Multiform into Automatons and Vehicles

[Ndreare]

So reading rules as written Multiform cannot be used to turn into a vehicle, automaton or other character type. However when a general rule does not work advantages can be used to price in the rite option.

I want to make a character who in his natural state is a 12' tall robot. He then turns into a sport compact car (like Transformers). What is a good/reasonable value for being allowed to change character type with Multiform?
Considering I would want to be consistant. For example if I want a Wizard who can turn into a Clay Golem, I would use the same modifier value. 

 

What do you all think is reasonable? I know it has to have been considered because transformers is such a popular IP.

[Grailknight]

Two options:

 

Number one, make your car form without using the vehicle or automaton rules. Then it's just a regular Multiform.

 

Option two, get with your GM and see what's allowed after you explain your concept. GM permission trumps RAW but be very clear and concise with your abilities and don't make any changes without approval.

[Ndreare]

I am the GM, so I am looking for a generally accepted value on this. 

To me it feels like a +1/2 modifier. But I wanted to think on it and get the feedback of others with more experience than myself.

[Grailknight]

43 minutes ago, Ndreare said:

I am the GM, so I am looking for a generally accepted value on this. 

To me it feels like a +1/2 modifier. But I wanted to think on it and get the feedback of others with more experience than myself.

 

What value would you place on this if a player asked for it. Nesting a 5 point per 1 point Vehicle inside a 5 point per 1 point Multiform will allow some extremely powerful builds.

Edited September 1, 2023 by Grailknight

[Christougher]

Conversion equipment costs one tenth of the 'mech's total tonnage (same as internal structure).

 

Oh, sorry.  Was reading Battletech stuff...

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

Two options:

 

Number one, make your car form without using the vehicle or automaton rules. Then it's just a regular Multiform.

 

This

 

 

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

.GM permission trumps RAW 

 

 

And So very much this.  Those are the best answers for Any of the lqter editions.

 

 

If, for whatever reason, you insist on using automaton rules, then build one form of the character, add a list of abilities assigned to the other form, and use the limitation :only in appropriate form.  GM may or may not want to see an Instant change up there, too.

 

That is the best answer for saddle-stitched editions.

 

 

[Ndreare]

33 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

Nesting a 5 point per 1 point Vehicle inside a 5 point per 1 point Multiform will allow some extremely powerful builds

 

 He is not buying a perk that gets a discount.  So he would pay the 1/5 of form cost.  We don't do nested discounts anywhere they would come up at my table. (For example,  followers don't buy followers,  and followers don't buy bases.)

 

PS: It is one of my players wanting this. So I am asking as a gm to ensure fairness.  

Edited September 1, 2023 by Ndreare

[Grailknight]

2 minutes ago, Ndreare said:

 

 He is not buying a perk that gets a discount.  So he would pay the 1/5 of form cost.  We don't do nested discounts anywhere they would come up at my table. (For example,  followers don't buy followers,  and followers don't buy bases.)

 

PS: It is one of my players wanting this. So I am asking as a gm to ensure fairness.  

 

I wouldn't charge any extra then. This is simply a question of if you'll allow the Multiform in question. If he doesn't get the vehicle discount just rule on whether he can or can't be an Automaton in the alternate form.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think there are times and concepts to make it work, but yeah you get a cost break on both multiform and the vehicle so one of them has to pay full price.

[Ninja-Bear]

I swear this has come up before.  And the consensus (such as it were) was just over rule the rule and allow vehicles into the multi-form. 

[Duke Bushido]

3 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I swear this has come up before.  And the consensus (such as it were) was just over rule the rule and allow vehicles into the multi-form. 

 

 

It is certainly valid to do so, if it isn't a problem for the GM.  However, the vehicle rules are for building what is essentially a piece of equipment.  In this case, the player is building a character, for whole "being a vehicle" is a special effect of having whatever set of abilities he posses as a vehicle; he is not just a piece of equipment.

 

Similarly, I think, an,argument for Shape Shift of even Transform: self.  I wont make them, of course, since I genuinely despise what has become of both of those powers.

 

But as Ninja-Bear points out: any rule can be ignored if the results are agreeable to everyone involved.

 

[Tech]

8 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

It is certainly valid to do so, if it isn't a problem for the GM.  However, the vehicle rules are for building what is essentially a piece of equipment.  In this case, the player is building a character, for whole "being a vehicle" is a special effect of having whatever set of abilities he posses as a vehicle; he is not just a piece of equipment.

 

Similarly, I think, an,argument for Shape Shift of even Transform: self.  I wont make them, of course, since I genuinely despise what has become of both of those powers.

 

But as Ninja-Bear points out: any rule can be ignored if the results are agreeable to everyone involved.

 

 I agree about Shape Shift and Transform.

[LoneWolf]

What can a character built as a vehicle do that a normal character cannot?   I am not talking about how the character is built, but rather what they cannot actually do.  Other than the fact they don’t take stun or use END I don’t think there is anything a character built as a vehicle can do that a normal character cannot.  So, the real question is do you want to allow a character to be able to not worry about stun and END.  

 

The other thing to keep in mind is that a vehicle is normally not a sentient being.  In order to make a self-aware vehicle you purchase an AI using the computer rules.  This means in addition to the vehicle the character also needs to include the cost of the computer in the multiform.  This also means you have to buy each and every skill the base character has that the vehicle can use. 

 

If you are ok with the character ignoring STUN and END you should require that both forms have this ability.  That means the robot form needs to purchase automation powers and add 0 END to all his powers.  This is going to increase the cost of the character by at least 45 points and make it significantly more powerful.  

 

Next thing to consider is what the car can do that the robot cannot?  Do they have similar STR and movement capabilities?  Is there DEX and SPD radically different?  The robot is already 12’ tall so is probably about the same size.  Looking up the size of sports cars in the book I am seeing they have 800kg of mass, which is the same as a character with the first level of growth.   Both the sports car and a character with growth have a 25 STR.  I am not really seeing a lot the car can do the robot cannot except maybe having a higher movement.

 

I am not sure that a multiform is really the best way to go for this concept.  Multiform is used for when a character has two radically different forms that has different skills and abilities. If each form has a lot of different abilities that only that form can use a multiform is going to be the best way to build it.  But if both forms share most of the abilities shapeshift may be a better way to go.  You can put a limitation on the powers that only one form has only in <insert form>, which is probably going to be a -1/2.  This would allow you to purchase some extra movement for the car form, or a weapon for the robot form.  

 

If two forms do have radically different abilities a multiform is appropriate. You still don’t need to use vehicle rules to do so.  I think in the end using them is going to actually be more expensive and complicated.  Using the vehicle rules you are going to need to write up the robot, the car, and the AI for the car.  

 

I know you want to have a general rule for this, but that might not be the best idea.  The strength of the Hero System is its flexibility and the ability to build exactly the character you want.  Imposing set ways of doing basic idea usually ends up restricting the players ability to have the character they want.  Some general guidelines are fine, but strict requirement on how to build a character is not keeping with the spirt of the Hero System.
 

[Ninja-Bear]

Oh I can certainly see build car form as sfx of Powers. What I really can’t see is why the rules just won’t allow you to change into a vehicle. 
 

Edited September 2, 2023 by Ninja-Bear

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm speculating, but I think the "no vehicle form" is a holdout from the "no automaton powers for PCs" rules, although those are now stop signs.  Note that an automaton is either still in combat or dead, where other characters can be knocked out.  What impact will a character who can generally only be defeated by being killed have on your game?  To me, that has to be thought through.  The 45 point Takes no STUN would allow the character to be disabled to the point hat it's basically out of combat, but it's not going to recover a few hours later in the villain's deathtrap.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

What impact will a character who can generally only be defeated by being killed have on your game?  To me, that has to be thought through.

 

I had a PC with that power.  It had a couple of effects; first, he wasn't very effective other than being impossible to hurt.  It cost so many points to just be impossible to knock out that he didn't have a lot to spare to be combat effective*, but he was super efficient against agents.  It simply did not matter how many of them there were, he'd eventually take them out like Samson with a jawbone.

 

The second thing is that it allowed me to put more dangerous stuff into the fight, where normally PCs would have to be super cautious he'd walk in face first to deal with it, allowing the others to handle other things.

 

The third thing is that it felt like I was contriving things just to give him a threat, like in the comic books when the invulnerable guy keeps running into stuff that he bought a vulnerability to.  He would have been a useful guy for enemies to mind control against the PCs, but one of the other PCs was a mentalist that had a Mental Defense buff he could give others.

 

*although these days with the mountain of points for base superheroes I suspect that would not be the case.

[LoneWolf]

51 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Oh I can certainly see build car form as sfx of Powers. What I really can’t see is why the rules just won’t allow you to change into a vehicle. 
 

There is no reason you cannot define your base form as a car, but that would mean you are always a car.  Shapeshift is to allow you to change from the robot form to the car form.  

 

Shapeshift to sight, touch and hearing groups will allow you to change your form into a car.   The touch group allows you to alter your physical shape and mass distribution. Sight makes you look like a car.  Hearing would make you sound like a car and cover sonar. 
 

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

 You can put a limitation on the powers that only one form has only in <insert form>, which is probably going to be a -1/2.

 

In the saddlestitched editions, it wwas called "Only in Appropriate Form."  It first appeared in a Doug McD / Steve Petersen  writeup of a Shapeshifter called Changeling in an issue of Different Worlds Magazine.  It qas based on "Only in Hero ID" amd pricing varied from -1/4 to -1/2 depending on how many alternate forms were denied that ability versus how many had it, and how difficult shapechanging was.  If I recall (I have the magazine somewhere, but couldn't find it  in a month if I started looking now), Changeling had Instant Change and the only limitation to his forms were that they had to be animals, so all of his various form-related powers were at -1/4:  changing was super easy, and there are a myriad of animals that share special abilities (flight belongs to over half of all insects and almost every bird and even a select set of mammals).

 

This was how Shape Shift was done back then.  Even when modern SS ahowes up in Champions III, a lot of us stuck with "appropriate form."

 

Okay, I apologize; that didn't add anything to the conversation, but I wanted to chum up and say "wow!  For a hip shot reaction, you nailed it!  Well done!"

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Oh I can certainly see build car form as sfx of Powers. What I really can’t see is why the rules just won’t allow you to change into a vehicle. 
 

 

 

The rules _do_ let you change into a vehicle:

 

You can use Shapeshift, Appropriate Form, Accidental Change, Multiform, or whatever else you can think of.

 

What the rules do _not_ let you do is build a character using the vehicle rules.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

21 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I had a PC with that power.  It had a couple of effects; first, he wasn't very effective other than being impossible to hurt.  It cost so many points to just be impossible to knock out that he didn't have a lot to spare to be combat effective*, but he was super efficient against agents.  It simply did not matter how many of them there were, he'd eventually take them out like Samson with a jawbone.

 

The second thing is that it allowed me to put more dangerous stuff into the fight, where normally PCs would have to be super cautious he'd walk in face first to deal with it, allowing the others to handle other things.

 

The third thing is that it felt like I was contriving things just to give him a threat, like in the comic books when the invulnerable guy keeps running into stuff that he bought a vulnerability to.  He would have been a useful guy for enemies to mind control against the PCs, but one of the other PCs was a mentalist that had a Mental Defense buff he could give others.

 

 

I'm less concerned about a "very hard to hurt" character, especially when there are ways to KO him.  I am more concerned with a character who can only be hurt with lethal damage.  Either the character is still in combat (negative BODY does not mean unconscious, only bleeding out) or the character is dead.  I've toyed with a Robotman character like the old Doom Patrol, who seemed impossible to KO (although I could also rationalize that the human brain being capable of being Stunned or KOd).  He was often "defeated" because his robotic body was damaged to a point of incapacity (limbs broken or detached), so he could be taken out of the fight but still be alive. 

 

The 45-point version of Takes no STUN would provide for that.  The character would have a different dynamic that may not fit every game, so that needs to be considered, but the character isn't either "still up or dead".  The 60-point version leaves the GM with next to no non-lethal options.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The main thing with automoton characters is that it can take hundreds of points to just be the same as any other character of that concept (aside from the automoton powers).  For example, a martial artist or an energy projector.  All those defenses cost a significant amount, and often, the characters will also have life support.  

 

What that means is that they lack specialty abilities to get out of trouble other than damage.  So if they are thrown 500 block away or a building is collapsed on them, or they are just tied up with something, they will tend to be out of the fight.  Even flash can be very effective, because they will usually not spend much on exotic defenses.

[Hugh Neilson]

30 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

What that means is that they lack specialty abilities to get out of trouble other than damage.  So if they are thrown 500 block away or a building is collapsed on them, or they are just tied up with something, they will tend to be out of the fight.  Even flash can be very effective, because they will usually not spend much on exotic defenses.

 

I don't know that a lot of characters can work around being thrown 500 blocks away or having a building collapse on them.  Why not throw each character 500 blocks in a different direction, then do whatever we came here to do and leave, or collapse the building on the whole team?

 

It's pretty tough to tie the character up if he is actively resisting, and you're pretty much assuming a character who is invulnerable but useless offensively, so why not just ignore the character?

 

Players tend to get bored and frustrated when their character is not part of the combat.  Gradually taking STUN means that the characters are all participating as attrition gradually takes its toll on all of the combatants. Regularly taking the PC out of being relevant with a single action is likely to become frustrating for the player pretty fast.

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

 

Quote

Why not throw each character 500 blocks in a different direction, then do whatever we came here to do and leave, or collapse the building on the whole team?

 

Many characters have significant movement abilities that would let them get back very rapidly.  So its not really worth it, and you have to square off with them.  A lot of comic book characters can be effectively defeated that way: you knock the Thing or Cyclops back a long ways and will be minutes before they get back.  Generally Champions characters are built to be very mobile.

 

Quote

It's pretty tough to tie the character up if he is actively resisting, and you're pretty much assuming a character who is invulnerable but useless offensively, so why not just ignore the character?

 

Well I don't wish to mislead, I never meant to imply that the character is useless, only that they have fewer points to spend on offense, so they are often less effective that way than other characters.  I mean... you did ask how it plays out, and I gave you my experiences.  I'm not insisting this based on theory or a thought exercise, this is exactly how it went with a character in a game I ran.  Other characters might play out differently.

[Hugh Neilson]

You seem to be considering a character who is virtually invulnerable.  The OP was discussing a character who is, or can become, a form of automaton.

 

My concern for an automaton is that only BOD damage becomes relevant.  Either kill him or he’s up and running. The OP didn’t discuss virtual invulnerability, but that would be pricy and violate most campaign limits. An automaton with 15 rDEF, PD and ED, spends the same as a 45 defense non-automaton.  Those defenses need to be resistant, hardened and impenetrable, and even then a 4d6 KA has a fair chance of chipping away some BOD.  The character is actually more costly – the non-automaton doesn’t likely need their full 45 PD and ED to be Resistant.

 

The character becomes very binary – either fully effective or totally useless. Your examples reflect this – one action removes the character from the combat for an extended period, if not the entire combat.

 

I will also suggest that a vehicle character probably has decent movement, unlike your experience with a single character.

 

Could an interesting character be created?  Sure. But the player and GM may want to consider rationalizing a non-automaton with an equivalent to being Stunner or KOd, or consider how the character can be taken out in combat, and later recover.

 

There is a reason for those stop signs on Automaton powers.

Edited September 4, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

You seem to be considering a character who is virtually invulnerable.  The OP was discussing a character who is, or can become, a form of automaton.

 

Sorry to go off topic, I was merely responding to your post that asked:

 

Quote

What impact will a character who can generally only be defeated by being killed have on your game?  To me, that has to be thought through.

 

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Sorry to go off topic, I was merely responding to your post that asked:

 

 

 

I'm not sure it's totally off-topic - it seems like it's more about a character who can't be damaged/KOd at all rather than one who can only be killed, not KOd.  The two have some pretty strong overlaps.