Damage Shields without a structure

[archer]

6 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Walk-in pizza oven???  
SOLD!!!

 

Wasn't that how Dr. Manhattan was created?

[Christopher R Taylor]

While we're on the topic of reducing complexity, how about this concept?

 

When I first started playing Champions way back in the days of 2nd edition, I just assumed you could turn advantages on and off at will.  After all, its rarely a bonus to do so, and why can't I turn off my Armor Piercing or Autofire if I chose to?  It wouldn't increase the dice any, my 6d6 Explosion blast still does 6d6, it just doesn't explode. 

 

I could see maybe a -¼ limitation "fixed" or some other notation like that, but is it really much of advantage to not use your advantages?  The only real alternative in the game right now is a big multipower to be able to shut off your +s

[Duke Bushido]

8 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

While we're on the topic of reducing complexity, how about this concept?

 

When I first started playing Champions way back in the days of 2nd edition, I just assumed you could turn advantages on and off at will.  After all, its rarely a bonus to do so, and why can't I turn off my Armor Piercing or Autofire if I chose to?  It wouldn't increase the dice any, my 6d6 Explosion blast still does 6d6, it just doesn't explode. 

 

I could see maybe a -¼ limitation "fixed" or some other notation like that, but is it really much of advantage to not use your advantages?  The only real alternative in the game right now is a big multipower to be able to shut off your +s

 

 

We did the same, way back when.

 

Frankly, sometimes we still do.  Not often-- it's more a nostalgia thing.    Anyway, we did it right up until we really got the hang of Multipowers (and a couple of Villains books) and saw multipowers with duplicate powers, save for the advantages.  Then a light went off.

 

To explain _that_:

 

We didn't often use multipowers-- they were overly-complex next to the Elemental Control option back then (well, we still have that option, but I don't expect anyone else does), and the as-yet-inconcievable "thirty years later" moment that would have EC's being affected by adjustment powers as an "all at once" thing, and Multipower representing spiderman, etc......

 

 

Well, to be honest, way back when, we straight up read that the other way around.  (We still do).  If one did Spiderman as an EC (powers related through special effect), with today's -- more accurately, the most recent rules set with EC--, then "drain" would drain his "spider abilities" to include his purely mechanical web squirters. 

 

When one looked at Multipower characters such as firewing, etc,  builds featuring multiple "copies" of a power with differing SFX suggested that the _multipower_ was in fact the mechanism by which a character simulated having one power, and only one power, that he could manipulate to use different ways, so it made more sense to us that using an adjustment power on a multipower would effect the whole thing.  

 

No; this is _not_ going to be a compare and contrast MP / EC thread.  I simply wanted to explain why we did that for a while, too, and how we ended up noticing that it wasn't the "approved" method.

 

At any rate, we do it today with a +1/4 Advantage: Selectable.   From a Player's point of view, I totally get that an effectively "harmless" Limitation is the highly-desirable way to go    , but as we had learned with MP that it wasn't "right,"  and if you recall the recent Davien example I posted-- using his AoE ranged attack in a crowded mall-- then it becomes easier to see the ability to turn a power on and off at will as a distinct advantage.  It also doesn't fill the sheet up with two- and three-slot MPs for each power, which is the biggest advantage of all. 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Maybe its worth a +0 modifier: there are as many drawbacks as bonuses to turning off an advantage.  Like you, I don't want to see a sheet filled with 7 different tiny 2-power multipowers representing the ability to use each power with an advantage and without it.  Having the ability to turn my Armor Piercing 7d6 blast into just a 7d6 blast doesn't seem worth an advantage.

 

I mean, is being able to not have to use AE all the time on a blast worth as much as the AE to begin with?  Or armor piercing?  Or half END?  3-shot autofire?  In my opinion, it's not really a ¼ advantage to not gain an advantage.

[Ninja-Bear]

@Duke Bushidois selectable in addition to the the advantage. Say AP + Selectable?

[Duke Bushido]

I+t's a "variant option" for any Advantage.  Add 1/4 to the advantage cost to gain "Armor Piercing, selectable" or "indirect, selectable."

 

We have, off,and on, toyed with simply having a single advantage: selectable, to be applied to every advantagr on the power, at least in heroic games, as a reasonable simulation of weappns with different ammunition, etc, but as most of our needs can be met with "variabke advantage, selectable....  Well, we havent played with it as much as I would like before trying in supers, where multiple advantages per single power are the norm. 

 

the only real headache has been noting the effect of tuening the advantage on, which we usually do with a parenthetical notation akin to "-Xd6; +X END.

Just run through that for everyrhing off and on-  it isnt always accurate, but it suits out needs without having to list every possible permutation on the power.

 

 

[unclevlad]

Why would you build the MP with a 7d6 AP and a separate d6 basic?  Ever?  Why not make it 8d6, if nothing else?  7d6 AP is only 44 active so far, so you can't make it 9d6 necessarily, but even if there's other advantages like No Range Mods which will become more expensive, you can likely make it 8d6.

 

This is why forcing another +1/4 advantage for selectable is something I'd *never* take.  You're increasing the active points for the slot, forcing a larger MP.  You're increasing the END cost.  And for no mechanically sound reason that I can see, at least on first glance.  I'm not saying it can't be sensible to use it like this...especially in the situation where it's only on one specific advantage...but at this point, I'd need to see it.

 

I won't build multiple 2 or 3 slot MPs;  I will build something like this:

Blast 11d6 1/2 END

Blast 9d6 AP 1/2 END

Blast 8d6 Autofire 1/2 END 

Blast 8d6 Double KB 1/2 END, Reduced Penetration

 

I will also do things where some of em are against PD, some against ED...maginetic force ball versus electrical, say.  

 

I think the one clear case where turning an advantage off could be good, is AoE.  BUT, AoE already has Selective for that crowded-area situation.  Admittedly, I think it's an advantage that can be hard to justify, but it's there.  If Selective is only +1/4, Selectable can't be more than +0.  

 

That said, there've been cases where it forces me to use a Naked Advantage.  I am VERY fond of my High Scale advantage for Running and Flight.  MegaScale is way too much;  NC multipliers are way too little, especially if you want to apply Reduced END.  For one quick example:  5 SPD, 20m base movement, High Scale (1m = 15m, +1/2) gives a speed of 270 MPH.  Which means it's a nice, simple, non-abusive movement power, with a good combat move and a nice, but not excessive, non-combat speed.  High Scale uses Megascale as the basis, so it's non-combat movement with the nasty OCV and DCV penalties...so by the rules, I *have* to build it as a base power and a naked advantage, or it's effectively unusable in combat.

 

So...overall, yes.  I think requiring an advantage to be used all the time might be an issue in an EC...but not in a VPP or MP that I can see.  I definitely don't see requiring an additional advantage cost to do it.  But that just suggests...ok, let's see if there are counter arguments.

 

--Can we build a power where turning off an advantage creates play issues?  What's the power, in what context (standalone or MP)?

--Similarly, can we build powers where Duke's Selectable works as a separate advantage on the power?

 

I *am* thinking primarily of character powers...not equipment.  A grenade is gonna be Explosion, period;  you can't turn that off.  Teflon-coated bullets can't turn off the AP.  BUT, the gun might be bought as 1d6 RKA AP with 2 clips...and have 1 of the clips be Teflon (AP) and one normal (non-AP).  So common sense should be applied with equipment.  

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

That's why I think it should instead be this: 

 

Quote

+0 Fixed: this power cannot have its amount of dice adjusted, and cannot choose to not us any advantages it is built with.

 

So you can't make a grenade do less than its full damage and cannot switch off the area effect.

 

By default, you usually can turn off advantages and use fewer dice than the maximum effect.

 

[unclevlad]

Yeah, that's fine with me;  it clarifies things.  Not sure it's needed, as it kinda adds more clutter, but if you want it explicit, there ya go.  Definitely shouldn't impact cost.

 

I came back to mention that some advantages implicitly *can* be turned off.  Indirect typically can;  the exception would be from a fixed point (not yourself) variations.  Turning it off would give you a 2nd fixed point of origin.  But the "any path from origin to target" aspect?  That implicitly includes the direct path...which is in effect "turning it off."  The other is that autofire can be used in single-shot mode by default.  

 

And as you point out:  you can manipulate the power's intensity readily.  This really weakens the argument that it's all one power and the e.g. AP can't be removed.  Well, it's not an 8c6 AP power;  it's an Nd6 AP power as written, with 1 <= N <= 8.  Hmmm...Usable Simultaneously actually can be "turned off"...you only teleport yourself...or used at a reduced level...you can teleport up to 8, but you choose to teleport only 2 (you and one other).  So the rules already have fairly significant power adaptability built into many places.

 

Hmm.  Linguistic nitpick time.  +0 Fixed...is an advantage on its face.  Ergo it can be turned off, but this, of course, creates a contradiction.  Don't want that.  A specific case of why this is a problem would be Stun Only, which is another +0.  If I can turn that off, I get 2 potentially useful variations for the price of one, and there's no downside to taking Stun Only...I just turn it off.

The fix?  Call it -0...a *limitation*.  Then it can't be turned off.  As I say, perhaps a linguistic nitpick, but better to consider these earlier rather than later.  I can't offhand think of that many +0's to start with...so I'm not sure which, if any, shouldn't be treated as a 'limitation' of sorts.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

There used to be a class of modifiers called just "modifier" which made more sense to me.  Stuff like Reduced Endurance Cost, which raised the active cost but did not increase END cost its self.  Things like this and Stun Only would make sense for a category of that sort.

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

There used to be a class of modifiers called just "modifier" which made more sense to me.  Stuff like Reduced Endurance Cost, which raised the active cost but did not increase END cost its self.  Things like this and Stun Only would make sense for a category of that sort.

 

Yep, but it can be a matter of presentation.  I like general rules...like "you can turn off an advantage but not a limitation"...so Stun Only, if you want it to stick, needs to be a Limitation.

 

That said, there's unacknowledged classes of advantages that should be made more explicit:

--advantages that don't impact END (Reduced END, Costs END only to activate as an advantage are, I believe, the only 2 but I could be wrong)

--advantages on attack powers that don't impact the DCs of an attack.  Reduced END is one;  IIRC, Indirect is another.

 

OK, with AP or Double KB or AVAD, yes, it's obvious that these influence the attack effectiveness.  Reduced END doesn't...it influences repeatability.  Some other things like Variable Special Effects can be less obvious.  If it's changing something material...VSE can let you switch between PD and ED, for example...then that clearly justifies a DC adjustment.  But if it's just SFX (from heat to cold but still ED)...I generally wouldn't say it should change the DCs.  That said, in the interest of simplicity, I'm OK with saying VSE impacts DCs.

 

(Yes, OK, I like HAs so I can tack on martial arts DCs (rather than applying naked advantages to STR), and I like the Ranged Martial Arts, both for Ranged DCs and for the seriously nice maneuver bonuses.  For example, using the notion of fleshcrafting from Vampire's Tzimisce clan...character gets stuff like Shape Shift, Healing, HA vs. Power Def, HA vs Power Def and Does Body, and I tossed in HA with Penetrating too.  They're in an MP except for the Shape Shift.  Some martial maneuvers, a few martial DCs, and STR to round out the overall damage profile.)

 

OK, now, if there were NO advantages that didn't impact DCs, then the lack of a statement wouldn't be that bad...but still, and again maybe this is more about presentation than anything else, but making these clearer and more readily available would be a Good Thing.

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

20 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I think the one clear case where turning an advantage off could be good, is AoE.  BUT, AoE already has Selective for that crowded-area situation.  Admittedly, I think it's an advantage that can be hard to justify, but it's there.  If Selective is only +1/4, Selectable can't be more than +0. 

 

Selective removes a primary (IMO) advantage of AoE, that it ignores the target's DCV.  This is an area where more granularuty could be useful.  AoE combines multiple targets with ignoring DCV.  Non-selective requires you hit each target's DCV.  Is the value of targeting DCV 3 really only +1/4?  Yet Accurate is +1/2.

 

A better answer may be making Accurate a +1/2 advantage separate and apart from AoE. 

 

AoE without Accurate or Selective would grant the ability to attack all targets in the area, against their DCV.  A huge boulder rolls through the line area; it may miss some targets based on their DCV. 

 

AoE with Accurate, but not Selective is a wall of fire or ball of fire.

 

AoE with Selective allows the user to choose which targets are attacked.  Speedy runs around a radius taking a swing at each target, not swinging at allies or noncombatants (or the guy with a Damage Shield).

 

An Acurate Selective attack is very precise.  The floor is filled with electrical panels, allowing the fellow in the control room to AoE Surface anyone standing on the ground, selecting which ones he wishes be jolted.

[unclevlad]

Mmm...ok, fair enough.  Selective isn't necessarily a direct replacement for Selectable.  

So probably AoE remains a potential issue in terms of being an advantage that should readily be left unused.

 

And yes, I think making Accurate a separate advantage has a lot going for it.  The language becomes simpler.

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

A better answer may be making Accurate a +1/2 advantage separate and apart from AoE. 

 

I have never, ever liked using AE as a kludge to represent attacks that almost never miss.  Its in the genre and background material, so it has to exist, but is challenging in Hero with the rules as written.  It just feels like a cheap band-aid rather than a real solution.  I prefer a variant on ACV that has more options in it like "touch" attacks that are much more likely to hit (half DCV) and ones that hit unless certain circumstances are met, sort of like AVAD works.  This gives the game more options and structure than "uh its a 1 hex attack but only hits one person, good enough"

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

22 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Mmm...ok, fair enough.  Selective isn't necessarily a direct replacement for Selectable.  

So probably AoE remains a potential issue in terms of being an advantage that should readily be left unused.

 

And yes, I think making Accurate a separate advantage has a lot going for it.  The language becomes simpler.

 

"I throw my hand grenade at the bad guy training his machine gun on the hostages, but I switch off the explosion advantage as I don't want to hurt the hostages."

 

"I cast my Fireball, but it only hits the Ogre and not the four soldiers surrounding and fighting it."

 

A power with an advantage is a different power than one without the advantage.  You don't get to turn the advantage off because it's problematic in the specific situation, or even just because it's not helpful and you want to save some END.

 

20 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I have never, ever liked using AE as a kludge to represent attacks that almost never miss.  Its in the genre and background material, so it has to exist, but is challenging in Hero with the rules as written.  It just feels like a cheap band-aid rather than a real solution.  I prefer a variant on ACV that has more options in it like "touch" attacks that are much more likely to hit (half DCV) and ones that hit unless certain circumstances are met, sort of like AVAD works.  This gives the game more options and structure than "uh its a 1 hex attack but only hits one person, good enough"

 

I think the answer is that we started with AoE, then got 1 hex AoE, then added "accurate" so one hex could be one target instead, and then we got the ability to make Accurate bigger so you could even miss DCV 3 and still hit the target.  1 hex Accurate, Megascale, anyone? 

 

If we were designing from the ground up, I think we would likely decouple AoE from Accurate. 

[Ninja-Bear]

One hex accurate Megascale? I believe that’s against RAW. And if it’s not explicit, then by the spirit of the rules, it’s illegal.  Once again the responses show why Hero has ballooned in rules. The game gives a tool and the response is “oh no we can abuse it so let’s add more rules!”

[unclevlad]

Why does it violate RAW, or even the spirit?  By RAW it'd be AoE 1 hex (Accurate) for +1/2, Megascale for presumably +1.  Guided munition of some sort, perhaps.  

 

I can see where the combination is hard to visualize/justify, sure, but I don't see why it violates even the spirit.  Is it balanced and reasonable?  That's the GM's call.

[Duke Bushido]

 

 

Sorry; 

 

my phone went back to that "tab groups" horse crap, making it completely useless for browsing the internet.  Accordingly, I've been away from forum conversations for a bit. 

 

On 6/13/2021 at 1:54 PM, unclevlad said:

Why would you build the MP with a 7d6 AP and a separate d6 basic?  Ever?  Why not make it 8d6, if nothing else?  7d6 AP is only 44 active so far, so you can't make it 9d6 necessarily, but even if there's other advantages like No Range Mods which will become more expensive, you can likely make it 8d6.

 

You wouldn't.  "Reduced END" tended to by the most common "default" option for the early edition examples.

 

 

 

On 6/13/2021 at 1:54 PM, unclevlad said:

 

This is why forcing another +1/4 advantage for selectable is something I'd *never* take.  You're increasing the active points for the slot, forcing a larger MP. 

 

And you're assuming I use Multipowers.      

 

Typically, I don't.  We still use Elemental Controls, though, just because in my own experience over the years, they are a crap load easier for new players to get the hang of.

 

 

And I was going to do a point-by-point reply, as it seemed the most polite thing, but I think "we rarely use Multipowers"  probably answers the majority of your questions without filling the thread with a lot of "side quest" information. 

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

16 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

One hex accurate Megascale? I believe that’s against RAW. And if it’s not explicit, then by the spirit of the rules, it’s illegal.  Once again the responses show why Hero has ballooned in rules. The game gives a tool and the response is “oh no we can abuse it so let’s add more rules!”

 

So quote the RAW.  6e v1 p320 says

 

[quote]Accurate: For an additional +¼ Advantage, Accurate, a character can define an Area Of Effect (Radius) as automatically targeting only a single person, regardless of how many there are in the Radius. (Typically Accurate is only taken for 1m Radius powers.) This makes the attack work against DCV 3 without having the potential to affect multiple targets. The Range Modifier applies to Accurate attacks normally. Characters cannot Dodge or Block Accurate attacks, but can Dive For Cover to avoid them.[/quote]

 

This pretty clearly says Accurate can cover more than one meter radius to strike one target.  Nothing in the discussion of Megascale indicates that this is not an option.  A homing missile with a 100 km range could easily be an attack with Megascale AoE 100 km Radius, Accurate, No Range (the 100 km is always centered on point of firing), Focus, perhaps Charges, maybe Physical Manifestation (if you're quick, you can shoot the missile down).

 

Anything in the rules suggests it is legal, and I see nothing in the construct that is inherently abusive. Only hitting one target within a 100 km radius seems, if anything, a lot less potent than hitting every target in that same area.