Limitations Issues

[Hugh Neilson]

Limitations should not come with built-in advantages, and vice versa.

Charges should cost less if the power cost no END in the first place (or they should cost END if the power did unless you buy them to 0 END).

A Damage Shield should be allowed to take No Range if the power itself was No Range.

[The Main Man]

I'd like to take Damage Shield as an opportunity to demonstrate the idea of "Active" versus "Utility" Modifiers.

Continuous and No Range would be Active Modifiers as they affect mechanical aspects of a Power (Duration and Range respectively).

Damage Shield only affects how the power affects the world (in this characters must touch the character to be affected), making it a Utility Modifier.

Let's use RKA 2d6 to make a Fire Aura.

That's 30 Base Points x (1 + 1 - 0.5 = 1.5) = 45 Active Points / (1 - 0.5* = 0.5) = 22.5 Real Points, rounded to 23 Character Points.

[Klaus Mogensen]

I've tried to sort the standard Advantages and Limitations from 5e into "Power Modifiers" (that change the magnitude of the power and hence Active Cost) and "Utility Modifiers" (that merely change how easy it is to use the power, or how often you can use it, and hence only change Real Cost). There's also a few I'm not sure of.

Power Modifiers:
Affects Desolidified, Area of Effect, Armor Piercing, AVLD, Autofire, Cumulative, Damage Shield, Difficult to Dispel, Does Body, Does KB, Double KB, Continuous, Explosion, Megascale, NND, Penetrating, Sticky, Uncontrolled, Usable Simultaneously, Usable As Attack, Variable Advantage (if Power Modifiers), Variable Special Effect, Instant, Gradual Effect, Limited Power (reduced effectiveness), Reduced Penetration, Variable Limitations (if Power Modifiers)

Utility Modifiers:
Charges, Delayed Effect, Persistent, Inherent, Hole in the Middle, Invisible Power Effects, Range Advantages, Ranged, Reduced END, Time Delay, Trigger, Usably By Other Variable Advantage (if Utility Modifiers), Activation Roll, Always On, Concentration, Nonpersistent, Endurance Limitations, Extra Time, Focus, Gestures, Incantations, Independent, Conditional Power, Linked, No Conscuous Control, Only in Hero ID, Range Limitations, Requires a Skill Roll, Restrainable, Side Effects, Visible, Variable Limitations (if Utility Modifiers)

Not sure:
Based on ECV, Indirect, Transdimensional

Note: I've chosen to make Range Modifiers Utility Modifiers, since ranged powers have the same effect as non-ranged ones; you just don't have to move close to use it: improved utility, not improved magnitude.

- Klaus

[The Main Man]

Nice job! I'll owe you rep.

I would however argue that Endurance Limitations would be an "Active" Modifier.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Nice job! I'll owe you rep.

I would however argue that Endurance Limitations would be an "Active" Modifier.

Being hit by a 12d6 EB, 0 END, is no worse than being hit by a 12d6 EB, 2x END. The magnitude of the blast is the same. The user is able to use the former more often than the latter, that is all, which IMO makes 0 END and 2x END Utility Modifiers.

A Conditional Power EB "can only be fired once per turn" would be similar to one that costs so much END that you can only fire it once per turn. You can also compare to Side Effects - the extra END cost is a side effect of a sort; it doesn't change the effect of the power on the target, but it has a side effect on the user.

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

Being hit by a 12d6 EB, 0 END, is no worse than being hit by a 12d6 EB, 2x END. The magnitude of the blast is the same. The user is able to use the former more often than the latter, that is all, which IMO makes 0 END and 2x END Utility Modifiers.

A Conditional Power EB "can only be fired once per turn" would be similar to one that costs so much END that you can only fire it once per turn. You can also compare to Side Effects - the extra END cost is a side effect of a sort; it doesn't change the effect of the power on the target, but it has a side effect on the user.

- Klaus

unless the Gm allows Rapid attack.
then suddenly you could easily face 15 12d6 EB @ 0 End per turn with the character having no End costs to reign him in (or a sufficiently huge ENd reserve/ Rec to tip off the Gm) Vs the Rapid Attacker x2 End having to burn 180 End to achive the same results....

[Klaus Mogensen]

unless the Gm allows Rapid attack.
then suddenly you could easily face 15 12d6 EB @ 0 End per turn with the character having no End costs to reign him in (or a sufficiently huge ENd reserve/ Rec to tip off the Gm) Vs the Rapid Attacker x2 End having to burn 180 End to achive the same results....

The character attacking with 15 x Rapid Fire will have -28 OCV - and if one attack misses, he won't get the rest. Not that even one is likely to hit - he's probably much better off just making one attack.

Now, if the advantage was "ignores penalties for multiple attacks" I'd agree with you...

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

You Didn't read the post well did ya?

15 attacks per turn = 3 attacks per acton phase w/a 5 Speed

PLus the character spends 12 points on PSL's vs. rapid attacks to counter the -4 per shot for each of those phases...

Frankly, Rapid atack should have a Stop Sign.

[JamesG]

As part of the preparation of 6E, I suggest a thorough review of all Limitations to make sure their values and balanced and consistent with each other.

For instance, on page 299 of 5ER the Limited Power example “Only works on women” is given a value of -1. This makes sense because the Limited Power Guidelines on page 298 say -1 represents a power that loses about half its overall effectiveness.

But on page 121 the Limited Class of Minds Limitation for Mental Powers lists as an example “Only works on men” with a value of -1/2. As this limitation reduces by about half the number of targets the power can effect, for consistency with the Limited Power Limitation the value should be -1. Likewise, the example on the same page of “Only works on sharks” should be higher than -1, since it reduces the power’s effectiveness by much more than half.

There may be instances where the “same” Limitation should have different values for different powers, though I do not think this is one of those cases. But where it does happen, some explanatory text as to why the value is different from the standard for a particular power might prove useful.

[PhilFleischmann]

As part of the preparation of 6E, I suggest a thorough review of all Limitations to make sure their values and balanced and consistent with each other.

For instance, on page 299 of 5ER the Limited Power example “Only works on women” is given a value of -1. This makes sense because the Limited Power Guidelines on page 298 say -1 represents a power that loses about half its overall effectiveness.

But on page 121 the Limited Class of Minds Limitation for Mental Powers lists as an example “Only works on men” with a value of -1/2. As this limitation reduces by about half the number of targets the power can effect, for consistency with the Limited Power Limitation the value should be -1. Likewise, the example on the same page of “Only works on sharks” should be higher than -1, since it reduces the power’s effectiveness by much more than half.

There may be instances where the “same” Limitation should have different values for different powers, though I do not think this is one of those cases. But where it does happen, some explanatory text as to why the value is different from the standard for a particular power might prove useful.

This brings up a good point as to what really constitutes "about half of a power's effectiveness". Those various conditional limitations, and resticted target limitations need to reduce the potential targets/situations by more than half in order to reduce their overall effectiveness by half. If a power only works on women, it does *not* lose half it's effectiveness, since most of the time, you'll know if your target is a woman in advance, and therefore you won't even attempt the power on a target that isn't a woman. Just like you're not likely to target a teleporter with an Entangle. You know what will work and what won't. Likewise, "Only Works at Night" is not worth a -1 limitation because it really doesn't lose half effectiveness, since again, most of the time, you'll know whether it's day or night.

And one other point specifically related to the example you brought up: "Only vs. Men" and "Only vs. Women" may well have different values depending on genre/setting considerations. The great majority of comic book superheroes and supervillains are men. There were only about three significant female characters in all of LOTR (four if you include Shelob). The majority of RPGers are male, and the majority of the PCs they create are male.

[Klaus Mogensen]

If a power only works on women, it does *not* lose half it's effectiveness, since most of the time, you'll know if your target is a woman in advance, and therefore you won't even attempt the power on a target that isn't a woman.

More to the point, if your team is up against a group of mixed-gender foes, you will just select female targets. It is only a strong limitation if your foes are all men, or if it is difficult to tell their gender.

- Klaus

[AnotherSkip]

Similar to Invulnerability only vs X. your foes will find Something to shoot at other than you (esp say two guys with similar SFX say Electricity vs Electricity).

[Hugh Neilson]

This brings up a good point as to what really constitutes "about half of a power's effectiveness". Those various conditional limitations, and resticted target limitations need to reduce the potential targets/situations by more than half in order to reduce their overall effectiveness by half. If a power only works on women, it does *not* lose half it's effectiveness, since most of the time, you'll know if your target is a woman in advance, and therefore you won't even attempt the power on a target that isn't a woman. Just like you're not likely to target a teleporter with an Entangle. You know what will work and what won't. Likewise, "Only Works at Night" is not worth a -1 limitation because it really doesn't lose half effectiveness, since again, most of the time, you'll know whether it's day or night.

And one other point specifically related to the example you brought up: "Only vs. Men" and "Only vs. Women" may well have different values depending on genre/setting considerations. The great majority of comic book superheroes and supervillains are men. There were only about three significant female characters in all of LOTR (four if you include Shelob). The majority of RPGers are male, and the majority of the PCs they create are male.

I agree that "only works half the time and you have no way of knowing in advance whether it will work" is more limiting than "only works half the time and you will typically know in advance whether it will work".

However, I would note that, if we assume "only works half the time and you can generally tell whether it will work" (eg. only vs men; only at night) is a -1 limitation at present, it IS worth less than "only works half the time and you don't know in advance", since -1 is the limitation for 11-, which works 62.5% of the time, not 50% of the time.

I'm also a big fan of telling the player flat out "you have applied a -1 limitation for 'not vs women'. Based on this, I expect to use female opponents on pretty much every team you face, have a significant number of female master villains and have an occasional team of nothing but women. There will likely also be several characters whose gender is not easily determinable."

Just like a character taking "2x STUN and BOD from octogenerian hammer-wielding Norwegian architects" can expect there to be a recurring character in the game who meets these criteria, or taking "2x STUN and BODY from solar powered cold weapons wielded by green and purple froglike martians" can expect a story arc entitled "Invasion of the Green and Purple Froglike Martians" who will have standard issue sidearms that are solar powered cold weapons.

It should not be a surprise to the player. And it won't be, since I'll tell him my expectations up front.

[PhilFleischmann]

However, I would note that, if we assume "only works half the time and you can generally tell whether it will work" (eg. only vs men; only at night) is a -1 limitation at present,

Is it really? IIRC, "Only at Night" and similar Limitations are typically only -1/2.

it IS worth less than "only works half the time and you don't know in advance", since -1 is the limitation for 11-, which works 62.5% of the time, not 50% of the time.

Yes, that's something I meant to mention: Activation makes a good baseline for comparison. A 10- Activation makes a power *less* than half as useful, because you still spend END, Attack Actions, etc., to use the power even when it doesn't work. An 11- Activation takes away *more* than 37.5% of a power's utility, because you can't plan around when it will work and when it will fail, and even when it fails, you're still spending END, Charges, time, etc.

[Steve Long]

Hey folx! It's time for me to start reading all the 6E threads, and that means I need to lock them.

Hopefully 15 months has been plenty of time for anyone who wanted to have a say, to have a say. So please, don't start up other threads to try to continue discussions, send me PMs with points you "just have to make," or anything like that. It's time for y'all to sit back, relax, have a frosty beverage, and let me get 6E written.

We definitely appreciate everyone's interest, participation, and ideas! I'm looking forward to reading the posts and seeing what nuggets of wisdom lurk therein. I have no doubt 6E is going to be even better than it would have been because of our fans' enthusiastic efforts at providing us with input and suggestions.