Elemental Controls

[Snarf]

I'm trying to start a campaign which uses a lot of Elemental Controls and I was wondering what more experienced Hero players thought of them.

Why do ECs require things placed in them to cost endurance and under what conditions would you make an expception to this requirement?

How do you handle defensive powers? It seems like if you bought a big EC, you would be forced to buy unusually high amounts of defense to meet the cost minimums. In a campaign where most powers are bought through elemental controls, nobody would be able to affect anybody.

How do you handle characteristics placed in an EC? Do you normally just avoid this? Do you take No Figured Characteristics? Do you ignore the normal super-heroic characteristic limit of 40?

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Snarf
I'm trying to start a campaign which uses a lot of Elemental Controls and I was wondering what more experienced Hero players thought of them.

Why do ECs require things placed in them to cost endurance and under what conditions would you make an expception to this requirement?


At a guess, I'd say that it's to prevent characters from placing all of their stats in an EC:Superhuman Physiology. Could be more than a bit unballancing, even if it did make them incredibly vulnerable to power drains. Also, you could get double the Flash Def, Power Def, and Mental Def by building a special defences EC. Some GMs won't mind, but again it looks unballanced to me.

I don't think I would make an exception per-se, but I would let a construction like Total Life Support / Mental Def / Power Def / Whatever + Costs End be placed in an EC.


Originally posted by Snarf

How do you handle defensive powers? It seems like if you bought a big EC, you would be forced to buy unusually high amounts of defense to meet the cost minimums. In a campaign where most powers are bought through elemental controls, nobody would be able to affect anybody.


Correct. So don't allow it. If you do, make them take the Costs End limitation, which means that their super defenses have to be turned on, can't be kept on all the time, shut down when they're stunned, etc. Of course they could buy 0 End Persistant, but then that would just use up the points they thought they were saving in the first place.


Originally posted by Snarf

How do you handle characteristics placed in an EC? Do you normally just avoid this? Do you take No Figured Characteristics? Do you ignore the normal super-heroic characteristic limit of 40?

I don't normally permit it; if I did, I'd require the player to take Costs End and No Figured Characteristics.

[Blue]

The only time I let a 0 END power in an EC is if it is something linked to a power that uses END (and the player can justify it being in an EC), or if the power itself is so small or inconsequential that I just waive the rule.

[Snarf]

I notice there's a 20 PD, 15 ED, 0 END force field in the 5'th Edition EC examples of all places. The cost came out to 27 points.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Snarf
I notice there's a 20 PD, 15 ED, 0 END force field in the 5'th Edition EC examples of all places. The cost came out to 27 points.

Different issue. Unless I'm majorly spacing on the rules, powers bought to 0 End in ECs are fine. It's inherently 0 End powers (LS, Power Def, Mental Def, etc.) and Characteristics that shouldn't be placed in ECs. A FF allows you to place defences in your EC, even if you buty the force field down to 0 End.

[Snarf]

The only difference between that force field and armor is that it's not persistent. Do you think a lack of persistance is the most important requirement?

[Blue]

Assuming they built hero designer correctly, I can go there and build a power, take it down to 0 END, and it accepts it without a warning message, whereas you get the warning message when you try to put something into an EC that is inherently 0 END. [shrug]

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Snarf
The only difference between that force field and armor is that it's not persistent. Do you think a lack of persistance is the most important requirement?

Probably yes. That said, I'd still require No Figured Characteristics if someone wanted to buy Non-Persistant characteristics in their EC, and if they decided that they wanted non-persistant Armor in an EC I'd ask them to take a FF; they're looking for a double dip point break from both the non-persistant limit on the Armor and the discount from the EC.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat
Probably yes. That said, I'd still require No Figured Characteristics if someone wanted to buy Non-Persistant characteristics in their EC, and if they decided that they wanted non-persistant Armor in an EC I'd ask them to take a FF; they're looking for a double dip point break from both the non-persistant limit on the Armor and the discount from the EC.

If the SFX justify it, I'd permit armor in an AC. +10/+10 Force Field 0 End is the same cost, so there's no real cost break. If he wants to add Persistent, he has to add Always On first, so the force field winds up cheaper than armor anyway.

Technically, if I buy my Armor (or any other defense) "costs End only to activate", it's legal in the EC.

Personally, I don't see the huge abuse that requiring all EC powers to cost END is preventing. I can have an Aid, for example, in my EC if I make it cost END. I can have an EB reduced to 0 END. So why force the Aid to cost END?

As for the DEF/Attack quandry, my experience is that players generally take the EC to the lower total (eg. their defenses and movement power) and spend extra for an attack power, if they have an attack power in the EC at all. Far more common is an EC with no attack powers and a multipower for attacks if the player wants some versatlity. Multiple attack powers in an EC are not cost effective.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Personally, I don't see the huge abuse that requiring all EC powers to cost END is preventing.


If we're ever in the same campaign I'll be sure to put all of my characteristics, power defense, mental defense, flash defense, life support, damage reductions, and an enhanced sense or two in an EC then. I could use the extra 200 points or so. ;)

As to the Persistant requires Always On thing, Steve Long recently mentioned that that may be dropped; certainly there are examples of it not being applied in examples given in FREd and published characters. Regeneration comes to mind (FRED p.120). Even if you did permit the Always On to be applied to the FF, you'd need to ask how exactly that was actually causing trouble for the character. A limit that doesn't cause problems is worth no points.

[Snarf]

On a related topic, do you follow the 5'th edition recommended defense caps? If I allowed 60 APs worth of Force Field, that would be 30 resistant PD and ED.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Snarf
On a related topic, do you follow the 5'th edition recommended defense caps? If I allowed 60 APs worth of Force Field, that would be 30 resistant PD and ED.

I don't, but your campaign your rules. I can see why it's there; keeping characters vulnerable speeds combat. OTOH there are a few reasonable character concepts that are more complicated to put together under a 60 AP limit on defenses.

[Snarf]

Oh, I'm not talking about the 60 AP limit. I'm talking about the far more restrictive 10 point resistant, 20 point non-resistant limit. The one that guarantees an attack will always draw blood :eek:

I think I'm just going to buy the control low most of the time, unless the EC powers are almost all attack powers.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Snarf
Oh, I'm not talking about the 60 AP limit. I'm talking about the far more restrictive 10 point resistant, 20 point non-resistant limit. The one that guarantees an attack will always draw blood :eek:

That? Blank it. :)

Besides, their own sample 350 point super-heroes ignore that. Check out the current Champions (Champions, p.181-192). 3 out of 5 have over 10 rPD.

[Kintara]

Personally, when it comes to defenses, I don't see abuse in allowing them to be bought to the AP limit. It's balanced because there is Power Defense, Flash Defense, Mental Defense, and nearly infinite NND Defenses. Not to mention that you can Drain or Suppress defenses, use Penetrating/Armor Piercing attacks, and Find Weaknesses.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat
If we're ever in the same campaign I'll be sure to put all of my characteristics, power defense, mental defense, flash defense, life support, damage reductions, and an enhanced sense or two in an EC then. I could use the extra 200 points or so. ;)

That abuse is much easier prevented - show me the tightly knit special effects that bind all these powers together. There's no such thing, for example, as "EC: Defenses".

It is also noteworthy that I may only buy these powers if "they take the limitation costs END or the GM permits it". So? I can't buy any power if the GM doesn't permit it. Just hang a stop sign over the construct and be done with it!

Enhanced senses, you say? Why, Steve's discussion on FREd 204 suggests an EC would commonly have a sensory power (but likely only one per EC). I wonder which ones he's referring to, since very few cost END.

By the way, Flash, Power and Mental Defense, as well as Enhanced Senses, are all Special Powers that require GM permission in any power construct (just like powers costing no END in an EC). Note that power, mental and flash defense could all be purchased as part of a force field, which also grants resistant defenses, so no need for damage resistance. Make it 0 END (and maybe always on) and you have your special defenses.

And forcing them all to cost END hardly seems the solution to this problem. So I make them cost END (maybe only to start up) and buy all my powers that would otherwise cost END to reduced/0 END to compensate. So Aid was legit if it cost END, but since it was changed to incorporate "0 END", it's no longer appropriate? Yet I can buy an EB and reduce it to 0 END. Maybe I should be allowed to buy Life Support Costs END, 0 END. It's a stupid construct, obviously.

A force field with multiple extra defenses tossed in also gets around another issue with EC's - if you put in powers that are very low cost, you eliminate the benefit on higher cost items. An EC with 10 points flash defense, a 75 point attack power and a couple of 50 point powers [extreme example] is horribly inefficient. Total cost 5 + 5 + 70 + 45 + 45 = 170 points. Take out the Flash Defense and buy it separately, and pay 25 + 50 + 25 +25 + 10 = 135 points. And no, you can't have a slot for "10 Mental Defense, 10 Power Defense, 10 Flash Defense, 10 Lack of Weakness and 10/10 Damage Resistance" to force it to cost 50 points.

No point putting multiple attacks in an EC either. Let's say you already have a 60 point power in your EC, and you want some attacks. Three attacks costs 90 points. A multipower with three Ultra attacks costs 78. Neither construct allows multiple power attacks (absent special GM permission - there's that "GM permits it" business again). You could mix & match if your multi uses regular slots, but that's 96 points (oooo...+6 to be allowed to mix & match - a +1/15 advantage!). Make it 5 attacks, and we get 150 in the EC, 90 in the multi or 120 in the multi with mix & match potential. And this ignores the fact the attack generally costs more than the other EC powers, so it generally does cost more than 50% its usual cost.

The EC works best for non-attack powers, or where the character will only have one or two attack powers (and some big related powers).

Funny you should mention life support, by the way. As a power costing as much as 50 points, it would be a nice one to get a point break on. Given its general utility as compared with, say, a 50 point attack power or a 50 point defensive power, it seems legit that you could get a point bvreak somewhere. Mind you, in my campaigns, players have generally purchased life support because they needed it for their character's conception, not sought out conceptions that justified life support. FTL travel is another, although it's less expensive.

Can EC's be abused? Sure. Is putting a power that costs no END in an EC usually abusive? I don't believe so. Can they be abused with powers that DO cost END? Sure. So why put this special restriction in place for EC's only?


As to the Persistant requires Always On thing, Steve Long recently mentioned that that may be dropped; certainly there are examples of it not being applied in examples given in FREd and published characters. Regeneration comes to mind (FRED p.120). Even if you did permit the Always On to be applied to the FF, you'd need to ask how exactly that was actually causing trouble for the character. A limit that doesn't cause problems is worth no points.

Regeneration - that would be a persistent power that doesn't cost END, wouldn't it? Sure, it's constructed from a power that normally costs END, but the net effect is that I have a power which, by its nature in the rule books, never costs END.

An always on force field is visible to three sense groups. So much for stealth - your crackly force field makes it very difficult to sneak up on people. Disguise yourselves to pass unnoticed? Sorry - you're down to the "trenchcoat and big hat" school of subtlety. And no, you don't get distinctive features for that, any more than anyone with a force field gets an "easily concealed" DF since he can shut it down. Hopefully, you also purchased Immune to Diseases - you're very difficult to innoculate with 15 Resistant PD you can't shut down. Secret ID? I think not! Just off the top of my head. Always On wouldn't be listed as a separate limitation if it didn't commonly cause problems to have powers it applies to unable to be shut down.

[Hugh Neilson]

Oh, I'm not talking about the 60 AP limit. I'm talking about the far more restrictive 10 point resistant, 20 point non-resistant limit. The one that guarantees an attack will always draw blood :eek:[/B]

ooo...how 4 color! :(

I must have missed that one - I've certainly never seen it applied. Oh, I see it - it's supposed to be an average, not a maximum. I've still never seen average resistant defenses fall that low in a supers campaign (including the standard Hero characters). It's probably good for a gritty, street level structure, or even a structure closer to four color, but where combat is more oriented to death of combatants. Like any other restriction, it depends on the tone and structure of the campaign.

6-14 average DC's...4d6 KA vs 10 rDef...not pretty!

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat
Besides, their own sample 350 point super-heroes ignore that. Check out the current Champions (Champions, p.181-192). 3 out of 5 have over 10 rPD.

Not looking at the book, but I bet they generally spend more than 60 AP on defenses as well. Especially if you consider Regeneration, DCV bonuses and DEX over some number to be "defensive powers".

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
That abuse is much easier prevented - show me the tightly knit special effects that bind all these powers together. There's no such thing, for example, as "EC: Defenses".


EC: Android Body, Golem Body, Demonic Physiology, etc. :)


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

It is also noteworthy that I may only buy these powers if "they take the limitation costs END or the GM permits it". So? I can't buy any power if the GM doesn't permit it. Just hang a stop sign over the construct and be done with it!


Good suggestion. Agreed. ;)


(SNIP Stuff that is either very obvious or that I don't particularly disagree with)


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

An always on force field is visible to three sense groups. So much for stealth - your crackly force field makes it very difficult to sneak up on people. Disguise yourselves to pass unnoticed? Sorry - you're down to the "trenchcoat and big hat" school of subtlety. And no, you don't get distinctive features for that, any more than anyone with a force field gets an "easily concealed" DF since he can shut it down. Hopefully, you also purchased Immune to Diseases - you're very difficult to innoculate with 15 Resistant PD you can't shut down. Secret ID? I think not! Just off the top of my head. Always On wouldn't be listed as a separate limitation if it didn't commonly cause problems to have powers it applies to unable to be shut down.

So in other words a 0 end persistant Always On Force field is more disadvantageous than Armor in an EC, and your original suggestion that it made no difference was incorrect.
:cool:

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat
EC: Android Body, Golem Body, Demonic Physiology, etc. :)

Refer to the FREd comments on "racial EC's". To me, all three of the above imply a racial abilities EC, so the most you could buy will be the minimum expected of all androids/golems/demons. So, unless ALL androids have 10 points flash defense, for example, it comes out of the EC. Personally, I don't associate "android" with "can't be blinded", so it doesn't fit.

"EC: Superhuman Powers" and "EC: Alien Powers" would seem as (in)valid, to me, as the constructs you list above. There does not seem to be a link which explains why a single drain would logically affect all of these powers at once. Turning that around, I would have to accept it is legitimate to pay +1/4 to Drain any one Android Power, or +2 to drain them all at once. If it's a common special effect for an EC, it must also be a common special effect for adjustment powers, right?

[ASIDE: Shouldn't all those powers pay for Inherent then? They should all be inherent, given they are standard abilities attributable to your physical form. I don't like Inherent much, and given the impact on the adjustment power rules for power frameworks, inherent powers clearly don't belong there. To light a further fire, don't we have Inherent running, and birds have Inherent flight? Aren't all our Characteristics Inherent?]


Originally posted by OddHat
So in other words a 0 end persistant Always On Force field is more disadvantageous than Armor in an EC, and your original suggestion that it made no difference was incorrect.
:cool:

Given most of us just look at having the DEF at all times, it's the same basic effect. It is probably more correct to say it makes no significant combat effect (although you will be affected by different NND's, and I think more use force field than armor as the defense).

Inside or outside an EC, the bigger question is why a force field costs more points for the same defenses/SFX combination. Armor (or PD/ED + Damage Resistance) is already persistent, and does not require visible special effects. Since it is persistent, arguably it comes with Always On built in (with the same problem it's hard to get an innoculation). Although many of us assume a visible SFX, armor is not inherently Visible unless it Costs END according to the FAQ.

An equivalent Force Field needs to be 0 END, persistent and Invisible to all sense groups. Although you get the always on point break, it's still more expensive.

10 DEF armor (or 10 resistant PD/ED): 15 points

10 DEF Force Field modified per above: 10 x 3/1.5 = 20 points. Why is a force field significantly more expensive for the same effects? Surely not for the sole reason that it can be placed in an elemental control! We don't have a special "costs more" energy blast so it can go in an EC? If only the powers that cost more can go in an EC, why not scrap both concepts?

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Refer to the FREd comments on "racial EC's". To me, all three of the above imply a racial abilities EC, so the most you could buy will be the minimum expected of all androids/golems/demons. So, unless ALL androids have 10 points flash defense, for example, it comes out of the EC. Personally, I don't associate "android" with "can't be blinded", so it doesn't fit.


In other words (and also including the snipped material), you'd make a personal call as a GM that such an EC would be abusive. Exactly right, and not much of a surprise as those were explicitly posted as examples of how ECs that permitted characteristics and powers that didn't cost end would be abused. :cool: Under your propossed house rules, any munchkin worth his salt would imediately come back with EC:Kryptonian, EC:Bio-Force FIeld, EC: I'm a Frickin' Munchkin, and any number of other constructs that would permit him to jam all of his characteristics and other currently forbidden items into an EC. Yes, you'd overule them, and yes, there will always be rules lawyers. So why not take the official approach and maintain a good solid ruling that such nonsense is forbidden from the beginning?

You started off claiming that this type of construct wasn't abusive. Now you admit that it is. Good for you. ;)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat
You started off claiming that this type of construct wasn't abusive. Now you admit that it is. Good for you. ;)

No, I started off saying that simply having powers which do not normally cost END prohibited from being in an EC is excessive. In the right case, I could see any of characteristics, unusual defenses, life support, Aid or enhanced senses fitting the special effects of an EC.

I do not see "Characteristics" or "Defenses" (however you sugar coat it) being a valid EC.

However, a Light Powers EC could appropriately have Flash Defense. Perhaps a Darkness EC could as well (block the flash w/ darkness). It would not logically provide power defense or mental defense.

A heat EC might logically hold Infrared Vision (though I can't see the point setting the base of an EC so low).

Many EC's might reasonably hold an Enhanced Sense - Steve alludes to this when he notes a typical EC might have a sensory power.

A Speedster's EC may well appropriately include enhanced Speed and/or Dex (DEX gets expensive, since characteristics in a power construct generally provide no figured). Many might properly include Damage Reduction against their special effect, and/or an opposing special effect.

Is it improper for Spider-Man's Spider Powers EC to include his "spider sense"? Maybe - you may think it's a strech for spider powers. But it should not be disallowed solely because Danger Sense costs no END (or because it may be a special power; I don't recall if it is).

Are these powers truly so overpowered that they should not qualify for the point breaks available to other powers? If they are, maybe their pricing overall should be fixed. I don't believe they are.

[Farkling]

Ah....Frameworks...the best Munchkin territory in HERO.

<shrugs> Here's my personal rules for the accepted EC's::

1) If you want to put a "Natural No END power" or Characteristics or Funky Defenses in an EC, they cost endurance. No limitation given, and no argument. You may buy reduced END normally, and even make them persistant. Most munchkins realize quickly that this defeats their original point trimming purposes. The additional "activation" necessary for the 0 END powers is a neat effect as far as I'm concerned. A "charging up" or "concentration" of minimal combat effect. This has been occasionally been waived in favor of "natural powers" with heftier limitations.

2) They also do NOT boost figured characteristics. You may put those in the EC also however... :)

3) Most of the munchkins have instead opted for Steve's published "affected by drains/suppresses as EC powers" limitation. I think that I have allowed that at a 1/2 level for running both ways... (In the FAQ? On the board? It's on the house rules list in my book, but the book isn't here...)

TI've tinkered with his rule in action, and actually seems to work pretty well.

MPower Characteristics are already not allowed to add to figured CHAR's and usually require a limitation of some sorts in my design picture. Depends on the character explanation.

[JmOz]

Did I miss a ruling? Just because a power is persistent it should not be Always on (same goes for inherent BTW)

[Farkling]

Right. It's there in the details on page 69. A power that costs END may be bought to 0 END, and then you can buy persistant. If it is persistant, it will stay on even if you are KO'd.... I got some strange looks from a Champs 4 hero group when they blasted the mentalist Clinging to the wall with a large EB, and he passed out but didn't fall. Persistant Clinging...molecular bonding plates. The same trick works with flight. FREd ground shooter blew the villain further up and away, and was shocked when the villain sort of "floated" there, drifting Earthwards. The villain woke up before our hero could find a position to shoot from again. And flew away. :)

Persistant Force Fields and Damage Shields have interesting effects also...persistant Damage Shields simulate "lava forms" or "energy cocoons" that need to be established, yet can be repressed.

Let me clarify my EC position...My house rule is that anythings in an EC automatically costs END...there is no limitation. You may buy these powers to 0 END and persistant. Which defeats the purposes of the munchkin, but the concept people see to-may-toes and toe-ma-toes.

On the subject of misc oddball defenses (Mental/Power/Flash), your special effects and justification for scores over 20 need to be bloody good in an EC. Concept people...no problem. Munchkins prefer to gnash their teeth at my "changeing the rules"

Good Gaming.

[Tech]

It's interesting reading, I'll say. I have my own houserule version of EC that I use. It's not 5th ed EC but it works.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

Let me clarify my EC position...My house rule is that anythings in an EC automatically costs END...there is no limitation. You may buy these powers to 0 END and persistant. Which defeats the purposes of the munchkin, but the concept people see to-may-toes and toe-ma-toes.

Well, it makes full (50 base) Life Support worth 100 points, or 67 if you accept that "always on" is a limitation (not sure why you would for life support...). If your EC already has 100 point powers in it, you pay the same for life support inside or outside. I think I'd take it outside and avoid the extra impact of drains.

Essentially, this comes back to just another way to make the cost higher if it goes in an EC. My question is, if Life Support is worth 50 points and 10d6 Energy Blast is worth 50 points, why is it OK to reduce the cost of Energy Blast by having it in an EC, but not OK to reduce the cost of Life Support? Is EB overpriced, or life support underpriced, to justify this differing treatment? If so, change the price. If not, why is it (and other o END powers) singled out for special treatment in this regard?


Originally posted by Farkling
On the subject of misc oddball defenses (Mental/Power/Flash), your special effects and justification for scores over 20 need to be bloody good in an EC. Concept people...no problem. Munchkins prefer to gnash their teeth at my "changeing the rules"

On the one hand, I'm inclined to agree that justification for 20+ points in any of those defenses needs to be pretty good, EC or not. On the other hand, if you want to waste ANOTHER 20 points on flash defense, who am I to tell you "no"? When's the last time you saw a 20 BOD flash attack anyway? There's always AVLD, but a 6d6 (75 AB) AVLD will be getting 1 stun a shot on someone with 20 flash defense. Personally, I'll pay 10 points for Flash Defense outside my EC. I don't need 50 points' flash defense, my 50 point EX doesn't support any less and I'm not spending 15 more points for DEF I'll never use.

Power and Mental defenses have a bit more value at the high end, of course. I can't think of many valid special effects for power defense in an EC. Mental defense for mental powers makes sense, I suppose, but again not many other effects. There's always the "Android Body" effect, but that's a racial EC to me, and I have to accept all androids have that much power defense or I won't allow it in the EC.

I don't often see EC's small enough that 10 or 20 point powers fit effectively anywa.

Maybe my players are especially reasonable, as they've never asked for an EC of this nature. Maybe I'm not aggressive enough since I've never tried to set one up for my character (thought about it once or twice...)

As for changing the rules, I believe we have the standard intro that the GM is the final arbitrator of what the rules are. In challenging my rules calls, the munchkins are breaking the rules anyway. :D Personally, if I depart from the rules, I'll tell people up front "Yep, I'm changing them". Generally, I think I'm pretty lenient, but then I also don't use canned characters "as written", and they get the same benefits the players do.

Something to remember - if you can have an "EC: Exotic Defenses", bet on a lot of your opponents having the same thing. Or having extra dice with some limit or other that gelds your excessive defenses, while not being worth using on the other opponents. Hey, I'll tell you once, maybe twice, if I think the ability (or character) is unreasonable. After that, it's not worth the hassle - I'll just make sure the opposition gets equalized in a manner that negates your unfair advantage withut punishing those who chose to heed the voice of reason.

[Farkling]

Hmm...I hadn't thought about the full Life Support package...ugh. I hate making exemptions. I guess I may have to re-examine my ruling. Where IS that copy of MetaCreator? :)

My logic is that a 6d6 Energy Blast at 0 END with Armor Piercing or Penetrating is usually less useful (game impacting) than the "free EC" break of 65 Mental Defense for the same pricing. So I artificially infalte the cost instead of just saying "nope, against the rules." Players are usually happy to come and say "I'd like Mental Defense in my EC, but this is a little more than my concept" I have compromise material ready. The limitation applied outside the EC, or being inside the EC with the character neding to cope with END expenditure.

Come to think of it, the Reserve using character thought it was neat that there was actually a "decision" as to how much Power Defense to have up out of the 40 points worth. The Power Defense backed up the opinion of "I'm a God...it is VERY difficult to Drain or Suppress a God's powers when he puts his mind overcoming adversity." It's a good schtick...our friendly God usually has 1-2 END of Powere Defense running.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling
My logic is that a 6d6 Energy Blast at 0 END with Armor Piercing or Penetrating is usually less useful (game impacting) than the "free EC" break of 65 Mental Defense for the same pricing. So I artificially infalte the cost instead of just saying "nope, against the rules."

It's a general hallmark of the system that defense costs less than attack. It just means you don't spend the same amount on defense as offense.

Try this: "I wouldn't let you have a 65 PD or a 65 ED. Why would you think I'll allow 65 Mental Defense?" Hey, if you can buy a 65 Mental Defense, why shouldn't other characters get to buy DEF 65 against YOUR attacks? That tends to result in a much more reasonable character rewrite.

[Mentor]

Originally posted by OddHat
Different issue. Unless I'm majorly spacing on the rules, powers bought to 0 End in ECs are fine. It's inherently 0 End powers (LS, Power Def, Mental Def, etc.) and Characteristics that shouldn't be placed in ECs. A FF allows you to place defences in your EC, even if you buty the force field down to 0 End. Armor and Damage Resistance are commonly used non END using powers players often request in ECs. Ultimately buying a Force Field down to 0 END costs the same but the concept must be reasonable as must the special effect. Armor and Damage Resistance then become expensive but don't go down when the PC is stunned. Too useful to allow in an EC 90% of the time.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Mentor
Armor and Damage Resistance are commonly used non END using powers players often request in ECs. Ultimately buying a Force Field down to 0 END costs the same but the concept must be reasonable as must the special effect. Armor and Damage Resistance then become expensive but don't go down when the PC is stunned. Too useful to allow in an EC 90% of the time.

This is the problem I have with the whole issue of certain powers not being allowed in an EC. If the power is "too cheap", why don't we make it more expensive for ALL characters, not just for those who have an EC it would reasonably fit in? :confused:

If Armor or Damage Resistance are "too useful to allow in an EC", but force field is not "too useful to allow in an EC", this seems to imply that Force Field is "too overpriced to buy outside an EC" and it would be better to buy armor. In other words, force field is overpriced (or armor is underpriced). Yet no one is suggesting we change the costs of the powers outside an EC, only prohibit the cost break in an EC.

Why is saving half the cost of a force field by including it in an EC not a problem, but saving half the cost of armor by having that power in an EC is unbalancing?

[Farkling]

I dunno. I picture EC's as being a cost break because of the the linked special effects...that's how it works in my head. In other words, everything is supposed to be a modification (modulation?) of the chosen form of energy expenditures. Weather witches, Iceman, Nuclearman, The Human Bomb... allowing powers that do NOT require inherent energy expenditure seems retro design concept to me. So I let people put what they please in an EC, and it costs END when it is put in there. They can proceed to buy it down, off, or persistant from there.

I also personally feel that EC's should allow for reasonably common or discernable flaws to exist in the powers. The force field fails with stunning or unconsciousness (unless appropriate prices are paid)...having powers in an EC that are inherently equal value with no flaws...that's doesn't work for me. The convoluted logic being that the character should at least be required to 'set up' the power to run by itself. Armor and Damage Resistance "always are" regardless. A persistant power though, must be turned on. I do not allow Inherent in EC's...as of yet. ( I may someday see a good reason)

However, Your Mileage May Vary.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling
I dunno. I picture EC's as being a cost break because of the the linked special effects...that's how it works in my head. In other words, everything is supposed to be a modification (modulation?) of the chosen form of energy expenditures. Weather witches, Iceman, Nuclearman, The Human Bomb... allowing powers that do NOT require inherent energy expenditure seems retro design concept to me. So I let people put what they please in an EC, and it costs END when it is put in there. They can proceed to buy it down, off, or persistant from there.

Funny...you list lots of good examples of EC's, but what I see is:

Weather Witches - Isn't missile defelection using the wind a logical power in that EC?

Iceman - say, doesn't he have Armor? Armor that doesn't melt on knockout, too?

Say, those are both illegal in an EC, aren't they?

Nuclearman - sorry, never heard of him.

Human Bomb - not sure he would have an EC (if we're both thinking of the Golden Age/Freedom Fighter character).

What about EC: Luck Powers? Well, you can have one, but you can't put Luck in it!

Healing is OK for your EC, but not Aid, by the way.

Something's wrong with this picture...


Originally posted by Farkling
I also personally feel that EC's should allow for reasonably common or discernable flaws to exist in the powers. The force field fails with stunning or unconsciousness (unless appropriate prices are paid)...having powers in an EC that are inherently equal value with no flaws...that's doesn't work for me. The convoluted logic being that the character should at least be required to 'set up' the power to run by itself. Armor and Damage Resistance "always are" regardless. A persistant power though, must be turned on. I do not allow Inherent in EC's...as of yet. ( I may someday see a good reason)

If a power has "no flaws", it should not cost the same as "an inherently equal value" power which does have flaws, should it?

[DevoDog]

Originally posted by Farkling
I dunno. I picture EC's as being a cost break because of the the linked special effects...that's how it works in my head. In other words, everything is supposed to be a modification (modulation?) of the chosen form of energy expenditures. Weather witches, Iceman, Nuclearman, The Human Bomb... allowing powers that do NOT require inherent energy expenditure seems retro design concept to me. So I let people put what they please in an EC, and it costs END when it is put in there. They can proceed to buy it down, off, or persistant from there.


I tend to agree with Farkling on this one.

I've been playing the Hero system since 1st Edition of Champions. Talk about changes in EC's since then!

I tend to be of the mind-set that an EC is a control of some type of energy. So, things like EC: Android Body might be allowed (since it's simply control over a character's internet electronic/mechanical systems), I would disallow EC: Vampire Power or EC: Kryptonian Powers.

I don't agree with the new ruling on adjustment powers affecting all powers in an EC. Adjustment powers already have an option to affect all powers of a certain SFX.

I'll have to give some more consideration to allowing powers that don't normally cost END in an EC. Someone made the point that Armor is basically Force Field with advantages (0 END, Persistent, and Invisible). If you go back to 1-3 edition of Champions, END costs were higher and reduced END costs were much more expensive. So, Armor wasn't simply the same as a FF with those advantages.

[Farkling]

Hmmm....you know, thinking back to first edition...perhaps this is just a holdover rule?

After all, much power rebalancing has happened. Does anyone on this thread have access to a large quantity of published characters? Do the stock characters from the Champions Universe violate the no END rule? This an interesting question to consider... Think of the abuse though, I can buy +20/+20 Armor in one slot, and then buy +20/+20 Force Field at 0 END on top of it. And I have NOT violated the campaign power limits, or the campaign defense limit. I can use them both. At once. If I can't, I get a FURTHER discount for the additional limitation... I'm invulnerable. :) Now you must crush me with the GM's Fiat. *sounds of engine starting in the distance*

As to the weather witch....we ddin't go with missile deflection, we bought DCV levels that cost END, to special effect the fact that she had to maintain that tornado around her. Rolling a block was too fine of control for her...her hurricane force wind attack was a VERY crude TK effect. The effect IN the EC was a seperate Force Field slot.

I've seen Iceman done with Armor and a Multipower. You can put Armor in a Multipower, thought the construction I saw had it outside. (Safety rule:: Never put movement, attack AND defense in a Multipower unless the reserve is far larger than campaign limits. Or your SPD is superb. Half Power attack/defense is not real effective). He pretty much has multiple cold attacks, runnning, and entangles. In light of the long discussion on Force Walls I got into, I would drop the force wall and just go with a barrier entangle as a seperate slot.

Nuclearman was a cheap shot. It's from an in-house storyline. He wanted a few lifesupport powers in his EC. He instead bought them linked to his force field. Under the FREd rules he'd probably add the 'similar powers' limitation also...he was kind of a munchkin at times... :)

The Human Bomb...yeah...it was the guy in the asbestos suit I was thinking of. The EC 'could' have an explosive attack with personal immunity, a BIG explosive attack dependent on his suit being destroyed (without personal immunity) and enough Regeneration to raise him from the dead afterwards...I think the cost break would be better on the seperate powers...why use an EC ??

Yes, regeneration can go in an EC, check the construction. It DOES cost END....it has simply been bought down to persistant.
(winces at posting this in public for the munchkins to see)

I am also against EC:: *Alien Race* Powers or EC:: *Monster* Powers. I'm the GM, I don't need Elemental Controls to justify the expenditures...and any character showing up with one of these needs to rethink his concept. I do allow "rider" limitations for effects like that...a block limitation for "vampiric powers" is more acceptable to me than an EC. The limitation makes the power vulnerable to the "Special Effect" modifier on the Power Atttacks. I also tend to shy away from EC:: Cybernetics. Again, I prefer a widely applied "cybernetic" or "restrainable" limitation instead (depending on the size of the "Shadowrun" feel I am searching for). It's personal taste and preference. I also only allow one Framework per character (in Supers level games)...and have yet to find a character with a justified exemption. (Though one of my PC's has a good oppurtunity for it)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling
Hmmm....you know, thinking back to first edition...perhaps this is just a holdover rule?

After all, much power rebalancing has happened. Does anyone on this thread have access to a large quantity of published characters? Do the stock characters from the Champions Universe violate the no END rule? This an interesting question to consider...

There has been a lot of rebalancing over the years. The "must cost END is a 5th Ed change, however - 4th uses a werewolf example with Damage Reduction. Frankly, I just don't see the abuvse.

I haven't looked at the CU characters, although Icicle in the example lost her armor in favour of a 0 END force field.


Originally posted by Farkling
Think of the abuse though, I can buy +20/+20 Armor in one slot, and then buy +20/+20 Force Field at 0 END on top of it. And I have NOT violated the campaign power limits, or the campaign defense limit. I can use them both. At once. If I can't, I get a FURTHER discount for the additional limitation... I'm invulnerable. :) Now you must crush me with the GM's Fiat. *sounds of engine starting in the distance*

It would violate MY campaign defense limits, as I look at total defenses. It would also violate my "common sense" limit. I wouldn;t allow it outside an EC either, however. If your conception and special effect justified both armor and force field, I would have no problem having them in the EC. But it's not going to take your overall defenses over my limits - if it will, you'll have to reduce them.


Originally posted by Farkling
As to the weather witch....we ddin't go with missile deflection, we bought DCV levels that cost END

Fair enough, and I would allow that as well. Note, however, that you are breaking a different rule now. Skills as a power are "special powers", which aren't allowed in ANY power framework without GM permission. As they aren't allowed in any framework, it follows they are ven more abusive than powers costing no END, which are only banned from EC's.


I've seen Iceman done with Armor and a Multipower. You can put Armor in a Multipower, thought the construction I saw had it outside. He pretty much has multiple cold attacks, runnning, and entangles. In light of the long discussion on Force Walls I got into, I would drop the force wall and just go with a barrier entangle as a seperate slot.

And that's a legit way to build him. Equally legit, however, would be an EC with Running, Armor and perhaps Force Wall, a change environment related to his ice powers or what have you. Attack powers are more effectively placed in an MP, especially with the rule that EC powers can't multiple power attack.


The Human Bomb...yeah...it was the guy in the asbestos suit I was thinking of. The EC 'could' have an explosive attack with personal immunity, a BIG explosive attack dependent on his suit being destroyed (without personal immunity) and enough Regeneration to raise him from the dead afterwards...I think the cost break would be better on the seperate powers...why use an EC ??

I built an homage once for a game I was running with a WWII time travel scenario. He got a hand attack (gloves on), an explosion w/ personal immunity and a big explosion w/ pers immun, and a number of limitations, if the suit was off. EC would have been extra-costly.


Yes, regeneration can go in an EC, check the construction. It DOES cost END....it has simply been bought down to persistant. (winces at posting this in public for the munchkins to see)

This just highlights the absurdity of the whole issue. If considered as a separate power (and it is - Healing has a cap on how much can be healed in a time period), Regeneration is ineligible because it costs no END. If it's considered an advantaged/limited Heal, now it can go in an EC. What if it had been built as an AID construct with an advantage "No fade of points up to character's base" and a limit " only to restore lost points"? Now it's ineligible again. But it's exactly the same power!


[i]Originally posted by Farkling
I am also against EC:: *Alien Race* Powers or EC:: *Monster* Powers. I'm the GM, I don't need Elemental Controls to justify the expenditures...and any character showing up with one of these needs to rethink his concept. I do allow "rider" limitations for effects like that...a block limitation for "vampiric powers" is more acceptable to me than an EC.

I can see the racial EC, with FREd's caveats, but I think the limitations are more appropriate. These are also "natural state" powers in many cases which should be inherent and, given the big drawback of an EC is the adjustment powers impact, it seems reasonable to ban Inherent powers from EC's anyway.

Besides, I really don't see the link between Multiform (3 animal forms), Desolid, Transform and Mind Control subject to range penalties. Just because they are traditional Vampire powers doesn't mean they should carry a cost break. Strength, Flight, EB and Damage Resistance (or Armor) are traditional Superman powers, and that shouldn't be an EC either!

"He's an alien" or "he's a werewolf" is how he got his powers, not a special effect. EC is about special effects.

[Farkling]

Clarification....the DCV levels were OUTSIDE the EC

And after that thread on Force Walls, and Steve's observations, I would definitely build the walls as an Entangle... force walls are definitely meant ot be enery constructs. Entangles can be tunneled....force walls cannot.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling
Clarification....the DCV levels were OUTSIDE the EC

Yet they were a perfectly valid power tightly linked to the character's special effects. Realistically, I would say they were an appropriate EC power. As such, I would waive the "no special powers" rule for that construct.

What I would not do is allow the character's DCV to be unbalancingly high. How high is that? Well, it depends - is it offset by other weaknesses? A 14 DCV might be allowable, but not for a character with 30 PD/30 ED resistant. Maybe I'd allow both if the character is below campaign norms in other respects (perhaps offensive capability is only 6 or 8 DC where the norm is 12-14 DC). It always depends - the system itself is a balancing act.


Originally posted by Farkling
And after that thread on Force Walls, and Steve's observations, I would definitely build the walls as an Entangle... force walls are definitely meant to be energy constructs. Entangles can be tunneled....force walls cannot.

I agree based on Steve's comments (forgot about those). Transform (air into ice) may be another approach - now we have an ability to create solid objects "out of thin air". That wasn't around when people were building earth ramparts as force walls in Champions supplements (Megan Pearce; The Circle)

[Farkling]

Here's my observation on the Transform...instead of transforming air, by buy the Transform as "ice" or "my entangles" as the valid target...Now you throw the entangle (which creates a large amount of ice by special effects) and morph it "on the fly" with your transform. RSR for the Transform, defined as Ice Powers skill. Heck, now you even have a BODY/Active Points Total to affect with the Entangle. Fooey on the air modifier and the air transform. :)

Of course, that is for the columns, artificial walls, igloos, etc that we construct with Ice Powers....

Freezing someone in a block of ice could be a Transform or an Entangle....Entangle mechanics seem better for a combat prison effect...

Now OUTSIDE of combat....4D6 Major Transform, target into "corpsicle", Transform reversed by being submerged in warm ocean water for a sufficient period... :D

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling
Here's my observation on the Transform...instead of transforming air, by buy the Transform as "ice" or "my entangles" as the valid target...Now you throw the entangle (which creates a large amount of ice by special effects) and morph it "on the fly" with your transform. RSR for the Transform, defined as Ice Powers skill. Heck, now you even have a BODY/Active Points Total to affect with the Entangle. Fooey on the air modifier and the air transform. :)

This will also work. The Transform should be less expensive (air to ice vs. ice to ice in different shapes), but you now need two phases, one to entangle and one to shape. They're both reasonable approaches, IMO. I'd require some kind of skill roll to Transform air to ice in a specific configuration, so that's a cost over and above the transform.


Originally posted by Farkling
Of course, that is for the columns, artificial walls, igloos, etc that we construct with Ice Powers....

Freezing someone in a block of ice could be a Transform or an Entangle....Entangle mechanics seem better for a combat prison effect...

That's what Entangle is for anyway. I might let you use a Major Transform (air into ice) to freeze a target in a solid block of ice, but I'd probably limit it to an Entangle effect of the same dice as the Transform, so you're looking at a weaker effect since Transform costs more. Better to take the Entangle and Transform both in a Multipower.


Originally posted by Farkling
Now OUTSIDE of combat....4D6 Major Transform, target into "corpsicle", Transform reversed by being submerged in warm ocean water for a sufficient period... :D

Transform - live creatureinto dead creature. RKA NND Does Body - frozen from the inside out. OUCH!