort of activation limitation.

[Opal]

I would not be terribly sad to see Aid go. It may be a little simpler and more intuitive than using UbO and various limitations to build similar effects, but it doesn't really do anything you couldn't already do.

[nexus]

That is something I don't want to see more of in 6th taking simple, straightforward abilities (Regeneration, Instant Change, etc) and turning them into complicated (and often kludgy, IMO).

[ajackson]

That is something I don't want to see more of in 6th taking simple, straightforward abilities (Regeneration, Instant Change, etc) and turning them into complicated (and often kludgy, IMO).
As opposed to taking complicated, kludgy Aid builds and turning them into straightforward powers? I've seen a lot of gratuitously stupid Aid builds, such as martial arts arrays, which would be much more easily implemented as '+X ability, only in situation Y'.

[nexus]

As opposed to taking complicated, kludgy Aid builds and turning them into straightforward powers? I've seen a lot of gratuitously stupid Aid builds, such as martial arts arrays, which would be much more easily implemented as '+X ability, only in situation Y'.

I've never had a problem with things like MA arrays, the Aid power at all or heard anyone complaining about it until now. But if you do have trouble with Aid you still have the choice to build them them another way. The tools are already present in the books and I've seen them employed.

If Aid is eliminated as a power you either have to house rule the Power back into your or do it the "official" ways even if you find it cumbersome. I've already had to do that with Regeneration and Instant Change. And adding more would reduce my interest in adopting 6th even more. One way offers a choice, the other forces some players to fix a problem they might not be having. I prefer the latter.
.

[BobGreenwade]

As opposed to taking complicated, kludgy Aid builds and turning them into straightforward powers? I've seen a lot of gratuitously stupid Aid builds, such as martial arts arrays, which would be much more easily implemented as '+X ability, only in situation Y'.That's not a problem with Aid itself; it's a problem with how it's been implemented.

[ajackson]

That's not a problem with Aid itself; it's a problem with how it's been implemented.
Yes, but I don't think I've ever seen a self-only Aid build that wouldn't have been simpler without using Aid. Sometimes more expensive (sometimes less), but pretty much always simpler.

[PhilFleischmann]

As opposed to taking complicated, kludgy Aid builds and turning them into straightforward powers? I've seen a lot of gratuitously stupid Aid builds, such as martial arts arrays, which would be much more easily implemented as '+X ability, only in situation Y'.
Of course, that doesn't really do what Aid does. To me

Nd6 Aid to X ability

is a lot more straightforward and simple than

+X ability (only in situation Y, if necessary), Usable By Others, Simultaneously, Up to Z people at once, 0 END, Persistant (so you don't need to keep LOS).

Don't take the tools out of my toolkit!

[CTaylor]

Aid's primary bonus is fire and forget, while UBO is continual control. You have to take up a spell slot, maintain a multipower slot, etc with Usable by others. Aid is quick and easy and a good mechanic (I think it needs to be expanded to allow you to give people powers too).

And yeah, aid on yourself is silly and expensive, it's for others.

[nexus]

Of course, that doesn't really do what Aid does. To me

Nd6 Aid to X ability

is a lot more straightforward and simple than

+X ability (only in situation Y, if necessary), Usable By Others, Simultaneously, Up to Z people at once, 0 END, Persistant (so you don't need to keep LOS).

Don't take the tools out of my toolkit!

Agreed.

I also find Aid useful for "buffs" that aren't set or are incremental without needing a complicated build even if they are Self Only.

[ajackson]

Aid's primary bonus is fire and forget, while UBO is continual control. You have to take up a spell slot, maintain a multipower slot, etc with Usable by others.
Aid in a multipower slot, which isn't maintained, is highly abusive, so that's hardly a recommendation.

[Markdoc]

To be honest, I'm not sure that the Aid power is even needed in the game. Just take a regular power with some sort of activation limitation.


I would not be terribly sad to see Aid go. It may be a little simpler and more intuitive than using UbO and various limitations to build similar effects, but it doesn't really do anything you couldn't already do.

So how about affecting other people's powers/CHA? In general, if you want a long-lasting buff for yourself, it's almost always cheaper to build it as a limited power. However, building buffs for others or variable self-buffs is going to clunky without Aid and they are common enough in the source material (for both fantasy, Sci-Fi and Supers) that it'd be a pity to throw away a useful tool.

[PhilFleischmann]

Aid in a multipower slot, which isn't maintained, is highly abusive, so that's hardly a recommendation.
How is it abusive? If you zap someone with an EB and then switch to a different slot, they still have whatever damage was done to them. If you Flash someone and then switch the multipower slot, they don't instantly get their sight back - they're still blinded until the Flash wears off normally. Aid works the same way.

[ajackson]

How is it abusive?
Because giving someone a bonus is a lot different from giving someone a penalty.

[CTaylor]

An instant power is the same as an instant power: Aid helps, a blast hurts, both have a lasting effect that goes off immediately.

[Tonio]

I think the argument is based on Aid's bonus not requiring "maintenance" (as opposed to Succor, for example). I don't think that's a valid argument, though, since while it doesn't require maintenance, it also isn't constant, it fades. Requiring you to keep your MP slot set to Aid while it's fading seems excessively punishing.

[Netzilla]

How is it abusive? If you zap someone with an EB and then switch to a different slot, they still have whatever damage was done to them. If you Flash someone and then switch the multipower slot, they don't instantly get their sight back - they're still blinded until the Flash wears off normally. Aid works the same way.

I'd call it more 'easily abusable'. Mainly I've seen this done by putting a variety of Aid <CHAR/POWER> powers into a multipower, buying down the fade rate to around the 5 minute mark. Then, as soon as they know they're going to get into a fight, they'll fire off each Aid in succession to boost their power before the fight. Doesn't help them if they get surprised, but if they know they're going into a combat situation (such as assaulting an enemy hideout), they can dramatically increase their power for the duration of the fight.

This is done as a way of getting around having a +X modifier to Aid all their powers/stats at once, as well as AP/DC caps. However, I haven't seen this done in a while since most GMs I know are well aware of this particular brand of cheese. That won't help newbie GMs, but it's pretty hard to slip this one past an experienced Hero GM.

[ajackson]

I think the argument is based on Aid's bonus not requiring "maintenance" (as opposed to Succor, for example). I don't think that's a valid argument, though, since while it doesn't require maintenance, it also isn't constant, it fades.
As a practical issue, fading can be ignored if the fade rate is slower than 5/turn.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'd call it more 'easily abusable'. Mainly I've seen this done by putting a variety of Aid <CHAR/POWER> powers into a multipower, buying down the fade rate to around the 5 minute mark. Then, as soon as they know they're going to get into a fight, they'll fire off each Aid in succession to boost their power before the fight. Doesn't help them if they get surprised, but if they know they're going into a combat situation (such as assaulting an enemy hideout), they can dramatically increase their power for the duration of the fight.

Is it more abusive than the Entangle that sticks (;)) around after the MP slot is switched rather than a Force Wall which goes away when the slot is shifted?

I think your example can be just as abusive outside a framework. Instead of "+X DEX usable by others", I buy Aid with a long fade rate and the team has the same +X Dex anyway.

[ajackson]

The big problem with Aid, which doesn't apply to Drain, is that it can be used before combat. As such, if you take a 4d6 aid (fade 5/5 min) in your 60 point, that basically means your entire team gets 24 points of bonus abilities in any fight for which you can prepare. This costs you 6 points.

With a drain, by comparison, you are actually using up a round in combat to apply the drain, and you have to make an attack roll.

[Netzilla]

Is it more abusive than the Entangle that sticks (;)) around after the MP slot is switched rather than a Force Wall which goes away when the slot is shifted?p

Depends a lot on the Entangle in question, how many dice of Aid, weather or not what is being Aided is already at the campaign limit and a host of other things. The question was simply 'how is it abusive?' I merely provided an example of abusing Aid in a multipower. I never claimed it was automatically or always abusive.


I think your example can be just as abusive outside a framework. Instead of "+X DEX usable by others", I buy Aid with a long fade rate and the team has the same +X Dex anyway.

Sure. The main difference the framework makes is how expensive the abuse is. Also makes it a little easier to hide from newbie GMs. After all, 5 separate 4d6 aids that you can only use one at a time is a lot less scary looking than an a single 4d6 aid that bumps 5 abilities simultaneously (and the 5 separate version don't trip AP caps).

As I said above, I was just showing how easily Aid in a multipower is to abuse. I never claimed that it was always abusive or more abusive than other builds. Heck, I even pointed out that it's pretty easy to spot by experienced Hero GMs. If you're afraid that I'm claiming Aid should be recosted or should not be allowed inside of multipowers, I'm not. I was just answering a question.

[CTaylor]

I think the concept of the stop sign has eluded some people who want the fact that a clever player can do nasty things with some builds to mean those builds must be prohibited or changed. The Stop Sign covers that, it's there for a reason

[ajackson]

I think the concept of the stop sign has eluded some people who want the fact that a clever player can do nasty things with some builds to mean those builds must be prohibited or changed. The Stop Sign covers that, it's there for a reason
There's a difference between 'a clever player can do nasty things with this power' and 'this particular power construct is almost always abusive'. Aid in multipowers is almost always abusive (the exception being if there's some reason the power can't actually be used outside of combat).

[CTaylor]

I just don't see an aid being any more abusive in a Multipower than outside one.

[ajackson]

I just don't see an aid being any more abusive in a Multipower than outside one.
Lemme think. Maybe because it costs less, for no actual reduction in functionality?

[Hugh Neilson]

Lemme think. Maybe because it costs less, for no actual reduction in functionality?

5 60 AP attacks cost a lot less in a Multipower than if you apply Cannot MPA with Each Other to them as a limitation and buy them outside a MP. Much greater savings for the same functionality.

[ajackson]

5 60 AP attacks cost a lot less in a Multipower than if you apply Cannot MPA with Each Other to them as a limitation and buy them outside a MP. Much greater savings for the same functionality.
The key difference is that attacks cost combat actions to use. The major abuse with multipowers is when you put a power usable outside of combat into a multipower slot. This is not limited to aid, but aid is one of the most visible problem cases.

[nexus]

Aid costs a combat action to use, IIRC, even on yourself.

[Chris Goodwin]

Aid costs a combat action to use, IIRC, even on yourself.

Which is meaningless outside of combat.

[nexus]

Which is meaningless outside of combat.

One of the complaints was that Aid was more (too) efficient in a multipower compared to attacks because it didn't cost an attack action. Energy blasts don't cost combat actions either outside of combat. Nothing does. Absorption with a delayed fade rate could be "abused" in similar manner.

Because a power or ability can be used in a manner some decides is abusive is not reason to cut it. You've have to ax almost everything in the system. Controlling these issues is what the GM is for. No rules set is going to hack proof with making it ridiculously simple or annoyingly rigid.

[casualplayer]

Personally I think any power either intrinsically Constant or bought that way with Continuous should "tie up" your Multipower as long as the power is in effect, unless made Uncontrolled. However the problem is with Multipower in RAW, not Aid. I loathe some of the effects that are allowed to be modeled with Multipower in 5th, especially utility belts and weapons suites.

[James Gillen]

Personally I think any power either intrinsically Constant or bought that way with Continuous should "tie up" your Multipower as long as the power is in effect, unless made Uncontrolled. However the problem is with Multipower in RAW, not Aid. I loathe some of the effects that are allowed to be modeled with Multipower in 5th, especially utility belts and weapons suites.

Speak for yourself. I don't think Bat-Shark Repellent should cost more than 1 point.

JG

[casualplayer]

Speak for yourself. I don't think Bat-Shark Repellent should cost more than 1 point.

JG

Do you think Batman should be able to hang from his rope (bought thru MP) while using the BSR? Most of the utility belts write-ups that I've seen have many objects that get used simultaneously often without sufficient pool to provide both. Much prefer the EC: Utility Belt write up done for Robin in Different Worlds back in the day.

Wrong thread for the topic. Mea culpa.

[ajackson]

One of the complaints was that Aid was more (too) efficient in a multipower compared to attacks because it didn't cost an attack action. Energy blasts don't cost combat actions either outside of combat.
Aid does cost an attack action outside of combat. So does energy blast. Neither action cost is relevant, because, well, if you're not on phases, one phase rarely matters.

The key difference, however, is that an energy blast used before combat doesn't affect the combat, unless it's something like an uncontrolled continuous area effect, and even then the benefit is pretty marginal (you've created some unfriendly terrain). An aid used before combat is very likely to affect the combat.

[CTaylor]

Aid is no more unbalanced in a multipower or open to exploitation than any other instant power with a lingering effect (transform, entangle, etc). Some GMs are just paranoid about Aid: it ought to have a stop sign next to it (at least as much as Duplication does) but it's not a game breaker.

[ajackson]

Aid is no more unbalanced in a multipower or open to exploitation than any other instant power with a lingering effect (transform, entangle, etc).
Correction: it's no more abusable than any other instant power with a lingering effect that normally targets allies.

[CTaylor]

The target is irrelevant. You have a terror of buffs, but they aren't a game breaker. If the characters can buff up, you give them enemies that are challenging to their buffed abilities. That's why we have GMs and not a computer running games; so you can react to what the players do.

[James Gillen]

Do you think Batman should be able to hang from his rope (bought thru MP) while using the BSR? Most of the utility belts write-ups that I've seen have many objects that get used simultaneously often without sufficient pool to provide both. Much prefer the EC: Utility Belt write up done for Robin in Different Worlds back in the day.

Wrong thread for the topic. Mea culpa.

Well yeah, given that 6th Edition may not even have ECs. :D

jg

[BobGreenwade]

On another note regarding Enhanced Senses, Microscopic Vision should definitely be re-costed to match Telescopic Vision, but affecting Size Modifiers instead of Range Modifiers.I had an extended thought on this early this morning, while I was reading up on some rules for something else.

Telescopic Vision and Microscopic Vision, following the above thought, would be like Penalty Skill Levels. They would function the same, except that (as I said) where Telescopic Vision affects Range Modifiers, Microscopic Vision would now affect Size Modifiers.

Other Penalty Sense Enhancements (to give a working name) could be built, some of them duplicating existing Enhanced Senses. Nightvision, for example, could be defined as just negating Sight PER Modifiers for darkness; 6 points would negate the -4 for a dark night.

Two other possibilities could include Underwater Vision (for Sight PER penalties for being underwater), Noise Filtration (for Hearing PER penalties for background noise), Echo Tracking (to locate the source of an echo), or Wind Scent (for Smell PER penalties for being upwind). These could be under Enhanced Senses, or perhaps as an "Environmental Sensing" Talent.

[ajackson]

The target is irrelevant. You have a terror of buffs, but they aren't a game breaker.
The target is not irrelevant. If it works on a friendly target, you can use it before combat. If it only works on enemies, you can't.

I have no particular terror of buffs. I just insist that you not put them in multipowers.

Do you consider Uncontrolled 0 END force fields in a multipower to be abusive? Turn it on, switch your multipower to some other task, and you still have the force field.

[Hugh Neilson]

Do you consider Uncontrolled 0 END force fields in a multipower to be abusive? Turn it on, switch your multipower to some other task, and you still have the force field.

I generally consider uncontrolled 0 END powers to be highly susceptible to abuse. That's probably why the rules recommend a high level of GM scrutiny be applied to such powers. Go figure!

[Trebuchet]

Do you consider Uncontrolled 0 END force fields in a multipower to be abusive? Turn it on, switch your multipower to some other task, and you still have the force field.I wouldn't allow that, period. The reasoning behind an MP's discount is that you can't use everything in it at once. If the player wants to run a FF or the like simultaneously with other abilities then he should either buy the pool large enough to to run multiple slots or buy those powers in an EC.

The single most important ability for a GM is to be able to say "No."

[CTaylor]

Trebuchet handled it well, but again: some powers are notable for their ability to be built in potentially troubling fashions, that's why we have GMs.

[CTaylor]

AID: Aid gives people additional points to powers they already have. This is a variant on Usable By Others that is a "fire and forget" power; it goes off, then stays for a set time, fading on its own. This is a terrific addition to the game that works especially well for Fantasy Hero settings (as well as sci fi), and I'm glad it was added into the game in 4th edition.

However, at present it cannot give powers that a character does not already have. This is a mistake in my opinion, since every argument against this applies to the present construct of Aid: you could theoretically just use UBO; you can give people a lot of power (an ordinary person with 30 strength has changed from being a guy to a superhero); the variable effect advantages can make this grossly abusive. Those all apply to Aid at present; there should be the ability to give powers using the Aid construct, taking advantage of it's unique structure and limitations.

Why does Aid cost no Endurance? This seems pointlessly beneficial. Not only is it effortless, but you can make it cheaper by simply making it like every other power in the book (costs END -1/2).

The "can apply adders" advantage is extraordinarily high, that's pointlessly restrictive. 1/2 seems acceptable, but I'm not sure why an advantage is required at all, particularly if you adjust Aid to be able to give people new powers.

CHANGE ENVIRONMENT: This power specifically states that you cannot make beneficial effects, yet that's not precisely accurate. Yes, that radioactive field might harm Joe Blow because of his disadvantages, but it also might activate Radioactive Man's regeneration. Yes, that wind blows out candles, but it also might blow away that cloud of poison. Yes, making it hotter in the Sahara can be hideous, but making it the same amount hotter in the arctic can save lives. There are many ways to build beneficial effects already in the rules; what's needed is a system to use CE to make beneficial effects, not a false rule that claims you cannot. A Change Environment that gives increased perception or running would cost quite a bit but be a useful effect.

The limitation on how many combat effects you can apply at once is pointless; it was even left out of the first printing of 5th edition. This is unreasonably cost inflating and doesn't make sense. How do you build a blizzard? Well it's cold and ... wow this is gonna cost 87 points and all it does is make people see a little more poorly and walk slightly slower...

DAMAGE REDUCTION: put 100% DR in the game, but then make it work like desolidification does now: it costs more for your attack powers to hit them. +1/2 or so is probably sufficient.

DARKNESS: The area of this and many other powers is different than how to build area effects with other powers; that's annoying and unnecessary. Streamlining AE for all powers would be very welcome.

DENSITY INCREASE: Like growth and shrinking the rules suggest you not use these powers for permanent effects. The fact that the same edition gave you the obvious, perfect advantage do exactly that always struck me as particularly ironic. If you don't like how the power works, fix it, don't ban it's use as a continual effect.

DESOLIDIFICATION: Strip away the "ignores damage" aspect of this (and cut the cost down), make it simply a "walk through walls" power. This would negate the need to buy the increased cost on attacks. Use 100% damage reduction for the present desolid effect on attacks.

DRAIN: The construct discussed earlier in this thread is a great idea: allow Drain to be used to give people disadvantages. It needs some work to be a proper build, but this gives a (greatly needed) mechanic to the game that is lacking without needing a totally new power.

DUPLICATION: At present when a duplicate dies, you lose those points. That's crap, if you excuse my language. No other power by default permanently takes away points from a character: that's worth a limitation called "Independent" not a definition of a power. I can see the default being to heal back the points over time like Body, but not permanent loss.

ENHANCED SENSES: Some of the elements of Chris Goodwin's attempt to rebuild mental powers and such I like (the transmit option) others I really think are a bad idea and insanely complicated to boot. Mental powers are not all based on perception and having images (which everyone can see and are based on perception) along with Mental Illusions (which only one person can see and is based on willpower) is a feature, not a bug.

I can live with telepathy being put in the senses, but I don't have a horror of the stat+10 structure that some seem to. It makes results a lot easier to work out than the "uh, wow he rolled poorly that means uh, you did gooder, I guess" vagueness of perception rolls. Images could make sense in Enhanced Senses as well; this could be just changed to SENSES and fold in darkness as well.

N-Ray is obviously a sense modifier and needs to be put in that category.

[Vondy]

I wouldn't allow that, period. The reasoning behind an MP's discount is that you can't use everything in it at once. If the player wants to run a FF or the like simultaneously with other abilities then he should either buy the pool large enough to to run multiple slots or buy those powers in an EC.

The single most important ability for a GM is to be able to say "No."

I hold they can't activate that power and "switch away." The MP pool is the limit on active points the framework can run. If they switch to a power that, combined with their 0 End, Uncontrolled FF exceeds the MP reserve the FF wasn't just "switched away" from - it was switched off. It only stays on if the reserve is big enough to run both powers - and if it is that big, its not much of a problem (see below).

As such, I'd let them have it. If they want to run that power and another at once they'll have to buy their reserve up high enough to support both. As the reserve gets bigger the actual savings diminishes and the EC becomes a better option. And I'd laugh when they tried to explain to me how their MP was able to run more active points than were allotted to it because of an incorrect, perceived loophole in the advantages.

I don't agree, however, that an MP is a one power at a time framework. It just provides better savings when built that way because everything has to run off the reserve, and the more powers you want up at one time the bigger the reserve has to be. Also, I wouldn't approve all MPs. I enjoy my fabled power of "no." Some are abusive, but it depends on the whole, not a single power within it (IMO).

[Tonio]

I hold they can't activate that power and "switch away." The MP pool is the limit on active points the framework can run. If they switch to a power that, combined with their 0 End, Uncontrolled FF exceeds the MP reserve the FF wasn't just "switched away" from - it was switched off. It only stays on if the reserve is big enough to run both powers - and if it is that big, its not much of a problem (see below).

As such, I'd let them have it. If they want to run that power and another at once they'll have to buy their reserve up high enough to support both. As the reserve gets bigger the actual savings diminishes and the EC becomes a better option. And I'd laugh when they tried to explain to me how their MP was able to run more active points than were allotted to it because of an incorrect, perceived loophole in the advantages.

You'd laugh? I'm thinking they'd laugh back at you when they quoted the book at you (5ER, pg272, top right column). Sure, you can tweak the rules as you wish in your game; that's not only your prerogative as a GM, it's your duty. But you don't get to mock your players when they run into unannounced rules changes, sorry.

[Vondy]

You'd laugh? I'm thinking they'd laugh back at you when they quoted the book at you (5ER, pg272, top right column). Sure, you can tweak the rules as you wish in your game; that's not only your prerogative as a GM, it's your duty. But you don't get to mock your players when they run into unannounced rules changes, sorry.

The active points of powers being run in a multipower may not exceed the active points in the reserve - ever. There are no exceptions. So yes, I would mock them if they tried that stunt. That's how its run for five editions straight. If steve screwed up and put a loophole in its not my problem, and I'd tell you not to let the door hit you where the good lord split you as I mocked you. Its as simple as that.

[ajackson]

The active points of powers being run in a multipower may not exceed the active points in the reserve - ever.
Unless the power involved is uncontrolled or otherwise detached from the character. Does an Entangle go away when you change multipower slots?

While the Uncontrolled Force Field is abusive, it's rules-legal and structurally isn't a lot different from Aid in a multipower.

[Vondy]

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

While the Uncontrolled Force Field is abusive, it's rules-legal and structurally isn't a lot different from Aid in a multipower.

Normally, the FX of an entangle or an aid is different than the FX of a force field. They also have mechanical differences from force field (namely fade rates and static body/def values attached to them). It might make sense for those powers to operate as exceptions [if the GM allows them], but it doesn't make sense for all uncontrolled powers to operate as exceptions. I say its a mistake inherent in the assumptions of the current rules and I'd still house rule it on the spot over the players objections - and mock them if they tried to argue the point. People who pull stunts like that deserve both mocking and ejection.

[Paragon]

I'm being a lazy sod and not looking earlier in the thread, so if there was any discussion about this I didn't see it.

In Absorption, can anyone explain to me why in hell anyone would buy Varying Effect rather than just buy two sets of Absorption to feed the same thing, one PD and one ED? Other than stacking Advantages, I can't see one.

[Tonio]

Normally, the FX of an entangle or an aid is different than the FX of a force field. They also have mechanical differences from force field (namely fade rates and static body/def values attached to them). It might make sense for those powers to operate as exceptions [if the GM allows them], but it doesn't make sense for all uncontrolled powers to operate as exceptions. I say its a mistake inherent in the assumptions of the current rules and I'd still house rule it on the spot over the players objections - and mock them if they tried to argue the point. People who pull stunts like that deserve both mocking and ejection.

Uncontrolled IS the exception. Uncontrolled is the Advantage used to correctly simulate these sort of SFXs. The fact that you choose to alter the Advantage is fine, but it's still a deviation from the RAW. A GM that has house rules of which he doesn't inform the players, only to slap them in the face with them later on, mid-game, is not a very good GM. One that mocks and ejects players who use the rules for what they were intended sounds like an even worse one.

[ajackson]

It might make sense for those powers to operate as exceptions [if the GM allows them], but it doesn't make sense for all uncontrolled powers to operate as exceptions.
As it's the definition of the Uncontrolled advantage that it's no longer dependent on the character's actions, it most certainly does make sense.

I say its a mistake inherent in the assumptions of the current rules and I'd still house rule it on the spot over the players objections - and mock them if they tried to argue the point. People who pull stunts like that deserve both mocking and ejection.
I wouldn't let the power in in the first place, but if I missed it somehow, I'd tell the player to change it, I wouldn't come up with random house rules.

[ideasmith]

I'm being a lazy sod and not looking earlier in the thread, so if there was any discussion about this I didn't see it.


Did you consider using this forums Search feature?

[Paragon]

Did you consider using this forums Search feature?

I did, but I got too many hit even in this forum; there's been discussion of Absorption in other threads in ways that related to topics at hand.

[tomd1969]

AID: [snip]
Why does Aid cost no Endurance? This seems pointlessly beneficial. Not only is it effortless, but you can make it cheaper by simply making it like every other power in the book (costs END -1/2).


I have just noticed that Aid cannot be put into an EC without buying the Costs End Limitation. Perhaps that's why Aid doesn't cost END?

Rules FAQ on the topic (http://www.herogames.com/rulesFAQ.htm?keywords=endurance&section=Power+Frameworks)

Also, p. 314 5ER, right column, under the heading "Endurance."

[ideasmith]

I did, but I got too many hit even in this forum; there's been discussion of Absorption in other threads in ways that related to topics at hand.

When I did a 'search this thread' for absorption, I only got 23 posts.

[BobGreenwade]

Only addressing good points that haven't been already discussed (especially by me).
Why does Aid cost no Endurance? This seems pointlessly beneficial. Not only is it effortless, but you can make it cheaper by simply making it like every other power in the book (costs END -1/2).I've noticed this as well, and only forgotten it when I get to the forums here. Nearly every construct I've ever made using Aid has used either END (through the Limitation) or Charges. Despite Tom's later explanation of this, I have to agree here.
CHANGE ENVIRONMENT: This power specifically states that you cannot make beneficial effects, yet that's not precisely accurate. Yes, that radioactive field might harm Joe Blow because of his disadvantages, but it also might activate Radioactive Man's regeneration. Yes, that wind blows out candles, but it also might blow away that cloud of poison. Yes, making it hotter in the Sahara can be hideous, but making it the same amount hotter in the arctic can save lives. There are many ways to build beneficial effects already in the rules; what's needed is a system to use CE to make beneficial effects, not a false rule that claims you cannot. A Change Environment that gives increased perception or running would cost quite a bit but be a useful effect.Agreed. And given this, it should als obecome the default method for creating light.
DARKNESS: The area of this and many other powers is different than how to build area effects with other powers; that's annoying and unnecessary. Streamlining AE for all powers would be very welcome.I can go along with this. :thumbup:
DESOLIDIFICATION: Strip away the "ignores damage" aspect of this (and cut the cost down), make it simply a "walk through walls" power. This would negate the need to buy the increased cost on attacks. Use 100% damage reduction for the present desolid effect on attacks.While there's something to this, I think it might be smoother to just tack an Advantage on Desolidification. Another idea with Damage Reduction might be to reduce the cost, but make outgoing damage reduced by the same aount as incoming damage (or at least create a Power Modifier to make both possibilities possible).
DUPLICATION: At present when a duplicate dies, you lose those points. That's crap, if you excuse my language. No other power by default permanently takes away points from a character: that's worth a limitation called "Independent" not a definition of a power. I can see the default being to heal back the points over time like Body, but not permanent loss.Yes, I think this solution makes much more sense than the current rule.
Images could make sense in Enhanced Senses as well; this could be just changed to SENSES and fold in darkness as well.Here's the only part with which I definitely disagree. Images and Darkness are Sense-Affecting Powers, not Senses. So is Flash. (And, in my opinion, Normal Voice should be treated as such as well.

[PhilFleischmann]

AID .... However, at present it cannot give powers that a character does not already have. This is a mistake in my opinion, since every argument against this applies to the present construct of Aid: .... there should be the ability to give powers using the Aid construct, taking advantage of it's unique structure and limitations.
Correct!


The "can apply adders" advantage is extraordinarily high, that's pointlessly restrictive.
Correct again! I'd call it something like the +0.25 for being able to apply to one of a tight group of SFX. For example, a +0.25 to Aid: Flight, you could either add to the inches of flight, or increase the non-combat multiple. For no Advantage at all, you should be able to increase only the NCM.


CHANGE ENVIRONMENT: This power specifically states that you cannot make beneficial effects, yet that's not precisely accurate.
Correct yet again! At the very least it should be admitted that CE can be used to negate negative effects, like blowing away fog, melting slippery ice, etc.


The limitation on how many combat effects you can apply at once is pointless; it was even left out of the first printing of 5th edition. This is unreasonably cost inflating and doesn't make sense.
Correct once more! I didn't know about this change between FREd and 5ER.


DENSITY INCREASE: Like growth and shrinking the rules suggest you not use these powers for permanent effects. The fact that the same edition gave you the obvious, perfect advantage do exactly that always struck me as particularly ironic. If you don't like how the power works, fix it, don't ban it's use as a continual effect.
Correct a fifth time! Sure, you don't *have* to use Always On if you don't want to, but it works just fine. There's no reason to forbid it outright.


DRAIN: The construct discussed earlier in this thread is a great idea: allow Drain to be used to give people disadvantages. It needs some work to be a proper build, but this gives a (greatly needed) mechanic to the game that is lacking without needing a totally new power.
Thank you!


N-Ray is obviously a sense modifier and needs to be put in that category.
And again!

[PhilFleischmann]

Considering that a 0-END Continuous Power (Uncontrolled or not) is already wanted against as potentially abusive, regardless of whether it's in a Multipower, let's ignore the 0-END part.

An Uncontrolled Force Field (that costs END normally) in a Multipower Slot, is not that abusive at all, considering:

1. You get about 1/3 less defenses out of it because of the +0.5 Advantage.
2. You have to guess in advance how many phases you'll need it for, and use up that amount of END. Guess too high and you've wasted END. Guess too low, and you have to waste a phase turning it back on (since you can only switch slots once per phase).
3. Likewise with #2 if something happens to your force field - it's dispelled, enemied NND ignores it entirely, etc.

Uncontrolled is an Advantage - you should get some advantage for taking it.

[Gary]

Considering that a 0-END Continuous Power (Uncontrolled or not) is already wanted against as potentially abusive, regardless of whether it's in a Multipower, let's ignore the 0-END part.

An Uncontrolled Force Field (that costs END normally) in a Multipower Slot, is not that abusive at all, considering:

1. You get about 1/3 less defenses out of it because of the +0.5 Advantage.
2. You have to guess in advance how many phases you'll need it for, and use up that amount of END. Guess too high and you've wasted END. Guess too low, and you have to waste a phase turning it back on (since you can only switch slots once per phase).
3. Likewise with #2 if something happens to your force field - it's dispelled, enemied NND ignores it entirely, etc.

Uncontrolled is an Advantage - you should get some advantage for taking it.


8 Continuing Charges of 1 turn duration each. Or 6 Continuing Charges for 1 minute duration. Heck, it's cheap enough to have both constructs in the same multipower. A GREAT way to get that 20/20 Force Field for 6 pts in that 60 pt attack multipower.

Even if you disallow Continuing Charges, you can purchase 17/17 FF 1/2 End Uncontrolled and have it cost 1 End per phase. Now pump 12 End at the start of combat and get it immediately back on post phase 12 with your Rec.

Yes, Uncontrolled is an Advantage. No you should not get 34+ pts of Resistant Defense for 6 pts. :eek: