Powers Issues -- S-T

[BobGreenwade]

The reach aspect could easily be done with STR Usable At Range. Not unlike the Telekinesis built as STR Usable At Range, except it's not bought Indirect, and perhaps it's only Usable At Limited Range (+1/4). In fact, for Stretching/extra reach you'd likely buy Usable At Range on your base STR.

I'm having several problems with the Ranged STR idea for Stretching. For one, Stretching also has a Physical Manifestation to it. So does STR already have a Physical Manifestation, and the Indirect for your version of Telekinesis takes that away, or do we add the Physical Manifestation Limitation to the Stretching construct somehow?

You address the shorter range somewhat with the Limited Range lessened Advantage, but Stretching as it currently exists is more finely tuned than that. But I'm not much of a fan of the more free-form aspects of Limited Range (I'd rather it was a fixed number, like 1/5 AP), and in any event there certainly is an advantage to (for instance) Mister Flow's ability to stretch 30" versus Cyber Warrior's stretch of only 2". This is much easier to handle if Stretching is quantified on a per-inch basis.

And then there are those polearms and other large weapons, whose ability to reach well beyond the character's normal reach is modeled with 1" (occasionally 2") Stretching under the current rules. For that matter, the reach of a very large character is also modeled this way.

What I'd do with Stretching is (and I'm mostly thinking "out loud" here) to redefine it as a natural Reach, taking out velocity damage, the Indirect aspect, and noncombat stretching, and having 0 END cost. I'm not sure whether that should be worth 5 points or 2 points per 1" (I'm personally leaning toward the latter), but all other aspects can be given using Modifiers (including Adders).

[SAVeira]

Q: Should Shrinking and Growth be done differently?

No idea. However, if some of the changes are done to the Characteristics happens, these powers must be revised.


Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?

Maybe.


Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?

Maybe.


Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Yes, as all swinging depends on a Focus and other factors.


Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book?

Yes, but it should be an Agility Skill.


Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?

No. One of these, if only to avoid the headache.

[dsatow]

Q: Should Shrinking and Growth be done differently?

No.

Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?

I think growth momentum is actually just a special effect on HA.


Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?

My only concern is that stretching is not really cost efficent at 1" per 5 points then. If you treat stretching as a travel power per say, 1" per 2 points, people could do move bys with stretching to simulate velocity damage.

Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Personally I am in favor of all movement 1" = 2 points. Whether to combine it into flight or stretching, I don't really care.


Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book?

See above.


Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?

I think that would add complexity to a situation which currently works.

[Balabanto]

My thoughts on Tunnelling.

Wow. I'm surprised no one has actually brought this up. This is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, THE least purchased power in the entire game.

Let's look at why.

1) Tunnelling is perceived by many players as stupid. Yeah, I hate to say it, but it's true, people look at tunnelling and say "Yeah, that's either a villainous power, or a dirty one."

2) Tunnelling is cost prohibitive. Let's look at the cost of tunnelling. 1" of Tunnelling costs 5 points. 1 DEF of Tunnelling costs 3 points. Would you rather have 15" of flight, or 6" of Tunnelling through 6 DEF. A normal house can have more than 6 DEF. This is really not very exciting.

3) Tunnelling is only effective when you build weird characters or buy weird powers. Example: Shaped Charge to Blow a door. It is so much more effective to buy this as Tunnelling with 1" of movement and a heap of DEF that compared to Killing Attack, it just blows it away.

My suggestions: Lower the cost for an inch of movement to 2 per hex (Or MU if you take my other suggestion), and standardize it with every other movement power in the game. DEF is not free. You still get 1 DEF for every " of movement, but now that costs 2 points instead of 3. Tunnelling is not that fast, but it still should still be able to somewhat compete with other movement powers without breaking the game.

The truth: No one cares enough about the Tunnelling power to really give it a serious look, IMHO.

But these fixes need to happen.

Should Stretching provide Velocity Damage.

Themewise, yes, but my contention is that the mechanic for doing so is not worth the cost of the granularity. My players, some of whom are IQ 180+, cannot do the crunching of numbers related to this on an internal basis, AND frequently forget that the velocity damage exists, usually causing them to receive a point break when I tell them they're breaking the damage cap.

It's not that it's not believable, it's that it doesn't intuitively follow from the rest of the power that it deals damage, and people can't wrap their mind around the movement distance versus impact strength ratio. So my decision to ask this to not happen anymore is entirely based on watching people look at me and say "It deals damage? What?"

And my contention, really, is that while I can run an extremely rules heavy game with 40 pages of house rules and still get in the TONS of RP, not everyone can. Kudos to Rod Currie for making Rick Davies playable to new players at a gaming table for so many years. So the intuitive nature of Stretching needs to change, and the velocity damage needs to go away.

While everything that Wizards is doing with D+D 4th edition is wrong, their general unspoken strategy (Which they are not properly marketing) of making the game more comprehensible for convention crowds is a philosophy that also applies here.

[ajackson]

My thoughts on Tunnelling.

Wow. I'm surprised no one has actually brought this up. This is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, THE least purchased power in the entire game.

Speak for your own campaign. It may be a rarely purchased power, but making an absolute claim that it's the least purchased power in the game is rather ambitious. In the last Hero campaign I was in, two PCs (of about a dozen over the course of the campaign) had Tunneling.

Splitting tunneling into 2p/inch and 3p/Def isn't a bad idea, but tunneling isn't horribly broken as it is.

[Opal]

I've played more characters with tunnelling than I have characters with swinging.

Tunnelling is also a great villain power, the perfect thing for getting into vaults or breaking your buddies out of jail.

[dsatow]

Tunneling

One side effect on tunneling is that others can use the tunnel. Which is why I suggested to detach the def from movement. Only one person needs tunneling for the party to benefit. Its also the only move power which can give you cover, as I recently seen at a con. I tunnel for cover! Lastly, some GMs will allow you to use tunneling against vehicles as well as bases!

[Balabanto]

What some GMs do is irrelevant to a rules as written discussion.

However, if it has a DEF score, you can tunnel through it. Which leads me, of course to gainsay everyone who wants DEF removed from the game, because otherwise, you'll be able to tunnel through people.

WHAT? Yeah. Replacing DEF with PD makes no sense.

[PhilFleischmann]

Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?

If not, it needs to cost less. A house rule I've been using for years is the ability to squeeze one's body narrower, included with the extended reach provided by Stretching. How narrow one can slim down to depends on how many points of Stretching they use. My current table looks like this:

Points of   Body fits through
Stretching     diameter hole
10            50 cm (slightly smaller than normal adult human body)
15            37.5 cm (small doggie-door)
20            28 cm
25            21 cm
30            16 cm
35            12 cm
40            9 cm (drain pipe)
45            6.7 cm (mail slot)
50            5 cm (2-inch plumbing pipe)

So it isn't too overly powerful. You'd need a whole lot of Stretching to fit through a keyhole or under a door.

And I also allow Stretching with No Range to indicate the ability to squeeze down narrower without granting extra reach (ala Marvel Comic's villain Cobra).

Other Powers S-T issues:

Rebuild Shapeshift so that it isn't based on sense groups. It needs to be based on actually changing shape. There are many aspects to "shape" that can change, each of which couls be purchased "ala carte":

1. Actual overall shape (Plasticman)
2. Surface color
3. Surface texture
4. Surface temperature
5. Voice sound
6. Other sounds made (footsteps, etc.)
7. Odor

Note that #'s 1 and 3 are "visible" to both the touch and sight group. #1 could even be visible to Radar or Sonar (Radar and Hearing groups). #4, in addition to being detectable by Touch, is also detectable by Infravision (sight group). The way in which the "shape" of objects or characters interacts with the senses does not fit neatly into specific sense groups. It just makes it more confusing to buy shape via senses.

A house rule I've been thinking about, that could be added is some way to include size changes easily within Shapeshift. I'm thinking of a simple +5 Adder for each doubling/halving of mass/size. This would not grant all the advantages of Growth or Shrinking (like added STR, reach, BODY, etc.), but would simply allow for "static" forms that are other-than-human-sized.

Summon - As I mentioned in the Perks thread, Disadvantages on Summoned creatures should reduce the cost of the summon - assuming they really do make the summoned creature less useful. All other things being equal, a summoned being that is Susceptible to Holy Water is less useful than one that isn't.

Suppress - As others have mentioned, this is probably too cheap as-is. Umlimited accumulation and at range for half the price of Drain, and the only downside is paying END each phase.

Transform - As I've mentioned on threads prior to 6E discussion, the categories (Cosmetic, Minor, Major) are not well-defined and useful. Cosmetic, for the same price as EB, is ridiculously expensive, and utterly useless. "Stop! In the name of the law, or I'll turn your hair blue!" A cosmetic Transform is better built as a SFX of another power, or perhaps a small Adder at most. IMO, the categories should be:

Minor (5 points per d6) - a minor inconvenience to the target, such as loss of a non-targeting sense, loss of the use of one arm, partial hindrance of movement
Major (10 points per d6) - a serious hindrance to the target: blindness, inability to walk, loss of a major power
Total (15 points per d6) - like a kill, or a knockout, completely takes the target out of the fight: turn to stone, total paralysis, turned into a small helpless animal

The idea is that for 5 points per die, you can do something annoying to the target that has a minor combat effect. For 10 points per die (like an NND or Drain), you can put them at a serious disadvantage, but they still have a fighting chance. And for 15 points per die (like a Killing attack), you can completely incapacitate them. Yes, Transform is not only used to hinder an opponent in combat, but the above examples can provide a guideline of the extent of changes possible at each of the three levels.

[ajackson]

WHAT? Yeah. Replacing DEF with PD makes no sense.

Sure it does. If your Mole Machine uses a giant diamond-tipped drill to tunnel through the earth, it goes vs PD. If it uses a giant laser cutting torch, it goes vs ED. I can also think of several NND special effects for tunneling (put NND tunneling the game, and Desolid doesn't even really need to exist).

[Pteryx]

Q: Should Shrinking and Growth be done differently?

As I've said in the other threads: impliment SIZ, and then yes!

Q: Should Shrinking provide “growth momentum” damage?

Q: Should Stretching provide “velocity” damage?

This is an intuitive enough thing to have as part of the Growth/Shrinking and Stretching abilities that I don't think one should be forced to make a circuitous build to make them do that. Make it an Advantage specific to these three powers -- or keep its lack a Limitation.

Q: Should Swinging be eliminated in favor of making it a Limited form of Flight?

Probably not. Unlike with Gliding, Swinging doesn't intuitively come across as a close relative of Flight to me, or even as necessarily being a special power as opposed to a skill, even despite Spider-Man.

Q: Should Swinging be removed from the core rules and put in the Champions genre book?

I don't think so. Pulp heroes, swashbucklers, and pirates spring right to mind as users of Swinging who aren't superheroic. Leave it in the core.

Another possibility might be to make Swinging an Agility Skill. When you buy it, you’re assumed to have a swingline; if that gets taken away you can use environmental swinglines (e.g., vines in a jungle) at a Skill Roll penalty. Since by far the most common special effect for Swinging is “it’s a skill I have,” turning it back into a Skill might make some sense.

This I could certainly see a point to doing, and I wouldn't mind it.

Q: Should Transfer be eliminated in favor of some sort of Drain + Linked Aid construct?

No. It's considerably simpler to keep this way.

Powers not listed:
Shape Shift, as it stands now, is really deceptively named and at times schizophrenic about what it's trying to do. It's a Sensory Power disguised as a Body-Affecting Power with a handful of token nods to the latter idea which still come across as sensory-based. Please decide which it actually is and write it up accordingly. Or even split it into two powers, Shape Shift and Personal Illusion.

The All or Nothing Limitation from Transform would be a great addition to the options for all Adjustment powers. Heck, my pet approach to sleep spells in the absence of a dedicated mechanic for it is All or Nothing Suppress STUN wrapped in some kind of duration package.

On the subject of Summon, I can only say this: Steve, I know you're a cat person -- I am too -- but please, don't sell dogs short so much in the Bestiary this time! The difference in price between them and dogs is ridiculous, and mostly seems to stem from dogs being understatted. Be sure to give them more variety, too; terriers are not the same as beagles even if they are the same size. -- Pteryx

[Tonio]

Transform - As I've mentioned on threads prior to 6E discussion, the categories (Cosmetic, Minor, Major) are not well-defined and useful. Cosmetic, for the same price as EB, is ridiculously expensive, and utterly useless. "Stop! In the name of the law, or I'll turn your hair blue!" A cosmetic Transform is better built as a SFX of another power, or perhaps a small Adder at most. IMO, the categories should be:

Minor (5 points per d6) - a minor inconvenience to the target, such as loss of a non-targeting sense, loss of the use of one arm, partial hindrance of movement
Major (10 points per d6) - a serious hindrance to the target: blindness, inability to walk, loss of a major power
Total (15 points per d6) - like a kill, or a knockout, completely takes the target out of the fight: turn to stone, total paralysis, turned into a small helpless animal

The idea is that for 5 points per die, you can do something annoying to the target that has a minor combat effect. For 10 points per die (like an NND or Drain), you can put them at a serious disadvantage, but they still have a fighting chance. And for 15 points per die (like a Killing attack), you can completely incapacitate them. Yes, Transform is not only used to hinder an opponent in combat, but the above examples can provide a guideline of the extent of changes possible at each of the three levels.

I think you underestimate Cosmetic Transforms. Yes, turning the bad guy's hair blue is a Cosmetic Transform, but so is turning your partner into one of the bad guy's agent's exact look-alike. Or into someone else entirely. (Flawless Disguise skill, semi-permanent, too.) Or changing your passport so your name and picture are different. Or turning water into wine.

Not all Cosmetic Transforms were created equal! =)

[Hugh Neilson]

I think you underestimate Cosmetic Transforms. Yes, turning the bad guy's hair blue is a Cosmetic Transform, but so is turning your partner into one of the bad guy's agent's exact look-alike. Or into someone else entirely. (Flawless Disguise skill, semi-permanent, too.) Or changing your passport so your name and picture are different. Or turning water into wine.

Not all Cosmetic Transforms were created equal! =)

I think many GM's would balk at these being cosmetic transforms. Transform seems to suffer from a problem similar to many mental powers. For mental powers, every effect of any significance commonly is adjudicated to require Ego +30, devaluing the mental power. Of course, whether a specific effect should require ego +10 or ego +30 seems to depend on whether one is the target or user of the mental power.

For Transform, we seem to restrict "cosmetic" to the blue hair example and similarly useless effects, requiring the higher levels be purchased for anything of substance. Frankly, the ability to turn someone's hair blue seems about as valuable as the fact that you glow lightly when your force field is on, and should carry the same cost - nothing. We're quick to point out that you get no points back from Limitations that don't limit, or Disadvantages that don't meaningfully disadvantage. But we're much slower to suggest the ability to do something that has no meaningful impact should reasonably carry no meaningful cost.

I'd like to see 6e expand on the examples of both the Ego + X levels and the various Transform categories to provide value commensurate with the costs of these powers, and hopefully mitigate the tendency to push up the cost/rolls required to achieve any meaningful effect.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Transform....

I've generally played the categories as follows:

Cosmetic - No change to the character sheet. You can change the target's hair from blonde to brunette, but not to blue (that would make it a Distinctive Feature). You can change your target's gender -- if your society treats both genders equally enough that it doesn't cause a Social Limitation. Clothing can be changed for color, style, cut, and so forth.
Minor - Rearrange the points on the character sheet, up to the number of pips on the dice. This might allow, for example, giving your target wings, bought as Flight with the Restrainable Limitation, coupled with DF: Winged Person.
Major - Unlimited rearrangement of the character sheet (within reason, subject to GM approval), adding or subtracting points on the character's sheet, up to the number of pips on the dice. This becomes extraordinarily powerful with an "anything to anything" Transform, but then again such an effect is also quite expensive.

[Chris Goodwin]

Looks good, except I'd word it that Minor lets you rearrange their points, and Major lets you give them a whole new character sheet.