Limitation for only to spread

[Bartman]

I am creating a character and I want him to be able to pull of a number of tricks with his EB. All of these tricks seem to be covered under the spread rules. But I don't want him to have to reduce the power of his blasts to get the effects. So the answer is obvious, buy him additional dice of EB with the disad only to spread. The additional dice would be unable to add stun, body or knockback to the attack. So how much of a disad is this worth?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Bartman
I am creating a character and I want him to be able to pull of a number of tricks with his EB. All of these tricks seem to be covered under the spread rules. But I don't want him to have to reduce the power of his blasts to get the effects. So the answer is obvious, buy him additional dice of EB with the disad only to spread. The additional dice would be unable to add stun, body or knockback to the attack. So how much of a disad is this worth? Invictus, an old Champions character from 3rd ed.(?) had this limitation on some additional dice of eb. It was assigned a -1/2 limitation.

[SkyKnight]

A quick gut check

-1/4 loses about 1/4 of its effectivness. Very few characters would spread their EB 3 times out of 4, so this is too low.

-1/2 loses about 1/3 of its effectiveness. My energy projectors have never spread 2 times out of 3, but if the character is set up with spread effects in mind, this seems fairly reasonable.

=-1 loses about 1/2 of its effectiveness. Spreading is genuinely useful, so this level of limitation is probably too high.

I'd go with 1/2

SkyKnight

[Magmarock]

Uhm, im my group, we only give limitations if it actually limits a power. If your PC only spreads his attacks, then how is this limiting your PC?

If you make his spread attack just as effective as his normal attacks, then why would he ever use a normal one?

Not a limitiation in my book. You need to find another way to make the power cheaper...

[lemming]

Originally posted by Magmarock
Uhm, im my group, we only give limitations if it actually limits a power. If your PC only spreads his attacks, then how is this limiting your PC?
Um, he's limiting the extra dice. Which means he wouldn't be ever using the dice for extra stun, etc... That's a limit.

I'd go with -1/2.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Magmarock
Uhm, im my group, we only give limitations if it actually limits a power. If your PC only spreads his attacks, then how is this limiting your PC?

If you make his spread attack just as effective as his normal attacks, then why would he ever use a normal one?

Not a limitiation in my book. You need to find another way to make the power cheaper... With that line of reasoning you should force everyone who wants missile deflection to buy missile reflection because that is more expensive and produces more options than they plan on using, just like making someone who wants a 12d6 attack that he spreads with an additional 4 dice pay the full cost of 16d6 energy blast.

[Bartman]

Originally posted by Agent X
Invictus, an old Champions character from 3rd ed.(?) had this limitation on some additional dice of eb. It was assigned a -1/2 limitation.

Yes Invictus, I remember him. That's exactly the effect I was looking for. Well -1 seemed too much. As everyone seems to agrees on -1/2 that's what I'll go with.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Magmarock
Uhm, im my group, we only give limitations if it actually limits a power. If your PC only spreads his attacks, then how is this limiting your PC?

If you make his spread attack just as effective as his normal attacks, then why would he ever use a normal one?

Not a limitiation in my book. You need to find another way to make the power cheaper...

He has given up the option of hitting a single target for more dice. This is like saying "Only to do knockback" doesn't limit your EB, because you were only going to do knockback anyway.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Bartman
Yes Invictus, I remember him. That's exactly the effect I was looking for. Well -1 seemed too much. As everyone seems to agrees on -1/2 that's what I'll go with. ..

IIRC, Invictus could only spread to hit two targets instead of one. That's no longer even needed - he can just use Rapid Fire (mind you, he needs 2 levels with OCV and several with DCV when using rapid fire, so maybe the spread dice are still worthwhile).

How often do you see EB dice used to spread? If virtually never, that implies a higher limit if that's all they could do. -1 may be reasonable if characters generally fire at full power. After all, losing the ability to spread is only a -1/4 limitation.

[tesuji]

i would actually giver it -1.

The main effect from spreading is +1 ocv.
+1 OCV for a single attack costs 2 cp.
Now, you have more options like spreading to hit multiple targets, but then you lose the +1 ocv and such... so thats more like a trade off than an additional boost.

-1 would price each d6 at 2 or 3 points, making the net cost very similar to buying a mixture of 2 pt ocv levels and 3 point CV levels with this ONE attack.

That seems about right.

However, as GM, i would count the extra dice against whatever campaign limitds i have, I might count them as OCV but i probably would count them as DC or at least as i would count area effect. So this would not be just a way to slip above the campaign standards.

[Hugh Neilson]

I've got to side with tesuji on this one. Losing the ability to use those dice to add damage is a severe limitation. I would point out, however, that equating the dice with bonus OCV requires they also cost no END. 5 x 1.5 = 7.5 /2 = 3.75 bonus OCV levels instead.

However, Spreading allows other constructs that OCV levels alone clearly do not, so I think -1 is probably fair.
Maybe -1 1/2 to get 2 points each costing 1 END per 2 dice, but I'd have to see it in action first and decide -1 wasn't granting enough of a reduction.

[Gary]

Well, does no stun is a -3/4 and does no knockback is a -1/4. So -1 seems appropriate.

There really aren't any additional limitations or benefits that need to be thrown into the mix.

[Agent X]

I've actually played a character with a 15d6 energy blast with an additional 5d6 only to spread with the lim at -1/2. After seeing it in play, I thought I got my money's worth. It is a very effective power arrangement at that cost. I would not have objected if the GM had let me put the limitation at -1 :) but I didn't feel cheated at -1/2 either.

[Bartman]

A -1? That seems generous to me. I think you are underestimating the multiple targets ability. Yeah it can be duplicated with the rapid fire manouver. But with spread I don't have to deal with -2 OCV per target or with the 1/2 DCV for making the attack or having to take a full phase that rapid fire has. With five dice for spreading I can have move in, blast up to 5 characters (if they are close enough) and have a very good chance of hitting all of them, all while still maintaining a good DCV. This is a very useful ability and one that I imagine I will use frequently.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Bartman
A -1? That seems generous to me. I think you are underestimating the multiple targets ability. Yeah it can be duplicated with the rapid fire manouver. But with spread I don't have to deal with -2 OCV per target or with the 1/2 DCV for making the attack or having to take a full phase that rapid fire has. With five dice for spreading I can have move in, blast up to 5 characters (if they are close enough) and have a very good chance of hitting all of them, all while still maintaining a good DCV. This is a very useful ability and one that I imagine I will use frequently.

Then I suppose I should buy it "Does no STUN" and "Does no Knockback". It can still do BOD if I want, but I'll just always use it for spreading. Maybe I'll just buy the dice "does no STUN", and have the facility to use it for knockback if the need arises.

For those who believe this is too lenient, and spreading is more useful than those of us leaning to -1 believe, let's put the shoe on the other foot. How much of a limit should it be for "cannot spread"? If "Only to spread" is -1/2, you believe it has lost 1/3 of its effectiveness [FRED 194]. Losing the remaining 2/3 instead ("cannot spread") must be worth -1 1/2 (loses 2/3 effectiveness). Total effectiveness should be 1, right?

At -1, "only to spread" and "cannot spread" should each be worth -1, yet Beam Attack (which denies spreading, firing at lower power and destroying, rather than hole punching, obstacles) is only -1/4. Maybe we're too mean requiring players to pay half price for "only to spread", but I'm more inclined to raise the value of "beam effect" if spreading is considered such a powerful ability. I still don't think I'd go beyond -1/2, and -1/4 for only "cannot spread". And I think I'd look at -1 for "only to spread".

[Farkling]

Didn't we have a big discussion about Frameworks recently?

I am also on the -1 bandwagon, simply because of Multipowers and EC's...the character COULD jus buy an Area Effect Attack with selective fire and not run through the hoops.

I also think -1 is acceptable, you softie Hugh. :)
(As a note on Beam Attack, you forgot it can't be bounced also...)

Consider this...is removing the DAMAGE and KNOCKBACK from the dice of the attack the same as removing the RANGE from the attack? That is also -1/2. THAT doesn't work for me.

Now, to support my rep as a mean GM;
I would not normally allow a character to stack the does no STUN and Does No KB limitations on an attack...I would ask for a rationalization, or send him to a Killing Attack with no STUN, or give him a value for the single limitation "only does BODY"

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Farkling
Didn't we have a big discussion about Frameworks recently?

I am also on the -1 bandwagon, simply because of Multipowers and EC's...the character COULD jus buy an Area Effect Attack with selective fire and not run through the hoops.

I also think -1 is acceptable, you softie Hugh. :)
(As a note on Beam Attack, you forgot it can't be bounced also...)

Consider this...is removing the DAMAGE and KNOCKBACK from the dice of the attack the same as removing the RANGE from the attack? That is also -1/2. THAT doesn't work for me.

Now, to support my rep as a mean GM;
I would not normally allow a character to stack the does no STUN and Does No KB limitations on an attack...I would ask for a rationalization, or send him to a Killing Attack with no STUN, or give him a value for the single limitation "only does BODY" Why would you ask for a rationalization for this? What is so abusive?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling
Now, to support my rep as a mean GM;
I would not normally allow a character to stack the does no STUN and Does No KB limitations on an attack...I would ask for a rationalization, or send him to a Killing Attack with no STUN, or give him a value for the single limitation "only does BODY"

But what would you give him for "BOD Only"? ;)

[Gary]

Originally posted by Bartman
A -1? That seems generous to me. I think you are underestimating the multiple targets ability. Yeah it can be duplicated with the rapid fire manouver. But with spread I don't have to deal with -2 OCV per target or with the 1/2 DCV for making the attack or having to take a full phase that rapid fire has. With five dice for spreading I can have move in, blast up to 5 characters (if they are close enough) and have a very good chance of hitting all of them, all while still maintaining a good DCV. This is a very useful ability and one that I imagine I will use frequently.

You're paying 17 pts for 5d6 if you only allow -1/2 for spreading only.

What you're saying is that losing the ability to do 17.5 extra stun and 5" extra knockback per attack is worth only 8 pts. Is that correct?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary
You're paying 17 pts for 5d6 if you only allow -1/2 for spreading only.

What you're saying is that losing the ability to do 17.5 extra stun and 5" extra knockback per attack is worth only 8 pts. Is that correct? This argument has merit in games with damage caps/active points caps that include the dice only to spread in the damage caps/active points caps. In games without such caps, I'm not sure that a -1 limitation is the way to go.

[Bartman]

Originally posted by Gary
You're paying 17 pts for 5d6 if you only allow -1/2 for spreading only.

What you're saying is that losing the ability to do 17.5 extra stun and 5" extra knockback per attack is worth only 8 pts. Is that correct?

No I'm paying 17pts for 10pts of CSLs with EB, 7pts of Penalty SLs with rapid fire and, 10pts of 5pt DCV CSLs with a -1 lim only for rapid fire (to overcome the 1/2 DCV). As I am the player in question, I would love to be able to justify the -1 lim but I don't think it is reasonable. Although I may try to go with a -3/4.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Bartman
No I'm paying 17pts for 10pts of CSLs with EB, 7pts of Penalty SLs with rapid fire and, 10pts of 5pt DCV CSLs with a -1 lim only for rapid fire (to overcome the 1/2 DCV). As I am the player in question, I would love to be able to justify the -1 lim but I don't think it is reasonable. Although I may try to go with a -3/4.

I have to go with Gary - you're selling 17.5 average STUN and 5" Knockback for 8 points. The skill level analogy isn't quite all there. If you had all those levels, you could use them all at once. If you didn't have them, but just had 5 extra d6 of Energy Blast, you could do all of those things, plus add damage at the cost of losing those levels.

The ability to spread an energy blast is the counterpoint to all the extra abilities you get from STR, like figured characteristics, leaping movement, grabs, lifting capacity and throwing things.

To buy "damage only" STR is a -1/2 limitation (Hand Attack), implying a power that loses 1/3 of its effectiveness. Why should "no damage" EB be considered to lose only 1/3 of its effectiveness?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Bartman
No I'm paying 17pts for 10pts of CSLs with EB, 7pts of Penalty SLs with rapid fire and, 10pts of 5pt DCV CSLs with a -1 lim only for rapid fire (to overcome the 1/2 DCV). As I am the player in question, I would love to be able to justify the -1 lim but I don't think it is reasonable. Although I may try to go with a -3/4.

A few problems. If you spread, you can't use those "levels" simutaneously as you would if you actually bought true levels.

Second, you're paying End for spreading EB whereas you wouldn't if you bought levels.

Third, the book clearly gives a -3/4 limitation for Does No Stun. Spreading only is a more severe limitation than Does No Stun and thus should be worth more.

[tesuji]

I think part of the disagreement is the disconnect between HERO's description of what you shoudl do and what it does.

The people saying, like i do, its a severe lim worth -1 or more are looking at the parts of HERo which talk about what -1/2 and -1 are suppoesed to represent. Me, i am also looking at other ways to buy similar pieces (skill levels.)

The ones saying almost universally -1/2 are ***I believe*** wotrking off another set of "how to do things" in HERo, the examples.

HERO is rife with examples of -1/2 "does only one of the things it can normally do" values.

For example, and my book is not in fornt of me, so please bear with me...

Mind Control "one command" or perhaps most often shown as FEAR ONLY is typically assigned -1/2. Now, i think almost all of us can agree that a serious level of mind control is worth a whole lot more than 3x what FEAR ONLY is. The vast amount of stuff you can do with MC dwarfs the value of "fear only." There are a lot more examples, from 5th as well as 4th, where -1/2 "one thing only" is SHOWn to us as an example.

So, when you look at SPREAD as "one thing of several it could do" the -1/2 seems to fall more in line.

I think it is easily -1 and likely -1.5 after considering the endurance thing, but even i will admit my first gut reaction was "thats the "-1/2 for only one thing" rule."

I would say that if in your game mind control SLEEP only or mind control fear only would be represented with -1/2 limitations, then thats probably just as appropriate for Eb spread only. in both cases you are saying "yeah, it lost a ton of options but kept a very useful option" and i think they should be priced similarly, not necessarily exactly, but similarly.

[prestidigitator]

I would probably think of this as an: Area of Effect: 2x (original active points)/10, Non-Selective (+1)I think Non-Selective subtracts 1/4 from the cost of the Advantage, anyway. I don't have the book at the moment.

My reasoning is as follows: With an Any Area, you can catch a number of adjacent hexes. This is equivalent to spreading your EB area-wise. With Non-Selective, you have to make an attack roll against all targets, just like with a spread EB. If you were to take double your origianl EB, and use the extra dice to spread, you would be able to hit (original active points)/5 hexes, which is the same as the number of hexes in the Area of Effect.
Now, let's consider the differences between the Non-Selective Any Area and the extra dice: The Area of Effect hits multiple targets in the same hex (although from the wording in the book, I am not sure the spread EB does not). The extra cost for the Area of Effect cannot be used to increase the damage to a single target. The Any Area must be shaped in some regular fasion (GM might well let you ignore this). With the Area of Effect you have to make an attack roll just to place the area (on top of hitting each target).This means the Area of Effect is actually more limited than the extra dice, and should be no more expensive. I am currently having a hard time justifying any value to the Only to Spread Limitation. Can anyone argue against this? It is being a real headache for me.

[Hugh Neilson]

"Any Area" can create some pretty wonky shapes. Spreading is noted as adjacent and generally in a straight line. An Area effect - Line would be more appropriate, but even the base advantage would get 2 hexes per 5 AP, so considerably bigger than spreading.

The roll to hit a hex is pretty much a given for most characters. It's like "Activate 17-" for a 9 OCV (worse, of course, if you're firing further away).

Given a major advantage of Area Effect is avoiding the roll to hit vs DCV, one might also argue that "nonselective" is undervalued. It seems to be -1/4 solely because otherwise I could get a free area effect - 1 hex, but why would you buy 1 hex selective or nonselective?

I think the spread EB would hit multiple targets in the same hex.

If you can't justify a limitation to "only to spread", would you give a -2 for "cannot spread"? There should be some balance here, don't you think?

I haven't done a lot of analysis on this, obviously, but if I were concluding nonselective area is more costly than buying extra dice with no (or even a very minor) limitation for "can't spread", I would havce to conclude that nonselective area is overpriced, not that EB only to spread is not limited.

By the way, I see a lot of posters concluding spreading is extremely powerful and useful. How often do you see your energy blasters using it?

[tesuji]

"I am currently having a hard time justifying any value to the Only to Spread Limitation. Can anyone argue against this? It is being a real headache for me."

Sure...

thats easy...

you seem to be looking at as as "you are adding the AOE thing... "

for 5 pts per die, those "additional Eb dice can be already used for whatever level of +200 modifiers you want to place on "able to spread." So if you run thru your numbers and come up with "wow spreading is like +99 advantages and zero end all rolled into one", thats GREAT. but you have to realize the 5 pts already paid for the full dice have paid for all that. That cost is already done and over.

The question is "how much value was removed?"

We are leaving the spread intact.

We are removing the able to do damage.

How much of a reduction is not being able to do damage with dice of EB?

I am still in the range of -1 to -1.5.

using strictly nook lims of -3/4 for no stun and -1/4 for no knockback, you get -1. if you add -1/4 for reduced penetration (sort of mimicing the "does no body") you are now up to -1.25.

I really see this as much more than "not worth any lim at all."

YMMV.

[Magmarock]

The Limitation "Only to Spread" to justify more dice for a cheaper rate smells of munster to me.

I understand that it can be done... the real question is should it be allowed ? My reasoning is this: Losing damage dice is the penalty for spreading an attack in the first place. So why should one get a limitation on extra dice which will be used just to negate the penalty ? Cheese, my friends. I wouldn't allow it in my game.

I think the only legal solution is for the PC to have more damage dice to start with, so when he spreads the dice he'll do the amount of damage he wants to do at that point. Will this cost more? Yes, but he can always take other limitations to make the power cheaper.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Magmarock
The Limitation "Only to Spread" to justify more dice for a cheaper rate smells of munster to me.

I understand that it can be done... the real question is should it be allowed ? My reasoning is this: Losing damage dice is the penalty for spreading an attack in the first place. So why should one get a limitation on extra dice which will be used just to negate the penalty ? Cheese, my friends. I wouldn't allow it in my game.

I think the only legal solution is for the PC to have more damage dice to start with, so when he spreads the dice he'll do the amount of damage he wants to do at that point. Will this cost more? Yes, but he can always take other limitations to make the power cheaper. You are confusing two things. What a power can do and what the player intends to do with the power. If you can't get a limitation on a power for what you are intentionally not using it in certain ways then virtually every limitation such as not against metal, etc. is invalid. It's not a matter of "since the character will never do anything but spread with those dice the cha shouldn't get a limitation on those dice" anymore than "since the player will never try to get in an intense magnetic field they shouldn't get a limitation on x power." You are confusing choices a player makes and limits the player puts on the character sheet.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Magmarock

I understand that it can be done... the real question is should it be allowed ? My reasoning is this: Losing damage dice is the penalty for spreading an attack in the first place. So why should one get a limitation on extra dice which will be used just to negate the penalty ? Cheese, my friends. I wouldn't allow it in my game.


With mind control, i can use any given command. With mind control fear only, i can use it to make people afraid. of course, i can only use fear command when i am not using another command... i cannot command "you are afraid run away and you want to donate to charity and you want to drop your pants and you want to tell us about the bad guys plans and you find you like david arquette films..." as one command.

So... just like spread only... you have LIMITED your options to only being able to chose from one set of options.

The limit is based on how many choices you have... not whether you can do all of them at once.

Sure, you cannot spread and do damage with the same die at once.
Just like i cannot use fear commands and greed commands and lust commands and such all at once with the same command either.

But hey, each game is different. if you dont think spread only is any limitation, thats cool for your games. If you think it is a not worth anything, and that you are just as good with it as without it, my suggestion would be a test. Build your next three characters that you intend to play with the FREE NOT WORTH ENOUGH OF A PROBLEM TO BE WORTH POINTS spread only on their top 3d6 of eb. See how well this plays out and if you indeed find 9d6 +3 spread as useful as awe inspiring as devastating as 12d6 eb. My experience tells me it wont be, but YMMV.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Magmarock
The Limitation "Only to Spread" to justify more dice for a cheaper rate smells of munster to me.

I understand that it can be done... the real question is should it be allowed ? My reasoning is this: Losing damage dice is the penalty for spreading an attack in the first place. So why should one get a limitation on extra dice which will be used just to negate the penalty ? Cheese, my friends. I wouldn't allow it in my game.

I think the only legal solution is for the PC to have more damage dice to start with, so when he spreads the dice he'll do the amount of damage he wants to do at that point. Will this cost more? Yes, but he can always take other limitations to make the power cheaper.

With that in mind, why should we allow DEX, limited to "only incrrease CV for a specific attack" to be purchased at a -3.5 limitation? +1 OCV with EB costs 2 points - that's a 3.5 limitation on the 9 DEX the character would otherwise be required to purchase.

Even more direct, the whole purpose of penalty levels is "only to negate penalties" - why should these be cheaper than buying regular levels when their only purpose is to negate the penalty?

Now, let's look at the specific construct - why should the player limit the dice at all in your model? If it's 5 point "only to spread" and 5 points "spread or do damage", the more versatile choice will clearly be selected ever time. You won't have players take "Area Effect Nonselective, +3/4" - they'll just buy 75% more dice!

[prestidigitator]

On a tiny bit of an aside, I wonder if you could gain anything if you spread an Energy Blast which is Area of Effect. Maybe increasing your OCV to hit the target hex (not very useful except for long range)? Maybe extending the Area of Effect one hex in a chosen direction? An interesting thought, perhaps worth some contemplation. :)

Ooh! Maybe spreading an Area of Effect could increase the difficulty of a Dive for Cover to avoid it.

[Magmarock]

I think you guys misunderstood me.

I don't have a problem with someone buying an attack with "Only to spread" Limitation on the entire dice amount of the attack (Say,for instance, a MP slot as an alternate attack choice).

I said it was cheesy to buy that limitation only for EXTRA damage dice to negate the normal penalty of spreading.

Its like this, would you allow someone to buy extra combat levels to OCV with the Lim "Only to negate my sucky-ass chances of hitting anything that ain't moving"? No, I don't think so... LOL

Penalties are there for a reason. If you don't like them, you might as well lose them all as a house rule. Sheesh, you guys. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Magmarock
I think you guys misunderstood me.

No, I don't think so.


Originally posted by Magmarock
I don't have a problem with someone buying an attack with "Only to spread" Limitation on the entire dice amount of the attack (Say,for instance, a MP slot as an alternate attack choice).

Maybe I'm missing the boat entirely here, but what earthly use is an attack whose dice can ALL be used only to spread? A flashy image?


Originally posted by Magmarock
I said it was cheesy to buy that limitation only for EXTRA damage dice to negate the normal penalty of spreading.

Is it cheesy to buy range levels to negate the penalty for firing at range? How about penalty skill levels to reduce/negate the penalty for targetting specific hit locations? Are these cheezy? :confused:


Originally posted by Magmarock
Its like this, would you allow someone to buy extra combat levels to OCV with the Lim "Only to negate my sucky-ass chances of hitting anything that ain't moving"? No, I don't think so... LOL

Um...that is basically what OCV levels are. They cost 2 points each if for one specific attack, 3 for tight groups, or 5 points for all combat (since 8 points gets OCV or DCV for all combat and 5 points gets DCV).

This leads me to conclude the player is getting slightly hosed. I woul give a 1.5 limitation for "Only to spread for extra OCV (2 points per die), but now he's paying END for 2 point combat skill levels. Maybe it should be -2!

Anyway, this just reinforces my belief that -1 is pretty fair for "only to spread". You can also use it for multiple targets; suck up the END!


Originally posted by Magmarock
Penalties are there for a reason. If you don't like them, you might as well lose them all as a house rule. Sheesh, you guys. :)

Spreading is also available for a reason. Penalty skill levels are there explicitly to counteract penalties. COmbat levels are there to counteract the "penalty" of not having characteristics that make you better in combat. Shall we throw those out as well? :eek:

[Magmarock]

Hello Hugh,

All of the examples you gave are for a seperate cost that is added to a power or bought seperately... NONE of which are the same thing as taking a Lim that isn't a limitation.

You are only trying to cloud the issue.

Mags

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
This leads me to conclude the player is getting slightly hosed. I woul give a 1.5 limitation for "Only to spread for extra OCV (2 points per die), but now he's paying END for 2 point combat skill levels. Maybe it should be -2!
I think your arguements make sense, Hugh, except this one. Spreading an Energy Blast can be used for more than getting a +1 OCV for each -1 DC. You can also hit extra targets: 1 additional hex per -1 DC. You may have to pay End, but you also effectively have the option of making your attack a limited Area of Effect. I definitely don't think it should cost less than a 2 point Combat Skill Level.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
I think your arguements make sense, Hugh, except this one. Spreading an Energy Blast can be used for more than getting a +1 OCV for each -1 DC. You can also hit extra targets: 1 additional hex per -1 DC. You may have to pay End, but you also effectively have the option of making your attack a limited Area of Effect. I definitely don't think it should cost less than a 2 point Combat Skill Level.

If you re-read my comment, you'll note I said "only to spread for bonus OCV", so the character would also sacrifice the ability to strike multiple hexes. I'd be inclined to give a -1 for "only to spread", and I agree it's worth more than +1 OCV, even costing END.

My comparison was a bit facetious, since there would be no reason to buy spreading, only for OCV, given 2 point levels already exist.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Magmarock
Hello Hugh,

All of the examples you gave are for a seperate cost that is added to a power or bought seperately... NONE of which are the same thing as taking a Lim that isn't a limitation.

You are only trying to cloud the issue.

Mags

The way I see it, your focus on the mechanic, rather than the effect, is what clouds the issue.

As to your belief this is not a limitation?

We have two characters. One, Blaster, has a 15d6 EB. Normally, he uses 3d6 to spread and boost OCV, or fill three hexes.

A second character, Zapper, has 15d6, but 3d6 may ONLY be used to spread to fill a hex/gain bonus OCV.

They are both battling Gobbler the 60' Turkey Monster. Gobbler has defenses of 45, and a DCV of -6 (due to is huge size).

Blaster can fire off 15d6 Energy Blasts. He has no need for extra OCV, or filling hexes, to battle Gobbler. He can, however, benefit from an average damage roll of 52.5, so his shots at least inflict a bit of STUN to Gobbler, on average without pushing.

Zapper, on the other hand, is screwed. His extra 3d6 do nothing - he already hits on a 17 or less, so OCV is useless. Gobbler is a single opponent, so filling hexes doesn't help him. Plus, even if he gets a couple of good rolls, his average blast does nothing, so Gobbler just recovers the STUN on PS 12.

Just to clarify this:
Blaster's 3d6 can do things Zapper's 3d6 cannot.
Blaster has choices Zapper does not.
Therefore, either Blaster has an advantage or Zapper has a limitation.

Blaster does not have an advantage - he has an ordinary EB
Therefore Zapper's EB is limited.

CONCLUSION: Zapper should get a point savings, because he has a power with less utility than Blaster's. Blaster should not pay the same amount for power provides more choices, and no drawbacks.

To say "he doesn't intend to use it to do damage" is like saying Fireguy, with his +30 ED vs Fire Only, doesn't intend to use this to defend against other attacks, so he should get no limitation, or Strong Guy's STR No Figured should have no limitation because he doesn't intend to use it to enhance his PD or Stun.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
If you re-read my comment, you'll note I said "only to spread for bonus OCV", so the character would also sacrifice the ability to strike multiple hexes. I'd be inclined to give a -1 for "only to spread", and I agree it's worth more than +1 OCV, even costing END.

My comparison was a bit facetious, since there would be no reason to buy spreading, only for OCV, given 2 point levels already exist.]
Ah! Quite right. I missed the part about only OCV. Sorry about that.


To say "he doesn't intend to use it to do damage" is like saying Fireguy, with his +30 ED vs Fire Only, doesn't intend to use this to defend against other attacks, so he should get no limitation, or Strong Guy's STR No Figured should have no limitation because he doesn't intend to use it to enhance his PD or Stun.
True. I think Limitations work more on potential than on intent, although I probably would find some difficulty with a player's taking a Limitation for a situation his/her character can and does always (or very often) avoid. That kind of thing is probably worth less of a Limitation, if any.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
True. I think Limitations work more on potential than on intent, although I probably would find some difficulty with a player's taking a Limitation for a situation his/her character can and does always (or very often) avoid. That kind of thing is probably worth less of a Limitation, if any.

That comes down to how common the limitation is. "Not in a vacuum" may be worth a substantial limitation in a spacefaring campaign, but not in the 17th century.

I think a character will try to avoid situations that restrict or eliminate his powers - that's natural. That should be taken into account in setting the limitation though - Samson isn't going to get much, if any, limitation for "Not if hair cut" on his STR. If anything, it's more of a disadvantage (a secret he tries to keep, and the consequences are possible loss of his STR if someone finds out, and acts on it) than a limitation.

Of course, sooner or later you can bet someone will find out about your "not in magnetic field" limit and arrange for it to come into play. [How about a Minuteman Mk XII with "Analyze Superpowers" to determine such limitations?]

[Magmarock]

Sorry I didn't get back sooner. Real life and all.

OK, perhaps I do tend to hang on the mechanics and the "intent" of the Player. Players' intent is very important whenever powers are considered. Players will sometimes pull (or try to, at least) the darndest things on a GM. I remember a Player in one campaign, long ago, who created a PC called Atom-Smasher. This EB PC had, in addition to his regular powers the ability to power up a devistating 48d6 attack in which was supposed to be "only used in the most direst circumstance". Oh it had all kinds of Lims on it, such as "Takes extra time" and "Increased END", but I still shouldn't have allowed it. Turns out that "only used in the most direst circumstance" meant EVERY SESSION! LOL Hoo boy!

But to look at your examples:
_____
"We have two characters. One, Blaster, has a 15d6 EB. Normally, he uses 3d6 to spread and boost OCV, or fill three hexes.

A second character, Zapper, has 15d6, but 3d6 may ONLY be used to spread to fill a hex/gain bonus OCV."
_____


I believe your second example, Zapper, is not presented like the original poster described, not that there was any comparison to another PC, but we'll assume all the PCs were balanced by an AP cap. To be shown correctly, it would look more like this:
_____

We have two characters. One, Blaster, has a 15d6 EB. Normally, he uses 3d6 to spread and boost OCV, or fill three hexes.

A second character, Zapper, has 12d6, with an additional 3d6 bought as "may ONLY be used to spread to fill a hex/gain bonus OCV".
_____

Does Blaster have the edge (flexability) over Zapper? Well, yes, but he paid the full points for that edge. Blaster's power was built correctly in the way that it was meant to be built.

Zapper on the other hand has a spreadable attack that does 15d6 damage, compared to the 12d6 Blaster would have, only Zapper's additional dice are paid for with a Lim that isn't really limiting him at all.

If the same character had both powers in an MP, I think that the "Zapper" power would be used far more often than the "Blaster" power. In fact, I guarantee it. That's not just intent, it's human nature. But maybe I just look at it a different way than you do...

You said it yourself, Hugh: "I think a character will try to avoid situations that restrict or eliminate his powers - that's natural. That should be taken into account in setting the limitation though". My point is that a PC isn't going to "avoid" spreading his attack if this Lim is allowed, because he'd have nothing to lose. So he'd use it every time, and get those extra dice. Better that he buy the full amount of dice and then buy complimentary CLs to allow him to hit easier. This shouldn't be a problem unless the PC is already at the max OCV set by the GM for the campaign...

But you are right Hugh, it is up to the GM to decide if any power (and construction thereof, including Lims) is allowed. I agree with that 100%. I'm just saying that it doesn't look like a limitation to me, because I don't believe the Player will ever NOT use it. Judging by the radically differing opinions on how much this Lim should be worth, perhaps discussing it is more trouble than it's worth. And that alone should be enough of a red flag for any GM to look closer at it.

And when in doubt, I just open FReD to page 179 and reread the bold type in column 1: "A Limitation which doesn't limit the character isn't worth any bonus!" I'm all for shaving point costs off powers- don't get me wrong- I just believe "Only to spread" for ADDITIONAL damage dice is, well, cheesy. To me, that's like buying additional inches of flight "Only to stay off the ground"... worth a big, fat -0 Lim in my book.

Mags

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Magmarock
I remember a Player in one campaign, long ago, who created a PC called Atom-Smasher. This EB PC had, in addition to his regular powers the ability to power up a devistating 48d6 attack in which was supposed to be "only used in the most direst circumstance". Oh it had all kinds of Lims on it, such as "Takes extra time" and "Increased END", but I still shouldn't have allowed it. Turns out that "only used in the most direst circumstance" meant EVERY SESSION! LOL Hoo boy!

As I read this, I'm struck by the fact that you're the guy who complained I was using irrelevant comparisons to make my case. "Only in the most direst of circumstances" is (in addition to terrible use of English :rolleyes:) a very subjective term that would need to be defined up front. I'd give it to the player as No Conscious Control, -2 - it's available ONLY when I say it's available. But I also wouldn't let him have 48 damage classes anyway. PERIOD


Originally posted by Magmarock
But to look at your examples:
We have two characters. One, Blaster, has a 15d6 EB. Normally, he uses 3d6 to spread and boost OCV, or fill three hexes.

A second character, Zapper, has 12d6, with an additional 3d6 bought as "may ONLY be used to spread to fill a hex/gain bonus OCV".
_____

Your change is purely semantic, but I have no problem using it.


Originally posted by Magmarock
Does Blaster have the edge (flexability) over Zapper? Well, yes, but he paid the full points for that edge. Blaster's power was built correctly in the way that it was meant to be built.

Why do you stress the fact that Blaster paid full points for this advantage when, under your model, Zapper gets no limitation and consequently ALSO pays full points for a power which does not gain that advantage?


Originally posted by Magmarock
Zapper on the other hand has a spreadable attack that does 15d6 damage, compared to the 12d6 Blaster would have, only Zapper's additional dice are paid for with a Lim that isn't really limiting him at all.

Limitations are part of the power structure. Using limitations builds powers which lack some functionality "in the way they were meant to be built", or limitations wouldn't save points.

And his additional dice aren't paid for - they are cheaper. Blaster pays 75 points (60 for 12d6 + 15 for 3d6). Zapper pays 68 points (60 for 12d6 plus 8 for 3d6 assuming a -1 limitation).


Originally posted by Magmarock
If the same character had both powers in an MP, I think that the "Zapper" power would be used far more often than the "Blaster" power. In fact, I guarantee it. That's not just intent, it's human nature. But maybe I just look at it a different way than you do...

I'll say we're looking at it differently! If you want to put both those powers in a multipower, feel free! In dfact, make as many slots as you like, each with more dice only for spreading than the last. Let's compare Multi-Man:

He buys a multipower (75 points for the pool), one slot with Blaster Power (7 pt ultra) and one with the Zapper power (7 point ultra) for a total of 89 points. Blaster paid 75 for his 15d6 EB. Name ONE thing that Multi-Man can do with his multipower (and the extra 14 points he spent) that Blaster cannot do with his 15d6 EB brought straight! :confused: :confused: He can spread to fill three hexes and do 12d6 damage. So can Blaster and Zapper. He can spread to add 3 OCV. So can Blaster and Zapper. He can abandon these advantages and fire a 15d6 EB. So can Blaster (Zapper can't, which is why Blaster pays more than Zapper). Multi-Man gets absolutely nothing for his 14 point expenditure (7 points if he had an existing multi and only added the 12d6 + 3d6 only to spread blast). In my campaign, Multi-Man would be told he has 7 points freed up - I wouldn't let a player accidentally take on that level of inefficiency.


Originally posted by Magmarock
You said it yourself, Hugh: "I think a character will try to avoid situations that restrict or eliminate his powers - that's natural. That should be taken into account in setting the limitation though". My point is that a PC isn't going to "avoid" spreading his attack if this Lim is allowed, because he'd have nothing to lose. So he'd use it every time, and get those extra dice.

Really? Against Gobbler the Giant Turkey Monster? Why spend the END? The power is USELESS in these circumstances. The question isn't will he use the power - it's how muchn flexibility he has sold off.


Originally posted by Magmarock
Better that he buy the full amount of dice and then buy complimentary CLs to allow him to hit easier. This shouldn't be a problem unless the PC is already at the max OCV set by the GM for the campaign...

That would be better IF the goal were to inflict 15d6 damage and have a better OCV. That's not what the player wants. He wants an EB that can do only 12d6 maximum, and can either have a better OCV OR strike at targets in up to 3 adjacent hexes. If he bought a 15d6 EB, he could do all of that PLUS have an extra 3d6 damage as an option. If he buys 12d6, + 3d6 only for spreading, he has a power with less function than a standard 15d6 EB that provides only the options the character should have. It is more limited, and should cost less, than a 15d6 EB (ie less than 75 points). It is marginally less limited, and should cost more, than a 12d6 EB with 3 - 2pt skill levels - he can also get a minor area effect, but he pays END for the OCV bonuses (I would say more than 64 points, rather than 66, due to the END cost on the levels). Applying a -1 limit, he pays 68 points. Applying -1/2, which I think is too low, he pays 70, so at least it's in the right range. Applying no limit, he pays the same as the fully flexible Blaster - that's not fair.


Originally posted by Magmarock
I'm just saying that it doesn't look like a limitation to me, because I don't believe the Player will ever NOT use it.

It sounds like you're saying a limitation must force an "all or nothing" - ie there must be times when the power is completely unavailable. Will a Speedster with "Flight, only touching a surface" be unable to use his power? NO - he will "fly" along surfaces. He gets a limitation because he has "sold back" things Flight can normally do. If I take Aid, Self Only (-1/2), I will always have that Aid available. I will always have myself available. There is never a time this power cannot be used. Yet I get a limitation. Why? Because I have sacrificed the ability to Aid others. I even get the limit if I am a solo character!

And when a player purchasers +36d EB, only to spread, he has sold the ability to do more damage. Thus, his power is more restricted than the norm, and should have a limitation.


Originally posted by Magmarock
Judging by the radically differing opinions on how much this Lim should be worth, perhaps discussing it is more trouble than it's worth. And that alone should be enough of a red flag for any GM to look closer at it.

I think we've pretty much settled in at the -1/2 to -1 limit. Many have pointed to the "by the book" limits of "Does no Knockback (-1/4) and "Does no Stun" (-3/4) as a pretty good indicator of what the limit should be based on what's been lost. Others feel -1/2 is reasonable based on what's been gained. The need to assess value is a common one. The value of "not in a vacuum" depends on how common a vacuum will be. In a spacefaring campaign, pretty common. In Western Hero - ummm...no - that's a function of the gun's special effects.

If we take disagreement over cost as an indicator an ability should not be allowed, I'd have to ban Bricks - "Is STR underpriced at 1 point" is a common discussion issue with no real agreement on these boards.


Originally posted by Magmarock
And when in doubt, I just open FReD to page 179 and reread the bold type in column 1: "A Limitation which doesn't limit the character isn't worth any bonus!" I'm all for shaving point costs off powers- don't get me wrong- I just believe "Only to spread" for ADDITIONAL damage dice is, well, cheesy. To me, that's like buying additional inches of flight "Only to stay off the ground"... worth a big, fat -0 Lim in my book.

I think your book is quite narrow. Levitation is "Flight, only to gain or lose altitude". It is limited, though I can't recall the magnitude (I THINK -1). And those additional inches of flight cannot:

Root to avoid knockback
Propel the character forward
Propel the character backward
Increase altitude
Decrease altitude

IFrankly, it's a stupid power - if you're flying anyway, it does nothing. If you're not, you're already on the ground. It's not worth -0. It's just worth 0.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Magmarock
But you are right Hugh, it is up to the GM to decide if any power (and construction thereof, including Lims) is allowed. I agree with that 100%. I'm just saying that it doesn't look like a limitation to me, because I don't believe the Player will ever NOT use it.

Absolutely. The less often cited corollary, however, is that the player then makes the choice whether, for the points offered by the GM, he is willing to accept the proposed limitation.

If Zapper will get no points back for his "+3d6 only to spread" vs "+3d6", and he were my character, I would either buy Zapper a 15d6 EB, and know that I can have those extra dice available should I wish to use them (if I don't see the limiotation as central to the character) or shelve him and make a new character (and use Zapper, with his central limitation, in a campaign run by someone who's going to give him the point break for limiting his powers).

[Magmarock]

Well, well, Hugh.

First of all I am not a "guy".

Second, pardon me for expressing an opinion. Perhaps you'd prefer if I refrained from doing so in the future?

Third, I'm not being agrumentative here, in responding to your overly picky-posts. I still think you have misunterstood my point all along.

No matter how much you quote me and try to make it look like I am against THAT Lim for the FULL amount of dice, I STILL think that particular Lim for ADDITIONAL dice is a lame one. That's not narrow, that's just years of experience in recognizing a Lim that isn't worth anything. Period.

Mags

[Farkling]

Well...it IS becoming widely known that Hugh has played HERO for quite some time...and I have played it oh...nearly as long. Hugh is a softie, for sure...very oriented towards his players and campaign limits.

I am not so understanding oif my players, and lift campaign limits as the game progresses...but overall I think Hugh is pretty much a softie. :) He nitpicks too, but it makes him a valuable opponent in debates.

I THINK what you are saying is that if Zapper purchased +3d6 OVER AND ABOVE his 15d6 EB, it gets no limitation. I agree with you. Any player buying points over the Active Point limit for my campaign is trying to slip one by me...and won't get a point break...and usually won't get the power either. Hugh on the other hand will look at it and say "this is 90 AP, that's outside the campaign limits. Rebuild it. If you want bonuses to hit with your 15d6, buy skill levels."

I think it is a limitation...especially where AP caps are in play. Judging by Hugh's posts he HAS AP caps in play...so it IS a limitation. IF you can only buy a 75 AP power in Hugh's world, consider this...

Blaster has purchased a 15d6 EB for 75 points. If confronted with agents, he can spread for less damage and more targets. If confronted with a martial artist, he can spread to hit. If confronted by Grond, he cuts loose at 15d6, and runs if necessary.

Zapper has purchased a 12d6 EB with +3d6 for spread only. If cofronted with agents, he can spread for less damage and more targets more targets, but if he's spreading for just one hex or two, his power is less useful than Blaster. If confronted by a martial artist, he has the same options as Blaster, except he cannot do more than 12d6...and against Grond...well....Zapper can NOT do more than 12d6. Grond very well may squash him.

Thus Hugh figures a limitation, and that's where all the nit-picking is coming from. :)

By the way Hugh, I am still weighing in at -1.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Magmarock
Well, well, Hugh.

First of all I am not a "guy".

Your picture looks like a guy :(

I'm not sure where I said "guy", but there's lots of stuff down there so I certainly could have. If I fell into "masculine pronoun" English, and this offends you, that was not my intent, and I apologize. Do you have a preferred term of reference?


Originally posted by Magmarock
Second, pardon me for expressing an opinion. Perhaps you'd prefer if I refrained from doing so in the future?

The boards are all about opoinions. You have yours. I have mine. Mine is that yours seems to miss some things, but que sera.


Originally posted by Magmarock
Third, I'm not being agrumentative here, in responding to your overly picky-posts. I still think you have misunterstood my point all along.

Did I say somewhere you're being argumentative? I don't find anything derogatory about your posts. I suppose I would say we're both argumentative. You're arguing your point and I'm arguing mine. There's nothing wrong with that.


Originally posted by Magmarock
No matter how much you quote me and try to make it look like I am against THAT Lim for the FULL amount of dice, I STILL think that particular Lim for ADDITIONAL dice is a lame one. That's not narrow, that's just years of experience in recognizing a Lim that isn't worth anything. Period.

OK, I just don't get this one. What would be the point of buying an attack power all the dice of which are only to spread? This is the second time you've raised the possibility (unless I am misreading your comments) of buying the whole power, rather than just additional dice, as "only to spread". What would that power do, other than provide a fancy light show that generally hits its target, or fills lots of hexes, but has no actual effect beyond that?

Would you give the character a limitation for an EB that cannot be spread? If you feel "only to spread" does not limit the power, I would suggest removing this ability (which you seem to believe is worth 5 points per "spreading die) would carry a pretty significant limitation.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Magmarock
Well, well, Hugh.

First of all I am not a "guy".

Second, pardon me for expressing an opinion. Perhaps you'd prefer if I refrained from doing so in the future?

Third, I'm not being agrumentative here, in responding to your overly picky-posts. I still think you have misunterstood my point all along.

No matter how much you quote me and try to make it look like I am against THAT Lim for the FULL amount of dice, I STILL think that particular Lim for ADDITIONAL dice is a lame one. That's not narrow, that's just years of experience in recognizing a Lim that isn't worth anything. Period.

Mags Hugh isn't getting snippy by simply pointing out what he (and I) views as flaws in your reasoning. Your method of proving your point is to:

beg the question, cheesy? why?/lame? why?

appeal to your authority, experience which is not persuasive as I imagine that many of us could say the same

avoiding the tough questions

and just plain old circular reasoning

[prestidigitator]

Man! This seems a lot too complicated. I think I will just take the compliment of the Cannot be Spread Limitation. Isn't it a -1/4? That means a power with just that Limitation is worth 4/5 the value. So Can Only be Used to Spread should make a power worth 1/5 of its value, which comes to a -4 Limitation. Let's just call it -2. :D ;)

[Bartman]

Tell you what prestidigitator. I'll let you try to argue that one with my GM. Even I don't have that much chutzpa.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Agent X
Hugh isn't getting snippy by simply pointing out what he (and I) views as flaws in your reasoning. Your method of proving your point is to:

beg the question, cheesy? why?/lame? why?

appeal to your authority, experience which is not persuasive as I imagine that many of us could say the same

avoiding the tough questions

and just plain old circular reasoning

Thank you - I was starting to wonder if I'd missed something.

I had, I suppose - the answers to the questions posed previously - but that's understandable since they aren't actually there.

[Magmarock]

Ok, ok... I guess I did misunderstand the original post.


Originally posted by Bartman
I am creating a character and I want him to be able to pull of a number of tricks with his EB. All of these tricks seem to be covered under the spread rules. But I don't want him to have to reduce the power of his blasts to get the effects. So the answer is obvious, buy him additional dice of EB with the disad only to spread. The additional dice would be unable to add stun, body or knockback to the attack. So how much of a disad is this worth?

I thought Bartman wanted to be able to spread his EB attack, thus getting all the bonuses for spreading, yet still doing the same amount of dice damage as if he had not spread the attack.

If we were talking apples and oranges all along, then I apologize. It just looked like somone getting something for nothing. Because if I had that same power, and then another one that did the same amount of dice, I would always choose to use the spread power because it would have a better chance of hitting every time. I didn't think that was so difficult to grasp, but then, maybe my writing skills aren't up to snuff.

Mags

By the way, the entire pic that I cropped my avatar from is here:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=128014

Of course *GRIN* I don't look like that... you guys should check out the Superhero Images thread in CHAMPIONS. Good stuff there. ;)

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Magmarock
Ok, ok... I guess I did misunderstand the original post.



I thought Bartman wanted to be able to spread his EB attack, thus getting all the bonuses for spreading, yet still doing the same amount of dice damage as if he had not spread the attack.

If we were talking apples and oranges all along, then I apologize. It just looked like somone getting something for nothing. Because if I had that same power, and then another one that did the same amount of dice, I would always choose to use the spread power because it would have a better chance of hitting every time. I didn't think that was so difficult to grasp, but then, maybe my writing skills aren't up to snuff.

Mags

By the way, the entire pic that I cropped my avatar from is here:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=128014

Of course *GRIN* I don't look like that... you guys should check out the Superhero Images thread in CHAMPIONS. Good stuff there. ;) It sorta looked like that was what was going on but I wasn't sure.:) Well heck, I think we are all in agreement then.

[Bartman]

Well let me clarify Magma. The character I am designing will have a 10d6 EB. To this 10d6 I wanted to add an additional 5d6 only usable to spread. These 5d6 cannot be used for damage under any circumstances. But they will allow the character to do a number of spreading tricks without having to lower the damage of the base 10d6. The limitation will only be applied to the additional 5d6. The cost for this construction will be 50pts +12 to 17pts depending on the level of the limitation my GM allows.

And after watching all the discussion here I'm planning on argueing for a -3/4 limitation (basically a variation on the limit does no stun).

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Bartman
Well let me clarify Magma. The character I am designing will have a 10d6 EB. To this 10d6 I wanted to add an additional 5d6 only usable to spread. These 5d6 cannot be used for damage under any circumstances. But they will allow the character to do a number of spreading tricks without having to lower the damage of the base 10d6. The limitation will only be applied to the additional 5d6. The cost for this construction will be 50pts +12 to 17pts depending on the level of the limitation my GM allows.

And after watching all the discussion here I'm planning on argueing for a -3/4 limitation (basically a variation on the limit does no stun).

I'd say you're selling this short. I'd give -1 on the basis it does neither STUN nor Knockback. The only other thing it can't do is Body, and I don't see that as meriting any additional limitation since Stun Only is a -0 option anyway.

[DigitalGolem]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I'd say you're selling this short. I'd give -1 on the basis it does neither STUN nor Knockback. The only other thing it can't do is Body, and I don't see that as meriting any additional limitation since Stun Only is a -0 option anyway.

I'm not sure if "No KB" is worth anything here; if there's no Body damage, then there's no KB either. Unless, of course, I missed something.

DGv3.0

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by DigitalGolem
I'm not sure if "No KB" is worth anything here; if there's no Body damage, then there's no KB either. Unless, of course, I missed something.

"No Knockback" is generally worth -1/4. "No Stun" is generally worth -3/4. Thus, we can get -1 without taking "no Body". As such, I would suggest an attack with does "No Body, -0" still does knockback based on the hypothetical BOD unless he takes No Knockback (-1/4).

Assuming it still does Knockback, No Bod probably balances out at -0. No risk of hurting targets, so no need to reign in the dice, is offset by the inability to punch through barriers, entangles, and automotons who don't take STUN.

I would say "only to spread" is -1, and that means no KB, STUN or BOD from those extra dice.

[Magmarock]

I was seriously way off base then. LOL
No wonder you were all thinking I was nuts. ;) Apples and oranges.

But now that I understand what you are doing, wouldn't it be cheaper and more simple to just by CLs to negate the penalty?
I mean, the only reason I can see for buying it the way Bart describes is if the Player wants to include the additional cost with the power's cost in a MP slot. Is this the case?


Mags

[Farkling]

It's a completely valid power construct Mags...

He wants the ability to spread for multiple targets too...you can't use CSL's for that without including Rapid Fire and a lenient GM (for over 2-3 targets).

Now here's a rules question...if you "spread" a single Hex Area Effect, do you hit another complete Hex with it?
Can you spread an Area Effect attack?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Farkling
It's a completely valid power construct Mags...

He wants the ability to spread for multiple targets too...you can't use CSL's for that without including Rapid Fire and a lenient GM (for over 2-3 targets).

Now here's a rules question...if you "spread" a single Hex Area Effect, do you hit another complete Hex with it?
Can you spread an Area Effect attack? Skill Levels and Rapid Fire is kinda scarier in some circumstances than a spreadable eb.

Area Affect spread? I would rule you do.

[Bartman]

Originally posted by Magmarock
But now that I understand what you are doing, wouldn't it be cheaper and more simple to just by CLs to negate the penalty?
I mean, the only reason I can see for buying it the way Bart describes is if the Player wants to include the additional cost with the power's cost in a MP slot. Is this the case?

Well actually I will be buying a number of CSLs as well. This guy is going to be a sharpsooter supreme. Not that he'll be able to do anything once he hits it, 10d6 is rather weak in this campaign. In this case spreading fits the effect I want, electric bolts bouncing from character to character, so I am going with it. And no this will be a standalone ability outside an MP.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
"No Knockback" is generally worth -1/4. "No Stun" is generally worth -3/4. Thus, we can get -1 without taking "no Body". As such, I would suggest an attack with does "No Body, -0" still does knockback based on the hypothetical BOD unless he takes No Knockback (-1/4).
...
I would say "only to spread" is -1, and that means no KB, STUN or BOD from those extra dice.
This sounds pretty reasonable. I agree with a No Body attack still doing Knockback, too (of course, I would say that the Kockback itself still has the potential for doing Body...).

Remember that the extra dice are being added to the power, as well, so any Active Point limits should really apply to the whole thing. It doesn't sound like this is a problem in this case, though.