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 tha