Power Construction - theoretical question

[zornwil]

So if we take HERO as a toolkit and we build powers from what's therein, we are then left with 2 choices as to what to do with this power (basically, there's an in-between choice obviously, I'll discuss it as well):

1 - use this power "as constructed"; any new Advantages or Limitations just get piled on top; the points per effect are based wholly on this construction, the Advs and Lims just applied to whatever change in the base for the points of effect

2 - use this power as a new "base power", writing up the power as it is with the Advs and Lims incorporated for a new Base Cost which is then used to apply other Advs and Lims on

For example - suppose I create a "Stunning" power. For purposes of our illustration, this will be VERY crude, please don't debate the construct as such. It's an Energy Blast with a +1 NND (target must be in a state they can't be easily shaken or jarred or such) and -2 Limited Power (Damage Does not Count Against STUN, only for CON stunning purposes). Given how the base power (EB) functions, one can define it as Physical or Energy. One can always elect to add BOECV if one wants it to be against Mental. For now let's say this is done, for our example purposes.

Now we can choose to either keep Stunning Power as "Stunning Power: EB, 5 pts/1d6, +1 Adv, -2 Lim" (simply put) or "Stunning Power: 3 pts/1d6", following the 2 methods above. Obviously, the latter is slightly less expensive when extended (first way = 1d6=3 CP/10 AP;2d6=7 CP/20 AP; 3d6=10 CP/30 AP; second way = 1d6=3 CP/3 AP;2d6 = 6 CP/6 AP;3d6=9 CP/9 AP). However, here's the cost when we apply BOECV to each:

version 1 - (EB, +1 Adv, -2 Lim) - +1 for BOECV; 1d6 = 5 CP/15 AP; 2d6 = 10 CP/30 AP; 3d6 = 15 CP/45 AP; etc.
version 2 - (Stunning Power, 3 pts/1d6) - +1 for BOECV; 1d6 = 6 CP/6 AP; 2d6 = 12 CP/ 12AP; 3d6 = 18 CP/18 AP; etc.

So it matters a lot which way we go. Version 2 gives us more inhibition over the power as it scales up. Version 1 does not. This is very much related to why we do not say "Killing Damage = +2 Advantage" - the scalability gets wonky compared to what we want/need in the system.

Of course I didn't discuss the in-between method - create the base power with only certain components and simply require the others to be added. So we could do "Stunning" as just the EB with the -2 Limitation "built in" so it becomes a base cost of 1/1d6 but we require that both the +1 NND and the +1 BOECV be added. In this case "Stunning" is also built with no built-in NND, just as an EB with the built-in limitation. Obviously this also creates another whole path (and in this example certainly undesirable given how it would scale upwards very cheaply very quickly).

What would be people's suggestion as to when these costs should get built-in and when the "new" power should simply be the old power with the various Advs and Lims and "compiled at run-time" as it were? What would be the actual rules to govern this in power creation?

And I haven't even touched on turning Compound Powers into "regular Powers"...

[schir1964]

You just had to start this thread, didn't you! (8^D)

Okay, here are my rules, and of course my rules are the only ones that count. (8^D)

Generally, I begin looking at a possible New Power construct when either of the following occur.

When an SFX requires overly complicated construction that makes it hard for the player to use and difficult to grow/enhance that construct as his character grows.

Or when you have to strip almost all of the basic elements of a current power resulting in a power that no longer resembles the basic mechanics of the original power. (Please don't ask for clarification, I don't want to get into the whole Protean Form discussion again 8^D)

Now to be clear, there are complex structures that exist, but as long as those structures add to the systems flexibility then they serve the purpose of the system as a whole.
Example: The Naked Power Advantage is a complex structure, but it's the simplest way to allow for certain SFX and therefore adds flexibility to the system as a whole, therefore, it's a good construct. Same goes for VPP and Multipower.

Let's the games begin!!! (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

You just had to start this thread, didn't you! (8^D)

Okay, here are my rules, and of course my rules are the only ones that count. (8^D)

Generally, I begin looking at a possible New Power construct when either of the following occur.

When an SFX requires overly complicated construction that makes it hard for the player to use and difficult to grow/enhance that contruct as his character grows.

Or when you have the strip almost all of the basic elements of a current power resulting in a power that no longer resembles the basic mechanics of the original power. (Please don't ask for clarification, I don't want to get into the whole Protean Form discussion again 8^D)

Now to be clear, there are complex structures that exist, but as long as those structures add to the systems flexibility then they serve the purpse of the system as a whole.
Example: The Naked Power Advantage is a complex structure, but it's the simplest way to allow for certain SFX and therefore adds flexibility to the system as a whole, therefore, it's a good construct. Same goes for VPP and Multipower.

Let's the games begin!!! (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

Do you build new powers from existing powers sometimes? If so, do you then create a new base cost for that new power or do you maintain the original with its Advs and Lims and then apply any additional ones to that?

[schir1964]

Do you build new powers from existing powers sometimes? If so, do you then create a new base cost for that new power or do you maintain the original with its Advs and Lims and then apply any additional ones to that?

Were you around for the Protean Form thread?
That thread covered the entire process of creating a new power based on another one. You might find it useful to see the process in action. I was also convinced in that thread that my idea was not the best solution, so I moved on the other idea suggested and worked on.

The result was a New Power with it's own base, adders, etc...
However, the construct was such it could be used as an extension of another power if someone didn't want to have a "New Power".

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Were you around for the Protean Form thread?
That thread covered the entire process of creating a new power based on another one. You might find it useful to see the process in action. I was also convinced in that thread that my idea was not the best solution, so I moved on the other idea suggested and worked on.

The result was a New Power with it's own base, adders, etc...
However, the construct was such it could be used as an extension of another power if someone didn't want to have a "New Power".

- Christopher Mullins

I know I saw it but I'll have to go back and look, sorry to ask for the repeat! Last time I looked at it was purely just to pull out the power itself, not to survey the creation process.

[Dust Raven]

What would be people's suggestion as to when these costs should get built-in and when the "new" power should simply be the old power with the various Advs and Lims and "compiled at run-time" as it were? What would be the actual rules to govern this in power creation?

Call me a purist, but I'd stick with using what's in the book, and not making up new Powers at all.

Of course, I do occasionally make something that ends up being a "new" Power of sorts, but that's when I'm making a new Talent for a particular game, like my Non-Human Mind Talent (that represents a higher level needed to achieve a particular effect when a Mental Power is used against them that doesn't normally target their type of mind, simulated by buying a limited form of Mental Defense). Beyond that, there's not much left to create that would really be useful to the system. Well, maybe bringing back Instant Change instead of using Transform, but I can't think of any other time when I'd want to make a "new" power by modifying an existing one with Advantages and Limitations then calling it new.

[schir1964]

I know I saw it but I'll have to go back and look, sorry to ask for the repeat! Last time I looked at it was purely just to pull out the power itself, not to survey the creation process.

Hmmm... that thread may have been lost due to age. Ok, here is how it went. This thread existed pre-5th Edition.

Premise
Wanted to build a fluid-like character (Hydro-Man, Sandman, Blob, Elasticman, Plasticman, Reed Richards, Terminator, etc..).
Basic abilities of character: Squeeze through small holes yet solid. Wanted there to be inverse relationship between size of hole and the amount of time to go through it.

Checked the rules and found that the "official" way to do it was to use
Desolidifcation. Decided to break down Desolidification to it's elemental mechanics that define it.

Desolidification Elemental Mechanics
1) Can't Be Damaged (SFX Vulnerability Only)
2) Movement Through Solid Objects
3) Unable To Affect Real World

Mechanic Changes Needed for SFX
1) Can Be Damaged Normally
2) Can't Move Through Solid Objects
3) Can Affect Real World Normally

Realized that mechanics needed for SFX were the exact opposite of the mechanics that define Desolidification. Once these are stripped away, it's no longer the Desolidification power at all, at least not mechanically.

Created thread to propose a new type of Movement Power to allow building of the SFX. Spent the first few pages trying to explain why Desolidification wasn't appropriate for the SFX and trying to refine a movement power. Tried to base it on Tunneling replacing DEF with Percentage size of hole with size of character. Went through a page of going back and forth over another suggested idea of using Shape Shift. Why it would be better than a movement power. Finally, after many posts (can't remember who it was with now), I was convinced that Shapeshift was better. The other poster had finally presented an argument that had no logical flaws or erroneous presumptions. Scrapped my idea and began working on defining all the options necessary for the Shapeshift to be able to simulate the SFX.
Shapeshift in 4th Edition was much too vague in definition, so I chose to simply call the new ability Protean Form, based on the minimum requirement of Shapeshift, that became the base cost and definition of the power. Added all my options to it.

Once 5th came out, I emailed Steve Long and revisited this quandry about Desolidification with SFX and suggested a possible Shapeshift variant. Steve Long said that the Touch Group would allow this, although in his game, he would limit just how small a hole someone would be able squeeze through. Beyond that, he didn't have a problem with it.

- Christopher Mullins

[Dr. Anomaly]

I've got to admit, zornwil, that when I saw what you proposed in regard to treating it as a new "base" Power, I thought "Oh, like the way they did with Talents" -- because when you buy a Talent with Advantages or Limitations, you just use the Talent as the base cost, not use the way the Talent is built from other Powers, Advantages, and Limitations.

My inclination would be this:

If the Power has a single fixed cost, or a few set levels (like most Talents) then I'd go the "use the figured cost as a new base cost, just like a Talent".

If the Power is open-ended (like, for example, Energy Blast, Flight, and so on) I'd use the option of "use it as built, with all Advantages and Limitations applied 'properly' to the real base Power" -- EB in your example.

[prestidigitator]

Okay, I will admit that I build new Talents this way sometimes for Herioc games.

I am really more inclined to build new Advantages and Limitations (yeah, "Limited Power!") then whole new Powers. I might buy a new Power if I found not only that I was using a complex construct of existing Powers and Modifiers, but that I was using such a construct over and over again. That just screams for a little laziness (and laziness is everyone's friend!).

[prestidigitator]

Oh, yeah, and for creating this thread, Zornwil: Go dunk your head!

[schir1964]

Okay, I will admit that I build new Talents this way sometimes for Herioc games.

I am really more inclined to build new Advantages and Limitations (yeah, "Limited Power!") then whole new Powers. I might buy a new Power if I found not only that I was using a complex construct of existing Powers and Modifiers, but that I was using such a construct over and over again. That just screams for a little laziness (and laziness is everyone's friend!).

"If you only knew the power of the Dark Side..."

(8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[austenandrews]

I just write up the Power as normal and tell players how much it costs for 1d6, 2d6, etc. I don't necessarily even tell them what the exact base power or modifiers are. If someone really wants to add some other effect or modifier into the mix, they run it by me. If I approve, I tell them the new cost breakdown.

[Supreme Serpent]

I've felt for a long time that NND should just be a 10pt/die attack power rather than an advantage. And fie on thee who are concerned with making NND flashes and the like!

[zornwil]

I think it's probably a scalability versus damage issue. Dr. Anomaly (hey, good avatar pick! ) mentions Talents, and he brings up a good point there. I think it works in the case he cites, but I also think you want to resort to the base cost IF the power, like Killing Attack, will "scale badly", i.e., it will scale so that as it goes up it is too cheap to pile on other Advantages. I think our guidepost for this is Killing Attack.

But how to find that line? Is only trial-and-error available?

[Dr. Anomaly]

I also think you want to resort to the base cost IF the power, like Killing Attack, will "scale badly", i.e., it will scale so that as it goes up it is too cheap to pile on other Advantages. I think our guidepost for this is Killing Attack.

But how to find that line? Is only trial-and-error available?

Hmmm. I think you may have a point, zornwil. I am, however, unsure as to how to find 'the line'; trial and error may be the only option. It's not as if the HERO system is a microprocessor and we can look at the microcode of the instructions the processor knows how to execute.