Powers Issues -- General Questions [Archive] - Page 2

Tonio

Mar 14th, '08, 11:54 AM

Hmm. Interesting point on my ramblings, PhilFleischmann.

If both kinetic and energy attacks have a physical component - the fist behind the punch, the bullet, the streak of fire of the fireball - should PD protect against both?

Wouldn't the kinetic impact be the source of knockback?

When creating an attack, you could define how much of it is kinetic and how much is energy. The more damage it deals kinetically, the higher its knockback.

For example, a Sonic-based attacks deals its damage on impact kinetically (from the velocity of the concussive wave through the air).

A laser deal its damage on impact with the conversion of its energy primarily from light into heat.

This made me think of something I've thought about before. It'd be nice to have attacks with "mixed" type without having them be gimped. For example, an "energy gauntlet", which could add Energy damage to your otherwise Physical punches. Currently, there are two ways to do this: either turn the entire attack into Energy, or build it as two attacks that go off simultanously (either Linked or through MPA). The former doesn't really represent the "reality" properly: a target with high ED would ignore the attack, even though the attack is mostly Physical. The latter suffers from reduced penetration (like the Limitation), only worse since the STUN component is also split.

A way to fix it could be to define an attack as a proportion of Energy and Physical, rather than one or the other, then apply the damage to a defense composed of an equal proportion of ED and PD.

For example, a punch with the gauntlet above, if it did 4d6 Physical and 1d6 Energy, would be a 5d6 attack, 80% Physical (4d6 out of the tital 5d6: 4/5), 20% Energy (1d6 out of 5d6: 1/5). If it struch a target with 10 PD and 5 ED, the total defense it'd go against would be 80% of 10 + 20% of 5: 8 + 1 = 9. Rounding should occur only for the final value to avoid having these types of attacks be almost universally better than single-type ones.

Moreover, this should not substitute the current rules for MPAs, which are a different animal: it's very different to be struck by two effects simultaneously than to be struck by one effect of mixed type.

Yes, there's an advantage to doing this, in that the final defense value will be lower than (or equal to) one of the target's defenses, but there's also a disadvantage, in that it'll also be higher than (or equal to) the other defense. Sort of like Standard Effect.

GestaltBennie

Mar 14th, '08, 01:22 PM

You use an example by Scott Bennie!? That hack! ;) My copy's around here somewhere

You actually reinforce my point. 6 out of 38 characters in one suppliment. If you can find 6 without rDEF out of all of 5th's character creations I'll eat that copy of Villainy Unbound.

It's a vicious circle, and you have to get off somewhere. Unthreatened by bullets leads to bigger bullets which leads to bigger, more convoluted defenses which leads to mini-nukes which leads to pleas for Absolute Invulnerability. 6th Ed would be a lovely time to reboot and warn people of the dangers of escalation.

My name should not come up in a Hero revision discussion unless ir's to get rid of the Capital Gains Tax... I mean Elemental Controls. Down with dirty ECs!

Mini-Nukette

Mar 15th, '08, 04:57 AM

This made me think of something I've thought about before. It'd be nice to have attacks with "mixed" type without having them be gimped. For example, an "energy gauntlet", which could add Energy damage to your otherwise Physical punches. Currently, there are two ways to do this: either turn the entire attack into Energy, or build it as two attacks that go off simultanously (either Linked or through MPA). The former doesn't really represent the "reality" properly: a target with high ED would ignore the attack, even though the attack is mostly Physical. The latter suffers from reduced penetration (like the Limitation), only worse since the STUN component is also split.

A way to fix it could be to define an attack as a proportion of Energy and Physical, rather than one or the other, then apply the damage to a defense composed of an equal proportion of ED and PD.

For example, a punch with the gauntlet above, if it did 4d6 Physical and 1d6 Energy, would be a 5d6 attack, 80% Physical (4d6 out of the tital 5d6: 4/5), 20% Energy (1d6 out of 5d6: 1/5). If it struch a target with 10 PD and 5 ED, the total defense it'd go against would be 80% of 10 + 20% of 5: 8 + 1 = 9. Rounding should occur only for the final value to avoid having these types of attacks be almost universally better than single-type ones.

Moreover, this should not substitute the current rules for MPAs, which are a different animal: it's very different to be struck by two effects simultaneously than to be struck by one effect of mixed type.

Yes, there's an advantage to doing this, in that the final defense value will be lower than (or equal to) one of the target's defenses, but there's also a disadvantage, in that it'll also be higher than (or equal to) the other defense. Sort of like Standard Effect.

I have been thinking along similar lines. To simplify the Defense of the target, the target could apply up to 6 PD per die against the physical damage, and up to 6 ED per die of the energy damage. For your 4d6 physical + 1d6 energy attack vs 10PD/5ED, that would mean 4d6-10 (minimum zero) + 1d6-5 (minimum zero) damage. That way you could easily roll two different colors of d6's to differ from the two types of damage, and not have to consider the percentage of a different targets armor.

Paragon

Mar 15th, '08, 11:25 AM

My name should not come up in a Hero revision discussion unless ir's to get rid of the Capital Gains Tax... I mean Elemental Controls. Down with dirty ECs!

*patpat* There, there, Scott, it'll be okay...:D

Mini-Nukette

Mar 15th, '08, 01:48 PM

Quick thought carrying on from my last post, Hardened / Armor Piercing could apply directly to how much PD/ED is applied per die of damage. Someone with Armor Piercing might reduce the Defense per die of damage by 1, whilst with Hardened might be able to apply up to 7 Defense per die of damage, etc.

Hmm, actually Armor Piercing would reduce the maximum Defense, and then the target applies up to 6 of the remaining Defense per die of damage as usual? Hardened would simply offset an amount of Armor Piercing Defense reduction.

James Gillen

Mar 15th, '08, 09:17 PM

My name should not come up in a Hero revision discussion unless ir's to get rid of the Capital Gains Tax... I mean Elemental Controls. Down with dirty ECs!

What do you have against the Capital Gains Tax?

JG

CTaylor

Mar 16th, '08, 07:36 AM

It's too much like Elemental Control?

GestaltBennie

Mar 16th, '08, 08:31 AM

It's too much like Elemental Control?

Yeah! It's liike fractions and calculus and trig and stuff! And yiu need the third degree to understand it!

Chris Goodwin

Mar 16th, '08, 11:24 AM

Yeah! It's liike fractions and calculus and trig and stuff! And yiu need the third degree to understand it!

Yes, but you shouldn't even be playing Hero unless you have at least the fifth degree! And N-12! 23 skidoo!

BobGreenwade

Mar 16th, '08, 03:43 PM

Yes, but you shouldn't even be playing Hero unless you have at least the fifth degree! And N-12! 23 skidoo!In other words, do not play Hero unless you are smarter than a fifth grader. ;)

nexus

Mar 16th, '08, 03:46 PM

In other words, do not play Hero unless you are smarter than a fifth grader. ;)

Pfft

I stel plays Hero!

Vondy

Mar 16th, '08, 09:18 PM

23 skidoo!

I just wrote that term into a pulp story I'm writing... weird.

nexus

Mar 20th, '08, 12:15 AM

I’m not sure of this is a Combat or a Power issue but I think it’s more relevant here. Personally, I’d like to see a different means for building thrown weapons and attacks. Energy blast/rka work but take (for me) an uncomfortable amount of handwaving.* Maybe just a simple “Ranged by strength” advantage that could be applied to HTH attack or HKA that takes into account Range based on Strength by default at +1/4

*For example damage isn’t affected by altering the character’s strength but range might be or if the power is focus based anyone using it technically does the same amount of damage.

Netzilla

Mar 20th, '08, 07:03 AM

Chris Goodwin

Mar 20th, '08, 08:25 AM

Doesn't the 'Range Based on STR' Advantage (5ER 267) do this or am I not understanding what you're asking for?

"Range Based On STR" is made of handwavium. It says that the Power's range is based on the user's STR, without explaining exactly how it is. You're just supposed to, for instance, know how much the item weighs, and figure out how far you can throw it from there. There's nothing telling you how much it weighs, and that matters to the throwing distance.

steamteck

Mar 20th, '08, 08:37 AM

"Range Based On STR" is made of handwavium. It says that the Power's range is based on the user's STR, without explaining exactly how it is. You're just supposed to, for instance, know how much the item weighs, and figure out how far you can throw it from there. There's nothing telling you how much it weighs, and that matters to the throwing distance.

Other than linking damage somehow to weight, seems little handwavium to me. figure your weight then figure your distance. There's even a nice chart earlier in the book. If there was connection made between mass/weight and damage all would be good.

Chris Goodwin

Mar 20th, '08, 09:05 AM

Other than linking damage somehow to weight, seems little handwavium to me. figure your weight then figure your distance. There's even a nice chart earlier in the book. If there was connection made between mass/weight and damage all would be good.

Right. How do you determine the object's weight?

Netzilla

Mar 20th, '08, 09:23 AM

Right. How do you determine the object's weight?

Okay, I can see where you're coming from here. Personally, my group's never much worried about it. We've always defined the weight based upon what the object was defined as. If it's a grenade, it weights about as much as a grenade. Same thing for a knife, spear, discus, etc.

Oddly enough, a while back I was working on a way of calculating the weight of a Focus based upon it's Active Points, though I was approaching it from the standpoint of "how much equipment can you cram into a vehicle?". So, I can see the need for a formula to determine the mass of something. Unfortunately, I could never get numbers I liked out of it.

Just to give an idea of what I was working on (and failing at):

Create a "Mass" component to the Focus Limitation. For example:
* No Mass = -0
* 1/4 Mass = -1/4
* 1/2 Mass = -1/2
* 3/4 Mass = -3/4
* Full Mass = -1
* For each x2 Mass = additional -1/2

Okay, so what determined the base mass? I started from the way armor mass is calculated. You start at 5kg for 6AP of armor (if DEF is even) or 7kg for 9AP of armor (if odd). Whatever your starting point, you double the mass every 6AP thereafter.

This gave me the choice of the following 2 base masses: 1AP = 0.833kg or 0.777kg. Both seemed close enough to 0.8kg for 1 AP. That gives a mass of 4kg for 5AP which seemed like a nice round number to work with. After that, you'd have x2 mass per +5AP.

The main problem I had with this is that it significantly changed the mass of Armor once you got up around 8 or 10 DEF (maybe sooner; I don't have the chart I made anymore).

Perhaps someone else can come up with a way to make this actually work.

Paragon

Mar 20th, '08, 09:57 AM

Right. How do you determine the object's weight?

Other than for maximum range--which rarely matters in my experience--do you really care? The range penalties almost always get prohibitive long before maximum range is an issue.

nexus

Mar 20th, '08, 11:53 AM

Netzilla

Mar 20th, '08, 12:24 PM

Doesn't the 'Range Based on STR' Advantage (5ER 267) do this or am I not understanding what you're asking for?
It does some of it which is why most official builds from attacks like throwing knife, hurled shields and the like are built as Energy Blasts with Ranged based on Strength as a Limitation.

Actually, the version I'm referencing is the Advantage, Ranged Based on STR. On that same page, they have a Throwing Knife written up as an HKA with a Ranged Based on STR Advantage (+1/4).

casualplayer

Mar 20th, '08, 02:01 PM

Range based on Active Point cost is a figured characteristic; should be jettisoned and replaced. :D

I had an epiphany the other day, or maybe it was gas. What if, addressing the clamoring for Invulnerability, you could "enforce" Standard Effect damage rules on damage received and then just buy defenses accordingly? For example, I buy my PD with the advantage Invulnerable. Then I buy my PD up to the point of, say, 3.5 x the number of DCs I want to be able to scoff at. I would know that my 35 PD Invulnerable would be enough to withstand unscathed any 10 DC physical attack thrown my way. Damage in excess of the Invunerable threshhold would be rolled and applied normally.

ajackson

Mar 20th, '08, 02:03 PM

Range based on Active Point cost is a figured characteristic; should be jettisoned and replaced.
I agree. Change it to something like +1/4 for range 10, +1/2 for range 100, +3/4 for range 1,000, etc.

nexus

Mar 20th, '08, 04:50 PM

Actually, the version I'm referencing is the Advantage, Ranged Based on STR. On that same page, they have a Throwing Knife written up as an HKA with a Ranged Based on STR Advantage (+1/4).

There's an Advantage version and a Limitation. version. For some reason in Superheroic examples thrown attacks are usually built with RKA/EB with Ranged based on Strength as Limitation, that example aside.

Edit: Also the "Ranged based on Strength" modifier is a little vague and handwave driven as others have mentioned.

Opal

Mar 20th, '08, 06:07 PM

I had an epiphany the other day, or maybe it was gas. What if, addressing the clamoring for Invulnerability, you could "enforce" Standard Effect damage rules on damage received and then just buy defenses accordingly? Damage in excess of the Invunerable threshhold would be rolled and applied normally.I don't think Steve or most GMs would go for that, but I definitely like it. It would nicely do away with the STN lotto on weak attacks, for instance, while making powerful KAs dangerous.

Vondy

Mar 21st, '08, 02:02 AM

casualplayer

Mar 21st, '08, 08:19 AM

It has potential. Another possibility would be to specify the FX. If it was invulnerability "fire," then fire attacks would take standard effect and other FX would roll normally.

Thank you, kind sir. Not sure where I would benchmark the cost of the Advantage. Leaning towards +1 or, how it will be expressed in 6th Ed., +1.00. :D If built SFX commonality specific it would probably go +0.25, +0.50, +0.75 and +1.00 towards Very Common, Common, Uncommon and All, respectively.

GamePhil

Mar 21st, '08, 11:57 AM

There's an Advantage version and a Limitation. version. For some reason in Superheroic examples thrown attacks are usually built with RKA/EB with Ranged based on Strength as Limitation, that example aside.

The Advantage version is for Powers that have no range, like Drains, while the Limitation version is for Powers that have it. RKA/EB will always be built with the Limitation version, officially. There may be errors here and there.

Edit: Also the "Ranged based on Strength" modifier is a little vague and handwave driven as others have mentioned.
[/quote]

Others have mentioned it, yes, and I still don't get it. Define how much the thing you are throwing weighs. Figure out how far that can be thrown with your STR. Aside from arbitrarily assigning a mass, it seems pretty well defined. If it doesn't have a mass, like trying to put it on EB without a Focus or Physical Manifestation, or its mass is so small that you can throw it just as far as you would without the Limitation, then you can't get the Limitation (or have to buy the full Ranged Advantage).

I don't think Steve or most GMs would go for that, but I definitely like it. It would nicely do away with the STN lotto on weak attacks, for instance, while making powerful KAs dangerous.

Why wouldn't Steve like it? He's the one who put Absolute Effects in the rules, and this is very similar with a "Absolute unless the Attack is X dice" bit attached.

Opal

Mar 21st, '08, 12:14 PM

Why wouldn't Steve like it? He's the one who put Absolute Effects in the rules, and this is very similar with a "Absolute unless the Attack is X dice" bit attached.Just a guess on my part. Has there been an example of 'inflicting' absolute effects on the abilities of others not bought absolute, though?

CTaylor

Mar 21st, '08, 12:15 PM

I agree. Change it to something like +1/4 for range 10, +1/2 for range 100, +3/4 for range 1,000, etc.

I wouldn't be opposed to a basic shift in range something like that (100 probably ought to be the base) rather than based on active cost. Just because your blast is armor piercing and affects desolidified doesn't mean it should hit things five miles away.

GamePhil

Mar 21st, '08, 01:48 PM

Has there been an example of 'inflicting' absolute effects on the abilities of others not bought absolute, though?

No, but considering the fact that he's brought up moving the Absolute Effect rules (really, more "suggestions") into the main book, they may get a broader treatment. I'd actually like to see something like it, as a Relative Absolute Effect Rule (quite a mouthful) would allow you the option of fewer dice, without changing the existing rules at all.

ajackson

Mar 21st, '08, 01:57 PM

I wouldn't be opposed to a basic shift in range something like that (100 probably ought to be the base)
Well, the advantage values I used were for a power that is no range by default. If it's ranged by default, range 10 would be -1/4, no range would be -1/2.

Given Hero principles, powers of 2 makes some sense, but are harder to work with for most people.

Opal

Mar 21st, '08, 02:19 PM

No, but considering the fact that he's brought up moving the Absolute Effect rules (really, more "suggestions") into the main book, they may get a broader treatment. I'd actually like to see something like it, as a Relative Absolute Effect Rule (quite a mouthful) would allow you the option of fewer dice, without changing the existing rules at all.So, 'standard effects' are ones that essentially roll average, and 'aboslute effect' is where the GM sets a bar arbitrarily high, and if you buy that much, the power becomes absolute, right? I think I misspoke. The idea makes the power someone else bought as not standard effect, standard effect for you, up to a threshold, rather than making thier effect absolute... but that's about equivalent to absolute-to-a-point?

Forcing an up-to-12d N attack to use a the 'standard effects rule' against you (roll average) vs your 42 DEF makes you immune to it, which is an 'absolute effect.'

I think I get it now.

ajackson

Mar 21st, '08, 03:47 PM

Rather than the 'standard effects defense' concept, it's probably simpler to just say add a power:

'Damage Negation': 5/level
Subtracts X dice from the base damage of an attack. Divide by 3 when resisting killing attacks. Normally nonresistant, make resistant for +1/2. Buy separately for PD, ED, Mental Defense, Power Defense. For a +1 advantage, also applies vs appropriate NNDs and AVLDs.' This cost assumes DN is immune to AP.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 2nd, '08, 09:04 PM

James Gillen

Apr 2nd, '08, 11:59 PM

Only if you want said abilities to be widely used and useful. In a system where they're not as common, they'd all be Real Cost with appropriate Limitations; in The Valdorian Age, (where magic is supposed to be difficult) they're in Power Frameworks, but that's because they have to be organized on certain lines.

JG

AnotherSkip

Apr 3rd, '08, 07:17 AM

I'm pretty much of the same mind and I think I've said so elsewhere. Go ahead and boil the system down to a hand-full of "meta-powers". These then go somewhere in the back of the book in some sort of "how the system was built" section. In the the actual Powers section that 90+% of character builds will use, build our current Powers list (or something close to it) from those "meta-powers" but hide the mechanics so as not to scare off newbies. This would allow for more consistent pricing of Powers and those of us who want to build our own will have the section in the back to work from, but we don't lose the utility of "pre-built" Powers.

So build the system with talents/example Powers, then hide the mechanics somewhere? not what I would look for as a compromise But then that does seem to be what Damage Classes IS.

And didn't Steve in the first post say basically "this is an idea (essentialy K.I.S.S.) but im not sold on it"? and then also mentions unless someone comes up with a really brilliant idea he wont do it? how am I supposed to know what Steve Finds brilliant w/o communication? ergo even the "bottom of the list, most unlikely to succeed" ideas should be given a fair hearing.

And in response to some of the nay on Kiss ideas keep in mind, do we really need 8 attack powers? 1/2 of which are influenced by three defense types?

i agree that perhaps 4 powers is a difficult thing. but just reducing alot of the powers/abilities to some of the more general things would reduce some of the the problems I have with my gamers. People who don't get (and keep in mind this is degreed ppl here, no dummies in the lot) the hidden differences between Armor and FF and Resistant Defense is just as one example. The names cause part of the problems because the preconceptions the names bring, if there was a core to the powers (which is really what the KIss thing is, put the cores in front then stretch out other concepts behind them like Armor then Combat Luck) then I could show the extrapolation and save mucho in game time.

Another thing I think we could Roll Computers, Bases and Vehicles into the Follower Summon stuff, if not into there then into a Mechanical (Follower) concept eliminating the issue of having to have Computers bought separately then mentioning that they don't get divided by 5 twice or having vehicles as a part of bases without worrying about the same problem. Again, would probably reduce sectionalism and duplication (not the power) of effort.

try to think of it this way: Followers are merely Summoned Critters with the Always On (-0) Limitation.... with Computers and Vehicles and bases as Followers with a mechanical cast typically...

Worst Case Scenario perhaps this is something for Sidekick ,an optional way for some players to get in the game faster.

Speaking of Computers Some things are weird. If i drop my computer i guarantee it'll take stun. Some things aren't built right by Cannon. And in Marvel Ultimate Alliance some obvious robots get stunned. not all automatons have the takes no stun thing/cannot be stunned stuff.

JmOz

Apr 4th, '08, 02:04 PM

I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but can't remember where. I'm not sure exactly where would be an appropriate place to put it; as it at least partially covers Powers, I'll put it here.

First, Martial Arts should really be built as Talents/prebuilt abilities using Powers. This is the part I mentioned elsewhere.

This said, I'll float an additional proposal: the optional rule for dividing the Real Cost of spells by 3 should be generalized, though remain optional; in any heroic game, where Frameworks are inappropriate or otherwise not used, any Powers that are related to the focus of the setting could have their costs divided by 3. So, in a heroic level martial arts campaign, all of the martial arts maneuvers (built as Powers) would have their Real Costs divided by 3; in a Psi Hero game, all mental Powers would have their Real Costs divided by 3; in a Fantasy Hero game, all spells have their Real Costs divided by 3.

I think that this is not a bad idea, but I would rather have it be "The Gm may set a value to divide or multiply powers by, for instance in some fantacy Hero games all spells are divided by 3", thus in my ESPionage game mental powers might be divided by 5, or even telepathic powers are divided by 5 while non telekinetic/telepathic powers aare multiplied by 2 (Pyrokinesis, Cyrokinesis, biokenises, etc...)

BobGreenwade

Apr 4th, '08, 05:40 PM

This said, I'll float an additional proposal: the optional rule for dividing the Real Cost of spells by 3 should be generalized, though remain optional; in any heroic game, where Frameworks are inappropriate or otherwise not used, any Powers that are related to the focus of the setting could have their costs divided by 3. So, in a heroic level martial arts campaign, all of the martial arts maneuvers (built as Powers) would have their Real Costs divided by 3; in a Psi Hero game, all mental Powers would have their Real Costs divided by 3; in a Fantasy Hero game, all spells have their Real Costs divided by 3.

I think that this is not a bad idea, but I would rather have it be "The Gm may set a value to divide or multiply powers by, for instance in some fantacy Hero games all spells are divided by 3", thus in my ESPionage game mental powers might be divided by 5, or even telepathic powers are divided by 5 while non telekinetic/telepathic powers aare multiplied by 2 (Pyrokinesis, Cyrokinesis, biokenises, etc...)I think this deserves no more than a passing mention in the main rulebook. This kind of rule is very campaign specific, and to some extent even genre specific; anything more than a very general "this kind of thing can be done" statement should be left to genre and setting books.

JmOz

Apr 5th, '08, 02:40 PM

I think this deserves no more than a passing mention in the main rulebook. This kind of rule is very campaign specific, and to some extent even genre specific; anything more than a very general "this kind of thing can be done" statement should be left to genre and setting books.

Agreed in concept, But I think it needs to be stated strongly that the system allows this, that by saying spells are /3 for the campaign rules is not the same as house ruling something...I don't know if that makes a lot of sense or not, also, and I know not exactly appropriate I would like to see the character generation software support it as well some how...

Paragon

Apr 7th, '08, 09:00 AM

Markdoc

Apr 7th, '08, 12:13 PM

Agreed in concept, But I think it needs to be stated strongly that the system allows this, that by saying spells are /3 for the campaign rules is not the same as house ruling something...I don't know if that makes a lot of sense or not, also, and I know not exactly appropriate I would like to see the character generation software support it as well some how...

I agree with Paragon below: it is a house rule and I'd like that more clearly stated. As I feared, the fact that it was rolled out in Turakian Age without a warning flag of that kind makes plenty of people assume that this is how magic is supposed to work in Fantasy Hero.

Unfortunately, in a sense it _is_ house ruling something for a specific campaign; I don't see any good way to distinguish the two. I do agree that an indication that such tinkering is encouraged when needed wouldn't be a bad thing. One of the nice things about the new editions of Fantasy Hero was that Steve pretty much encourages you to do so when desirable in the discussion of magic systems, as compared to the sort of passive discouragement you saw in prior editions.

Right. It could be presented as the way a GM can house-rule quite dramatic changes to the rules.

cheers, Mark

Chris Goodwin

Apr 16th, '08, 10:51 AM

Steve, how about a generic Perception penalty Power? This would give opponents PER penalties to see the user, as opposed to fully Invisible. I'm seeing enough potential uses for it that it could come in handy:

* Lack of Weakness as a penalty to Detect Weakness with Naked Advantage: Armor Piercing Linked

* Linking Perception Penalties to Mental Defense, relating to Mental Powers as Senses

* Shrinking/permanently small characters could use this as a direct penalty to opponent's PER rolls to represent being smaller

* Vehicular/mecha camouflage that makes them harder to see in certain situations

Perhaps 1 point for a -1 penalty to a non-Targeting Sense, or 2 points for a -1 penalty to a Targeting Sense or a non-Targeting Sense Group, or 3 points for a -1 penalty to a Targeting Sense Group. It is Self-Only; issues of Persistence and Endurance cost could be handled at the time of writing.

CTaylor

Apr 16th, '08, 01:45 PM

James Gillen

Apr 16th, '08, 02:06 PM

There could be broader applications. How do you make a spell that makes a lock harder to pick? Right now it's basically transformation but is it worth changing the entire object? A penalty applier power would be useful to consider.

Indeed. I think there are rules for such, but they're more like power modifiers to Skill Levels (Usable As Attack, etc.)

JG

nexus

Apr 16th, '08, 02:11 PM

What about Negative Skill Levels?

Chris Goodwin

Apr 16th, '08, 08:59 PM

There could be broader applications. How do you make a spell that makes a lock harder to pick? Right now it's basically transformation but is it worth changing the entire object? A penalty applier power would be useful to consider.

That's a good idea to generalize it to other things.

Indeed. I think there are rules for such, but they're more like power modifiers to Skill Levels (Usable As Attack, etc.)

What about Negative Skill Levels?

I'm of the opinion that it should be a fairly simple build. Negative Skill Levels would be one expression of this hypothetical Penalize Power.

AnotherSkip

Apr 17th, '08, 05:15 AM

BobGreenwade

Apr 17th, '08, 07:51 AM

Paragon

Apr 17th, '08, 10:31 AM

Indeed. I think there are rules for such, but they're more like power modifiers to Skill Levels (Usable As Attack, etc.)

JG

Negative Skill Levels and Change Environment can cover some of this, but its often clumsy; I've been building a lot of spells for an upcoming campaign based on some originally written up for a RuneQuest variant, and sometimes its been way more baroque than it seems like it needed to be.

PhilFleischmann

Apr 17th, '08, 05:24 PM

The hard-to-pick lock can just be a Skill-vs-Skill roll with Lockpicking. Then the power to make a lock "unpickable" is the opposed roll. For example, the "Spell of the Unpickable Lock" could be bought as Lockpicking 20- (21 active points), Only to oppose Lockpicking rolls against the particular lock the spell has been cast on (-1/2?). Then you make the roll - say you roll a 12, you made it by 8, so the person trying to pick the lock gets a -8 to his roll.

Paragon

Apr 18th, '08, 12:22 PM

ajackson

Apr 18th, '08, 01:38 PM

If you want a lock that's unpickable, but can still be opened with a key, it's probably an Aid to the lock's skill (or Pick Resistance, if you want to call that a trait). If you want a lock that can't be opened at all, entangling the door shut will do the job. If you want a lock that can be opened with a special key, that's probably a Trigger variant on the Entangle.

CTaylor

Apr 18th, '08, 02:12 PM

You can't really aid a lock to give it lockpicking skill: it doesn't have the skill to start with. If you as a GM ruled "well, that's how locks are hard to pick, they do a skill vs skill battle with the person picking them," then it could technically work, but then you've built a really weird construct with an inanimate, unintelligent item still using a skill.

A flat "here's how to give penalties out" power would replace this and make it smoother and more obvious how to build such a concept.

ajackson

Apr 18th, '08, 02:40 PM

You can't really aid a lock to give it lockpicking skill: it doesn't have the skill to start with. If you as a GM ruled "well, that's how locks are hard to pick, they do a skill vs skill battle with the person picking them," then it could technically work, but then you've built a really weird construct with an inanimate, unintelligent item still using a skill.
That's how you make a base concealed. I think bases can also have security systems skill. Having an object trait of 'hard to pick' might be simpler.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 18th, '08, 03:26 PM

That's how you make a base concealed. I think bases can also have security systems skill. Having an object trait of 'hard to pick' might be simpler.

...which could easily be bought as Penalty: -5 to Lockpicking Attempts.

I do see what you're saying; I've always assumed the "skill" of a lock in resisting lockpicking attempts represented the skill of its maker or its quality in some way. But it would still be nice to have a Power to use to make it harder for someone to do something to a person or thing.

Paragon

Apr 19th, '08, 12:44 PM

...which could easily be bought as Penalty: -5 to Lockpicking Attempts.

I do see what you're saying; I've always assumed the "skill" of a lock in resisting lockpicking attempts represented the skill of its maker or its quality in some way. But it would still be nice to have a Power to use to make it harder for someone to do something to a person or thing.

It would at least make construction a hell of a lot simpler on some effects.

PhilFleischmann

Apr 21st, '08, 05:45 PM

And I'd characterize that as a pretty clumsy process for something that comes up as often as wanting a power or spell to represent something that's hard to use a given skill on.
How is it clumsy? It's one extra 3d6 roll. Just like any other skill-vs-skill roll.

Mini-Nukette

Apr 22nd, '08, 05:23 AM

A similar example is given in the rules for Computer Programming to make a Security Program, where the success on the skill acts as a penalty to anyone who tries to break through or avoid the Computer Program.

Locks can be viewed in a similar fashion - plus, the locksmith (Professional Skill:Locksmith) usually has plenty of spare time when constructing the lock, so can take Extra Time in its design and construction.

In a medieval or fantasy setting, a locksmith may be a prized inventor, though in modern times we have more 'standard' locks, of usually high standard but nonetheless mass-produced, which can be assigned a set penalty score to lock-picking based on their age and therefore how familiar the lockpicker is likely to be with them.

Knowledge:Locks may be handy to give the lockpicker an idea of how long it will take them to pick the lock ("Its a MkII Stongiron safe, will probably take me at least 20 minutes to crack") based on their skill and the Extra Time they need to have a likely chance of success.

Paragon

Apr 22nd, '08, 08:08 AM

How is it clumsy? It's one extra 3d6 roll. Just like any other skill-vs-skill roll.

Well, first of all, you _are_ making an extra skill roll where one isn't needed. Secondly, you're having to frequently treat a skill like a power, which I tend to find intrinsically clumsy in the system in general, and think should be avoided when there's no other way to do so.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 22nd, '08, 08:55 AM

Well, first of all, you _are_ making an extra skill roll where one isn't needed. Secondly, you're having to frequently treat a skill like a power, which I tend to find intrinsically clumsy in the system in general, and think should be avoided when there's no other way to do so.

This is my issue with it. It's the same issue I've had all along with using bonuses to Stealth and Concealment to represent the "difficulty in Perception" part of permanently small characters.

Paragon

Apr 22nd, '08, 09:37 AM

This is my issue with it. It's the same issue I've had all along with using bonuses to Stealth and Concealment to represent the "difficulty in Perception" part of permanently small characters.

Yeah. Honestly, the latter should be harder to spot, all other things being equal, whether they're actively trying to hide or not.

BobGreenwade

Apr 22nd, '08, 03:15 PM

Regarding buying devices as Skill Rolls.

Once (in an early manuscript for TUV, I think) I proposed building such things like Skills, in this manner, except that the base 3 points were for the requirement of the opponent's Skill roll, and +2 points gave -1 to the other person's Skill Roll. Basically it was like a Skill with Standard Effect -- the 3 points was making an 11- roll exactly, and the rest worked as normal.

I still think such a mechanic would work.

PhilFleischmann

Apr 23rd, '08, 05:20 PM

Well, first of all, you _are_ making an extra skill roll where one isn't needed.
But it is needed, or at least *something* is needed if you're going to do something beyond the straight Lockpicking Skill roll. Whatever construct you use will require some extra mechanical work - building a power construct, a new power, an opposed skill roll, or a Transform.

The last seems to me to be the "clumsiest" of all. Transform Lock into Unpickable Lock requires a whole power, an attack roll, and effect roll, then you have to know the BODY of the lock. And then you have to decide how much of a Transform it is: Cosmetic, Minor, Major; and how much of a penalty that should provide to the lockpicker's Skill Roll.

Secondly, you're having to frequently treat a skill like a power, which I tend to find intrinsically clumsy in the system in general, and think should be avoided when there's no other way to do so.
What is it that you think is so intrinsically different between Powers and Skills? They're just game constructs - ways to simulate a particular action or phenomenon in the game world. Use what works. The characters in the game can't tell the difference. The only reason they occupy different sections of the book is because of the rules that govern them, not because of an inherent difference. Just as an "Energy Blast" is not always "energy" and "Darkness" isn't always dark, etc., a "Skill" isn't necessarily a skill.

Paragon

Apr 27th, '08, 11:29 AM

But it is needed, or at least *something* is needed if you're going to do something beyond the straight Lockpicking Skill roll. Whatever construct you use will require some extra mechanical work - building a power construct, a new power, an opposed skill roll, or a Transform.

Its specifically the roll in the process I was refering to there; in particular, it adds a random element that doesn't seem necessary to process.

The last seems to me to be the "clumsiest" of all. Transform Lock into Unpickable Lock requires a whole power, an attack roll, and effect roll, then you have to know the BODY of the lock. And then you have to decide how much of a Transform it is: Cosmetic, Minor, Major; and how much of a penalty that should provide to the lockpicker's Skill Roll.

Well, for a literally unpickable lock, you're going to need to do something other than the skill modifier anyway, so I think that's a separate issue from an ability that simply applies penalty rolls to usage of some skills against them.

What is it that you think is so intrinsically different between Powers and Skills? They're just game constructs - ways to simulate a particular action or

Some of the issues I have with some power applications too, to be honest, but the fact skills intrinsically have rolls associated with them here that varies the likely output is why I find this particularly clumsy; the other features (duration, range, and so forth) just add to it.

phenomenon in the game world. Use what works. The characters in the game can't tell the difference. The only reason they occupy different sections of the book is because of the rules that govern them, not because of an inherent difference. Just as an "Energy Blast" is not always "energy" and "Darkness" isn't always dark, etc., a "Skill" isn't necessarily a skill.

No, but it does always have a roll that varies its effectiveness, and this doesn't strike me as a good place for that (as I said, its not the only one, but in some of the others the Standard Effect rule makes it largely moot in practice).

PhilFleischmann

Apr 28th, '08, 02:36 PM

Its specifically the roll in the process I was refering to there; in particular, it adds a random element that doesn't seem necessary to process.
I'm not sure what you're asking for. How are you going to deal with such an ability otherwise, except to say that it always works or it always fails? If I cast my "Wizard Lock" spell to make a lock harder to pick, should it cause the lockpicker to automatically fail? Or should he automatically succeed if and only if he has at least X points invested in Lockpicking?

Chris Goodwin

Apr 28th, '08, 08:51 PM

I'm not sure what you're asking for. How are you going to deal with such an ability otherwise, except to say that it always works or it always fails? If I cast my "Wizard Lock" spell to make a lock harder to pick, should it cause the lockpicker to automatically fail? Or should he automatically succeed if and only if he has at least X points invested in Lockpicking?

We want to always make the lock a little bit harder to pick. What's so hard to understand about that?

Edit: Or, more generally, apply a penalty to others, which could be any of a number of penalties in various situations. There should be an easy way to do it; pay X points for -1 to thing Y.

Paragon

Apr 29th, '08, 11:38 AM

I'm not sure what you're asking for. How are you going to deal with such an ability otherwise, except to say that it always works or it always fails? If I cast my "Wizard Lock" spell to make a lock harder to pick, should it cause the lockpicker to automatically fail? Or should he automatically succeed if and only if he has at least X points invested in Lockpicking?

As Chris says above, a generic fixed modifier power would do it without the unnecessary die roll. We even have a model for it in the way Change Environment is done.

PhilFleischmann

Apr 29th, '08, 02:53 PM

So what was wrong with negative skill levels?

Chris Goodwin

Apr 29th, '08, 09:28 PM

So what was wrong with negative skill levels?

You use them on another person. Not an easy build to apply to, say, a lock.

Why the resistance?

AnotherSkip

Apr 30th, '08, 06:42 AM

Couldn't we use CE anyways? after all an effect of - to rolls one hex, viola! in addition you could have the long lasting adder for spell like ideas...

PhilFleischmann

Apr 30th, '08, 03:59 PM

You use them on another person. Not an easy build to apply to, say, a lock.

Why the resistance?
The same way we apply Skill Levels (positive and negative) to other objects, such as weapons. A sword with a +1 OCV, for example. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. A bonus to the lock is the same as a penalty to the lockpicker. It's not a big deal.

I'm not the one who is resisting anything.

Chris Goodwin

Apr 30th, '08, 05:11 PM

The same way we apply Skill Levels (positive and negative) to other objects, such as weapons. A sword with a +1 OCV, for example. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. A bonus to the lock is the same as a penalty to the lockpicker. It's not a big deal.

I'm not the one who is resisting anything.

Negative Skill Levels are a Constant Power, No Range, Cost END, and require an Attack Roll. They also work on one target at a time. And we're back to a baroque build. No thanks.

Again, why the resistance to a simple build? Why should it be so hard to build a penalty to Lockpicking into a lock?

schir1964

Apr 30th, '08, 05:30 PM

Negative Skill Levels are a Constant Power, No Range, Cost END, and require an Attack Roll. They also work on one target at a time. And we're back to a baroque build. No thanks.

Again, why the resistance to a simple build? Why should it be so hard to build a penalty to Lockpicking into a lock?
Along these same lines...

Why not just create a Impose Penalty Skill Level based on the Penalty Skill Level construct.

Done.

- Christopher Mullins

PhilFleischmann

Apr 30th, '08, 05:38 PM

Negative Skill Levels are a Constant Power, No Range, Cost END, and require an Attack Roll. They also work on one target at a time. And we're back to a baroque build. No thanks.
So? I don't see what's so "baroque" about it. Any more than the +1 or -1 on a weapon.

Again, why the resistance to a simple build? Why should it be so hard to build a penalty to Lockpicking into a lock?
Again, I'm not resistant to anything here. It isn't.

CTaylor

Apr 30th, '08, 05:57 PM

Why not just create a Impose Penalty Skill Level based on the Penalty Skill Level construct.

Sure, there's already a kind of mechanism in the game to handle this, it just needs to be codified for use in this context. Here's how you build a lock that's hard to pick, here's how you build a code that's hard to decipher, etc.

BlackSword

May 1st, '08, 08:43 AM

Why not just say (or note) that you have to suceed by X on a lockpicking roll in order to pick this lock?

Hugh Neilson

May 1st, '08, 08:54 AM

Why not just say (or note) that you have to suceed by X on a lockpicking roll in order to pick this lock?

Because that doesn't tell me the cost of making such a lock. In Hero, you pay points for effects. What points must I pay for the ability to lock a chest such that it imposes a -3 on lockpicking rolls?

Paragon

May 1st, '08, 09:27 AM

The same way we apply Skill Levels (positive and negative) to other objects, such as weapons. A sword with a +1 OCV, for example. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. A bonus to the lock is the same as a penalty to the lockpicker. It's not a big deal.

I'm not the one who is resisting anything.

I'd argue that applying a +1 to a weapon after the fact (as a spell or a power) is overly baroque too, if you want to get into that. If read literally, it appears you'd have to do it as Usable as An Attack for example, which seems to be getting into some really excessive costs for the benefit.

Paragon

May 1st, '08, 09:28 AM

Couldn't we use CE anyways? after all an effect of - to rolls one hex, viola! in addition you could have the long lasting adder for spell like ideas...

In practice, what I'm suggesting is generalizing the CE a bit better.

Christougher

May 1st, '08, 10:18 AM

—making Succor a distinct Power

Yes, but for pity's sake, call it Boost.

Object Creation (DH #7, allows creation of simple objects)
If Force Wall is given BODY like many suggest, then Force Wall becomes a subset of this power.

Activate (DH #14, allows character to activate devices/machines at range)
Haven't seen the article, but doesn't plain Telekinesis cover this?

Automaton Powers (DH #44, Automaton Powers for all character types)
Oh, you mean that wasn't allowed before? Oops. ;)

—a power that allows characters to inflict a Stunned effect on a target without actually doing any STUN or BODY damage
—a power that instantly Knocks Out a target without any physical effects like Knockback or injury (for, e.g., sleep spells)

Suppress/Dispel Stun works very well for these.

Current Name —> Possible Change
Entangle —> Restrain

Taking a page from MMOs, perhaps Hold is a better suggestion. Mesmerise (mez) is another possibility that might open up to include the previous Stun and KO effects. The ability to pin an opponent in place while not preventing other actions, or the reverse, should also be considered.

Okay, I know I saw it somewhere, but can't find it now, that you explicitly did not want to go "backwards" to previous edition versions of powers. But this is where I feel you're doing a disservice. Dropping 4E Regeneration and building the 5E kludge to recreate it feels like a direct reversal of the principles of "creating a new power".

Instant Change though - the Transform version is a much clunkier way to list the effect on a character sheet. It makes it explicitly a costume-only ability, where it had been misused for Only in Hero ID powers / activations. (Those are now part of the powers in question, Yay!)

PhilFleischmann

May 1st, '08, 03:44 PM

I'd argue that applying a +1 to a weapon after the fact (as a spell or a power) is overly baroque too, if you want to get into that. If read literally, it appears you'd have to do it as Usable as An Attack for example, which seems to be getting into some really excessive costs for the benefit.
That's not how the book does it. It's just a +1 OCV Skill Level, OAF (sword).

rreay

May 2nd, '08, 07:50 AM

—a power that allows characters to inflict a Stunned effect on a target without actually doing any STUN or BODY damage
—a power that instantly Knocks Out a target without any physical effects like Knockback or injury (for, e.g., sleep spells)

I used to want these too, but I don't anymore.

The first one, the ability to inflict a stunned state, seems to be a meta-game attack. I can't think of an effect that should be able to do this. Is this only needed to exploit the stunned mechanic?

If this inflict stunned effect existed it would more powerful than a flash in terms of making someone helpless; it turns off defenses and makes them waste a phase. This should be priced high.

As for the second I've moved to liking the implementation of sleep effect as a mind control. I agree that builds using NND or EB are the wrong way to go. A person who has been knocked around a bit is not easier to make fall asleep they are angry and should be harder. Also a sleepy person shouldn't be easier to knock out.

With Mind control the levels of effect mesh nicely with state of mind. For example it's easier to sleep a guard who is bored at the end of his shift than it is to sleep the same guard who's hyped up because he's been shot at. Based on CON works well for sleep gases and cumulative works nicely for effects that build over time.

Again sleep effect are very powerful; they makes characters as helpless as if they were unconscious. The ability to one shot sleep someone should be expensive.

Paragon

May 2nd, '08, 08:11 AM

That's not how the book does it. It's just a +1 OCV Skill Level, OAF (sword).

I'm not talking about doing it when you, say, construct a focus. I'm talking about applying it as a power after the fact (in fact, I just started a thread on this subject) as a spell, for example. You want to make a sword temporarily +1 to hit; not just for you necessarily, but for anyone who picks it up. How is that done? I don't actually see an example in the book.

Paragon

May 2nd, '08, 08:13 AM

I used to want these too, but I don't anymore.

The first one, the ability to inflict a stunned state, seems to be a meta-game attack. I can't think of an effect that should be able to do this. Is this only needed to exploit the stunned mechanic?

I don't find a transitory stun beam any more conceptually unreasonable than any attack that does stun damage but not Body. Neither has a real world analog, but there are certainly fictional weapons that do approximations of them.

If this inflict stunned effect existed it would more powerful than a flash in terms of making someone helpless; it turns off defenses and makes them waste a phase. This should be priced high.

If it uses the standard mechanic, its also far more transitory, however.

BobGreenwade

May 2nd, '08, 08:20 AM

—making Succor a distinct Power

Yes, but for pity's sake, call it Boost.I absolutely agree, if for no other reason than that calling it Succor has, from the start, been like an engraved invitation for off-color puns.

Markdoc

May 2nd, '08, 10:20 AM

I'm not talking about doing it when you, say, construct a focus. I'm talking about applying it as a power after the fact (in fact, I just started a thread on this subject) as a spell, for example. You want to make a sword temporarily +1 to hit; not just for you necessarily, but for anyone who picks it up. How is that done? I don't actually see an example in the book.

+1 OCV, UBO +1/4, Focus OAF -1, independant, -2 (if it's a single specific sword and you want this to be permanent) or OIF, sword of opportunity, -1/2 (if you want it to be any sword).

Adding positives is easy enough. Adding negatives is something that we currently lack an elegant way to do. The best way currently is Change Environment.

cheers, Mark

Paragon

May 2nd, '08, 10:26 AM

+1 OCV, UBO +1/4, Focus OAF -1, independant, -2 (if it's a single specific sword and you want this to be permanent) or OIF, sword of opportunity, -1/2 (if you want it to be any sword).

Still doesn't cover the ground if its a temporary change you make in the quality of the sword that will work for anyone who picks it up.

A simple example. The game Runequest has a set of spells called Bladesharp. Bladesharp adds a small bonus to to-hit and to damage to a sword its cast on. Anyone at that point can use that sword.

Far as I can tell, there's no tidy way to produce this result at all; in another thread a poster indicates that this requires Usable as An Attack just as a start, which seems a gross increase in cost for the benefit, and pretty roundabout to boot.

Markdoc

May 2nd, '08, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Christougher
—a power that allows characters to inflict a Stunned effect on a target without actually doing any STUN or BODY damage
—a power that instantly Knocks Out a target without any physical effects like Knockback or injury (for, e.g., sleep spells)

The first is just an EB or HA appropriately limited. Since "Does no Body" is -0 and stunning an opponent is highly useful in combat "Stun total only counted for Stunning" should not be a huge limitation, but I'd probably award it a -1/2.

Sleep spells and similar are probably best handled by mind control, whereas physical knockout - by drugs or gass, for example - is probably best handled by NND. Put someone out with anesthetic, for example and they behave exactly as though KO'd - you can't easily wake them up, when they do wake up they're groggy, etc.

These are both relatively trivial effects to model, so I'm not sure we need a new power for what's essentially a special effect.

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

May 2nd, '08, 10:38 AM

Still doesn't cover the ground if its a temporary change you make in the quality of the sword that will work for anyone who picks it up.

A simple example. The game Runequest has a set of spells called Bladesharp. Bladesharp adds a small bonus to to-hit and to damage to a sword its cast on. Anyone at that point can use that sword.

In that case you use UBO, exactly as I indicated. That allows you to give an OCV bonus to the sword (it's a universal focus, after all). It's not an attack so UAO is not appropriate.

And as for the Bladesharp spell....

http://www.geocities.com/markdoc.geo/Gaming_stuff/Runequest/grimoire_frame.htm

cheers, Mark

Paragon

May 2nd, '08, 11:24 AM

In that case you use UBO, exactly as I indicated. That allows you to give an OCV bonus to the sword (it's a universal focus, after all). It's not an attack so UAO is not appropriate.

I've been told by at least one poster that because its an object, UBO isn't appropriate (and I do question whether its not still too expensive at that point; after all, you could just give the level to them instead and not put it on the sword that could be taken away).

As to your spell--the fact it took quite as many Limitations to make that work right is a sign this is an overly baroque design for what's going on to me. It shouldn't take that much design for an effect that makes a sword hit a little better (the fact the best way you found to do the extra damage was using the two levels isn't exactly a statement in favor of that, either, honestly).

ajackson

May 2nd, '08, 12:01 PM

Far as I can tell, there's no tidy way to produce this result at all; in another thread a poster indicates that this requires Usable as An Attack just as a start, which seems a gross increase in cost for the benefit, and pretty roundabout to boot.
Arguably, if you pick up a focus, Aid the power it grants you, and then hand the sword to someone else, they would get the benefit of the Aid. It's not exactly a clear case, however.

Markdoc

May 2nd, '08, 12:22 PM

I've been told by at least one poster that because its an object, UBO isn't appropriate (and I do question whether its not still too expensive at that point; after all, you could just give the level to them instead and not put it on the sword that could be taken away).

As to your spell--the fact it took quite as many Limitations to make that work right is a sign this is an overly baroque design for what's going on to me. It shouldn't take that much design for an effect that makes a sword hit a little better (the fact the best way you found to do the extra damage was using the two levels isn't exactly a statement in favor of that, either, honestly).

Most of those limitations are to get a runequest-style spell - fire and forget, 5 min duration, uses up your POW, etc: the same limitations are on ALL of those spells.

As for your initial comment, you ARE giving the level to another person (it's not like the sword is going to be able to use it): you are merely doing it through the medium of a focus, which makes the power cheaper.The +1 OCV thing is, as noted above, +1 CSL, UBO, OIF (any sword). That's hardly what I'd call baroque.

cheers, Mark

CTaylor

May 2nd, '08, 12:31 PM

Arguably, if you pick up a focus, Aid the power it grants you, and then hand the sword to someone else, they would get the benefit of the Aid. It's not exactly a clear case, however.

It's easier to just make the focus give you the power (this staff gives me 10 power defense) then make it universal. Anyone who holds the staff, gets the power. Each item you make like this has its own END cost and takes a "spell slot" up (INT/5 in my games), but you can hand them out to others as "totems" or some similar effect.

PhilFleischmann

May 2nd, '08, 04:09 PM

+1 OCV, UBO +1/4, Focus OAF -1, independant, -2 (if it's a single specific sword and you want this to be permanent) or OIF, sword of opportunity, -1/2 (if you want it to be any sword).
I'd say you don't even need the UBO, just Focus (whatever version you like, and you don't necessarily need Independant either). If you're putting the power (or negative skill level) on a Universal Focus, that's all you need. It's in the sword itself. You can use it, or a friend can use it, on an enemy can use it. UBO allows you to make the choice yourself as to who gets to use it.

Markdoc

May 2nd, '08, 05:15 PM

I'd say you don't even need the UBO, just Focus (whatever version you like, and you don't necessarily need Independant either). If you're putting the power (or negative skill level) on a Universal Focus, that's all you need. It's in the sword itself. You can use it, or a friend can use it, on an enemy can use it. UBO allows you to make the choice yourself as to who gets to use it.

This is probably a matter of taste. I'm assuming a "freebie" real sword here (heroic level rules) and as a GM I don't allow players to take a free item and then add powers to it. Hence UBO, appropriately limited to boost the user of a sword (either the user of a specific sword - hence OAF - or any particular sword - OIF). The option for independant is a way of giving that level away permanently, so it'd work even when hundreds of miles from the caster, or he's stunned, or burned to fine powder, etc.

If however you were making a superheroic "points paid item" then I'd agree with you: it simply becomes part of the focus in that case.

cheers, Mark

PhilFleischmann

May 2nd, '08, 05:30 PM

This is probably a matter of taste. I'm assuming a "freebie" real sword here (heroic level rules) and as a GM I don't allow players to take a free item and then add powers to it.
I don't see any reason not to, though the GM is certainly entitled tohave this restriction for his game. But to me, it's not much different from any other power the requires a "free" object of opportunity.

Markdoc

May 2nd, '08, 09:31 PM

I don't see any reason not to, though the GM is certainly entitled tohave this restriction for his game. But to me, it's not much different from any other power the requires a "free" object of opportunity.

Free object of opportunity, fine. Adding something to a freebie which already effectively possesses powers, not fine. I don't want someone getting a 3d6 HKA, by spending 5 real points to add 1d6 HKA to a freebie sword or 16 DEF armour by adding 8 points of rDEF to freebie real armour. At the same time, I have no problems with them having those powers .... as long as they build the powers themselves. To do otherwise, introduces real balance issues.

Freebie items are balanced to some extent because anybody can get their hands on them and the GM controls largely what's available. In most settings they are not, as far as I can tell, intended to be a source of free points to amp up your other powers.

cheers, Mark

AnotherSkip

May 3rd, '08, 05:10 AM

PhilFleischmann

May 3rd, '08, 11:58 AM

Free object of opportunity, fine. Adding something to a freebie which already effectively possesses powers, not fine. I don't want someone getting a 3d6 HKA, by spending 5 real points to add 1d6 HKA to a freebie sword
How do you get that for 5 points? +2d6 is 30 Active. OAF takes it down to 15 Real. It's just a form of Deadly Blow (already published in FH and perhaps elsewhere). I can certainly see why a GM might not want to allow this in a particular type of game or campaign, but it seems to me to be in keeping with paying for what you get and getting what you pay for.

or 16 DEF armour by adding 8 points of rDEF to freebie real armour. At the same time, I have no problems with them having those powers .... as long as they build the powers themselves. To do otherwise, introduces real balance issues.
What if it's just a separate Force Field or Armor power that isn't an enhancement to the worn suit of armor? +8 rDEF Armor costs 24 points. I make my skin hard as stone, and I'm also wearing 8 DEF plate armor. Shouldn't I get the full 16 DEF? What's the difference between that and saying that I'm improving the DEF of the armor, rather than of my skin? And again, I grant that 16 DEF would be too much for most GMs in their heroic-level fantasy games, but enhancement to a free thing isn't inherently unbalanced any more than enhancement to a character directly.

Freebie items are balanced to some extent because anybody can get their hands on them and the GM controls largely what's available. In most settings they are not, as far as I can tell, intended to be a source of free points to amp up your other powers.
What's the difference? Free points is free points. I can add the points I spent on STR to do more damage with a freebie weapon. What's so magical about STR? Why can't I buy other powers to enhance free things? I'm paying the points. I'm not asking for the enhancement for free.

Here we are trying to slay the huge dragon. It's scales are like iron. Our best blades wielded by out mightiest warriors cannot penetrate them. Our wizard casts an enhancement spell upon the sword so that the dragon can feel its bite. Our alchemist supplied us with a bottle of Metaphysical oil which, when poured upon a solid weapon, allows it to inflict damage to non-solid foes. etc.

Paragon

May 3rd, '08, 04:39 PM

Couldn't the rules for major transformation be used in this case?

exceed (the swords body x2 + the active cost/modifier of the adjustment) to make it permanent with the switch back being achived by "dispelling" the spell?

The problem is that Transform is an incredibly crude tool for the job; if you use the rules for adding points from the standard rules, any amount can be added if you take long enough; if you don't, its as easy to add 20 active points as to add a hundred.

BobGreenwade

May 4th, '08, 11:12 AM

The first is just an EB or HA appropriately limited. Since "Does no Body" is -0...This, I submit, is a rule that should be eliminated in the next edition. It's clear enough that an EB that does BODY is more useful than one that doesn't; otherwise the "Does BODY" Advantage shouldn't cost +1. Even without that, an EB that doesn't do BODY has no effect on robots and other automata, vehicles, walls, opponents' Foci, or anything else, and I can think of very few settings in which that's a balanced consideration with not accidentally hurting innocent bystanders (which, as I understand, is the logic behind this being -0).

If "No Knockback" is -1/4, then "No BODY" should be -1/2. (If the switch is made to decimals in place of fractions, then both should be smaller than .25 and .5, but No BODY should still be more than No Knockback.)

Markdoc

May 4th, '08, 05:27 PM

How do you get that for 5 points? +2d6 is 30 Active. OAF takes it down to 15 Real. It's just a form of Deadly Blow (already published in FH and perhaps elsewhere). I can certainly see why a GM might not want to allow this in a particular type of game or campaign, but it seems to me to be in keeping with paying for what you get and getting what you pay for.

Take a 2 handed sword (2d6, free) Add 1d6 HKA (15 real points, and toss on OAF, real weapon and (for example) a spell casting limitation such as gestures and incantations to start) and for 5 points, voila! a 3d6 sword - before you add any STR.

You're right, it's a form of deadly blow (albeit a more abusive one) and yeah, I don't allow deadly blow either. Deadly blow is an utterly un-hero-like power in that it operates by no rules in the gaming system: it's merely a poorly built kludge dropped in to mimic a D&D feat without thinking it through. In no other instance can you add two small powers to each other and get a stronger power: that's what Aid and Transfer are for.

Now I agree that in hero system you should get what you pay for and pay for what you get. But in heroic games players don't pay for free equipment. Therefore, in my opinion (and certainly in my games) they shouldn't get to leverage those points. If a player wanted to build a 3d6 HKA power, I'd be perfectly content. But a 2d6 HKA and a 1d6 HKA gives you .... a 2d6 HKA and a 1d6 HKA. Not a 3d6 HKA.

What if it's just a separate Force Field or Armor power that isn't an enhancement to the worn suit of armor? +8 rDEF Armor costs 24 points. I make my skin hard as stone, and I'm also wearing 8 DEF plate armor. Shouldn't I get the full 16 DEF? What's the difference between that and saying that I'm improving the DEF of the armor, rather than of my skin? And again, I grant that 16 DEF would be too much for most GMs in their heroic-level fantasy games, but enhancement to a free thing isn't inherently unbalanced any more than enhancement to a character directly.

Oh, yes it is. Because in one case, the player pays for what he gets, and in the second case, he leverages points to gain a substantial bonus. 16 DEF is hugely superior to 8 DEF. Again, if the player wants to buy the defences seperately, fair enough: he becomes very tough, but then he paid the points to do so.

This is important because the increase when you leverage a weapon or the increase in DEF when you leverage defences is significant: the extra points go "on top of" the base damage or DEF, which makes an enormous difference. So for the sword example, a normal 2 handed sword will, on average, do no BOD to an opponent in 8 DEF armour and on a max roll will do 4 BOD. A 3d6 HKA on the other hand will do do 3 BOD on average and max out at 10. It's not just "a little more effective" for 5 points you have made a devastating weapon. The armour example is the same: a two handed sword used against the DEF 8 armour will usually get around 10 STUN through and often get some BOD through. Against 16 DEF it becomes incapable of doing any BOD damage and on average will do 1 STUN. The chances of stunning an opponent greatly decrease. Again, the increase in efficiency for a small investment in points is huge.

What's the difference? Free points is free points. I can add the points I spent on STR to do more damage with a freebie weapon. What's so magical about STR? Why can't I buy other powers to enhance free things? I'm paying the points. I'm not asking for the enhancement for free.

See examples above: in truth, you are in fact, asking for something for free: the ability to amp an existing power. Free points is free points, sure. But they are not player points. Two free swords do not do twice as much damage as one free sword. Two suits of armour do not grant twice the defence of one. A mage cannot usually use the "free points" in a sword to amp his flight spell. Two players who both have 8d6 EB can't add them together to get a 16d6 EB, even if one of them has useable by other. So the "these are free points that the player can use" argument is clearly a bust: just having free points clearly does not allow you to manipulate them as you like. Even having temporary access to someone else's points doesn't allow you to use them to amp your own powers.

STR on theother hand, is special, because it is specifically built in the rules to allow it to leverage HKA and HA. Extra STR for weapon damage is one simple way to simulate "deadly blow" without having to kludge the rules (there are, of course, many others).

Here we are trying to slay the huge dragon. It's scales are like iron. Our best blades wielded by out mightiest warriors cannot penetrate them. Our wizard casts an enhancement spell upon the sword so that the dragon can feel its bite. Our alchemist supplied us with a bottle of Metaphysical oil which, when poured upon a solid weapon, allows it to inflict damage to non-solid foes. etc.

Sure, all of those powers are potentially available (and are available in my own games). But if you want to amp the damage of the blade wielded by the mighty warrior, you should pay for a larger HKA - not the cost of a smaller HKA. If he has a sword which does 2d6 HKA, giving him a 1d6 HKA shouldn't help much, according to the idea of paying for what you get and getting what you pay for. However, giving him a 2d6 HKA without STR min is likely to significantly increase his damage - as would giving him a 3d6 HKA. You could even use Aid on his existing (free) sword - since increasing powers is what Aid does: that's within the rules as written. There's lots of ways to do it: the only thing I don't allow is for players to treat free equipment as though it were a chunk of experience that they can manipulate.

So the concepts you argue for above are perfectly reasonable and can easily (and not even very expensively) built using the rules as written. There's no need to abuse free equipment to do so.

cheers, Mark

James Gillen

May 4th, '08, 06:47 PM

Take a 2 handed sword (2d6, free) Add 1d6 HKA (15 real points, and toss on OAF, real weapon and (for example) a spell casting limitation such as gestures and incantations to start) and for 5 points, voila! a 3d6 sword.

You're right, it's a form of deadly blow (albeit a more abusive one) and yeah, I don't allow deadly blow either. Deadly blow is an utterly un-hero-like power in that it operates by no rules in the gaming system: it's merely a poorly built kludge dropped in to mimic a D&D feat without thinking it through. In no other instance can you add two small powers to each other and get a stronger power: that's what Aid and Transfer are for.

No, actually, there IS: Characteristics bought as Powers. :D

JG

CTaylor

May 4th, '08, 06:47 PM

If "No Knockback" is -1/4, then "No BODY" should be -1/2.

I think the advantages of not doing Body add up to enough that Stun Only is worth -1/4 at most. There are enough times you'd rather not do Body to make the limitation not worth more than that.

GamePhil

May 4th, '08, 07:42 PM

This, I submit, is a rule that should be eliminated in the next edition. It's clear enough that an EB that does BODY is more useful than one that doesn't; otherwise the "Does BODY" Advantage shouldn't cost +1.

This only makes it clear that doing Body with an attack that gets no or limited defense is an advantage, not that doing Body in general is one, and certainly not so large a one. If you want to be able to kill or destroy a target without defense, you pay through the nose for it. That in no way contradicts the advantages of being able to hit someone with a big attack and not risk injury.

Even without that, an EB that doesn't do BODY has no effect on robots and other automata, vehicles, walls, opponents' Foci, or anything else, and I can think of very few settings in which that's a balanced consideration with not accidentally hurting innocent bystanders (which, as I understand, is the logic behind this being -0).

Whereas I can think of many where not accidentally hurting or killing someone with your 12d6 EB, innocent or no, is a significant advantage over being being able to hurt inanimate object. Being able to strike without fear of serious injury is a great good.

If "No Knockback" is -1/4, then "No BODY" should be -1/2. (If the switch is made to decimals in place of fractions, then both should be smaller than .25 and .5, but No BODY should still be more than No Knockback.)

Except that if you don't want to do Body, you also by definition don't want to do Knockback, for it can do Body, so it must also be worth no Limitation if that is considered advantagous. If you're not concerned about doing Body, then No Knockback again becomes a Limitation. So I agree with the previous poster: -1/4 at best, and I still view it as viably -0.

I would certainly like to see some discussion on what settings and styles No Body is a Limitation and when it is a -0, or even an Advantage, but there will always be a place for it being a -0.

ajackson

May 4th, '08, 07:46 PM

No, actually, there IS: Characteristics bought as Powers. :D
Not to mention all defenses. If you buy two force fields, they stack perfectly well.

CTaylor

May 4th, '08, 07:47 PM

Indeed, I built an inventor/gadgeteer a forcefield in two layers, both 14- activation. They usually both worked, but there was this one time...

AnotherSkip

May 5th, '08, 06:10 AM

The problem is that Transform is an incredibly crude tool for the job; if you use the rules for adding points from the standard rules, any amount can be added if you take long enough; if you don't, its as easy to add 20 active points as to add a hundred.

Then there should be some refinement to Transform.

Say a limit of adding/subtraction equal to the cost of the power (base, active or real). thus the 15 point Major transform cannot either add nor subtract more than 15 points while the 60 point power can either add or subtract a maximum of 60. putting it more in line with adjustment powers.

BobGreenwade

May 5th, '08, 08:32 AM

Whereas I can think of many where not accidentally hurting or killing someone with your 12d6 EB, innocent or no, is a significant advantage over being being able to hurt inanimate object. Being able to strike without fear of serious injury is a great good.Please explain this in genre-universal terms. This currently sits as the only significant case where a reduction in functionality is considered an advantage.

Tonio

May 5th, '08, 10:01 AM

Deadly blow is an utterly un-hero-like power in that it operates by no rules in the gaming system: it's merely a poorly built kludge dropped in to mimic a D&D feat without thinking it through. In no other instance can you add two small powers to each other and get a stronger power: that's what Aid and Transfer are for.

I don't think this is correct. There are many instances of Powers bought as +Xd6 rather than Xd6 which only work to augment a base and won't work individually. A character with a 5d6 EB and a +5d6 EB can shoot a 5d6 EB or a 10d6 EB, but can't shoot two 5d6 EBs in a MPA. A character with a 5d6 EB, OAF: Raygun and a +5d6 EB, OIF: Power Booster is unable to fire off an EB if his Raygun is taken away, and can only shoot a 5d6 EB if his Power Booster is taken away. Deadly Blow works like this. It's a +1d6 HKA, not a 1d6 HKA.

ajackson

May 5th, '08, 10:29 AM

Please explain this in genre-universal terms.
Explained in genre-universal terms, the ability to render people unconscious without killing them is darned useful a certain portion of the time, even if you don't have exceptional objections to killing people, and against the level of target where body damage is a concern, normal dice are more effective than NND dice. There are times when captives can be useful.

Of course, it doesn't matter that much regardless, since you can just multipower your stun only blast with an RKA for situations where you want to break stuff.

Markdoc

May 5th, '08, 12:30 PM

I don't think this is correct. There are many instances of Powers bought as +Xd6 rather than Xd6 which only work to augment a base and won't work individually. A character with a 5d6 EB and a +5d6 EB can shoot a 5d6 EB or a 10d6 EB, but can't shoot two 5d6 EBs in a MPA. A character with a 5d6 EB, OAF: Raygun and a +5d6 EB, OIF: Power Booster is unable to fire off an EB if his Raygun is taken away, and can only shoot a 5d6 EB if his Power Booster is taken away.

Actually, this is a partially limited 10d6 EB: partially limited powers are a construct that's been around in Hero for many years. What's it's very clearly not is two 5d6 EBs - as your own example makes clear. You can use it at full strength, or half strength, but you can't MPA it, and both the base power and the partially limited half are both limited by the same OAF.

After all, try telling a GM who uses active point caps that your 12d6 raygun with a 12d6 booster is acceptable in a game limited to 12 DC "because it's two 12d6 attacks". We already know what the response to that would be :D

Deadly Blow works like this. It's a +1d6 HKA, not a 1d6 HKA.

Nope. Deadly Blow is a way of somehow increasing the base damage of a power that (in most cases) you don't actually have. It's not like buying a partially limited power, where you have 1d6 HKA bought with OAF and a second d6 "only useable under condition X" - that would be a perfectly legal 30 active point power. Instead it's a sort-of power, which gives you a larger active point power, when you meet certain requirements. It's an oddity, no question about it, which is why it includes special rules in the description.

Imagine how most GMs would react to someone who said " I want to buy a 3d6 Fire RKA - but I only want to pay for one d6: I'll get the other 2d6 free whenever I have a lantern". That's how deadly blow works.

cheers, Mark

Tonio

May 5th, '08, 12:43 PM

Actually, this is a partially limited 10d6 EB: partially limited powers are a construct that's been around in Hero for many years. What's it's very clearly not is two 5d6 EBs - as your own example makes clear. You can use it at full strength, or half strength, but you can't MPA it, and both the base power and the partially limited half are both limited by the same OAF.

After all, try telling a GM who uses active point caps that your 12d6 raygun with a 12d6 booster is acceptable in a game limited to 12 DC "because it's two 12d6 attacks". We already know what the response to that would be :D

Not quite... they're not both limited by the same OAF. The Power Booster adds 5d6 to any EB (in practice this would probably be limited to "ray guns" or "energy-based EBs" or something of the sort, depending on genre and campaign). And I didn't quite get your 12d6 raygun and 12d6 booster situation. =/

Also, it's not always a Partially Limited Power. For example:

30 Multipower
3u 6d6 EB
3u 2d6 RKA

25 +5d6 EB

The +5d6 EB adds to the first MP slot. As far as I can tell, this is a perfectly valid and rules-legal build. I'm pretty sure I've seen the "+Xd6" format many times; it's used to denote a power that adds to another and can't be used by itself. Partially Limited Powers are one place where that's used, but not the only one. The section on Frameworks in 5ER describes some ways it can be used.

PhilFleischmann

May 5th, '08, 03:50 PM

Take a 2 handed sword (2d6, free) Add 1d6 HKA (15 real points, and toss on OAF, real weapon and (for example) a spell casting limitation such as gestures and incantations to start) and for 5 points, voila! a 3d6 sword - before you add any STR.
OK, so you've just changed the question from +2d6 to +1d6. And the STR adding is irrelevent, since you paid for that too. (Not to mention the WF for using the sword.)

You're right, it's a form of deadly blow (albeit a more abusive one) and yeah, I don't allow deadly blow either.
Which is certainly your perogative (or any other GM's). I also don't particularly like Deadly Blow, and rarely allow it in my games, but for a different reason: making attacks too powerful. It has nothing to do with a points-paid power adding to a "free" item. Suppose a character has a 1/2d6 HKA Dagger and had some type of "Deadly Blow" talent that added 1d6+1 with daggers. Now he can do 2d6 with his dagger. Is that a problem? If Nocac the Barbarian can get a 2d6 greatsword for "free", why is it so bad to allow Stabby the Thief to get a 2d6 attack that he paid for most of?

Now I agree that in hero system you should get what you pay for and pay for what you get. But in heroic games players don't pay for free equipment. Therefore, in my opinion (and certainly in my games) they shouldn't get to leverage those points. If a player wanted to build a 3d6 HKA power, I'd be perfectly content. But a 2d6 HKA and a 1d6 HKA gives you .... a 2d6 HKA and a 1d6 HKA. Not a 3d6 HKA.
If the problem is simply that you don't want characters to have more than 2d6 HKA, that's a separate issue. Characters "leverage free points" all the time - by adding STR (paid for) to weapon damage (not paid for). And you can do the same thing with most other powers as well, like in the examples Tonio gave.

Oh, yes it is. Because in one case, the player pays for what he gets, and in the second case, he leverages points to gain a substantial bonus. 16 DEF is hugely superior to 8 DEF. Again, if the player wants to buy the defences seperately, fair enough: he becomes very tough, but then he paid the points to do so.
Why should the one character have to pay for all of their defenses when another gets half of it for free? Let's say we're dealing with DEF values well within what's reasonable for the campaign. One character has 6 DEF chainmail "for free". While another character has 3 DEF leather armor for free. Why is is a problem if the second character wants to pay points to enhance his leather armor and buy +3 DEF, Only While Wearing Leather Armor? It's similar to Combat Luck. Should I assume you don't allow that in your games either?

This is important because the increase when you leverage a weapon or the increase in DEF when you leverage defences is significant: the extra points go "on top of" the base damage or DEF, which makes an enormous difference. So for the sword example, a normal 2 handed sword will, on average, do no BOD to an opponent in 8 DEF armour and on a max roll will do 4 BOD. A 3d6 HKA on the other hand will do do 3 BOD on average and max out at 10. It's not just "a little more effective" for 5 points you have made a devastating weapon. The armour example is the same: a two handed sword used against the DEF 8 armour will usually get around 10 STUN through and often get some BOD through. Against 16 DEF it becomes incapable of doing any BOD damage and on average will do 1 STUN. The chances of stunning an opponent greatly decrease. Again, the increase in efficiency for a small investment in points is huge.
So what? If you already get a decent attack for 1 point of WF, why not allow +1d6 to that attack for +5 points (or whatever the cost will be based on modifiers)? You ought to get something for the 500% increase in points spent.

See examples above: in truth, you are in fact, asking for something for free: the ability to amp an existing power.
No, I'm not. I'm *paying* for the amp of the existing power. That's the way the HERO Sytem works. Each DC of a particular power costs the same amount. If I've got a 10d6 EB, and I want to enhance it to 12d6, I only have to pay an additional 10 xp - I don't have to pay 60 for a whole new EB, just to get those last two dice. See Tonio's examples.

Free points is free points, sure. But they are not player points. Two free swords do not do twice as much damage as one free sword. Two suits of armour do not grant twice the defence of one. A mage cannot usually use the "free points" in a sword to amp his flight spell. Two players who both have 8d6 EB can't add them together to get a 16d6 EB, even if one of them has useable by other.
None of which has anything to do with anything I said.

Sure, all of those powers are potentially available (and are available in my own games). But if you want to amp the damage of the blade wielded by the mighty warrior, you should pay for a larger HKA - not the cost of a smaller HKA. If he has a sword which does 2d6 HKA, giving him a 1d6 HKA shouldn't help much, according to the idea of paying for what you get and getting what you pay for. However, giving him a 2d6 HKA without STR min is likely to significantly increase his damage - as would giving him a 3d6 HKA.
So in order to enhance the warrior's sword from 2d6 (30 Active) to 3d6 (45 Active), you'd require payment for the full 45 Active Point power? The 2d6 that he already has count for nothing? What about the metaphysical oil example (which works like a Naked Advantage - Is this another thing you don't allow in your games?)?

There's lots of ways to do it: the only thing I don't allow is for players to treat free equipment as though it were a chunk of experience that they can manipulate.
Which is not at all what I'm doing. The "points" in the free equipment are not being changed at all. They are only being added to. And of course, the resulting enhanced power still comes with the same limitations as the equipment (OAF, etc.), and can't be used without it.

So the concepts you argue for above are perfectly reasonable and can easily (and not even very expensively) built using the rules as written. There's no need to abuse free equipment to do so.
No one is "abusing" free equipment. I've given three examples from the published rulebooks that work this way: Deadly Blow, Combat Luck, Naked Advantages. And Tonio gave another example or two, of extra power outside a framework added to a slot within the framework, as well as other examples of +X to an existing power. They're all rules-legal, and all paid for with the appropriate rules-dictated number of points.

Markdoc

May 5th, '08, 08:17 PM

No one is "abusing" free equipment. I've given three examples from the published rulebooks that work this way: Deadly Blow, Combat Luck, Naked Advantages. And Tonio gave another example or two, of extra power outside a framework added to a slot within the framework, as well as other examples of +X to an existing power. They're all rules-legal, and all paid for with the appropriate rules-dictated number of points.

Sure and I've replied that Deadly blow works like nothing else in Hero system.

As for the other examples given:
Combat luck is a power (armour) unto and of itself. It doesn't add to anything. It's just a form of limited resistant defence.
Naked advantages are also a way of adding something to a power you have already purchased. You can't add it to someone else's power, nor can you use it by itself.
Likewise, the rules specifically state that you can spend extra points outside a framework to add to one of the powers in that framework, as in Tonio's example. But it works only and exclusively like that. You can add it to that power - which you have already purchased. You can't go round adding it to other powers, or other people's powers, nor can you use it by itself. It's a specific tool for a specific purpose.
Likewise STR is unusual in that it can increase HKA/HA damage - but note, it specifically does not increase the HKA: the base damage (and active points) of the HKA remains unchanged

So yes, they are all rules legal (I allow them all in my games) and none of them would allow you to leverage someone else's focus - even if you can use it. And that (at least to me) is what free equipment is: someone else's focus (in this case, the GM's). So no, you can't add 1d6 HKA to a free weapon with a spell or a power anymore than if you tried to boost it by giving them a physical 1d6 HKA. It's still a 1d6 HKA and I have no interest in making powers which are separated only by special effect, work by different rules. If you want a bigger HKA, buy a bigger HKA.

As to "is it fair that X can get a weaker version free....". Sure it's fair. Anybody can get a weaker version free - the equipment is free, after all. Despite the existence of free gear, Players will pay points for better attacks - because they are better than what's available for free. It doesn't stop them using free stuff, so they are in no way disadvantaged.

cheers, Mark

James Gillen

May 5th, '08, 08:20 PM

Imagine how most GMs would react to someone who said " I want to buy a 3d6 Fire RKA - but I only want to pay for one d6: I'll get the other 2d6 free whenever I have a lantern". That's how deadly blow works.

cheers, Mark

I'd allow it- assuming of course that my campaign Damage Class limit allows for 3d6 KA. That's somewhat like the power of Pyro from the Evil Mutants - he doesn't actually create fire, he just controls and amplifies an existing source.

JG

Hugh Neilson

May 5th, '08, 08:22 PM

Actually, this is a partially limited 10d6 EB: partially limited powers are a construct that's been around in Hero for many years. What's it's very clearly not is two 5d6 EBs - as your own example makes clear. You can use it at full strength, or half strength, but you can't MPA it, and both the base power and the partially limited half are both limited by the same OAF.

Much like a 2d6 Sword and a +1d6 Deadly Blow. You can only use the Deadly Blow with the sword (if that's the way it was limited). You can't have a 2d6 HA and a 1d6 KA (both enhanced by STR, I might add, instead of only a single STR enhancement). You can't MPA them. Deadly Blow is a partially limited power that adds to a Focus which the character is not required to pay for.

There are several published examples of naked advantages applied to free equipment. This, to me, is doing the same thing - manipulating points the character did not pay for, but got for free with equipment. Do you also disallow such constructs in your games? It seems no more or less reasonable for a skilled swordsman to add to the damage of his sword (deadly blow) than to make it strike so truly that it is Armor Piercing, or so accurately no Dodge can protect the target (AoE 1 hex).

To the extent there is a philosophocal problem here, it is created more by the "equipment is free" premise than the ability to add to those points.

Imagine how most GMs would react to someone who said " I want to buy a 3d6 Fire RKA - but I only want to pay for one d6: I'll get the other 2d6 free whenever I have a lantern". That's how deadly blow works.

Not unless the lantern did the first 2d6 for free in the first place. Deadly Blow doesn't add damage to twigs or moss, only to weapons already deadly in their own right.

Markdoc

May 5th, '08, 09:00 PM

Much like a 2d6 Sword and a +1d6 Deadly Blow. You can only use the Deadly Blow with the sword (if that's the way it was limited). You can't have a 2d6 HA and a 1d6 KA (both enhanced by STR, I might add, instead of only a single STR enhancement). You can't MPA them. Deadly Blow is a partially limited power that adds to a Focus which the character is not required to pay for.

I've bolded what I see as the crucial distinction here: Deadly blow is the only "power" that works like this. It changes a power you haven't bought. And it does change it - unlike other augments to attacks, like STR, it specifically alters the attack's base damage.

There are several published examples of naked advantages applied to free equipment. This, to me, is doing the same thing - manipulating points the character did not pay for, but got for free with equipment. Do you also disallow such constructs in your games?

I'd certainly disallow such things, yes, though I can't recall them in a published source. Can you indicate such? I doubt it'd change my mind - I've seen up close and ugly what happens when you allow PCs to leverage free gear - but I am curious.

It seems no more or less reasonable for a skilled swordsman to add to the damage of his sword (deadly blow) than to make it strike so truly that it is Armor Piercing, or so accurately no Dodge can protect the target (AoE 1 hex).

I'd have no problem with a swordsman doing any of those things (in fact, one PC in the current FH game has an area effect "wild slashing" maneuver). But, he's paid for an area effect HKA, which is limited by requiring a sword (OIF), not by buying an advantage for a power he doesn't have.

To the extent there is a philosophocal problem here, it is created more by the "equipment is free" premise than the ability to add to those points.

Not really: I wouldn't allow someone with a naked advantage to apply it to another player's powers either (unless it also included appropriately costed UBO/UAA).

Not unless the lantern did the first 2d6 for free in the first place. Deadly Blow doesn't add damage to twigs or moss, only to weapons already deadly in their own right.

Actually Steve has already indicated that it can be used with bare hands or with harmless objects, to create an "anything is deadly in his hands" type. So in theory it could be used with twigs and moss, if defined that way. Basically Deadly Blow acts like an HKA (or RKA), except for the fact that it can be added to other HKAs (or RKAs, if defined that way: we've already had the deadly archer/deadly Mage discussion over on the FH boards) as well. It truly is an odd and poorly-defined construct.

cheers, Mark

Markdoc

May 5th, '08, 09:03 PM

I'd allow it- assuming of course that my campaign Damage Class limit allows for 3d6 KA. That's somewhat like the power of Pyro from the Evil Mutants - he doesn't actually create fire, he just controls and amplifies an existing source.

JG

Whereas I just can't see this. I'd make him buy his 3d6 RKA and limit it appropriately.

cheers, Mark

nexus

May 6th, '08, 03:43 AM

Actually Steve has already indicated that it can be used with bare hands or with harmless objects, to create an "anything is deadly in his hands" type. So in theory it could be used with twigs and moss, if defined that way. Basically Deadly Blow acts like an HKA (or RKA), except for the fact that it can be added to other HKAs (or RKAs, if defined that way: we've already had the deadly archer/deadly Mage discussion over on the FH boards) as well. It truly is an odd and poorly-defined construct.

Well, that's an area where I'll have to disagree with Steve Long. I don't have a problem with Deadly Blow being "naked" extra damage that characters can add to equipment (which are effectively "everyman" powers, IMO). But I wouldn't allow it to do damage by itself. If you want to be able to inflict Killing damage when you normally couldn't that would require and HKA/RKA with appropriate limits. As far as I'm concerned, that's the only way it makes sense.

I've found it's a simple way to build characters with weapon shticks that are dependent on situations and what weapon they're using for a cost that is fitting for Heroic games. Sometimes the work out to be discouragingly expensive for the effect in games where equipment is free.

Tonio

May 6th, '08, 05:06 AM

I've bolded what I see as the crucial distinction here: Deadly blow is the only "power" that works like this. It changes a power you haven't bought. And it does change it - unlike other augments to attacks, like STR, it specifically alters the attack's base damage.

Well, Martial Arts DCs can add to the damage of weapons, too. Not exactly the same, since it doesn't alter the attack's base damage, but close enough.

From a certain (admittedly strange) point of view, weapons themselves work like this. They add a power you haven't bought. As long as you have the weapon, you have the power. The fact that you paid no points for it doesn't change that fact. So if you can buy a 2d6 HKA and a +1d6 HKA (which can't be used by itself) and attack with a 3d6 HKA, why should this not work if I paid more or less (up to 0, even) for the 2d6 HKA?

Actually Steve has already indicated that it can be used with bare hands or with harmless objects, to create an "anything is deadly in his hands" type. So in theory it could be used with twigs and moss, if defined that way. Basically Deadly Blow acts like an HKA (or RKA), except for the fact that it can be added to other HKAs (or RKAs, if defined that way: we've already had the deadly archer/deadly Mage discussion over on the FH boards) as well. It truly is an odd and poorly-defined construct.

Meh, I'd have to disagree with Steve, then. A +1d6 HKA should be exactly that: it should add 1d6 to any HKA it was designed to work with. Bare hands aren't an HKA; nor are harmless objects. They have no HKA to add to.

I see no problem with defining a power as working by itself or adding to a base, but it should always work like that. (Also, damage caps and such should be examined more closely, of course.)

Edit: I'm not arguing for or against Deadly Blow being fair or balanced. I'm just saying it's not a new, unique, broken concept. Works just like those NPA's for guns used in Heroic campaigns to represent gun skills.