Elemental Control: My Take

[Metaphysician]

Okay, I got the gist of Ye Old EC Debate, and came to a few conclusions of my own:

 

1. Yes, all EC slots should be Adjusted as one. If the powers are all "tightly bound" enough together to qualify for EC, the applicable special effect should be such that drains work on the lot of them. Then again, this should *also* mean Aids work on them all, too. . .

 

2. The "Must Cost END" limit should be tossed out. It is more or less completely arbitrary.

 

3. The only AP limit should be the "all powers must cost at least douple the AP of the EC pool." If you want a power that has 50 points higher AP than the minimum, fine.

 

4. Like with all Frameworks, ECs need careful GM analysis for validity and balance. In my mind, an EC is just like a Multipower, in that its a mechanic to represent what is essentially one special effect/power source that can do many things. Its just that unlike a multipower, an EC doesn't have to pick and choose which one it does, it can do them all. Hence why it lacks the same degree of point break that a multipower gives.

 

Similarly, any usage of non-Standard powers in the EC definitely needs DM approval. If you wanna include Levels in an EC, or Flash Defense, you'd better come up with a damn good reason.

[Monolith]

Re: Elemental Control: My Take

 

Originally posted by Metaphysician

1. Yes, all EC slots should be Adjusted as one. If the powers are all "tightly bound" enough together to qualify for EC, the applicable special effect should be such that drains work on the lot of them. Then again, this should *also* mean Aids work on them all, too. . .

I agree. I think Aid got the short straw in that.

 

2. The "Must Cost END" limit should be tossed out. It is more or less completely arbitrary.

I do not think the No END rule should be thrown out, but I do think the GM should be allowed to have more latitude in the choices of 0 END power that can be put into the EC. For instance, I don't think and EC full of special senses like IR and UV should be allowed just because the EC is "Bionic Eyes." I am also a little leary about allowing Damage Reduction in ECs because of the fact that they do not need to be purchased as one unit. I hate to see a player take 1 slot for 50% DR PD and 1 slot for 50% DR ED.

 

3. The only AP limit should be the "all powers must cost at least douple the AP of the EC pool." If you want a power that has 50 points higher AP than the minimum, fine.

That is the rule, and has been for a number of years.

 

4. Like with all Frameworks, ECs need careful GM analysis for validity and balance. In my mind, an EC is just like a Multipower, in that its a mechanic to represent what is essentially one special effect/power source that can do many things. Its just that unlike a multipower, an EC doesn't have to pick and choose which one it does, it can do them all. Hence why it lacks the same degree of point break that a multipower gives.

Agreed. I love the idea that ECs are now one power with multiple SFX. I had been doing ECs as nothing more the SFX saving pools for years before 5E made that realization sink into my head.

 

Similarly, any usage of non-Standard powers in the EC definitely needs DM approval. If you wanna include Levels in an EC, or Flash Defense, you'd better come up with a damn good reason.

Agreed. As with my example above each power put into an EC needs to be monitored by the GM. It is very easy for a player to come up with rationalizations. GMs just need to learn to say no.

[Kintara]

I think variety is an important aspect of an EC. I think it's important to construct ECs with a set of widely different effects in mind. It's not necessary, mind you, but the GM should keep it in mind. I guess this is kind of like point 4b. It's usually not a concern, though, because it's often better to buy a set of similar powers in a multipower. It can still come up, however.

[Intrope]

Re: Elemental Control: My Take

 

Originally posted by Metaphysician

Okay, I got the gist of Ye Old EC Debate, and came to a few conclusions of my own:

 

1. Yes, all EC slots should be Adjusted as one. If the powers are all "tightly bound" enough together to qualify for EC, the applicable special effect should be such that drains work on the lot of them. Then again, this should *also* mean Aids work on them all, too. . .

Hmmm, how about Aid on EC as follows: all powers in the EC get aided by 1/2 the amount of the aid. So, if you had a Flame EC with RKA, Damage Sheild and Flight and were hit with a 20pt aid, each of the powers would be increased by 10 pts.

 

However, the Aid would half to be able to effect all of the powers or it effects none of them. An Aid bought 'Any one fire power' would apply (the EC is in effect '1' fire power) but an Aid to 'any one movement power' would not (because 2 of the slots aren't movement powers).

 

In effect, aiding an EC only requires the 'any one power level', not the 'all powers at once'.

 

Any thoughts?

[Metaphysician]

Re: Re: Elemental Control: My Take

 

Originally posted by Intrope

Hmmm, how about Aid on EC as follows: all powers in the EC get aided by 1/2 the amount of the aid. So, if you had a Flame EC with RKA, Damage Sheild and Flight and were hit with a 20pt aid, each of the powers would be increased by 10 pts.

 

However, the Aid would half to be able to effect all of the powers or it effects none of them. An Aid bought 'Any one fire power' would apply (the EC is in effect '1' fire power) but an Aid to 'any one movement power' would not (because 2 of the slots aren't movement powers).

 

In effect, aiding an EC only requires the 'any one power level', not the 'all powers at once'.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Sounds workable. Especially the requirement that all slots be viable targets for the adjust.

[Arthur]

I think EC should have gone the way of the passenger pigeon. A point break for having a character concept? EVERY character should be built around a concept.

 

Furthermore, it is probably the hardest part of the system to figure out, and the one of the

easiest to abuse.

 

The END rule is a tacit admission that there is something wrong. I can come up with lots of character concepts that include plenty of zero END powers. Why are those concepts less worthy than some others?

[Kintara]

Well, I don't think it rewards characters for having a concept, but for having a tight concept, a closely defined one. Mind you, not "better," just tighter. This is where GM guidance is needed.

[BoneDaddy]

Originally posted by Arthur

The END rule is a tacit admission that there is something wrong. I can come up with lots of character concepts that include plenty of zero END powers. Why are those concepts less worthy than some others?

 

I find the END rule a little odd. What if I buy a power that usually costs END, and then buy off the END cost as a advantage? Can it stay? Why?

 

What if I buy a power that costs no END, and take Costs END as a limitation on that power? Can it go in the EC? Why?

 

I should probably ask Steve this.

[Monolith]

I think Elemental Controls model many different aspects of a character now that were not fully addressed in the past. It also makes character conversion from other game systems easier to understand now.

 

Elementals now make sense to me I enjoy using them now. Realizing that an Elemental Control is a single power with purchased power stunts brings it all home. Your have the power of Fire Control. The power stunts of Fire Control are Energy Blast, Flight, Damage Shield, Force Field, and Change Enviroment. If you drain Fire Control (the actual power) all the power stunts get weaker because they aer not 5 separate powers but one power with 5 power stunts.

 

In the past ECs were thought of as a group of powers which got a cost break due to SFX. In 5E ECs are considered a single power with numerous power stunts. It's an entirely different way of looking at things. It's a better way of looking at things, IMO.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by BoneDaddy

I find the END rule a little odd. What if I buy a power that usually costs END, and then buy off the END cost as a advantage? Can it stay? Why?

 

What if I buy a power that costs no END, and take Costs END as a limitation on that power? Can it go in the EC? Why?

If you buy the power down to 0 END is still qualifies, as does a power with the Costs END Limitation. Both of those are legal in an EC. The reason the END requirement was made was so that people did not start making small point Elementals to get cost breaks on non-END powers like Life Support or Damage Reduction or Enhanced Senses. The bionic eye example above for instance:

 

2 Bionic Eyes Elemental Control 4 points

3 UV Vision

3 IR Vision

2 +2 Telescopic for Sight Group

2 +2 Enhanced PER Sight Group

 

Someone building an EC like that is the reason the END rule was put into place.

[Kintara]

Monolith described it very well. In fact, I was thinking of the way Aberrant handles something similar to this. Elemental Control basically turns a set of powers into one power with various uses. In that vein, the EC "powers" should feel somewhat seemless in regards to eachother. You create a wall of iron shards with magnetic TK, float yourself on a manhole cover, and make a whirlwind of random metal objects, they all are really aspects of the same power.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Yet another way to word Monolith's excellent definitition would be, "An Elemental Control is used when there is a single superpower that requires multiple game mechanics to define it." A single superpower. That's the key. It doesn't really have anything to do with giving someone free points for having a tight character concept. It has to do with having a mechanism for joining several Powers into a single effect.

 

That's why Spider-Man's Clinging and Leaping are not together in a "Spider Powers" Elemental Control. They share a common motif and a common origin, but they are not literally the same superpower. The little tendrils that come out of his flesh and allow him to cling to surfaces (in the movie version) have nothing to do with his leaping.

 

However, his Entangle and his Swinging could be together in an Elemental Control. They are literally the same superpower. He shoots webbing. He can truss someone up with it, or he can swing from it, but either way, it's exactly the same superpower in the game world.

 

That's why Adjustment Powers affect EC's like they do; they're literally Draining a single ability. Logically, Aid should affect them positively in the same way, but it's easy to see why it doesn't from a game balance perspective.

 

That's probably also why the "must cost END" stipulation is in there. I would have probably set it up a bit differently, saying that either all the Powers must cost END, or none should cost END. Logically, if Spider-Man's webbing taxes his web fluid END Reserve or what have you, then any use of webbing should tax the END Reserve. If it's literally the same superpower, it's hard to imagine how one use of it would cost END while another did not. (Though it's not impossible... I would probably allow END-costing Stretching and non-END-costing PD Damage Reduction in a "Malleable Body" Elemental Control, for example.)

[Kintara]

Well, what I was trying to say with "tight concept" is what Monolith nailed. The Spiderman thing is a perfect example of a good concept that wouldn't fit my definition of a "tight concept," from a rules standpoint. Of course, my definition only makes sense to me, so it's kind of useless.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Monolith, Derek...

 

I have never, in 14 years with HERO, heard a clearer, simpler, or more concise definition of Elemental Controls and how they work!

 

You guys really ought to petition Steve and Darren to include these bits in the next edition of the book:

by Monolith:

Realizing that an Elemental Control is a single power with purchased power stunts brings it all home.

by Derek Hiemforth:

"An Elemental Control is used when there is a single superpower that requires multiple game mechanics to define it."

[GrimJesta]

Wow. Ive been letting my players get the best of me it seems, mwhaahahah. Actually, I cant blame them, because we never, ever took it the way Derek and Monolith said it. Now, if there was a TV show called the Grim Awards, theyd most certainly gain alot of public prestige and "cool points" for this one. Those really are some solid explanations.

 

Props to ya both.

 

-=Grim=-

[Pegasus]

Originally posted by Monolith

Elementals now make sense to me I enjoy using them now. Realizing that an Elemental Control is a single power with purchased power stunts brings it all home. Your have the power of Fire Control. The power stunts of Fire Control are Energy Blast, Flight, Damage Shield, Force Field, and Change Enviroment. If you drain Fire Control (the actual power) all the power stunts get weaker because they aer not 5 separate powers but one power with 5 power stunts.

 

Okay, I've gotta throw my appreciation for this elegant summation into the basket, too. This actually is how I look at ECs, but I never seemed to get it across that well. My eloquence escaped me. Do doo doo doo, da dah dah dah.

 

Did you or Derek ever post these words on the mighty EC vs Multipower flamefest? I wonder if it could have saved a few thousand posts. (I mean, Sheesh! I've seen more inviting blast-furnaces!)

[Farkling]

Apparently my lack of experience with other Superhero systems counts against me here.

 

That is a COMPLETELY useful explanation of Elemental Controls, and describes EXACTLY why there is only one EC in my campaign. The other 2 initial EC writeups were converted to much more legal and playable Multipower collections.

 

I like it. One Power with differing mechanics for "known" power stunts.

 

I may have to rethink some of my frameworking restrictions if I keep that in mind. (Don't mention it Hugh!)

[Killer Shrike]

I too am in the camp of "One Power, Multiple Stunts" for EC, and it has worked out well for me.

 

Also, one thing to also keep in mind is that an EC grants some points back up front, but the larger the EC the harder it is for a character to add to it and grow the powers in it. Because its a non-orthagonal construct everything needs to be kept to a certain minimum point level and a new "stunt" ie new Power Construct added to the EC costs a tidy chunk of points.

 

In all, the guy w/ a MPP is able to add abilities much quicker than the EC guy. Where ECs take off is of course ALL the "stunts" are available at once.

 

ECs are competitive but also a lot more static. I think the point break is balanced out by the "invisible" costs of an EC, being its ponderous progression and of course the double-whammy negative adjustment effect.

 

This all depends on GM filtering of power constructs that unbalance the delicate equilibrium of course.