Physical/Energy Absorbtion Combo

[Metaphysician]

Could you design a character with two absorbtion powers, one for physical damage, one for energy damage, that are otherwise functionally identical ( same modifiers and dice pool ), with the powers in a framework??

 

Would this be a viable usage of Elemental Control, given a sfx that the two absorbtion powers are essentially only one power ( the ability to absorb any energy )??

 

Could you put both powers in a multipower and have whichever one is applicable be used whenever struck by an attack without conscious selection??

[Gary]

Can't put them in a EC without GM permission. They're 0 end powers.

 

For the Multipower, no. The multipower has to have its points already allocated before there's any effect. If you could, there would never be a reason to purchase both physical and energy absorption.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'd generally be inclined to consider waiving the "0 END" rule for an EC. This is one of those examples where it really doesn't make a lot of sense anyway.

 

As for the multipower approach, I suppose you could buy both Absorbtions with Trigger, so you could fire each one up, set them to Trigger when you're hit, and get one phase of effect, but keeping them up constantly wouldn't be viable.

 

The EC is your best bet, assuming your GM is prepared to see reason (biased? me? no, of course not!) on the "no 0 END powers" arbitrariness.

[Snarf]

I think having to buy the power twice is really unbalanced and arbitrary so I'd allow stuff like that. I've also talked with a player about allowing switching between Energy and Physical as a +1/4 advantage, and absorbing energy or physical with one power as a +1/2 advantage. That would be similar to the cost of variable effects for adjustment powers.

[ghost-angel]

a 60 pt Multipower with a pair of 60 Active Cost Absorption powers in flexible slots costs 84 pts. (saves 36 pts over the strait cost of 2 12D6 Absorbs). This allows you to turn both of them on at half power (6D6 Absorb vs Energy & Physical) all the time with no problem. Or if you know you're going up against Mongo The Fist you can turn off the Energy and crank the Physical to a full 12D6, or any combination therein.

 

alternately if you just want to Fire And Forget a 60 pt Multipower with 2 ultra slots of 30 Active Cost Absorption costs only 66 pts. You've got both on at once, but you're stuck at a max of 6D6 Absorption for each power.

 

in an EC with 60-Active points the cost ends up being:

30 - EC Control

30 - 12D6 Absorption vs Physical

30 - 12D6 Absorption vs Energy

Total = 90.

 

The Multipower ends up being cheaper in the end anyway. Unless you start putting on Limitations to the powers as well. I'd go with the Multipower with Flexible Slots personally. It seems cheapest and you don't have to convince the GM of anything.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I'd generally be inclined to consider waiving the "0 END" rule for an EC. This is one of those examples where it really doesn't make a lot of sense anyway.

 

As for the multipower approach, I suppose you could buy both Absorbtions with Trigger, so you could fire each one up, set them to Trigger when you're hit, and get one phase of effect, but keeping them up constantly wouldn't be viable.

 

The EC is your best bet, assuming your GM is prepared to see reason (biased? me? no, of course not!) on the "no 0 END powers" arbitrariness.

 

Game balance. Absorption (especially with some level of variable effect) is already useful enough that nearly halving its cost is overkill. Especially if you open that can of worms and throw in Armor and Damage Reduction as well.

 

Just horrible game balance issues IMO.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

Game balance. Absorption (especially with some level of variable effect) is already useful enough that nearly halving its cost is overkill. Especially if you open that can of worms and throw in Armor and Damage Reduction as well.

 

Just horrible game balance issues IMO.

 

Well, that's your opinion. Mine differs.

 

If a power is overly useful, its cost should be adjusted overall, not just for EC purposes. Simply saying "OK, but not in an EC" is foolishness. Armor can already be purchased in a Multipower - just buy Force Field 0 END, and you have nonpersistent Armor.

 

For that matter, if absorbtion is a concern, why is that concern suddenly eliminated because I make it "cost END"? The "no 0 END powers in an EC" is purely arbitrary. Why would it be OK to have Aid if we were playing 4th Ed, but not in 5th Ed?

 

This isn't to say any or all combinations shuld automatically be allowed, but this "it's zero END so it's overpowered in an EC" theory makes no sense at all to me.

 

No point debating it, Gary - we already know we disagree on this issue.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Well, that's your opinion. Mine differs.

 

If a power is overly useful, its cost should be adjusted overall, not just for EC purposes. Simply saying "OK, but not in an EC" is foolishness. Armor can already be purchased in a Multipower - just buy Force Field 0 END, and you have nonpersistent Armor.

 

But with 0 end powers allowed, suddenly you can put both Armor and FF in the same EC. Along with DR and Absorption...

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

For that matter, if absorbtion is a concern, why is that concern suddenly eliminated because I make it "cost END"? The "no 0 END powers in an EC" is purely arbitrary. Why would it be OK to have Aid if we were playing 4th Ed, but not in 5th Ed?

 

The Absorption costing End drastically reduces its effectiveness, and the effectiveness of other powers in the same EC. Suddenly, you're paying 12 End per phase for 12d6 physical and 12d6 energy absorption, on top of the End for the other powers in the EC. You can't keep it up for long, thus limiting how abusive the EC is.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

This isn't to say any or all combinations shuld automatically be allowed, but this "it's zero END so it's overpowered in an EC" theory makes no sense at all to me.

 

No point debating it, Gary - we already know we disagree on this issue.

 

Ok, fair enough.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

But with 0 end powers allowed, suddenly you can put both Armor and FF in the same EC. Along with DR and Absorption...

 

I wouldn't allow the player to combine huge arrays of defensive powers without an EC, so whether they can have them in the EC is moot.

 

Besides, I can already put Armor and Force Field in the same EC. Make the Armor cost END, and make the force field 0 END. Both in, one costs END, the other does not.

 

Explain why Healing is a legitimate power in an EC (with no advantages or limitations) and Aid is not, on conceptual grounds, and I might reconsider.

[ghost-angel]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Explain why Healing is a legitimate power in an EC (with no advantages or limitations) and Aid is not, on conceptual grounds, and I might reconsider.

 

The only explanation I could possibly offer up is this:

 

Healing is automatically limited to Starting Values and Aid is not.

 

my case stops there .. mostly because I see nowhere that states Aid can't be put in an EC, it costs END which is the only rule you need to satisfy beyond convincing your GM the special effect fits the rest of the EC. Where does it say Aid can't go in an EC? I can't find that anywhere.

 

I think GMs don't like Aid because of the enormous potential for abuse .. my Aid feeds an Aid that feeds the first Aid and a Cosmic-VPP that has an Aid that feeds the first two Aids .. I'm not even sure you can do that in 5th anymore .. but with something like 5 character points you created the most powerful being in creation (once he got started that is). Most GMs I know that cringe whenever I say "I have Aid..." have dealt with something similar to that.

 

Beyond the "GM says so." I see no reason why Aid couldn't be put in an EC.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by ghost-angel

The only explanation I could possibly offer up is this:

 

Healing is automatically limited to Starting Values and Aid is not.

 

my case stops there .. mostly because I see nowhere that states Aid can't be put in an EC, it costs END

 

This is not correct. It was only several months after 5e came out that it was pointed out to me that the cost of AID had not really doubled, since it had become 0 END by default (see p 87 FRED).

 

Healing is just Aid, limited to starting points (-1/2), does not fade, costs END (-1/2). Note that this costs 5 points per die, just like healing, if we leave out "no fade rate". This implies "no fade rate unless above starting values" would be a +0 advantage.

 

Adjustment powers a s a whole need another look, but that's another thread.

[AnotherSkip]

Actually and for the Book Gary there is nothing stopping a person buying Force Field multible times in an EC anyways. Nothing in the books i have says you cannot have multible powers exactly the same in an EC. there are allready limits on the game (and in most campaigns using DC's) that prevent many "abuses".

[Christougher]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Adjustment powers a s a whole need another look, but that's another thread.

 

I'd like to see you start that thread. I have some issues with adjustment powers myself.

[ghost-angel]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

This is not correct. It was only several months after 5e came out that it was pointed out to me that the cost of AID had not really doubled, since it had become 0 END by default (see p 87 FRED).

 

Healing is just Aid, limited to starting points (-1/2), does not fade, costs END (-1/2). Note that this costs 5 points per die, just like healing, if we leave out "no fade rate". This implies "no fade rate unless above starting values" would be a +0 advantage.

 

Adjustment powers a s a whole need another look, but that's another thread.

 

ah .. I didn't even notice it didn't cost END. I don't ever use Aid so I didn't think to double check.

 

Well, then there you go - that's the reason you can't use Aid in an EC and you can use Healing .. Healing is Aid with "Costs END" .. make Aid costs END and you can put it in an EC.

 

I've never really had a problem with Adjustment powers to be honest. You're working with something that inherently changes how everything else works .. A lot of it is left up to the GM to interpret for use in a game. but that goes for everything.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by ghost-angel

ah .. I didn't even notice it didn't cost END. I don't ever use Aid so I didn't think to double check.

 

Well, then there you go - that's the reason you can't use Aid in an EC and you can use Healing .. Healing is Aid with "Costs END" .. make Aid costs END and you can put it in an EC.

 

This, and your prior post, summarizes the problem readily. You had no problem with Aid in an EC when you thought it cost END. Since it diesn't, however, you now object to it being in an EC. How does the arbitrary distinction between powers that, by default, cost END and those that, by default, do not form a valid rationale for which powers are, and are not, allowed in an EC.

 

Note that the rules do not require every power in an EC to cost END - you can buy a Force Field the 0 END advantage. But you can't buy "Aid, Costs END, 0 END" to put that in an EC.

 

If Aid were priced at 7 points per die and cost END, it would be made 0 END and still placed in an EC. The primary reason, in my opinion, that it doesn't cost END was so it would not cost such an odd number. However, if the designer had chosen to give Aid an automatic Fade Rate of 5/5 minutes, rather than giving it an automatic 0 END, to balance it out, it would qualify for inclusion in an EC.

 

The arbitrary distinction between powers that cost END and powers that don't lacks any logic from a game philosophy, or even game balance perspective.

 

Sure, Gary will say "everyone will have armor, a force field, bonus PD and ED, damage reduction and absorbtion in their EC". But don't the rules equally suggest an EC be restricted to one defebsive power. Why isn't that restriction enough to prevent such an abuse? For that matter, why is it OK to have a force field at zero END, but not Armor which costs no END inherently? They have the same point value anyway. If the designers had made armor cost END, suddenly it would fit in an EC. There's no logic that I can see behind this prohibition.

[Gary]

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Actually and for the Book Gary there is nothing stopping a person buying Force Field multible times in an EC anyways. Nothing in the books i have says you cannot have multible powers exactly the same in an EC. there are allready limits on the game (and in most campaigns using DC's) that prevent many "abuses".

 

So this is legal?

 

1 EC

1 1 PD FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

1 1 ED FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

1 1 PD FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

1 1 ED FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

1 1 PD FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

1 1 ED FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

etc.

 

You can get 30/30 FF 0 end persistent 2 times hardened (a 150 pt value) for 61 pts according to your logic.

 

I think just about every GM out there would ban this construct. Putting multiple exact same powers in the same EC is generally considered a no-no in Champions.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Sure, Gary will say "everyone will have armor, a force field, bonus PD and ED, damage reduction and absorbtion in their EC". But don't the rules equally suggest an EC be restricted to one defebsive power. Why isn't that restriction enough to prevent such an abuse? For that matter, why is it OK to have a force field at zero END, but not Armor which costs no END inherently? They have the same point value anyway. If the designers had made armor cost END, suddenly it would fit in an EC. There's no logic that I can see behind this prohibition.

 

The sample character, Icicle, designed to show how an EC should be built, has 2 attacks and 2 defenses in the same EC. If there really was a hard and firm restriction that only one defense is allowed in a EC, I would have a lot fewer problems with them.

 

In 4th edition, I saw far too many characters with something like this:

 

15 EC

15 Armor or FF

15 1/2 DR physical

15 1/2 DR energy

15 absorption physical

15 absorption energy

15 flight

 

If people want to play in a higher level game, I think it's better to simply give everyone 50 pts more to work with rather than point shaving EC tricks.

[Metaphysician]

Originally posted by Gary

So this is legal?

 

1 EC

1 1 PD FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

1 1 ED FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

1 1 PD FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

1 1 ED FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

1 1 PD FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

1 1 ED FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

etc.

 

You can get 30/30 FF 0 end persistent 2 times hardened (a 150 pt value) for 61 pts according to your logic.

 

I think just about every GM out there would ban this construct. Putting multiple exact same powers in the same EC is generally considered a no-no in Champions.

 

Legal?? Yes.

 

Allowable?? Only if your DM is in a coma.

[ghost-angel]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

This, and your prior post, summarizes the problem readily. You had no problem with Aid in an EC when you thought it cost END. Since it diesn't, however, you now object to it being in an EC. How does the arbitrary distinction between powers that, by default, cost END and those that, by default, do not form a valid rationale for which powers are, and are not, allowed in an EC.

 

Note that the rules do not require every power in an EC to cost END - you can buy a Force Field the 0 END advantage. But you can't buy "Aid, Costs END, 0 END" to put that in an EC.

 

If Aid were priced at 7 points per die and cost END, it would be made 0 END and still placed in an EC. The primary reason, in my opinion, that it doesn't cost END was so it would not cost such an odd number. However, if the designer had chosen to give Aid an automatic Fade Rate of 5/5 minutes, rather than giving it an automatic 0 END, to balance it out, it would qualify for inclusion in an EC.

 

The arbitrary distinction between powers that cost END and powers that don't lacks any logic from a game philosophy, or even game balance perspective.

 

Sure, Gary will say "everyone will have armor, a force field, bonus PD and ED, damage reduction and absorbtion in their EC". But don't the rules equally suggest an EC be restricted to one defebsive power. Why isn't that restriction enough to prevent such an abuse? For that matter, why is it OK to have a force field at zero END, but not Armor which costs no END inherently? They have the same point value anyway. If the designers had made armor cost END, suddenly it would fit in an EC. There's no logic that I can see behind this prohibition.

 

aye, my rather flimsy arguement is shot to pieces .. I can't think of any other reasons not to put something like Aid in an EC .. I really don't know why they stated that EC powers have to cost END inherently.

 

It's silly and only exists so people can't build DEX/SPD/DEF Monkey's with ECs at a dirst cheap price, I guess. Or any other form of random abuse that Munchkin's use to get the most effect with the least cost.

 

I personally hate ECs, I think they're cheesy way to get more/bigger powers for less. I especially hate "racial ECs" simply becuase they provide even more opportunity for abuse. In fact my GM usually muscles me into using ECs with my characters. He says I'm the only player who cringes when suggests them - and wishes the rest of his plater took my example and stopped trying to Play By Numbers and finagle their way into characters with ECs. But this is me and my opinion on them.

 

Honestly, there is no conceptual and game mechanic reason that any power shouldn't be dropped into an EC beyond "Because Steve said so." Ask him why he decided that powers that cost no END can't be placed in ECs. I personally think the use of and powers included in an EC should be left entirely up to the GM and I think every player should have enough respect for their GM that when he says "no" they say "ok" and go back to the design phase. Of course, GMs should have enough respect for their players to give a valid reason why not .. even something as simple as "unbalances my campaign".

 

but that's me.

[Metaphysician]

There's one very good reason to put a bunch of powers in an EC.

 

Because they aren't a bunch of powers. They are one power with multiple different *simultaneous* effects.

[Grailknight]

It all comes down to game balance.

 

There is no other reason that I can find to restrict EC's more than MP's or VPP's. In my experience, almost all MP's would and should fall under the drain one-drain all rule used for EC's with the exception being for gadgeteers.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by ghost-angel

I especially hate "racial ECs" simply becuase they provide even more opportunity for abuse.

 

I think the recommendations for racial EC's in 5e are excellent. Yes, you can, but you can only include powers that every member of that race possesses. So no more "EC: Android Body", unless the GM accepts that those powers are shared by each and every android.

 

"Alien Body" EC? Still on the fringe - people are supposed to become familiar quickly with the racial archetype. And then there's the ultimate threat. "So, every member of your race has those powers, huh? Hmmm...wait until we meet a Super member of your race, with all that plus 350 points to play with."

 

Originally posted by ghost-angel

Honestly, there is no conceptual and game mechanic reason that any power shouldn't be dropped into an EC beyond "Because Steve said so." Ask him why he decided that powers that cost no END can't be placed in ECs.

 

Steve doesn't discuss game design issues, at least not on the boards. I assume his reasons are sound. After all, he can either say "oh, the game is wrong" or sound defensive. I like the fact he rarely, if ever, rules "this is illegal", instead using "in absence of GM permission". Steve has once noted that "requires GM permission" is equivalent to a stop sign or yield sign, and at that time I noted most of these were small inclusions in other descriptions not readily flagged with a picture. In Champions, I'm generally pretty open to most Yield/Stop signs, and also to things requiring GM permission. Would it differ in other genres? Probably.

 

Originally posted by ghost-angel

I personally think the use of and powers included in an EC should be left entirely up to the GM and I think every player should have enough respect for their GM that when he says "no" they say "ok" and go back to the design phase. Of course, GMs should have enough respect for their players to give a valid reason why not .. even something as simple as "unbalances my campaign".

 

At the end of the day, that is what Steve has done in virtually all cases. Even the "must cost END" rule is tempered with "unless the GM permits it". I just don't see why a 0 END power is at the same level of caution, across the board, as most other "unless GM permits" constructs.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

The sample character, Icicle, designed to show how an EC should be built, has 2 attacks and 2 defenses in the same EC. If there really was a hard and firm restriction that only one defense is allowed in a EC, I would have a lot fewer problems with them.

 

And elsewhere

 

Originally posted by Gary

So this is legal?

 

1 EC

1 1 PD FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

1 1 ED FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

1 1 PD FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

1 1 ED FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

1 1 PD FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

1 1 ED FF 0 end persistent 2x hardened

etc.

 

You can get 30/30 FF 0 end persistent 2 times hardened (a 150 pt value) for 61 pts according to your logic.

 

The first is not illegal, but falls outside the general guidelines for EC's (FREd p 204). Similarly, an EC with a zero END power, or a special power, or even gasp[/b] a zero end special power may fall out of the guidelines, but there is no compelling reason it should be illegal. Any of the above, if appropriate, would certainly be allowed.

 

The second is also outside the guidelines (more than one defensive power), but again not technically illegal. It is, however, practically illegal as no one would allow such a clearly metagamed inappropriate construct.

 

I suppose I might allow it. But wait until you see the Xenebians (the main alien villains of the campaign, which I would decide on the day any player who isn't a complete newbie who shouldn't know better showed up with such a construct, unless I just laughed at him and handed the sheet back with a big red X. Xenebians would have a 1d6 Area Effect, megascale area Force Field Suppress, Always On. To be more pointed, it would be in an EC of Xenebian racial powers. Oh, and there would ALWAYS be a Xenebian within a km range.

 

He who lives by the sword...

[Farkling]

 

To restrain new players I usually tell them they can put anything in an EC with my permission and my cut of the points.

 

If they PUT a no-END power in an EC, it automkatically costs END. No limitation value.

 

Of course, they can now buy it back down to 0 END.

 

The surcharge restrains abuse...generally the powers much more tightly reflect the EC, as the player needs another limitation to apply.