Reduce Mass w/o reduction to Volume.

[LoneWolf]

My assumption is that unless otherwise specified the current edition is the default.  

 

The rules for the UAA in book 1 of the 6th edition state that UAO (or UAA) affects an inanimate object of 100 kg.  Each doubling is an additional + ¼ advantage.  So to increase the mass to x 1024 would make it a + 3 ¾ advantage.  Add in range for + ½ and it puts I up to a + 4 ¼ advantage. That increases the cost of shrinking to 31 per level.   3 Levels of shrinking would reduce and object to 1/512 its weight.  So the largest items you could reduce would be reduced to 200 kg.  The rules for UAA have not changed in this respect from 5th edition to 6th edition   

 

The rules for combining STR say to combine the individual lifting capacity of those trying to lift something, and use that to determine the “group” STR score.  You use the next lowest score if the lifting capacity does not exactly match.  Under the description of telekinesis it state that “Except where noted a character can use Telekinetic STR any way he could use normal STR.”   

 

Both the shrinking and the telekinesis will work.  To me the telekinesis is less complicated and offers some versatility the shrinking does not.  How the player wants the power to work is going to be the deciding factor.

[Dr.Device]

Specifically, the rules for UAA powers on inanimate objects are located in 6Ev1p355

Quote

For powers intended to affect inanimate objects rather than living Recipients, assume that the base target object weighs up to 100 km. Objects heavier than that cannot be granted the power. For each additional 1⁄4 Advantage, the Grantor doubles the mass of objects he can affect.

 

I am going to assume that the km is supposed to be kg, because, well . . .

 

NB: As noted, this only applies to inanimate objects. Thus, a power with the base level of UAA could affect Godzilla, but not a subcompact car. Make of this what you will.

[Duke Bushido]

Thanks to both of you.

 

I had looked under the power description and all references to the word Shrinking until my eyes crossed.   Hadn't occurred to me to look under the UaA itself.

 

Lone Wolf:  I admitted up-front I am not familiar with Long editions.  5e was a Long edition as well.  Bought it (both versions); read it (both versions), but don't use it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Let’s start with the reality that this is an odd concept to begin with.  It doesn’t do very  much, so either we’re building a kludgy Shrinking or TK concept, or we’re using a kludgy power like CE or Transform.

 

The main benefit of 1 level of Shrinking is +2 DCV (10 points), and it tacks on a PER roll penalty.  As this Shrinking does not enhance DCV, it seems extremely limited.  It’s not reducing PER rolls either.  But, of course, I may not want a UAA power to benefit the target.  It’s not changing Reach either.  Mechanically, all it really does is boost Knockback.

 

TK is similar – all it does is make it easier for others to move the object, so very limited.

 

Feels like a minor effect like this is a Change Environment with a single target that reduces mass, and with it reduces Knockback Resistance.  Reducing knockback resistance sounds no more powerful than reducing movement, so 1 m per 1 point seems pretty reasonable.  That's actually the same price as shrinking, and the main negative effect, so if I'm imposing it on someone else, it seems a reasonable starting point.

 

[EDITED TO CORRECT KB TO MASS RATIOS] Every 6 points changes mass by a factor of eight, consistent with Growth and Shrinking, basically a special effect.  That means 2 meters change to KB = doubling or halving of weight/mass

 

10 AP is -10 meters KB resistance and 1/32 mass.  16 AP is 1/256 mass.  20 AP is 1/2,048 mass.  Bump it up to 60, and we have reduced mass to about 1/1 billion of the starting point.

 

Frankly, that’s still pretty expensive for an ability unlikely to have much impact in-game, but 60 AP to make a jumbo jet blow away in the breeze at least seems impressive!  We drop a typical character from 100 kg to less than 1/10 of a milligram.

 

Transform adds 10 CP worth of complications at the Minor level, or 20 at Major.  10 points is light, so Major seems like the approach for Transform.  The drawback is that 4d6 Transform may require multiple hits on larger (high BOD) targets, but the target will stay low-mass without further END costs.  We could make a Partial Effect Transform to reduce mass a bit with each hit.

 

The bottom line is, whatever approach one takes, it is a pretty expensive power to only make inanimate objects weigh less.

 

Riffing from the OP suggestion:

 

Shunt Gravity:  Major Transform 4 1/2d6 (Transform Object/Person Into Lighter Weight Version Of Object/Person, 0.00390625/1/256 Weight, +10m KB Modifier Only Increases The Distance A Character/Object Travels From Knockback, Not The Damage Taken Character/Object Takes. , Default Of REC 4 For Objects) (45 Active Points); Rapid Healing REC per Hour (-1)

Real Cost 22

 

Feels like that should be +16 m KB (based on 2 m per halving, extrapolated from Growth and Shrinking).  As for Hero Designer, just make a custom limitation if you want faster recovery.  6e v1 p 308 says +and so on” after “per 1 hour”.

 

This seems perfectly workable.  I’d say make the mass 1/512 (or one halving per 5 AP in the Transform).  Or make it Partial Effect and set the reduction at 1/2 for each BOD (Growth adds 3 BOD for every 8x mass).

[Duke Bushido]

Sorry, Hugh.

 

I'd like to play with this some more, but I'm kind of tapped out on the subject. 

 

Interesting thoughts, though, as usual. 

 

[steriaca]

Humm...I once thought up of a mutant villain named Featherweight. His whole thing was to manipulate his density up and down. Before I knew of Alter Density I was thinking of Telekinesis, Only To Support Self as a work around.  Now, thinking about him again, I would probably go with Alter Density (Desolification), Can Not Go Through Solid Objects, Trigger (when he wants to be light).

[Dr.Device]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

30 AP is -30 meters KB resistance and 1/32 mass.  48 AP is 1/256 mass.  60 AP is 2,048 mass.

 

 

 

 

Mass is eighthed per level of shrinking, so 30 AP of shrinking is 1/32768 mass, 48 AP is 1/16,777,216, and 60 AP is 1/1,073,741,824.

 

Also note, for the shrinking option, that, per RAW, UAA powers are not allowed to take limitations that affect the target, only limitations that would affect the power's owner (Side Effect, Increased END, etc.). Thus there's no option to take a limitation to have the UAA shrinking power not reduce DCV and PER rolls. Personally, I'd consider allowing those as advantages rather than limitations.

[LoneWolf]

Transform is able to change the weight of something, and I actually suggested it in my first post.  I am not sure that it really fits the special effect in this case.  The stated special effect of this power is gravity manipulation. Since gravity is a constant force it seems unlikely that this power should have a permanent affect.   This seems more like a power that should have to be maintained and ceases to function when it is turned off.  That is not what a transform does, so transform is not really going to work well.  

 

Another alternative would be to use flight UAA. Since you are not trying to actually move the item you don’t need much flight.  1m of flight would actually be sufficient.  Put a -1 limitation that the flight does not actually move the object.  Since the base cost of flight is so low putting on a +4 advantage to allow it to affect 200 tons is trivial.  Even after adding in ranged 1m of flight comes out to 5 active points.  If you put on the limitation it does not move the target that works out to 2 real points.   The special effect would allow someone to move the object as if it had no weight.  The object would be considered flying so would be affected by knockback accordingly.  

 

Keep in mind that gravity is not the attraction of an object to earth; it is the attraction of all objects to each other.  A power like this would be best defined as countering the earth’s gravity.  The object would still have its own gravity field and would interact with the gravity field of other objects.  The gravity fields of those other objects are going to be a lot weaker than earths but will still be there.  This would justify some reasonable restrictions on the power. 

 

Gravity manipulation is a pretty broad special effect and could have multiple applications.  Many of the solutions in this post are different applications of the special effect and the character could easily have more than one of them.  A multipower would work very well for that and may be the best way to build the character.  
 

[LoneWolf]

Dr. Device

 

The UAA wording is that the power “should not” have limitations that only affect the target.   The example it give is density increase that does not increase STR.  That is just a warning not an absolute prohibiting of have limitations on the power.   RAW there is no restriction on taking limitations on a power other than the GM being warned to give careful scrutiny to such a power.  UAA is already a stop sign power. 

[Dr.Device]

58 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

The UAA wording is that the power “should not” have limitations that only affect the target.   The example it give is density increase that does not increase STR. 

 

True. Although it then goes further to state that Density Increase UAA with that limitation "is not a valid power construction."

 

Stripping the DCV bonus from Shrinking seems to be of a kind with stripping the strength from DI.

[Duke Bushido]

3 hours ago, Dr.Device said:

 

True. Although it then goes further to state that Density Increase UAA with that limitation "is not a valid power construction."

 

Stripping the DCV bonus from Shrinking seems to be of a kind with stripping the strength from DI.

 

 

I can see where you're coming from, but I feel the difference between the proposed Shrinking build and  the example DI build are that the DI build, as the example states, results in a character becoming so heavy that he doesn't have sufficient STR to actually move-- a defacto Drain: STR.   There isn't (that I can see) such a negative to not getting the CV bonus from Shrinking, particular when that bonus is based on a size reduction that, in the proposed build, isn't actually happening.

 

Now that I have read the 6e UaA text (thanks again), I have a question that those more familiar with 6e might be able to point out:

 

Is there anywhere in that text that states clearly that the extra STR from DI is solely to offset the increased weight?  if this is not the intention of the additional STR, then I take exception to the claim that DI: No additional STR is an invalid construct, as without that specific statement, the additional STR isn't needed for the character to do whatever it is he does.  If that statement is in there, then it stands to reason that there is no bonus dice of damage from that STR, as all the "extra" STR will be used simply making the arm move to deliver the blow.

 

 

[LoneWolf]

The issue with density increases not granting STR is not in the density increase descriptions.  It is under the description of STR in the beginning of the first book.  In the section under 0 STR it states that for every x2 mass the character has the penalties for 0 STR occur 5 pts earlier.  So while the STR from density increase can be used for other things, density increase without the STR will have a detrimental effect on the character and as such is not a valid use of the power.  

 

Stripping out everything but the mass from shrinking does not harm the character being affected.  But that does bring up a good point that the limitation is not limiting the power.  In that case it would not reduce the cost of the power.  Probably should be considered a 0 limitation when used with UAA.

[Hugh Neilson]

On 7/5/2021 at 3:25 PM, LoneWolf said:

Stripping out everything but the mass from shrinking does not harm the character being affected.  But that does bring up a good point that the limitation is not limiting the power.  In that case it would not reduce the cost of the power.  Probably should be considered a 0 limitation when used with UAA.

 

Doesn't it?  It makes them less resistant to knockback and more susceptible to being thrown long distances.  Advantages and limitations to Shrinking are priced under the default expectation that the Shrinking power is used by the person paying points for the power.  If I am shrinking, a limitation that my movement, STR and attack powers are all reduced by that Shrinking, or that I get no enhanced DCV, is limiting - it makes my Shrinking less useful.

 

If I am using Shrinking as an attack to negatively impact my opponents, reducing their movement and attack powers, but not enhancing their DCV, seems advantageous to me, and should increase the cost of the power, not reduce it.

 

As an egregious example, why don't I buy 1 point of Mental Defense, Usable As An Attack, and slap a -1 Side Effect so those I force the mental defense on take get +1 mental defense and take a 12d6 Blast with no defense that does BOD each phase?  It seems like that should not cost a lot less than the 300 points I would pay for a 12d6 NND, Does BOD, Constant, 0 END blast.

On 7/5/2021 at 9:20 AM, Dr.Device said:

 

Mass is eighthed per level of shrinking, so 30 AP of shrinking is 1/32768 mass, 48 AP is 1/16,777,216, and 60 AP is 1/1,073,741,824.

 

Also note, for the shrinking option, that, per RAW, UAA powers are not allowed to take limitations that affect the target, only limitations that would affect the power's owner (Side Effect, Increased END, etc.). Thus there's no option to take a limitation to have the UAA shrinking power not reduce DCV and PER rolls. Personally, I'd consider allowing those as advantages rather than limitations.

 

1 level of Shrinking is 1/8 mass and +6 meters KB.  3 halvings is 1/8, so 1 halving should equate to 2 meters of KB.  1 AP is one meter of KB, based on the AP of shrinking.

 

Thanks - I'll go edit my original post for those ratios!

[LoneWolf]

Obviously shrinking UAA can harm its target or it would not be an attack.  A better phrasing would be that stripping out everything but the mass from shrinking does not cause the target additional problems beyond that.  The point is that the limitation is not limiting the power so the value of the limitation should be reduced to 0.  

 

If I use density increase does not increase STR that puts the character at a severe disadvantage beyond what the increased mass does.  Which is why it is not a valid power and is called out as such

[Duke Bushido]

3 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

If I use density increase does not increase STR that puts the character at a severe disadvantage beyond what the increased mass does.  Which is why it is not a valid power and is called out as such

 

 

Energy Blast puts the target at a severe disadvantage and is a valid power construct.

 

According to the text that both you and Dr. D referred me to, the specific reason that the DI construct is called out is because, according to Steve the only possible effect of DI UaU sans STR is Drain: STR, which he feels is better represented by Drain: STR.   

 

It has nothing to do with the fact that the DI is limited in some way; it has to do with the author's belief that this construct is better simulated with an unmodified extant power.

 

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Duke Bushido
rephrased to avoid misinterpretation of intent

[Fedifensor]

We had a character in one Champions campaign called Trebuchet, who had Shrinking, Usable As Attack, Only To Decrease Mass, Linked to Grab.   I think it was 2 levels of shrinking, and may have had increased mass added to it for grabbing large objects. Since Trebuchet was a 60 STR brick, she could throw things VERY far.

[unclevlad]

6 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

According to the text that both you and Dr. D referred me to, the specific reason that the DI construct is called out is because, according to Steve the only possible effect of DI UaU sans STR is Drain: STR, which he feels is better represented by Drain: STR.   

 

It has nothing to do with the fact that the DI is limited in some way; it has to do with the author's belief that this construct is better simulated with an unmodified extant power.

 

 

You're trying to hedge, and say, oh, well, I have a legit reason...when most of the time it's NOT the case.  I agree with the argument generally.  I'd need a very specific reason to justify allowing the DI with no STR increase, as an attack.  It darn sure sounds like its intent is to kill movment, or execute an odd form of Entangle by forcing the character to sink into the ground, or or somethng along those lines.  Hero's core flaw is its big asset:  flexibility.  Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.  So take Steve's comment there as another form of STOP SIGN on UAA, quite apart from the broader one exemplified by XDM UAA.

 

Also, from a rules perspective, DI UAA that does NOT grant the normal STR...No STR Increase is absolutely NOT!!! a limitation worth anything when it's UAA.  What value is there to make your opponent more powerful?  None.  Ergo, NOT doing so can never be conisdered a limitation.  If anything, it'd be an *advantage*.  It's UAA;  the sense of what side benefits become advantageous or limiting, get FLIPPED.

 

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

You're trying to hedge, and say, oh, well, I have a legit reason...when most of the time it's NOT the case. 

 

Sorry for the confusion; I even went back a bit later and edited that to prevent it.

 

I was hedging nothing: I was specifically addressing the comment that a power construct putting an opponent at a disadvantage was the reason the build was why the build was called out as in illegal build.  The same text that called it out explained that it was in illegal build because the effect that the author saw from that (not saying it is the only possible effect; simply stating that it's the one the author declared to be the effect) reproduced an existing power.

 

That is the only thing I addressed.

 

Frankly, that's not even a discussion I'm going to get into, particular with the last two editions and their rearranging of some powers as parts of other powers, etc.  That way lies the slippery slope of "everything is essentially T-form," or the ultimate reduction to two powers:  "Affect universe" and "Resist universe."  I'm not even gonna skirt close to that. 

 

 

 

 

[dmjalund]

i am (slowly) working on a plan to remove "Usable as Attack" from the Hero system

[unclevlad]

8 minutes ago, dmjalund said:

i am (slowly) working on a plan to remove "Usable as Attack" from the Hero system

 

I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but it's worth considering.
One thing to address is that it's the only way to, for example, teleport an unconscious person from the accident site to medical assistance.  The problem of course is, how do you distinguish between unconscious due to unrelated injury, versus knocked out by a drug or sleeping?  There's no great answer here, as the distinction being made, between UAA and Usable Simultaneously, practically never exists in comics, supers fiction, or urban fantasy.  Yes, you can have "teleport self only" and you can have "can't teleport someone who can actively resist being teleported"...but that's not what "willing" is defined to be.

 

Fundamentally, I'd say simply treat it as a Stop Sign power *always*, and the more complex someone tries to make it...the LOW chance I'd accept it, would be shriveling.

 

And if you don't mind ditching that "rescue teleport" then...I would think you could just drop it with no real issues, but perhaps I'm being optimistic.

[dmjalund]

for that, i would reintroduce a power that was in an old version of Fantasy Hero called Apportation