Advantages Issues

[Susano]

I've seen variants of AP where you reduce the DEF based on the BODY you roll or some such.

[Opal]

Q: Should Advantages and Limitations be expressed with decimals rather than standard fractions?

I don't think so. Going down to quarters is enough granularity, I think. Layer on a few limitations, for instance, and an additional +1/4 can save you nothing. If you had .1 limitations, that could be happening even more. Also, it's hard enough to make judgement calls in 1/4 inrements. If you had to got to 1/8ths or 'steenths,' I think you'd have even more Champions GMs having nervous breakdowns.

Q: Should Advantages and Limitations be applied to Powers in a different way?

There is a good argument for this. There are advantages that really affect how powerful a power is - AP, for instance. An 8d EB AP really is comparable to a 12 EB. There are others that affect how often it hits. An 8d EB Explosion hits several people, an 8d Autofire EB hits one person several times.

But, when you put the two together, it gets wonky. A 2d RKA AP, Autofire, hits multiple times about as hard as a 3d RKA AP, but doesn't cost as much.

It might make sense to create two tiers of limitations: one set that directly impacts the direct effectiveness of the power and is applied first, another that affects how often the power can be used, and is aplied after. Same for limitation, even.

Advantages and limitations on the same tiers could cancel eachother out.

Q: Should we allow characters to choose whether to use an Advantage on a power whenever they use the power, rather than making Advantage use mandatory?

Bad idea, unless we re-think the cost of many advantages, such as Explosion, AE, Damage Shield, etc...

QQ: Should MegaScale be tweaked for ease of use?

MegaScale is a great idea. Really, it should be expanded to deal with extreme cases of Growth and the like. Key should be making it possible for smaller scale characters to avoid mega-scale action.

Q: Should Time Delay be eliminated?
You can do the same thing with Trigger.

It should be specifically mentioned as a possible trigger, and it should be pointed out that no special 'absolute time sense' power need be bought for it....

Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?

I think it's been prettymuch OK sinse the Useable /by/ Others vs Useable /against/ Others distinction was drawn.

[sbarron]

I think gettting rid of the fractions is critical for 6th Ed. I particularly agree with elements of Chris' idea, and I said as much here...

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27678.

The problem is, how to apply these changes but keep things the same? My original suggestion back in the day involved converting each 1/4 increment into a whole number. So +1/4 = +1, +1/2 = +2, -3/4 = -3, etc. Then, in order to find your AC and RC, you had to use a chart, since the math didn't work anymore. The advantage of this system is that the math really didn't change, just the designation of the value of each limitation. So, us old timers that wanted to do it the "right" way, could just divide their limits and advantages by 4 and be right back were we started.

However, as you can see from the thread above, my idea took off like a lead balloon. And I still don't have the solution, but maybe now that we're having this discussion again someone can figure it out.

1) Just playing with the math here, you can also just increase the actual cost of everything in the game by a factor of 4, in which case the math would again work just fine.

Like say, each 1d6 of EB costs 20 pts instead of 5 pts, KAs would cost 60 per die instead of 15, etc. The minimum limit would be -1 (currently -1/4). When you run the numbers this way, you're getting the same formula applied to each power. Everything just costs 4 times as much. I guess this also means that all the Characteristics would cost 4 times as much as well, but there you go. However, I suspect that people would complain that we now would have 600 pt starting heroic characters, and it could go way higher, especially if point totals go up to account for figureds going away.

2) More in this vein, we could use 1/2 point limitations instead of 1/4 point limitations, and have the same process as above, but with everything costing 2 times as much rather than 4 times as much. 300 point and 700 point characters don't seem that bad, but you still have the 1/2 point in there, which, while better that 1/4 points, isn't really that awesome of a change.

3) Another way would be to change the power cost calculation formula to...

Real Cost = (Power Cost * (Advantages/4) +1)) / ((Limitations/4) +1), and
Active points = Power Cost * ((Advantages/4) +1).

Doing it this way, the limits themselves are less complicated, because the fractions are gone, but the power calculation formula has become slightly more complex. While its not really the simplification that I'm looking for, it does have the advantage of simplifying all the limits and advantages, and putting the complexity all in one single formula. A lot of people would still probably need a calculator, though.

4) So, can anyone think of any other mathmatical "process" by which we can designate -1/4 limitations as -1 (or something else!), and still get the AP and RC calcs to work the same as ever?

[Opal]

1) Just playing with the math here, you can also just increase the actual cost of everything in the game by a factor of 4, in which case the math would again work just fine.

Actually, this is a common way of dealing with 1/4 limitations. Divide by 1 1/4? Multiply by 4, divide by 5. Divide by 2 3/4? Multiply by 4, divide by 11.

[dstarfire]

Continuous: A while back somebody suggested breaking continous into two parts, thus seperating the lock-on effect from the continues-to-function effect.

Damage shield: I think this should be changed to a simple +1 advantage and the need for continuous dropped. This wouldn't be neccesary if the above change to continuous were made

One of my biggest pet peeves are advantages which force you to take additional limitations (Mobile AoE and No Range, for example), I'd like to see this sort of thing remodeled as varying lvls of an advantage. It's very counter intuitive to pay more for a reduced effect.

[ajackson]

Here's a way, which happens to be already built into the Hero system at several levels, of transforming advantages and limitations from multiplication to simple addition and table lookup: logarithms. Each advantage or disadvantage is rated in levels (I've set it so x2 cost = +5); to find the cost of a power with advantages, just find the number closest to the base cost of the power on the chart below, then count left by one per point of advantages, right by one per point of disadvantages.

1   2   2   2   3   3   3   4   4   5   6   7   8   9   10  11  13  15  17  20  23  26  30  35  40  45  53  60  70  80  92 105 120 140 160

If you don't care about precision, various sorts of rounding are possible. I would be strongly tempted to just move in flat steps of +5 beyond 30 points, for example, which would have the additional benefit that you can just sacrifice 1d of damage for a +1 level advantage.

[Harakani]

Easy ones first...

AP:
I like the idea of an AP adder as an option. I also like "ignores N armour" instead of "halves armour".

More advantages:
More advantages, or more accurately OPTIONS for advantages are an excellent idea. A good adv (or lim) can make a tricksy power construct suddenly trivial. Try doing a 'lock on laser beam' with continuous...

Str adds:
In the same way that HKA gets "Strength adds" other powers should eb able to buy it (where appropriate). Eg an entangle where Str is used. I would also argue OTHER atts could be used. I can see an "Ego adds" for a 'mind based' telekinetic strike, for example. This would be a little like a mini-EC, I think. A mage whose powers ran off int would buy up int and buy powers where his int made him/her more powerful (without having to reflect int being important by putting a magic skill on everything). Obviously you'd need a rule that said "A power may never have more than twice effect" or somesuch.

Stacking powers.
Okay, this bit is controversial. Let me present my reasoning
Argument 1: It would be useful for a GM to be able to "create" a new power thorugh advantages or disdvantages, and for that power to be treated identically to a base power. Example; Base power flight. Costs 20 points for 10". GM decides to make Gliding. Decides is a -1 limitation, and therefore costs 10 points for 10". Also makes up ground gliding from Gliding. Decides this is also -1, and makes it 5 points for 10". Finally a player buys Ground Gliding, OIF (Elven boots -1/2), and now 10" costs 3.
This system would mean it would be possible to have a few base powers for simplicity in learning the system, but have shopping lists of powers for when characters go looking. Give regen it's own power; yeah it's a complicated healing construct, but so what? GM decides all spells HAVE to be bought with Zero End and Requires an Activation Roll, he can just post the new CPU*
Every power in an ultimate power book can be modified straight off the bat.
Argument 2: Xotl's point about advantages and lims cancelling out is an excellent one.
Unfortunately these two points, taken together, only really allow one mathematical system. Doublings. +1 of advantages doubles the cost. +2 of advantages quadruples the cost. -1 of limitations halves the cost. -2 of limitations quarters the cost.
I hate log maths... a table is really the only way for most people without a scientific calculator to cope.
On the other hand, I strongly suspect what would happen is that people would simply balance Advantages and Limitations, or look for the easy doubling/halving. Got a 10" flight OIF jetpack? Give it "no end (+1/2)" to cancel.
The table, incidentally, would look like this
-2 = *0.25
-1.75 = *0.30
-1.5 = *0.35
-1.25 = *0.42
-1 = *0.5
-0.75 = *0.59
-0.5 = *0.70
-0.25 = *0.84
-0/+0 = *1
+0.25 = *1.19
+0.5 = *1.41
+0.75 = *1.68
+1 = *2
+1.25 = *2.38
+1.5 = *2.82
+1.75 = *3.36
+2 = *4

harakani

* I love the CPU idea Chris Goodwin posted, and apologise for using it in a post that seems to be 180 degrees opposed to his idea.

[AmadanNaBriona]

I've seen variants of AP where you reduce the DEF based on the BODY you roll or some such.

That showed up in one of the 4th edition Adventurer's Clubs in the "tinker with the system" feature. I've mucked about with it, and think it works fairly well, especially in a game that also features Piercing. Multiple levels of effect work fairly easily, the amount of armor penetrated is based on the strength of the attack (generally pretty close to the DC of the attack, which would probably be a good standard effect option), not the defenders armor.

[ajackson]

The basic problem with Piercing is that it's really just 'more damage, vs everyone'. One thing I've been pondering recently:

AP: +5 points per level (or maybe -1d6 per level). Each level of AP halves up to 10 points of defense -- thus, AP/3 would halve up to 30 points of defense. As always, hardened defenses cannot be halved.

AP/X is a damage bonus against targets with a defense of up to (levels*7); against targets with lower defenses it's a net reduction in damage.

[JmOz]

Q: Should we allow characters to choose whether to use an Advantage on a power whenever they use the power, rather than making Advantage use mandatory?

Steve’s Thoughts: I don’t think we should, but as long as we’re considering everything I suppose it can’t hurt to throw this one out there.


What about a +1/4 advantage to allow it?

Also, while we're on the topic, the idea of changing to decimal based modifiers, if you did it I would recomend (and it would take some minor redoing) that you make it one decimal place, +1/4 and +3/4 modifiers would either be .2 or .3, and .7 or .8, depending on the particulars for that modifier, for instance, non-persistant would be .2 (Maybe .1 actualy) while cost end to activate would be .3 (or .4 even)

[sbarron]

Also, while we're on the topic, the idea of changing to decimal based modifiers, if you did it I would recomend (and it would take some minor redoing) that you make it one decimal place, +1/4 and +3/4 modifiers would either be .2 or .3, and .7 or .8, depending on the particulars for that modifier, for instance, non-persistant would be .2 (Maybe .1 actualy) while cost end to activate would be .3 (or .4 even)

If we're going to keep the 1/4 point value system, rather than actually using the current 1/4, or decimals like .2 or .3, how about just using percentages? I realize its the same thing, but I think for most people it would be easier to get their head around than just looking at .2 or .7. So...

Gestures, -25%, Armor Piercing, +50%, OAF, -100%.

I realize this would require several hundred (thousand?) more words per book, but I think most people would understand +25% easier than they would either +1/4 or +.25. And what scary about adding whole numbers like 25? Not a thing!

[Andrew_A]

Personally I prefer using decimals for advantages. The benefit of this system is that anyone with at least a grade five education can understand it. Every day, people add and subtract dollars and cents. It's the most common form of math in our society. How many people on a day-to-day basis use fractions? Switching to decimals wouldn't end the "HERO requires too much math" complaints, but it would significantly reduce them.

And if we're really worried about arguments ("Is it a .36 advantage or a .47?") then we could just use Lord Liaden's suggestion and say that modifiers can only be in .25 increments. Doing it this way keeps the system as is, while making it easier for the math phobic to understand.

And as for using calculators, I have yet to find a cheap calculator (i.e. $1 or less) that can do fractions. On the other hand, every calculator I've ever seen can do decimals.

Also, I think Chris's system of simply adding and subtracting to the base cost, while flawed, is a great idea. It would simplify the game greatly. Ajacksons idea would be even better, because it would be easy to balance, simple, and innovative.

[Andrew_A]

BTW, adding more advantages can't hurt. There are things that you just can't do in HERO.

For example, you can't really do homing attacks. I'm not talking about "instant hit" absolute attacks. I'm referring to an attack that requires the target to dodge a certain number of times before the attack fizzles out or dissipates. Simulating common or noteworthy fictional abilities should be a priority.

[Opal]

For example, you can't really do homing attacks. I'm not talking about "instant hit" absolute attacks.

I experimented with an advantage like that back in the 80s. It's certainly workable, but it does change the dynamics of combat, especially vs low-DEF, high-DCV or active-defense characters (like those who use missle deflection). If you toss several of these at such a character, eventually, one hits, stuns him, and the rest of the attacks chasing him 'dogpile.'

I've generally used No Range Mod before and since, to model 'guided' attacks of any kind.

[Netzilla]

Q: Should Advantages and Limitations be expressed with decimals rather than standard fractions?

I whole-heartedly support this idea and have ever since I was introduced to the Hero System with Champs 3rd Edition. I think if you're going to go this route, however, you restrict Modifiers to increments of 0.1 or 0.2 only. That way you're not taking up too much more space on the character sheet and I doubt you'd really need more granularity than that.

Also, I think it will be easier for newcomers to digest the concept of 50 * (1 + .2 + .5) = 5 * 1.7 = 85 than it is for them to get 50 * (1 + ¼ + ½ ) = 50 * 1¾ = 87; not to mention 50 / (1 + .2 + .5) = 50 / 1.7 = 29 compared to 50 / (1 + ¼ + ½) = 50 / 1¾ = 29. Fractions scare people however irrational that response may be.

Q: Should Advantages and Limitations be applied to Powers in a different way?

Steve’s Thoughts: This may depend partly on the answer to the question in the “General Issues” thread about whether we should abandon the concept of Active Points and Real Points. One possibility would be to make them adders and subtractors rather than multipliers and dividers

I think this is a horrible idea. They tried this with Fuzion, and while I liked the core of the system, this was one of the reasons I felt the powers system was absolute garbage. It just doesn't reflect the way that Advantages/Limitations scale with the amount of power being modified. Armor piercing means way less on a 2d6 Energy Blast than it does on 10d6. The only way this could potential work is if you apply it as an adder/subtractor to the base cost of the power. Thus a +1 Advantage on Energy Blast raises the base cost from 5/1d6 to 6/1d6.

Another would be to let Advantages and Limitations “cancel each other out” before application, so that a +¾ Advantage and a -½ Limitation would result in a (¾ - ½ =) +¼ Advantage.

This changes the math significantly.
* Traditional: 50 * (1 + ¾) / (1 + ½) = 58.
* Proposed: 50 * (1 + ¾ - ½) = 50 * (1¼) = 62.5
* Traditional: 50 * (1 + ½) / (1 + ¾) = 43
* Proposed: 50 * (1 + ½ - ¾) = 50 * (¾) = 37.5

So, unless my math is wrong, things don't work out right unless the Advantages exactly cancel the Limitations. Now, this is assuming that you want to keep the math the same as it is under the current system. I do think that doing this this way is simpler to express and explain mathematically, but only go this route if you're willing to make large changes in the costs of existing builds.

A third would be to have Advantages affect *effectiveness* rather than points, so that a power with a -¼ Limitation is somehow 20% less effective, not 20% less costly (though this raises the question of why to take one if it doesn’t “save” anything).

Too fuzzy and ill-defined.

Q: Should we allow characters to choose whether to use an Advantage on a power whenever they use the power, rather than making Advantage use mandatory?

I don't think Advantages should be mandatory myself, especially when you take a look at things like Variable Advantage.

Q: Should some of the optional new Areas of Effect in the Character Creation Handbook be incorporated into the core rules?

I've often felt that AoE could use a bit more granularity than it has. I also feel that One Hex and Line are currently over-costed when compared to equivalent AoE options (Explosion and Radius respectively).

Q: Should Damage Shield be removed as a stand-alone Advantage and just become a form of Trigger?

I think that Damage Shield should go back to the way it was in 4th Edition. As it stands now, it ends up being so expensive & complicated that it's not worth it most of the time. I understand the problem with how the old Damage Shield interacted with NND & AVLD attacks, but I think that's best handled by doubling the value of Damage Shield in the case of an attack with an exotic defense (anything other than PD, ED, rPD & rED).

Q: Should MegaScale be tweaked for ease of use?

Perhaps the way MegaScale should work would be +¼ per x10 scale:
* ¼ = x10
* ½ = x100
* ¾ = x1,000 (close enough to the current smallest level of MegaScale).
* 1 = x10,000

Q: Should Time Delay be eliminated?

I tend to use Trigger more often, so sure.

Q: Should Usable On Others be changed/revised?

It can get complex. I wonder if it should be done as a variation on Area of Effect (similar to how Selective works). I don't know, that's just off the top of my head.

Additional Thoughts:

NND and AVLD should be combined into a single Advantage: Attack vs Exotic Defense
* Base = ½ if the given defense completely negates the attack (NND).
* Base = 1 if the given defense will only reduce the attack (AVLD).
* Add +½ if the given defense is uncommon.

This is functionally the same as what we have now but reduces the number of entries in the Advantages list by one and thus hopefully reduces the amount of text.

BOECV needs another modifier: DCV applies (-½).