EC's cannot have non-END powers!!!!

[Fitzerific]

Hi all! I've been skulking about the forums here for some time and just rescently created an account here. I am just starting up with Champions again after a several year hiatus, and I have noticed that the fifth edition has introduced a new rule that I find myself needing to break in order to create my characters the way I had made them in fourth edition.

The change is that of a prohibition of powers that naturally cost zero end englobed into an elemental control. This was usually how I used to make all of my super armored heroes, I take an EC where I put all of my static powers such as life support, armor, flash defence, mental defence, power defence, damage resistance, and most importantly characteristics. The more dynamic powers were placed into a MP such as force fields, EB's, RKA's, HKA's, and any other powers that I could safely scale back in order to change tactics in combat.

I can get used to the fact that now we cannot use characteristics bought as powers to allow for the calculation of figures characteristics, but I'm feeling constrained to create a house rule allowing non-end powers to be bought into EC's just to follow my previous notions.

I'm interested to hear what other people think of the change and how they have adapted from the change.

[Alibear]

I don't like flaming people after their first post but for you I'll make an exception. ;)

That is the most heinous sounding rules rapery I've encountered in many a year. Obviously if all characters are built to these guidelines you have no problems but if anyone is actually following the rules you'll have horrible imbalance between power levels which makes the GM's job that bit harder.

Anyways, I'd reccomend that you stick to the rules but as they say, "Your game, your rules."

Enjoy.

[Fitzerific]

I don't understand how allowing powers that inherently cost zero end into EC's is unballancing. Please clarify for me.

[SteveZilla]

ECs are a point savings for having a good, coherent concept. But they have limitations to prevent just anybody from getting that savings (and thus the potential imbalance)

With a reduced cost of powers, a character can buy more powers (or bigger ones). With a reduced cost, the main (IMO) limiting factor of the powers in an EC is the Endurance they Cost. Yeah, all your powers may be half-cost (barring the EC pool itself), but can the character pay 48 END a Phase?

Allowing natively Zero-END powers in there destroys one of the main limiting factors to abuse (the END Cost). The reason why END-costing powers can be placed in an EC even when bought down to Zero END is that the extra cost of making it Zero END eats up much of the savings that the EC would give, thus limiting the abuse (though it's still possible).

Also, to have an EC, you have to explain why when one of the powers is Drained/Suppressed, they *all* are.

Remember, EC's are a reward, not a right. See the quote in my sig, also.

[jtelson]

I don't understand how allowing powers that inherently cost zero end into EC's is unballancing. Please clarify for me.

The thinking is that EC's were inherently unbalanced. They provided cost reduction for what was essentially nothing and not all characters used them. So limitaions needed to be added

OK now that I've said that I think they might be less balanced now not more. They still provide a cost reduction but fewer characters have access to them. Alright now I need clarification as well. Thanks a lot :)

[Fitzerific]

If the main limiting factor to ballance out characters who use EC's versus those who do not use EC's is that you're paying twice the END compared to the point cost paid, then I suppose I can see the reasoning behind it. I suppose that I used EC's like I had primarilly because it put all of the appropriate powers in a tight package that was kept nicely. With this change of thinking, I'm confined to find another method of packaging static powers of a given effect (with or without any form of discount to cost).

[Fitzerific]

Just for clarification, since I cannot remember and as I am at work, I do not have my mannual, is the restriction against naturally non-END powers reserved for only EC's or all power frameworks? I'm under the impresion that it was just EC's, however as I stated, I don't remember.

[Vondy]

Just for clarification, since I cannot remember and as I am at work, I do not have my mannual, is the restriction against naturally non-END powers reserved for only EC's or all power frameworks? I'm under the impresion that it was just EC's, however as I stated, I don't remember.

Its just for ECs. And I'm pretty sure Steve hardcoded the GMs right to make exceptions into the rules. As it is, I find the rule works as a hands-free balancing tool and, as a GM, enforce it with very, very few exceptions.

[Hyper-Man]

ECs are a point savings for having a good, coherent concept. But they have limitations to prevent just anybody from getting that savings (and thus the potential imbalance)

With a reduced cost of powers, a character can buy more powers (or bigger ones). With a reduced cost, the main (IMO) limiting factor of the powers in an EC is the Endurance they Cost. Yeah, all your powers may be half-cost (barring the EC pool itself), but can the character pay 48 END a Phase?

Allowing natively Zero-END powers in there destroys one of the main limiting factors to abuse (the END Cost). The reason why END-costing powers can be placed in an EC even when bought down to Zero END is that the extra cost of making it Zero END eats up much of the savings that the EC would give, thus limiting the abuse (though it's still possible).

Also, to have an EC, you have to explain why when one of the powers is Drained/Suppressed, they *all* are.

Remember, EC's are a reward, not a right. See the quote in my sig, also.


One more thing to add to this...

If a power costs END it is visible to 3 sense groups.
A power that costs 0 END by default has Invisible Power Effects (IPE) by default.

[SteveZilla]

One more thing to add to this...

If a power costs END it is visible to 3 sense groups.
A power that costs 0 END by default has Invisible Power Effects (IPE) by default.

This being in reference to the power's native END cost (or lack thereof). Buying a power down to Zero END via the Advantage doesn't also grant Invisible Power Effects. :)

Correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to ask ;)). So a Battlesuit built as OIHID (it had *tons* of backup systems and it almost never gets taken away from the character) could have Armor with the Visible Limitation?

[jtelson]

ECs are a point savings for having a good, coherent concept. But they have limitations to prevent just anybody from getting that savings (and thus the potential imbalance)

With a reduced cost of powers, a character can buy more powers (or bigger ones). With a reduced cost, the main (IMO) limiting factor of the powers in an EC is the Endurance they Cost. Yeah, all your powers may be half-cost (barring the EC pool itself), but can the character pay 48 END a Phase?

Allowing natively Zero-END powers in there destroys one of the main limiting factors to abuse (the END Cost). The reason why END-costing powers can be placed in an EC even when bought down to Zero END is that the extra cost of making it Zero END eats up much of the savings that the EC would give, thus limiting the abuse (though it's still possible).

Also, to have an EC, you have to explain why when one of the powers is Drained/Suppressed, they *all* are.

Remember, EC's are a reward, not a right.

But if I buy powers without an EC, I'd still have to pay the End for them. What's really bugging me about this is I know I've argued the other side of it now I just can't remember why.

[L. Marcus]

This being in reference to the power's native END cost (or lack thereof). Buying a power down to Zero END via the Advantage doesn't also grant Invisible Power Effects. :)

Correct me if I'm wrong (like I need to ask ;)). So a Battlesuit built as OIHID (it had *tons* of backup systems and it almost never gets taken away from the character) could have Armor with the Visible Limitation?. . . Wouldn't the battlesuit be the Heroic ID? Then I'd say no, no Visible Lim.

[Trebuchet]

If the main limiting factor to ballance out characters who use EC's versus those who do not use EC's is that you're paying twice the END compared to the point cost paid, then I suppose I can see the reasoning behind it. I suppose that I used EC's like I had primarilly because it put all of the appropriate powers in a tight package that was kept nicely. With this change of thinking, I'm confined to find another method of packaging static powers of a given effect (with or without any form of discount to cost).It's called a Focus. Battlesuits are a traditional form of Focus for Powers and nothing prohibits you from cramming any number of Powers into one. You can even put an EC into a Focus so long as it's Powers all require END and are otherwise legal.

[JmOz]

A few things, the limit on no END powers is a "Without GM permision" and many GM's will allow them if they fit thematicaly...However trying to cram all your Battlesuit stuff into a EC is not point mongering, it is bad character design, realise you save 1/2 the points of each power after the first of the least expensive power, if you have low costing powers in it you will actualy wind up spending more points

Also and you say "especialy" characteristics, Characteristics require you to take No Figured Characteristics (This actualy was in 4th, but was unclear if you took the lim or just suffers it), Characteristic are a much better deal WITH Figured Characterstics than the small amount you save in the EC...

[sbarron]

This was usually how I used to make all of my super armored heroes, I take an EC where I put all of my static powers such as life support, armor, flash defence, mental defence, power defence, damage resistance, and most importantly characteristics.So, you probably save at least 50 points in your build because you use an EC, and it costs you nothing. And then you say...


I suppose that I used EC's like I had primarilly because it put all of the appropriate powers in a tight package that was kept nicely...If I were a player in your group and you gave that as the reason for using an EC that saves you at least 50 points...well, we'd be going to post-segment 12. :bmk: :thumbup:

[McCoy]

This is the change I like least about FRED.

Since the original Champions, a rough guideline ws that defenses cost half as much as attacks. Most of the inheirently zero-END powers are defenses. By allowing attacks but not defenses into an EC it effectively doubles the cost of defenses in character where an EC is approperate.

let's take Rock Guy, a classic brick with the Sx of he is animated stone. Under 4th sdition I could say, "Rock is strong. Rock is tough. Rock has no metabolism. So an Elemental Control with extra STR, nonfocused Armor, and Life Support is approperate for this character." Life support being the least expensive sets the limit on the EC, so full life support, an extra 30 STR, and 10 PD/10 ED armor.

Under FRED, the only way to put STR and armor into an EC is to redefine the armor as a zero-end force field, and no way to put in the life support without making puppy-dog eyes at the GM.

[incrdbil]

This was usually how I used to make all of my super armored heroes, I take an EC where I put all of my static powers such as life support, armor, flash defence, mental defence, power defence, damage resistance, and most importantly characteristics.

characteristics, and big custom power slots of every special defense under the son seems too abuseable for an Elemental Control. a lot of GM's excuse non-end costing powers for many slots. I'd stop, for game balance reason, at EC's with large slots that are merely a combination power of a lot of special defenses and enhanced characteristics.

way back, this is the horrid broken constructs for power armor I used to see..and shamefully admit, a long time ago, I ran stuff like it

13 EC Power Armor OIF (20 point base slots)
13 slot 1 +22 PD Armor, Hardened (41)
13 Slot 2 +22 ED Armor Hardended (41)
13 Slot 3 20" flight (40)
13 Slot 4 Some silly linked power life support, special defenses (40)
13 Slot 5: Boat load of enhanced senses. (40)
13 Slot 6 + 40 STR (40)
13 Slot 7 +20 CON (40)
13 Slot 8 +5 Dex, +2.5 SPD (40)
13 Slot 9 (Extra end or stun ,these days, probably an END Reserve for
maximum munch) (40)
13 Slot 10: A mish mash of PD/ED, recovery, Damage Resistance for
base PD/ED, and hardened on those characteristics
13 slot 11: 40 poitns of power defense (ok, i never did this, but to avoid
the drain of all abilities problem of Ec, this is what any self-respecting
power gamer would do)

Slot 15 could be some 40 odd points of computer based skill levels, talents.

158 points....and this charcater is incredibly powerful already. You only need to spend about 70-80 points on characteristics, 25-30 on skills. leaving over 97 points to spend on that offensive multipower. (assuming an ) OIF, thats easily a 75 point multipower with 9 ultra slots.


For this amount of savings, anyone not playing a power armor type just sits back and gets used to paying second fiddle.

Other things that just don't belong in an EC. END Reserve.

I've dealt with the changes simply by paying a fair cost for the stuff. One easy way to make up for points is not taking the 'no figured characteristics' limitation on your extra characteristics. with the 1/2 limitation of OIF, or even HIDO. this is plenty of cost savings.

[schir1964]

I don't understand how allowing powers that inherently cost zero end into EC's is unbalancing. Please clarify for me.
Just an additional note.

4th Edition Hero (Champions) did have a rule that "Special Powers" may only be placed in an Elemental Control with GM Permission Only. In other words, the default rule was that "Special Powers" were not permitted in Elemental Controls at all.

What were the "Special Powers"?

It was a category of powers that when examined were all Persistent powers by default.

Just A Little Trip In The Wayback Machine (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

I've always permitted two things inside an EC, so long as it was appropriate:
Armor
Strength

These two are typical brick powers; you should be able to build yourself a decent semi-invulnerable 50-80 STR Colossus without having to totally gut yourself. I know some GMs don't permit Strength, but for the brick it's a primary power. Likewise with the Armor; I'd otherwise might as well drop 'Force Field, 0 END' into it instead. (Yeah, I know -- it'd need Persistent, too. Anyhow.)

Otherwise, though, it depends on the intended power level of the campaign, at least for me.

[Lord Liaden]

Hi all! I've been skulking about the forums here for some time and just rescently created an account here. I am just starting up with Champions again after a several year hiatus, and I have noticed that the fifth edition has introduced a new rule that I find myself needing to break in order to create my characters the way I had made them in fourth edition.

The change is that of a prohibition of powers that naturally cost zero end englobed into an elemental control. This was usually how I used to make all of my super armored heroes, I take an EC where I put all of my static powers such as life support, armor, flash defence, mental defence, power defence, damage resistance, and most importantly characteristics. The more dynamic powers were placed into a MP such as force fields, EB's, RKA's, HKA's, and any other powers that I could safely scale back in order to change tactics in combat.

I can get used to the fact that now we cannot use characteristics bought as powers to allow for the calculation of figures characteristics, but I'm feeling constrained to create a house rule allowing non-end powers to be bought into EC's just to follow my previous notions.

I'm interested to hear what other people think of the change and how they have adapted from the change.

Hi, Fitzerific! Welcome to the community. Your debut inquiry seems to have stirred up a bit of controversy, but we really do want to be helpful and constructive with newcomers. We just tend to get passionate about the HERO System. ;)

I feel constrained to point out, as a couple of other posters have already hinted, that the EC construct you describe was already illegal, or at least highly questionable, under Fourth Edition rules as well, without the change to no END-costing Powers. For example:


4th Edition Hero (Champions) did have rule that "Special Powers" may only be place in an Elemental Control with GM Permission Only. In other words, the default rule was that "Special Powers" were not permitted in Elemental Controls at all.

What were the "Special Powers"?

It was a category of powers that when examined were all Persistent powers by default.

And the list of Special Powers includes Flash Defense, Mental Defense, and Power Defense (HERO System Fourth Edition p. 56), all of which you specifically list as common elements of your Elemental Controls. P. 112 of the 4E rulebook specifies that "Power Frameworks cannot be used with any of the Special Powers or Talents, except with special permission of the GM."



Also and you say "especialy" characteristics, Characteristics require you to take No Figured Characteristics (This actualy was in 4th, but was unclear if you took the lim or just suffers it), Characteristic are a much better deal WITH Figured Characterstics than the small amount you save in the EC...

In furtherance to JmOz's point, "Characteristics bought with the Multipower Power Framework never add to Figured Characteristics. Characteristics can only be bought within other Power Frameworks with special permission from the GM." (4E p. 60 -- emphasis mine)

It would appear that the same balance issues that my board colleagues have eloquently expressed were also on the minds of the designers of Fourth Edition when they put in those prohibitions. So to do what you describe doing under the previous system would already have required either house rules, or a very generous GM.

[Alibear]

The loss to the diplomatic service is our gain, Lord L.

[CTaylor]

I have noticed that the fifth edition has introduced a new rule that I find myself needing to break in order to create my characters the way I had made them in fourth edition.

I ignore that rule for building undead, all undead in my Bestiary have a basic package (life support, automoton powers), it's a tidy way of combining their abilities into one group and makes them slightly cheaper than they would be otherwise. Keep in mind, most of the powers life support gives are extremely rare to be useful to anyone but a player character. Once in a while you will run into one in the bottom of the ocean or what have you, but most of the time it's not going to come up. Thus, while technically they're worth the full points... they aren't to an NPC.

[Hugh Neilson]

The "only powers that cost END by default go in an EC" is a poor one in my view. So I can have a 0 END force field, but not 0 END armor? Aid has to be limited to Cost END, but Healing can be advantaged to cost 0 END? Why? How does that make the game more balanced?

The fact is that there isn't a unifying theme governing which powers do or do not cost END so basing other restrictions on END costs makes no sense.

[Lord Liaden]

I ignore that rule for building undead, all undead in my Bestiary have a basic package (life support, automoton powers), it's a tidy way of combining their abilities into one group and makes them slightly cheaper than they would be otherwise. Keep in mind, most of the powers life support gives are extremely rare to be useful to anyone but a player character. Once in a while you will run into one in the bottom of the ocean or what have you, but most of the time it's not going to come up. Thus, while technically they're worth the full points... they aren't to an NPC.

I did something similar for the "super" undead in my DH article on Prof. Muerte, putting Damage Reduction and Life Support into an Elemental Control. It was meant to reflect a common concept of "undeath" for these monsters, that they existed only partly in this world and partly in the realm of Death, so forces and conditions from this world had less impact on them.

The beauty of the "GM Permission" loophole that so often appears in the HERO rules, is that it grants leeway to construct unusual, but reasonable and interesting characters and concepts that the default rules might restrict. As long as the GM evaluates that it makes sense and won't be unbalancing to his campaign, rules exceptions can add quite a bit to the game. Heck, there are no few published examples of that in Fifth Edition books, and if Steve Long can bend his own rules, spread some of that sauce on this gander. :D

OTOH, if one were to bend the default rules regularly and on a large scale there's the risk of distorting the built-in balance of the system. If all the players in your group used the same rules exceptions to the same degree, that might still work fine for your campaign; but your characters and other constructs could end up seriously out of whack if you try to export them to someone else's campaign, or to import official published write-ups.

[schir1964]

The "only powers that cost END by default go in an EC" is a poor one in my view. So I can have a 0 END force field, but not 0 END armor? Aid has to be limited to Cost END, but Healing can be advantaged to cost 0 END? Why? How does that make the game more balanced?

The fact is that there isn't a unifying theme governing which powers do or do not cost END so basing other restrictions on END costs makes no sense.
I agree. I don't like inconsistent rules. (Yeah, I know that came as a surprise. (8^D))

- Christopher Mullins

[Comic]

Hey, I see I'm too late to be the diplomatic, welcoming one...

So.

There are some nicely constructed modifiers of the Disadvantage 'EC-Like Limitations' type, which may help if the idea is that it's in concept for the life-support, etc. other 'special' powers to be related in a way that means they're.. Erm.. EC-Like.

Hyper-Man was the first poster I plagiarized the notion from, so credit to him where it's due.

If you have a group of powers that don't cost END, aren't by default visible to 3 senses, don't normally all get drained if any of them are drained, have a common special effect that is fairly obvious and can be routinely exploited by at least one in five major campaign villains.. then just apply this type of disadvantage to their cost, and voila -- they don't get EC point savings, but for having EC-like limitations, they do get an appropriate disadvantage. I usually call it -1/4.

[JmOz]

Hey, I see I'm too late to be the diplomatic, welcoming one...

So.

There are some nicely constructed modifiers of the Disadvantage 'EC-Like Limitations' type, which may help if the idea is that it's in concept for the life-support, etc. other 'special' powers to be related in a way that means they're.. Erm.. EC-Like.

Hyperman was the first poster I plagiarized the notion from, so credit to him where it's due.

If you have a group of powers that don't cost END, aren't by default visible to 3 senses, don't normally all get drained if any of them are drained, have a common special effect that is fairly obvious and can be routinely exploited by at least one in five major campaign villains.. then just apply this type of disadvantage to their cost, and voila -- they don't get EC point savings, but for having EC-like limitations, they do get an appropriate disadvantage. I usually call it -1/4.

With the strong possibility of 6th edition dropping figured Characteristics I am hoping that EC becomes a -1/4 limitation open to all powers instead of the current system

[CrosshairCollie]

I go with the 4th Edition version of ECs ... stuff like Armor, Life Support can go in, but no Enhanced Senses or Mental/Power/Flash Defense. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter so long as it's applied unilaterally to all characters (aka if one PC can or can't do it, all PCs can or can't do it), as the GM can adjust the difficulty of the opposition to account for the characters being 'overclocked' in this manner. GMs don't operate on a budget, after all.

[Trebuchet]

With the strong possibility of 6th edition dropping figured Characteristics I am hoping that EC becomes a -1/4 limitation open to all powers instead of the current systemAt -1/4 you might as well use Linked. That's all an EC really is anyway - a bidirectional formalized Link. If it's converted into a Limitation, I'd think -1/2 would be closer to the proper value; although I haven't had time to crunch the numbers.

[Hyper-Man]

Although the Limitation does "Link" the powers together with regard to Drains it does not function like the Link Limitation in any other way.

There are some concepts where it would certainly make sense to apply both Limitations to some powers.

ex:
The Human Torch

Many of his powers could be built with a Limitation: Linked to "Body of Flame" (Flight, Force Field, etc). The "Body of Flame" power itself could have a separate Limitation: Not when too wet.

However, it's not necessarily a "Drain" being used when someone puts out his "Body of Flame" with a large amount of water.

If he was affected by someone with true power-draining abilities (like Rogue or DC's Parasite) he would not only lose his ability to activate his "Body of Flame/Flame On" but his immunity* to heat and fire that he has in his non-flame form as well.

* Which is best represented by a combination of many HERO powers like Armor, Life Support, Damage Reduction, etc.. which are all usually Persistent and would not usually benefit from the traditional Linked Limitation any way.

[HalloweenKnight]

This was usually how I used to make all of my super armored heroes, I take an EC where I put all of my static powers such as life support, armor, flash defence, mental defence, power defence, damage resistance, and most importantly characteristics.

Even in pre-5th Ed. Rules, all of these were "Special Powers" that could not (repeat: NOT) be put into ECs without permission from your GM.

As a GM, I'd have examined the presence of one or two Special Powers in an EC and asked for a *very* good reason why they'd be there.

But ALL of them at once? Sorry, I wouldn't allow it.

Nor would I allow Characteristics in an EC no matter *how* well it was explained. I saw what a were-beast with an otherwise good explanation (i.e. "Werewolf Powers", which were even given as an example in the book!) could do with Characteristics in an EC...he was almost 3x more effective in combat as his comrades. Sorry, no longer allowed.

And hey, man...just out of curiosity, what did you *call* the EC on your past powered-armor characters who had an EC with all those things in it? EC: Powered Armor Powers? EC: Technology?

And after you built the EC with everything in it, did you stick the Focus Limitation on top of it as well? If you did, well...thats just wrong and I'll speak no more of it. :hush:

My personal rule of thumb when you don't know whether or not to do something with the 5th Ed. Rules: Ask yourself if a *published* character has done it. If you've seen a character in a published book - hero or villain - that has done what you're trying to do, I look at it as a "precedent" being set and unless there's a long write-up with the character that includes the words "GMs still should not let players do this" (or a paraphrasing thereof), then its got an "official" thumbs-up from the creators.

[JmOz]

At -1/4 you might as well use Linked. That's all an EC really is anyway - a bidirectional formalized Link. If it's converted into a Limitation, I'd think -1/2 would be closer to the proper value; although I haven't had time to crunch the numbers.

Not really, with linked you can only use the linked power with the other power, with the above there is not that limitation, just that they get effected with adjustments together

[HalloweenKnight]

Not really, with linked you can only use the linked power with the other power, with the above there is not that limitation, just that they get effected with adjustments together

OK, so, the *simulation* of an EC on powers not normally allowed in an EC (as well as a few that are), when taken as a flat Limitation, is worth -1/4 ?

And with that, the Limitation means "all Powers are simultaneously affected by SFX-targeting Adjustment Powers"?

What do you call this Limitation? "Simulates EC (-1/4)" ?

And if a Power has it, can it also take versions of Linked as well?

I like the sound of all this...

[JmOz]

OK, so, the *simulation* of an EC on powers not normally allowed in an EC (as well as a few that are), when taken as a flat Limitation, is worth -1/4 ?

And with that, the Limitation means "all Powers are simultaneously affected by SFX-targeting Adjustment Powers"?

What do you call this Limitation? "Simulates EC (-1/4)" ?

And if a Power has it, can it also take versions of Linked as well?

I like the sound of all this...

Well, first let me say that this is not originaly my idea, so I should not be the one to name it, but I would say XXX Powers would work, so Werewolf powers, or Fire Powers, etc...

While the main drawback would be the adjustment powers there would probably be a few others minor things as well, but not sure what. It would also require that all of the powers share a reasonable special effect, so to use the werewolf example, Enhanced senses, characteristics, etc...could have the lim on them, but the "Cybernetic Laser beam" could not, just does not fit into the Werewolf powers.

On the issue of linked, I would say that yes it could, and if EC's are in the game then no it can not be used on the EC or any power in the EC without GM Approval, the guideline for the GM approval should be that EC"s are basicaly considered to have it built in, so if you would approve the power to have it twice, then it would be ok, but I have trouble coming up when applying it twice would be appropriate

HOWEVER on EC's
You could have an EC: Werewolf Powers, then powers that don't fit have the Werewolf Powers lim on. As I said the EC would also be considered part of the assosiated powers in this build, even though it does not get the lim

[Trebuchet]

Not really, with linked you can only use the linked power with the other power, with the above there is not that limitation, just that they get effected with adjustments togetherSure, but it's still a form of connection between two or more Powers. If you lose the primary power in a Linked set, shouldn't the Linked Power be lost as well?

[lapsedgamer]

Sure, but it's still a form of connection between two or more Powers. If you lose the primary power in a Linked set, shouldn't the Linked Power be lost as well?

I would assume that if you linked the power with the limitation that it could only be used when the other power was used at full power, you would temporarily completely lose use of the lesser power if the other power were drained or reduced in some other way.

Also, if I remember correctly, the default setting for linked powers requires a proportional active point arrangement. In that case case, I would say that you would temporarily lose the ability to use the top end of the lesser power until you regained full use of the linked power. Fair?

[Trebuchet]

I would assume that if you linked the power with the limitation that it could only be used when the other power was used at full power, you would temporarily completely lose use of the lesser power if the other power were drained or reduced in some other way.

Also, if I remember correctly, the default setting for linked powers requires a proportional active point arrangement. In that case case, I would say that you would temporarily lose the ability to use the top end of the lesser power until you regained full use of the linked power. Fair?That's how I'd generally interpret it. My primary Champions character Zl'f, who I believe I've mentioned once or twice on these boards ;) , uses a Limitation on both her SPD and DEX in which Draining either one effects the other (as well as her MP). It's not built as Linked, but that was the model I used to build the Limitation.

[SteveZilla]

I ignore that rule for building undead, all undead in my Bestiary have a basic package (life support, automoton powers), it's a tidy way of combining their abilities into one group and makes them slightly cheaper than they would be otherwise.

Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable with my GM using an "It's not an NPC, so I can use different rules to build it" exception. For what reason is it needed to make then "cheaper than they would be otherwise"? GM's have an unlimited budget, after all.

------------------------------------------------------------



I've always permitted two things inside an EC, so long as it was appropriate:

Armor
Strength
These two are typical brick powers; you should be able to build yourself a decent semi-invulnerable 50-80 STR Colossus without having to totally gut yourself.
But are Bricks the only ones who get to be semi-invulnerable? How about a decent semi-invulnerable Blaster (say, it's a Teke with "TK Armor" and "TK STR")?

------------------------------------------------------------


way back, this is the horrid broken constructs for power armor I used to see..and shamefully admit, a long time ago, I ran stuff like it

13 EC Power Armor OIF (20 point base slots)
13 slot 1 +22 PD Armor, Hardened (41)
13 Slot 2 +22 ED Armor Hardended (41)
<snip>

Shame on you! You seem to have missed one of the *classic* munchkinisms. Instead of buying armor (eveh splitting it two ways as you did), buy PD, then ED, then Damage Resistance. A three-way split maximizes the cost savings of it being in an EC! ;):ugly:



For this amount of savings, anyone not playing a power armor type just sits back and gets used to paying second fiddle.


... At least until a single attack gets 1 point of Body though the defenses of that Focus and destorys the *whole* EC or the *whole* MP (per standard Foci rules). This is one of the main reasons why I built my current Battlesuit character with OIHID. That, and character concept. ;)

------------------------------------------------------------


. . . Wouldn't the battlesuit be the Heroic ID? Then I'd say no, no Visible Lim.

I think this could have serious ramifications for OIHID. It *possibly* implies that OIHID makes *all* powers Visible by default...

I think OIHID Armor should be able to take Visible. Not all OIHIDs involve the Special Effects of being an object. Some builds of The Hulk (where Banner has control, for instance) could be build with OIHID. Being Big And Green (or whatever color) does not equal Visible Armor. Whereas OIHID builds for Colossus with the F/X: Shiney & Metallic *would* equal to Visible Armor. But that F/X doesn't mean he can't take Visible, it means he should. Same with the Battlesuit OIHID. IMO. :)

------------------------------------------------------------


I did something similar for the "super" undead in my DH article on Prof. Muerte, putting Damage Reduction and Life Support into an Elemental Control.
<snip>

The beauty of the "GM Permission" loophole that so often appears in the HERO rules, is that it grants leeway to construct unusual, but reasonable and interesting characters and concepts that the default rules might restrict. As long as the GM evaluates that it makes sense and won't be unbalancing to his campaign, rules exceptions can add quite a bit to the game. Heck, there are no few published examples of that in Fifth Edition books, and if Steve Long can bend his own rules, spread some of that sauce on this gander. :D

OTOH, if one were to bend the default rules regularly and on a large scale there's the risk of distorting the built-in balance of the system. If all the players in your group used the same rules exceptions to the same degree, that might still work fine for your campaign; but your characters and other constructs could end up seriously out of whack if you try to export them to someone else's campaign, or to import official published write-ups.[/quote]

An imbalance would also happen if the GM builds the NPCs with different rules than used by the players to build their PCs. I don't care if the GM does the end-result balancing act perfectly. What's good for the Goose (NPCs) is good for the Gander (PCs). It makes comparing point totals easier because they would all use the same yardstick.

------------------------------------------------------------


My personal rule of thumb when you don't know whether or not to do something with the 5th Ed. Rules: Ask yourself if a *published* character has done it. If you've seen a character in a published book - hero or villain - that has done what you're trying to do, I look at it as a "precedent" being set and unless there's a long write-up with the character that includes the words "GMs still should not let players do this" (or a paraphrasing thereof), then its got an "official" thumbs-up from the creators.

IMO that isn't a good guideline (using published supliments). There are *many* By-the-Book rules violations built into published characters. And as far as I can tell, absolutely no acknowledgment that they would otherwise need GM's approval.

[incrdbil]

Shame on you! You seem to have missed one of the *classic* munchkinisms. Instead of buying armor (eveh splitting it two ways as you did), buy PD, then ED, then Damage Resistance. A three-way split maximizes the cost savings of it being in an EC! ;):ugly:

Yeah--sometimes though, I prefereed to keep the armor--more NND's were aimed at 'not versus armor' than 'not vs resistant PD'--yes, munch-maxing the fx. Oh my dark evil past...




... At least until a single attack gets 1 point of Body though the defenses of that Focus and destorys the *whole* EC or the *whole* MP (per standard Foci rules). This is one of the main reasons why I built my current Battlesuit character with OIHID. That, and character concept. ;)

Phsaw, you never tried to by BODY, only usable for focus in onme point abalative increments? :)

[Tonio]

Yeah--sometimes though, I prefereed to keep the armor--more NND's were aimed at 'not versus armor' than 'not vs resistant PD'--yes, munch-maxing the fx. Oh my dark evil past...

Which is why I HATE NND's that are resisted by mechanics rather than SFX. Two characters, built the same, except one has "Armor, Visible: Stony Skin" while the other has "FF, 0 END, Persistent: Stony Skin"... same exact "ability", but one will stop NND's against FF's, the other won't. Makes no sense!

[SteveZilla]

Phsaw, you never tried to by BODY, only usable for focus in onme point abalative increments? :)

If I understand this question correctly, it's asking if I ever build an attack designed to do BODY specifically to Foci?

Answer: Yes. :o And it was Autofire. :eg:

But I only did it on one character -- my version of X-Men's Shadowcat. In the comics, if she phases though active electronics they get shorted out. To copy that I built a RKA w/ Affects Real World, Only Active Electronics, Linked to Desolidification. Or some such similar build. It's been a while. :)

[Southern Cross]

I'd also suggest changing the prohibition on EC's to read as follows-
"Powers that are innately Always On may not be placed in Power Frameworks".

[incrdbil]

[QUOTE=SteveZilla;1585132]If I understand this question correctly, it's asking if I ever build an attack designed to do BODY specifically to Foci?

Answer: Yes. :o And it was Autofire. :eg:

Oh yes, I did that--but back in my dark days, I actually managed to buy 'body' for my foci--ablative body that absorbed that incoming damage to preserve system from being taken out--I called it redundant backup systems.

Oh, the shame.

[SteveZilla]

I've thought about a simiar mechanic (Linked BODY) for Force Walls...

But did you *also* buy Regeneration for that BODY? :D AKA: Self-Repair Systems.

[incrdbil]

I've thought about a simiar mechanic (Linked BODY) for Force Walls...


Who didnt buy BODY for Forcewalls. I don't think I ever bought one regen though. I contemplated a 'ranged' absorbtion power for a forcewall though--a wall that got tougher if you didn't break it.

[SteveZilla]

How about that Zero-Phase to set, Auto-Resetting Trigger (When Knocked Down) on a Zero END Uncontrolled Force Wall? Just Try to get rid of it! :eg:

[Hugh Neilson]

Which is why I HATE NND's that are resisted by mechanics rather than SFX. Two characters, built the same, except one has "Armor, Visible: Stony Skin" while the other has "FF, 0 END, Persistent: Stony Skin"... same exact "ability", but one will stop NND's against FF's, the other won't. Makes no sense!

I simply interpret NND vs Force Field to be NND - defense is a field of force. SFX, not mechanics. Neither of the above characters would be protected, as they lack a field of force to protect them. A character with Armor, Visible - a shield of energy that defends him from attacks would be protected.

[incrdbil]

I simply interpret NND vs Force Field to be NND - defense is a field of force. SFX, not mechanics. Neither of the above characters would be protected, as they lack a field of force to protect them. A character with Armor, Visible - a shield of energy that defends him from attacks would be protected.

Of course, you then run into all-protective fx man. My magic armor radiates a field of force..therefore NND's vs Magic, armor, or force field are nullified by it.

[incrdbil]

How about that Zero-Phase to set, Auto-Resetting Trigger (When Knocked Down) on a Zero END Uncontrolled Force Wall? Just Try to get rid of it! :eg:



Should we be giving out these ideas? :)

[Silbeg]

Should we be giving out these ideas? :)
What difference does it make?

After all, any sane GM is going to disallow it any way. Any non-sane one, well... isn't going to be reading this?

And talk about thread-theft. ;)

[SteveZilla]

And talk about thread-theft. ;)

Sorry. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread. :o


I'd also suggest changing the prohibition on EC's to read as follows-
"Powers that are innately Always On may not be placed in Power Frameworks".

I guess it really comes down to what is the purpose of an Elemental Control. Is it intended to reward more "cohesive" character concepts regardless of the powers involved, or is it intended to reward more "cohesive" character concepts within certain bounds?

If the latter, what are those bounds and what are the reasons for them?

[incrdbil]

What difference does it make?

After all, any sane GM is going to disallow it any way. Any non-sane one, well... isn't going to be reading this?

And talk about thread-theft. ;)

Well, its not too bad of a thread thft..I think these heinous abuises at least shares the spiriy of many EC abuses, where the framework is nothing but a random collection of powers crammed together and layered with an icing of an alleged common special effect to save points.

[Lord Liaden]

IMO that isn't a good guideline (using published supliments). There are *many* By-the-Book rules violations built into published characters. And as far as I can tell, absolutely no acknowledgment that they would otherwise need GM's approval.

At least in his earlier 5E publications, like some of the villains in Conquerors, Killers, And Crooks, Steve Long always pointed out when one of his character designs bent the default rules, and his reason for doing so in that case. It may be that editorial scrupulousness on that front has slipped more recently.

BTW, I think we scared off the OP. :(

[Silbeg]

Well, its not too bad of a thread thft..I think these heinous abuises at least shares the spiriy of many EC abuses, where the framework is nothing but a random collection of powers crammed together and layered with an icing of an alleged common special effect to save points.
not disagreeing with you there...

Just was noting, and teasing all of us "offenders". :winkgrin:

[CrosshairCollie]

Which is why I HATE NND's that are resisted by mechanics rather than SFX. Two characters, built the same, except one has "Armor, Visible: Stony Skin" while the other has "FF, 0 END, Persistent: Stony Skin"... same exact "ability", but one will stop NND's against FF's, the other won't. Makes no sense!

I, personally, would have told the second person that his power is, in fact, Armor. :)

[Duke Bushido]

yes,

I'm way late on this one:

sorry; haven't been this way in a while ;)


I just wanted to support the original poster. We've been playing EC's the same way since 2e, and frankly, for all the hypotheticals and f'rinstances and possibles that can be listed ad nauseum,

it has totally failed to be a balance issue for us.

Like anything else, use what works for you and yours ;)

[Hugh Neilson]

Of course, you then run into all-protective fx man. My magic armor radiates a field of force..therefore NND's vs Magic, armor, or force field are nullified by it.

+X DC, only vs Magic

The best counter to an abusive construct is often a similarly abusive construct. In other words, to show the player that the advantage they believe they are achieving WILL be countered in the name of game balance, so they will not be "ahead" on the power curve by being abusive.

I find a very effective means of dealing with abusive power constructs is to discuss them with the group, and indicate that I'm OK if we allow it or disallow it. If it is allowed, then rest assured the NPC's will also use it. If it's not allowed, that also applies to everyone.

[SteveZilla]

I find a very effective means of dealing with abusive power constructs is to discuss them with the group, and indicate that I'm OK if we allow it or disallow it. If it is allowed, then rest assured the NPC's will also use it. If it's not allowed, that also applies to everyone.

That is a good idea. I find that if every player is given full knowledge of every PC's character sheet it weeds out abusive builds. And if it's just an efficient build they didn't think of, they have learned more about character construction. Doing this also serves to correct when someone is honestly mistaken about a book rule.

[incrdbil]

+X DC, only vs Magic


I find a very effective means of dealing with abusive power constructs is to discuss them with the group, and indicate that I'm OK if we allow it or disallow it. If it is allowed, then rest assured the NPC's will also use it. If it's not allowed, that also applies to everyone.


The problem coems when you have the abusive power construct wielder on a team with those who don't. I've dealth with it in the form of trying to keep one character from outshining the others, or being such a hard target that the attacks that can harm that PC absolutely flatten the others. That's why I try to keep a sort of balanced among the character's in terms of the relative efficiency of their builds, while still trying to allow for the natural specialization of roles from primary combat to those who are more supporting.

[Hugh Neilson]

The problem coems when you have the abusive power construct wielder on a team with those who don't. I've dealth with it in the form of trying to keep one character from outshining the others, or being such a hard target that the attacks that can harm that PC absolutely flatten the others. That's why I try to keep a sort of balanced among the character's in terms of the relative efficiency of their builds, while still trying to allow for the natural specialization of roles from primary combat to those who are more supporting.

We had a player at one time who insisted his character could "only" be effective with something like a 30 DEX and 30 defenses. That would be in a game where one other character had a 35 DEX, and I think one had PD 35/ED 30. Discussions with the player were futile.

So it became a balance. What can we give this villain so he is effective against PushTheLimit Man, but does not crush the other characters? The answer was commonly a variant of one MP slot that allows the character to do typical DC's while obviating defenses. For example, a 90 point MP with one slot that had 12d6 AoE 1 hex, 2x END, and other slots that had, say, 12d6, 0 END, or similar constructs. He could hit that high DCV with normal damage, but he only used it when he had to due to the END costs. The Brick might have a physical Damage Aura limited to the DC's used against him in HTH since the problem character was a martial artist.

Not an ideal solution, but it got the point across, kept things balanced until the point got across and ultimately demonstrated to the player that the game would be balanced even if his character wasn't.

[Silbeg]

We had a player at one time who insisted his character could "only" be effective with something like a 30 DEX and 30 defenses. That would be in a game where one other character had a 35 DEX, and I think one had PD 35/ED 30. Discussions with the player were futile.

So it became a balance. What can we give this villain so he is effective against PushTheLimit Man, but does not crush the other characters?

What I would do (assuming I even allowed it) would be to treat the character as if he had a reputation as the most powerful character on the team (which he very well may be). Then, since villains are not all idiots, that character would see an inordinate amount coordinated attacks against him, and stuff like that. He would be the primary target of mentalists (say, does the big oaf have a high EDCV, Ego, and Mental DEF?)... the group will really like him when he is Mind Controlled to attack them whenever he turns the corner.

I have dealt with players like this in my game... but instead of allowing the character in, I have had to deal with the continual whining.

Other things you can do to annoy this sort of character is put him up against a martial artist that uses a staff (with 1" stretching) in order to perform a Legsweep maneuver outside of HtH range. Or stuff like that.

[SteveZilla]

We had a player at one time who insisted his character could "only" be effective with something like a 30 DEX and 30 defenses. That would be in a game where one other character had a 35 DEX, and I think one had PD 35/ED 30. Discussions with the player were futile.

Use attacks that avoid these strong points. High DCV? AoE, Presence Attacks, and Mental Attacks are called for. High PD & ED? Presence Attacks, Mental Attacks, Sensory Attacks, Entangles, and Adjustment Attacks.

An invisible attacker that uses AoE flash attacks and AoE entangles can be a wonderful thing... :eg:

[brionl]

Use attacks that avoid these strong points. High DCV? AoE, Presence Attacks, and Mental Attacks are called for. High PD & ED? Presence Attacks, Mental Attacks, Sensory Attacks, Entangles, and Adjustment Attacks.

An invisible attacker that uses AoE flash attacks and AoE entangles can be a wonderful thing... :eg:

I dunno. This kind of thing often leads to more escalation on the character. If he's spending that much on defenses, he has to be lacking in offense or something else. Make enemies that he can't do anything against, rather than enemies that specifically target his weaknesses.

[lapsedgamer]

We had a player at one time who insisted his character could "only" be effective with something like a 30 DEX and 30 defenses. That would be in a game where one other character had a 35 DEX, and I think one had PD 35/ED 30. Discussions with the player were futile.

So it became a balance. What can we give this villain so he is effective against PushTheLimit Man, but does not crush the other characters? The answer was commonly a variant of one MP slot that allows the character to do typical DC's while obviating defenses. For example, a 90 point MP with one slot that had 12d6 AoE 1 hex, 2x END, and other slots that had, say, 12d6, 0 END, or similar constructs. He could hit that high DCV with normal damage, but he only used it when he had to due to the END costs. The Brick might have a physical Damage Aura limited to the DC's used against him in HTH since the problem character was a martial artist.

Not an ideal solution, but it got the point across, kept things balanced until the point got across and ultimately demonstrated to the player that the game would be balanced even if his character wasn't.


There is a word that would cover all of this: NO. I'm sorry, but I would expect some consideration from a player. The GM does a lot of heavy lifting to set up a game. The least a player can do is to not be a dick. When you have to build NPCs and tweak scenarios just to deal with one player's character, his character does not fit the game.

[Alibear]

I dunno. This kind of thing often leads to more escalation on the character. If he's spending that much on defenses, he has to be lacking in offense or something else. Make enemies that he can't do anything against, rather than enemies that specifically target his weaknesses.



More likely to be lacking in character defining extras, background skills and the like imho.

NO is the way to go.

[JmOz]

More likely to be lacking in character defining extras, background skills and the like imho.

NO is the way to go.

I have to admit that if I see a character who has taken alot of background skills I am more forgiving of some questionable limitations

[SteveZilla]

I have to admit that if I see a character who has taken alot of background skills I am more forgiving of some questionable limitations

So you'll take the cheese if there are some crackers to go with it? ;)

[Alibear]

So you'll take the cheese if there are some crackers to go with it? ;)

And a glass of vintage port. ;)

[SteveZilla]

"Vintage port" == "Antique dock"? ;)

[jtelson]

"Vintage port" == "Antique dock" == "Hoary Slip"? :)

[JmOz]

So you'll take the cheese if there are some crackers to go with it? ;)

I guess you could say it that way. The truth is that I have no problem with munchkinism if it will help make the character more interesting, opposed to walking mounds of "I win, you loose".

[the fox]

Yeah, I built 4th edition battlesuits with ALL the Characteristics and ALL the Powers in a couple of EC's; a Main Powers and 'Mega-Mini' min-maxed EC for up to 500 Active Points of Powers!, most of which were 0 END or reduced!
Grab yourself a Multi-power, you'll need it! and 1 EC now I presume, if you want to build a 650 pt. character for 350 pts! Thats nearly double all your points!
I also had no DEX, SPD, Def! limits till I found that 1 page,buried in the book, also with Maximum Skill Rolls (Major 4th ed. Broken Rules) but kept STR, Attacks to 60 AP------
All Characterics, Powers, Skill Levels, Attacks and Defenses should be limited by Total Power Points Max DEX,PD,ED SPD Range Max Skill Level Damage Class Running/Flight
330-359 20-39[1/10 pts] 4-7 +6 15d6/22 1/2d6 150 pts.or
360-389 21-42 4-8 +6 16d6/24d6!!! 160 pts.more?
600-629 33-66 6-12 +10 24d6/ 36d6!!! 240 pts.
Skill Levels cannot overlap to exceed Max Level(+6 Overall means you can't buy any more Combat Skill Levels)Agents limited to +1,2 to +5 30,90 to 329 pt. 'Agents'

[the fox]

Yeah, I built 4th edition battlesuits with ALL the Characteristics and ALL the Powers in a couple of EC's; a Main Powers and 'Mega-Mini' min-maxed EC for up to 500 Active Points of Powers!, most of which were 0 END or reduced!
Grab yourself a Multi-power, you'll need it! and 1 EC now I presume, if you want to build a 650 pt. character for 350 pts! Thats nearly double all your points!
I also had no DEX, SPD, Def! limits till I found this 1 page, buried in the book!, also w/ Max Skill Rolls (Major 4th ed. Broken Rules!).Full Life Support and Immortality please!

[Mr Reasonable]

I am inclined to wonder why ECs cannot have powers that do not inherently cost END too, given that the decision to charge END is somewhat arbitrary anyway; I'm not really discerning a pattern. I can't, for instance, have Aid in my fire EC to allow me to increase an existing fire, but I can have an EB or RKA that creates one.

In any event it is an injunction that is easy enough to get around; 'costs END to activate': I have damage reduction that costs END to activate to simulate me having a rubber body that I, for some reason, have to switch on. It makes the power visible and non-persistent, but in superhero games - where ECs are most often used - it will be obvious you've got massive defences after the first time you are hit andway.

I think the problem that some people have with the rule, myself occasionally included, is that it doesn't really make sense in some situations. I could see a lot more sense to it if all powers in an EC had to be visible in use and share the same sfx; the real disadvantage of an EC to me is that, once it becomes obvious to an opponent that your powers all come from a single source, they can hit you with a devastating drain, or work out some appropriate tactic; fire powers should, presumably, be dampened by an attack based on vacuum, or water.

The rule is there, I think, to try and balance the usefulness of ECs - but to my mind if an EC is taken because it is in-concept, rather than because it is a cheap way to get a powerful character, then balance should be very much a background issue, because a properly thought through concept should create a high degree of balance anyway.

To the original issue here, Fitzerific is concerned that you can't build an armoured hero with an EC containing life support, armour and characteristics. If I was running a game then i'd have no real problem with that, so long as the player could explain why it is that there things are linked (in the non-Hero sense), and draining one drains the rest. It doesn't make much sense to me that an armoured suit, for example, could have its armour drained in the same way as its strength, and draining LS is always problematic: if I have 45 points in LS and 15 points are drained does that have no effect (until all the points are gone) or have I lost my self contained breathing and immunity to heat, cold and high pressure?

The way I visualise an EC is that it is a single power that has a lot of different uses. A lot of 'brick' concepts simply don't fit for me, and a lot of power armour concepts just seem daft in context, but some do work, and I can't see any good reason why the controlling factor should be END use.

Of course that is my own take on ECs and how I like to play them and see them played, but it does pick up on, what to me is the single most important thing about ECs - the powers in an EC have to be related by common special effects. This might explain some of the logic of the rule - all powers in an EC have to have sfx - and therefore have to be visible - but it still does not explain the requirement to cost END.

Of course Hero sfx require a visual component, and I can see why that is often important for ECs - if your powers were not obvious then it might be hard for an opponent to work out that they are in an EC and so you get additional utility from it. I can see that. It seems perfectly reasonable.

[Comic]

Mr. Reasonable posits a perfectly plausible question, though I have to quibble with the assumptions.

The decision to charge END is only slightly arbitrary, and for the most part is fairly even-handed, following comic-book superhero logic.

The fact that Comic logic is largely arbitrary may be what introduces the problem? ;)

For the most part, where the rule matters, it makes more sense than not having it.

Where the rule doesn't matter, for campaign reasons, GM's freely drop it. Issue resolved, to my mind.

[Vurbal]

I guess it really comes down to what is the purpose of an Elemental Control. Is it intended to reward more "cohesive" character concepts regardless of the powers involved, or is it intended to reward more "cohesive" character concepts within certain bounds?

If the latter, what are those bounds and what are the reasons for them?
As written in 5th Ed I don't think they're either. In 5th Ed I see them more like multiple aspects of a single "power." I don't mean Power in the game sense, but rather in conceptually. For example, the ability to create and manipulate fire would be a single power conceptually, but with multiple aspects that are written up as individual game Powers. It makes sense that all your fire manipulation powers would be affected simultaneously by adjustment powers since they're only separate in terms of game write up.

I prefer this to previous editions where it had no mechanical purpose and was, as most people seem to agree, pretty much pure cheese. At the same time, based on that reasoning it doesn't make sense to disallow natively 0 END powers as long as all the game Powers make one conceptual power. If there are balance reasons for a particular Power to be disallowed by a GM that should be decided on a case by case basis.

Another option would be cutting the EC bonus in half before being applying it to 0 END Powers, regardless of whether they start out that way or not.

[Southern Cross]

Of course ,a GM could just state that "Powers that are innately Always On may not be placed in Power Frameworks" instead.

[Egyptoid]

In general, I kind of agree with the restriction of not placing
inherently 0 END powers in an EC (unless they've been bought with the
lim Costs END).

Ask yourself this: Since, conceptually, all powers within an EC are
"one power", does it make sense for a Drain hitting the character's EC
to also drain his Life Support? If so, why?

a buddy of mine wrote that


plus there is some useful discussion here: END (http://www.herogames.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-41941.html)

[Southern Cross]

Well,if your Life Support is due to your personal Force Field,then draining the Force Field would logically weaken your Life Support.

[Kdansky]

ECs are a point savings for having a good, coherent concept. But they have limitations to prevent just anybody from getting that savings (and thus the potential imbalance)

With a reduced cost of powers, a character can buy more powers (or bigger ones). With a reduced cost, the main (IMO) limiting factor of the powers in an EC is the Endurance they Cost. Yeah, all your powers may be half-cost (barring the EC pool itself), but can the character pay 48 END a Phase?

Allowing natively Zero-END powers in there destroys one of the main limiting factors to abuse (the END Cost). The reason why END-costing powers can be placed in an EC even when bought down to Zero END is that the extra cost of making it Zero END eats up much of the savings that the EC would give, thus limiting the abuse (though it's still possible).

Also, to have an EC, you have to explain why when one of the powers is Drained/Suppressed, they *all* are.

Remember, EC's are a reward, not a right. See the quote in my sig, also.

I try to not flame you, but I disagree on roughly every word ;)

ECs do *not* promote a good concept. They promote a shallow concept where any power is somehow justified by one single SFX. I never understood why Firewoman (from Spiderman tv shows) could fly. Even when I was 6 years old I didn't see why "fire" makes one fly. Certainly didn't work with matches. So yeah, you can call that "Good", if you like, but that's horribly subjective. The rules should not do that. I mean: We all agree that a Multipower gives *some* limitations for *some* points. We can disagree on how much that is worth for how much, but we will not disagree that there is a fundamental limitation involved, namely the inability to use two powers at the same time. With EC? Zero Limitation (except for the Drained thing).

END cost in ECs. It is completely and utterly arbitrary. I can put Force Field inside the EC. I cannot do so with Armor. I can put Healing in there. But not Aid. Shapeshift is fine. Multiform is not. Force field with +1/2 zero End is fine. Armor with -1/2 Costs End is fine too. Honestly: WTF?! None of this makes sense.

Try Unified Power (-1/4) instead. Slap it on all powers you deem "they are basically one thing, and if one gets drained/shut off, they all are affected". Makes great sense for mentalists or magicians. And if the Brick wants to slap it onto his STR, please, be my guest. After all, if you have "mutant supermuscles", then draining your strength might affect your 15/15 Steelskin (Armor), 20" Huge Jump (Leaping) and WhatDoIKnow (WhatDoIKnow) too.

[Tech]

I guess you could say it that way. The truth is that I have no problem with munchkinism if it will help make the character more interesting, opposed to walking mounds of "I win, you loose".

I agree with you. I have seen some exceedingly complex character creations (I needed a calculator to try to figure out the real cost of the powers), along with some odd EC's. However, the character was very interesting and it worked. I generally create complex characters myself - but you don't need a calculator. :)

[Hyper-Man]

I try to not flame you, but I disagree on roughly every word ;)

I never understood why Firewoman (from Spiderman tv shows) could fly. Even when I was 6 years old I didn't see why "fire" makes one fly. Certainly didn't work with matches.

..

Thanks for the laugh this morning. :D

You just proved why Human Torch and just about every other energy projector in comics can't fly. This makes no sense in the context of the source material (comics)

To echo SteveZilla let me state that the discount provided by the use of Elemental Controls is intended to do everything he stated. Whether or not it is the best approach to do that is certainly debatable but the EC mechanics are internally consistent.

The END cost issue is really a reflection of the meta-grouping (or lack thereof) for certain powers that duplicate base mechanics.

example:
Armor, Force Field and Damage Resistance are all essentially aspects of the same ability.

20 Force Field (10 PD/10 ED) 2

30 Armor (10 PD/10 ED)

40 It's really Armor!: Force Field (10 PD/10 ED), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Invisible Power Effects, SFX Only (Fully Invisible; +1/2) (40 Active Points)

20 It's really Force Field: Armor (10 PD/10 ED) (30 Active Points); Costs Endurance (-1/2) 3
Notes: Per the rules by costing END it also becomes a VISIBLE power by default.

There is nothing in the rules that state that a 'powered armor' character must use a specific defense power. OIF or OIHID could be applied to any of them (Armor, Damage Resistance or Force Field) with equal ease.

The same sort of breakdown can be made for comparing a No Range RKA and a HKA.

I think the confusion and resulting arguments stem from people assigning sfx value to the names of Powers in HERO.

[Comic]

Hrm.

I'm not sure I reason the way most do.

For me, first there is the excellent concept that _doesn't_ fit the mechanics of Champions well. "I want to control weather," or "I want to generate energy that I can manipulate to do things like lift me up or hit my enemies or block attacks, or even hold bubbles of air around me," are fairly standard genre concepts for superhumans... they're bloatedly expensive, and not always more combat effective, in Champions mechanics.

For me, the EC is the reward for the concept that is well-suited to the comic genre to lay off the overhead cost of the mechanics. The discount isn't what I hope to use to build more efficient combat monsters, but to allow into the mix of superpowered beings more of those beings who belong in the genre than the cost of powers allows, while still being balanced and fair.

For this reason, the restrictions on what can go into an EC ought be focused on maintaining that goal of fair, balanced genre concepts which otherwise would be more costly than the benefit they convey.

The rules about costing END and EC's manage to bring this framework closer to the goal overall, in my experience.

The most unbalanced combat monsters without obviously better genre concept, at least of the three or four thousand characters I've seen, all had used EC frameworks while ignoring the no-END rule. I don't believe the characters added to the games in ways that couldn't have been better achieved with the rules observed (though I haven't played games much with very many characters like this, as people tend to lose interest and drift away from them).

For me most, but not all, EC's would represent uni-powers (powers where the entire effect does more than one mechanic); some powers that are sometimes one mechanic, and sometimes another, could still be qualified EC's (eg: weather powers).

[Tech]

Thanks for the laugh this morning. :D

You just proved why Human Torch and just about every other energy projector in comics can't fly. This makes no sense in the context of the source material (comics)

The original Human Torch could fly because he became lighter than air. As for why other energy projectors can fly, I can think of good reasons they can within the comic context.

[Pattern Ghost]

The "Firewoman" on the Spidey cartoon was Firestar, and her power was microwave generation.

I can only guess she used an aluminum costume to generate the flames. =P

[SteveZilla]

Perhaps she heated the air around her into a plasma?

[JmOz]

The "Firewoman" on the Spidey cartoon was Firestar, and her power was microwave generation.

I can only guess she used an aluminum costume to generate the flames. =P

Correct on Firestar, but the powers did not become microwaves until she was ported to the comics, before then it was heat/fire generation, or in otherwords, the cartoon had fire/heat powers, while the comic character based n the cartoon character had microwave powers

[Egyptoid]

15 Helpful Witcheries: Elemental Control,
30-point powers
15 1) Shield Of Sorcery: Force Field
(10 PD/10 ED), Reduced Endurance
(0 END; +½)

she...

[SteveZilla]

:confused:

[Paragon]

ECs have an odd history; the very first version of them were, effectively, package deals for a very limited set of powers (specifically the four elements and weather control); during the development of Champions, the idea was generalized, but still was essentially a package deal bonus. Given that 5th edition no longer recognizes the idea of package deal bonuses as being valid, I'm not sure the EC any longer makes any sense.

[Kdansky]

ECs have an odd history; the very first version of them were, effectively, package deals for a very limited set of powers (specifically the four elements and weather control); during the development of Champions, the idea was generalized, but still was essentially a package deal bonus. Given that 5th edition no longer recognizes the idea of package deal bonuses as being valid, I'm not sure the EC any longer makes any sense.

This guy speaks the truth! And I can't rep him! Because I have to Spread it! More!

(shoots with n-3 d6 at four targets)

[Comic]

ECs have an odd history; the very first version of them were, effectively, package deals for a very limited set of powers (specifically the four elements and weather control); during the development of Champions, the idea was generalized, but still was essentially a package deal bonus. Given that 5th edition no longer recognizes the idea of package deal bonuses as being valid, I'm not sure the EC any longer makes any sense.

I'm not entirely sure my memory is working as well as it ought.

EC's came from 1st Edition, no?.. weren't Package Deals adopted from some (albeit brilliant) offshoot and not mentioned in core books until 3rd?

I recall weather control as an example of an EC that wasn't a unipower, and of course a lot of the classic elements were natural fits for EC's.. but didn't the published core book specifically say something to the effect that EC's weren't limited to Elements?

I'm very confused.

I am!

[Pattern Ghost]

Hmm, didn't Superworld or Villains and Vigilantes have a construct like that? I seem to remember a big chart listing the different element types, with powers for each. But I don't think it was Champs that I saw it in, since I didn't own Champs until 4th Edition (had bummed GMs books prior).

[SteveZilla]

I'm not entirely sure my memory is working as well as it ought.

EC's came from 1st Edition, no?.. weren't Package Deals adopted from some (albeit brilliant) offshoot and not mentioned in core books until 3rd?

I recall weather control as an example of an EC that wasn't a unipower, and of course a lot of the classic elements were natural fits for EC's.. but didn't the published core book specifically say something to the effect that EC's weren't limited to Elements?

I'm very confused.

I am!

I started playing after 3rd Edition had came out. Our group only had the three stapled books (1st, 2nd, and 3rd "editions", IIRC). My very first character had a Multipower and an Elemental Control, and wasn't based upon one of the classic elements.


He was based upon the *negation* of all elements. :eg:

[Paragon]

I'm not entirely sure my memory is working as well as it ought.

EC's came from 1st Edition, no?.. weren't Package Deals adopted from some (albeit brilliant) offshoot and not mentioned in core books until 3rd?



Notice my phrasing "effectively package deals"; the package deals for skills didn't come out until after this, because honestly, 1e didn't emphasize skills much at all (neither did 2e to be frank); it showed up in Espionage if I'm recalling correctly.

But ECs were still essentially package discounts for power sets that "went together". The concept was pretty much the same.




I recall weather control as an example of an EC that wasn't a unipower, and of course a lot of the classic elements were natural fits for EC's.. but didn't the published core book specifically say something to the effect that EC's weren't limited to Elements?

I'm very confused.

I am!

The four-elements-and-weather-control examples predated the published material; in fact they predated Champions proper, but they were still the genesis of the published EC. I should know, because I created them (along with the prototype multipower, though originally multi slot and ultra slot multipowers were entirely separate constructs).

[Paragon]

Hmm, didn't Superworld or Villains and Vigilantes have a construct like that? I seem to remember a big chart listing the different element types, with powers for each. But I don't think it was Champs that I saw it in, since I didn't own Champs until 4th Edition (had bummed GMs books prior).

Well, Superworld was essentially a hybrid of Champions and V&V run through the Basic Roleplaying system, so you may well be thinking of both.

[Egyptoid]

well here's a thought, if you use Hero-Designer

Make a List.

Put all the powers of a given concept or source in said List.

Put a custom Limitation on said List, call it "Package Deal", "Elemental",

Core Concept, or whatever pleases you.

Then all powers on the List will be reduced in price a set amount,
and the Limitation can represent whatever links the powers together,
whether it be physics, magic, SFX, mutations, etc.

here's a an Example:
BAT POWERS (Genetic -1/4)
15 : Active Sonar (Hearing Group), Increased Arc Of Perception (360 Degrees)
30 : Flight 20", Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (60 Active Points); OIF Foulabel Wings (-1/2)
3 : Fur Hide: Damage Resistance (5 PD/5 ED)

Ta-Da! everything costs a little less, its all thematic, and the SFX are linked if you need to Drain, etc. And it must be legal since Hero Disigner Lets you do it !

[SteveZilla]

And it must be legal since Hero Disigner Lets you do it !

This is not correct. As Steve Long has said many times (IIRC), HD is not the rulebook -- or words to that effect.

Or was that sarcasm/humor? ;)

[archermoo]

This is not correct. As Steve Long has said many times (IIRC), HD is not the rulebook -- or words to that effect.

Or was that sarcasm/humor? ;)

Not that I'm aware of. HD does a really good job of enforcing the rules, but just because HD allows something doesn't necessarily mean that it is by the book valid.

[JmOz]

To point: Remember that even the rule book is not the final word on the rules, that is the GM.

Now I think egyptoid is talking a house rule/idea for 6th edition

as for HD, there are a few things (I know 1 off the top of my head) it does not do right (or at least in 2nd edition, don't know about 3 rd)

[archermoo]

as for HD, there are a few things (I know 1 off the top of my head) it does not do right (or at least in 2nd edition, don't know about 3 rd)

And that/those would be?

[JmOz]

And that/those would be?

AVLD options costing +3/4 of the top of my head, based on version 2.42

[archermoo]

AVLD options costing +3/4 of the top of my head, based on version 2.42

I presume you mean not having the vs. Exotic Defenses category of AVLD available? I don't know that that really qualifies as it "not doing things right" so much as just not having an option available. I thought you were talking about ways in which it implements the rules improperly.

[DrunkonDUty]

Well thanks to all for the interesting discussion. I have learnt a lot. Have only recently got 5th ed and am only having my first detailed read through it now. So it was with much interest that I read the above. Heck, I never knew that about EC's in 4th ed either.

Of course now I have to re-do some of the practice characters I've spent the last few days doing. <sigh>

[shentino]

My two cents.

The only change I would make to an EC is to make it function somewhat like multiform, in that you pay a base cost based on half of the most expensive power in the EC, yet still charge the other half of each power. So if you have a 30 AP power with a 40 AP power in the same EC, you pay 20 points base cost, 15 points AP for the weak power, and 20 AP for the strong power. An EC may have some "tipsies" based on unequality, or worse, a future rule change that changes the AP cost of a component of an EC that is currently compliant with rules.

As far as EC's are concerened, I view them as a cohesive unit that is bound together in a unit. Take Spyro for instance. His many breaths are good, but I find it plain silly to require them to all have the same AP cost just because an EC says so. THe player may legitimately wish to have a weaker secondary weapon, such as water breath (which is relatively harmless and doesn't cause damage) versus a lighting bomb (seeker missile).

Themes like this almost require AP differences. The base cost seems to cover the EC-ness of the group of powers, and binds them together.

As far as I'm concerned, an EC is a single power that just happens to have more than one possible effect. Which is why the cost savings and neat packaging are probably offset by the "one for all and all for one" nature of drains affecting the entire EC rather than just a single slot in said EC.

I've never GM'ed in practice, but I find flexibility in my interpretation of "GM prerogative".

As far as END costs, you are allowed to use a power that costs END, even if it has the "No END" advantage. Perhaps native (aka, base) powers that don't cost END are also inappropriate for inclusion into an EC to begin with, advantages and limitatiosn that affect END usage to the contrary not withstanding.

[Paragon]

As far as I'm concerned, an EC is a single power that just happens to have more than one possible effect. Which is why the cost savings and neat packaging are probably offset by the "one for all and all for one" nature of drains affecting the entire EC rather than just a single slot in said EC.



This only works if you run into a lot of Drains targeted at powers; otherwise its an occasional extra problem (that may not even come up in those cases depending on how the Drain is built) offset by a constant benefit.

[SteveZilla]

This isn't exactly on thread-topic, but the discussion seems to have evolved to encompass ECs (or the -1/4 Limitation that some would use to replace them), and negative Adjustment Powers. To balance the utility of ECs/Limitations and negative Adjustment Powers bought to affect multiple powers simultaneously, I would propose the following:

All powers that are "linked" by being in an EC/having the Limitation that are not directly targeted by the Adjustment Power are reduced by 1/2 effect. Only those powers directly targeted are affected at full value. No "doubling" of effect any more because it's an EC. The usual halving of effect vs Defensive Powers still would apply.

IMO this returns Adjustment Powers vs builds with ECs/Limitations to a more balanced perspective and less of a "one shot wonder power", and provides incentive to purchase the expanded effect on the Adjustment Power.