Elemental Controls

[Pteryx]

Is there anything that an Elemental Control can do that a Multipower can't do cheaper and with fewer restrictions and drawbacks? I'm not sure what the point of Elemental Controls is, mechanically... :( Could somebody please explain? -- Pteryx

[Fitz]

All of the powers within an Elemental Control can be used simultaneously, assuming the character can carry the END cost. That's not usually possible with a Multipower. It's functionally the same as buying all the powers straight -- that is, not having them in a framework at all. It's supposed to be means of giving a cost break for a well-conceived, internally logical character conception.

Personally, I seldom use them.

[McCoy]

What Fitz said.

Take the Human Torch. He has a Damage Shield, possibly a Force Field, Flight, and a RKA all united by a common special effect, fire. Classic Elemental conrol.

[Hugh Neilson]

Commonly, a player wanting a bunch of attack powers, only one of which will be used at a time, would take a multipower. It is, as you've noted, much cheaper.

An EC is used for powers that are all used at the same time. Let's say, for example, that I want to build a Human Torch clone. I could make a multipower for attack powers and an EC for other powers (in my campaign, anyway - some GM's don't like multiple frameworks as a rule). Let's assume I only want one attack.

So I might buy the following EC:

30 EC: Fire Powers
30 +24/+24 Force Field, 1/2 END
30 20" Flight, 0 END
30 12 d6 Energy Blast
30 4" Rad change environment, -5 PER IR vision, +/- 5 temperature levels (+1/4 to go either way) 1/2 END

Now I can heat up the area around me, fly, raise my force field and fire my EB all at the same time.

Say, instead, Sparky has a 60 point Multipower with several attacks, including his EB, and Change Environment. If he wants to use his EB, he has to shut off the Change Environment - that's the cost of saving all those points.

Sparky could buy a Multipower with some other attacks (an RKA, an AP blast, a Transform that melts metal, what have you) and use these with his EB as a multiple power attacl. For reasons I can't fathom, he can't use two attacks in the EC as a Multiple Power Attack.

[Mind you, looking at that rule, it's under the note "general rules and guidelines for using EC's" which GM's can modify as they see fit. With that OFFENSIVE "powers must cost END" rule.]

[McCoy]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
With that OFFENSIVE "powers must cost END" rule. Never have understood the logic behind that one. One of the design philosophies of Champions was that defenses cost half as much as attacks (would the real world worked like that). Now, for the most part, the powers that don't use END are Defenses and ehanced senses. That means that Elemental controls usually have movement and attack powers, bought at almost half price, while defenses are full price.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by McCoy
Never have understood the logic behind that one. One of the design philosophies of Champions was that defenses cost half as much as attacks (would the real world worked like that). Now, for the most part, the powers that don't use END are Defenses and ehanced senses. That means that Elemental controls usually have movement and attack powers, bought at almost half price, while defenses are full price.

Agreed. sigh And why is it that a Force Field costing 0 END is OK, but Armor is not? For that matter, why is Healing OK, but Aid illegal!

On seeing this is under the "as a general rule" provision,I'm inclined to interpret this more as a caution than a hard and fast rule, but then I was going to handwave it where the power logically fit the EC anyway.

[Pseudo Nymh]

I always thought it was a scale thing. You could allow ECs in lower-powered games than you would allow MPs in.

[Crimson Arrow]

Most inherently 0 END powers are Constant/Persistent and I wondered if that was the reason for excluding them. Something to do with the new rule about Draining one EC power Drains all the others and a conceptual problem with Draining Clinging or Armour, perhaps? This leads to some illogicalities, though, as others have noted.

[Gary]

Frankly, I never liked EC's to begin with. They were just a bogus way to save points and benefited certain character conceptions far more than other conceptions. With the "drain one drain all" feature, and the no 0 end powers, I think EC's have finally been neutered enough to be in balance.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Sparky could buy a Multipower with some other attacks (an RKA, an AP blast, a Transform that melts metal, what have you) and use these with his EB as a multiple power attacl. For reasons I can't fathom, he can't use two attacks in the EC as a Multiple Power Attack.
One probable explanation and one reason for you:
Probable explanation: It's part of the 5th edition crusade to remove all utility and sense from elemental controls. No naturally no END powers in there and "we all go down together" from Drains make no sense either and seem to be there just to punish elemental control users - no MPA's could be motivated by just the same urge.

Reason: Folks might get multiple attack powers in an EC with an eye toward using them together all the time, effectively getting one big attack (and maybe in effect around campaign active point caps too) for a little more than half price.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Crimson Arrow
Most inherently 0 END powers are Constant/Persistent and I wondered if that was the reason for excluding them. Something to do with the new rule about Draining one EC power Drains all the others and a conceptual problem with Draining Clinging or Armour, perhaps? This leads to some illogicalities, though, as others have noted.

If you don't feel it should be drained the same way, it should not be in the EC. Is Clinging not a Spider Power for Spider-Man, such that a power that drains Spider Powers would drain it away?

Actually, there is technically no rule against an EC power buying "inherent", although this seems well outside the spirit of the rules and should be ruled against IMO.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
Frankly, I never liked EC's to begin with. They were just a bogus way to save points and benefited certain character conceptions far more than other conceptions. With the "drain one drain all" feature, and the no 0 end powers, I think EC's have finally been neutered enough to be in balance.

Now how do we deal with UltraVersatile Man whose multipower allows him to buy 5 powers for the price of 2? This benefits characters with multiple attacks far more than it benefits those with a suite of related powers from all areas. In my view, the "drain" feature accomplished the balance goal adequately.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Jeff
One probable explanation and one reason for you:
Probable explanation: It's part of the 5th edition crusade to remove all utility and sense from elemental controls. No naturally no END powers in there and "we all go down together" from Drains make no sense either and seem to be there just to punish elemental control users - no MPA's could be motivated by just the same urge.

I can buy into the linked drains, but I view this more as any attack that drains a power in the EC also drains an equal amount from the base EC points. There is a play balance issue.

On the other hand, maybe drains against powers in a multipower (or VPP) should also drain the multipower (or VPP) pool, for the same reason of balance. Overall, I think 5e has really gone out of its way to demotivate the EC and push people more to multipowers and VPP's. These were commonly more point-effective anyway.


Originally posted by Jeff
Reason: Folks might get multiple attack powers in an EC with an eye toward using them together all the time, effectively getting one big attack (and maybe in effect around campaign active point caps too) for a little more than half price.

I can see some logic to the MPA rules, although the campaign points cap issue can also be abused with a single EB in your EC, and a multipower of attacks to tack on (Only powers in the SAME EC cannot combine per FREd p 204). A VPP also gets around the campaign point limits with a little creativity (eg. 60 pt VPP, 12d6 EB with -1 limits and a 12d6 flash with -1 limits - these can multiple power attack). If there's a problem here, I think it's not so much EC's as MPA's in general.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Now how do we deal with UltraVersatile Man whose multipower allows him to buy 5 powers for the price of 2? This benefits characters with multiple attacks far more than it benefits those with a suite of related powers from all areas. In my view, the "drain" feature accomplished the balance goal adequately.

Multipowers have the very real limitation that only one power could be used at full power at the same time. With an EC, every power can be used at the same time at full effect which is a very significant advantage when you put defenses and movements there.

Instead of EC's which force all powers to have virtually the same active point level, I would rather have a separate "drain one drain all" limitation that you can place on a suite of powers. This way, you can stick a 10 pt power in the same "framework" as a 50 pt power and still save points.

[Tom McCarthy]

One of the characters in Digital Hero #13 has a pool of powers all tied together and affected by drains but not in an EC. I believe it's Megaera. Worth picking up.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
Multipowers have the very real limitation that only one power could be used at full power at the same time. With an EC, every power can be used at the same time at full effect which is a very significant advantage when you put defenses and movements there.

Agreed and that's why the MP costs less.


Originally posted by Gary
Instead of EC's which force all powers to have virtually the same active point level, I would rather have a separate "drain one drain all" limitation that you can place on a suite of powers. This way, you can stick a 10 pt power in the same "framework" as a 50 pt power and still save points.

It would be called "limited power". You can take your suite of EC powers at 50 AP, and buy your 10 point power with "drained at same pace as EC". It's not going to halve the cost of the power, though, unless drains are very common.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Pteryx
Is there anything that an Elemental Control can do that a Multipower can't do cheaper and with fewer restrictions and drawbacks? I'm not sure what the point of Elemental Controls is, mechanically... :( Could somebody please explain? -- Pteryx

Like many people said, ECs usually are for movement and defense powers, while MPs are for attacks. Truth be told, all powers closely linked by special effects logically should belong in a EC, there is no reason other than "it's most cost effective this way" to put some in a EC and some in a MP.

Frameworks are a polemical issue in HERO. There is this interesting theory that Frameworks are more of a game balance thing anyway. That is because most Characteristics (notably STR) are just too cheap. You kind of need Frameworks so power-based characters aren't too disadvantaged next to char-based characters.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Agreed and that's why the MP costs less.



It would be called "limited power". You can take your suite of EC powers at 50 AP, and buy your 10 point power with "drained at same pace as EC". It's not going to halve the cost of the power, though, unless drains are very common.

My personal preference as GM would be to not allow EC's at all and only allow "limited power" if a player wants that type of framework.

[prestidigitator]

I think EC is a way to reward characters who are really built with a consistant theme. With that in mind, I tend to be pretty strict when I see one as a GM. I will not allow an EC unless (the player can convince me) that all of the powers really do fit well together. In a real game I probably wouldn't allow some of the examples I have seen in the books, for that matter.

The exception to this is if I am running an all out, four-color Superhero adventure. In this case I encourage all of my players to use ECs and MPs anywhere they might possibly make sense. Hey. If all the players are using them, and all the NPCs are using them, then what the heck?

With the above in mind, I usually ignore the rules about End only powers, and even Special Powers. I'll even allow Frameworks withing Frameworks if it seems to really make sense. For example, I have a magic system in which wizards cast from a VPP. Some of the spells (shapeshifting, etc.) really make sense as VPPs or MPs. So I let a VPP spell be memorized by placing it in a VPP spell memorization pool.

For heroic games, I use Frameworks to put together my specific campaign system using Hero as a meta-system. For example, my ongoing fantasy campaign is relatively low powered, but I want characters to be able to play psionicists (who have to buy each of the powers they can use separately). So I allow all psionic powers to be bought using (a single) EC pool. I even allow powers to be moved into or out of the EC as the character progresses, so that the character isn't penalized more as (s)he becomes more powerful ("I've made my EC bigger, so why is it suddenly twice as hard to learn a new power?").

If you don't let Frameworks be abused (by monitoring them pretty carefully), they can really help your game, and help you put together the setting and system that you want.

[JohnTaber]

Hi Pres:

I allowed my players to forgo the "powers that inherently cost 0 END" limitation of EC. Boy did I get bit hard. Three out of four PC ended up with EC and one character has two little ones. On hindsight, I think I needed to really enforce the concept of the EC more and I MIGHT have been ok. Can you say an EC full of defensive powers defined as comming from a single power suit? Ouch. :(

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by JohnTaber
[BI allowed my players to forgo the "powers that inherently cost 0 END" limitation of EC. Boy did I get bit hard. Three out of four PC ended up with EC and one character has two little ones. On hindsight, I think I needed to really enforce the concept of the EC more and I MIGHT have been ok. Can you say an EC full of defensive powers defined as comming from a single power suit? Ouch. :( [/B]

To me, it looks like the problem is EC concept more than power restrictions. I'd talk to the players and see if they're prepared to be reasonable. If not, I guess the VIPER agents next time show up with "Defensive Suit" EC's. If you can buy it, so can they!

[Jeff]

Originally posted by JohnTaber
Hi Pres:

I allowed my players to forgo the "powers that inherently cost 0 END" limitation of EC. Boy did I get bit hard. Three out of four PC ended up with EC and one character has two little ones. On hindsight, I think I needed to really enforce the concept of the EC more and I MIGHT have been ok. Can you say an EC full of defensive powers defined as comming from a single power suit? Ouch. :(
Ya. Enforcing the concept is key, END, 0 END, or no END. If you do that, you should be fine without the no no-END restriction, and you're sure to come to grief using EC's anyway if you don't.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
If not, I guess the VIPER agents next time show up with "Defensive Suit" EC's. If you can buy it, so can they!

Yeah! On a related issue, my group had a rotating-GM super hero game, and we decided on some pretty loose House Rules. One of the other players decided to give his character a power suit, with all of the powers in it Independant, just so he could buy a buttload of powers cheaply.

So when I came up as GM, I scared the crap out of him, but having an NPC steal his power suit. After all, he decided to take the Limitation. The Limitation means you can permanently lose the power (which he almost did, by the way--great adventure!). Soon after, he decided to re-build the character. :)

[Gary]

The problem with the conception argument for EC's is that it rewards certain conceptions over other conceptions. It gives a huge savings to energy projectors, and nothing to most martial artists.

Is anyone really going to argue that the Human Torch is a much better conception than Batman and deserves to save oodles of points? :rolleyes:

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Gary
The problem with the conception argument for EC's is that it rewards certain conceptions over other conceptions. It gives a huge savings to energy projectors, and nothing to most martial artists.

Is anyone really going to argue that the Human Torch is a much better conception than Batman and deserves to save oodles of points? :rolleyes:
Who says energy projector powers are more suitable for Elemental Controls than martial arts related ones? I didn't. I base it on how well the powers fit together, and whether they match the concept of the character well or not. I wouldn't allow the Martial Arts themselves to go in an EC (they are skills--and already pretty good cost-wise), but a Martial Arts Elemental Control like, say: Missile Deflection
Damage Reduction, Concentrate
Leaping
RKA: ShurikenwIth appropriate Advantages/Limitations, a good description, and other skills, etc., which fit well? Why not?

It just so happens that a heck of a lot of Batman's powers go right into a Multipower, if not a Variable Power Pool, anyway; that is Framework enough, if you ask me.

[Gary]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
Who says energy projector powers are more suitable for Elemental Controls than martial arts related ones? I didn't. I base it on how well the powers fit together, and whether they match the concept of the character well or not. I wouldn't allow the Martial Arts themselves to go in an EC (they are skills--and already pretty good cost-wise), but a Martial Arts Elemental Control like, say: Missile Deflection
Damage Reduction, Concentrate
Leaping
RKA: ShurikenwIth appropriate Advantages/Limitations, a good description, and other skills, etc., which fit well? Why not?

It just so happens that a heck of a lot of Batman's powers go right into a Multipower, if not a Variable Power Pool, anyway; that is Framework enough, if you ask me.

1) Missile deflection and Damage Reduction can't be placed in an EC.

2) Considering he has probably 5" or less of superleap, it wouldn't be a very good EC.

3) Please explain to me how draining his Batarangs would drain his leap, missile deflection, and damage reduction at the same time. :rolleyes:

[Rene]

Originally posted by Gary
The problem with the conception argument for EC's is that it rewards certain conceptions over other conceptions. It gives a huge savings to energy projectors, and nothing to most martial artists.

Is anyone really going to argue that the Human Torch is a much better conception than Batman and deserves to save oodles of points? :rolleyes:

But consider that Characteristics, Overall Skill Levels, and Martial Arts are REALLY cheap in HERO. So Batman is already being rewarded in a way, he don't need a EC when he can get a 15 OCV, 12d6 attack probably paying much less than the Human Torch would for his Energy Blast.

There is no major superhero concept that isn't rewarded in some fashion in HERO. Bricks and Martial Artists are rewarded by cheap Chars. Energy Projector and Mentalists by Frameworks. Power Suits by Focus Lim...

ECs make sense in a backward kind of way in that they seem to give a fighting chance for characters that aren't characteristic-based.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Rene
But consider that Characteristics, Overall Skill Levels, and Martial Arts are REALLY cheap in HERO. So Batman is already being rewarded in a way, he don't need a EC when he can get a 15 OCV, 12d6 attack probably paying much less than the Human Torch would for his Energy Blast.

There is no major superhero concept that isn't rewarded in some fashion in HERO. Bricks and Martial Artists are rewarded by cheap Chars. Energy Projector and Mentalists by Frameworks. Power Suits by Focus Lim...

ECs make sense in a backward kind of way in that they seem to give a fighting chance for characters that aren't characteristic-based.

Let's take a typical MA. He pays 10 pts for 20 str, pays 20 pts for a martial arts package, and 16 pts for +4 damage classes. That's 46 pts already, of which he pays straight most of the time. Assuming he uses offensive strike to get to 12d6, he needs to pay at least 4 more pts to cancel out the OCV penalties. That's 50 pts for a 12d6 attack with no range. That's not much if any, of a savings compared to an EB's multipower if you factor in the range that the EB has. And it's a lot easier to place limitations on the multipower to save points for the EB.

Now you're telling me that the EB can place his defenses and movements in an EC and save nearly 50% while the MA has to buy them straight?

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Gary
1) Missile deflection and Damage Reduction can't be placed in an EC.
Please see my previous post. I would allow them if they fit the concept well. That is the whole "conception" issue we are arguing about, dude.

2) Considering he has probably 5" or less of superleap, it wouldn't be a very good EC.
Please sidetrack the argument by picking on minor details of an example I threw together quickly to illustrate a point. Please?

3) Please explain to me how draining his Batarangs would drain his leap, missile deflection, and damage reduction at the same time. :rolleyes:
Hmm. Don't know. If this were a metaphysically powered martial artist, I would answer, "Perhaps by weakening his chi." You are free to use your imagination too, you know. I've never gone much for the, "Draining one power in an EC drains them all," anyway, although I guess it would depend on the circumstances.

Concept and Special Effects are what the game is about. That's why the system takes care of everything else. :D

[Gary]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
Please see my previous post. I would allow them if they fit the concept well. That is the whole "conception" issue we are arguing about, dude.

Please sidetrack the argument by picking on minor details of an example I threw together quickly to illustrate a point. Please?

Hmm. Don't know. If this were a metaphysically powered martial artist, I would answer, "Perhaps by weakening his chi." You are free to use your imagination too, you know. I've never gone much for the, "Draining one power in an EC drains them all," anyway, although I guess it would depend on the circumstances.

Concept and Special Effects are what the game is about. That's why the system takes care of everything else. :D

The point is that it's far easier for a Human Torch character to justify a EC compared to a Batman type character. Why should the Human Torch save oodles of points on non-attack powers while Batman has to buy most of his non-attack powers straight?

You can argue that Batman could buy most of his powers with foci, but the fire character could easily buy his fire powers through a gem or powersuit as well.

Since I happen to think that Batman is as good of a conception as the Human Torch, I wouldn't give a cost break to one over the other.

[McCoy]

Originally posted by Gary
Since I happen to think that Batman is as good of a conception as the Human Torch, I wouldn't give a cost break to one over the other.

Is it? Personally, I've never seen a character sheet for Batman, or worse yet, Doc Savage, that I thought was satisfactory. How do you build these "no superpowers" characters with less than a thousand points?

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by McCoy
Is it? Personally, I've never seen a character sheet for Batman, or worse yet, Doc Savage, that I thought was satisfactory. How do you build these "no superpowers" characters with less than a thousand points?

I would give him a VPP which at least has some kind of a Focus Limitation on all its Powers. I mean, come on: there isn't a single situation that comes up where Batman can't whip something out of his...er...utility belt, or his vehicle, to help him. If that isn't some kind of VPP, then I don't know what is. Come to think of it, how many gadgets have you seen Batman using at the same time? Maybe two or three? Everything else is just pure Dex, Int, Pre, Perks, Skills, and Skill Levels, baby! :)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
The problem with the conception argument for EC's is that it rewards certain conceptions over other conceptions. It gives a huge savings to energy projectors, and nothing to most martial artists.

Is anyone really going to argue that the Human Torch is a much better conception than Batman and deserves to save oodles of points? :rolleyes:

Well, I'd argue he's a lot more limited.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Gary
Let's take a typical MA. He pays 10 pts for 20 str, pays 20 pts for a martial arts package, and 16 pts for +4 damage classes. That's 46 pts already, of which he pays straight most of the time. Assuming he uses offensive strike to get to 12d6, he needs to pay at least 4 more pts to cancel out the OCV penalties. That's 50 pts for a 12d6 attack with no range. That's not much if any, of a savings compared to an EB's multipower if you factor in the range that the EB has. And it's a lot easier to place limitations on the multipower to save points for the EB.

Now you're telling me that the EB can place his defenses and movements in an EC and save nearly 50% while the MA has to buy them straight?

But the point is, those 50 pts you expent don't get him just a 12d6 attack with no Range. Martial Artists have a lot of flexibility for comparatively few points. Those 50 pts are just the founding stone in a concept that requires few points to be obscenely efficient. The MA has other maneuvers without OCV penalties, he has a ridiculous Dodge, he has a obscene DEX score that is dirty cheap and probably the most cost-effective element in the entire game next to Overall Skill Levels, that probably he will have by the buttload too.

I doubt all this cost a lot more than 100 pts. And then the Energy Blaster will have to pay 120 pts for two 60-pt powers? Say, 12d6 straightforward EB and 30" Flight. The MA will kick his ass around the block in a few seconds, assuming he has at least one way to reach the Energy Blaster (like a OAF Batarang).

I'm all for getting rid of ECs, but first they should get around to make Characteristics and stuff like Overall Levels a little less underpriced.

And not to mention Bricks and their extraordinarly efficient STR, CON, PD and ED.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Rene
But the point is, those 50 pts you expent don't get him just a 12d6 attack with no Range. Martial Artists have a lot of flexibility for comparatively few points. Those 50 pts are just the founding stone in a concept that requires few points to be obscenely efficient. The MA has other maneuvers without OCV penalties, he has a ridiculous Dodge, he has a obscene DEX score that is dirty cheap and probably the most cost-effective element in the entire game next to Overall Skill Levels, that probably he will have by the buttload too.

Yeah, but the EB has the ability to add a whole new 60 pt power for the cost of 6 pts, less if he has limitations. This easily makes up for the bennies of MA maneuvers. And the EB has access to the same dirt cheap dex as well, while his dodge is only 2 pts worse. He pays the same price for overall levels as well, although I never found them to be that efficient.


Originally posted by Rene

I doubt all this cost a lot more than 100 pts. And then the Energy Blaster will have to pay 120 pts for two 60-pt powers? Say, 12d6 straightforward EB and 30" Flight. The MA will kick his ass around the block in a few seconds, assuming he has at least one way to reach the Energy Blaster (like a OAF Batarang).

Yeah, it costs 60 pts for 30" of flight because 30" of flight is a wonderful power. It gives a real advantage in and out of combat. How would the MA even come close to catching up to the EB if he doesn't spend a corresponding amount of points on his movement as well? And how many points is the MA going to spend on his batarangs? That's got to eat into any points savings he may already have.


Originally posted by Rene

I'm all for getting rid of ECs, but first they should get around to make Characteristics and stuff like Overall Levels a little less underpriced.

And not to mention Bricks and their extraordinarly efficient STR, CON, PD and ED.

Characteristics are underpriced, but EB's have the same access to them as MA's. Overall levels are not underpriced in my experience. 10 pts is a pretty hefty price.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Gary
Yeah, it costs 60 pts for 30" of flight because 30" of flight is a wonderful power. It gives a real advantage in and out of combat. How would the MA even come close to catching up to the EB if he doesn't spend a corresponding amount of points on his movement as well? And how many points is the MA going to spend on his batarangs? That's got to eat into any points savings he may already have.

Any power with OAF, Reduced by Strength, and possibly thrust into a Gadget Multipower or Gadget VPP will be dirty cheap too. I'm not saying MAs are injustly rewarded in the present system, to me this isn't a matter of a preference for a certain character concept. Nor I'm saying that Elemental Controls aren't mechanically nonsensical, maybe they are.

All I'm saying is that every character type in HERO has it's "cheat", some benefit more from one kind of cheat than from another. I'm not saying that EBs can't buy underpriced Chars. Only that, usually, Bricks and MAs have more free points to expend into underpriced Chars. If you get rid of ECs without changing the Chars, you tilt it more in favor of character types that still have their favored "cheat" in place.

Why don't make it a two-for-one sale? Let's get rid of everything that seems to give an injust edge, so everybody can be happy.

[Zed-F]

Originally posted by Rene
Why don't make it a two-for-one sale? Let's get rid of everything that seems to give an injust edge, so everybody can be happy.

Or unhappy, as the case may be. :)

[JmOz]

Originally posted by Gary
Let's take a typical MA. He pays 10 pts for 20 str, pays 20 pts for a martial arts package, and 16 pts for +4 damage classes. That's 46 pts already, of which he pays straight most of the time. Assuming he uses offensive strike to get to 12d6, he needs to pay at least 4 more pts to cancel out the OCV penalties. That's 50 pts for a 12d6 attack with no range. That's not much if any, of a savings compared to an EB's multipower if you factor in the range that the EB has. And it's a lot easier to place limitations on the multipower to save points for the EB.

Now you're telling me that the EB can place his defenses and movements in an EC and save nearly 50% while the MA has to buy them straight?

Let us look at your example in more deapth, aggreeing with your cost (and we will use the "Generic Martial Arts" as his package)

well, Str +10, that also gives him (IIRC) 11 points of savings (5 Stun, +2 PD, +4 Rec), so now his package only costs him 39 Points.

A No Range EB costs 40 points, and is a LOT less versitile

The Martial Artist now has the power to knock someone down everytime they hit (Martial Throw), get +2 to to Dodge (I'll be nice and call this 4 points). As said earlier the character does not NEED to use the Offensive strike, can use the Martial instead (10d6 in my games is considered a fair attack).

Put simply the MA is VERY cost effective.

The Brick is VERY cost effective (Especialy the Leaping Brick)

Gadgetteers are very effective thanks to the Foci rules

What do Blasters and mentalists get? Frame works

[JmOz]

Nasty thought however: Blasters can now be MA as well (Ranged MA's...NASTY)

[Gary]

Originally posted by JmOz
Let us look at your example in more deapth, aggreeing with your cost (and we will use the "Generic Martial Arts" as his package)

well, Str +10, that also gives him (IIRC) 11 points of savings (5 Stun, +2 PD, +4 Rec), so now his package only costs him 39 Points.

A No Range EB costs 40 points, and is a LOT less versitile

Yeah, but he can then start placing additional 60 pt powers into a multipower at the cost of 4 pts if he makes it no range as well. I would say that the versatility of a multipower compares quite favorably with the versatility of MA.


Originally posted by JmOz

The Martial Artist now has the power to knock someone down everytime they hit (Martial Throw), get +2 to to Dodge (I'll be nice and call this 4 points). As said earlier the character does not NEED to use the Offensive strike, can use the Martial instead (10d6 in my games is considered a fair attack).

And the EB has the power to hit everyone in an area, to blind them, to drain them, to suppress them, all at the dirt cheap price of a slot in a multipower.


Originally posted by JmOz

Put simply the MA is VERY cost effective.

The Brick is VERY cost effective (Especialy the Leaping Brick)

Gadgetteers are very effective thanks to the Foci rules

What do Blasters and mentalists get? Frame works

All they need is a multipower to compete. A EC is overkill.

[eepjr24]

Originally posted by Gary
All they need is a multipower to compete. A EC is overkill.

I think at this point, you are not arguing that they need something, only that EC is not it. You vary in degree, not in position, so to speak. It is very much an issue for each GM, and will depend alot on what they allow to go in an EC or MP or even VPP. I frown on VPP in general unless they have pre-written up everything, since I have had several players who would do the "Gimme 5 minutes and I'll have a write up for this thing I wanna do now". EC requires a decent concept and powers that fit together, but I allow 0 End. Usually, they have to fit well enough to be drained together, some exceptions exist. MP's I watch for the possible abuses there, and will usually require the "drain one, drain many" as a -0 limitation of SFX.

If not allowing EC's meets your needs, full speed ahead! But many people find that they work well and reward well thought out concepts, which are unfortunately rare in my neck of the woods.

- Ernie

[Ndreare]

I have been playing for a long time and have had hundreds if not thousands of battles using the fourth and fifth edition rules. From what I can see there is no problem with the way these two options are set up.


If the martial artist wants to have a “Martial Arts Maneuvers” Multipower he is allowed to and if the Blaster want to learn Kendo he is allowed to.

I my self have made martial arts characters with multipowers to complement their martial arts typically looking something like this.

20: Martial Arts Maneuvers; Multipower
4: 1m) +20 STR -1/2 no figs, -1/4 no lifting.
4: 2m) +4 DCV
4: 3m) +4 OCV in HTH
1: 4u) 1D6-1 HKA


This is just an example. There are cost breaks in the system I see that as an advantage not a flaw. As the GM I encourage players to have concepts and encourage them to have frameworks. All most all (90%) of the published villains do and realy I would like the players to have all the advantages the villains do.

Take a look at the villains from CKC and the characters from Champions even the martial artist (although I don’t like the champions martial artist) have frame works. So why are we talking about one being cheated over another when they all have the same options. If your concept includes throwing fire then throw fire If mine includes jump kicks you can bet your butt I will be doing jump kicks and be on even footing with your fire ball.

[Agent X]

Nothing wrong with ECs. There is [B]no]/B] fundamental imbalance in this game. I don't care how many calculators you use. Experience in playability is the best teacher. I have played and seen played every character archetype and numerous twists on those archetypes. The system accomodates all archetypes. Where I've seen most campaigns get into trouble, where one archetype is favored over another, is when the GM has too many house rules or preferences that slants it one way or the other. If you are seeing an imbalance in your campaign you may need to reexamine the "style" of character construction that you and yours have.

I have a challenge for any of you who think ECs or Strength or whatever are inherently more efficient than anything else. Show me a character that you think is too efficient for other archetypes to deal with and I'll see (and others probably as well) if I can build a non-cheesy character who can deal with it. That should settle that. (Of course if this really resolved the question then that would knock about half the posts out of the Hero System Discussion Board;) ).

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X
I have a challenge for any of you who think ECs or Strength or whatever are inherently more efficient than anything else. Show me a character that you think is too efficient for other archetypes to deal with and I'll see (and others probably as well) if I can build a non-cheesy character who can deal with it. That should settle that. (Of course if this really resolved the question then that would knock about half the posts out of the Hero System Discussion Board;) ).

What are the ground rules? Any DC/CV/SPD limits? Any forbidden powers or attacks? Any house rules?

[JmOz]

Originally posted by Gary
Yeah, but he can then start placing additional 60 pt powers into a multipower at the cost of 4 pts if he makes it no range as well. I would say that the versatility of a multipower compares quite favorably with the versatility of MA.



And the EB has the power to hit everyone in an area, to blind them, to drain them, to suppress them, all at the dirt cheap price of a slot in a multipower.



All they need is a multipower to compete. A EC is overkill.

Agreed MP's CAN balance the field for some concepts, I call them the Swiss Army knife Characters.

However what about the "Basic Blaster" Who only has Flight, 1 EB, and FF, this character gets NO Benefits from a MP

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary
What are the ground rules? Any DC/CV/SPD limits? Any forbidden powers or attacks? Any house rules? Just the cheesier you get, the cheesier I get.

[Zed-F]

Originally posted by JmOz
However what about the "Basic Blaster" Who only has Flight, 1 EB, and FF, this character gets NO Benefits from a MP

Such a character could benefit from an EC... though I personally would never use such a character, nor encourage any player playing one in a game I ran, except maybe in a Golden Age campaign. Waaaay too unidimensional.

[JmOz]

The point of "Blasic Blaster" up there is to illustrate that while the MP can help equal out some concepts with the more point effective Bricks and Martial Artists, others it does not help in the least. For that matter some concepts would actualy be hurt by a MP, these would be helped usually by an EC.

I agree that Basic Blaster up there might be to simplistic, but it is a generic Flying Blaster often seen in comics as the base of a character, and we will assume he has bought some skills to make the character interesting (Sometimes it is not about the powers after all)

[Gary]

Originally posted by JmOz
Agreed MP's CAN balance the field for some concepts, I call them the Swiss Army knife Characters.

However what about the "Basic Blaster" Who only has Flight, 1 EB, and FF, this character gets NO Benefits from a MP

Yeah, basic blasters would be screwed without EC's. IME though, almost nobody plays a basic blaster.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X
Just the cheesier you get, the cheesier I get.

So you would be ok with building Cap America with NCM vs a Cap America without NCM to show the undercosting of str and dex?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary
So you would be ok with building Cap America with NCM vs a Cap America without NCM to show the undercosting of str and dex? NCM is sort of suggested for heroic level play isn't it? I wouldn't be ok with it in the since that Cap doesn't have NCM. There isn't anything Normal about Cap.

And you're getting tricky here. I'm talking about showing that Bricks don't have some automatically overwhelming advantage over Blasters or Martial Artists or vice versa.

What you are trying to do is work off of one character concept and make me prove that all (or at least two) methods of design for one character concept are equal. That's not the same thing at all. If you are trying to argue that there are cost breaks that encourage one type of construction over another with a character concept you have no argument from me - but that's not what it looked like the topic of this one was about.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Agent X
NCM is sort of suggested for heroic level play isn't it? I wouldn't be ok with it in the since that Cap doesn't have NCM. There isn't anything Normal about Cap.

And you're getting tricky here. I'm talking about showing that Bricks don't have some automatically overwhelming advantage over Blasters or Martial Artists or vice versa.

What you are trying to do is work off of one character concept and make me prove that all (or at least two) methods of design for one character concept are equal. That's not the same thing at all. If you are trying to argue that there are cost breaks that encourage one type of construction over another with a character concept you have no argument from me - but that's not what it looked like the topic of this one was about.

I'd like to see you guys build a Brick and a Martial Artist (or Blaster) with 350 points with all standard HERO rules, no optional rules, but with "stop" powers. Let someone on the board be the arbiter of any funkiness in the stop powers (whoever you both agree on). Basically you could agree on a time to post at, that way there'd be no advantage in seeing the other guy ahead of time. Ideally PBEM 3 combats, whoever wins 2 is the winner. Then repeat for a contest of best out of 7 rounds total - that way if one of you happens to come out of the gate with a better design, you should learn enough about each other's designs to make it more competitive each round. 7 rounds (one Brick vs a Martial Artist or one Brick vs a Blaster each time) should give enough opportunity to see if there's a big difference. A 4-3 split should certainly indicate there's not a big difference.

However, that's an awful lot of work...still, it would be a good study.

[Stone]

Originally posted by Gary
Yeah, basic blasters would be screwed without EC's. IME though, almost nobody plays a basic blaster.


Doesn't this blow your arguement? You admit that a character concept would be greatly hampered, but justify it by saying almost no one plays that type of character. In my group, rarely does a MA appear. Personally I disagree with some of the MA abilities. To me MA's can be just as unbalancing (if not more) as any character type in the game.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil
I'd like to see you guys build a Brick and a Martial Artist (or Blaster) with 350 points with all standard HERO rules, no optional rules, but with "stop" powers. Let someone on the board be the arbiter of any funkiness in the stop powers (whoever you both agree on). Basically you could agree on a time to post at, that way there'd be no advantage in seeing the other guy ahead of time. Ideally PBEM 3 combats, whoever wins 2 is the winner. Then repeat for a contest of best out of 7 rounds total - that way if one of you happens to come out of the gate with a better design, you should learn enough about each other's designs to make it more competitive each round. 7 rounds (one Brick vs a Martial Artist or one Brick vs a Blaster each time) should give enough opportunity to see if there's a big difference. A 4-3 split should certainly indicate there's not a big difference.

However, that's an awful lot of work...still, it would be a good study. I just wanted to make a point. That someone could build a perfectly good archetype on the same amount of points to challenge any other archetype (and I'm not talking about a character that is specifically built just to challenge the other), not engage in a "blind" game to show who the better(?) character designer is. I'm too busy for that. It's a neat idea though.:)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Agent X
I just wanted to make a point. That someone could build a perfectly good archetype on the same amount of points to challenge any other archetype (and I'm not talking about a character that is specifically built just to challenge the other), not engage in a "blind" game to show who the better(?) character designer is. I'm too busy for that. It's a neat idea though.:)

Yeah, I figured as much, and I agree it's not about the better designer. FWIW, I agree with you on this one AgentX.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil
Yeah, I figured as much, and I agree it's not about the better designer. FWIW, I agree with you on this one AgentX. Cool!:D

[Zed-F]

Actually I'm pretty sure Gary is the only one that thinks ECs are inherenhly unbalanced. For most of the rest of us, it's a matter of the GM enforcing rules on how related the powers have to be to a common special effect, etc.

You can make a balanced or unbalanced character regardless of whether you use STR/MA, ECs, or Multipowers. There's lots of ways to shave points here and there by taking advantage of efficient power constructs.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Stone
Doesn't this blow your arguement? You admit that a character concept would be greatly hampered, but justify it by saying almost no one plays that type of character. In my group, rarely does a MA appear. Personally I disagree with some of the MA abilities. To me MA's can be just as unbalancing (if not more) as any character type in the game.

A basic blaster is a pretty inefficient and seldom seen design anyway. I find it uninteresting, just like I would find a character who spends 200 pts on Rec to be an uninteresting and inefficient design.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Zed-F
Actually I'm pretty sure Gary is the only one that thinks ECs are inherenhly unbalanced. For most of the rest of us, it's a matter of the GM enforcing rules on how related the powers have to be to a common special effect, etc.

You can make a balanced or unbalanced character regardless of whether you use STR/MA, ECs, or Multipowers. There's lots of ways to shave points here and there by taking advantage of efficient power constructs.

I think the problem is that people view EC's as a "reward" for good character conception. However, good character conception should be a prerequisite to play in the campaign to begin with. If you have a poor character conception, you shouldn't be allowed into the campaign at all.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
I'd like to see you guys build a Brick and a Martial Artist (or Blaster) with 350 points with all standard HERO rules, no optional rules, but with "stop" powers. Let someone on the board be the arbiter of any funkiness in the stop powers (whoever you both agree on). Basically you could agree on a time to post at, that way there'd be no advantage in seeing the other guy ahead of time. Ideally PBEM 3 combats, whoever wins 2 is the winner. Then repeat for a contest of best out of 7 rounds total - that way if one of you happens to come out of the gate with a better design, you should learn enough about each other's designs to make it more competitive each round. 7 rounds (one Brick vs a Martial Artist or one Brick vs a Blaster each time) should give enough opportunity to see if there's a big difference. A 4-3 split should certainly indicate there's not a big difference.

However, that's an awful lot of work...still, it would be a good study.

Wouldn't really work. Many characters could be optimized to deal with one single opponent. A better test would be a matched pair of characters both run through a series of different campaigns and adventures to see how well they deal with all situations. Needless to say, this is pretty impractical. Still, I'm intrigued by the idea. ;)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
I think the problem is that people view EC's as a "reward" for good character conception. However, good character conception should be a prerequisite to play in the campaign to begin with. If you have a poor character conception, you shouldn't be allowed into the campaign at all.

There's a good reason for people to think that:

"Basically, Elemental Controls provide a cost savings to a character in exchange for (1) buying related Powers which fit his conception well and (2) accepting certain restrictions on those Powers."

#1 pretty much says it. #2 though does mean something in my view. I believe you don't see it that way though (re #2) - which pretty much leaves only #1!

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary
I think the problem is that people view EC's as a "reward" for good character conception. However, good character conception should be a prerequisite to play in the campaign to begin with. If you have a poor character conception, you shouldn't be allowed into the campaign at all. I always viewed ECs as a cost-savings for a unifying theme. A unifying theme may not make for a good character concept. I've had some pretty good character concepts that were not over powerful but there was no way to build them on the points allowed, with ECs, Mps, whatever.

And this is a game - "rewarding" people isn't really what it is all about. If my cousin, the guy who has no clue what he is doing, shows up and wants to play, I'm not going to punish him for being green and not "getting" the genre. I'll nudge him here and there, let him run the mixed up marvel, and let him grow into the game.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary
Wouldn't really work. Many characters could be optimized to deal with one single opponent. A better test would be a matched pair of characters both run through a series of different campaigns and adventures to see how well they deal with all situations. Needless to say, this is pretty impractical. Still, I'm intrigued by the idea. ;) Me too.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
There's a good reason for people to think that:

"Basically, Elemental Controls provide a cost savings to a character in exchange for (1) buying related Powers which fit his conception well and (2) accepting certain restrictions on those Powers."

#1 pretty much says it. #2 though does mean something in my view. I believe you don't see it that way though (re #2) - which pretty much leaves only #1!

Yeah, (1) is pretty stupid. As for (2), I believe instead of a framework, it should be an explicit -1/4 or -1/2 limitation on a group of related powers to simulate the drain one drain all factor.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
Yeah, (1) is pretty stupid. As for (2), I believe instead of a framework, it should be an explicit -1/4 or -1/2 limitation on a group of related powers to simulate the drain one drain all factor.

The problem with that is scalability - having 3 powers linked may be less limiting than 6 powers linked, or more accurately 100 AP linked is worth less than 200 AP linked (just throwing out numbers), although at some point it's a VPP masquerading as an EC and the reverse happens, 300 AP linked is just a benefit basically. However, scalability is a problem with ECs in general. One option for ECs is to make the control cost the max AP of any power in the EC, and costs are reduced for each slot by 1/2 or 2/5 or "flavor to taste". If you want a power to have greater AP than the EC allows, you have to link it to an outside power that also has to meet all EC requirements, sort of like MP, with no "linked" limitation. Or some-such thing. It still gets cost effective as you get too many EC slots, BUT I would argue no worse than MPs.

However, at the end of the day, I don't have a problem with #1 as in the quote above. I think all of the frameworks reward characters for tighter concepts as much as they do grant points for limitation. An MP can be (not saying it is innately) way more abusive than an EC, particularly with ultra slots. And so long as it's not abused, ECs seem to work cost-wise okay to me.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by
Agent X
And this is a game - "rewarding" people isn't really what it is all about. If my cousin, the guy who has no clue what he is doing, shows up and wants to play, I'm not going to punish him for being green and not "getting" the genre. I'll nudge him here and there, let him run the mixed up marvel, and let him grow into the game.
I have had plenty of brand new players who came up with amazing character concepts. This may in part be because they don't know the system, and haven't been influenced by previous roleplaying stereotypes. Rewarding good concepts isn't against the new guy. Now, what is true is that the new guy probably won't know about the mechanics, like Frameworks. That's why you help them build their characters (at least a bit), and suggest things like Elemental Controls to them (and you can suggest them only when you feel they are merited, instead of having to turn down the point-mongering of an experienced power-gamer).

By the way, I think this argument is similar to: "I don't give experience for good roleplaying. After all, players who are new to the game might have trouble getting into character, so it wouldn't be fair." Bull. Maybe you reward the new players a little quicker for a bright idea or good roleplaying when they have been having difficulty in this area, but it is no reason to discourage the good, experienced, well intentioned roleplayers you have from keeping up the good job.


Originally posted by Gary
Yeah, (1) is pretty stupid. As for (2), I believe instead of a framework, it should be an explicit -1/4 or -1/2 limitation on a group of related powers to simulate the drain one drain all factor.
Well cool. I think we have just learned that you may never allow Elemental Controls when you GM. Whatever. I don't think you are convincing anyone else not to use them. Certainly not me. You will probably also be limiting yourself rather harshly if you decide not to play in a campaign run by a GM who likes ECs.

[Hugh Neilson]

Or if you like to use published material. After all, if you don't allow EC's to yur players, it's only fair that the NPC's also lose these point breaks and get geared down to compensate.

Sure, you could just give the opponents enough bonus xp to cover it, but that's hardly equitable, is it?

[zornwil]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
(snipped) By the way, I think this argument is similar to: "I don't give experience for good roleplaying. After all, players who are new to the game might have trouble getting into character, so it wouldn't be fair." Bull. Maybe you reward the new players a little quicker for a bright idea or good roleplaying when they have been having difficulty in this area, but it is no reason to discourage the good, experienced, well intentioned roleplayers you have from keeping up the good job.
(snipped)


Great point.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
I have had plenty of brand new players who came up with amazing character concepts. This may in part be because they don't know the system, and haven't been influenced by previous roleplaying stereotypes. Rewarding good concepts isn't against the new guy. Now, what is true is that the new guy probably won't know about the mechanics, like Frameworks. That's why you help them build their characters (at least a bit), and suggest things like Elemental Controls to them (and you can suggest them only when you feel they are merited, instead of having to turn down the point-mongering of an experienced power-gamer).

By the way, I think this argument is similar to: "I don't give experience for good roleplaying. After all, players who are new to the game might have trouble getting into character, so it wouldn't be fair." Bull. Maybe you reward the new players a little quicker for a bright idea or good roleplaying when they have been having difficulty in this area, but it is no reason to discourage the good, experienced, well intentioned roleplayers you have from keeping up the good job. How did you get here from there? Seriously, could you possibly misrepresent what I said more? You might want to read the whole statement in context next time.

What I was saying is that the game isn't about "rewarding" some people. It's about fun.

I don't think I made an argument similar to anything of the kind. I think you assume a lot from a little.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil
Great point. Except he took my comment completely out of context.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Agent X
What I was saying is that the game isn't about "rewarding" some people. It's about fun.
...and one of the fun things for a player is to be rewarded for a job well done. Roleplaying in itself can be great, but what player doesn't want to develop his/her character, both story-wise and with experience?

Additionally, you should increase the likelihood that all players will have fun by rewarding things which tend to facilitate this: good roleplaying, fun and innovative ideas, creative and appropriate characters, contribution to storylines, making a good environment for other players by helping them out and not trying to "cheat the system," etc.

You claim I missed the point entirely. I don't think so. They are one and the same.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Agent X
Except he took my comment completely out of context.

I thought it was in reference to Gary's dislike of ECs, I didn't think it had anything to do with you.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Gary
1) Missile deflection and Damage Reduction can't be placed in an EC.

2) Considering he has probably 5" or less of superleap, it wouldn't be a very good EC.

3) Please explain to me how draining his Batarangs would drain his leap, missile deflection, and damage reduction at the same time. :rolleyes:

Ah, but once you: 1) ignore the silly rule about no zero-END powers in ECs, and 2) ignore the silly rule about Adjustment powers affecting every power in the EC, then everything is fine, and the Martial Artist and the Energy Projector are both rewarded for good concept and design.

It's those rules, supposedly put in to balance ECs, that make them so lopsided in favor of some character types in the first place.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Gary
Characteristics are underpriced, but EB's have the same access to them as MA's. Overall levels are not underpriced in my experience. 10 pts is a pretty hefty price.

Having built quite a few characters that rely largely on the characteristics, I'd have to say I disagree. They get expensive in a hurry if they're what you're depending on for your character's effectiveness. But, I think they're fairly balanced with the powers.

STR, for example. 50 pts gets you a 12d6 attack (60 Str from the base of 10 = 50 pts). Yes, the 50 pts also gets you up to 12 PD, but it's not resistant, and hardly enough PD for a Brick or Quasi-Brick, or most other characters for that matter. Etc.

DEX...9 pts gets you +1 OCV -and- DCV, and + .3 SPD. 8 pts on an Overall Combat Level gets you +1 OCV -or- DCV, but it is flexible and has some other uses, IIRC.

Characteristics are also available to every character, so it's not as if we're comparing two different powers, each of which would typically be limited to two different character types.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Kristopher
Having built quite a few characters that rely largely on the characteristics, I'd have to say I disagree. They get expensive in a hurry if they're what you're depending on for your character's effectiveness.
True! I don't think either Characteristics or Skill Levels are underpriced.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
...and one of the fun things for a player is to be rewarded for a job well done. Roleplaying in itself can be great, but what player doesn't want to develop his/her character, both story-wise and with experience?

Additionally, you should increase the likelihood that all players will have fun by rewarding things which tend to facilitate this: good roleplaying, fun and innovative ideas, creative and appropriate characters, contribution to storylines, making a good environment for other players by helping them out and not trying to "cheat the system," etc.

You claim I missed the point entirely. I don't think so. They are one and the same. You did miss my point. You can draw whatever conclusions you want but you're wrong. That is not what I meant and it is certainly not the only way to interpret my statement.

As far as the business about rewarding good roleplaying, etc., my response is, "Duh!"

If you want to make a point about how games should be run that is fine. If you want to use my statements as an example to make your point, get the meaning of my statements right.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Or if you like to use published material. After all, if you don't allow EC's to yur players, it's only fair that the NPC's also lose these point breaks and get geared down to compensate.

Sure, you could just give the opponents enough bonus xp to cover it, but that's hardly equitable, is it?

Who the heck cares about points for NPC's? Points are for players. As GM, I have essentially infinite points to build my NPC's, and I never worry about them having precisely the same points as the players. I give them as many points and disadvantages as are needed for their conception and to give a good challenge to the players.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kristopher
Having built quite a few characters that rely largely on the characteristics, I'd have to say I disagree. They get expensive in a hurry if they're what you're depending on for your character's effectiveness. But, I think they're fairly balanced with the powers.

STR, for example. 50 pts gets you a 12d6 attack (60 Str from the base of 10 = 50 pts). Yes, the 50 pts also gets you up to 12 PD, but it's not resistant, and hardly enough PD for a Brick or Quasi-Brick, or most other characters for that matter. Etc.

+50 str gives you 10 pd, 10 rec, 25 stun, 10 damage classes, 10" superleap, X1024 lifting capacity and thus the ability to use cars and trucks as free area effects, +25 casual str. Quite a nice package for 50 pts.


Originally posted by Kristopher

DEX...9 pts gets you +1 OCV -and- DCV, and + .3 SPD. 8 pts on an Overall Combat Level gets you +1 OCV -or- DCV, but it is flexible and has some other uses, IIRC.

For 6 pts after spd savings, you get +1 OCV, +1 DCV, +3/5 on dex rolls, +3/5 on dex skill rolls, and +3 initiative. For 8 pts, you get +1 OCV or +1 DCV or +1/2 DC. So by spending 2 more points, you get fewer CV bonuses plus the option of trading in that CV bonus for 1/2 DC. No thank you. Purchasing dex is way more efficient.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Kristopher
Ah, but once you: 1) ignore the silly rule about no zero-END powers in ECs, and 2) ignore the silly rule about Adjustment powers affecting every power in the EC, then everything is fine, and the Martial Artist and the Energy Projector are both rewarded for good concept and design.

It's those rules, supposedly put in to balance ECs, that make them so lopsided in favor of some character types in the first place.

Nope, you still wouldn't allow the Batman EC. No GM that I know of would think that batarangs, leap, damage reduction, and missile deflection are closely related enough to warrant a EC. Unless you're suggesting that a player could slap down any collection of powers and get a EC bonus?

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
The problem with that is scalability - having 3 powers linked may be less limiting than 6 powers linked, or more accurately 100 AP linked is worth less than 200 AP linked (just throwing out numbers), although at some point it's a VPP masquerading as an EC and the reverse happens, 300 AP linked is just a benefit basically. However, scalability is a problem with ECs in general. One option for ECs is to make the control cost the max AP of any power in the EC, and costs are reduced for each slot by 1/2 or 2/5 or "flavor to taste". If you want a power to have greater AP than the EC allows, you have to link it to an outside power that also has to meet all EC requirements, sort of like MP, with no "linked" limitation. Or some-such thing. It still gets cost effective as you get too many EC slots, BUT I would argue no worse than MPs.

You have the same problem of scalability with EC's. A 6 slot EC is more vulnerable than a 2 slot EC.

I agree with giving points back to the player based on how much the framework actually limits the player. That's why I prefer making it an explicit limitation rather than a framework. The giving 50% discount for a good conception is too nebulous and vague and excludes too many other good conceptions.


Originally posted by zornwil

However, at the end of the day, I don't have a problem with #1 as in the quote above. I think all of the frameworks reward characters for tighter concepts as much as they do grant points for limitation. An MP can be (not saying it is innately) way more abusive than an EC, particularly with ultra slots. And so long as it's not abused, ECs seem to work cost-wise okay to me.

I personally think that people are just too addicted to free points that don't actually limit the player. Someone previously was actually suggesting to remove the drain one drain all limitation, the only thing that actually limits a EC.

[Kdansky]

ECs may work fine in 4-colour campaigns, but if you use HERO with it's unrivaled "we-can-do-everyting" power, EC (and Frameworks in general) are just not fair. Character concept "Indiana Jones". He's got a load of skills, a whip (done as stretching + some HKA/HA), and a pistol. He'll absolutely never use the pistol and the whip at the same time, yet he pays the full price for both. They don't even are that different, it's a RKA and a KA with 6" range, woot! Double the cost for nearly no effect. Then there's the "firewoman" player, he get's a cheap Damage Shield, Forcefield, EB, Flight, and about anything else just because he's using a stereotype character design? Why should a player be rewarded for a stereotype design? I'd rather reward them for the opposite, something clearly unusual and new (truly, Indiana Jones isn't non-stereotypical, but that's not the point ;) . We've got another player with a Dragon multiform, he was new to roleplaying and came up with the character concept of an evil, ancient dragon who was prisoned for thousands of years and now the spell broke (due campaign storyline). He's got a human form which is still cursed as he cannot tell a lie, hates humans and is obliged to help them at the same time, he's got a dragon multiform which he can't use if someone sees it (except in life-threatening emergency). He does get zero points for great character concept, no Framework at all. True, he got a multiform, but mages can get a multiform inside their framework!

[Rene]

"Good" character concepts are in the eye of the beholder, like so much else in this life. It's all very relative. I have many stories of non-stereotypical super concepts that were just stinking crap.

Got a player with gravitic powers who also was invisible to machines. He had two different "origins", one to account for each set of powers. He also owned a bar and was a former secret agent. He also came from the future. No element in the character had any strong connection to any other element. I always remember this player when people badmouth stereotypical characters.

Sure it's easy to build stereotypical characters. Just copy some well-known hero. But it can be equally easy to build non-stereotypical characters. Just choose stuff randomly. So I came to the conclusion that the commonality of a character's basic concept has zero relation to his quality.

Elemental Controls supposedly reward "unified theme" powers, not necessarily "good" (whatever you define as good) character concepts.

[Kdansky]

Sure it's not hard to do a bad character ;)

But I don't even think "unified theme" is a good expression. Is "Fire" a theme? I'd accept Spiderman, but how should someone fly using fire (fantastic four)? Why is it cheaper to buy EB (ice) + Force Wall (ice-wall) + flying (ice-trail) than EB (shooting rays from eyes) + Force Wall (telekinetic wall) + flight (wings) ? These are the same powers and they have no real disadvantage compared to the rest, yet they are about 30%-50% cheaper. Seems to me like every second villain/thug should have a drain/transfer/suppress then.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Kdansky
...he get's a cheap Damage Shield, Forcefield, EB, Flight, and about anything else just because he's using a stereotype character design? Why should a player be rewarded for a stereotype design? I'd rather reward them for the opposite, something clearly unusual and new....
I would never say give cost breaks for a stereotypical character design. I say give breaks for consistant and/or imaginative character designs (particularly the latter). Give breaks for things that fit well the concept of the character, for a concept which is creative and fits well with the genre.


He does get zero points for great character concept, no Framework at all. True, he got a multiform, but mages can get a multiform inside their framework!
This is exactly why I say allow powers in Frameworks based upon their concept and Special Effects (and don't jump to taking this as "fire powers," or "magic powers," or "mutant powers" necessarily), rather than whether they are or are not Special, and how much End they cost.


Originally posted by Gary
Who the heck cares about points for NPC's? Points are for players. As GM, I have essentially infinite points to build my NPC's, and I never worry about them having precisely the same points as the players. I give them as many points and disadvantages as are needed for their conception and to give a good challenge to the players.
This is very true, although I do often think about points as a "reality check" (if that makes any sense :D). Also, I often like to construct an NPC in the same way I would a PC. Not necessarily point-wise, but in terms of the way the powers work and are constructed. In tends to give some consistency.


Nope, you still wouldn't allow the Batman EC. No GM that I know of would think that batarangs, leap, damage reduction, and missile deflection are closely related enough to warrant a EC. Unless you're suggesting that a player could slap down any collection of powers and get a EC bonus?
I don't base whether powers are close enough to fit in an EC on what Powers they are mechanically generated out of. That is rediculous. Base it on where the powers come from, how they are used, what their Special Effects are, and, well, just generally whether or not they "fit well together." Batman is a super-scientist, with tons of little gadgets he creates himself for various purposes. Based on his background, and his Perks, etc., that is a pretty consitent and well-suited set of things to put in an EC (unless, as I have already said, it is a MP or VPP).


Originally posted by Rene
Got a player with gravitic powers who also was invisible to machines. He had two different "origins", one to account for each set of powers. He also owned a bar and was a former secret agent. He also came from the future. No element in the character had any strong connection to any other element. I always remember this player when people badmouth stereotypical characters.
True. Stereotypical characters can be fun. Both types can be terribly piecemeal, or very well-fitted. It really depends on the imagination of the player; how he describes the character, his/her powers, the background, etc.


Originally posted by Kdansky
But I don't even think "unified theme" is a good expression. Is "Fire" a theme? I'd accept Spiderman, but how should someone fly using fire (fantastic four)? Why is it cheaper to buy EB (ice) + Force Wall (ice-wall) + flying (ice-trail) than EB (shooting rays from eyes) + Force Wall (telekinetic wall) + flight (wings) ? These are the same powers and they have no real disadvantage compared to the rest, yet they are about 30%-50% cheaper. Seems to me like every second villain/thug should have a drain/transfer/suppress then.
If your entire description and Special Effects consisted of "shooting rays from eyes, telekinetic wall, and wings," then I would never allow you to put these powers in a Framework. I might also have difficulty with "ice, ice-wall, and ice-trail," without further description/background/justification.

[Gary]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
I would never say give cost breaks for a stereotypical character design. I say give breaks for consistant and/or imaginative character designs (particularly the latter). Give breaks for things that fit well the concept of the character, for a concept which is creative and fits well with the genre.

In practice, what does this mean? Would you refuse a EC to Human Torch or Iceman because they are stereotypical characters?


Originally posted by prestidigitator

I don't base whether powers are close enough to fit in an EC on what Powers they are mechanically generated out of. That is rediculous. Base it on where the powers come from, how they are used, what their Special Effects are, and, well, just generally whether or not they "fit well together." Batman is a super-scientist, with tons of little gadgets he creates himself for various purposes. Based on his background, and his Perks, etc., that is a pretty consitent and well-suited set of things to put in an EC (unless, as I have already said, it is a MP or VPP).

You would allow batarangs which are a focus, and superleap which is because Batman is athletic, in the same EC??? I repeat, no GM I know of would ever allow that. "Gadgeteering" is a pretty broad description to allow a EC.

I have a question for you. In your campaign, how many pure Martial Artists actually have a EC? In the campaigns I've been in, pure MA's have 0. (Some conceptions had some, but they weren't pure MA's and they worked well even if you removed their MA from them).

[Rene]

I dunno. I think flying as a power for fire characters makes sort of symbolical sense. Fire is a dynamic, mobile, very "light" element. If you mean to ask how someone scientifically fly by using fire manipulation, then I'm not the best person to answer, I'm afraid. :) But supers and hard science not always go hand-in-hand.



Originally posted by Kdansky
Sure it's not hard to do a bad character ;)

But I don't even think "unified theme" is a good expression. Is "Fire" a theme? I'd accept Spiderman, but how should someone fly using fire (fantastic four)? Why is it cheaper to buy EB (ice) + Force Wall (ice-wall) + flying (ice-trail) than EB (shooting rays from eyes) + Force Wall (telekinetic wall) + flight (wings) ? These are the same powers and they have no real disadvantage compared to the rest, yet they are about 30%-50% cheaper. Seems to me like every second villain/thug should have a drain/transfer/suppress then.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Rene
I dunno. I think flying as a power for fire characters makes sort of symbolical sense. Fire is a dynamic, mobile, very "light" element. If you mean to ask how someone scientifically fly by using fire manipulation, then I'm not the best person to answer, I'm afraid. :) But supers and hard science not always go hand-in-hand. Very true. If you expect someone to explain why they can fly because of their fire powers shouldn't you expect them to explain why they have fire powers as well. The answer to why they have fire powers is going to be comic book pseudo-science. If you accept it there I would think you should accept comic book pseudo-science to explain "fiery flight."

[Farkling]

There is another balancing issue missing here.

EC's have a linked stack of special effects...that are (in my mind) supposed to be fairly obvious.

/QUOTE:: KDansky:: how should someone fly using fire (fantastic four)? Why is it cheaper to buy EB (ice) + Force Wall (ice-wall) + flying (ice-trail) than EB (shooting rays from eyes) + Force Wall (telekinetic wall) + flight (wings) ? These are the same powers and they have no real disadvantage compared to the rest, yet they are about 30%-50% cheaper. Seems to me like every second villain/thug should have a drain/transfer/suppress then. /ENDQUOTE

Why is character A cheaper? Look at those powers. GENOCIDE has to show up with ONE set of gear that will pretty much handle all of it. The agents pick out some off the rack low temperature gear, some heat projectors, maybe some sonics for those rigid ice walls...
FireMaster will throw as much raw flame around as possible, and that 20d6 Dispel versus Ice/Water Powers is fantastically useful. IceGuy is imprisoned in a cell with sunlamps. EC's lend themselves to a theme. Themes are perceivable, and the theme SHOULD extend to the Disadvantages also.

Now DemonWing there, with his eye beams and wings and TK wall...he's a strange duck that the villains won't be prepped for after one or two encounters/sightings. DemonWing has a decidedly odd set of powers requiring analysis, observation, and experimentation to deal with.

There's much more going on here than "Character A unfairly got cheaper powers than me", which seems to be the common theme in the EC arguments I keep reading.

And for the record...Bats SHOULD be written up on a VPP or a MP (IMHO)...he rarely uses multiple gadgets simultaneously, and the MP is cheaper than the EC in the long run...and easier to add powers to...which is the whole point of Bats.

The EC player is going to be forced to cough up 7-30 points in an standard game to buy a new power (in framework). An investment of at LEAST two adventures. The MP player can typically get one for 3-6 points...one power per adventure. Another factor in the balance of the EC.

YMMV

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
You have the same problem of scalability with EC's. A 6 slot EC is more vulnerable than a 2 slot EC.

I agree with giving points back to the player based on how much the framework actually limits the player. That's why I prefer making it an explicit limitation rather than a framework. The giving 50% discount for a good conception is too nebulous and vague and excludes too many other good conceptions.



I personally think that people are just too addicted to free points that don't actually limit the player. Someone previously was actually suggesting to remove the drain one drain all limitation, the only thing that actually limits a EC.

Why get 350? or 250 XP to start with for free? Why not start with 0 and build your XP up through experience? Why award experience points, as someone else posted, for good role-playing?

Because in all these instances they are not precisely free. They are solely to build characters with the correct genre conventions to be functional at a certain level, and for reasonable conceptions.

XP are awarded not just for tangible accomplishments or hours spent doing something; they are awarded (at least for most games which award them) based on roleplaying, with bonuses for great moments, along with those for results.

I see no difference in awarding XP versus a bonus for character conception at creation time - especially when that conception isn't fitting within the points limitation - which is arbitrary to begin with.

Also, you are ignoring that those who would argue that the "drain one, drain all" limitation be removed mostly believe that if the drain SFX warrant, the whole EC is affected. What most (including me) object to is the silly rule that if I have a "Drain Aggressive Powers" (again, bear with the example) and it drains Fireman's Fire Blast it should also drain his Fiery Damage Resistance which is purely defensive. Most people who argue against the automatic "drain one, drain all" would wholeheartedly agree that "Drain Fire" would affect Fireman's whole EC. I think your criticism is pretty unfair as it snips a lot of this rather elaborated-upon point in this thread.

You're welcome to believe ECs unbalance the game - and other GMs feel this way - and ban them. So far it seems to me the majority of people with experience over the years see them as having problems but not inherently unbalanced. At least no more than MPs - which I still argue are at least as much prone to abuse, if not more given that the scalability issues with MPs are far more serious.

Quick edit, hope you haven't read it yet - also, what's the worry about "free points" (I meant to put this above) given it is a game - not a simulation?

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Kdansky
ECs may work fine in 4-colour campaigns, but if you use HERO with it's unrivaled "we-can-do-everyting" power, EC (and Frameworks in general) are just not fair. Character concept "Indiana Jones". He's got a load of skills, a whip (done as stretching + some HKA/HA), and a pistol. He'll absolutely never use the pistol and the whip at the same time, yet he pays the full price for both. They don't even are that different, it's a RKA and a KA with 6" range, woot! Double the cost for nearly no effect. Then there's the "firewoman" player, he get's a cheap Damage Shield, Forcefield, EB, Flight, and about anything else just because he's using a stereotype character design? Why should a player be rewarded for a stereotype design? I'd rather reward them for the opposite, something clearly unusual and new (truly, Indiana Jones isn't non-stereotypical, but that's not the point ;) . We've got another player with a Dragon multiform, he was new to roleplaying and came up with the character concept of an evil, ancient dragon who was prisoned for thousands of years and now the spell broke (due campaign storyline). He's got a human form which is still cursed as he cannot tell a lie, hates humans and is obliged to help them at the same time, he's got a dragon multiform which he can't use if someone sees it (except in life-threatening emergency). He does get zero points for great character concept, no Framework at all. True, he got a multiform, but mages can get a multiform inside their framework!

I dunno, a multiform si pretty darn cheap for what you get in versatility and it requires a pretty solid conception to be allowed in many games IMHO.

However, I agree there's a seeming issue as to what you indicated. However, I'm not sure Indiana Jones is such a good example as he's heroic-level and now you're comparing a super-hero though. I think once you "up-size" Indiana Jones into the super-heroic level he's either going to end up with an MP of gadgets which can include his bullwhip and gun or if he's way flexible a VPP as it's advantageous.

Okay, so let's take what you wrote at face value and have a heroic character compared to a super-heroic. If the heroic character is less cost-effective than the super-heroic, that's unfair...except for the fact that the super-heroic one is actually beyond the other character by leaps and bounds. The points scale is not straight-forward and I'd expect the super-heroic to be more cost-effective for all his neat abilities.

I don't think HERO is intended to scale on a 1-for-1 basis. I also think HERO deliberately rewards CERTAIN character concepts at the expense of others (non-standard ones). Related, I think you are right in that ECs are a remnant of HERO's past as originally a super-hero game only. It doesn't translate as well to heroic and other such games, but sometimes MPs and VPPs don't, depending.

Is this a flaw of HERO? Depends on your point of view. It is a part of how it reinforces genre conventions; as the game expanded to include non-super-heroic action, it attempted to stretch to encompass "heroic" genre conventions at large. Personally I've never been convinced it did so in as decent a fashion as it did the super-heroic, but as a "unviersal" system (which I don't like the idea of anyway) it's probably the best series of trade-offs out there, and minimally at least among the best. Still, yes, it is flawed as you try to shoehorn non-traditional character conceptions. I think all other games are, too, to some extent.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
In practice, what does this mean? Would you refuse a EC to Human Torch or Iceman because they are stereotypical characters?



You would allow batarangs which are a focus, and superleap which is because Batman is athletic, in the same EC??? I repeat, no GM I know of would ever allow that. "Gadgeteering" is a pretty broad description to allow a EC.

I have a question for you. In your campaign, how many pure Martial Artists actually have a EC? In the campaigns I've been in, pure MA's have 0. (Some conceptions had some, but they weren't pure MA's and they worked well even if you removed their MA from them).

Depends on the MA's basis for his powers. First, I've played few MAs and there's been very few MAs in my campaigns. As to your point, if it's just a few maneuvers, they're too cheap to really put in an EC.

Anyway, my current character in someone's game is an MA who depends on his EC. His EC includes: missile deflection, knockback resistance, damage resistance, stun, and con. All of these are mana-dependent; if he does not or cannot recharge his powers by communing with nature and performing rituals, he loses his powers.

As an overall issue, though, let me say this: ECs DO help to realize characters who are well-founded, non-abusive, and don't fit the points caps. They've traditionally been used in this vein for years with no ill effect on other characters. Are EC definitions somewhat arbitrary? Sure! Is much of the game when it comes to frameworks...I would say equally, SURE! Anyway, I have a character in the game I'm GMing who has a robot with an EC of the powers based on his robotic body structure/mechanics. Is that cheesy? Maybe. Did the character work without it? No, otherwise I would have had to raise the points just for him.

I would argue that it is less arbitrary to use ECs, which have a defined structure and have been playtested over a couple decades, than to raise points caps here or there according to character conception and how good it seems.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
Why get 350? or 250 XP to start with for free? Why not start with 0 and build your XP up through experience? Why award experience points, as someone else posted, for good role-playing?

Because in all these instances they are not precisely free. They are solely to build characters with the correct genre conventions to be functional at a certain level, and for reasonable conceptions.

XP are awarded not just for tangible accomplishments or hours spent doing something; they are awarded (at least for most games which award them) based on roleplaying, with bonuses for great moments, along with those for results.

I see no difference in awarding XP versus a bonus for character conception at creation time - especially when that conception isn't fitting within the points limitation - which is arbitrary to begin with.

The starting points is so everyone has a even playing field. If you're going to give someone a few dozen or a hundred bonus xp, why don't you give it explicitly instead of trying to pretend that it's balanced?



Originally posted by zornwil

Also, you are ignoring that those who would argue that the "drain one, drain all" limitation be removed mostly believe that if the drain SFX warrant, the whole EC is affected. What most (including me) object to is the silly rule that if I have a "Drain Aggressive Powers" (again, bear with the example) and it drains Fireman's Fire Blast it should also drain his Fiery Damage Resistance which is purely defensive. Most people who argue against the automatic "drain one, drain all" would wholeheartedly agree that "Drain Fire" would affect Fireman's whole EC. I think your criticism is pretty unfair as it snips a lot of this rather elaborated-upon point in this thread.

I don't think it's unfair. My point is that EC's are a cheap excuse for people to get points back for a limitation that doesn't really limit them. If you're weakening the already existing built in limitation of a EC, that removes one of the few checks that a EC has at all. After all, a player could simply build a weird EC such as stretching powers where it's highly unlikely for an enemy to have stretching drains.


Originally posted by zornwil

You're welcome to believe ECs unbalance the game - and other GMs feel this way - and ban them. So far it seems to me the majority of people with experience over the years see them as having problems but not inherently unbalanced. At least no more than MPs - which I still argue are at least as much prone to abuse, if not more given that the scalability issues with MPs are far more serious.

Quick edit, hope you haven't read it yet - also, what's the worry about "free points" (I meant to put this above) given it is a game - not a simulation?

The worry about free points is that some people have them, and others don't. I don't believe it's fair giving 50-100 extra points to a EB while not giving the same to a MA for example. And if you're going to play favorites, why don't you simply give the extra bonus points explicitly to the player that you favor?

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Gary
In practice, what does this mean? Would you refuse a EC to Human Torch or Iceman because they are stereotypical characters?
This is non-logic. I said I would not allow an EC for (because of) a stereotype. That does not mean I would disallow an EC because of a stereotype (A does not imply B is not the same as not A implies not B). I was stating that the criteria should be different, not that stereotypical characters should not be allowed ECs.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
The starting points is so everyone has a even playing field. If you're going to give someone a few dozen or a hundred bonus xp, why don't you give it explicitly instead of trying to pretend that it's balanced?




I don't think it's unfair. My point is that EC's are a cheap excuse for people to get points back for a limitation that doesn't really limit them. If you're weakening the already existing built in limitation of a EC, that removes one of the few checks that a EC has at all. After all, a player could simply build a weird EC such as stretching powers where it's highly unlikely for an enemy to have stretching drains.



The worry about free points is that some people have them, and others don't. I don't believe it's fair giving 50-100 extra points to a EB while not giving the same to a MA for example. And if you're going to play favorites, why don't you simply give the extra bonus points explicitly to the player that you favor?

In short, I would still argue that the relative value of things like Martial Arts maneuvers and MultiPower Frameworks are every bit a cost break as Elemental Controls (edit adding) and those are based on concept bonuses (particularly MPs).

As to your last question, I think you're not "listening" to what I said in this thread - the ECs provide a more balanced and time-proven method than arbitrarily giving more points. If you can "squeeze" your points in via an EC, your character is likely more balanced than me arbitrarily saying "oh, if you can't fit it in, here's an extra 50 points for you, and here's an extra 100 points for Feral Lad over there".

[zornwil]

Oh, I'll PS instead of another edit - Gary, you and I won't cross the chasm that you don't see ECs as having a significant enough limitation and I do. For the life of me I don't see why you don't see MPs as just as problematic and just as not-quite-as-limited for the points, though.

And just to emphasize, while I and others don't but the auto-drian-one-drain-all, it doesn't mean we don't see ECs as innately non-drainable, or more tangibly, affected by MANY conditions. I can imagine lots of conditions ECs change in - I"ve had it happen to players when crossing dimensions. It just is SFX-based and some of us dispute that it makes any sense that an inappropriately-designed drain EB would affect an entire EC.

[Gary]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
This is non-logic. I said I would not allow an EC for (because of) a stereotype. That does not mean I would disallow an EC because of a stereotype (A does not imply B is not the same as not A implies not B). I was stating that the criteria should be different, not that stereotypical characters should not be allowed ECs.

In practice, this would seem to imply that stereotyping isn't a criteria at all for whether you would allow a EC.

Would you allow batarangs and superleap to be in the same EC for Batman? Would you allow extremely broad EC's such as "superscientist"?

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
In short, I would still argue that the relative value of things like Martial Arts maneuvers and MultiPower Frameworks are every bit a cost break as Elemental Controls (edit adding) and those are based on concept bonuses (particularly MPs).

Multipowers have a real disad. You can only use the reserve in points at the same time. EC's have no such disad, except for preventing MPA's. In a EC, you can use every single defense and movement at the same time. Martial maneuvers are efficient up to about 20 pts worth, but each additional maneuver becomes less and less efficient. For example, buying defensive strike, martial strike, and offensive strike together is horribly inefficient.


Originally posted by zornwil

As to your last question, I think you're not "listening" to what I said in this thread - the ECs provide a more balanced and time-proven method than arbitrarily giving more points. If you can "squeeze" your points in via an EC, your character is likely more balanced than me arbitrarily saying "oh, if you can't fit it in, here's an extra 50 points for you, and here's an extra 100 points for Feral Lad over there".

Yeah, you also have the advantage that you don't have to show other players exactly how much you're favoring Feral Lad. :rolleyes:

The EC format encourages lots of powers all at the same power level. If the player can't afford all the powers he wants, maybe he should scale back his concept and "grow" into the character he envisions. Maybe instead of 30" flight and 60 pts of force field, he should settle for 15" flight and 30 pts of force field. Use xp to increase the power level.

Remember, player's conceptions are unlimited. Player's points shouldn't be.

[McCoy]

Originally posted by Gary
Would you allow batarangs and superleap to be in the same EC for Batman? Would you allow extremely broad EC's such as "superscientist"?
Again, would you post a character sheet for Batman? I don't think the character can be done, EC or no, on less than a thousand points without a VPP that includes gadgets, talents and skills, which I feel is cheeser than anything I've ever seen done with an EC.

If you are going to continue to cite Batman as a Good Example, let's see this example.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
Oh, I'll PS instead of another edit - Gary, you and I won't cross the chasm that you don't see ECs as having a significant enough limitation and I do. For the life of me I don't see why you don't see MPs as just as problematic and just as not-quite-as-limited for the points, though.

And just to emphasize, while I and others don't but the auto-drian-one-drain-all, it doesn't mean we don't see ECs as innately non-drainable, or more tangibly, affected by MANY conditions. I can imagine lots of conditions ECs change in - I"ve had it happen to players when crossing dimensions. It just is SFX-based and some of us dispute that it makes any sense that an inappropriately-designed drain EB would affect an entire EC.

If you take out the drain one drain all limit, do you really think that these vague intangibles are worth the functional equivalent of a -1 limitation on EC powers (I don't think it's worth -1 even with drain one drain all)? Let's call it what it is, free points for a structure that rarely limits the player.

In fact, EC's could be worth even more than -1 if the player can stack other limitations on the framework.

[Gary]

Originally posted by McCoy
Again, would you post a character sheet for Batman? I don't think the character can be done, EC or no, on less than a thousand points without a VPP that includes gadgets, talents and skills, which I feel is cheeser than anything I've ever seen done with an EC.

If you are going to continue to cite Batman as a Good Example, let's see this example.

About 250 pts in characteristics, 200 pts in skills and martial arts, 50 pts in perks, 200 pts in vehicles and bases, 50 pt gadget pool, and 75-100 pts in commonly used gadgets.

He is not and should not be a starting character, but you can easily scale him back by getting rid of a lot of stuff like the perks, vehicles and bases, and gadget pool. You can use xp to buy that stuff.

[McCoy]

Originally posted by Gary
About 250 pts in characteristics, 200 pts in skills and martial arts, 50 pts in perks, 200 pts in vehicles and bases, 50 pt gadget pool, and 75-100 pts in commonly used gadgets.
That's 825-850, and you left out Talents, including but not limited to Ambidexterity, Combat Sense, Danger Sense, Double Jointed, Eidetic Memory, Lightning Calculator, Lightsleep, Perfect Pitch, and Speed Reading.

Batmobile, Batplane, and Batcave on 200 points? Maybe.


Originally posted by Gary
He is not and should not be a starting character, but you can easily scale him back by getting rid of a lot of stuff like the perks, vehicles and bases, and gadget pool. You can use xp to buy that stuff.
That's still 525-550. For the scaled back version. So I ask again, is Batman really the example you want to go with?

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Gary
Nope, you still wouldn't allow the Batman EC. No GM that I know of would think that batarangs, leap, damage reduction, and missile deflection are closely related enough to warrant a EC. Unless you're suggesting that a player could slap down any collection of powers and get a EC bonus?

I probably wouldn't allow it, but not because of the two reasons you mentioned, because I don't agree with either of those two rules.

[Kristopher]

I think part of the problem is that a lot of the long-time comic-book characters end up with a lot of extraneous crap slapped on them when they're written up in HERO, or other systems.

Batman, for example, doesn't have Danger Sense, at least not that I've ever seen. He has a high PER, but he does get blindsided or ambushed from time to time.

Spider Man has Danger Sense.

[McCoy]

Originally posted by Kristopher
I think part of the problem is that a lot of the long-time comic-book characters end up with a lot of extraneous crap slapped on them when they're written up in HERO, or other systems.

Batman, for example, doesn't have Danger Sense, at least not that I've ever seen. He has a high PER, but he does get blindsided or ambushed from time to time.

Spider Man has Danger Sense.
Seems that he gets suprised or ambushed about one time out of three, which I interpet as Danger Sense on a 12 or 13 or less. Spider-man has Danger Sense on at least 22-. Call it hyperdeveloped combat instincts, but that's just SX. Bottom line, Bats is prepared for suprise attacks more often than not.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
If you take out the drain one drain all limit, do you really think that these vague intangibles are worth the functional equivalent of a -1 limitation on EC powers (I don't think it's worth -1 even with drain one drain all)? Let's call it what it is, free points for a structure that rarely limits the player.

In fact, EC's could be worth even more than -1 if the player can stack other limitations on the framework.

Put another way, do you really think that the MP disad is worth 1/10 or 1/5 the points for powers, setting conceptual awards aside? Really?

Rhetorical question. I'm sure you do, or you wouldn't argue re the difference. I sure don't, though. Not by a longshot, for the flexibility you get with an MP.

Fair point re martial arts stacking. But that doesn't take away from their base values, which is at issue here. ECs stack way too effectivley as you add more, and MPs are worse than ECs that way. If we steer the discussion into which is more abusive when taken advantage of (as opposed to use as anticipated/regulated properly), that's a different topic.

As stated, I have seen lots of character concepts that don't work outside of using ECs. I am not arguing there's some "point for concept" (which you insint on calling points for free),but I've yet to see the difference in those points for concept versus MPs or versus the way people (normally) award XPs.

And I'm annoyed at one point you make - "vague intangibles". Scew that. There's nothing vague about SFX drains. Are you seriously arguing that if I build a "drain Energy Blast" and all it does is drain active energy blasts that it shouild drain a force field de facto? Now, of course, I shouldn't build "drain EB" as such, I should qualify it. But in my example, I qualified it as a drain on aggressive energy, energy directed at others. Explain to me why that should drain an FF in an EC. This is an area where 5th is dead wrong.

It's fine, as I've stated, for you to feel that ECs are way too cost-effective - that's your right - but don't impugn the way many people play them, especially when I have yet to see anyone construct a logical defense of 5th's change aside from "well, it limits it more". hich is only barely logical, as in this game SFX are a major in-play determinant of results.

In any case, as I've said and you don't agree (though I'd like to hear more commentary on the different methods), I feel ECs provide a much less arbitrary method of fitting character concepts into a preordained points total, whatever that points total is. HERO has given us a model which removes the arbitariness of "hmm, well, here's an extra 50 points for you, but for you I'm only giving 30". I think they did a good job, ultimately. Everyone bitches about ECs - but I've not seen an effective substitute in play.

I think one can be justified in feeling this way simply because it's been playtested and no viable alternative has been embraced by HERO as of yet. Even aside from that legacy, which one is free to disregard, I feel from pure experience that it's clear ECs are not unfair (unless the GM makes a mistake, which I've not personally witnessed yet).

[Agent X]

There are plenty of "frameworks" that can be abused. Elemental Controls save a character points.
Martial Arts can save a character points.
Multipowers can save a character points.
Variable Power Pools can save a character points.
What I call "Linked Arrays" can save a character points.
Loading up on characteristics can save a character points.

Interestingly, all of these methods can be more expensive than an alternative method of constructing a given character. When your powers aren't of a uniform ap range, the EC savings can be quite limiting.
If you are a martial arts master and buy a bunch of maneuvers you will end up being very point inefficient. It would have been better to build with a multipower to simulate maneuvers.
If you have several powers you want up at once, a multipower isn't the way to go.
A "Linked Array," one power with many other powers linked to it works pretty well but doesn't always fit character concept.
Loading up on characteristics won't do some power concepts much good.

There are plenty of alternative ways to get more bang for your buck besides the elemental control. The problem with all this talk about something being under-pointed is that it fails to point out that there are many ways to get cost savings in this game. The horror story of what you get for 50 points of strength is always taken out of context because the person simply ignores what you can do with frameworks and limitations to save points in other ways besides buying strength.

The game works. You can break it down, overanalyze it to death, and you are still going to have a hard time showing how these "flaws" amount to anything when the game actually gets played. As a Missourian might say, "Show me." Not by adding points, I want to see it in practice. I'm pretty well set against you being able to show me that ECs are imbalancing because I've played this game for 12 years and I haven't seen it.

[eepjr24]

Originally posted by Agent X
The game works. You can break it down, overanalyze it to death, and you are still going to have a hard time showing how these "flaws" amount to anything when the game actually gets played. As a Missourian might say, "Show me." Not by adding points, I want to see it in practice. I'm pretty well set against you being able to show me that ECs are imbalancing because I've played this game for 12 years and I haven't seen it.

Well said. I have to say that in my 14 or so years playing it, I have seen individual constructs that abuse every framework. It is not the constructs themselves that are flawed, it is how people are using them. EC is no better, and no worse, than any of the rest.

- Ernie

[Agent X]

Originally posted by eepjr24
Well said. I have to say that in my 14 or so years playing it, I have seen individual constructs that abuse every framework. It is not the constructs themselves that are flawed, it is how people are using them. EC is no better, and no worse, than any of the rest.

- Ernie Thank you. :) Looks like we're already engaging in teamwork. Villains beware!:D

[zornwil]

I've been playing, though with a couple breaks, for just about 20 years now (19 or 20). Just to be clear, that's what my experience is based on as well.

None of this should discount Gary's experience, but may suggest it's somewhat aberrant.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil
I've been playing, though with a couple breaks, for just about 20 years now (19 or 20). Just to be clear, that's what my experience is based on as well.

None of this should discount Gary's experience, but may suggest it's somewhat aberrant. Perhaps Gary's profession creates a greater sensitivity to the cost of various aspects of Champions creations?

[Gary]

Originally posted by McCoy
That's 825-850, and you left out Talents, including but not limited to Ambidexterity, Combat Sense, Danger Sense, Double Jointed, Eidetic Memory, Lightning Calculator, Lightsleep, Perfect Pitch, and Speed Reading.

Batmobile, Batplane, and Batcave on 200 points? Maybe.


That's still 525-550. For the scaled back version. So I ask again, is Batman really the example you want to go with?

If you want Batman on 350, take Nighthawk as your template and modify a few things. Use experience if you want a true Batman.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
Put another way, do you really think that the MP disad is worth 1/10 or 1/5 the points for powers, setting conceptual awards aside? Really?

Rhetorical question. I'm sure you do, or you wouldn't argue re the difference. I sure don't, though. Not by a longshot, for the flexibility you get with an MP.

Fair point re martial arts stacking. But that doesn't take away from their base values, which is at issue here. ECs stack way too effectivley as you add more, and MPs are worse than ECs that way. If we steer the discussion into which is more abusive when taken advantage of (as opposed to use as anticipated/regulated properly), that's a different topic.

As stated, I have seen lots of character concepts that don't work outside of using ECs. I am not arguing there's some "point for concept" (which you insint on calling points for free),but I've yet to see the difference in those points for concept versus MPs or versus the way people (normally) award XPs.

And I'm annoyed at one point you make - "vague intangibles". Scew that. There's nothing vague about SFX drains. Are you seriously arguing that if I build a "drain Energy Blast" and all it does is drain active energy blasts that it shouild drain a force field de facto? Now, of course, I shouldn't build "drain EB" as such, I should qualify it. But in my example, I qualified it as a drain on aggressive energy, energy directed at others. Explain to me why that should drain an FF in an EC. This is an area where 5th is dead wrong.

It's fine, as I've stated, for you to feel that ECs are way too cost-effective - that's your right - but don't impugn the way many people play them, especially when I have yet to see anyone construct a logical defense of 5th's change aside from "well, it limits it more". hich is only barely logical, as in this game SFX are a major in-play determinant of results.

In any case, as I've said and you don't agree (though I'd like to hear more commentary on the different methods), I feel ECs provide a much less arbitrary method of fitting character concepts into a preordained points total, whatever that points total is. HERO has given us a model which removes the arbitariness of "hmm, well, here's an extra 50 points for you, but for you I'm only giving 30". I think they did a good job, ultimately. Everyone bitches about ECs - but I've not seen an effective substitute in play.

I think one can be justified in feeling this way simply because it's been playtested and no viable alternative has been embraced by HERO as of yet. Even aside from that legacy, which one is free to disregard, I feel from pure experience that it's clear ECs are not unfair (unless the GM makes a mistake, which I've not personally witnessed yet).

There is a viable alternative. Simply give the related powers the limitation that it's actually worth. If you have a set of powers, give either a -1/4 or -1/2 limitation that to drain one drains all. To the extent that you give more points than this limitation, it is free points.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X
There are plenty of "frameworks" that can be abused. Elemental Controls save a character points.
Martial Arts can save a character points.
Multipowers can save a character points.
Variable Power Pools can save a character points.
What I call "Linked Arrays" can save a character points.
Loading up on characteristics can save a character points.

Interestingly, all of these methods can be more expensive than an alternative method of constructing a given character. When your powers aren't of a uniform ap range, the EC savings can be quite limiting.
If you are a martial arts master and buy a bunch of maneuvers you will end up being very point inefficient. It would have been better to build with a multipower to simulate maneuvers.
If you have several powers you want up at once, a multipower isn't the way to go.
A "Linked Array," one power with many other powers linked to it works pretty well but doesn't always fit character concept.
Loading up on characteristics won't do some power concepts much good.

There are plenty of alternative ways to get more bang for your buck besides the elemental control. The problem with all this talk about something being under-pointed is that it fails to point out that there are many ways to get cost savings in this game. The horror story of what you get for 50 points of strength is always taken out of context because the person simply ignores what you can do with frameworks and limitations to save points in other ways besides buying strength.

The game works. You can break it down, overanalyze it to death, and you are still going to have a hard time showing how these "flaws" amount to anything when the game actually gets played. As a Missourian might say, "Show me." Not by adding points, I want to see it in practice. I'm pretty well set against you being able to show me that ECs are imbalancing because I've played this game for 12 years and I haven't seen it.

I've been playing this game since 1985. EC's were far worse in the pre-5th edition days since people would invariably place armor, damage reduction, and characteristics into them if they could get away with it. Or worse, when people used EC Power Armor and got a -1/2 limitation on top of the half point cost of EC slots.

In my experience, most characters are either characteristic heavy, or built with attack multipower or vpp and EC movement and defense. I'd be interested in what percentage of characters in your campaign have either a EC or are characteristic heavy. In the last campaign I was in, every character was one or the other.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X
Perhaps Gary's profession creates a greater sensitivity to the cost of various aspects of Champions creations?

Possibly. I'm very good at finding holes in the rules and exploiting loopholes. Did I ever show you my 1 real point thermonuclear bomb? :p

[McCoy]

Originally posted by Gary
If you want Batman on 350, take Nighthawk as your template and modify a few things. Use experience if you want a true Batman.
You were the one citing Batman as a well-conceived character.

[Gary]

Originally posted by McCoy
You were the one citing Batman as a well-conceived character.

He is well conceived. He's just too expensive for a 350 pt campaign, at least in his ultimate form. That's why if you want to play him, you either play in a higher level campaign, or you play a scaled down version and use xp to build him up.

[McCoy]

Originally posted by Gary
He is well conceived.
No, he was a well conceived pulp fiction character in 1939. His peers are Doc Savage and the Shadow, not Superman and Wonder Woman. He preceeded the genre he is most fameous for, and each incarnation (Silver Age, Television, Movies) has diluted that conception. Some writers in the Bronze/Iron ages recaptured the original concept, most did not.

He is NOT a well conceived Champions character.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
There is a viable alternative. Simply give the related powers the limitation that it's actually worth. If you have a set of powers, give either a -1/4 or -1/2 limitation that to drain one drains all. To the extent that you give more points than this limitation, it is free points.

Gary, if this has been answered previously I apologize. I gather you are down on the EC concept in general. With this in mind, would you similarly limit multipowers? After all, the only limitation on a multi is that, for all these powers together, only "X" AP total may be used at one time.

The most common multipower, IME, is one with several attack powers, all Ultras. Let's use the example of 5 attack powers, each 60 points, and no limitations (keep it simple). A multipower pays 60 points for the pool, plus 6 for each slot, totals 30. Total cost 90, +6 to add a slot.

How is it limited? Well, you can only use one attack at a time anyway, except as a multi-power attack. FREd says "Can't multi power attack" is worth -1/4 in the discussion of attack powers. So instead of getting those 5 powers for 90 points in total, our hypothetical character should pay 48 points each (60/1.25), or 240 points for 5 attacks, +48 for each added one.

Now, before Farkling gets a swelled head over this ;), I'm not arguing attack-only multipowers should be disallowed. I am, however, arguing that, if you think the point break for EC's should be removed in favour of a standard limitation for "all drained together", then you should also be in favour of removal of multipowers altogether in favour of limitations that more appropriately quantify the restrictions placed on powers in that framework.

I don't even want to think what this approach would do to a VPP!

EDIT PS: I almost forgot - you have to talk about Batman as a prerequisite to post here now. I'd say Batman was initially conceived as a pulp character. At some point in time, however, he changed to blend in with the supers genre. Arguably, this was very early on (when he stopped carrying the gun which he had a holster for initially, perhaps; certainly when he didn't let the Joker die in his first appearance). In the course of this, he evolved from a knock off pulp character (geez - there had already been The Bat) and became the archetype for skills-based supers.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I don't even want to think what this approach would do to a VPP!
Me neither, but it happened anyway. You'd have to buy all the powers that can be in the VPP with a limitation "Only usable when no more than X real points in use by other powers with this limitation". How much is that worth? I'd be surprised at more than -1/2.

It amounts to eliminating the point of VPP's from the game - which, incidentally, would make doing Batman pretty much impossible. We've got frameworks for good reasons.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Jeff
Me neither, but it happened anyway. You'd have to buy all the powers that can be in the VPP with a limitation "Only usable when no more than X real points in use by other powers with this limitation". How much is that worth? I'd be surprised at more than -1/2.

The problem is that the limitation probably has to vary with how many real points you've paid for powers in general. So if you buy more powers, maybe the limitation goes up, which would mean each power costs less real points, so you can buy more of them and use more of them at the same time...OUCH! Which is why I didn't want to think about it :(


Originally posted by Jeff
It amounts to eliminating the point of VPP's from the game - which, incidentally, would make doing Batman pretty much impossible. We've got frameworks for good reasons.

Well, that seems to be the thrust of this thread. Some want to eliminate EC's, but if they give too big a break, so do multipowers and VPP's.

And you're right - no multipower or VPP definitely means no utility belt - it just wouldn't be cost effective.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Gary, if this has been answered previously I apologize. I gather you are down on the EC concept in general. With this in mind, would you similarly limit multipowers? After all, the only limitation on a multi is that, for all these powers together, only "X" AP total may be used at one time.

The most common multipower, IME, is one with several attack powers, all Ultras. Let's use the example of 5 attack powers, each 60 points, and no limitations (keep it simple). A multipower pays 60 points for the pool, plus 6 for each slot, totals 30. Total cost 90, +6 to add a slot.

How is it limited? Well, you can only use one attack at a time anyway, except as a multi-power attack. FREd says "Can't multi power attack" is worth -1/4 in the discussion of attack powers. So instead of getting those 5 powers for 90 points in total, our hypothetical character should pay 48 points each (60/1.25), or 240 points for 5 attacks, +48 for each added one.

Now, before Farkling gets a swelled head over this ;), I'm not arguing attack-only multipowers should be disallowed. I am, however, arguing that, if you think the point break for EC's should be removed in favour of a standard limitation for "all drained together", then you should also be in favour of removal of multipowers altogether in favour of limitations that more appropriately quantify the restrictions placed on powers in that framework.

I don't even want to think what this approach would do to a VPP!

EDIT PS: I almost forgot - you have to talk about Batman as a prerequisite to post here now. I'd say Batman was initially conceived as a pulp character. At some point in time, however, he changed to blend in with the supers genre. Arguably, this was very early on (when he stopped carrying the gun which he had a holster for initially, perhaps; certainly when he didn't let the Joker die in his first appearance). In the course of this, he evolved from a knock off pulp character (geez - there had already been The Bat) and became the archetype for skills-based supers.

I consider it a very serious limitation that only the reserve active points could be used at any one time. A 60 pt multipower with 5 slots can only use 60 pts at a time. A 60 pt EC with 5 slots could use 300 pts at one time. A pretty hefty difference.

To answer your point about buying attacks with no mpa, there are a couple of problems with your analysis. First of all, a multipower gets nuked all at the same time by a single attack. You're multibarrel gun with 5 ammo types is far more vulnerable than a guy with a rifle, pistol, knife, rope, and gas grenades as separate attacks.

Second of all, your price structure is completely out of whack. 240 pts would give you either a 48d6 EB or a 32d6 EB at 0 end which is far superior to 5 separate 60 pt attacks. Therefore the value of 5 separate attacks is worth less than 240 pts. At 90 pts, you can get a 18d6 EB which is roughly as valuable as the choice of a 12d6 eb, 4d6 rka, 8d6 explosion EB, 12d6 flash, or 6d6 entangle. At least the value of the 18d6 eb is in the same ballpark with the multipower, unlike the 48d6 or 32d6 0 end.

[Farkling]

/QUOTE/ In my experience, most characters are either characteristic heavy, or built with attack multipower or vpp and EC movement and defense. I'd be interested in what percentage of characters in your campaign have either a EC or are characteristic heavy. In the last campaign I was in, every character was one or the other. /ENDQUOTE/

Let's see..
The Weatherwitch is an EC,
Crushbone is a characteristic heavy brick/ma hybrid, buying absorbtion and an EB as XP's accumulate.
Wolf is a skill-based cyborg...hmmm...ma/EB hybrid. Characteristics/Multipower.
Cory is a characteristic heavy straight up brick. 50 CON, 100 END, 60 STR...X-ray vision. :)
Wheels is a Multipower Mentalist (Computers and People)
The ArchAngel Michael is currently a Multipower...he may be swapped for a Divine VPP after the player reads those rules.

But as that old softie Hugh is aware...I am personally and violently against constructs which "conveniently" place all the attack powers in one framework, and movment/defense in another framework. I send people back to the drawing boards for that. I prefer characters with room for conceptual growth. :)

Now...mechanically speaking...the Weatherwitch has spent points to buy off limits on her EC...and is aware she will need to save points "forever!" to buy a new slot...the Multipower players have bough a couple new powers already (one bought THREE flavor powers...no combat use whatsoever...I'm so proud!) ... Cory bought some small powers, Crushbone is buying a power, and has bought some skills. The EC player has a disadvantage the others don't....broadening her power base is more difficult...as she put it "lots of time and practice"

I repeat...there is a down side in the point savings for the EC if used for full level powers. That's why I disapprove of movement/defense EC's stacked with attack multipowers.

[Rene]

I was never much of a Batman fan. I have a superstrong suspension of disbelief, I can believe in Kryptonian aliens, mutants, and Olympian Gods with no trouble, but I find it hard to believe in a guy that has every damned skill in the book and is an unparalled master with them all.

Nothing gets to me more than some people saying Batman is the best superhero there is, because he is the only one who is "human" or whatever. He is only human in a strictly technical physical sense. Batman never loses (Bane had to cheat a lot to best him, throwing every Batman villain against him to wear him out). Not even James Bond is so irritating.

But I have to admit I kinda like how some writers like Grant Morrison deal with Batman. It's funny in a almost satirical way to see how outrageous they can make Batman. Then it becomes something more openly like mind-boggling science fiction.

I think Captain America or even Nightwing, for instance, are finer examples of supernormals who're still formidable, but can't perform brain surgery while composing symphonies and designing computer circuitry. Even Reed Richards is mostly limited to physical sciences only.

You can't do Batman in less than 700 pts. The 'most human of all superheroes' my ass.



Originally posted by McCoy
No, he was a well conceived pulp fiction character in 1939. His peers are Doc Savage and the Shadow, not Superman and Wonder Woman. He preceeded the genre he is most fameous for, and each incarnation (Silver Age, Television, Movies) has diluted that conception. Some writers in the Bronze/Iron ages recaptured the original concept, most did not.

He is NOT a well conceived Champions character.

[Farkling]

/QUOTE/
A 60 pt EC with 5 slots could use 300 pts at one time.
/ENDQUOTE/

Show me an example of that which would be allowed in a game with AP caps.

/QUOTE/
Second of all, your price structure is completely out of whack. 240 pts would give you either a 48d6 EB or a 32d6 EB at 0 end which is far superior to 5 separate 60 pt attacks. Therefore the value of 5 separate attacks is worth less than 240 pts.
/ENDQUOTE/

And how is that relevant to the argument in a game with AP caps?

/QUOTE/
At 90 pts, you can get a 18d6 EB which is roughly as valuable as the choice of a 12d6 eb, 4d6 rka, 8d6 explosion EB, 12d6 flash, or 6d6 entangle. At least the value of the 18d6 eb is in the same ballpark with the multipower, unlike the 48d6 or 32d6 0 end.
/ENDQUOTE/

At 120 Points I can purchase the 12d6 EB with a +1/2 Variable Advantage...and for another 120 Points I can do the same with a 4d6 RKA....and the "48d6 or 32d6 0 end" is still wildly more powerful.

You cannot argue "fairness" and "equal value" for points within the system and with the same breath use examples that violate the point caps we picture on the characters. That's a spurious argument.

I fully admit that the 5 power (60) AP EC is more flexible and more bang for the buck than the 60d6 EB I could buy with the same points. But if the game allows a 60d6 EB, why the hell would I buy a 60 AP EC except for flavor powers? And for flavor powers I think PC's deserve a break.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Gary
To answer your point about buying attacks with no mpa, there are a couple of problems with your analysis. First of all, a multipower gets nuked all at the same time by a single attack. You're multibarrel gun with 5 ammo types is far more vulnerable than a guy with a rifle, pistol, knife, rope, and gas grenades as separate attacks.

But that is only a Limitation for Multipowers built with Focus. And even then the Focus will have a DEF equal to the Point Reserve, that is usually bigger than small powers built into separated Focus. Also, the same thing could be said of Elemental Control built with Focus.



Originally posted by Gary
Second of all, your price structure is completely out of whack. 240 pts would give you either a 48d6 EB or a 32d6 EB at 0 end which is far superior to 5 separate 60 pt attacks. Therefore the value of 5 separate attacks is worth less than 240 pts. At 90 pts, you can get a 18d6 EB which is roughly as valuable as the choice of a 12d6 eb, 4d6 rka, 8d6 explosion EB, 12d6 flash, or 6d6 entangle. At least the value of the 18d6 eb is in the same ballpark with the multipower, unlike the 48d6 or 32d6 0 end.

That is only partially true. It's hard to quantify the value of versatily. 32 EB will do nothing against a Desolified Character, for instance, and could be resisted by a Mega-Villain with 75% Damage Reduction plus high Armor, and could be easily dodged by Spiderlad, etc.

Now Multipower-Man probably can whip out Drains to get the Mega-Villain, Flashes or even Affect Desolidied attacks to get the Ghost, Area Effects to get Spiderlad, and so on, and so on.

"Can't use all powers simultaneously" hardly constitutes a significant limitation when almost all players use Multipowers to get a bunch of powers that they couldn't frequently use simultaneously anyway.

BTW, I'm with Farkling. Multiple Frameworks in a single character almost always are bad.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Farkling
Show me an example of that which would be allowed in a game with AP caps.

Flight, force field, damage shield, change environment, and regeneration all at the same time.


Originally posted by Farkling

And how is that relevant to the argument in a game with AP caps?

Just pointing out that 240 pts is a ridiculous price for the choice of 5 60 pt attacks.


Originally posted by Farkling

At 120 Points I can purchase the 12d6 EB with a +1/2 Variable Advantage...and for another 120 Points I can do the same with a 4d6 RKA....and the "48d6 or 32d6 0 end" is still wildly more powerful.

Thank you for agreeing with me.


Originally posted by Farkling

You cannot argue "fairness" and "equal value" for points within the system and with the same breath use examples that violate the point caps we picture on the characters. That's a spurious argument.

Many campaigns allow increased DC's for specialists. For example, a character may be limited to 60 pts as a multipower, but is allowed 70 pts if he depends on a single attack such as 14d6 EB.

I see that your only criticism of my position is in a campaign with DC limits. Some campaigns don't have them.


Originally posted by Farkling

I fully admit that the 5 power (60) AP EC is more flexible and more bang for the buck than the 60d6 EB I could buy with the same points. But if the game allows a 60d6 EB, why the hell would I buy a 60 AP EC except for flavor powers? And for flavor powers I think PC's deserve a break.

Because EC's are generally used for defenses and movements. You still need those even in an unlimited campaign.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Rene
But that is only a Limitation for Multipowers built with Focus. And even then the Focus will have a DEF equal to the Point Reserve, that is usually bigger than small powers built into separated Focus. Also, the same thing could be said of Elemental Control built with Focus.




That is only partially true. It's hard to quantify the value of versatily. 32 EB will do nothing against a Desolified Character, for instance, and could be resisted by a Mega-Villain with 75% Damage Reduction plus high Armor, and could be easily dodged by Spiderlad, etc.

Now Multipower-Man probably can whip out Drains to get the Mega-Villain, Flashes or even Affect Desolidied attacks to get the Ghost, Area Effects to get Spiderlad, and so on, and so on.

"Can't use all powers simultaneously" hardly constitutes a significant limitation when almost all players use Multipowers to get a bunch of powers that they couldn't frequently use simultaneously anyway.

BTW, I'm with Farkling. Multiple Frameworks in a single character almost always are bad.

Yeah, it's hard to quantify the value of versatility, but in the majority of encounters, 18d6 is better than the multipower. You'll get a situation where 75% of the time, the single power is better and 25% of the time, the multipower is a lot better. That seems to be a fair tradeoff in my book.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Gary
Yeah, it's hard to quantify the value of versatility, but in the majority of encounters, 18d6 is better than the multipower. You'll get a situation where 75% of the time, the single power is better and 25% of the time, the multipower is a lot better. That seems to be a fair tradeoff in my book.

Yes, but one can say Multipowers perhaps give a greater cost break than it should. AP/10 is dirty cheap for new powers.

For instance, many people think Naked Advantages are munchkinisms, but a Attack Multipower is more or less like a bunch of Naked Advantages you can apply to your attack.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
Yeah, it's hard to quantify the value of versatility, but in the majority of encounters, 18d6 is better than the multipower. You'll get a situation where 75% of the time, the single power is better and 25% of the time, the multipower is a lot better. That seems to be a fair tradeoff in my book.

How many people out there have players with a Multipower with a ton of slots in it for different attacks? And how many have characters who have spend the same amount of points the multipower as a whole cost on a single attack power?

I guess none of them are as smart as you are, right, since you know that single 90 point attack would have been far better!

The fact is, versatility has value. It doesn't have value equal to its point cost in many cases, and that's why we get frameworks to tone the cost down in some cases.

EC's are also frameworks that tone the costs down in some cases. It's interesting to note that a Multipower tends to be used to buy multiple abilities of the same type (eg. attacks), while EC is generally used to buy multiple abilities of a variety of types (FREd even suggests the norm is an attack, a defense and a movement power). Two different structures, two different frameworks. Imagine that!

The fact is that all EC powers are generally not used at the same time. You cite the example of flight, force field, damage shield, change environment, and regeneration all at the same time. Ignoring the fact that I have seen very few Special Effects I would consider to justify Regeneration in an EC, and the fact no effect has been provided for these diverse examples, let's look at these powers:

(a) Regeneration is useless unless you have been struck for BOD. The force field will commonly prevent that. Regeneration isn't used every session in my experience, unless the character has taken it to compensate for very low defenses.

(b) How much regeneration? Is the character buying 3 points Regeneration just to have enough AP to fit in his 60 AP EC? Most characters, again unless built to take huge amounts of BOD stop at 1, or maybe 2, BOD regeneration.

(c) How often is that Change Environment useful? Depends on the actual change, I suppose, but as it impacts an area, some consideration of your allies will ikely reduce its utilization.

(d) Damage Aura traditionally means I want to be in HTH range with my opponents - go ahead and hit me, you'll take damage from my shields! Flight is commonly used to stay away from HTH attackers. Now, you can use flight to close with the guys further away, but the guys staying further away generally aren't doing that because their own powers are conducive to attacking you hand to hand.

Did the EC character get a point break for his powers that all fit tight to his special effects? Yep. Did the Multipower guy get a point break to buy vast versaitility? Yes as well.

Your hypothetical EC costs 180 points (300 under your rules). For the same price, I can forego the EC and buy a Multipower with +30/+30 force field, 30" flight and a 26d6 EB, with a 130 point pool. Note that these are standard, not ultra, slots. I have to sacrifice the change environment and the regeneration.

I can but the field up while using 30" of flight to get where I want to be. Then I can swap out to 5" flight (enough to stay aloft - 10 AP), keep my Force Field up (60 AP) and fire a 14d6 EB, a bit more than I would have had in the EC. If I want to, tactically, I can drop the field and strike for 24d6 (26d6 if I also land, or fall for a bit). hmmm...I can Reserve until the very end of Phase 11, then land on a roof and fire off 26d6, and abort in Ph 12 to put the field back up if I have to.

Now let's look at what I can do with the 300 points you want me to pay for the EC. First, we'll put the Regen and CE back, both as Multi slots, so I can use them if I want. We'll boost the field to +45/+45 for better defenses as well. We'll make the pool 190, but cap the EB at a paltry 36d6. Now IO can have 40/40 DEF, Fly 5" and fire off a 20d6 EB all at the same time. Not bad. By the way, if you've done the math, this multi only cost 280 points. The other 20 increased my END battery by 200 so I can afford to do all this stuff!

Meanwhile, EC Man has all the powers I do. he can regenerate (when he doesn't need to) and fly faster in combat (advantageous, but I can match his speed should the need arise) but I have better DEF and a much stronger attack in "standard configuration", and I can match anything he can do should the need arise. And I saved 20 points for extra END!

While EC Man is busy showing off his 300 points spent on his various abilities, I'll fire off my 36d6 EB at the end pof phase 11 and wait to abort to my +45/+45 FF in phase 12 when he counterattacks.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
How many people out there have players with a Multipower with a ton of slots in it for different attacks? And how many have characters who have spend the same amount of points the multipower as a whole cost on a single attack power?

I guess none of them are as smart as you are, right, since you know that single 90 point attack would have been far better!

The fact is, versatility has value. It doesn't have value equal to its point cost in many cases, and that's why we get frameworks to tone the cost down in some cases.

Hooboy, are you actually denying that the 90 point power would be more useful most of the time? A 12d6 EB does 17 pts of stun, 5" knockback (which would average 0 damage on a solid hit), and has a 13.76% chance of stunning the average 25 def 23 con target. The 18d6 EB does 38 stun, 11" knockback (which would do 13.5 more stun on a solid hit), and has a 97.77% chance of stunning the same 25 def 23 con target. The values are equivalent since the 18d6 has an advantage most of the time, but some of the time he's totally screwed. Just like a guy with 18d6 bought through an OIF has the advantage most of the time over a 12d6 natural EB, but would be screwed part of the time when his focus is taken away. This is basic stuff here, not rocket science. :rolleyes:




Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
EC's are also frameworks that tone the costs down in some cases. It's interesting to note that a Multipower tends to be used to buy multiple abilities of the same type (eg. attacks), while EC is generally used to buy multiple abilities of a variety of types (FREd even suggests the norm is an attack, a defense and a movement power). Two different structures, two different frameworks. Imagine that!

The fact is that all EC powers are generally not used at the same time. You cite the example of flight, force field, damage shield, change environment, and regeneration all at the same time. Ignoring the fact that I have seen very few Special Effects I would consider to justify Regeneration in an EC, and the fact no effect has been provided for these diverse examples, let's look at these powers:

EC light powers. Flight, force field, change environment, and damage shield is obvious. Regen is because he can turn into light, and the light coalesces.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

(a) Regeneration is useless unless you have been struck for BOD. The force field will commonly prevent that. Regeneration isn't used every session in my experience, unless the character has taken it to compensate for very low defenses.

(b) How much regeneration? Is the character buying 3 points Regeneration just to have enough AP to fit in his 60 AP EC? Most characters, again unless built to take huge amounts of BOD stop at 1, or maybe 2, BOD regeneration.

Yeah, regen is useless unless you've taken body. Does that mean that it's worthless? You can describe that to everything. Defenses are worthless unless struck by an attack! The fact is that most powers have some triggering condition to make them useful.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

(c) How often is that Change Environment useful? Depends on the actual change, I suppose, but as it impacts an area, some consideration of your allies will ikely reduce its utilization.

Change environment also has tremendous noncombat uses in many cases.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

(d) Damage Aura traditionally means I want to be in HTH range with my opponents - go ahead and hit me, you'll take damage from my shields! Flight is commonly used to stay away from HTH attackers. Now, you can use flight to close with the guys further away, but the guys staying further away generally aren't doing that because their own powers are conducive to attacking you hand to hand.

Did the EC character get a point break for his powers that all fit tight to his special effects? Yep. Did the Multipower guy get a point break to buy vast versaitility? Yes as well.

Your hypothetical EC costs 180 points (300 under your rules). For the same price, I can forego the EC and buy a Multipower with +30/+30 force field, 30" flight and a 26d6 EB, with a 130 point pool. Note that these are standard, not ultra, slots. I have to sacrifice the change environment and the regeneration.

I can but the field up while using 30" of flight to get where I want to be. Then I can swap out to 5" flight (enough to stay aloft - 10 AP), keep my Force Field up (60 AP) and fire a 14d6 EB, a bit more than I would have had in the EC. If I want to, tactically, I can drop the field and strike for 24d6 (26d6 if I also land, or fall for a bit). hmmm...I can Reserve until the very end of Phase 11, then land on a roof and fire off 26d6, and abort in Ph 12 to put the field back up if I have to.

Now let's look at what I can do with the 300 points you want me to pay for the EC. First, we'll put the Regen and CE back, both as Multi slots, so I can use them if I want. We'll boost the field to +45/+45 for better defenses as well. We'll make the pool 190, but cap the EB at a paltry 36d6. Now IO can have 40/40 DEF, Fly 5" and fire off a 20d6 EB all at the same time. Not bad. By the way, if you've done the math, this multi only cost 280 points. The other 20 increased my END battery by 200 so I can afford to do all this stuff!

Meanwhile, EC Man has all the powers I do. he can regenerate (when he doesn't need to) and fly faster in combat (advantageous, but I can match his speed should the need arise) but I have better DEF and a much stronger attack in "standard configuration", and I can match anything he can do should the need arise. And I saved 20 points for extra END!

While EC Man is busy showing off his 300 points spent on his various abilities, I'll fire off my 36d6 EB at the end pof phase 11 and wait to abort to my +45/+45 FF in phase 12 when he counterattacks.

I'm sorry you've taken such a ridiculous 300 pt EC as your example. Here's a more realistic EC likely to be used in an actual character:

20 EC light powers
20 16" flight 1/2 end
20 16pd 16 ed 1/2 end force field
8 2 body regen extra time 1 turn (-1) self only (-1/2)
14 3d6 flash damage shield (+1/2) continuous (+1) can be used offensively (+1/4) 4 charges of 1 turn (-1/2)

I'll leave off the change environment since it's hard to quantify its value especially considering its noncombat value.

That's 82 pts. For that cost, you would normally just get the flight and force field which you would most likely purchase anyway. Instead, you're getting 2 very useful abilities, regen and damage shield, for free.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
Hooboy, are you actually denying that the 90 point power would be more useful most of the time? A 12d6 EB does 17 pts of stun, 5" knockback (which would average 0 damage on a solid hit), and has a 13.76% chance of stunning the average 25 def 23 con target. The 18d6 EB does 38 stun, 11" knockback (which would do 13.5 more stun on a solid hit), and has a 97.77% chance of stunning the same 25 def 23 con target. The values are equivalent since the 18d6 has an advantage most of the time, but some of the time he's totally screwed. Just like a guy with 18d6 bought through an OIF has the advantage most of the time over a 12d6 natural EB, but would be screwed part of the time when his focus is taken away. This is basic stuff here, not rocket science. :rolleyes:

Once again, the question: What percentage of players want an 18d6 attack, and what percentage want more versatility.

Yeah, you can win faster with the 18d6 attack in many cases. It is "more useful" in those, and I'll guve you that will be most of the time. But is it critical? Generally, no - you wouldn't have lost hands down with 12d6 and some versatility instead. However, when the 18d6 EB is useless, you'll be wishing some of those past fights were closer if it meant you'd have something useful in this fight.

As Farkling notes, DC or AP caps cover this off nicely.

In any case, assuming you are correct, why would the EC you cite below be purchased instead of just using the points to top up that one big attack?


Originally posted by Gary
EC light powers. Flight, force field, change environment, and damage shield is obvious. Regen is because he can turn into light, and the light coalesces.

Ahhh...but you aren't desolid when you turn into light? Or does this shut out your other powers? It's a stretch in any case, but some GM's may allow it, so let's leave it.


Originally posted by Gary
Yeah, regen is useless unless you've taken body. Does that mean that it's worthless? You can describe that to everything. Defenses are worthless unless struck by an attack! The fact is that most powers have some triggering condition to make them useful.

Change environment also has tremendous noncombat uses in many cases.

First you tell us the EC is overpowered because the character can use all these powers at once. Then you tell us that he doesn't need to use them all at once. Which one is it?

Sure, it's nice to have some abilities that work well in combat and others that help a lot noncombat. A multipower is a way more effective point savings for them, though. You won't be using your combvat powers and your noncombat powers at the same time, so why not add powers for 1/5 to 1/10 their cost, rather than 1/2? Now THAT's basic math!


Originally posted by Gary
I'm sorry you've taken such a ridiculous 300 pt EC as your example. Here's a more realistic EC likely to be used in an actual character:

20 EC light powers
20 16" flight 1/2 end
20 16pd 16 ed 1/2 end force field
8 2 body regen extra time 1 turn (-1) self only (-1/2)
14 3d6 flash damage shield (+1/2) continuous (+1) can be used offensively (+1/4) 4 charges of 1 turn (-1/2)

The 300 pt EC comes from some prior poster - I'm not sure who and I won't wade through 9 pages to find it, but Farkling quotes whoever it was a little lower.

You're buying the fluff powers, though, so let's look at that. Let's assume for simplicity that LightGuy and MultiGuy both have a 12d6 EB attack, and the same DEF, except that MultiGuy needs another 16/16 resistant to match your force field. [We'll ignore the question of why a natural flash shield would have 4 1 turn charges for the sake of discussion.]


Originally posted by Gary
That's 82 pts. For that cost, you would normally just get the flight and force field which you would most likely purchase anyway. Instead, you're getting 2 very useful abilities, regen and damage shield, for free.

MutiGuy has 82 points to play with given the above EC, and another 40 if we assume EC's are not available. I could just buy Flight and Foce Field, but the point is tocompare EC and Multipower. So I think I'll buy a Multipower instead, using the same 82 points. It could look like this:

53 Pool

8 m 16" Flight 1/2 END
8 m 16/16 F Field 1/2 END
3 m 2 BOD Regen
10 m +10d6 EB

82 points total

I can fly as fast as you. I can have a 22d6 EB, where you are limited to 12 (only works if the EB is not in another framework, of course). I can regenerate should the need arise. And I have the field. I could be a lot more flexible if I threw the whole EB in the MP, but let's not overcomplicate matters. [Farkling, I'm starting to be sold on an "all in" MP here...]

Now, in combat, I'll want the field up, I can float with 1" of flight and still do 2d6 more EB than you can. But you can move quicker. I think we're about equal, though I did have to forego the damage shield.

What about this pool?

48 Pool

8 m 16" Flight 1/2 END
8 m 16/16 F Field 1/2 END
3 m 2 BOD Regen
9 m +9d6 EB
5 m Mystery Power Slot

81

hmmm...I have a point left over. I'll buy +2 COM so I get better press coverage than you ;)

Now, I'll generally put my force field up, and leave the remaining points to fly (although I could hover and still get +1d6. Oh, and as soon as your Damage Shield goes up, I'll reserve to the end of a segment, drop my field for flight, half move into physical range, and shift to Mystery Slot. It's 8 Flash DEF force field + 4d6 Drain Sight Flash Def (Ultra). You should be blind for the next turn or so - I don't anticipate having much trouble taking you out now...

Obviously, having such an obvious counterpower is pretty unlikely, but I can have a cute trick like the damage shield.

WHO HAS THE ADVANTAGE?: Debateable. EC can use his powers all at once and I can't. But I can boost my powers more than he can. [Ignore the Flash Def Drain - the odds of clean KO powers meeting is negligible]

Now let's delete the EC discount, as you propose. For "the Character formerly known as EC Guy" to keep all his powers, he must have another 40 points. So I should get the same to keep it comparable. I could add these straight to my EB, and have 20d6, but let's keep with the MP. And let's keep it simple - I won't use those extra points to buy 8 new Ultra, or 4 new Flex slots. I'll just do this:

80 Pool

8 m 16" Flight 1/2 END
16 m 32/32 F Field 1/2 END
3 m 2 BOD Regen
15 m +15d6 EB

122

Still no fluffy powers, but I could always reduce the pool, I suppose, and add some. But I can:

- match your defense and airspeed.
- forget airspeed and crank my defenses another 16 points - how useful is your 12 die blast now?
- Hover (5), match your field (40) and add 7d6 to my EB.
- reserve until DEX 1 Ph 11, hover, hit you with 27d6 and abort Ph 12 to reactivate my field assuming you can still fire back after a 27d6 hit (tell you what, I'll make it 24d6 and use the extra 3 to spread for OCV...)

Now there seems to be a pretty clear advantage...and all because you took away EC Guy's point savings and didn't similarly restrict MultiPower Man.

Let's also remember that I made these MP's up on the fly. They aren't tweaked to maximize effectiveness (I assume your EC is the same, so no one has an advantage here either, although I wonder whether you pulled the EC from an existing character given that creative regen power).

[Agent X]

Blah blah blah

You can crunch numbers all day and you still can't explain to me why in my 12 years of Hero gaming I haven't seen EC characters lord it over everyone else.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Once again, the question: What percentage of players want an 18d6 attack, and what percentage want more versatility.

Yeah, you can win faster with the 18d6 attack in many cases. It is "more useful" in those, and I'll guve you that will be most of the time. But is it critical? Generally, no - you wouldn't have lost hands down with 12d6 and some versatility instead. However, when the 18d6 EB is useless, you'll be wishing some of those past fights were closer if it meant you'd have something useful in this fight.

As Farkling notes, DC or AP caps cover this off nicely.

In any case, assuming you are correct, why would the EC you cite below be purchased instead of just using the points to top up that one big attack?

Because I happen to like movements and defenses? :P Anyway people do buy stuff through foci, knowing that there will be times when you're completely helpless. This would be no different.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Ahhh...but you aren't desolid when you turn into light? Or does this shut out your other powers? It's a stretch in any case, but some GM's may allow it, so let's leave it.

Or I could be made of solid light.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

First you tell us the EC is overpowered because the character can use all these powers at once. Then you tell us that he doesn't need to use them all at once. Which one is it?

Sure, it's nice to have some abilities that work well in combat and others that help a lot noncombat. A multipower is a way more effective point savings for them, though. You won't be using your combvat powers and your noncombat powers at the same time, so why not add powers for 1/5 to 1/10 their cost, rather than 1/2? Now THAT's basic math!

Change environment is very weird. It has both combat and noncombat uses, and it's extremely nice being able to use it in addition to your normal attacks.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The 300 pt EC comes from some prior poster - I'm not sure who and I won't wade through 9 pages to find it, but Farkling quotes whoever it was a little lower.

You're buying the fluff powers, though, so let's look at that. Let's assume for simplicity that LightGuy and MultiGuy both have a 12d6 EB attack, and the same DEF, except that MultiGuy needs another 16/16 resistant to match your force field. [We'll ignore the question of why a natural flash shield would have 4 1 turn charges for the sake of discussion.]

No more weird than Icicle having 4 charges on her icy force wall.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

MutiGuy has 82 points to play with given the above EC, and another 40 if we assume EC's are not available. I could just buy Flight and Foce Field, but the point is tocompare EC and Multipower. So I think I'll buy a Multipower instead, using the same 82 points. It could look like this:

53 Pool

8 m 16" Flight 1/2 END
8 m 16/16 F Field 1/2 END
3 m 2 BOD Regen
10 m +10d6 EB

82 points total

I can fly as fast as you. I can have a 22d6 EB, where you are limited to 12 (only works if the EB is not in another framework, of course). I can regenerate should the need arise. And I have the field. I could be a lot more flexible if I threw the whole EB in the MP, but let's not overcomplicate matters. [Farkling, I'm starting to be sold on an "all in" MP here...]

Now, in combat, I'll want the field up, I can float with 1" of flight and still do 2d6 more EB than you can. But you can move quicker. I think we're about equal, though I did have to forego the damage shield.

You're not comparing apples to apples. My regen works even when I'm unconscious. Very useful if I'm knocked out and bleeding to death. Your regen only works while unconscious if you happen to have 40 active points tied up in it when hit. And you're missing the damage shield, which is extremely useful if you're a melee fighter or if struck by a melee fighter. Having your enemy have 1/2 DCV everytime after being struck or after striking you is quite nice. To have both abilities separate and thus compare apples to apples, costs you 16 pts for regen and 27 pts for damage shield. That leaves you with 39 pts for your multipower which means:

28 Pool
6 m 11" flight 1/2 end
6 m 11/11 FF 1/2 end.

I'd say EC guy is far ahead. Incidentally, the Q&A strongly recommends against adding direct dice to a slot of a framework.

Q: The rules on 5E 208 discuss extra powers for a slot. The example given is an Energy Blast that has an outside-the-Multipower Flash accompanying it, bought with Linked. Would it be possible to just buy extra dice of Energy Blast, to make the EB more powerful?

A: Yes, that’s possible - unless the GM forbids it, which he should unless there’s some valid reason for buying the power that way.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

What about this pool?

48 Pool

8 m 16" Flight 1/2 END
8 m 16/16 F Field 1/2 END
3 m 2 BOD Regen
9 m +9d6 EB
5 m Mystery Power Slot

81

hmmm...I have a point left over. I'll buy +2 COM so I get better press coverage than you ;)

Now, I'll generally put my force field up, and leave the remaining points to fly (although I could hover and still get +1d6. Oh, and as soon as your Damage Shield goes up, I'll reserve to the end of a segment, drop my field for flight, half move into physical range, and shift to Mystery Slot. It's 8 Flash DEF force field + 4d6 Drain Sight Flash Def (Ultra). You should be blind for the next turn or so - I don't anticipate having much trouble taking you out now...

Obviously, having such an obvious counterpower is pretty unlikely, but I can have a cute trick like the damage shield.

Except that if you use your cute trick, you're not flying and don't have any defense up.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

WHO HAS THE ADVANTAGE?: Debateable. EC can use his powers all at once and I can't. But I can boost my powers more than he can. [Ignore the Flash Def Drain - the odds of clean KO powers meeting is negligible]

EC guy has the huge advantage after you make the appropriate adjustments.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Now let's delete the EC discount, as you propose. For "the Character formerly known as EC Guy" to keep all his powers, he must have another 40 points. So I should get the same to keep it comparable. I could add these straight to my EB, and have 20d6, but let's keep with the MP. And let's keep it simple - I won't use those extra points to buy 8 new Ultra, or 4 new Flex slots. I'll just do this:

80 Pool

8 m 16" Flight 1/2 END
16 m 32/32 F Field 1/2 END
3 m 2 BOD Regen
15 m +15d6 EB

122

Still no fluffy powers, but I could always reduce the pool, I suppose, and add some. But I can:

- match your defense and airspeed.
- forget airspeed and crank my defenses another 16 points - how useful is your 12 die blast now?
- Hover (5), match your field (40) and add 7d6 to my EB.
- reserve until DEX 1 Ph 11, hover, hit you with 27d6 and abort Ph 12 to reactivate my field assuming you can still fire back after a 27d6 hit (tell you what, I'll make it 24d6 and use the extra 3 to spread for OCV...)

Now there seems to be a pretty clear advantage...and all because you took away EC Guy's point savings and didn't similarly restrict MultiPower Man.

Let's also remember that I made these MP's up on the fly. They aren't tweaked to maximize effectiveness (I assume your EC is the same, so no one has an advantage here either, although I wonder whether you pulled the EC from an existing character given that creative regen power).

After you make the appropriate adjustments (buying the damage shield and regen separately), you have 80 pts left over. You can buy the following:

57 pool
11 m 23" flight 1/2 end
11 m 23/23 FF 1/2 end

Which is better? It's pretty even. Both of us have the same regen and damage shield, but I have the ability to have 80 pts of effect up at once. I can have both 16" flight, and 16/16 FF up at the same time, while if you have 16" flight, you can only have 7/7 FF and vice versa. However, you have the flexibility of maxing your def or flight if necessary.

I reject the extra EB dice in the multipower since the Q&A clearly seems to imply that this is a GM permission power, the same way as adding a 0 end power to a EC would be.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X
Blah blah blah

You can crunch numbers all day and you still can't explain to me why in my 12 years of Hero gaming I haven't seen EC characters lord it over everyone else.

But Hugh and I like to crunch numbers. Don't spoil our fun. :p

The most efficient character designs in my experience are the brick with 10 pts of martial arts, and the person with multipower or vpp attacks and EC movements and defenses.

[Agent X]

I had a character who had a really nice vehicle along with a MPP that rocked. I had a character who had a big force field and series of powers linked to the force field that proved mighty. There's a bunch of nifty ways to go. Most character concepts are best served with ECs and MPPs but I'm not sure that makes them more effective ways to build. I'm not big on the 10 pt. martial art trick with bricks as it encourages a very dull fighting style. I prefer skill levels to martial arts with my bricks for greater versatility.

[Farkling]

/QUOTE/
The most efficient character designs in my experience are the brick with 10 pts of martial arts, and the person with multipower or vpp attacks and EC movements and defenses.
/ENDQUOTE/

Yeah...the 10pt MA brick is efficient. I'm still working on counteractions for that. Meanwhile, the evil bricks are getting M.A. packages too.
Today's GM Question for input:: Just what CAN'T Martial Escape STR be used against? :)

As to the attack Mpower and EC/VPP Move/Defend ... That is pure metagaming in my mind, even IF the "Implementors" do it. They are violating the spirit of their own rules...but it says in the back of the book this is acceptable, so I have no ground to stand on over it. :)

EC Defense Powers or EC: Movement is expressly discouraged in the system explanations...so dressing it up and calling it EC::MegaPortation isn't going to trick me. I want a full suite of powers in the EC. Three is the minimum, five is preferred. You want the flexibilty of a Multipower, then buy an Attack in the EC and put Variable Advantage on it. In play, this will let MPower Guy retain some higher powered atack than EC Guy...but EC guy will have an attack or two equivalent or better than MPower guy. It's waaay more honest in my eyes than the Attack Multipower+EC/VPP Defense/Move point-whoring.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Farkling
/QUOTE/
The most efficient character designs in my experience are the brick with 10 pts of martial arts, and the person with multipower or vpp attacks and EC movements and defenses.
/ENDQUOTE/

Yeah...the 10pt MA brick is efficient. I'm still working on counteractions for that. Meanwhile, the evil bricks are getting M.A. packages too.
Today's GM Question for input:: Just what CAN'T Martial Escape STR be used against? :)

As to the attack Mpower and EC/VPP Move/Defend ... That is pure metagaming in my mind, even IF the "Implementors" do it. They are violating the spirit of their own rules...but it says in the back of the book this is acceptable, so I have no ground to stand on over it. :)

EC Defense Powers or EC: Movement is expressly discouraged in the system explanations...so dressing it up and calling it EC::MegaPortation isn't going to trick me. I want a full suite of powers in the EC. Three is the minimum, five is preferred. You want the flexibilty of a Multipower, then buy an Attack in the EC and put Variable Advantage on it. In play, this will let MPower Guy retain some higher powered atack than EC Guy...but EC guy will have an attack or two equivalent or better than MPower guy. It's waaay more honest in my eyes than the Attack Multipower+EC/VPP Defense/Move point-whoring. Dressing it up? Attacks are actions. Defenses usually aren't. Movement are actions that most characters can take while they attack.

Let's reason to effect shall we? I want to design a character with electrical powers who can fly, has a force field, a damage shield, and has a variety of electrical attacks. Hmmm, I know!:) I'll build a character that has an electrical elemental control with flight, force field, and a damage shield in it. For my attacks I'll buy a multipower with about 6 different slots. Now, I can have my movement, force field, and damage shield going just like in the comic books and I can still attack... just like in the comic books.

Honestly, your ban seems fairly arbitrary to me. I suppose you would make many published characters illegal in your game.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
You're not comparing apples to apples. My regen works even when I'm unconscious. Very useful if I'm knocked out and bleeding to death. Your regen only works while unconscious if you happen to have 40 active points tied up in it when hit. And you're missing the damage shield, which is extremely useful if you're a melee fighter or if struck by a melee fighter. Having your enemy have 1/2 DCV everytime after being struck or after striking you is quite nice. To have both abilities separate and thus compare apples to apples, costs you 16 pts for regen and 27 pts for damage shield. That leaves you with 39 pts for your multipower which means:

Regen: I can shift to it if I take BOD. I think the odds of moving from full BOD to negative BOD in one shot is limited enough that it's not a severe limit. It is a limit, though.

The damage sheild? Sure. If your opponent decides to fight hand to hand. My character doesn't have it, so he won't stand there and get smacked around - he'll gain altitude instead. Even if I want the DA, I can put it in a multipower.

Originally posted by Gary
Q: The rules on 5E 208 discuss extra powers for a slot. The example given is an Energy Blast that has an outside-the-Multipower Flash accompanying it, bought with Linked. Would it be possible to just buy extra dice of Energy Blast, to make the EB more powerful?

A: Yes, that’s possible - unless the GM forbids it, which he should unless there’s some valid reason for buying the power that way.

The "valid reason" is channelling more energy to the EB through the multipower. It's no less valid than regen because you're coalescing light. If it bothers you that much, though, we can put the EB in the Multi as a whole, and have a huge pool, with even more choices. By the way, he didn't say "this should generally not be allowed" (such as, say, Duplicates with Duplication), he says "unless the GM forbids it". EC's are also allowed "unless the GM forbids it", which IMO he should if the power doesn't link to the special effects stringly enough.


Originally posted by Gary
Except that if you use your cute trick, you're not flying and don't have any defense up.

No, I'd probably have to stuff the EB in there as well (and you can save 20 by stuffing yours in the EC, of course).

Cutting to the chase, the fact is that the Multi Guy has an advantage in versatility, while EC holds the advantage in being able to use everything at once. But take away the EC point break, and Multi-Guy gets far more versatile on the same points, toasting your advantage.

After you make the appropriate adjustments (buying the damage shield and regen separately), you have 80 pts left over. You can buy the following:

[/B][/QUOTE]I reject the extra EB dice in the multipower since the Q&A clearly seems to imply that this is a GM permission power, the same way as adding a 0 end power to a EC would be.[/B][/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: Then I reject your Light special effect for your regeneration being close enough tied to Light special effects. We can play that game all day.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Agent X
Blah blah blah

You can crunch numbers all day and you still can't explain to me why in my 12 years of Hero gaming I haven't seen EC characters lord it over everyone else.

BINGO!!!

The number crunching we've done above, in my opinion, shows that we get an EC and a Multipower character who are pretty close. One has the advantage in being able to do all these things at once. The other has the advantage in being able to access more flexibility.

Take away the EC cost break, however, and Multi-Man will walk all over the guy buying all his powers independently with no point breaks.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Regen: I can shift to it if I take BOD. I think the odds of moving from full BOD to negative BOD in one shot is limited enough that it's not a severe limit. It is a limit, though.

How about the situation where you get stunned for con, and the next segment after the FF drops, an area effect or explosive killing attack strikes the area? This has happened to me before. And if you take a bunch of body, that’s a bunch of turns that your MP is tied up. If I’m attacked in that time period, I’m regenerating. If you’re attacked, you’re spending your MP points on flight and FF. You do not have 40 points to waste in your MP. So yeah, I consider this a severe limitation for you and a comparison of apples and oranges if you don’t take this into account.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The damage sheild? Sure. If your opponent decides to fight hand to hand. My character doesn't have it, so he won't stand there and get smacked around - he'll gain altitude instead. Even if I want the DA, I can put it in a multipower.

You’ve got to do better than this. You’re depending on not getting hit in HTH as justification for not being disadvantaged compared to EC lad? Using that justification, I could buy down my body and stun down to 1 by saying that my game plan is not to ever be hit. :rolleyes: Have you ever considered that your opponents might not cooperate with your game plan?

With my damage shield, if a HTH combatant hits me or if I have a HTH attack, my opponent becomes ½ OCV and ½ DCV to me and my teammates. If they hit you, they can fight at full effectiveness. If you ignore the DS, then you’re comparing apples to oranges again. And if you stick the DS in the multipower, you’re tying up 41 pts, which means you have a lot less flight and FF, a major disadvantage.

Please compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The "valid reason" is channelling more energy to the EB through the multipower. It's no less valid than regen because you're coalescing light. If it bothers you that much, though, we can put the EB in the Multi as a whole, and have a huge pool, with even more choices. By the way, he didn't say "this should generally not be allowed" (such as, say, Duplicates with Duplication), he says "unless the GM forbids it". EC's are also allowed "unless the GM forbids it", which IMO he should if the power doesn't link to the special effects stringly enough.

Steve Long’s language was unless the GM forbids it, which he should. This is GM permission language to me. Another Q&A clarified that Steve only intended extra dice to be added to a MP if the extra dice are limited in some way such as with Pulsar’s 8d6 EB + 4d6 2xEnd + 4d6 3xEnd, etc.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

No, I'd probably have to stuff the EB in there as well (and you can save 20 by stuffing yours in the EC, of course).

Cutting to the chase, the fact is that the Multi Guy has an advantage in versatility, while EC holds the advantage in being able to use everything at once. But take away the EC point break, and Multi-Guy gets far more versatile on the same points, toasting your advantage.

Only if you compare apples to oranges. If you make the proper comparison, then EC guy wipes the floor with MP guy.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

:rolleyes: Then I reject your Light special effect for your regeneration being close enough tied to Light special effects. We can play that game all day.

Nope, Steve specifically said that regen was ok for a EC because the base power, healing, cost End normally. He specifically recommended against extra dice linked to a MP. There’s a big difference between that.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
BINGO!!!

The number crunching we've done above, in my opinion, shows that we get an EC and a Multipower character who are pretty close. One has the advantage in being able to do all these things at once. The other has the advantage in being able to access more flexibility.

Take away the EC cost break, however, and Multi-Man will walk all over the guy buying all his powers independently with no point breaks.

Only with your apples and oranges comparison.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
How about the situation where you get stunned for con, and the next segment after the FF drops, an area effect or explosive killing attack strikes the area? This has happened to me before. And if you take a bunch of body, that’s a bunch of turns that your MP is tied up. If I’m attacked in that time period, I’m regenerating. If you’re attacked, you’re spending your MP points on flight and FF. You do not have 40 points to waste in your MP. So yeah, I consider this a severe limitation for you and a comparison of apples and oranges if you don’t take this into account.

I don't consider this a "all the time" situation. It is a possibility, which is why MultiGuy and EC Guy are about equal IF Ec Guy gets his discount.

It's a comparison of EC to Multipower, remember? They won;t both work identically. There are tradeoffs.


Originally posted by Gary
You’ve got to do better than this. You’re depending on not getting hit in HTH as justification for not being disadvantaged compared to EC lad? Using that justification, I could buy down my body and stun down to 1 by saying that my game plan is not to ever be hit. :rolleyes: Have you ever considered that your opponents might not cooperate with your game plan?

With my damage shield, if a HTH combatant hits me or if I have a HTH attack, my opponent becomes ½ OCV and ½ DCV to me and my teammates. If they hit you, they can fight at full effectiveness. If you ignore the DS, then you’re comparing apples to oranges again. And if you stick the DS in the multipower, you’re tying up 41 pts, which means you have a lot less flight and FF, a major disadvantage.

Your first contention was that EC Guy's big advantage is to have all these powers available at once. You then provide Flight and a Damage Aura. Flight in combat keeps you out of HTH. Damage Aura only works if you are in HTH. "In HTH": Apple. "Not in HTH" Orange.

If EC provides a cost break, the MP Guy must choose between the two - so EC guy hjas an advantage in this regard. If the EC goes, EC Guy pays full rates ofr both powers. With those extra points, MP Guy can boost the MP base enough to have Force Field and Damage Aura on at the same time, shifting the MP after landing in HTH range.


Originally posted by Gary
Steve Long’s language was unless the GM forbids it, which he should. This is GM permission language to me. Another Q&A clarified that Steve only intended extra dice to be added to a MP if the extra dice are limited in some way such as with Pulsar’s 8d6 EB + 4d6 2xEnd + 4d6 3xEnd, etc.

I note you cut the quote off right before the "unless it is justified well" statement. Unless I can justify any of my character's powers, the GM has every right to disallow them.


Originally posted by Gary
Nope, Steve specifically said that regen was ok for a EC because the base power, healing, cost End normally. He specifically recommended against extra dice linked to a MP. There’s a big difference between that.

Please quote me saying Regen is not a legit EC power? I said I don't buy the power as legit in YOUR EXAMPLE EC because I find the "Coalescing Light" special effect to be strectching the SFX.

This, and your mangle of Steve's comments on "extra dice in MP", indicate to me that you don't actually read the full statement, just pull those portions that may support your case.

What I'm hearing from other posters is that they don't find their campaigns overrun by overpowered EC characters. I don't either. I believe that is because the EC point break is not the unbalancing monster you make it out to be. Simple as that. YMMV

[Agent X]

More blah. The game works guys. This is what I would like addressed. Can anyone honestly say that the characters in the books, with all the different framework strategies, necessarily are imbalanced?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I don't consider this a "all the time" situation. It is a possibility, which is why MultiGuy and EC Guy are about equal IF Ec Guy gets his discount.

I disagree, it’s fairly common from what I’ve seen that people with FF’s get stunned for con or knocked out, and are in battle with enemies who have area effects or explosions, or who want to make sure that an enemy stays unconscious.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

It's a comparison of EC to Multipower, remember? They won;t both work identically. There are tradeoffs.



Your first contention was that EC Guy's big advantage is to have all these powers available at once. You then provide Flight and a Damage Aura. Flight in combat keeps you out of HTH. Damage Aura only works if you are in HTH. "In HTH": Apple. "Not in HTH" Orange.

If EC provides a cost break, the MP Guy must choose between the two - so EC guy hjas an advantage in this regard. If the EC goes, EC Guy pays full rates ofr both powers. With those extra points, MP Guy can boost the MP base enough to have Force Field and Damage Aura on at the same time, shifting the MP after landing in HTH range..

Ha ha ha. Roflmao. This is too funny. I would love to play in your campaign where buying a few inches of flight makes you immune to HTH attacks. You never had a MA, brick, or speedster in your campaign with flight, gliding, swinging, superleap, teleportation, vehicle, or have a teammate that could provide transport to the EB guy??? By not paying points for the DS, you’re conceding a major advantage to the EC guy and thus it’s an apples to oranges comparison.




Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I note you cut the quote off right before the "unless it is justified well" statement. Unless I can justify any of my character's powers, the GM has every right to disallow them.

This is ridiculous. The GM has the right to disallow anything if it can't be justified. He can disallow EB or flight if he chooses. However, EB and flight don't have a specific caution by Steve against their usage, unlike extra dice of EB outside a MP which does have a specific caution against it.

Here is another Q&A:

Q: Can a character have a power outside a Multipower or Elemental Control that adds to or “stacks with” a slot in the Framework? For example, if a character has a Multipower with an EB 12d6 slot, could he buy EB +8d6, or a Drain DEX, defined as adding to that slot?

A: Yes, as follows. There are two situations involved in this sort of thing. One is the situation in which a character simply buys extra dice of the same power to add to a Framework slot. Typically this is done because there’s some modifier on the extra dice that doesn’t apply to the base dice in the Framework. For example, a character might have extra dice that cost x10 END and take a Full Phase to create an “extended Push.” In this case, the extra dice are simply an extension of the power and would be expressed something like this: EB +6d6 . The + sign is important - it signifies that the power is merely an extension of an existing power. It cannot function on its own, and being all part of the one power, cannot take the Linked Limitation. A good example of this, though not one specifically involving a Multipower, is the power that Pulsar buys on 5E 180.
The other circumstance involves a completely different power bought to work in conjunction with a Multipower slot - as with the example on 5E 208, regarding Starburst’s EB-Flash combo. That sort of thing does normally qualify for the Linked Limitation, because it’s not just an extension of the base power. It’s two different powers, working together.

Combined with the first Q&A, it clearly implies that Steve considers the extra dice outside the MP to be if there are additional limits that make those extra dice differ from the dice inside the MP. Dice outside a MP are [i]different from dice inside a MP in Steve Long's eyes.




Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Please quote me saying Regen is not a legit EC power? I said I don't buy the power as legit in YOUR EXAMPLE EC because I find the "Coalescing Light" special effect to be strectching the SFX.

Ah, now we get to the subjective GM calls about what is allowed in a EC or not. Of course you would disagree with it, because you want to win the point. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

This, and your mangle of Steve's comments on "extra dice in MP", indicate to me that you don't actually read the full statement, just pull those portions that may support your case.

What I'm hearing from other posters is that they don't find their campaigns overrun by overpowered EC characters. I don't either. I believe that is because the EC point break is not the unbalancing monster you make it out to be. Simple as that. YMMV

And what about the fact that you absolutely refuse to make an apples to apples comparison?

Please read both Q&A together.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
There is a viable alternative. Simply give the related powers the limitation that it's actually worth. If you have a set of powers, give either a -1/4 or -1/2 limitation that to drain one drains all. To the extent that you give more points than this limitation, it is free points.

In that spirit, I'd argue that the control cost for VPPs should be at least the cost of the pool itself (instead of half) and MPs slots should be -1 for variable and -2 for ultra.

But it's your game of course and to be fair and honest, it's not like I'd refuse to play in a game because they messed around with ECs. However uninformed and foolish such a decision would be. :D (I am really kidding on that last line)

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Gary
[B]I disagree, it’s fairly common from what I’ve seen that people with FF’s get stunned for con or knocked out, and are in battle with enemies who have area effects or explosions, or who want to make sure that an enemy stays unconscious.

The regeneration takes 1 turn to get 1 BODY. I've never been in a situation where 1 BODY per turn had a serious effect on combat. And unless I read the rules wrong, both the powers in EC and MP would go out when the character is stunned or KO'd - the exception being the Regeneration, which is specifically bought as persistant. Anyone's FF goes down, they're pretty much a target of opportunity IMO. Unless both have big defenses, the regenerate body doesn't do much for negative stun.




Ha ha ha. Roflmao. This is too funny. I would love to play in your campaign where buying a few inches of flight makes you immune to HTH attacks. You never had a MA, brick, or speedster in your campaign with flight, gliding, swinging, superleap, teleportation, vehicle, or have a teammate that could provide transport to the EB guy??? By not paying points for the DS, you’re conceding a major advantage to the EC guy and thus it’s an apples to oranges comparison.

I may be wrong, but if a character attacks EC man, gets blinded, then maybe the brick grabs a car or telephone pole, the speedster grabs the metal frisbee he uses as an EB, the marksman gets his rifle out. I think I've only seen one character in the games I've played in who had no ranged attack. I think his point was that flying characters tend to get attacked by ranged attacks. The flash damage shield may be a neat one-use or limited use power, but since its obviously visible, it isn't that effective as a defensive countermeasure once word gets around. It can help as an offensive weapon, perhaps in a move-by or through, but in that caase why not by a regular flash attack. That limits is usefulness tremendously, IMO.



Ah, now we get to the subjective GM calls about what is allowed in a EC or not. Of course you would disagree with it, because you want to win the point. :rolleyes:

Isn't this whole thread pretty subjective? :D

I made the EC and an MP the same way as in the example. With the same points, I made a 58 pt multipower pool for the same powers (8 point multi-slots). For better use, I put the regen and flash in ultra slots (4 each), and got another 8 point slot (8d6 EB) - now MP doesn't have to let them come to him - he can take the fight to the enemy.:) As to who is more powerful that's completely subjective. If both characters slug it out, with no tactics, then the EC probably will win. If their is some flexibility, the odds are probably still in the favor of EC guy (since he can use all powers at full power). If you go with both characters going after a villain, then its more open, especially if you modify the MP as I did.

We've rarely used ECs since they were always pretty restricted, and cost too much. MPs offered ease of expansion and use. Sure, the characters were not as powerful as the comic book heroes (like the oft-cited human torch example), but for a few points they can improve their power suite. ECs, as have been noted, can't do that. EC man still needs 20 CP to add a power (adjusted down in RP, of course). MP man needs 4 or 8 for full power. 8 points buys 40 active, opposed to 20 points for 40 active. The MP cost can also have limitations on it to lower the real cost as well (didn't want to imply it couldn't be done).

To me its imposible to accurately 'prove' that one is better than the other - each one has benefits in certain situations. If you look at an EC and MP constructed in exactly the same way, the MP costs less, but the EC can do more at once. That's what its designed to do. Try to make an EC as flexible as an MP, for the same cost - can't be done to my knowledge.

Trying to prove that just seems to be comparing batman to oranges ;) (sorry - had to keep batman and fruits together in the thread somehow)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
Possibly. I'm very good at finding holes in the rules and exploiting loopholes. Did I ever show you my 1 real point thermonuclear bomb? :p

Although I'm not accusing you of such, I'd just point out that the many holes and loopholes are only problematic when not taking into account the whole of the system and that there MUST be a GM and that HERO cannot (and should not) be written such that points can be spent without GM oversight.

I only say this because I've seen many objections to rules and frameworks based on their "abuse", potential or otherwise, and that sort of bothers me when one considers that the rules were not written to be played without an umpire, thus most things cannot be taken at face values. LIke, just to pick a blatant example, just because the rules don't limit the number of slots in an MP or the number of frameworks that you can have every power in an MP or 10 frameworks just to reduce prices/create efficiency.

Again, Gary, this post is a tangent and not a direct reflection on your take on things.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
Yeah, it's hard to quantify the value of versatility, but in the majority of encounters, 18d6 is better than the multipower. You'll get a situation where 75% of the time, the single power is better and 25% of the time, the multipower is a lot better. That seems to be a fair tradeoff in my book.

I don't think that's true, because for encounters villains/situations are geared to challenge players in a "realistic" way. That being said, I'm not so likely to create a villain who can stop a wide variety of MP powers (except at their root, and with MPs there's no enforced linkage as the same degree as with ECs) as I am a villain who will stop "the element" that is obvious to the character. The reason that the villain isn't as likely to stop an entire MP is that "realism" in the campaign; I can't afford to suspend disbelief to the point where a villain has a counter for everything in an MP. If the MP conveniently rests on a focus (yes, many do) it's a good bit simpler. But I find most players are unwilling to do so. And your classic Batman has an MP of "gadgets" that usually is not solely dependent on his utility belt.

Typically, I see MPs that are harder to scatter at once, whereas ECs are always pretty obvious in their effects. I would say that's been true well before 5th edition.

As an aside, as to your comments about the "changes" in 5th, the only one I can see that really matters is the 0 END one. That does address some of your concern. As to the drain-one-drain-all "addition", I don't know of a person who didn't play it such that a reasonable drain didn't drain the EC, and I don't know of a reasonable person who is playing it in practice identically to what 5th says on that point UNLESS they're (and this is reasonable) ensuring that any drains are well-defined enough in SFX that in practice it always works out.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Once again, the question: What percentage of players want an 18d6 attack, and what percentage want more versatility. (snipped)

Just to chime in from real world experience - "most" (actually the vast majority if I look through sheest) players I've seen will take the versatility over the big attack any day. And "most' players I've seen don't put a big attack in an EC and smaller attacks in an MP, although I've seen this on occassion certainly.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
But Hugh and I like to crunch numbers. Don't spoil our fun. :p

The most efficient character designs in my experience are the brick with 10 pts of martial arts, and the person with multipower or vpp attacks and EC movements and defenses.

Well, in my game a brick can't do anything with 10 points of Martial Arts just because I do something similar to the earliest editions in that MA is essentially an advantage on STR (long story and a tangent to this thread, I've posted it elsewhere in more detail and you've probably seen it). So I will thoroughly admit I can't relate on this one. But as one of my players pointed out, you can just buy skill levels for the brick anyway and it's just about as cheap. Skill levels do that for just about anybody.

I dont' disagree that the MP/VPP with EC is an efficient design. But to AgentX' point, while the characters you've seen are more "efficient", were they really measurably more effective in game play?

Now that's a loaded question - if you're like me as a GM, you strive to ensure there's some equivalency in point of play. So I understand that and it's not intended to back you into any corner. I welcome any comments you have that say "no, but here's what I had to do as GM to "correct" it"

[Hugh Neilson]

**sigh** Windmill - Don
Don - Windmill


Originally posted by Gary
I disagree, it’s fairly common from what I’ve seen that people with FF’s get stunned for con or knocked out, and are in battle with enemies who have area effects or explosions, or who want to make sure that an enemy stays unconscious.

For the extra regen you'll get before the battle ends (one way or another), it's not that big a difference. And I son;t see area effects commonly used in super vs super battles, simply because the advantage raises the AP/DC to a point whyere only guys with their fields down are vulnerable.

Assuming EC Man has a total 25 DEF, by the way, he must have 9 DEF outside the EC, which means that "take him out" shot needs to roll 19 BOD to put him in any mortal danger anyway.

The fact is, 2 BOD/turn regen is lots out of combat, and not enough to make a lot of difference in combat.


Originally posted by Gary
Ha ha ha. Roflmao. This is too funny. I would love to play in your campaign where buying a few inches of flight makes you immune to HTH attacks. You never had a MA, brick, or speedster in your campaign with flight, gliding, swinging, superleap, teleportation, vehicle, or have a teammate that could provide transport to the EB guy??? By not paying points for the DS, you’re conceding a major advantage to the EC guy and thus it’s an apples to oranges comparison.

Badger3k covered this one off fine. If I have a ranged attack, I attack you from range. If I'm a Brick, I throw a bus at you. If I'm a MA, my best approach may be to go jackrabbit - Martial Dodge, all levels to DCV and hunt cover. You can only do this for a limited time (whether because of your charges or because END runs out eventually). Or one of my teammates with a ranged attack gets to take you out.

That said, I have conceded an advantage to EC Guy. But it's not the huge advantage you seem to perceive. All I need is 5 points of flash defense to block it reliably, or 10 points to block it utterly. A non-sight targeting sense will do the job as well. The Damage Shield is a fluff power, not central to a character.


Originally posted by Gary
This is ridiculous. The GM has the right to disallow anything if it can't be justified. He can disallow EB or flight if he chooses. However, EB and flight don't have a specific caution by Steve against their usage, unlike extra dice of EB outside a MP which does have a specific caution against it.

OK, first off the RULE BOOK itself provides a power in a framework can't add to a power in another framework. That statement alone seems to imply that a power in a framework can add to a power outside. But we're not going to agree on that one, so let's just move MP Guy's balst entiurely in the MP (another 60 points, added to the 122 available if EC's aren't allowed) and have this MP:

120 Pool

13 +26/+26 ForceField 1/2 END
8 16" Flight 1/2 END
3 2 ptrs Regeneration
24 23d6 EB
11 11d6 Flash
3 15 Flash Def

182 POINT TOTAL

So, 40 points in Force Field (16/16, like you have) and 10 in Flight leave me 70 to use as I please. More flight, if I need more speed. More force field if I need more def. Regen if I'm injured for BOD (or concerned I might be). Flash DEF if need be. Or 14d6 EB (two dice more than EC Man has) to take you out. Or, if I think Flash will blind you, how about 12d6 EB + 2d6 Flash as a multiple power attack (legit since I have the AP to do it - not so with two attack powers in an EC).

Of course, I could tone down the EB max dice and take another attack power (maybe a ranged drain or a ranged transfer - those are generally fun). And I haven't even used the usual Ultra slots.

Take out those extra 40 (or 60 if EB in EC) points the EC would save, and I'll have to make much tougher choices. With the EC gone, though, Multi-Man's extra versatility forces him to make some hard choices in battling Ec Guy. That MP may look more like this:

80 Pool

13 +26/+26 ForceField 1/2 END
8 16" Flight 1/2 END
3 2 ptrs Regeneration
15 15d6 EB
3 15 Flash Def

122

I can still do pretty much anything EC Man can, but I had to sacrifice the extra attack (Flash) and I have to make some tough choices allocating between move, defense and attack. 40 points in Force Field means an 8d6 attack now. The Flash will be cheap enough to add with a few xp (a few dice at a time). But the reserve will take time to build up.


Originally posted by Gary
Ah, now we get to the subjective GM calls about what is allowed in a EC or not. Of course you would disagree with it, because you want to win the point. :rolleyes:

I "would disagree" because you're stretching "light powers". Note, however, that for the purposes of comparison I accept the power's availability. If it has to be bought separately, MP Guy has another 8 points - woop woop! :o


Originally posted by Gary
And what about the fact that you absolutely refuse to make an apples to apples comparison?

I don't think I can read that statement one more time without referring to a different fruit (HINT: It's yellow!]

In any case, the whole point of MP vs EC is that EC permits an extra power to be acquired for 1/2 the cost of the "base pool power", but allows them all to be used at once. MP allows a new power for 1/5 or 1/10 the "base pool power", but you can't use them all at once. It seems the only "aples to apples" comparison that works for you is "exactly what the EC guy can do", which misses the point entirely. There are tradeoffs between the two frameworks. With the EC, EC and Multipower are pretty well balanced. Toast the EC, and Multipowers walk all over the poor guy left with no framework.

Tell me, have you actually RUN any games with the "no EC and no changes to Multipowers" approach, or is this all theoretical? I don't think I'm the only one who's been running for years with both frameworks (and, if anything, liberal EC's) and speaks from practical experience to say the EC does not provide an unbalanced advantage.

EDIT: GACK! Forgot to mention Batman! I won't try to compare him - if EC's and Multi's are apples and oranges, he's a turkey dinner with all the trimmings anyway. But he can add a gadget to his Utility Belt multi for 1-2 points. Gosh, I can use the xp I had in my first encounter with this new EC villain to add a device that will specifically be detrimental to him. No requirement to fit it to special effects - that's EC Man's problem. And look at the BatBooks - this is precisely how Bats approaches a problem. If he doesn't already have a gadget to deal with NewVillainMan, he finds one, or hge makes one! Meanwhile, EC Man with the same 2 XP, needs to fight Bats 9 more times to buy a new EC power to help him out. He'll be cooling his heels in BlackGate long before that!

[Farkling]

/QUOTE/
"Let's reason to effect shall we? I want to design a character with electrical powers who can fly, has a force field, a damage shield, and has a variety of electrical attacks. Hmmm, I know! I'll build a character that has an electrical elemental control with flight, force field, and a damage shield in it. For my attacks I'll buy a multipower with about 6 different slots."
/ENDQUOTE/

Alright...now tell me this Fibber McGee...why are your Defenses and Movements subject to mass electrical failure (Drain/Transfer) and your Energy Blasts aren't? Because of energy levels? Skill? Raw Power? Metagaming?

/QUOTE/
Now, I can have my movement, force field, and damage shield going just like in the comic books and I can still attack... just like in the comic books.
/ENDQUOTE/

Yes...just like your well experienced, well trained, highly established comic book heroes... ever read any comics involving origin stories or initial formations of teams? Yes, I MIGHT allow multiple frameworks if I was forming the Justice League...but not the X-Men. My players are all about growth of characters...so we start low. Probably a matter of personal taste...we wouldn't start a DnD game with 20th level characters, or a Mage game with Archmages. If we were going to start with well established heroes who needed multiple frameworks...we'd be playing a Galactic Legion of SuperHeroes style game. We aren't, and only one player had an interest in that...

/QUOTE/
"Honestly, your ban seems fairly arbitrary to me. I suppose you would make many published characters illegal in your game."
/ENDQUOTE/

Yep that's it...a BAN with no room for flexibility at all. Hugh will be the first to testify I am a close minded bastard. :rolleyes:

A character who DID show up with multiple frameworks (Attack Mpower-Movement/Defense EC) all stemming from the SAME special effects would have the -0 limit stacked on for "drained as EC"... now, if that same character shows with an EC giving inherent powers and offensive powers from a source OTHER than the same EC effects, we might work it out.

As has been stated previously...in case you missed it...I DON'T buy the Universe supplements (in part) BECAUSE they use those constructs, and because the universe is lightly corny to my gaming group. Guess that means we are closer to high powered Dark Champions in your book.

I do however have an interest in the Agency books...those are always useful. When does GENOCIDE come out? I am updapting PSI to use in both the SPies and Supers game.

[Farkling]

And for the record...the EC - Light Powers with Regeneration in the EC ?? No. Power Transfer - Yes. Drain linked Aid - Yes. Drain linked Healing - Yes. Absorbtion - Yes. Desolid linked Regeneration in one slot - Maybe.
Flat purchase? I don't think so, since the offhand explanation seems to imply that you ARE Desolid, and possibly immobile.

But that's just in my game. Your GM may have a different view of PsuedoScience than I do.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Farkling
/QUOTE/
"Let's reason to effect shall we? I want to design a character with electrical powers who can fly, has a force field, a damage shield, and has a variety of electrical attacks. Hmmm, I know! I'll build a character that has an electrical elemental control with flight, force field, and a damage shield in it. For my attacks I'll buy a multipower with about 6 different slots."
/ENDQUOTE/

Alright...now tell me this Fibber McGee...why are your Defenses and Movements subject to mass electrical failure (Drain/Transfer) and your Energy Blasts aren't? Because of energy levels? Skill? Raw Power? Metagaming?

/QUOTE/
Now, I can have my movement, force field, and damage shield going just like in the comic books and I can still attack... just like in the comic books.
/ENDQUOTE/

Yes...just like your well experienced, well trained, highly established comic book heroes... ever read any comics involving origin stories or initial formations of teams? Yes, I MIGHT allow multiple frameworks if I was forming the Justice League...but not the X-Men. My players are all about growth of characters...so we start low. Probably a matter of personal taste...we wouldn't start a DnD game with 20th level characters, or a Mage game with Archmages. If we were going to start with well established heroes who needed multiple frameworks...we'd be playing a Galactic Legion of SuperHeroes style game. We aren't, and only one player had an interest in that...

/QUOTE/
"Honestly, your ban seems fairly arbitrary to me. I suppose you would make many published characters illegal in your game."
/ENDQUOTE/

Yep that's it...a BAN with no room for flexibility at all. Hugh will be the first to testify I am a close minded bastard. :rolleyes:

A character who DID show up with multiple frameworks (Attack Mpower-Movement/Defense EC) all stemming from the SAME special effects would have the -0 limit stacked on for "drained as EC"... now, if that same character shows with an EC giving inherent powers and offensive powers from a source OTHER than the same EC effects, we might work it out.

As has been stated previously...in case you missed it...I DON'T buy the Universe supplements (in part) BECAUSE they use those constructs, and because the universe is lightly corny to my gaming group. Guess that means we are closer to high powered Dark Champions in your book.

I do however have an interest in the Agency books...those are always useful. When does GENOCIDE come out? I am updapting PSI to use in both the SPies and Supers game. Hey, if that's the way you guys like to play that's fine. You posted your rationale and I absolutely disagree with it. BTW, when people bring up the X-Men to justify a certain view of character construction they necessarily are leaving a few characters out.

Personally, I like to play Champions in a way that encourages new players to walk right in and feel comfortable that they know how to build characters and play the game. And I do use the characters in the published materials as a guide for how to use frameworks, etc. If you think that's Cheesy... well, it sounds like a personal problem to me.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Agent X
Hey, if that's the way you guys like to play that's fine. You posted your rationale and I absolutely disagree with it. BTW, when people bring up the X-Men to justify a certain view of character construction they necessarily are leaving a few characters out.

It depends on which vewrsion of X-Men you want to address. When a new "mutant super group" is gathered from previous unknowns, generally recently active mutants, they do tend to be characters who haven't been fleshed out. I think the original 5 could all have been put together with no more than one framework apiece. The New X-Men (GS #1) could have been build similarly.

Do some have multiple frameworks now? Maybe. If they grew up in Farkling's campaign, maybe they expanded on their existing framework, or bought some powers independent of the framework, and just have a lot more xp than they would have in your campaign or mine, where they would have multiple frameworks. You CAN build them without frameworks. They just aren't as point-efficient.

Some "new" mutants (eg Bishop, Gambit) show up with lots more power than a "starting X-Man", but these guys have been around for a while (ie not "beginning characters" in terms of xp). They've earned their xp in another campaign, and aren't known to the present characters until, fully formed, they show up.


Originally posted by Agent X
Personally, I like to play Champions in a way that encourages new players to walk right in and feel comfortable that they know how to build characters and play the game. And I do use the characters in the published materials as a guide for how to use frameworks, etc. If you think that's Cheesy... well, it sounds like a personal problem to me.

On the one hand, I agree that play by the book makes it easier for new players and that's one of my biggest reasons for it. On the other hand, only one player in my group over the past 10+ years read the rules and knew the basics before starting with the group, so we could have made up pretty much any rules we wanted. On the third hand (Extra limbs - Gaming Only ;) ) pretty much every campaign has "house rules", major or minor. Even "oh, we allow 'no END' powers in EC's", or which AP/DC/DEF caps we enforce, or how critical it is to have some flash defense or a targetting sense that's not sight-based. Things that experienced players still need to root out. Of course, the less deviation from the norm, the easier it is for them.

Finally, I don't think Farkling's ever claimed his approach is anything but personal preference. He's certainly acknowledged numerous times that it's not the way the system creators use the frameworks. Certainly, he's never claimed that we softies who allow multiple frameworks aren't playing by the rules, just not by HIS rules.

And just for the record, no, I don't allow frameworks as slots in frameworks, Farkling :D And that IS an outright ban (Ok, no one's ever tried to persuade me, but still...) Say, out of curiosity, where do you stand on the "power in a framework boosting a power outside the framework" debate?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling
And for the record...the EC - Light Powers with Regeneration in the EC ?? No. Power Transfer - Yes. Drain linked Aid - Yes. Drain linked Healing - Yes. Absorbtion - Yes. Desolid linked Regeneration in one slot - Maybe.
Flat purchase? I don't think so, since the offhand explanation seems to imply that you ARE Desolid, and possibly immobile.

But that's just in my game. Your GM may have a different view of PsuedoScience than I do.

The other possibility I see from the comments are "my body is solid light so wounds heal faster". That doesn't sound so much light-based as altered body-based to me, and allowing that opens the door to "Android Body" EC's and pretty soon anyone can have an EC with half a dozen unrelated powers - "EC: Mutant Powers" (or Alien Powers, or Supernatural Powers, or "Batman's Abilities Powers", or "Apples and Oranges Powers" etc. [you guys keep forgetting the mandatory references in this thread - they're a thread rule, you know :eek: ).

[Gary]

Originally posted by badger3k
The regeneration takes 1 turn to get 1 BODY. I've never been in a situation where 1 BODY per turn had a serious effect on combat. And unless I read the rules wrong, both the powers in EC and MP would go out when the character is stunned or KO'd - the exception being the Regeneration, which is specifically bought as persistant. Anyone's FF goes down, they're pretty much a target of opportunity IMO. Unless both have big defenses, the regenerate body doesn't do much for negative stun.

Regen is like an insurance policy. It doesn't come into play a whole lot but when it does, you're really glad you bought it. Persistent regen is a lot better than nonpersistent regen.




Originally posted by badger3k

I may be wrong, but if a character attacks EC man, gets blinded, then maybe the brick grabs a car or telephone pole, the speedster grabs the metal frisbee he uses as an EB, the marksman gets his rifle out. I think I've only seen one character in the games I've played in who had no ranged attack. I think his point was that flying characters tend to get attacked by ranged attacks. The flash damage shield may be a neat one-use or limited use power, but since its obviously visible, it isn't that effective as a defensive countermeasure once word gets around. It can help as an offensive weapon, perhaps in a move-by or through, but in that caase why not by a regular flash attack. That limits is usefulness tremendously, IMO.

I checked CKC. About 1 in 5 characters have no ranged attacks, and a few have either wimpy ranged attacks or like Scorpia have a powerful ranged attack that can't be used against someone with a force field. Having a power that discourages 1 in 5 characters from using their most powerful attack on you is pretty good in my book. And there are limits to brick's using cars and trucks as free area effects. These are usually social or GM imposed limits since otherwise there would be nothing to prevent a brick from lugging a vault door with him all the time. If bricks use objects as free area effects too often, they should be made to buy the area effect advantage on their strength with OIF object of opportunity.




Originally posted by badger3k

Isn't this whole thread pretty subjective? :D

I made the EC and an MP the same way as in the example. With the same points, I made a 58 pt multipower pool for the same powers (8 point multi-slots). For better use, I put the regen and flash in ultra slots (4 each), and got another 8 point slot (8d6 EB) - now MP doesn't have to let them come to him - he can take the fight to the enemy.:) As to who is more powerful that's completely subjective. If both characters slug it out, with no tactics, then the EC probably will win. If their is some flexibility, the odds are probably still in the favor of EC guy (since he can use all powers at full power). If you go with both characters going after a villain, then its more open, especially if you modify the MP as I did.

We've rarely used ECs since they were always pretty restricted, and cost too much. MPs offered ease of expansion and use. Sure, the characters were not as powerful as the comic book heroes (like the oft-cited human torch example), but for a few points they can improve their power suite. ECs, as have been noted, can't do that. EC man still needs 20 CP to add a power (adjusted down in RP, of course). MP man needs 4 or 8 for full power. 8 points buys 40 active, opposed to 20 points for 40 active. The MP cost can also have limitations on it to lower the real cost as well (didn't want to imply it couldn't be done).

To me its imposible to accurately 'prove' that one is better than the other - each one has benefits in certain situations. If you look at an EC and MP constructed in exactly the same way, the MP costs less, but the EC can do more at once. That's what its designed to do. Try to make an EC as flexible as an MP, for the same cost - can't be done to my knowledge.

Trying to prove that just seems to be comparing batman to oranges ;) (sorry - had to keep batman and fruits together in the thread somehow)

I'll answer the rest of your post along with Hugh's since I don't want to cover the same ground twice.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
I don't think that's true, because for encounters villains/situations are geared to challenge players in a "realistic" way. That being said, I'm not so likely to create a villain who can stop a wide variety of MP powers (except at their root, and with MPs there's no enforced linkage as the same degree as with ECs) as I am a villain who will stop "the element" that is obvious to the character. The reason that the villain isn't as likely to stop an entire MP is that "realism" in the campaign; I can't afford to suspend disbelief to the point where a villain has a counter for everything in an MP. If the MP conveniently rests on a focus (yes, many do) it's a good bit simpler. But I find most players are unwilling to do so. And your classic Batman has an MP of "gadgets" that usually is not solely dependent on his utility belt.

Just how many villains are capable of stopping the player's special effects? In the majority of encounters, the big dice attack is better than the small dice multipower. In some encounters, the small dice multipower is much better than the big dice attack. You see characters in the book with 1 power attacks such as Cyclops all the time, but villains rarely find a way to specifically neutralize that single power.


Originally posted by zornwil

Typically, I see MPs that are harder to scatter at once, whereas ECs are always pretty obvious in their effects. I would say that's been true well before 5th edition.

As an aside, as to your comments about the "changes" in 5th, the only one I can see that really matters is the 0 END one. That does address some of your concern. As to the drain-one-drain-all "addition", I don't know of a person who didn't play it such that a reasonable drain didn't drain the EC, and I don't know of a reasonable person who is playing it in practice identically to what 5th says on that point UNLESS they're (and this is reasonable) ensuring that any drains are well-defined enough in SFX that in practice it always works out.

Yeah, the no 0 end powers in a EC really helps. In the bad old days, people would routinely put armor and damage reduction in the EC.

I see the drain one drain all aspect as being fundamental to the nature of a EC. If you don't want any drain to zap your FF at the same time as your flight, then maybe you shouldn't have accepted all those point savings, or accepted a lesser savings.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
Just to chime in from real world experience - "most" (actually the vast majority if I look through sheest) players I've seen will take the versatility over the big attack any day. And "most' players I've seen don't put a big attack in an EC and smaller attacks in an MP, although I've seen this on occassion certainly.

What player's tend to choose is a completely different subject than the "value" of a power. For example, most players would tend to choose a 12d6 natural attack as opposed to a 18d6 OIF attack, but the "values" are equivalent.

I would say that a single 90 pt attack is roughly in the same ballpark in terms of "value" to a 5 slot 60 pt multipower.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
Well, in my game a brick can't do anything with 10 points of Martial Arts just because I do something similar to the earliest editions in that MA is essentially an advantage on STR (long story and a tangent to this thread, I've posted it elsewhere in more detail and you've probably seen it). So I will thoroughly admit I can't relate on this one. But as one of my players pointed out, you can just buy skill levels for the brick anyway and it's just about as cheap. Skill levels do that for just about anybody.

I dont' disagree that the MP/VPP with EC is an efficient design. But to AgentX' point, while the characters you've seen are more "efficient", were they really measurably more effective in game play?

Now that's a loaded question - if you're like me as a GM, you strive to ensure there's some equivalency in point of play. So I understand that and it's not intended to back you into any corner. I welcome any comments you have that say "no, but here's what I had to do as GM to "correct" it"

It wasn't really a problem because of point caps, and the fact that everybody built the same way. The odd few characters that didn't build that way were either unique wonderful designs, or simply had fewer points to spend on skills and thus were less effective in non-combat. However, a certain level of GM favoritism was still needed so that the newer players who weren't as good at designing characters, still had a reasonable amount of airtime.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
**sigh** Windmill - Don
Don - Windmill

You're a pretty persistent windmill aren't you? ;)



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

For the extra regen you'll get before the battle ends (one way or another), it's not that big a difference. And I son;t see area effects commonly used in super vs super battles, simply because the advantage raises the AP/DC to a point whyere only guys with their fields down are vulnerable.

Assuming EC Man has a total 25 DEF, by the way, he must have 9 DEF outside the EC, which means that "take him out" shot needs to roll 19 BOD to put him in any mortal danger anyway.

The fact is, 2 BOD/turn regen is lots out of combat, and not enough to make a lot of difference in combat.

Have you ever heard of killing attacks? Those extra 9 Ded usually aren't resistant. And it's reasonable to throw out 3d6 killing explosions in the hopes of getting a good stun multiple. I suppose I can also change the regen to 1 body with resurrection. Needless to say, that's something that the multipower can't match.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Badger3k covered this one off fine. If I have a ranged attack, I attack you from range. If I'm a Brick, I throw a bus at you. If I'm a MA, my best approach may be to go jackrabbit - Martial Dodge, all levels to DCV and hunt cover. You can only do this for a limited time (whether because of your charges or because END runs out eventually). Or one of my teammates with a ranged attack gets to take you out.

That said, I have conceded an advantage to EC Guy. But it's not the huge advantage you seem to perceive. All I need is 5 points of flash defense to block it reliably, or 10 points to block it utterly. A non-sight targeting sense will do the job as well. The Damage Shield is a fluff power, not central to a character.

I covered this with badger, but let's change the EC example to something with a clear defensive edge. How about invisibility?



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

OK, first off the RULE BOOK itself provides a power in a framework can't add to a power in another framework. That statement alone seems to imply that a power in a framework can add to a power outside.

That's because powers outside can add to a power inside, but they have to be different powers. Such as 2d6 flash adding to a EB inside the MP. The Q&A makes it clear that this was the intent.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

But we're not going to agree on that one, so let's just move MP Guy's balst entiurely in the MP (another 60 points, added to the 122 available if EC's aren't allowed) and have this MP:

120 Pool

13 +26/+26 ForceField 1/2 END
8 16" Flight 1/2 END
3 2 ptrs Regeneration
24 23d6 EB
11 11d6 Flash
3 15 Flash Def

182 POINT TOTAL

So, 40 points in Force Field (16/16, like you have) and 10 in Flight leave me 70 to use as I please. More flight, if I need more speed. More force field if I need more def. Regen if I'm injured for BOD (or concerned I might be). Flash DEF if need be. Or 14d6 EB (two dice more than EC Man has) to take you out. Or, if I think Flash will blind you, how about 12d6 EB + 2d6 Flash as a multiple power attack (legit since I have the AP to do it - not so with two attack powers in an EC).

Yeah for 182 pts, you have a structure where you can only have 8d6 attacks and still match my flight and FF. You're also not matching my damage shield (or invisibility) and have a lesser form of regeneration. The only way you have a 2 DC advantage over me is if you lower your flight to a grand total of 4". And you're busting any point caps that might ever exist in your campaign. Congratulations, you've merely made your MP competitive with the Straight Power Dude, with a framework that you yourself would never allow in your campaign, and which doesn't match all the powers of the SPD.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Of course, I could tone down the EB max dice and take another attack power (maybe a ranged drain or a ranged transfer - those are generally fun). And I haven't even used the usual Ultra slots.

Take out those extra 40 (or 60 if EB in EC) points the EC would save, and I'll have to make much tougher choices. With the EC gone, though, Multi-Man's extra versatility forces him to make some hard choices in battling Ec Guy. That MP may look more like this:

80 Pool

13 +26/+26 ForceField 1/2 END
8 16" Flight 1/2 END
3 2 ptrs Regeneration
15 15d6 EB
3 15 Flash Def

122

I can still do pretty much anything EC Man can, but I had to sacrifice the extra attack (Flash) and I have to make some tough choices allocating between move, defense and attack. 40 points in Force Field means an 8d6 attack now. The Flash will be cheap enough to add with a few xp (a few dice at a time). But the reserve will take time to build up.

Let's change your example so that you add in invisibility, since we can't seem to agree on the value of the damage shield. You also get 6 more points to play with since that is the difference in cost.

80 Pool

13 +26/+26 ForceField 1/2 END
8 16" Flight 1/2 END
3 2 ptrs Regeneration
15 15d6 EB
1 5 Flash Def
8 Invisibility 40 pts worth

128

I don't see how you can say that this structure is competitive with EC Dude with 16/16 FF, 16" flight, invisibility, and persistent regen as well as a 12d6 attack.

To match my attack, you have a grand total of 20 pts to play with. You can have 8/8 FF, 8" flight, or 4" flight and 4/4 FF. If you want to match the FF and have even 4" of flight, you have a grand total of 6d6 attack. Woohoo. You're not even the slightest bit competitive. You can't even do something as basic as be invisible and attack with full dice at the same time, let alone have any protection or flight. EC guy will wipe the floor with you. I can't possibly see how you can confidently declare that your MP guy can handle the EC guy with his 68 pts extra savings. I can fly, be protected, be invisible, attack at full power, and have persistent regen all at the same time. You can have at most 2 of these, and less if you want to attack.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I "would disagree" because you're stretching "light powers". Note, however, that for the purposes of comparison I accept the power's availability. If it has to be bought separately, MP Guy has another 8 points - woop woop! :o

There is an actual Champions character with coalescing electricity as the basis for his regen. I don't remember the character's name, but he was electric based.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I don't think I can read that statement one more time without referring to a different fruit (HINT: It's yellow!]

In any case, the whole point of MP vs EC is that EC permits an extra power to be acquired for 1/2 the cost of the "base pool power", but allows them all to be used at once. MP allows a new power for 1/5 or 1/10 the "base pool power", but you can't use them all at once. It seems the only "aples to apples" comparison that works for you is "exactly what the EC guy can do", which misses the point entirely. There are tradeoffs between the two frameworks. With the EC, EC and Multipower are pretty well balanced. Toast the EC, and Multipowers walk all over the poor guy left with no framework.

As the above examples prove, the EC guy will walk all over the MP guy. If you get rid of the EC bonus, they'll be competitive.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Tell me, have you actually RUN any games with the "no EC and no changes to Multipowers" approach, or is this all theoretical? I don't think I'm the only one who's been running for years with both frameworks (and, if anything, liberal EC's) and speaks from practical experience to say the EC does not provide an unbalanced advantage.

I've always ran with EC's before. If I start a new campaign, I will replace them with a -1/4 or -1/2 drain one drain all limitation for those who want a point savings. In my experience, most people either have a EC, are characteristic based, or both. Nobody I know of has ever gone the big multipower with flexible slots.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

EDIT: GACK! Forgot to mention Batman! I won't try to compare him - if EC's and Multi's are apples and oranges, he's a turkey dinner with all the trimmings anyway. But he can add a gadget to his Utility Belt multi for 1-2 points. Gosh, I can use the xp I had in my first encounter with this new EC villain to add a device that will specifically be detrimental to him. No requirement to fit it to special effects - that's EC Man's problem. And look at the BatBooks - this is precisely how Bats approaches a problem. If he doesn't already have a gadget to deal with NewVillainMan, he finds one, or hge makes one! Meanwhile, EC Man with the same 2 XP, needs to fight Bats 9 more times to buy a new EC power to help him out. He'll be cooling his heels in BlackGate long before that!

You're picking a bad example. Bats has his multipower through foci. That means that zapping a single power zaps the entire MP at the same time. And with the power level of his gadgets, he probably only has 8 def non-hardened for his utility belt. He is highly vulnerable in ways that the EC dude isn't.

[Farkling]

/QUOTE/
" Say, out of curiosity, where do you stand on the "power in a framework boosting a power outside the framework" debate?"
/ENDQUOTE

It's allowed by the rules...though the implication is it should be a different power. I would allow the Pulsar construct up to a certain level of additional dice...probably even over the active point cap. No linked limitation, and only working in conjunction WITH that slot. The limitation on the dice MAKES it a different power by definition. The feel would only be right if it the outside power is "smaller" than the slot.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Agent X
Hey, if that's the way you guys like to play that's fine. You posted your rationale and I absolutely disagree with it. BTW, when people bring up the X-Men to justify a certain view of character construction they necessarily are leaving a few characters out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which characters? Speak up...let's see the examples. You are not allowed to use any characters created by Rob Liefeld as your source material. They pretty much ARE all designed with multiple frameworks, and probably even frameworks within frameworks if we analyzed them.

/QUOTE/
" You see characters in the book with 1 power attacks such as Cyclops all the time"
/ENDQUOTE/

Anyone who doesn't believe Cyclops has a Multipower hasn't seen a lot of him in the comics. Of course, I have heard that they changed the flexibility of his powers in recent years...

I prefer purchasing gmaes and Hero books to comix...I can't budget both.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
What player's tend to choose is a completely different subject than the "value" of a power. For example, most players would tend to choose a 12d6 natural attack as opposed to a 18d6 OIF attack, but the "values" are equivalent.

I would say that a single 90 pt attack is roughly in the same ballpark in terms of "value" to a 5 slot 60 pt multipower.

????Above these posts you say the 18d6 EB wins pretty much all the time. Here it's equivalent. Which is it?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
Have you ever heard of killing attacks? Those extra 9 Ded usually aren't resistant. And it's reasonable to throw out 3d6 killing explosions in the hopes of getting a good stun multiple. I suppose I can also change the regen to 1 body with resurrection. Needless to say, that's something that the multipower can't match.

Perhaps I'm more "four color" than you, but I don't see a lot of guys tossing around killing explosions. Oh, and there's NO WAY I'm classifying "resurrection" as a light based power.

Your comments to Badger were dead on, by the way. Regen is something desired once in a while. So you turn it on when you need it and use the points for other purposes the rest of the time.


Originally posted by Gary
I covered this with badger, but let's change the EC example to something with a clear defensive edge. How about invisibility?

OK, let's use invisibilty. EC Guy is invisible. I shoot at his force field, which is not invisible (you need IPE for that). Or I'll shoot at his regen, which is also not invisible (it's persistent, remember - and it's based on a power that costs END, so it's visible). Let's leave those worms in the can and I'll just fire on the force field. Or you can hope no one has an AE attack and leave the Field off...but you aren't getting the benefit of both at the same time then, are you?


Originally posted by Gary
Yeah for 182 pts, you have a structure where you can only have 8d6 attacks and still match my flight and FF. You're also not matching my damage shield (or invisibility) and have a lesser form of regeneration. The only way you have a 2 DC advantage over me is if you lower your flight to a grand total of 4". And you're busting any point caps that might ever exist in your campaign. Congratulations, you've merely made your MP competitive with the Straight Power Dude, with a framework that you yourself would never allow in your campaign, and which doesn't match all the powers of the SPD.

I have choices you do not. On Ph 11, 1 DEX, land, lower the Field to 7/7 (18 AP) and fire a 20d6 EB. In ph 12, I'll abort to reactivate my force field - at 26/26. Of course, this will work ONCE, since you'll reserve after that. But that's fine - I'll get the first shot since you don't dare stop reserving. And I still have that 2d6 advantage if I don't worry about moving quickly. I can use Flash and blind you next time.

In a straight up fight, you can use all your powers at full, and I can't. In some cases, that will be advantageous - I can't chase you, fire full power EB's and keep my force field up at the same time (or be invisible inside my force field - big deal).

But I do have the advantage in versatility. It's slight if we have EC's and Multi's. It's substantive if EC's get no point break.

By the way, what is your 40 points invis. I'm not prone to allow anything but Sight as you have Light powers. Oh, and I don'tr want invisibility sonce my force field remains visible, remember? I'll put my 6 points in the Multi Pool and get another d6 on you, or another 2/2 force field, or a bit more flight - whatever I want, since multipowers are more flexible.


Originally posted by Gary
There is an actual Champions character with coalescing electricity as the basis for his regen. I don't remember the character's name, but he was electric based.

I wouldn't allow that in an EC either. I would allow the power, but I don't buy the close connection to his SFX. That connection requirement has gotten tighter as the editions have risen.


Originally posted by Gary
I've always ran with EC's before. If I start a new campaign, I will replace them with a -1/4 or -1/2 drain one drain all limitation for those who want a point savings. In my experience, most people either have a EC, are characteristic based, or both. Nobody I know of has ever gone the big multipower with flexible slots.

I don't see a lot of "big multi" characters either, actually. More commonly Attack Multi/other powers bought otherwise. I can see an advantage to flexibility, however. It all depends how you design the character as a whole.

hmmm...-1/2 to ALL my powers and they don't all have to be the same point total. That could be even more effective than an EC in the right situation. But let's leave that - it all depends on the character.

As to the point of the question, then you've never actually run the other way to see how it works, and speak with no experience how the change would affect the game. Thanks for clarifying that.


Originally posted by Gary
You're picking a bad example. Bats has his multipower through foci. That means that zapping a single power zaps the entire MP at the same time. And with the power level of his gadgets, he probably only has 8 def non-hardened for his utility belt. He is highly vulnerable in ways that the EC dude isn't.

Actually, I see Bat's Utility Belt being a lot like the "OAF Guns" multipower - OAF slots and OIF Belt. The belt is almost never removed, and has generally been shown to have some security measures. So trash a gadget and he's down a gadget - he still has the belt. Let's look at the character as the comics portray him, not as you may think he would mechanically be written up.

At higher levels, I think Bat's belt may well be a VPP rather than a multipower. "What a coincidence - the Bat-Pineapple Juicer is just the right gadget for the situation."

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
????Above these posts you say the 18d6 EB wins pretty much all the time. Here it's equivalent. Which is it?

Here's what I actually said:

Second of all, your price structure is completely out of whack. 240 pts would give you either a 48d6 EB or a 32d6 EB at 0 end which is far superior to 5 separate 60 pt attacks. Therefore the value of 5 separate attacks is worth less than 240 pts. At 90 pts, you can get a 18d6 EB which is roughly as valuable as the choice of a 12d6 eb, 4d6 rka, 8d6 explosion EB, 12d6 flash, or 6d6 entangle. At least the value of the 18d6 eb is in the same ballpark with the multipower, unlike the 48d6 or 32d6 0 end.

and

Yeah, it's hard to quantify the value of versatility, but in the majority of encounters, 18d6 is better than the multipower. You'll get a situation where 75% of the time, the single power is better and 25% of the time, the multipower is a lot better. That seems to be a fair tradeoff in my book.

and

Hooboy, are you actually denying that the 90 point power would be more useful most of the time? A 12d6 EB does 17 pts of stun, 5" knockback (which would average 0 damage on a solid hit), and has a 13.76% chance of stunning the average 25 def 23 con target. The 18d6 EB does 38 stun, 11" knockback (which would do 13.5 more stun on a solid hit), and has a 97.77% chance of stunning the same 25 def 23 con target. The values are equivalent since the 18d6 has an advantage most of the time, but some of the time he's totally screwed. Just like a guy with 18d6 bought through an OIF has the advantage most of the time over a 12d6 natural EB, but would be screwed part of the time when his focus is taken away. This is basic stuff here, not rocket science.

It would be nice if you did me the courtesy of actually reading my posts. :(

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Perhaps I'm more "four color" than you, but I don't see a lot of guys tossing around killing explosions. Oh, and there's NO WAY I'm classifying "resurrection" as a light based power.

Your comments to Badger were dead on, by the way. Regen is something desired once in a while. So you turn it on when you need it and use the points for other purposes the rest of the time.



OK, let's use invisibilty. EC Guy is invisible. I shoot at his force field, which is not invisible (you need IPE for that). Or I'll shoot at his regen, which is also not invisible (it's persistent, remember - and it's based on a power that costs END, so it's visible). Let's leave those worms in the can and I'll just fire on the force field. Or you can hope no one has an AE attack and leave the Field off...but you aren't getting the benefit of both at the same time then, are you?

You're absolutely right! :eek: I've been playing for years that invisibility would cover stuff like force fields and flight. I note that 5th edition specifically states that it doesn't, unlike 4th edition. This seems kinda stupid though. Since running isn't invisible, that means that invisibility is worthless to anybody who ever moves. :rolleyes:



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I have choices you do not. On Ph 11, 1 DEX, land, lower the Field to 7/7 (18 AP) and fire a 20d6 EB. In ph 12, I'll abort to reactivate my force field - at 26/26. Of course, this will work ONCE, since you'll reserve after that. But that's fine - I'll get the first shot since you don't dare stop reserving. And I still have that 2d6 advantage if I don't worry about moving quickly. I can use Flash and blind you next time.

In a straight up fight, you can use all your powers at full, and I can't. In some cases, that will be advantageous - I can't chase you, fire full power EB's and keep my force field up at the same time (or be invisible inside my force field - big deal).

But I do have the advantage in versatility. It's slight if we have EC's and Multi's. It's substantive if EC's get no point break.

By the way, what is your 40 points invis. I'm not prone to allow anything but Sight as you have Light powers. Oh, and I don'tr want invisibility sonce my force field remains visible, remember? I'll put my 6 points in the Multi Pool and get another d6 on you, or another 2/2 force field, or a bit more flight - whatever I want, since multipowers are more flexible.

I could replace the slot with +8 DCV costs end (Vibron page 214 of CKC), but since there seems to be so much argument about it and regeneration, let's make a simpler EC.

20 EC
20 16/16 FF 1/2 end
20 16" flight 1/2 end
40 12d6 EB.

That is 100 pts or 140 if bought straight.

Now if I understand you correctly, your 100 pt multipower would be roughly:

70 Pool

8 16/16 ForceField 1/2 END
8 16" Flight 1/2 END
14 14d6 EB

100

Are you going to seriously argue that this multipower is competitive with the EC??? The EC can have everything going at once, while if you have a 12d6 attack, you would have a grand total of 10 pts available for defenses and movements. Or if you have max defense, you'll have 30 pts available which means 6d6 EB even if you don't move at all. The EC is clearly and obviously far superior to this construct, so much so that I wonder why you would even argue the point.

Now if you have 140 pts to play with, it's a different story:

100 Pool

13 +26/+26 ForceField 1/2 END
8 16" Flight 1/2 END
19 19d6 EB

140 POINT TOTAL

This is competitive with the guy who buys everything straight. It's not obviously superior, but it's not obviously inferior either. You have 100 pts to play with vs 140 for Straight Dude, but you have flexibility, although you're still probably exceeding damage caps.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I wouldn't allow that in an EC either. I would allow the power, but I don't buy the close connection to his SFX. That connection requirement has gotten tighter as the editions have risen.

Possible. I don't see the need to argue this point since it's a judgement call.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I don't see a lot of "big multi" characters either, actually. More commonly Attack Multi/other powers bought otherwise. I can see an advantage to flexibility, however. It all depends how you design the character as a whole.

In practice, EC's with attack MPs work better.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

hmmm...-1/2 to ALL my powers and they don't all have to be the same point total. That could be even more effective than an EC in the right situation. But let's leave that - it all depends on the character.

-1/2 would only be if there are lots of powers/active points involved. I would have to make a judgement call about how many powers/points would be the threshold. -1/4 would be far more likely. Incidentally, the EC saves lots more points if there are already existing limitations than my method even at -1/2. For example with a 40 pt EC and -1/2 of existing limitations:

13 EC -1/2 limit on total EC
13 flight
13 FF
13 EB

52 pts. Whereas if it's an additional -1/2 limitation, it becomes:

(Framework with -1/2 framework limitation and -1/2 outside limitation)
20 flight
20 FF
20 EB

Total 60 pts. Making an explicit limitation counters the "double dipping" effect of limitations on EC's.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

As to the point of the question, then you've never actually run the other way to see how it works, and speak with no experience how the change would affect the game. Thanks for clarifying that.

I have years of seeing many EC's in action. I see it as simply free points for a structure that really doesn't limit you.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Actually, I see Bat's Utility Belt being a lot like the "OAF Guns" multipower - OAF slots and OIF Belt. The belt is almost never removed, and has generally been shown to have some security measures. So trash a gadget and he's down a gadget - he still has the belt. Let's look at the character as the comics portray him, not as you may think he would mechanically be written up.

At higher levels, I think Bat's belt may well be a VPP rather than a multipower. "What a coincidence - the Bat-Pineapple Juicer is just the right gadget for the situation."

It's possible, but foci rules are very specific that frameworks are considered one single power for purposes of destruction. If Bat's can't have everything destroyed in one shot, maybe he shouldn't have made his utility belt as a framework.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
And just for the record, no, I don't allow frameworks as slots in frameworks, Farkling :D And that IS an outright ban (Ok, no one's ever tried to persuade me, but still...) Say, out of curiosity, where do you stand on the "power in a framework boosting a power outside the framework" debate? Buying a power in a framework to boos a power outside a framework is not inherently abusive. I'd check it out with a magnifying lense but I wouldn't ban it.

The problem I have with some of the opinions on this thread about frameworks is that it ignores the construction of the character in play. Some balanced powers would simply not be available for a reasonable price with the hard and fast "there is only one way to do things in my campaign" approach.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary
What player's tend to choose is a completely different subject than the "value" of a power. For example, most players would tend to choose a 12d6 natural attack as opposed to a 18d6 OIF attack, but the "values" are equivalent.

I would say that a single 90 pt attack is roughly in the same ballpark in terms of "value" to a 5 slot 60 pt multipower. If I was a power gamer in a group, I'd take the 18d6 OIF attack any day.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Farkling
/QUOTE/
" Say, out of curiosity, where do you stand on the "power in a framework boosting a power outside the framework" debate?"
/ENDQUOTE

It's allowed by the rules...though the implication is it should be a different power. I would allow the Pulsar construct up to a certain level of additional dice...probably even over the active point cap. No linked limitation, and only working in conjunction WITH that slot. The limitation on the dice MAKES it a different power by definition. The feel would only be right if it the outside power is "smaller" than the slot.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Agent X
Hey, if that's the way you guys like to play that's fine. You posted your rationale and I absolutely disagree with it. BTW, when people bring up the X-Men to justify a certain view of character construction they necessarily are leaving a few characters out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which characters? Speak up...let's see the examples. You are not allowed to use any characters created by Rob Liefeld as your source material. They pretty much ARE all designed with multiple frameworks, and probably even frameworks within frameworks if we analyzed them.

/QUOTE/
" You see characters in the book with 1 power attacks such as Cyclops all the time"
/ENDQUOTE/

Anyone who doesn't believe Cyclops has a Multipower hasn't seen a lot of him in the comics. Of course, I have heard that they changed the flexibility of his powers in recent years...

I prefer purchasing gmaes and Hero books to comix...I can't budget both. I've read some of the Silver Age and Iceman and Marvel Girl (and what about Mimic?) could be built in more than one way. When you hit the Uncanny X-Men, most of the characters are very versatile and very powerful. You didn't have to worry about me bringing up Liefeld. I avoided his work like the plague.:)

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Rene
I was never much of a Batman fan. I have a superstrong suspension of disbelief, I can believe in Kryptonian aliens, mutants, and Olympian Gods with no trouble, but I find it hard to believe in a guy that has every damned skill in the book and is an unparalled master with them all.

Nothing gets to me more than some people saying Batman is the best superhero there is, because he is the only one who is "human" or whatever. He is only human in a strictly technical physical sense. Batman never loses (Bane had to cheat a lot to best him, throwing every Batman villain against him to wear him out). Not even James Bond is so irritating.

But I have to admit I kinda like how some writers like Grant Morrison deal with Batman. It's funny in a almost satirical way to see how outrageous they can make Batman. Then it becomes something more openly like mind-boggling science fiction.

I think Captain America or even Nightwing, for instance, are finer examples of supernormals who're still formidable, but can't perform brain surgery while composing symphonies and designing computer circuitry. Even Reed Richards is mostly limited to physical sciences only.

You can't do Batman in less than 700 pts. The 'most human of all superheroes' my ass.
LOL. Right on! I personally have a bit of difficulty with Batman having lasted so long in a superhero world, when he could be killed with something so simple as a single bullet.

Decent physical prowess, vast intelligence, experience, and a butt-load of skills can really only get you so far. Unless you want to talk about my 250-point supra-genius with Int 260 (10^75 times more intelligent than your average joe), who just sits in the back room and decides which arrangement of dominoes will cause Chaos Theory to bring about the downfall of his enemies.... :p

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
Just how many villains are capable of stopping the player's special effects? In the majority of encounters, the big dice attack is better than the small dice multipower. In some encounters, the small dice multipower is much better than the big dice attack. You see characters in the book with 1 power attacks such as Cyclops all the time, but villains rarely find a way to specifically neutralize that single power.

First, those "1 power attacks" are rarely so unidimensional, and regardless, yes, as soon as a super's schtick is well-known, you bet your bippy it's more easily exploited than an MP. At least that's what I've seen - in the source material as well as the roleplaying. Obviously your mileage varies.

In the majority of encounters, having flexibility is on par with having a big attack, if not better. Generally, I'd say it might be a bit better, but not by much because EC and MP frameworks are pretty well balanced. Something you've yet to discuss in terms of actual play as opposed to the theroetical NPCs you and Hugh are tossing back and forth.


Yeah, the no 0 end powers in a EC really helps. In the bad old days, people would routinely put armor and damage reduction in the EC.

I see the drain one drain all aspect as being fundamental to the nature of a EC. If you don't want any drain to zap your FF at the same time as your flight, then maybe you shouldn't have accepted all those point savings, or accepted a lesser savings.

Gary, do you care to address the SFX examples I've given instead of speaking in generalities? Otherwise I'll simply ignore your point on this as well. :confused: Well, let me go a step further - you keep acting as if I and others have said that drain-one-drain-all is "bad". I've merely pointed out that it should rest on SFX - an explanation Steve Long (or any rational HERO player) has given many times over to explain aberrations.

[prestidigitator]

I think someone should kill this thread before the server goes critical.... ;)

[badger3k]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
LOL. Right on! I personally have a bit of difficulty with Batman having lasted so long in a superhero world, when he could be killed with something so simple as a single bullet.

Decent physical prowess, vast intelligence, experience, and a butt-load of skills can really only get you so far. Unless you want to talk about my 250-point supra-genius with Int 260 (10^75 times more intelligent than your average joe), who just sits in the back room and decides which arrangement of dominoes will cause Chaos Theory to bring about the downfall of his enemies.... :p

You forget - Batman has the power of Merchandising! And a huge fan base with lots of money. The old detective comics Batman was more believable than he is now - the writers take a lot of license. Maybe give him a huge luck pool to reflect his fan support, which crosses dimensions to the DC universe to keep him alive (Transdimensional Luck Reserve, only to win?)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
What player's tend to choose is a completely different subject than the "value" of a power. For example, most players would tend to choose a 12d6 natural attack as opposed to a 18d6 OIF attack, but the "values" are equivalent.

I would say that a single 90 pt attack is roughly in the same ballpark in terms of "value" to a 5 slot 60 pt multipower.

To be clear, I've found more players prefer to have 2-5 different attacks than one really big one.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
It wasn't really a problem because of point caps, and the fact that everybody built the same way. The odd few characters that didn't build that way were either unique wonderful designs, or simply had fewer points to spend on skills and thus were less effective in non-combat. However, a certain level of GM favoritism was still needed so that the newer players who weren't as good at designing characters, still had a reasonable amount of airtime.

Okay, so I'm missing the problem re ECs here in your actual gameplay...

EDIT - first that wasn't intended quite as smart-ass as it sounded - but second from reading other posts, it sounds like you don't know if it's been a problem as you've had characters who are nearly all EC-based or characteristics-based.

But given the characteristic-based ones balance with the EC ones...it seems the system is balanced....right? Wrong?

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
Okay, so I'm missing the problem re ECs here in your actual gameplay...

EDIT - first that wasn't intended quite as smart-ass as it sounded - but second from reading other posts, it sounds like you don't know if it's been a problem as you've had characters who are nearly all EC-based or characteristics-based.

But given the characteristic-based ones balance with the EC ones...it seems the system is balanced....right? Wrong?

Ask yourself what would happen if Cosmic VPPs had their control costs removed. A 60 pt cosmic VPP would cost you exactly 60 pts. In practice, nobody has any advantage over anybody else because everybody buys one. However, I would have a problem with this cost structure.

The analogy isn't quite perfect, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
To be clear, I've found more players prefer to have 2-5 different attacks than one really big one.

But do you understand that the single big attack is relatively "balanced" with the 5 small attacks?

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
First, those "1 power attacks" are rarely so unidimensional, and regardless, yes, as soon as a super's schtick is well-known, you bet your bippy it's more easily exploited than an MP. At least that's what I've seen - in the source material as well as the roleplaying. Obviously your mileage varies.

In the majority of encounters, having flexibility is on par with having a big attack, if not better. Generally, I'd say it might be a bit better, but not by much because EC and MP frameworks are pretty well balanced. Something you've yet to discuss in terms of actual play as opposed to the theroetical NPCs you and Hugh are tossing back and forth.

Again, how is this different from someone buying a power OIF? The majority of the time, he has a great advantage over someone with natural powers. Some of the time, he's completely SOL. And the villains can make plans to deal with the OIF in a way that they can't to the person with natural powers.



Originally posted by zornwil

Gary, do you care to address the SFX examples I've given instead of speaking in generalities? Otherwise I'll simply ignore your point on this as well. :confused: Well, let me go a step further - you keep acting as if I and others have said that drain-one-drain-all is "bad". I've merely pointed out that it should rest on SFX - an explanation Steve Long (or any rational HERO player) has given many times over to explain aberrations.

I think it's better to rigorously enforce drain one drain all. Otherwise, you'll get a situation where a fire EC is disadvantaged compared to say a stretching EC or other weird ECs. It's a lot easier to drain or suppress fire powers (even a fire extinguisher would work) than stretching powers. I'd rather not have the headache of having an evil scientist with a stretching drain every 4th episode. ;)

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X
Buying a power in a framework to boos a power outside a framework is not inherently abusive. I'd check it out with a magnifying lense but I wouldn't ban it.

The problem I have with some of the opinions on this thread about frameworks is that it ignores the construction of the character in play. Some balanced powers would simply not be available for a reasonable price with the hard and fast "there is only one way to do things in my campaign" approach.

Please give an example of a balanced power that wouldn't be available for a reasonable price without a EC.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary
Please give an example of a balanced power that wouldn't be available for a reasonable price without a EC. The better request is to ask for a balanced character that uses an EC. There are plenty of those characters.

As for your request - I've come across it in design considerations in the past. I'm not digging out every character I ever built though.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
Ask yourself what would happen if Cosmic VPPs had their control costs removed. A 60 pt cosmic VPP would cost you exactly 60 pts. In practice, nobody has any advantage over anybody else because everybody buys one. However, I would have a problem with this cost structure.

The analogy isn't quite perfect, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

Yes, I understand what you're getting at, I believe, however not everybody buys ECs, or, even if they do (given their prevalence I'm willing to accept that for this purpose) you're talking about widely different point spreads on ECs among characters, yet they appear to me to balance fine.

However, I don't disagree that everyone would balance well if you rid the game completely of ECs or if everyone more-or-less equally abused them.

I also don't disagree if you replace ECs with a -1/2 or -1/4 lim that it will probably work in your game, for all sorts of reasons, both objective and subjective. I'm dubious it would work for HEROdom at large relative to how ECs have performed, even with their attendant controversy.

But anyway, yeah...got it.

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Gary
You're absolutely right! :eek: I've been playing for years that invisibility would cover stuff like force fields and flight. I note that 5th edition specifically states that it doesn't, unlike 4th edition. This seems kinda stupid though. Since running isn't invisible, that means that invisibility is worthless to anybody who ever moves. :rolleyes:

Even though its sarcastic, for those who don't know - it doesn't apply to running since running has no visible effect other than your body moving (unless you take invisible power effect). The description only says that it does not make a character's attacks or other Powers invisible - and using visible Powers can expose an invisible character's position. Flight that is visible to sight (since I still think you can choose which three its visible to (p 71) - personally, I'd rule the regeneration as being visible as the healing of wounds (bending the rules, but it's my call in my campaign :)). Force field would be visible, though. I think the FAQ has something on invisible running ;)

Sorry, just wanted to chime in on that with an interpretation.




20 EC
20 16/16 FF 1/2 end
20 16" flight 1/2 end
40 12d6 EB.

That is 100 pts or 140 if bought straight.

Now if I understand you correctly, your 100 pt multipower would be roughly:

70 Pool

8 16/16 ForceField 1/2 END
8 16" Flight 1/2 END
14 14d6 EB

100

Are you going to seriously argue that this multipower is competitive with the EC??? The EC can have everything going at once, while if you have a 12d6 attack, you would have a grand total of 10 pts available for defenses and movements. Or if you have max defense, you'll have 30 pts available which means 6d6 EB even if you don't move at all. The EC is clearly and obviously far superior to this construct, so much so that I wonder why you would even argue the point.

Now if you have 140 pts to play with, it's a different story:

100 Pool

13 +26/+26 ForceField 1/2 END
8 16" Flight 1/2 END
19 19d6 EB

140 POINT TOTAL

This is competitive with the guy who buys everything straight. It's not obviously superior, but it's not obviously inferior either. You have 100 pts to play with vs 140 for Straight Dude, but you have flexibility, although you're still probably exceeding damage caps.



edited for content. How's this for a 100 point MP?

70 Pool

12 Drain flight, 4d6 ranged
4u 16" Flight 1/2 END
14 14d6 EB vs PD (gravity waves)

100

Probably lose right off the bat.

Hmm -

60 pool

12 6d6 Ego attack
6u 2d6 Entangle, BOECV
12 3d6 Flash vs sight, BOECV
6u Mind Control
4u 26 STR TK

100

Strikes from hiding, may win. But its not the same thing! Yeah - that's the point I'm trying to make that isn't being addressed. I don't think anyone denies that in a straight up one-on-one fight between a man with an EC and one with a MP, assuming the exact same powers, that EC man has an advantage.

So what. Tone down one of the mp slots and get points for another power, an entangle maybe. Or TK. Or whatever. That's the main benefit - for a few points you can get a lot of power. So you can't use it all at once. So what. Trade off.

When mp man finishes 2 adventures he has 6 XP (for example) - he (with GMs approval) picks up an Entangle ultra slot. Mr EC lets them sit there - he'll need 5 more adventures before he can gain another slot. So who has the benefit there? According to what seems to be your default position, its still the EC guy.

Mr EC has 3 powers - flight, force field, and EB. Mr MP has Flight, Force Field, EB, Entangle, Force Wall, Telekinesis, and Flight usable on others. Now Mr MP isn't as powerful in a straight up fight. But during the fight the bad guys start blasting away at the civilians nearby. Who has the advantage? I think a force wall beats flying in front of the bullets any day.

Why not compare the rest as well? Add in a pure no-flight, no ranged attack brick. Taking your idea farther along (that ECs are overpowered and give the EC man the advantage) then the EC man should be better off. Let's do one punch. Or maybe compare the EC man to one who is entirely skills based. Open the safe, without leaving a trace, mr EC. Sure, you can make an EC for some of that. Is it better? Or just different?

From what you posted, you apparently used ECs a lot. Out of the last 20 years, I think we've had one (a low power 'diety body' type thing) in all the campaigns I was in or ran. A lot different background there. Like I said, I've always found them too restrictive and costly - first, they need a very tight, focused reason for being combined in one framework (especially one where all powers can be used together, and second, because even if they can be explained, its a lot of points and END too - the one given above is 10 END per phase. The most your first mp example would use is 7. So with a SPD 5 character, thats 50 END to 35. Pump up mr ECs END and REC to compensate, or spend points on SPD. The MP guy can use those points elsewhere.

If your whole argument is based on facing two characters against each other and saying that one is clearly better overall, then I just can't buy it. But that said, you can sure play it that way if you want. Since I don't know if I'll post again in this thread, let me say that it has been interesting.

Have fun.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
But do you understand that the single big attack is relatively "balanced" with the 5 small attacks?

At first I was going to say yes, but no, not really, since the bigger attack is more likely to be something like 1.5-2 times the smaller attacks (assuming some level of points caps, even if informal) and the smaller attacks are pretty likely to have enough variability to more than compensate...

but really, this depends way too much to get too specific about it and declare for sure. Honestly, my gut feel is that the multi-MPA guy is much better at offense than the singular attack guy, while the singular attack guy is noticeably better at defense.

I do get your point/idea. I'm just not sure how true it is in practice the more I think about it.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
Again, how is this different from someone buying a power OIF? The majority of the time, he has a great advantage over someone with natural powers. Some of the time, he's completely SOL. And the villains can make plans to deal with the OIF in a way that they can't to the person with natural powers.

Yeah, but most people I know with MPs dilute these effects a lot - like Batman. Take away his utility belt and he's got crap flying out of his boots and gloves - where does he keep it? I dunno, but seems like half the slots in his MP are separate OIFs.

Essentially, MPs in my mind give a lot more flexibility on this particular count.


I think it's better to rigorously enforce drain one drain all. Otherwise, you'll get a situation where a fire EC is disadvantaged compared to say a stretching EC or other weird ECs. It's a lot easier to drain or suppress fire powers (even a fire extinguisher would work) than stretching powers. I'd rather not have the headache of having an evil scientist with a stretching drain every 4th episode. ;)

I just think it's way too illogical if you have, say, a "Drain Energy Blasts" stop the stretching guy because he has a physical HTH "energy" blast. I think your way is more complicated as it stretches/confuses the storyline for purely metagame reasons.

Anyway, any elemental drain or the like can be easy, ranging from magical to techie to just plain McGuyveresque/Batmanesque.

However, I understand, and you've addressed my point even if I think it's...well...absurd...sorry, but I imagine you consider some aspect or another (or many?) of my thinking absurd and that's fine, I don't mean it in any mean way. The metagame considerations are the valid part.

[Zed-F]

IMHO, there is no problem vis-a-vis ECs. Gary's oft-cited problem with ECs are (a) he doesn't agree that the drain-one-drain-all lim is worth a 50% discount on most powers in an EC (assuming all powers in the EC are approx. the same AP), and (b) the potential to have a significant number of powers all active at once is more useful than alternative framworks.

I don't think he's demonstrated his case. Take his latest example:



20 EC
20 16/16 FF 1/2 end
20 16" flight 1/2 end
40 12d6 EB.

That is 100 pts or 140 if bought straight.

Now if I understand you correctly, your 100 pt multipower would be roughly:

70 Pool

8 16/16 ForceField 1/2 END
8 16" Flight 1/2 END
14 14d6 EB

100


As if anyone buys a main attack/defense multipower with only 3 slots. :rolleyes: Of course the EC is going to come out ahead if you manipulate the example so that it does. The whole point of a multipower is that it is flexible; a multipower with 3 slots hardly qualifies. Let's see what happens when we start talking about 10-slot frameworks, using ultras rather than multis, hmm? That, in my experience, is a far more typical configuration.

As far as having an EC with multiple defense powers in it goes that can all be used simultaneously, my response to that is quite simple. It usually doesn't happen, because most experienced GMs are going to have an idea of what the maximum attacks and maximum defenses in the campaign are allowed to be, and will quash any character that has too much of one or the other. This goes beyond AP limits pertaining to a particular defensive power, to examining the defensive and offensive arrays of characters as a whole.

Here's a better example, using the EC to its maximum cost break by having all powers the same size, and comparing it with a multipower:

EC Guy
20 EC (40-point powers)
20 16/16 FF 1/2 end
20 16" flight 1/2 end
20 8d6 EB.
20 Defense power A (e.g. Invisibility)
20 Mystery power B
Total: 120

What am I going to buy as the mystery power? Probably a secondary attack, or a utility power (e.g. regeneration if it fits the SFX.) I'm not likely going to buy a movement power or a defense power because (a) I already have a movement power, and (b) the GM won't likely allow me to take yet another defense power. If, supposing that my main attack is a bit on the weak side, I opt for the second attack, say a flash, then what do I do when I want to expand my powers? Well, the GM isn't going to let me take either another attack or another defense, as I'll be violating campaign power levels, so if I want anything else I'm pretty much stuck with utility powers for the rest of my career. Nothing wrong with that, except if I come up against an opponent my main attacks don't work against or my defenses don't deter. Or, even worse, he becomes my Hunted...

Multi Guy
80 Multipower, 80 AP reserve
6u Attack A (60 AP)
4u Attack B (40 AP)
4u Attack C (40 AP)
4u Defence D (40 AP)
4u Defence E (40 AP)
4u Fast Move F (40 AP)
4u Utility G (40 AP)
4u Utility H (40 AP)
2u Light Defense I (20 AP)
2u Slow Move J (20 AP)
2u Utility K (20 AP)
Total: 120

I don't know about you, but I'd be a lot happier playing Multi guy. He may not use a multi-power attack as a matter of course, but he does have a 60 AP blast if he needs power and a pair of 40 AP alternates if he needs a way around EC guy's defenses rather than through them. From a campaign maxima perspective, probably a single 12d6 attack and a multi-power attack from EC guy with two 40 AP attacks would be considered about equivalent in terms of offensive potential, so no worries there. Besides, if he really wants to, he can still do a multi-power attack. He can put up a pair of strong defenses if he needs them, probably has more coverage against different kinds of attacks (e.g. NNDs), can move as quickly when he needs to, has more utility powers to draw on to turn the environment to his advantage, and has a lot more flexibility both now and for future expansion. What's not to like? Incidentally, a multipower with that many slots is not at all uncommon in my experience, especially one that is being relied on for more than just attacks.

If you want to argue the whole multipower-attack-EC-defenses/movement construct, fine... but the rule about the maximum number of defensive powers the GM is likely to allow to be active at once still applies. I don't see how that construct is, on the whole, any more efficient than just buying a bigger multipower with enough AP to power either a second attack, a second defense, or just plain bigger attacks and defenses.

IMHO there's no reason to call for a nerf for EC point breaks. If anything, it's multipowers that need the nerf, not that I'm advocating that either.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
I could replace the slot with +8 DCV costs end (Vibron page 214 of CKC), but since there seems to be so much argument about it and regeneration, let's make a simpler EC.

20 EC
20 16/16 FF 1/2 end
20 16" flight 1/2 end
40 12d6 EB.

That is 100 pts or 140 if bought straight.

Now we're hitting a more efficient EC, and the most useless MP structre possible. But you know what, Gary? We're not comparing apples to apples here - MultiMan has an advantage we've ignored. To be fully comparable, he should have the "drain one, drain all" limitation. Since we're talking 3 powers, I'd say it should be at the -1/4 level - fair? So that lets me design MultiMan more or less as follows:

32 +16/+16 Force Field, 1/2 END, drained with MP

55 69 pt Multi Pool - multi drained w/F Field
3 Flight 16" 1/2 END
10 13d6 EB

Now, MultiMan is clearly at a disadvantage. Why? he's trying to beat EC Man at his own game. If he's going to play this character, an EC is the superior structure. He needs an attacks multi, and to buy his DEF and Field elsewhere, so some other structure designed to take advantage of his multipower structure. As I've said before, Multi and EC are different. EC's are certainly better at some structures. Multipowers are superior in others (eg. let's try a character with 5 60 point attacks, as well as the flight and force field).

But if we take back that 40 points? Now MultiMan can build!

32 +16/+16 Force Field, 1/2 END, drained with MP

90 113 pt Multi Pool - multi drained w/F Field
3 Flight 17" 1/2 END
15 18d6 EB

WOW! If he moves at your speed, he still has 15d6+ EB to fire! he can also move just a tiny bit faster. Or he can slow down to only 5" flight and fire 18d6! This isn't just "competetive" - he can match your flight and defense AND do more damage, or slow down and enhance his damage potential even more.

Or he could build:

32 +16/+16 Force Field, 1/2 END, drained with MP

75 94 pt Multi Pool - multi drained w/F Field
3 Flight 17" 1/2 END
10 13d6 EB
10 13d6 Flash
10 6d6 END drain

Less raw damage potential, but he can land and fire off a 12d6 EB coupled with a 6d6 Flash, or a 3d6 END drain (keep all those powers up losing 21 END per phase, plus what you spend!). He can't quite fire at 12d6 and match your flight speed, but he's getting pretty close. And he doesn't need to keep up long if you're blind or exhausted.

And XP? He can boost his whole MP at 4 points per 5 xp as long as he doesn't raise the slots, where you need to pick between powers. Or he can pick up a powerful new attack for 10 points. Or boost his force field a bit. I guess you could boost Force Field and Flight fairly quickly (10 points in each effectively costs you 10 points in total since you catch up some with the EB). But attack power is costing you point for point now.

But EC Man should have a 28 point savings, so we need to cut MultiMan down to size. That gives him:

32 +16/+16 Force Field, 1/2 END, drained with MP

64 80 pt Multi Pool - multi drained w/F Field
3 Flight 16" 1/2 END
13 16d6 EB

So he can now fly half as fast as "EC Man" while attacking with equal power, or boost his power slightly. Let's assume MultiMan uses 28 xp to build up to one of the two Multi's shown above. What does EC Man do with his 28 points to remain competetive?

I'll skip the limitations discussion - the Multipower can also take limitations, thanks.


Originally posted by Gary
I have years of seeing many EC's in action. I see it as simply free points for a structure that really doesn't limit you.

I have many years too (maybe we should compare - I was in high school so that's...maybe I don't want to think about how old I'm getting...Well, it was first edition Champions, let's leave it at that. I see it as a framework that serves a different purpose than Multipower for different character concepts, and I find it pretty balanced.

I also suspect that, if it were unbalanced, it would not have survived 4 new editions as intact as it is.


Originally posted by Gary
It's possible, but foci rules are very specific that frameworks are considered one single power for purposes of destruction. If Bat's can't have everything destroyed in one shot, maybe he shouldn't have made his utility belt as a framework.

They are? Ummm...FREd, p 207, "Varying Limitations" discusses the "collection of OAF Guns" having OIF on the reserve. It takes a long time to take all the weapons (or the gunbelt) away. p 208, "Losing Powers" discusses the "collection of guns/gadgets" and notes losing ONE slot does not mean losing the whole multipower. The reserve could even be lost while leaving the character holding a gadget. A superhero's "utility belt" is a specific example of this. Sounds an awful lot like Batman to me.

EDIT: Missed/forgot the point break under Gary's EC structure replacement so had to add some on that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Zed-F
IMHO, there is no problem vis-a-vis ECs. Gary's oft-cited problem with ECs are (a) he doesn't agree that the drain-one-drain-all lim is worth a 50% discount on most powers in an EC (assuming all powers in the EC are approx. the same AP), and (b) the potential to have a significant number of powers all active at once is more useful than alternative framworks.

Obviously, I agree with everything you've said. What's worse, if we take Gary's structure (-1/4 limit for "drain one drains all") and apply it to a character with a judicious Multipower and one power outside it, we get a character who is superior to his EC example.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Now we're hitting a more efficient EC, and the most useless MP structre possible. But you know what, Gary? We're not comparing apples to apples here - MultiMan has an advantage we've ignored. To be fully comparable, he should have the "drain one, drain all" limitation. Since we're talking 3 powers, I'd say it should be at the -1/4 level - fair? So that lets me design MultiMan more or less as follows:

32 +16/+16 Force Field, 1/2 END, drained with MP

55 69 pt Multi Pool - multi drained w/F Field
3 Flight 16" 1/2 END
10 13d6 EB

Now, MultiMan is clearly at a disadvantage. Why? he's trying to beat EC Man at his own game. If he's going to play this character, an EC is the superior structure. He needs an attacks multi, and to buy his DEF and Field elsewhere, so some other structure designed to take advantage of his multipower structure. As I've said before, Multi and EC are different. EC's are certainly better at some structures. Multipowers are superior in others (eg. let's try a character with 5 60 point attacks, as well as the flight and force field).

Yeah, Multi is clearly at a disad vs the EC guy. I'm glad you recognize that.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

But if we take back that 40 points? Now MultiMan can build!

Hugh, you've missed something very obvious. If I buy all my powers straight, I don't have that drain one drain all limitation!


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

32 +16/+16 Force Field, 1/2 END, drained with MP

90 113 pt Multi Pool - multi drained w/F Field
3 Flight 17" 1/2 END
15 18d6 EB

WOW! If he moves at your speed, he still has 15d6+ EB to fire! he can also move just a tiny bit faster. Or he can slow down to only 5" flight and fire 18d6! This isn't just "competetive" - he can match your flight and defense AND do more damage, or slow down and enhance his damage potential even more.

Let's correct your error:

40 +16/+16 Force Field, 1/2 END, drained with MP

75 75 pt Multi Pool - multi drained w/F Field
10 Flight 20" 1/2 END
15 15d6 EB

You have my defense, but you're going to have to sacrifice something. If you want my attack, you're down to 6" of flight. If you want my flight, you're down to 7d6 EB. As I said, merely competitive.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Or he could build:

32 +16/+16 Force Field, 1/2 END, drained with MP

75 94 pt Multi Pool - multi drained w/F Field
3 Flight 17" 1/2 END
10 13d6 EB
10 13d6 Flash
10 6d6 END drain

Less raw damage potential, but he can land and fire off a 12d6 EB coupled with a 6d6 Flash, or a 3d6 END drain (keep all those powers up losing 21 END per phase, plus what you spend!). He can't quite fire at 12d6 and match your flight speed, but he's getting pretty close. And he doesn't need to keep up long if you're blind or exhausted.

Again, let's correct your error:

40 +16/+16 Force Field, 1/2 END, drained with MP

70 70 pt Multi Pool - multi drained w/F Field
8 Flight 16" 1/2 END
12 12d6 EB
10 10d6 Flash

This seems weaker than the previous version. However, again it's merely competitive with straight points guy.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

And XP? He can boost his whole MP at 4 points per 5 xp as long as he doesn't raise the slots, where you need to pick between powers. Or he can pick up a powerful new attack for 10 points. Or boost his force field a bit. I guess you could boost Force Field and Flight fairly quickly (10 points in each effectively costs you 10 points in total since you catch up some with the EB). But attack power is costing you point for point now.

But EC Man should have a 28 point savings, so we need to cut MultiMan down to size. That gives him:

32 +16/+16 Force Field, 1/2 END, drained with MP

64 80 pt Multi Pool - multi drained w/F Field
3 Flight 16" 1/2 END
13 16d6 EB

So he can now fly half as fast as "EC Man" while attacking with equal power, or boost his power slightly. Let's assume MultiMan uses 28 xp to build up to one of the two Multi's shown above. What does EC Man do with his 28 points to remain competetive?

I'll skip the limitations discussion - the Multipower can also take limitations, thanks.

What's to stop the EC guy from buying an attack MP and leaving his def/movement/special powers in the EC?



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I have many years too (maybe we should compare - I was in high school so that's...maybe I don't want to think about how old I'm getting...Well, it was first edition Champions, let's leave it at that. I see it as a framework that serves a different purpose than Multipower for different character concepts, and I find it pretty balanced.

I also suspect that, if it were unbalanced, it would not have survived 4 new editions as intact as it is.

I've been playing since 1985. Characteristics are underpriced as well, yet they survived 4 editions.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

They are? Ummm...FREd, p 207, "Varying Limitations" discusses the "collection of OAF Guns" having OIF on the reserve. It takes a long time to take all the weapons (or the gunbelt) away. p 208, "Losing Powers" discusses the "collection of guns/gadgets" and notes losing ONE slot does not mean losing the whole multipower. The reserve could even be lost while leaving the character holding a gadget. A superhero's "utility belt" is a specific example of this. Sounds an awful lot like Batman to me.

EDIT: Missed/forgot the point break under Gary's EC structure replacement so had to add some on that.

But the utility belt can be destroyed in one shot, and it only has nonhardened defenses equal to its reserve. That proves my point, that Bats is vulnerable in ways that other characters aren't.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Obviously, I agree with everything you've said. What's worse, if we take Gary's structure (-1/4 limit for "drain one drains all") and apply it to a character with a judicious Multipower and one power outside it, we get a character who is superior to his EC example.

As you should know from the extra time to change multipower slots thread, I'm not the type of person to allow a multipower to get the limitation if it's linked to something stupid like 5 pts of flash defense. And if you do link the multipower to other powers and take the limitation, you can bet that it will be used against you sometime within the game.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Zed-F
IMHO, there is no problem vis-a-vis ECs. Gary's oft-cited problem with ECs are (a) he doesn't agree that the drain-one-drain-all lim is worth a 50% discount on most powers in an EC (assuming all powers in the EC are approx. the same AP), and (b) the potential to have a significant number of powers all active at once is more useful than alternative framworks.

I don't think he's demonstrated his case. Take his latest example:



As if anyone buys a main attack/defense multipower with only 3 slots. :rolleyes: Of course the EC is going to come out ahead if you manipulate the example so that it does. The whole point of a multipower is that it is flexible; a multipower with 3 slots hardly qualifies. Let's see what happens when we start talking about 10-slot frameworks, using ultras rather than multis, hmm? That, in my experience, is a far more typical configuration.

As far as having an EC with multiple defense powers in it goes that can all be used simultaneously, my response to that is quite simple. It usually doesn't happen, because most experienced GMs are going to have an idea of what the maximum attacks and maximum defenses in the campaign are allowed to be, and will quash any character that has too much of one or the other. This goes beyond AP limits pertaining to a particular defensive power, to examining the defensive and offensive arrays of characters as a whole.

Here's a better example, using the EC to its maximum cost break by having all powers the same size, and comparing it with a multipower:

EC Guy
20 EC (40-point powers)
20 16/16 FF 1/2 end
20 16" flight 1/2 end
20 8d6 EB.
20 Defense power A (e.g. Invisibility)
20 Mystery power B
Total: 120

What am I going to buy as the mystery power? Probably a secondary attack, or a utility power (e.g. regeneration if it fits the SFX.) I'm not likely going to buy a movement power or a defense power because (a) I already have a movement power, and (b) the GM won't likely allow me to take yet another defense power. If, supposing that my main attack is a bit on the weak side, I opt for the second attack, say a flash, then what do I do when I want to expand my powers? Well, the GM isn't going to let me take either another attack or another defense, as I'll be violating campaign power levels, so if I want anything else I'm pretty much stuck with utility powers for the rest of my career. Nothing wrong with that, except if I come up against an opponent my main attacks don't work against or my defenses don't deter. Or, even worse, he becomes my Hunted...

Multi Guy
80 Multipower, 80 AP reserve
6u Attack A (60 AP)
4u Attack B (40 AP)
4u Attack C (40 AP)
4u Defence D (40 AP)
4u Defence E (40 AP)
4u Fast Move F (40 AP)
4u Utility G (40 AP)
4u Utility H (40 AP)
2u Light Defense I (20 AP)
2u Slow Move J (20 AP)
2u Utility K (20 AP)
Total: 120

I don't know about you, but I'd be a lot happier playing Multi guy. He may not use a multi-power attack as a matter of course, but he does have a 60 AP blast if he needs power and a pair of 40 AP alternates if he needs a way around EC guy's defenses rather than through them. From a campaign maxima perspective, probably a single 12d6 attack and a multi-power attack from EC guy with two 40 AP attacks would be considered about equivalent in terms of offensive potential, so no worries there. Besides, if he really wants to, he can still do a multi-power attack. He can put up a pair of strong defenses if he needs them, probably has more coverage against different kinds of attacks (e.g. NNDs), can move as quickly when he needs to, has more utility powers to draw on to turn the environment to his advantage, and has a lot more flexibility both now and for future expansion. What's not to like? Incidentally, a multipower with that many slots is not at all uncommon in my experience, especially one that is being relied on for more than just attacks.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the option of having 200 active points in powers active at the same time rather than 80. I can attack, defend, and move at the same time while having a secondary defense and mystery power as well. You can only have 2 of them up at the same time at full power. It's true that you're more flexible, but 200 pts to 80 is a pretty hefty difference.


Originally posted by Zed-F

If you want to argue the whole multipower-attack-EC-defenses/movement construct, fine... but the rule about the maximum number of defensive powers the GM is likely to allow to be active at once still applies. I don't see how that construct is, on the whole, any more efficient than just buying a bigger multipower with enough AP to power either a second attack, a second defense, or just plain bigger attacks and defenses.

IMHO there's no reason to call for a nerf for EC point breaks. If anything, it's multipowers that need the nerf, not that I'm advocating that either.

Many if not most people who buy EC's also buy attack multipowers as well.

[Gary]

Originally posted by badger3k
From what you posted, you apparently used ECs a lot. Out of the last 20 years, I think we've had one (a low power 'diety body' type thing) in all the campaigns I was in or ran. A lot different background there. Like I said, I've always found them too restrictive and costly - first, they need a very tight, focused reason for being combined in one framework (especially one where all powers can be used together, and second, because even if they can be explained, its a lot of points and END too - the one given above is 10 END per phase. The most your first mp example would use is 7. So with a SPD 5 character, thats 50 END to 35. Pump up mr ECs END and REC to compensate, or spend points on SPD. The MP guy can use those points elsewhere.



Badger, if you've only used 1 EC in 20 years because of difficulty of use, why wouldn't you support an alternative that's easy to use and understand with the ability to place powers of different active points in the same "structure"?

I'm talking about having a -1/4 "drain one drain all" limitation for all powers in the "framework".

Incidentally, End cost is only 8 per phase for EC dude. 1 each for flight and FF (they're 1/2 end), and 6 for EB.

[Farkling]

/QUOTE/
"What's to stop the EC guy from buying an attack MP and leaving his def/movement/special powers in the EC?"
/ENDQUOTE/

My house rule, which I believe YOU referred to as an "arbitrary ban" (though not ins so many words).

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
As you should know from the extra time to change multipower slots thread, I'm not the type of person to allow a multipower to get the limitation if it's linked to something stupid like 5 pts of flash defense. And if you do link the multipower to other powers and take the limitation, you can bet that it will be used against you sometime within the game.

And so it should. It will also be used against the character with the EC, so unless they both have that limitation,. we've got your oft quoted fruit basket problem, haven't we?

By the way, it's not "used against me". It's "applying my limitation". The player chooses disadvantages and limitations, just like he or she chooses powers, skills and stats. All of these should have some implications in the campaign over time.

As an aside question, any comments out there on buying Power Defense for EC characters? Seems to me this reduces their big drawback fairly effectively.

[Zed-F]

Originally posted by Gary
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the option of having 200 active points in powers active at the same time rather than 80. I can attack, defend, and move at the same time while having a secondary defense and mystery power as well. You can only have 2 of them up at the same time at full power. It's true that you're more flexible, but 200 pts to 80 is a pretty hefty difference.

You're getting awfully hung up on that 200 AP number. Let's look at that again.

EC Guy
20 EC (40-point powers)
20 16/16 FF 1/2 end
20 16" flight 1/2 end
20 8d6 EB.
20 Defense power A (e.g. Invisibility)
20 Mystery power B
Total: 120

Multi Guy
80 Multipower, 80 AP reserve
6u Attack A (60 AP)
4u Attack B (40 AP)
4u Attack C (40 AP)
4u Defence D (40 AP)
4u Defence E (40 AP)
4u Fast Move F (40 AP)
4u Utility G (40 AP)
4u Utility H (40 AP)
2u Light Defense I (20 AP)
2u Slow Move J (20 AP)
2u Utility K (20 AP)
Total: 120

Now, let's suppose that Multiguy is a spellcaster, so that we aren't limited by SFX (we haven't defined EC Guy's SFX either.) Suppose Multiguy has defined some, perhaps even several of his powers as Uncontrolled, or as Continuing Charges. It's certainly within his purview, many spells and gadgets are defined that way. For the sake of argument, let's be conservative and say only Defense E and Slow Move J are on continuing charges. This leaves Defense D and Fast Move F as powers available all the time, and Defense E and Slow Move J as powers that are intended only to provide a boost in combat or when otherwise necessary. Note that with only those 2 powers on continuing charges, we're not in any more danger of violating campaign limits than EC guy is. Could EC guy do the same and use Uncontrolled/continuing charges? Sure, but he wouldn't get nearly the same benefit out of doing so; he can already use all his powers at once.

Moreover, several utility powers such as Summon and Change Environment are the sort of power you use once and they have some continuing effect, independent of what else the character does. It's quite possible that some of these sorts of effects exist in Multiguy's multipower. EC Guy might like to take some of these too... but it costs him 20 RP per power. Multiguy can take 5 times as many for the same RP, and they are pretty much equally useful for him as they would be for EC Guy. Sure EC Guy can use them all every phase, but if you only need to use them once, that doesn't add a lot of value. Plus, he has to be able to afford them in the first place.

So now we have MultiGuy plus 4 summoned 150-point pets, a changed environment that either helps him or hinders EC guy, plus MultiGuy himself, up against EC Guy. To compound matters, MultiGuy can have a 60 AP attack, 60 AP of defenses, and 20 AP of movement, or 40 AP of attack, 80 AP of defenses, and 20 AP of movement, or several other possibilities, depending on what the circumstances call for.

Even if we just consider the summon as a 40 AP power instead of looking at the actual capabilities of 150-point characters, MultiGuy has about 220 AP of powers going at once, to EC Guy's 200, and is a lot more flexible about (a) changing his power loadout to suit the circumstances, (b) adding more powers to his array that can be used simultaneously, either by virtue of Uncontrolled/Continuing Charges, or by virtue of the fact that they inherently have a continuing effect. While EC guy is struggling to get 20 RP together for another power to get up to 240 AP simultaneously, MultiGuy has bought 5-7 more powers for his multipower. If a number of them have a continuing effect via one means or another, he has the potential to vastly outstrip EC Guy in terms of the number of AP simultaneously in use -- in fact, he could have done that with his existing 11 slots!

EDIT: removed inappropriate taunt.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
Yeah, Multi is clearly at a disad vs the EC guy. I'm glad you recognize that.

What I said is Multi Guy will be at a disadvantage if he tries to use a Multipower to duplicate what an EC does best. My point is not that multipowers should be nerfed. It is that EC's and multipowers balance out where each is used for what it's effective at accomplishing.


Originally posted by Gary
Hugh, you've missed something very obvious. If I buy all my powers straight, I don't have that drain one drain all limitation!

Which is what I said later in my post (the EDIT part). The ultimate result is that, if we nerf the EC point savings, a multipower can remain competitive with the EC if the character tries to accomplish the same things as the EC character. Now imagine he takes an approach intended to capitalize on the benefits of a multipower, rather than imitate what an EC character does.


Originally posted by Gary
What's to stop the EC guy from buying an attack MP and leaving his def/movement/special powers in the EC?

Why should the character be allowed to transfer that EB that was part of his EC yesterday out to a multipower today? To me, that's a character rewrite. If he wants to do that under the present system, your starting character spends:

20 EC
20 Flight
20 Force Field

60 12d6 EB

120 points, rather than the 100 he started with before. With 12 xp, he can convert the EB into a 2 slot multi. Of course, this assumes the GM allows your 2 power EC, whose third power hangs outside the framework.

Finally, your comments sound like an admission that the EC is not superior to the multipower, as you wish to use both in tandem to benefit from the unique benefits each one offers.


Originally posted by Gary
I've been playing since 1985. Characteristics are underpriced as well, yet they survived 4 editions.

Looks like I get the "experience edge", then. I started playing in high school, and I was in university in 1985. I can't remember, however, what year of high school I was in when I got first edition. It had to be 1983 or earlier, and it couldn't have been earlier than 1981 (or very klate 1980). In any case, if years of experience is the guide, I beat you by 2 years of more.

And the debate whether characteristics are underpriced remains open. Just like I don't see EC characters waltzing all over the rest of the constructs, I don't see Bricks enjoying popularity beyond that evidenced in the comics.

Both of the above are, of course, tangential to the main issue. But tell me - you believe EC's provide too much benefit, you believe characteristics are overpriced - how many more substantial aspects of the system do you disagree with? And given all these disagreements, why have you continued to play the system for 18 years? [No harm adding another tangent at this point...]


Originally posted by Gary
But the utility belt can be destroyed in one shot, and it only has nonhardened defenses equal to its reserve. That proves my point, that Bats is vulnerable in ways that other characters aren't.

And yet that NEVER happens in the comics. Maybe he buys his slots with focuses and his belt with OIHID. That would be what, a coconut? hmmm...inaccessible foci are protected by the character's own defenses - maybe it's all that Combat Luck that protects his belt.. In any case, we're now moving into the focus argument again, which isn't exactly central to the issue whether the EC provides excessive benefits as compared to the Multipower.

[zornwil]

Gary, do you know yet if you're going to go yet with 1/4 or 1/2 as a "elementally linked" limitation? Just curious. In the 1/2 case it's not a dramatic difference from EC in the end - notable and significant depending on how many powers of course and how they're affected by AP limits, but not so many points I'd get overly excited, even if I disagree. But at 1/4 it's pretty impactful. So I'm wondering which way you're going.

Just from a different perspective, a player perspective as opposed to rules-examiner or GM, in my opinion players will feel the pain against MultiPower players (or all will end up with MPs - which is more likely) if it's 1/4 but probably not care much at 1/2. For what that's worth.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Zed-F
You're getting awfully hung up on that 200 AP number. Let's look at that again.

EC Guy
20 EC (40-point powers)
20 16/16 FF 1/2 end
20 16" flight 1/2 end
20 8d6 EB.
20 Defense power A (e.g. Invisibility)
20 Mystery power B
Total: 120

Multi Guy
80 Multipower, 80 AP reserve
6u Attack A (60 AP)
4u Attack B (40 AP)
4u Attack C (40 AP)
4u Defence D (40 AP)
4u Defence E (40 AP)
4u Fast Move F (40 AP)
4u Utility G (40 AP)
4u Utility H (40 AP)
2u Light Defense I (20 AP)
2u Slow Move J (20 AP)
2u Utility K (20 AP)
Total: 120

Now, let's suppose that Multiguy is a spellcaster, so that we aren't limited by SFX (we haven't defined EC Guy's SFX either.) Suppose Multiguy has defined some, perhaps even several of his powers as Uncontrolled, or as Continuing Charges. It's certainly within his purview, many spells and gadgets are defined that way. For the sake of argument, let's be conservative and say only Defense E and Slow Move J are on continuing charges. This leaves Defense D and Fast Move F as powers available all the time, and Defense E and Slow Move J as powers that are intended only to provide a boost in combat or when otherwise necessary. Note that with only those 2 powers on continuing charges, we're not in any more danger of violating campaign limits than EC guy is. Could EC guy do the same and use Uncontrolled/continuing charges? Sure, but he wouldn't get nearly the same benefit out of doing so; he can already use all his powers at once.

Moreover, several utility powers such as Summon and Change Environment are the sort of power you use once and they have some continuing effect, independent of what else the character does. It's quite possible that some of these sorts of effects exist in Multiguy's multipower. EC Guy might like to take some of these too... but it costs him 20 RP per power. Multiguy can take 5 times as many for the same RP, and they are pretty much equally useful for him as they would be for EC Guy. Sure EC Guy can use them all every phase, but if you only need to use them once, that doesn't add a lot of value. Plus, he has to be able to afford them in the first place.

So now we have MultiGuy plus 4 summoned 150-point pets, a changed environment that either helps him or hinders EC guy, plus MultiGuy himself, up against EC Guy. To compound matters, MultiGuy can have a 60 AP attack, 60 AP of defenses, and 20 AP of movement, or 40 AP of attack, 80 AP of defenses, and 20 AP of movement, or several other possibilities, depending on what the circumstances call for.

Even if we just consider the summon as a 40 AP power instead of looking at the actual capabilities of 150-point characters, MultiGuy has about 220 AP of powers going at once, to EC Guy's 200, and is a lot more flexible about (a) changing his power loadout to suit the circumstances, (b) adding more powers to his array that can be used simultaneously, either by virtue of Uncontrolled/Continuing Charges, or by virtue of the fact that they inherently have a continuing effect. While EC guy is struggling to get 20 RP together for another power to get up to 240 AP simultaneously, MultiGuy has bought 5-7 more powers for his multipower. If a number of them have a continuing effect via one means or another, he has the potential to vastly outstrip EC Guy in terms of the number of AP simultaneously in use -- in fact, he could have done that with his existing 11 slots!

EDIT: removed inappropriate taunt.

Zed, you have a couple of major problems with the continuous charges in a framework route. First of all, that would make VPPs by far the most efficient if it were legal. A character could put 1000 powers up at a time with a charge that lasts 1 day. Second, the Q&A recommends against this just to get lots of powers going at the same time:

Q: The rules state that a Continuing Charge in a Power Framework remains in effect even if the character switches the Framework to another power. Is there any limit to this duration, or could a character with a Framework establish several powers with lengthy durations (say, 1 Day)?

A: There’s no limit under the rules, but obviously the GM should monitor this sort of power construct for abusiveness. The intent of the rule is to allow interesting and logical powers (such as smoke grenades in a Multipower of weapons), not to provide characters with huge amounts of power cheaply.

Third of all, even if it were allowed, you're assuming that you have significant noncombat time to get them up. If as is more likely it's a meeting engangement, then your wasting time in combat to get them up.

Phase 1. EC guy has 200 pts up. Multi guy has either no defenses, no attacks, and no movements up while he's throwing up 80 pts of continuing charges. Or he has 40 pts to split between moving, defending, and attacking while putting up 40 more on a continuing charge.

To get to 220 active points up as you're suggesting, it would take just about 2 full phases of doing nothing, or 4 phases of just protecting yourself and hoping you don't get squashed.

It certainly doesn't sound like Multi guy is superior to EC guy.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
And so it should. It will also be used against the character with the EC, so unless they both have that limitation,. we've got your oft quoted fruit basket problem, haven't we?

By the way, it's not "used against me". It's "applying my limitation". The player chooses disadvantages and limitations, just like he or she chooses powers, skills and stats. All of these should have some implications in the campaign over time.

I'm not disagreeing, if a limitation is chosen by the player, it's up to the GM to either forbid it or make sure it comes into play. However, to make enough problems for the EC player so that the limitation becomes worth the points, would bog the game down and feel "forced".


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

As an aside question, any comments out there on buying Power Defense for EC characters? Seems to me this reduces their big drawback fairly effectively.

Bad idea allowing ECs with lots of power defense. It would be like someone with 40 hardened resistant defenses taking a susceptibility to taking body damage.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
What I said is Multi Guy will be at a disadvantage if he tries to use a Multipower to duplicate what an EC does best. My point is not that multipowers should be nerfed. It is that EC's and multipowers balance out where each is used for what it's effective at accomplishing.

You haven't even proven that multiguy is superior to straight points guy. I can easily prove that EC guy is superior to straight power guy.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Which is what I said later in my post (the EDIT part). The ultimate result is that, if we nerf the EC point savings, a multipower can remain competitive with the EC if the character tries to accomplish the same things as the EC character. Now imagine he takes an approach intended to capitalize on the benefits of a multipower, rather than imitate what an EC character does.

You mean something as basic as flying and protecting yourself at the same time? Heck, some posters in this thread were suggesting allowing 0 end powers in a EC. Do you really want make a comparison when armor and damage reduction or characteristics are allowed in a EC?


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Why should the character be allowed to transfer that EB that was part of his EC yesterday out to a multipower today? To me, that's a character rewrite. If he wants to do that under the present system, your starting character spends:

20 EC
20 Flight
20 Force Field

60 12d6 EB

120 points, rather than the 100 he started with before. With 12 xp, he can convert the EB into a 2 slot multi. Of course, this assumes the GM allows your 2 power EC, whose third power hangs outside the framework.

Considering that even at 140 pts, the multi wasn't clearly superior to the straight points guy, the comparison is even worse with 120 pts to play with. And there are plenty of characters in CKC with a 2 power EC.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Finally, your comments sound like an admission that the EC is not superior to the multipower, as you wish to use both in tandem to benefit from the unique benefits each one offers.

Yeah, for stuff that I can only do 1 at a time, I like multis. I think one at a time is a reasonable limitation for the point savings. Just like a single 90 pt power vs a multi with 5 60 pt powers. It's a fair tradeoff.

With ECs, it's free points. A person who buys 4 powers that he wants up at the same time has a huge advantage over the person who buys his powers straight. Not a fair tradeoff.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Looks like I get the "experience edge", then. I started playing in high school, and I was in university in 1985. I can't remember, however, what year of high school I was in when I got first edition. It had to be 1983 or earlier, and it couldn't have been earlier than 1981 (or very klate 1980). In any case, if years of experience is the guide, I beat you by 2 years of more.

And the debate whether characteristics are underpriced remains open. Just like I don't see EC characters waltzing all over the rest of the constructs, I don't see Bricks enjoying popularity beyond that evidenced in the comics.

I think it's because most GM's take steps to control their campaigns with DC caps, and limits on dex/spd of certain archetypes. Without these controls, a brick with 10 pts of martial arts, 30 dex, and 6 speed would be terrifying.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Both of the above are, of course, tangential to the main issue. But tell me - you believe EC's provide too much benefit, you believe characteristics are overpriced - how many more substantial aspects of the system do you disagree with? And given all these disagreements, why have you continued to play the system for 18 years? [No harm adding another tangent at this point...]

Just because I dislike certain features of the system doesn't mean that I dislike the system as a whole. I've played D&D and think it could use some improvements. My favorite game, Advanced Squad Leader could use some improvements, but I still play it.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

And yet that NEVER happens in the comics. Maybe he buys his slots with focuses and his belt with OIHID. That would be what, a coconut? hmmm...inaccessible foci are protected by the character's own defenses - maybe it's all that Combat Luck that protects his belt.. In any case, we're now moving into the focus argument again, which isn't exactly central to the issue whether the EC provides excessive benefits as compared to the Multipower.

I've seen Batman with his utility belt taken away. I admit that I've never seen it destroyed. However, in Champions terms, he is vulnerable to both.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
Gary, do you know yet if you're going to go yet with 1/4 or 1/2 as a "elementally linked" limitation? Just curious. In the 1/2 case it's not a dramatic difference from EC in the end - notable and significant depending on how many powers of course and how they're affected by AP limits, but not so many points I'd get overly excited, even if I disagree. But at 1/4 it's pretty impactful. So I'm wondering which way you're going.

Just from a different perspective, a player perspective as opposed to rules-examiner or GM, in my opinion players will feel the pain against MultiPower players (or all will end up with MPs - which is more likely) if it's 1/4 but probably not care much at 1/2. For what that's worth.

I would probably go with a -1/4. The more I think about it, the less I'm inclined to create enough drainers and suppressors to make the limitation worth a -1/2. I would set a certain minimum powers/active points before even the -1/4 kicks in.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Farkling
/QUOTE/
"What's to stop the EC guy from buying an attack MP and leaving his def/movement/special powers in the EC?"
/ENDQUOTE/

My house rule, which I believe YOU referred to as an "arbitrary ban" (though not ins so many words).

It was Agent X, not me that you're thinking about.

[Zed-F]

Zed, you have a couple of major problems with the continuous charges in a framework route. First of all, that would make VPPs by far the most efficient if it were legal.
<snip a bunch of stuff in this line, look up for details>

I don't know of any GMs who have a problem with it in general, only with abuses of it. If the GM is going to allow EC guy to have 2 defenses running at once, I very much doubt he's going to have a problem with MultiGuy having 2 defenses running at once. Obviously, the GM would not allow VPP guy to have a whackload of defenses running at once, since that would violate campaign power levels. I feel I already covered the campaign power levels issue adequately in my previous post. Perhaps you should go back and take another look?

Secondly, who said anything about charges lasting a day? Smoke charges lasting a few minutes are typically perfectly fine in concept, and the same holds true for most other powers using continuous charges. A few minutes is ample time for most combats, which are typically over in less than one.



Third of all, even if it were allowed, you're assuming that you have significant noncombat time to get them up. If as is more likely it's a meeting engangement, then your wasting time in combat to get them up.


Oh sure. :rolleyes: Maybe if EC Guy catches MultiGuy by surprise. Given the converse situation, forget it. Even in just an open field battle with reasonably clear sight lines, it will take EC Guy enough time to get into attack range at 16" of movement per phase that MultiGuy will have ample time to get his powers going. Don't most supers KNOW when they are going after a villain, have a reasonable idea of where the target is, and have enough forewarning of when the battle is about to start to get their powers up? Unless we're talking an ambush scenario, your argument doesn't wash. All Multiguy needs is a few seconds and he's set, how hard is that?



Phase 1. EC guy has 200 pts up. Multi guy has either no defenses, no attacks, and no movements up while he's throwing up 80 pts of continuing charges. Or he has 40 pts to split between moving, defending, and attacking while putting up 40 more on a continuing charge.

To get to 220 active points up as you're suggesting, it would take just about 2 full phases of doing nothing, or 4 phases of just protecting yourself and hoping you don't get squashed.

It certainly doesn't sound like Multi guy is superior to EC guy.
That's your ambush scenario. Not very heroic, or in keeping with what I know about comics.

Try this one. Multi Guy is trying to perform some task in the warehouse district, and EC Guy is trying to stop him, but only knows the general area Multi Guy's in, so EC guy's looking for him. Multi Guy sees EC Guy coming just about the same time that EC Guy spots him, a hundred meters away -- not that far, across a football field. While EC Guy is trying to get in range for a shot without leaving himself vulnerable, Multi Guy takes a few seconds to prepare for the upcoming fight. First he blankets the area in fog so EC Guy won't know exactly where he is, then summons his pets. By the time EC Guy shows up at close range and starts looking for Multi Guy, those 4 pets are there harassing him. At this point either Multi Guy can finish what he was doing if his pets have the situation in hand, or he can focus on EC Guy if he needs to. EC Guy can't match that kind of tactical flexibility, 'cause he simply doesn't have the powers to do so.

Or how about this one. EC Guy and Multi Guy meet in a bar. Things get off to a bad start and insults get exchanged. Both sides start activating defensive powers. MultiGuy summons his buddies to back him up. Trash talk keeps flying. Suddenly, one guy gets pushed over the edge, and strikes the first blow.

Even supposing EC Guy does manage to ambush Multi Guy, surely he's not going to shoot without giving a warning first, if we're talking heroic combat here? That warning would likely be enough to let MultiGuy turn up his defenses and try to duck behind cover. EC Guy would get his attack off, but not before the defenses went up, and assuming EC Guy wasn't able to KO Multi Guy in one shot, by the time EC guy was able to work around the cover, Multi Guy will have bought himself enough time to get the rest of his powers up and running. How many times do we see someone duck behind a corner and change a clip? This scenario operates on a similar principle, except that changing a clip takes a full phase, and things like change environment and summon don't; Multi Guy can keep on the move if necessary until such time as he's ready to stand and fight.

I'd consider any of those scenarios a lot more typical than your version of the ambush scenario. Not to say that ambushes can't happen, but arguing that EC guy is better than Multi Guy simply because he has an advantage in a surprise attack is kind of silly. Of course he has an advantage in an ambush, anybody would!

It's also worth noting that EC Guy can recover more easily from being ambushed. While that's true enough, it doesn't strike me as enough of an advantage to say that an EC is in general overpowered. It's one of those tradeoffs this thread has been talking about -- EC Guy is giving up flexibility (and a LOT of it) and vulnerability to "drain one drain all" for being ready to go at a moment's notice. Not for raw power -- Multi Guy can easily match him there, with the right power constructs. Just for the ability to be ready instantly, without requiring a few seconds to "set up" for a fight.

Not worth it in my book. It might be in someone else's book. Either way, it's certainly not obviously imbalanced in one direction or the other.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
You haven't even proven that multiguy is superior to straight points guy. I can easily prove that EC guy is superior to straight power guy.

Gary, the bottom line here is that you are unhappy with EC because each power beyond the first can be acquired at half price (a -1 limitation, for all intents and purposes), but you're OK giving a -9 limitation for each power beyond the first in an all-ultras multipower, or -4 for a variable configuration multipower. How reasonable is that?

We can both design constructs that show where a multi is more efficient, or where an EC is the better choice. One attack, one defense and one movement? The EC will perform. Choice between 7 attasks, 4 defenses and 3 movement powers? The Multi is the clear winner. But the issue is whether the EC is so clearly superior to the multipower that we should trash the EC point break in favour of a -1/4 limitation that the Multi Guy can also take. Your system provides the "one attack power; common special effect character" with no advantage at all. A multipower can do everything he can, altbeit with the inability to do it all at once. That gives the EC the advantage, but only where BOTH characters are designed to need to do everything all at once.

Let's assume MultiGuy, instead of taking a higher EB, takes a second attack to Drain - Force Field. He can do this with 4 xp (he'll make it an Ultra, 4d6, no limits). So, how's EC Man doing now? Oh, but he can buy a drain too - he only needs another 28 XP to buy a 40 point power with a -1/4 limitation.


Originally posted by Gary
I think it's because most GM's take steps to control their campaigns with DC caps, and limits on dex/spd of certain archetypes. Without these controls, a brick with 10 pts of martial arts, 30 dex, and 6 speed would be terrifying.

Or a martial artist with 30/30 resistant defenses (I've had someone present me with that construct...forget the exact DEX/SPD, but a pretty indestrictible character)


Originally posted by Gary
I've seen Batman with his utility belt taken away. I admit that I've never seen it destroyed. However, in Champions terms, he is vulnerable to both.

Depends how you build the power. He's vulnerable to having it taken away if it's an IIF, but good luck destroying it when it hides behind all that Combat Luck. That's about the extent to which it goes away in modern comics.

[Farkling]

I think it basically boils down to Gary being unhappy with the "unacceptable" point saving offered by the EC. Multi-guy can buy anything in the book as a new power, and EC guy is limited both by 3-4 times cost AND shoehorn into EC...however, Gary consistently ignores that argument in favor of his chosen method.

Note that his 1/4 limitation nerf of the EC basically will allow me to cram all sorts of powers into it...since there is now no "themed" concept behind it. AND I can apply it directly to my enhanced senses and skill levels and life support and ...
Doesn't particularly make a difference to me if they get drained, after all, when my powers get drained they'll be pretty much useless.

BUT...the 1/4 nerf kinda takes the heart out of design and building. May as well go wtih power armor, or choose not to play in Gary's games.

On a side note, in my worlds well thought out applications of real world physics to EC's have effect too. Lead versus the Radiation, Asbestos versus the Flame, heat/fire vs water effects...

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Gary
Badger, if you've only used 1 EC in 20 years because of difficulty of use, why wouldn't you support an alternative that's easy to use and understand with the ability to place powers of different active points in the same "structure"?

I'm talking about having a -1/4 "drain one drain all" limitation for all powers in the "framework".

Incidentally, End cost is only 8 per phase for EC dude. 1 each for flight and FF (they're 1/2 end), and 6 for EB.

Just because they haven't been used in my games doesn't mean I think they're broken - I just am strict on what they can do and how they're themed. Just personal preference. The limitation of drain one drain all is just a version of linked, IMO. No big deal - to me, if you drain the SFX of an MP or EC, you'll probably lose all, depends on the SFX.

END - rookie mistake - I counted the Red END into the active points when I figured it out. Long day.:p

Anyway, I really am curious about my other comments. Everything keeps getting focused on a straight fight. Any comments on this:



When mp man finishes 2 adventures he has 6 XP (for example) - he (with GMs approval) picks up an Entangle ultra slot. Mr EC lets them sit there - he'll need 5 more adventures before he can gain another slot. So who has the benefit there? According to what seems to be your default position, its still the EC guy.

Is that an advantage of Elemental Control Man? Or too big an advantage to the Multipower Guy (even over Straight Dude - hmm, may need to change his name). What is your opinion on that? - I really am curious.



Mr EC has 3 powers - flight, force field, and EB. Mr MP has Flight, Force Field, EB, Entangle, Force Wall, Telekinesis, and Flight usable on others. Now Mr MP isn't as powerful in a straight up fight. But during the fight the bad guys start blasting away at the civilians nearby. Who has the advantage? I think a force wall beats flying in front of the bullets any day.


You keep looking at the frameworks in one situation. Even my frameworks (especially my deliberately absurd first sample) get no mention? I feel depressed :( . Is it wrong to expand the concept to the game as a whole, or do we need to keep this in some kind of arena?

Yes, combat is central to the game (as in all RPGs, to one degree or another), but we've had games with one combat, but lots or skill use or roleplaying (tracking down a runaway while in secret ID).

To recap (sorta) - if EC Man has his three powers, making him the combat hog, then MP Guy has the versatility (say an 8 slot framework) to make him the pinch hitter, Skills Lad aces all the needed skill tests, while Straight Dude just kinda sits there. Maybe he can become Focus Dude next time! Kinda fits the different characters with different roles idea that seems an integral part of both comics and the genre.

Look at Superman and (oh no!) Batman. Can they be built on the same # of points? Probably - depends on how wild you go with skills, and how much you want to give bats for his bases/toys/etc. Will they be the same power level? Hah - let's see Batman go toe to toe with Superman (what, no kryptonite! Holy Bat Sh@%!)

Like the commercial says, think outside the bun. Why not design two characters. Put them in combat. Put them in a rescue situation. Put them in a "danger room" with multiple situations. Then compare. Others have posted to this same effect. As for having x number points up at once. Does a lot of good in a NND if he has no defenses for it. Every character or framework has advantages and flaws. Again, each is designed for different uses and conceptions. I have no problem leaving them as is (as I said, to me they need a strong justification concept-wise, because that's the way I feel they were designed, not because I think they are overpowered/underpriced). Just me thoughts.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Farkling
I think it basically boils down to Gary being unhappy with the "unacceptable" point saving offered by the EC. Multi-guy can buy anything in the book as a new power, and EC guy is limited both by 3-4 times cost AND shoehorn into EC...however, Gary consistently ignores that argument in favor of his chosen method.

Note that his 1/4 limitation nerf of the EC basically will allow me to cram all sorts of powers into it...since there is now no "themed" concept behind it. AND I can apply it directly to my enhanced senses and skill levels and life support and ...
Doesn't particularly make a difference to me if they get drained, after all, when my powers get drained they'll be pretty much useless.

BUT...the 1/4 nerf kinda takes the heart out of design and building. May as well go wtih power armor, or choose not to play in Gary's games.

On a side note, in my worlds well thought out applications of real world physics to EC's have effect too. Lead versus the Radiation, Asbestos versus the Flame, heat/fire vs water effects... One thing about the limitations that Gary wants to apply is that certain constructs would actually be cheaper than the ECs. In an EC limitations on a single slot do not affect the base investment of the EC. Tossing down some limitations on his drain/link construct creatively will make for some serious savings. I suppose then some would complain that it is "undercosted." :)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
I would probably go with a -1/4. The more I think about it, the less I'm inclined to create enough drainers and suppressors to make the limitation worth a -1/2. I would set a certain minimum powers/active points before even the -1/4 kicks in.

Don't take this as a debating point (that's exhausted) but bear in mind that conditions might occur that have nothing to do with drainers, and don't forget that if they all go at once that is really debilitating, even if rare. Just a comment - if you don't think those points are relevant, it's your game.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Gary, the bottom line here is that you are unhappy with EC because each power beyond the first can be acquired at half price (a -1 limitation, for all intents and purposes), but you're OK giving a -9 limitation for each power beyond the first in an all-ultras multipower, or -4 for a variable configuration multipower. How reasonable is that?
(snippage)


Hugh, I've asked and he's answered that in almost as many words. He really believes the -9/-4 is A-OK (well, okay, not his words, but he's fine with it) whereas the -1 is not. I don't get it, either, and nothing I've seen comes close to justifying it, but c'est la vie.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by zornwil
Hugh, I've asked and he's answered that in almost as many words. He really believes the -9/-4 is A-OK (well, okay, not his words, but he's fine with it) whereas the -1 is not. I don't get it, either, and nothing I've seen comes close to justifying it, but c'est la vie.

I don't expect to dig Gary out of his trench. I just wanted it down in writing, where I can see it, what these limitations effectively are.

Gary's experience must be very different from mine. I can't conclude EC's are overly efficient compared to multipowers since I see a much higher proportion of characters with MP's than EC's.

Farkling, you only allow one framework. What's your experience? Forced to choose, do your players tend significantly towards MP or EC, or is it a pretty even split?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Zed-F
I don't know of any GMs who have a problem with it in general, only with abuses of it. If the GM is going to allow EC guy to have 2 defenses running at once, I very much doubt he's going to have a problem with MultiGuy having 2 defenses running at once. Obviously, the GM would not allow VPP guy to have a whackload of defenses running at once, since that would violate campaign power levels. I feel I already covered the campaign power levels issue adequately in my previous post. Perhaps you should go back and take another look?

Secondly, who said anything about charges lasting a day? Smoke charges lasting a few minutes are typically perfectly fine in concept, and the same holds true for most other powers using continuous charges. A few minutes is ample time for most combats, which are typically over in less than one.

I noticed that you just ignored the Q&A. You're espousing a GM permission power, in the same way as adding 0 end powers such as armor and damage reduction in a EC would be. If that's the case, EC guy wins easily. A multi just can't compete if the EC allows 0 end powers in it. However even under your scenario, the EC guy could just fly away under your scenario for a few minutes and let the charges run out.



Originally posted by Zed-F

Oh sure. :rolleyes: Maybe if EC Guy catches MultiGuy by surprise. Given the converse situation, forget it. Even in just an open field battle with reasonably clear sight lines, it will take EC Guy enough time to get into attack range at 16" of movement per phase that MultiGuy will have ample time to get his powers going. Don't most supers KNOW when they are going after a villain, have a reasonable idea of where the target is, and have enough forewarning of when the battle is about to start to get their powers up? Unless we're talking an ambush scenario, your argument doesn't wash. All Multiguy needs is a few seconds and he's set, how hard is that?


That's your ambush scenario. Not very heroic, or in keeping with what I know about comics.

Try this one. Multi Guy is trying to perform some task in the warehouse district, and EC Guy is trying to stop him, but only knows the general area Multi Guy's in, so EC guy's looking for him. Multi Guy sees EC Guy coming just about the same time that EC Guy spots him, a hundred meters away -- not that far, across a football field. While EC Guy is trying to get in range for a shot without leaving himself vulnerable, Multi Guy takes a few seconds to prepare for the upcoming fight. First he blankets the area in fog so EC Guy won't know exactly where he is, then summons his pets. By the time EC Guy shows up at close range and starts looking for Multi Guy, those 4 pets are there harassing him. At this point either Multi Guy can finish what he was doing if his pets have the situation in hand, or he can focus on EC Guy if he needs to. EC Guy can't match that kind of tactical flexibility, 'cause he simply doesn't have the powers to do so.

Or how about this one. EC Guy and Multi Guy meet in a bar. Things get off to a bad start and insults get exchanged. Both sides start activating defensive powers. MultiGuy summons his buddies to back him up. Trash talk keeps flying. Suddenly, one guy gets pushed over the edge, and strikes the first blow.

Even supposing EC Guy does manage to ambush Multi Guy, surely he's not going to shoot without giving a warning first, if we're talking heroic combat here? That warning would likely be enough to let MultiGuy turn up his defenses and try to duck behind cover. EC Guy would get his attack off, but not before the defenses went up, and assuming EC Guy wasn't able to KO Multi Guy in one shot, by the time EC guy was able to work around the cover, Multi Guy will have bought himself enough time to get the rest of his powers up and running. How many times do we see someone duck behind a corner and change a clip? This scenario operates on a similar principle, except that changing a clip takes a full phase, and things like change environment and summon don't; Multi Guy can keep on the move if necessary until such time as he's ready to stand and fight.

I'd consider any of those scenarios a lot more typical than your version of the ambush scenario. Not to say that ambushes can't happen, but arguing that EC guy is better than Multi Guy simply because he has an advantage in a surprise attack is kind of silly. Of course he has an advantage in an ambush, anybody would!

It's also worth noting that EC Guy can recover more easily from being ambushed. While that's true enough, it doesn't strike me as enough of an advantage to say that an EC is in general overpowered. It's one of those tradeoffs this thread has been talking about -- EC Guy is giving up flexibility (and a LOT of it) and vulnerability to "drain one drain all" for being ready to go at a moment's notice. Not for raw power -- Multi Guy can easily match him there, with the right power constructs. Just for the ability to be ready instantly, without requiring a few seconds to "set up" for a fight.

Not worth it in my book. It might be in someone else's book. Either way, it's certainly not obviously imbalanced in one direction or the other.

You appear to think that extra time to activate a power isn't really worth a limitation. If that's the case, I'll take a -1/4 limitation for full phase to turn on for my flight, mystery defense, and utility power. If it doesn't hinder you, it's only fair that it doesn't hinder me either. I could convincingly argue for a -1/2 limitation, since your extra powers take 2 full phases and locks out your regular attack and defenses in the process, but I'll be conservative.

With a -1/4 on 3 slots, I save 12 pts. Which 12 pts worth of slots are you going to remove from your multipower? It would be 21 pts worth of slots if I gave it a -1/2 limitation. There goes a bunch of your continuing charges powers. :rolleyes:

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Gary, the bottom line here is that you are unhappy with EC because each power beyond the first can be acquired at half price (a -1 limitation, for all intents and purposes), but you're OK giving a -9 limitation for each power beyond the first in an all-ultras multipower, or -4 for a variable configuration multipower. How reasonable is that?

Very reasonable. The multi can use only reserve points at a time. The EC has no restrictions whatsoever.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

We can both design constructs that show where a multi is more efficient, or where an EC is the better choice. One attack, one defense and one movement? The EC will perform. Choice between 7 attasks, 4 defenses and 3 movement powers? The Multi is the clear winner. But the issue is whether the EC is so clearly superior to the multipower that we should trash the EC point break in favour of a -1/4 limitation that the Multi Guy can also take. Your system provides the "one attack power; common special effect character" with no advantage at all. A multipower can do everything he can, altbeit with the inability to do it all at once. That gives the EC the advantage, but only where BOTH characters are designed to need to do everything all at once.

How about one movement, one defense, one utility power, and 7 attacks? The EC + Multi would be better than just multi alone. I think I've convincingly shown that (EC > straight power), and (straight power approximately = multipower). As far as the multi taking the limitation, that's ok because it's a real limitation. If the outside power is drained/suppressed, the entire multipower is as well. If the multipower or any of its slots are drained/suppressed, all the outside powers are as well. The multi has a new level of vulnerability that it didn't have before taking this limitation.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Let's assume MultiGuy, instead of taking a higher EB, takes a second attack to Drain - Force Field. He can do this with 4 xp (he'll make it an Ultra, 4d6, no limits). So, how's EC Man doing now? Oh, but he can buy a drain too - he only needs another 28 XP to buy a 40 point power with a -1/4 limitation.

As I said previously, there is nothing stopping a EC guy from buying a multipower as well.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Or a martial artist with 30/30 resistant defenses (I've had someone present me with that construct...forget the exact DEX/SPD, but a pretty indestrictible character)

From my point of view, this is less abusive. Let's take a brick and martial artist. They both buy 30 dex and 6 spd, so the points even out here. The brick buys +50 str for a total of 60 and 10 pts of martial arts for a total of 60 pts. The MA buys +10 str for a total of 20, the same 10 pts of maneuvers, +8 DC, and +8 PD (I think everybody would agree that any MA would buy at least another 8 PD anyway) for a total of 60 pts.

Now both of them have the same OCV/DCV, the same PD, the same Spd, the same damage, and the same access to martial maneuvers. However, the brick has an extra +8 Rec, +20 stun, +8" leap, the ability to use cars and trucks as free area effects, and +20 casual str vs weak entangles and grabs. The MA's only advantage is he pays 2 end per phase rather than 6. It's a decent advantage, but the brick's +8 rec partially mitigates it, and it just doesn't come close to stacking up to what the brick gets.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Depends how you build the power. He's vulnerable to having it taken away if it's an IIF, but good luck destroying it when it hides behind all that Combat Luck. That's about the extent to which it goes away in modern comics.

It would still be possible to do so, especially if the enemy specifically plans for it. That's a vulnerability that people with natural powers don't have.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Farkling
I think it basically boils down to Gary being unhappy with the "unacceptable" point saving offered by the EC. Multi-guy can buy anything in the book as a new power, and EC guy is limited both by 3-4 times cost AND shoehorn into EC...however, Gary consistently ignores that argument in favor of his chosen method.

Note that his 1/4 limitation nerf of the EC basically will allow me to cram all sorts of powers into it...since there is now no "themed" concept behind it. AND I can apply it directly to my enhanced senses and skill levels and life support and ...
Doesn't particularly make a difference to me if they get drained, after all, when my powers get drained they'll be pretty much useless.

BUT...the 1/4 nerf kinda takes the heart out of design and building. May as well go wtih power armor, or choose not to play in Gary's games.

On a side note, in my worlds well thought out applications of real world physics to EC's have effect too. Lead versus the Radiation, Asbestos versus the Flame, heat/fire vs water effects...

You still have to justify why draining one power would drain all of them simutaneously in order to get the limitation. After all, it's not likely that draining flash defense will drain your batarangs. :rolleyes: And like every single power ever created in Champions, it still has to be justified in terms of special effects.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Agent X
One thing about the limitations that Gary wants to apply is that certain constructs would actually be cheaper than the ECs. In an EC limitations on a single slot do not affect the base investment of the EC. Tossing down some limitations on his drain/link construct creatively will make for some serious savings. I suppose then some would complain that it is "undercosted." :)

I'd like for you to show me exactly how it's possible for a -1/4 drain one drain all limitation to save points over a standard EC if both structures have otherwise equal outside limitatons. One simple example will do.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
Don't take this as a debating point (that's exhausted) but bear in mind that conditions might occur that have nothing to do with drainers, and don't forget that if they all go at once that is really debilitating, even if rare. Just a comment - if you don't think those points are relevant, it's your game.

No different from a power with "does not work in high magnetic fields" for -1/4. It's worth -1/4, but not more than that even though when it does occur, it's really debilitating.

[Gary]

Here's an example of a character I actually ran for a few years. This character combined the efficiencies of characteristics with that of EC's. This has been edited for 5th edition and 350 pts with a 60 pt DC cap. I'm doing this from memory since I don't have a character sheet in front of me. She was a great character. :)

I don't claim that this is the most efficient way to build a character, but I'm sure most people would agree that she is an efficient character. :cool:

Lariat
Ann Bowen

60 Str 50
30 Dex 60
33 Con 46
10 Body 0
18 Int 8
14 Ego 8
15 Pre 5
22 Com 6
12 PD 0
12 ED 5
6 SPD 20
15 Rec -8
66 End 0
57 Stun 0

200 characteristics cost

5 Extra limbs (force tendrils)

15 EC force tendrils
15 12/12 force field 1/2 end
13 5" stretching 1/2 end no noncombat stretching (-1/4)
15 24" leap 1/2 end (36" total)
10 missile deflection all with +5 to roll cost end (-1/2)
9 360 degree spatial awareness +1 to perception roll cost end (-1/2) range limited to stretching (-1/4) touch sense group

16 8/8 armor OIF costume

7 explosion on 60 str personal immunity on explosion X10 end cost (-4) (emergency power)

105 powers cost

Martial arts
5 Defensive Strike 12d6
3 Martial Grab 70 str
3 Martial Throw 12d6 + v/5
6 2 levels with MA

3 Acrobatics
3 Breakfall

23 pts combat skills

22 pts noncombat skills and perks

Total OCV/DCV of 10 with 2 levels. 32/32 def, 20 resistent.


She is a mutant who is superstrong, agile, and fast. She has the mutant power to convert her internal str into energy tendrils that can be used for a wide variety of effects. These energy tendrils can be manipulated by her as if they were an extension of herself. She can use them to cover her body (FF), push against the ground to travel far distances (superleap), make attacks and use fine manipulation at up to 10 meters away (stretching), block attacks (missile deflection), and she can use them to "feel" around her in a 10 meter radius (spatial awareness).

In emergencies, she can crack these tendrils almost like a whip, causing a massive sonic boom. She rarely does this as it is extremely debilitating (40 end for the explosion, 6 end for str, and 1 end for stretching for a total of 47 end spent!) and the property damage that is certain to arise from its use. However if pressed to use the attack, she normally tries to find a way to haymaker it. (18d6 explosion under 4th edition rules, 16d6 explosion under 5th edition). She can crack her sonic boom up to 10 meters away from herself.

In combat, she usually uses her defensive strike or grab. She can grab or strike from 10 meters away. If she grabs an opponent and thinks the opponent can take the damage, she does a superleap piledriver (martial throw) for 19d6 damage. She has also been known to use tough grabbed opponents as shields with her missile deflection.

Notes
Defensive strike is the best maneuver if you have a DC cap, combined with maxing strength.

The absolute best maneuver would be passing strike, but no sane GM would allow someone with 60 str and 36" leap to take it. :p

Some GM's might actually allow her explosion to be placed in the EC since it fits the special effect and obviously is based on control of her force tendrils. If the GM allows naked power advantages in the EC, you can reduce the cost of the explosion from 7 to 4. :p

Appearance:

She is a beautiful woman in her late 20's with shoulder length dark hair (the actress I used for her was Mitzi Kapture from the show Silk Stalkings). She usually wears a mask when she appears as Lariat to hide her secret ID.

Profession:

She is the owner of Bowen Industries, a huge conglomerate that specializes in fashion. A very lucrative part of her business is making protective clothing of a special patented nature that feels like regular clothing, but protects like kevlar.

[Gary]

Originally posted by badger3k
Just because they haven't been used in my games doesn't mean I think they're broken - I just am strict on what they can do and how they're themed. Just personal preference. The limitation of drain one drain all is just a version of linked, IMO. No big deal - to me, if you drain the SFX of an MP or EC, you'll probably lose all, depends on the SFX.

I don't mean any offense, but when a framework is used only once in 20 years, it is a sign that you consider them "broken". If you didn't have serious concerns about something, they would be used more often.


Originally posted by badger3k

END - rookie mistake - I counted the Red END into the active points when I figured it out. Long day.:p

Anyway, I really am curious about my other comments. Everything keeps getting focused on a straight fight. Any comments on this:

I'll try my best. :)


Originally posted by badger3k

Is that an advantage of Elemental Control Man? Or too big an advantage to the Multipower Guy (even over Straight Dude - hmm, may need to change his name). What is your opinion on that? - I really am curious.

EC guy still has the ability to buy a multipower and add cheap slots as well. Even just sticking to just ECs and Multis, the ability to have an additional power active at once without sacrificing other powers is worth something. I and the other posters on this thread merely disagree on how much that "something" is.



Originally posted by badger3k

You keep looking at the frameworks in one situation. Even my frameworks (especially my deliberately absurd first sample) get no mention? I feel depressed :( . Is it wrong to expand the concept to the game as a whole, or do we need to keep this in some kind of arena?

Yes, combat is central to the game (as in all RPGs, to one degree or another), but we've had games with one combat, but lots or skill use or roleplaying (tracking down a runaway while in secret ID).

I'm looking at stuff that pretty much all characters would want up at the same time. At the very least a defense and movement. Sometimes an attack, additional defense, or utility power. I think it's fair to compare the EC which allows all that at the same time vs a multi which only allows a limited amount up at once.


Originally posted by badger3k

To recap (sorta) - if EC Man has his three powers, making him the combat hog, then MP Guy has the versatility (say an 8 slot framework) to make him the pinch hitter, Skills Lad aces all the needed skill tests, while Straight Dude just kinda sits there. Maybe he can become Focus Dude next time! Kinda fits the different characters with different roles idea that seems an integral part of both comics and the genre.

EC Man totally destroys Straight Dude. Nobody denies that. Skills Dude is just another version of Straight Dude, and would face the same disadvantages. Multipower Dude if he doesn't have a EC, is competitive with Straight Dude. He's more flexible, but Straight Dude probably has a higher attack and more points of defenses and movements up at the same time. Focus Dude is extremely powerful, but a certain percentage of the time, he'll be SOL. This is just my analysis.


Originally posted by badger3k

Look at Superman and (oh no!) Batman. Can they be built on the same # of points? Probably - depends on how wild you go with skills, and how much you want to give bats for his bases/toys/etc. Will they be the same power level? Hah - let's see Batman go toe to toe with Superman (what, no kryptonite! Holy Bat Sh@%!)

Like the commercial says, think outside the bun. Why not design two characters. Put them in combat. Put them in a rescue situation. Put them in a "danger room" with multiple situations. Then compare. Others have posted to this same effect. As for having x number points up at once. Does a lot of good in a NND if he has no defenses for it. Every character or framework has advantages and flaws. Again, each is designed for different uses and conceptions. I have no problem leaving them as is (as I said, to me they need a strong justification concept-wise, because that's the way I feel they were designed, not because I think they are overpowered/underpriced). Just me thoughts.

This is a horrible example for a gaming group. In combat, any opponent powerful enough to threaten Superman would kill Batman in one hit. Any villain that's competitive with Batman would last only 1 phase vs Superman. The only way a group with this much disparity works is with lots of GM fudging. I'm speaking personal experience from being in groups with "haves" and "have nots". Most characters should be relatively equal within a certain range in combat. I think it would be frustrating if you're knocked out in the first phase of every combat, even if you have lots of noncombat time. And I would think it would be just as frustrating to do all the work in combat, but get virtually no noncombat airtime either. What may work well in a comic book probably doesn't work in a real gaming group with real people. A certain amount of balance is needed. I hope this lecture didn't sound too pompous. :o

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
No different from a power with "does not work in high magnetic fields" for -1/4. It's worth -1/4, but not more than that even though when it does occur, it's really debilitating.

Well, not "no different" in that you'll have half or more of your power base sunk into that -1/4. The drawback of any EC design (and now I don't mean the framework, I mean the actual elemenatl notion) is that you rely pretty heavily on it, to the point where you're usually "half a man" when your basic schtick get hosed.

I'm not debating you on whether it should be -1/4, just wanting to be clear on my point here as to what concern I'm raising. As a player, with half my powers "does not work in high magnetic fields" and considering that most villains will figure that out after a few adventures, I would have concerns. Of course you're the GM, so if you make it 1/4 and are consciously keeping its real effect at that, great, no problem.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
Hugh, I've asked and he's answered that in almost as many words. He really believes the -9/-4 is A-OK (well, okay, not his words, but he's fine with it) whereas the -1 is not. I don't get it, either, and nothing I've seen comes close to justifying it, but c'est la vie.

Zornwill, perhaps an example will make my point clear. Which do you think is better, 12d6 EB or a 50 pt multipower with 10d6 EB and 3d6+1 RKA? Both cost the same points, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. The 12d6 will do more stun and knockback on the average, but the multipower has flexibility when dealing with unarmored targets and when hoping for a stun lotto. It's not obvious which one is better, and thus the -9 limitation seems to be roughly the "right" value for a slot.

Now take a case where you want multiple powers up at the same time.

A has 20" flight and 20/20 FF for 80 pts paid straight. (I'll ignore end for the sake of convenience)

B has a flexible multipower for the same 80 pts. He has:

58 Multipower reserve
11m 28" flight
11m 28/28 FF


Which is better? The multipower can have a higher defense or a higher movement, but he's really sacrificing if he maxes one out. He's 22 pts short of Straight Power Dude. Again it's not obvious which one is better. This again is a good indication that -4 is the right ballpark for the value of the limitation.

[Farkling]

/QUOTE HUGH/
"Farkling, you only allow one framework. What's your experience? Forced to choose, do your players tend significantly towards MP or EC, or is it a pretty even split?"
/ENDQUOTE/

I'm breaking some fledgling players of the "Multipower Attacks" framework with the "EC/Movement" Framework...that's how they were taught by the GM they deplaned from. They did NOT understand how their powers worked with the old GM.

Original Writeups::
(3) EC's Weather, Divine Might, Mentatics (heavily limited for point saves)
(1) Straight MA/SKills combo. Cyborg.
(1) Straight Brick/MA combo. Mutant. (Player NEW to Champs)
(1) "My favorite comic character is Rogue from the old cartoons. Mostly Invulnerable is a cool power"

Complete Writeups::
(1) EC :: Weather. She was dead set on it and understands how it works completely. Power for Slow Growth was fine. "I'm a roleplayer...not a combat monster"
(1) Multipower : Divine Might. (with the dreaded delayed activation). Blanket limit for the MP is the delayed activation. Prayer did not require ACTUAL gestures or incantations as originally designed. Just time for a short plea to the powers that be. Delayed Activation seemed a nice substitute. He has purchased (3) flavor powers now. Blessings (Aid), Divine Will (Healing), and A Transfrom to make holy ground...
(1) Multipower : Psychic. Original draft had a great deal of clunky limitations and was actually two shoehorned EC's. No more than 3 of them were designed to work in conjunction. Pushing the Mind Scan outside the MP and dumping most of his powers into a MP was much more pleasant to him, and did not require the heaviliy limited powers. He is happily buying new powers every other game session.
(1) Martial Arts/Skills combo. After original draft showed what powers/char's were cybernetic, I gave him limitation. Cybernetics are a common thread in 2020. Afterwards, he converted his gun and movement abilities to a Multipower of cybernetic ranged abilities and transportation.
(1) Martial Arts/Brick combo. He is slowly buying what looks like an EC with his experience. Electrically based.
(1) BRICK...Purchased flat and simple for a good roleplayer with NO head for game mechanics. 60 STR, 50 CON, Resistant Defenses exeeding the Campaign limits slightly, 3d6 Luck, X-Ray vision, Professional gambler and amateur linguist. So far she's been THE vibrant character and gotten XP bonuses from the GROUP. She very much understands the world of cardboard and styrofoam analogy. :)


Is that answer complete enough Hugh?

The (6) SuperSpies in the other game cannot have frameworks (though one or two may grow into them)...
If they DID...I would have two Multi's and an EC...possibly a third Multi, possibly not.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
Zornwill, perhaps an example will make my point clear. Which do you think is better, 12d6 EB or a 50 pt multipower with 10d6 EB and 3d6+1 RKA? Both cost the same points, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. The 12d6 will do more stun and knockback on the average, but the multipower has flexibility when dealing with unarmored targets and when hoping for a stun lotto. It's not obvious which one is better, and thus the -9 limitation seems to be roughly the "right" value for a slot.

Now take a case where you want multiple powers up at the same time.

A has 20" flight and 20/20 FF for 80 pts paid straight. (I'll ignore end for the sake of convenience)

B has a flexible multipower for the same 80 pts. He has:

58 Multipower reserve
11m 28" flight
11m 28/28 FF


Which is better? The multipower can have a higher defense or a higher movement, but he's really sacrificing if he maxes one out. He's 22 pts short of Straight Power Dude. Again it's not obvious which one is better. This again is a good indication that -4 is the right ballpark for the value of the limitation.

I didn't bring this up to debate you, just answering Hugh prematurely.

No, let's leave it at we're not about to see eye to eye on that. As stated, I have respect for your approach.

[Farkling]

For the record...I've PLAYED with multiple frameworks, and an enforced Multipower <=> EC <=> special effects related. In 5th edition, that would equate to MPower drained as EC drained as an automatic limitation (enforced as a -0 limit). We spoke about it at one point.

Myself...I might charge an Advantage on each framework if multiples exist. I might even charge a larger advantage price on a "divergent" special effects framework. I really think multiple frameworks are open for abuse in a standard superhero game. Gut instinct backed up by all this number crunching I've seen. Thanks Hugh....you old softie.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary
I'd like for you to show me exactly how it's possible for a -1/4 drain one drain all limitation to save points over a standard EC if both structures have otherwise equal outside limitatons. One simple example will do. You wanna go with a 1/4 drain limitation? not a 1/2? Okay, that would be harder to do.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Farkling
For the record...I've PLAYED with multiple frameworks, and an enforced Multipower <=> EC <=> special effects related. In 5th edition, that would equate to MPower drained as EC drained as an automatic limitation (enforced as a -0 limit). We spoke about it at one point.

Myself...I might charge an Advantage on each framework if multiples exist. I might even charge a larger advantage price on a "divergent" special effects framework. I really think multiple frameworks are open for abuse in a standard superhero game. Gut instinct backed up by all this number crunching I've seen. Thanks Hugh....you old softie. I think most things in the game are open to abuse. I get tired of "pet peeves" though. I gotta tell you you're going to turn off some mighty fine gamers out there. If I walked into a room and you guys were recruiting players and started in on what you don't like, and won't accept, about the game, I would walk out. I'm pretty sure there are quite a few other people who would do the same. It tells me I have to worry about "surprises." In my experience, GMs who are fairly restrictive in construction, a la changing fundamental rules, tend to be controlling in role play. That may not be you, but I wouldn't invest the time to find out. There are other games to play.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
I noticed that you just ignored the Q&A. You're espousing a GM permission power, in the same way as adding 0 end powers such as armor and damage reduction in a EC would be. If that's the case, EC guy wins easily. A multi just can't compete if the EC allows 0 end powers in it. However even under your scenario, the EC guy could just fly away under your scenario for a few minutes and let the charges run out.

"As the brave and heroic EC Man fled, the villainous MultiMan proceeded to steal the Crown Jewels and make good his escape. Film at 11"

Unless the opponent's primary or only goal is taking you down, they can easily succeed if you don't show up. How many scenarios (or comic plots) are based around various means of ensuring the heroes will be otherwise occupied while the villains achieve their goals? "Oh, just create an illusion of the guy activating a bunch of energy fields as EC Man flies in. He'll be out of there so fast you won't believe it."

An unfortunate fact of Player Characterhood is that you are far more often reacting to the opposition's plays than calling your own. If you're prepared to abandon the filed for a turn or two, that generally works quite well for them. Commonly, they were hoping you wouldn't show up in the first place anyway.


Originally posted by Gary
You appear to think that extra time to activate a power isn't really worth a limitation. If that's the case, I'll take a -1/4 limitation for full phase to turn on for my flight, mystery defense, and utility power. If it doesn't hinder you, it's only fair that it doesn't hinder me either. I could convincingly argue for a -1/2 limitation, since your extra powers take 2 full phases and locks out your regular attack and defenses in the process, but I'll be conservative.

With a -1/4 on 3 slots, I save 12 pts. Which 12 pts worth of slots are you going to remove from your multipower? It would be 21 pts worth of slots if I gave it a -1/2 limitation. There goes a bunch of your continuing charges powers. :rolleyes:

Ummm...seems to me he acknowledged it is a limitation - in an ambush, the character has a serious problem. I'd say an ambush is as common as having the villains take away my Magic Underwear IIF that grants all my superpowers quietly, from the background, or catching me outside my Hero ID. A 15- activation roll fails less than 5% of the time. All of these are -1/4 - a slight limitation on the power. Some come into play less frequently and have failry substantial consequences. Others (15- Act) come into play more often - 1 use in 20 - but have less severe implications (OK, I miss one shot). All are pretty minor limitations.

For that matter, you don't seem to believe a lot of adjustment powers have a significant impact on people with EC's, yet you're still granting -1/4 for that restriction under your model. Presumably because it will happen sometimes, so it is at least a bit limiting. Or do you plan to redesign your campaign world and add a lot more characters with adjustment powers?

[Hugh Neilson]

I said:

Gary, the bottom line here is that you are unhappy with EC because each power beyond the first can be acquired at half price (a -1 limitation, for all intents and purposes), but you're OK giving a -9 limitation for each power beyond the first in an all-ultras multipower, or -4 for a variable configuration multipower. How reasonable is that?


Originally posted by Gary
Very reasonable. The multi can use only reserve points at a time. The EC has no restrictions whatsoever.

Let's make that a "multipower Classic" - the 90 point one with a 60 reserve and 5 Ultra attack slots. The character can only use one attack slot at a time. But he can only attack once per phase anyway. The only thing he loses is multiple power attacks. Powers in an EC can't be used for multiple power attacks anyway.

Pay 90 points for those 5 attacks in a multipower, or pay double for all 5 in an EC. Or nerf both constructs and paty 300 points - over 3 times as much - for the privilege of multiple power attacking. Can I have a -2 limitation on my attack powers for "can't multiple power attack"? NO. Can I put all my attacks in a multipower and save more than the -2 would have given me? SURE

Now let's get back to your pet peeve - limitation stacking. We'll make the powers all come from OAF - Gun. So the multipower costs 45. If I get the -2 limitation instead, each power costs 15 (including the OAF), so I pay 75 in total. Your concern is that EC's "give points for free". How is this different?


Originally posted by Gary
It would still be possible to do so, especially if the enemy specifically plans for it. That's a vulnerability that people with natural powers don't have.

Yes. Much less likely that your assertion that the belt is easily (and therefore should be commonly) destroyed, though. It's now a lot tougher, since I have to overcome Batman's combat luck, plus the belt's defenses. And the belt, by virtue of smaller size, has a better DCV than Batman. I'd really rather take him out than just take out his belt if I'm lucky enough to connect. Which probably explains why most opponents don't go after the belt - especially when the belt's contents are principally geared for non-combat matters anyway, with a few notable exceptions like the Batarang (which I'm not sure is even in "the belt" - he always seems to have one, so it may just be "restrainable".

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
No different from a power with "does not work in high magnetic fields" for -1/4. It's worth -1/4, but not more than that even though when it does occur, it's really debilitating.

I've seen a lot more characters witrh Drains than "Create intense magnetic field". He's pretty much got to be lured into one of those.

I believe the fire extinguisher example has been mentioned. How many times has the Human Torch been doused by a fireplug? Maybe you need a variable limitation depending on how common the ability to drain the power can be simulated without actually having a Drain.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
I don't mean any offense, but when a framework is used only once in 20 years, it is a sign that you consider them "broken". If you didn't have serious concerns about something, they would be used more often.

ummm...the most common reason a given ability isn't used is the perception that it costs too much for its benefits. Take Caverns and Cave Lizards 3.0, for example. How many people take the Toughness feat that grants them +3 hit points? Virtually no one, since there are so many more useful abilities you can get by taking a different feat.

Similarly, how many people take "Drain: Change Environment"? I don't think it's because the power is "broken".

As to the Superman/Batman debate, it's been seen before. I'll just note that I hate to make an argument that Hero can't duplicate something that's got 40+ years of comics history. The problem is that most Champs games are very combat-focused. In a game split evenly between noncombat encounters where Bats' skills and gadgets come to the fore, and combat where Supes does all the work, both players will be equally sidelined.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
15 EC force tendrils
15 12/12 force field 1/2 end
13 5" stretching 1/2 end no noncombat stretching (-1/4)
15 24" leap 1/2 end (36" total)
10 missile deflection all with +5 to roll cost end (-1/2)
9 360 degree spatial awareness +1 to perception roll cost end (-1/2) range limited to stretching (-1/4) touch sense group

I begin to understand your problem with EC's :rolleyes:

Can I have an EC: Argonian Powers for my character, Last Son of Argon? How about EC: Powered Armor? This depends how tight you are on the special effects defining the EC, which has changed over the editions, becoming tighter each time. That seems to be in every rulebook, after a fashion, and then we get published characters with "EC: Powers Far Beyond Ordinary Earthmen" that stretch (shatter?) the boundaries of "common special effects".


As a simplistic sample restriction, I generally expect a typical EC will have some effect that would limit it whioch does not require a superpower. Farkling's examples of lead for radiation or a fire extinguisher for fire are good. Soak an electrical character down and
see how he does.

EDIT: An older character of my own probably should not have "EC: Absorbtion" either :(

If we want to get nitpicky, by the way, spatial awareness isn't ranged at all as written up in 5ed, but that's probably a translation difficulty as it was ranged in prior editions.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling
/QUOTE HUGH/
"Farkling, you only allow one framework. What's your experience? Forced to choose, do your players tend significantly towards MP or EC, or is it a pretty even split?"
/ENDQUOTE/

Complete Writeups::
(1) EC :: Weather.
(1) Multipower
(1) Multipower
(1) Martial Arts/Skills combo. Multipower
(1) Martial Arts/Brick combo. slowly buying EC .
(1) BRICK...Purchased flat


Three multi's, two EC's - pretty even split. That's kind of what I'd expected.

From your comments, you had a pretty substantial hand in design assistance for each character, and made them mechanically effective within the constraints imposed.

It's just a demo, really, but seems to show that EC and Multi are pretty even concepts depending on the type of character. The EC will, as you've noted, have slower growth, but that's the cost of added flexibility (availability of more powers at the same time).

OK, I've posted my page...whoi's next? ;)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I've seen a lot more characters witrh Drains than "Create intense magnetic field". He's pretty much got to be lured into one of those.

I believe the fire extinguisher example has been mentioned. How many times has the Human Torch been doused by a fireplug? Maybe you need a variable limitation depending on how common the ability to drain the power can be simulated without actually having a Drain.

One thing I will admit, and from ECs I've seen I suspect is common to others, is I do not apply the same standard to EC as to NND. I apply the standard you indicate above to NNDs; essentially, a clever but normal person ought to be able to counter the attack with a little preparation or McGuyveresque opportunity. But with ECs the element needn't have such a common counte, and I think most people do this. However, this raises what may be a fundamental issue with mine and others' implementations of EC. (BTW, it should be noted that it seems many people don't create NNDs this way, though, and even the book examples, as you noted in another message re ECs Hugh, often have rather hard-to-obtain defenses for NND attacks, and I do NOT agree with that).

An idea would be to take the current EC framework and apply a "commonality" rule.

ECs which could be easily countered per the "normal person" measure (i.e., "very common counter to elemental") get the current normal application of discount - the control cost in its entirety.

ECs which are less common but not completely obtainable by regular people (and presumably fairly easily obtainable by secret organizations and smart-guy super-villains, that sort of level) get 1/2 (or 3/4 if you prefer) of the control cost discount. So if I have a 25 point control cost, my discount on each slot is 12 (if 1/2) or 19 (if 3/4) points.

ECs that are uncommon to counter get 1/4 (or 1/2 if you prefer) of the control cost discount. That might cover "intense radiation field"; so following the above example, each slot gets discounted 6 (if 1/4) or 12 (if 1/2) points.

Hey, I kind of like this...I know it would mess up my current players' EC costs though, although perhaps in a more balanced way. Will think about it.

Gary, since you raised much of this, what do you think of that construct? I suspect it still saves too many points for you...

[Zed-F]

I noticed that you just ignored the Q&A.
I didn't ignore anything in the Q&A; I answered every point you tried to raise on the basis of it. I pointed out that a reasonable GM will allow non-abusive powers with continuing charges in a multipower. I re-addressed the campaign limits issue that you brought up. I even used the very example from the Q&A that described an allowable continuing charges application in a multipower!


You're espousing a GM permission power, in the same way as adding 0 end powers such as armor and damage reduction in a EC would be.
I don't see these as being the same at all; from the impressions I get from the other GMs on the board, most of them would look a lot more closely at natively 0 END powers in an EC than they would at continuing charges in a multipower.


If that's the case, EC guy wins easily. A multi just can't compete if the EC allows 0 end powers in it.
A nice arbitrary statement with no evidence to back it up whatsoever. I've already demonstrated that there's no significant difference between the total points active at once using a multipower and an EC, the only difference is time to get them all up. Whether those powers cost END or not makes no difference to that fact, regardless of whether I allow powers that natively cost no END in an EC. (I don't, without good justification.)


However even under your scenario, the EC guy could just fly away under your scenario for a few minutes and let the charges run out.
Sure he could. In that case, he probably loses by default. What if MultiGuy and his buddies chase him and force him to engage? If the master villain is at the console of his doomsday device, activating it, when EC Guy finally reaches his lair, and the master villain pops some continuing charges or summons some minions, does he wait until the villain's charges run out or the minions get bored before trying to stop him? How does he know how long the charges will last? What if he has more than one charge? Please. :rolleyes:


You appear to think that extra time to activate a power isn't really worth a limitation. If that's the case, I'll take a -1/4 limitation for full phase to turn on for my flight, mystery defense, and utility power. If it doesn't hinder you, it's only fair that it doesn't hinder me either. I could convincingly argue for a -1/2 limitation, since your extra powers take 2 full phases and locks out your regular attack and defenses in the process, but I'll be conservative.

With a -1/4 on 3 slots, I save 12 pts. Which 12 pts worth of slots are you going to remove from your multipower? It would be 21 pts worth of slots if I gave it a -1/2 limitation. There goes a bunch of your continuing charges powers. :rolleyes:

Sure, you could take a -1/4 limitation on each of your EC powers that takes a full phase to activate. In that case, you're just as vulnerable to an ambush as MultiGuy, and you still have very limited flexibility and vulnerability to "drain one drain all." If you want to give up the ONLY advantage an EC has over a multipower just to save a few points, be my guest. To counter that, I'll just apply a -1/4 "drain one drain all" lim to the multipower, and I'll still be vastly ahead on flexibility. How's that? Even if I didn't, it would not be very hard to come up with a whole 12 points; a few points out of the reserve and readjusting the slots would be more than adequate to the task. I wouldn't necessarily need to give up any flexibility at all, unless I preferred to do that rather than lowering the reserve total.

According to the rules, in order to get a -1/2 limitation for activating your EC powers, you'd need to take 2 full phases to activate EACH power. Now you've gone from being vulnerable to ambushes to being completely toast in an ambush, as you can't even get your defenses up until the end of your second phase. If you want to take that lim, good luck, you're going to need it.

It's obvious that this is a sacred cow for you; as such, it's not worth my time to argue this any more with you. Your obsession with the idea that "Multis only have one power active at once, while ECs have all active at once" is blinding you to the reality that that statement is simply not true. Ciao, and good luck in your games.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
"As the brave and heroic EC Man fled, the villainous MultiMan proceeded to steal the Crown Jewels and make good his escape. Film at 11"

Unless the opponent's primary or only goal is taking you down, they can easily succeed if you don't show up. How many scenarios (or comic plots) are based around various means of ensuring the heroes will be otherwise occupied while the villains achieve their goals? "Oh, just create an illusion of the guy activating a bunch of energy fields as EC Man flies in. He'll be out of there so fast you won't believe it."

An unfortunate fact of Player Characterhood is that you are far more often reacting to the opposition's plays than calling your own. If you're prepared to abandon the filed for a turn or two, that generally works quite well for them. Commonly, they were hoping you wouldn't show up in the first place anyway.

Let me ask you and everybody else on this thread. Would you, Zornwill, Farkling, AgentX, Badger, and anybody else who I'm missing, allow a 80 base point multipower that could have 140 pts worth of slots with continuing charges of movements, defenses, and utility powers and thus have 220 pts of powers up at the same time? While I'm at it, how many of you would allow 0 end powers in a EC?



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Ummm...seems to me he acknowledged it is a limitation - in an ambush, the character has a serious problem. I'd say an ambush is as common as having the villains take away my Magic Underwear IIF that grants all my superpowers quietly, from the background, or catching me outside my Hero ID. A 15- activation roll fails less than 5% of the time. All of these are -1/4 - a slight limitation on the power. Some come into play less frequently and have failry substantial consequences. Others (15- Act) come into play more often - 1 use in 20 - but have less severe implications (OK, I miss one shot). All are pretty minor limitations.

Actually, Zed seemed to think it was no problem at all for him to take 2 full phases and lock out his attacks and defenses to get all this stuff up, even with a GM permission only power. I was simply bringing the comparison to a even footing.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

For that matter, you don't seem to believe a lot of adjustment powers have a significant impact on people with EC's, yet you're still granting -1/4 for that restriction under your model. Presumably because it will happen sometimes, so it is at least a bit limiting. Or do you plan to redesign your campaign world and add a lot more characters with adjustment powers?

Adjustment powers are reasonably common, but in my experience they are mostly characteristic adjustment powers. There are very few drains of actual power.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I said:

Gary, the bottom line here is that you are unhappy with EC because each power beyond the first can be acquired at half price (a -1 limitation, for all intents and purposes), but you're OK giving a -9 limitation for each power beyond the first in an all-ultras multipower, or -4 for a variable configuration multipower. How reasonable is that?



Let's make that a "multipower Classic" - the 90 point one with a 60 reserve and 5 Ultra attack slots. The character can only use one attack slot at a time. But he can only attack once per phase anyway. The only thing he loses is multiple power attacks. Powers in an EC can't be used for multiple power attacks anyway.

Pay 90 points for those 5 attacks in a multipower, or pay double for all 5 in an EC. Or nerf both constructs and paty 300 points - over 3 times as much - for the privilege of multiple power attacking. Can I have a -2 limitation on my attack powers for "can't multiple power attack"? NO. Can I put all my attacks in a multipower and save more than the -2 would have given me? SURE

Yeah let's take that 5 power "classic". Only in games with DC caps would it be more effective than buying a straight power. One 18d6 attack, or choice of 5 60 pt attacks. It's not obvious which one is better, and thus a good indication that they are both reasonably balanced with each other. Now with a DC cap, using the other 30 pts saved, the 12d6 straight power guy could buy +15 dex with no speed increase, +10 dex +1 spd, or +3 spd. Now which is better?

A 12d6 EB 38 dex 5 spd
B 12d6 EB 33 dex 6 spd
C 12d6 EB 23 dex 8 spd
D multipower 23 dex 5 spd

I think that it's hard telling which one of the structures is better. And they all cost the same points. Again an indication of balance. That 30 pts seems to be the right price for 5 slots.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Now let's get back to your pet peeve - limitation stacking. We'll make the powers all come from OAF - Gun. So the multipower costs 45. If I get the -2 limitation instead, each power costs 15 (including the OAF), so I pay 75 in total. Your concern is that EC's "give points for free". How is this different?

It's easy. When I compare straight power guy to multiguy, I see tradeoffs. I see them as equal but with different strengths. For reference, see the above example and lots of examples sprinkled throughout this thread.

When I compare EC guy vs multiguy, I see someone who has everything multiguy has plus a bunch of extra points to play with to buy other stuff. That's free points in my book.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Yes. Much less likely that your assertion that the belt is easily (and therefore should be commonly) destroyed, though. It's now a lot tougher, since I have to overcome Batman's combat luck, plus the belt's defenses. And the belt, by virtue of smaller size, has a better DCV than Batman. I'd really rather take him out than just take out his belt if I'm lucky enough to connect. Which probably explains why most opponents don't go after the belt - especially when the belt's contents are principally geared for non-combat matters anyway, with a few notable exceptions like the Batarang (which I'm not sure is even in "the belt" - he always seems to have one, so it may just be "restrainable".

I think it's just the writers not wanting to mess with the utility belt. He's had enough scientific genius enemies who could destroy it if they wanted to.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I begin to understand your problem with EC's :rolleyes:

Can I have an EC: Argonian Powers for my character, Last Son of Argon? How about EC: Powered Armor? This depends how tight you are on the special effects defining the EC, which has changed over the editions, becoming tighter each time. That seems to be in every rulebook, after a fashion, and then we get published characters with "EC: Powers Far Beyond Ordinary Earthmen" that stretch (shatter?) the boundaries of "common special effects".

I don't see how you can object to this EC conceptually. All powers are tied together and have a common special effect. This EC is very similar to the type of EC that Mr. Fantastic, Plastic Man, or Medusa would have. In fact, the Chinese Ghost in Ninja Hero has EC Hair Powers. This EC isn't anything like Argonian powers since it's the active control of an "element" just as the guidelines in the rulebook state. The only problem you seem to have with it is that it saves a buttload of points for powers that Lariat would like to have up all at the same time.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

As a simplistic sample restriction, I generally expect a typical EC will have some effect that would limit it whioch does not require a superpower. Farkling's examples of lead for radiation or a fire extinguisher for fire are good. Soak an electrical character down and
see how he does.

EDIT: An older character of my own probably should not have "EC: Absorbtion" either :(

Many "book" ECs don't have this restriction.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

If we want to get nitpicky, by the way, spatial awareness isn't ranged at all as written up in 5ed, but that's probably a translation difficulty as it was ranged in prior editions.

If I get rid of the range, it would cost me 1 pt more. Big deal. Since it's based on the touch sense group, it would still have a 10 meter range for her.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil
One thing I will admit, and from ECs I've seen I suspect is common to others, is I do not apply the same standard to EC as to NND. I apply the standard you indicate above to NNDs; essentially, a clever but normal person ought to be able to counter the attack with a little preparation or McGuyveresque opportunity. But with ECs the element needn't have such a common counte, and I think most people do this. However, this raises what may be a fundamental issue with mine and others' implementations of EC. (BTW, it should be noted that it seems many people don't create NNDs this way, though, and even the book examples, as you noted in another message re ECs Hugh, often have rather hard-to-obtain defenses for NND attacks, and I do NOT agree with that).

An idea would be to take the current EC framework and apply a "commonality" rule.

ECs which could be easily countered per the "normal person" measure (i.e., "very common counter to elemental") get the current normal application of discount - the control cost in its entirety.

ECs which are less common but not completely obtainable by regular people (and presumably fairly easily obtainable by secret organizations and smart-guy super-villains, that sort of level) get 1/2 (or 3/4 if you prefer) of the control cost discount. So if I have a 25 point control cost, my discount on each slot is 12 (if 1/2) or 19 (if 3/4) points.

ECs that are uncommon to counter get 1/4 (or 1/2 if you prefer) of the control cost discount. That might cover "intense radiation field"; so following the above example, each slot gets discounted 6 (if 1/4) or 12 (if 1/2) points.

Hey, I kind of like this...I know it would mess up my current players' EC costs though, although perhaps in a more balanced way. Will think about it.

Gary, since you raised much of this, what do you think of that construct? I suspect it still saves too many points for you...

This approach would work for me, since it actually ties how many points you save with how much you expect to be limited by the structure. You get a reasonable (cost = value), unlike the current structure.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Zed-F
I didn't ignore anything in the Q&A; I answered every point you tried to raise on the basis of it. I pointed out that a reasonable GM will allow non-abusive powers with continuing charges in a multipower. I re-addressed the campaign limits issue that you brought up. I even used the very example from the Q&A that described an allowable continuing charges application in a multipower!

Yeah, the example is a fire and forget weapon, not a power that allows you active control of it after use. The Q&A specifically warns against allowing lots of continuing charge powers up simply for the sake of having lots of active points up at the same time.


Originally posted by Zed-F

I don't see these as being the same at all; from the impressions I get from the other GMs on the board, most of them would look a lot more closely at natively 0 END powers in an EC than they would at continuing charges in a multipower.

Have you read this thread? A number of posters here were griping about the no 0 end power restrictions and basically ignoring it.



Originally posted by Zed-F

A nice arbitrary statement with no evidence to back it up whatsoever. I've already demonstrated that there's no significant difference between the total points active at once using a multipower and an EC, the only difference is time to get them all up. Whether those powers cost END or not makes no difference to that fact, regardless of whether I allow powers that natively cost no END in an EC. (I don't, without good justification.)

Do you want me to redo the comparison with stuff like armor, damage reduction, and absorption in my sample EC?


Originally posted by Zed-F

Sure he could. In that case, he probably loses by default. What if MultiGuy and his buddies chase him and force him to engage? If the master villain is at the console of his doomsday device, activating it, when EC Guy finally reaches his lair, and the master villain pops some continuing charges or summons some minions, does he wait until the villain's charges run out or the minions get bored before trying to stop him? How does he know how long the charges will last? What if he has more than one charge? Please. :rolleyes:



Sure, you could take a -1/4 limitation on each of your EC powers that takes a full phase to activate. In that case, you're just as vulnerable to an ambush as MultiGuy, and you still have very limited flexibility and vulnerability to "drain one drain all." If you want to give up the ONLY advantage an EC has over a multipower just to save a few points, be my guest. To counter that, I'll just apply a -1/4 "drain one drain all" lim to the multipower, and I'll still be vastly ahead on flexibility. How's that? Even if I didn't, it would not be very hard to come up with a whole 12 points; a few points out of the reserve and readjusting the slots would be more than adequate to the task. I wouldn't necessarily need to give up any flexibility at all, unless I preferred to do that rather than lowering the reserve total.

According to the rules, in order to get a -1/2 limitation for activating your EC powers, you'd need to take 2 full phases to activate EACH power. Now you've gone from being vulnerable to ambushes to being completely toast in an ambush, as you can't even get your defenses up until the end of your second phase. If you want to take that lim, good luck, you're going to need it.

First you were arguing that ambush situations were unlikely and that you weren't really restricted from having to take 2 phases while locking out your primary attack and defense to activate the continuing charge powers. Now you're arguing that it's a real restriction? Which is it?

If you lose 12 pts of slots, that's 120 pts of powers that you're losing. That's a major hit in flexibility. If you take from the reserve, you take a major hit in power, especially since all the slots are optimized to be 20 and 40 pt slots. If you have to remove 21 pts of powers, I shudder to think how you would have to gut it.

And I'm not limiting the entire EC as you state. I'm merely limiting 3 slots, movement, secondary defense, and utility power. After all, you were the one stating previously that nearly all battles allow multiguy ample time to activate his powers. A -1/4 limitation drops each slot from 20 to 16, hence a 12 pt savings for 3 slots. A -1/2 drops each slot from 20 to 13 and hence 21 total pts savings. There is no need at all to limit the entire EC.

Actually, this points out another major advantage for a EC. A limitation that only affects a slot, saves lots of points compared to a multipower. With a -1/2 limitation on a slot of the EC, I save 7 pts. With the multipower, you would save only a single point with the same limitation.


Originally posted by Zed-F

It's obvious that this is a sacred cow for you; as such, it's not worth my time to argue this any more with you. Your obsession with the idea that "Multis only have one power active at once, while ECs have all active at once" is blinding you to the reality that that statement is simply not true. Ciao, and good luck in your games.

I've given plenty of evidence and support that it is true. My examples have been based on rulebook examples, with no funky GM permission powers. You're seizing on a GM permission only power, and using that as the basis of your entire argument.

And good luck on your games as well.

[Gary]

Nobody has commented on my comparison of the Brick and MA using the same baseline. Is that an indication that all of you agree that Str is underpriced?

[Hugh Neilson]

My statement:

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I begin to understand your problem with EC's

Can I have an EC: Argonian Powers for my character, Last Son of Argon? How about EC: Powered Armor? This depends how tight you are on the special effects defining the EC, which has changed over the editions, becoming tighter each time. That seems to be in every rulebook, after a fashion, and then we get published characters with "EC: Powers Far Beyond Ordinary Earthmen" that stretch (shatter?) the boundaries of "common special effects".

Your response:


Originally posted by Gary
I don't see how you can object to this EC conceptually. All powers are tied together and have a common special effect. This EC is very similar to the type of EC that Mr. Fantastic, Plastic Man, or Medusa would have. In fact, the Chinese Ghost in Ninja Hero has EC Hair Powers. This EC isn't anything like Argonian powers since it's the active control of an "element" just as the guidelines in the rulebook state. The only problem you seem to have with it is that it saves a buttload of points for powers that Lariat would like to have up all at the same time.

So you WOULD allow "EC: Powers Far Beyond Those of any Ordinary Earthman", I take it. After all, Superman's powers largely arise from Earth's yellow sun. That's a common special effect. The comics have shown all his powers are drained when he is under a red sun, so he must have "drain one, drain all" - "Red Sun Burst" is the special effect for "Drain Kryptonian Powers", right?

For that matter, why not "EC: Mutant Powers"? The comics seem to provide lots of devices that drain all mutant powers at once.

Why require "EC: fire Powers" or "EC: Electrical Powers"? He can just take "EC: Energy Powers" and use fire, electricity, kinetic energy, etc.

Pretty soon, pretty much anyone can have an EC. Batman gets "EC: Training Powers" and/or "EC: Perfect Physical Specimen Powers". Hey, if we allow EVERYONE to save the points, then it's fair again, right? No one gets an unfair advantage because anyone with a character conception (which should be everyone) saves points.


Originally posted by Gary
Many "book" ECs don't have this restriction.

Funny...that seems to be what I said when I noted the rules require tight special effects, but published characters then seem to push (shatter?) the limits.

Besides, "book" EC's grant the point savings you complain about - better enforcing what constitutes "tight special effects" would seem as easy a means of controlling abuse as toasting the EC concept in general.

Of course, if you want to USE all those powers, you pay 9 END per phase. I assume the character also has an attack power, so that boosts it up (quite) a bit more, or soaks back the point benefits by making your attack zero END. A drawback present whether you have an EC or not if you want a lot of stuff up at the same time, of course.

I've got to agree with Zed F here. You've pretty much made this your baby, and you can't see any of the flaws in your reasoning. Have fun with it.

[Zed-F]

Let me ask you and everybody else on this thread. Would you, Zornwill, Farkling, AgentX, Badger, and anybody else who I'm missing, allow a 80 base point multipower that could have 140 pts worth of slots with continuing charges of movements, defenses, and utility powers and thus have 220 pts of powers up at the same time? While I'm at it, how many of you would allow 0 end powers in a EC?

First, it's already given that we are allowing up to 80 AP of defenses and 80 AP of attacks simultaneously, since the EC Guy specified has 2 40 AP attacks and 2 40 AP defenses. Suppose EC Guy has a EB and a flash for attacks, and Invisibility and Force Field for defenses. He can use all of these at once, assuming he can afford the END.

Here's a sample multipower. Let's be specific and use the example provided. The archetype I specified was a spellcaster.

80 point reserve
1. Summon 4x 150-point pets, or smaller amiable pets. (40 AP)
2. Change Environment: Call Fog (40 AP -- lots of fog.)
3. Levitate cantrip: 10" Flight with continuing charges lasting say 5 minutes. (20 AP) - probably spell components, might be expendable/recoverable
4. Invisibility spell: Invisibility to sight/sound, no fringe, with continuing charges lasting 5 minutes. (40 AP) -- again spell components, possibly expendable/recoverable
5. plus other stuff (EB, force field, etc.) that doesn't use continuing charges.

Supposing you don't like summon, just think of it as a 40 AP power that has a lasting effect on the environment, e.g. a transform, entangle, or whatever. The point we're discussing is the amount of AP active at once, not what specific power we're talking about.

Is this kind of power construct allowed in most people's games? If not, it significantly limits the kinds of multipowers that can be built.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
Let me ask you and everybody else on this thread. Would you, Zornwill, Farkling, AgentX, Badger, and anybody else who I'm missing, allow a 80 base point multipower that could have 140 pts worth of slots with continuing charges of movements, defenses, and utility powers and thus have 220 pts of powers up at the same time? While I'm at it, how many of you would allow 0 end powers in a EC?

Continuing charges: depends on the effect. Note that I was the one who challenged your Damage Aura: 4 continuing charges" construct in your EC, and you proceeded to criticize this based on published characters who have similar limitations. Apparantky, however, only Gary is allowed to use published constructs (like smoke grenades, say). or maybe such support is only permissable if used to support changes to the published rules, rather than support their reasonableness.

I don't see the big deal about 0 END powers in an EC, frankly. If they fit the conception, I'd be inclined to allow them, with the usual caveat on abuse. Really, how is it significantly different to buy Armor (not allowed) than Force Field, 0 END (allowed, same point cost). It's OK to have Healing, but not Aid, because a decision was made to remove the END cost on Aid so 10 points per die would be reasonable and we didn't need an awkward point cost. It's Ok to buy powers that cost END down to zero END, but not to have a power that costs no END to begin with. These limitations seem forced and awkward to me.

By the way, EC's are also a "GM Permission" power in that the GM should disallow EC's where a common link to drain them is unrealistic, or where the special effect is not tight enough. Note that FREd generally suggests "no racial EC's", and cites "Werewolf Powers" as a "GM Permission" example, possibly allowed only because everyone knows what a werewolf can do.


Originally posted by Gary
Adjustment powers are reasonably common, but in my experience they are mostly characteristic adjustment powers. There are very few drains of actual power.

So, to repeat the question, why will you allow a limitation for "drain one, drain all". As a default, characteristics don't belong in an EC, remember?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
My statement:

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I begin to understand your problem with EC's

Can I have an EC: Argonian Powers for my character, Last Son of Argon? How about EC: Powered Armor? This depends how tight you are on the special effects defining the EC, which has changed over the editions, becoming tighter each time. That seems to be in every rulebook, after a fashion, and then we get published characters with "EC: Powers Far Beyond Ordinary Earthmen" that stretch (shatter?) the boundaries of "common special effects".

Your response:



So you WOULD allow "EC: Powers Far Beyond Those of any Ordinary Earthman", I take it. After all, Superman's powers largely arise from Earth's yellow sun. That's a common special effect. The comics have shown all his powers are drained when he is under a red sun, so he must have "drain one, drain all" - "Red Sun Burst" is the special effect for "Drain Kryptonian Powers", right?

For that matter, why not "EC: Mutant Powers"? The comics seem to provide lots of devices that drain all mutant powers at once.

Why require "EC: fire Powers" or "EC: Electrical Powers"? He can just take "EC: Energy Powers" and use fire, electricity, kinetic energy, etc.

Pretty soon, pretty much anyone can have an EC. Batman gets "EC: Training Powers" and/or "EC: Perfect Physical Specimen Powers". Hey, if we allow EVERYONE to save the points, then it's fair again, right? No one gets an unfair advantage because anyone with a character conception (which should be everyone) saves points.

This character is EC Force Tendrils, not EC Mutant. How is this any different from EC Telekinetic or EC Hair Control except that Force Tendrils have a shorter (5") range? It's an active control of an "element". Would you disallow EC Telekinesis in your game? Would you disallow Medusa's EC Hair Control in your game? Lariat has a tight special effect that explains all the powers. I think I've adequetly explained how each power works.

I'm surprised you would allow any EC in your game if you wouldn't allow a character as well defined as Medusa in your game.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Funny...that seems to be what I said when I noted the rules require tight special effects, but published characters then seem to push (shatter?) the limits.

Besides, "book" EC's grant the point savings you complain about - better enforcing what constitutes "tight special effects" would seem as easy a means of controlling abuse as toasting the EC concept in general.

First you were arguing that ECs weren't abusive based simply on powers and cost structures. Now you're saying that they are abusive, and therefore should be controlled tightly. Which is it? And I disagree that Lariat is in any way pushing the limits of a EC. Unless you're willing to say that every Stretching, Telekinetic, or Hair Control EC is pushing the limits.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Of course, if you want to USE all those powers, you pay 9 END per phase. I assume the character also has an attack power, so that boosts it up (quite) a bit more, or soaks back the point benefits by making your attack zero END. A drawback present whether you have an EC or not if you want a lot of stuff up at the same time, of course.

Actually, the EC costs only 3 end under normal circumstances. She obviously only uses missile deflection as necessary, and the spacial awareness is used for situations such as when she's been blinded, needs to see around a corner, or is simply very wary of an ambush. Combined with 66 end and 15 rec, she does just fine. :)


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I've got to agree with Zed F here. You've pretty much made this your baby, and you can't see any of the flaws in your reasoning. Have fun with it.

I could say the same thing about you.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
Nobody has commented on my comparison of the Brick and MA using the same baseline. Is that an indication that all of you agree that Str is underpriced?

For me it's an indication that it's another "muddy the water" item. I don't see a disproportionate number of players choosing Brick characters any more than I see a disproportionate number choosing characters with EC's. If there were dramatic price discounts, I would expect far more players to choose those options.

I think STR is underpriced in the context of Fantasy Hero, where virtually all weaponry benefits from higher STR, weaponry costs no points and virtually all characters will carry a weapon.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
Actually, this points out another major advantage for a EC. A limitation that only affects a slot, saves lots of points compared to a multipower. With a -1/2 limitation on a slot of the EC, I save 7 pts. With the multipower, you would save only a single point with the same limitation.

The EC effectively got a -1 limitation to add a power. The Multi slot got -4 or -9 for "lockout", remember? The more limitations you stack, the less effective they become.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Zed-F
First, it's already given that we are allowing up to 80 AP of defenses and 80 AP of attacks simultaneously, since the EC Guy specified has 2 40 AP attacks and 2 40 AP defenses. Suppose EC Guy has a EB and a flash for attacks, and Invisibility and Force Field for defenses. He can use all of these at once, assuming he can afford the END.

Here's a sample multipower. Let's be specific and use the example provided. The archetype I specified was a spellcaster.

80 point reserve
1. Summon 4x 150-point pets, or smaller amiable pets. (40 AP)
2. Change Environment: Call Fog (40 AP -- lots of fog.)
3. Levitate cantrip: 10" Flight with continuing charges lasting say 5 minutes. (20 AP) - probably spell components, might be expendable/recoverable
4. Invisibility spell: Invisibility to sight/sound, no fringe, with continuing charges lasting 5 minutes. (40 AP) -- again spell components, possibly expendable/recoverable
5. plus other stuff (EB, force field, etc.) that doesn't use continuing charges.

Supposing you don't like summon, just think of it as a 40 AP power that has a lasting effect on the environment, e.g. a transform, entangle, or whatever. The point we're discussing is the amount of AP active at once, not what specific power we're talking about.

Is this kind of power construct allowed in most people's games? If not, it significantly limits the kinds of multipowers that can be built.

What I would allow and what I think most people would allow would be "fire and forget" slots in a multi such as smoke grenades or napalm or force wall. I would be very hesitant to allow stuff like the flight since you still have active control of it even after switching slots.

[Zed-F]

Ok, I define the flight as "choose a destination, and the levitate spell takes me there at its best half-move speed, until I cancel it or it runs out of juice."

Happy?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
I'm surprised you would allow any EC in your game if you wouldn't allow a character as well defined as Medusa in your game.

There is a difference between prohibiting the character and denying them an EC. First, you argue that EC's are unfairly beneficial in all cases. Then you argue that pretty much any special effect one wishes to apply can be applied. Should they be restricted, or shouldn't they? Tighter control over SFX is one way to restrict them - and a method that does not require significant change to the mechanics.

First you were arguing that ECs weren't abusive based simply on powers and cost structures. Now you're saying that they are abusive, and therefore should be controlled tightly. Which is it? And I disagree that Lariat is in any way pushing the limits of a EC. Unless you're willing to say that every Stretching, Telekinetic, or Hair Control EC is pushing the limits.

It's interesting that you argue for restrictions to "continuing charges" powers because the FAQ says the GM should watch for abuse, but not for any restrictions to EC's, which FREd says should be watched for abuse. Now I haven't read through all the 5th Ed characters - any example of a published character with continuing charges?

I know the FAQ discusses several times whether a power with lasting effects should "vanish" when the multipower point reserve is shifted. Adjustment powers and summon, for example, get this question. The rule is that they do not. Would you deny Summon with continuing charges because now there's a statement that says "watch for abuse", but allow a multipower with 10 different Summons without charges which is used to summon 10 powerful helpers, one at a time?


Originally posted by Gary
Actually, the EC costs only 3 end under normal circumstances. She obviously only uses missile deflection as necessary, and the spacial awareness is used for situations such as when she's been blinded, needs to see around a corner, or is simply very wary of an ambush. Combined with 66 end and 15 rec, she does just fine. :)

How is it a big advantage to EC over Multi that you can use all the powers at the same time, if you rarely if ever need or want to use all the powers at the same time? You're down on ZedF for having a -1/4 limit for something that almost never happens, but you're OK with a multipower giving a -4 or -9 limitation for something that almost never happens. Mr. Apple, meet Mr. Orange!

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
For me it's an indication that it's another "muddy the water" item. I don't see a disproportionate number of players choosing Brick characters any more than I see a disproportionate number choosing characters with EC's. If there were dramatic price discounts, I would expect far more players to choose those options.

I think STR is underpriced in the context of Fantasy Hero, where virtually all weaponry benefits from higher STR, weaponry costs no points and virtually all characters will carry a weapon.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
For me it's an indication that it's another "muddy the water" item. I don't see a disproportionate number of players choosing Brick characters any more than I see a disproportionate number choosing characters with EC's. If there were dramatic price discounts, I would expect far more players to choose those options.

I think STR is underpriced in the context of Fantasy Hero, where virtually all weaponry benefits from higher STR, weaponry costs no points and virtually all characters will carry a weapon.

As I said, that's because of GM enforced genre and balance limitations.

As my example showed, using exactly the same points and exactly the same OCV/DCV, DC, Def, MA maneuvers, and Spd, the brick does far better than the MA. I matched everything except that the brick used Str and the MA used martial arts.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
This approach would work for me, since it actually ties how many points you save with how much you expect to be limited by the structure. You get a reasonable (cost = value), unlike the current structure.

GASP - we might be agreeing! :)

EDIT - and that also means Hugh's contention regarding how easy it is to deal with an EC is also where we'd agree the current EC "works" on a points-balanced basis - I think.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Zed-F
Ok, I define the flight as "choose a destination, and the levitate spell takes me there at its best half-move speed, until I cancel it or it runs out of juice."

Happy?

Yes I am, except for the cancel at will part. Smoke grenades and napalm can't be canceled at will. This form of levitation would be ok in my book since you can't make turns, go noncombat, go at full speed, dive for cover, or have any control over it. It'd basically be an autopilot.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
As I said, that's because of GM enforced genre and balance limitations.

As my example showed, using exactly the same points and exactly the same OCV/DCV, DC, Def, MA maneuvers, and Spd, the brick does far better than the MA. I matched everything except that the brick used Str and the MA used martial arts.

Of course, the martial artist would NEVER consider using soecial maneuvers which permit him to do things pure STR cannot. That would be silly, wouldn't it? Better he should try to duplicate a Brick's abilities, but not actually be Brick.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised - your other examples want to use a Multipower to do what an EC does best, rather than focus on what a multipower does best.

There are certainly GM enforced items in the game. That's why we need all the stop signs, caution signs, "watch for abuses" comments, etc. etc. etc. The game's flexibility makes these necessray to imnpose some restraints.

But if bricks are truly overpowered because STR is cheap, I would suggest that, when I set a campaign ground rule of "Everyone selects their character independently", I would get a disproportionate number of Brick proposals. I've done that. Getting two Brick proposals is pretty rare. Everyone (or even a large majority) having an EC is rare.

[Before we start that thread, the idea is "send a brief character outline" indepoendently - if someone else already took that schtick, I'll reject the later one. But I have never had to reject a Brick. I have had a group co-ordinate character selection and argue about who would play the Brick - everyone thought we should have one, but no one wanted to play him.]