EC balance fix

[Vorsch]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Vorsch, you are confusing me...

 

Are you saying it's okay for you to get free points becaue you're playing the Human Torch, but I can't because I'm playing Buckaroo Banzai? Exactly why do you think this is fair and/or balanced?

 

Like any other point saving/getting construct in the game (Limitations, Multipowers, Disadvantages, etc...) EC should only save points at the cost of something else, such as effectiveness or how those powers relate to the mechanics. So what if it's a metagame balance? How is that different from Rapid Fire versus buying Extra SPD (only to attack)? They do the same thing, but the free one doesn't let you move and halves your DCV. If I don't want my suite of Powers being affected simultaneously by Drains, I don't buy them in an EC.

 

Dust raven, you are confusing me how does a MP save points at the cost of effectivness, one attack power at a time is its traditional use, as noted by yourself. If what you say is true just buy all the powers outside of a frame works if the saving of points is abusive by your estimation.

 

ECs are considered a reward for tight characters, hell it even said that explicitly in previous editions.

 

Because 5th decided that EC suffer from sfx drain, ie its the rules, does not mean that the rules are right.

[Dust Raven]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Dust raven' date=' you are confusing me how does a MP save points at the cost of effectivness, one attack power at a time is its traditional use, as noted by yourself. If what you say is true just buy all the powers outside of a frame works if the saving of points is abusive by your estimation. [/quote']

I didn't say anything about attack powers, just powers in general. Say I have a Multipower with an EB, Flight and FF. I can't use them all at full effectiveness at the same time, so I save points. It doesn't matter what powers go into an MP, it's the fact that you can't use them all at once at full power. You get a point break because of this. Of course, this leads many min-maxers to buy attack Multipowers, because they'd only use one type of attack at a time anyways.

ECs are considered a reward for tight characters, hell it even said that explicitly in previous editions.

 

Because 5th decided that EC suffer from sfx drain, ie its the rules, does not mean that the rules are right.

Just because a previous edition said you just get free points for having a tight character doesn't mean those rules were right either.

 

It seems you think it's fair to hand out free points to some characters and not to others based purely on concept, while I believe you should either hand out those points equally to all characters or not at all, regardless of concept.

 

I see EC as a point saver, but only at the cost of something, just like any point saver.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I have one problem with the drains one, drains all approach, and that's the SFX of the adjustment power. Especially movement-affecting ones.

 

Fire Guy:

 

EC: Fire Powers

a) EB

FF

c) Flight

 

Gets drained by:

 

Wind Tunnel Guy: Drain Flight by creating wind shear effect. But now Fire Guy can't blast as much and his defense is lowered? Well, maybe if Wind Tunnel Guy's wind was strong enough to blow out some of the flame, but the SFX of wind shear have just been viloated.

 

Gravity Girl: Drain all Movement powers by increasing gravity. Same problem.

 

Pacifist Lad: Drains all Offensive Powers with a Linked Aid to all Defensive Powers: Heh, resolve that one.

 

Kind of a pain, really. I can see some balance being necessary, but IMO all adjustment powers should be strongly tied to their SFX, and the EC rule steps on that.

 

EDIT: Maybe it's enough that the GM simply makes note to occassionally throw Water Gun Dude at Fire Guy, where WGD has paid for his "vs. All Fire Powers" adder on a hefty drain/suppress. Or that the GM make the EC player take a susceptability, vulnerability, or dependance related to the EC's power source. Or a little of both.

[GamePhil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

However' date=' for those who play by the rules as written, it should be a good way to keep EC abusiveness in check without banning EC + Power Defense altogether.[/quote']

 

There is a certain irony to any statement that has in it "for those who play by the rules as written" when talking about how to change the rules. However, you have a point, so...

 

In a game where I was using all the guidelines for EC's, powers that would affect them would do so based on Special Effect. Water and ice would nullify fire based characters, Cyberkinesis or EMP's would affect Powered Armor and robotic characters, and so on. These are the only things that would do so, especially since I (almost) never allow Adjustment Powers against Powers, but only against Special Effects. Therefore, if buying Power Defense in this way started to be a problem, part of creating a tight conception would be that these appropriate Adjustment Powers would not be affected, or not be affected as much, by the character's Power Defense. Thus, I would require a Limitation about not protecting the EC against some appropriate Achilles Heal(s).

[Dust Raven]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I see where you guys are coming from. This is something that hasn't occured in my game yet, at least not using Adjustment Powers (I had a guy with a gravity power that used TK to grab everything in an area, rather than Drain all their movement).

 

I can understand that a Slow spell that Drains Movement Powers shouldn't also Drain an EB or FF, but the EC says it does by default. I guess in this case, and similar, SFX would win out, as it always seems to.

 

One thing that's always bugged me is what happens when you use a Drain all fire powers against a Fire Powers EC. I'm not sure if the FAQ covers this, but either the +1 or +2 Advantage was wasted, or you get double effect. Either way it's a nasty hit so somebody.

 

That's one of the reasons I rule ECs are just a single Power with multiple facets that can only be represented by several Powers. This cuts down on the number of ECs in my campaign, and most uses of Adjustment Powers against them have been straight forward.

[Kristopher]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I'd say that having a set of powers with the same SFX, thus making them vulnerable to the "Affects powers of _______ SFX" adjustment powers is a drawback in and of itself. Plus, there's a certain predictability to such a character that his foes can use against him.

[beauxdeigh]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I can understand that a Slow spell that Drains Movement Powers shouldn't also Drain an EB or FF' date=' but the EC says it does by default. I guess in this case, and similar, SFX would win out, as it always seems to.[/quote']

 

That, of course, would depend. If the SFX of the FF or EB in the EC were because of that character's movement abilities, then you bet I'd have it affect across the board in the EC.

 

Besides, if I were to do a Slow spell I would Drain SPD not movement. I'm very very hesitant to allow any adjustment powers that affect just an individual Power (like EB, or 'all movement') without some seriously good SFX descriptions that I can rule on. I much prefer characters that Drain Characteristics, since every character has them, or specific SFX like 'Fire EB' or 'Magnetic Force Fields' because, then, I feel more justified in trashing the EC of a character. That's just me.

 

Also (a little more on topic), the only way I'd alow any character, EC or no, to take Power Defense is if it were seriously in concept. I've got problems with it for the same reasons as above. It shouldn't affect all of the character's abilities evenly. Why would the Amazing Flame Lad having hard to Drain fire powers also mean he has hard to Drain STR?

 

Nah, any time there is any Power in the Adjustment arena that appears on a character sheet, a little red flag goes up, and I question the player seriously about it, so the effect is defined specifically. You want an EB? Sure! You want to Drain any other EB you choose whether it's Fire or Electricity or Mystic Bolts or a Spam Cannon? Buh? The F...? Hell No!

[Vorsch]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Slightly off topic but if you put primary stats in a EC do they grant figured stats. I thought they didnt but 5e may have changed that.

 

Personally i allow well justified stats ( spd for a speedster, Str for a metalic form, etc ) when the sfx expicitly allows stats as logical, though i give them a -0 costs end.

[Oruncrest]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Slightly off topic but if you put primary stats in a EC do they grant figured stats. I thought they didnt but 5e may have changed that.

 

Personally i allow well justified stats ( spd for a speedster, Str for a metalic form, etc ) when the sfx expicitly allows stats as logical, though i give them a -0 costs end.

You don't get figured stats if you put primaries into any power framework according to pg 92 of FREd.

[Vorsch]

Re: EC balance fix

 

i thank you, and to be fair this is a grivence with another user of these boards.

[GamePhil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

You don't get figured stats if you put primaries into any power framework according to pg 92 of FREd.

 

But you do get to take the Limitation, Does Not Add To Figured Characteristics (see FAQ).

[Vorsch]

Re: EC balance fix

 

GamePhil are you saying you get a xtra lim for something thats implicit in the rules anyway?

 

EC stats dont give fig(default), with does'nt give fig(-1/2), ......Your having a laugh here.

[GamePhil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

GamePhil are you saying you get a xtra lim for something thats implicit in the rules anyway?

 

That is correct. In the FAQ, under Powers: Characteristics, Steve Long has said that the section in question is meant to require characters to take the Limitation, not that it is had for "free".

 

Obviously, any given GM can choose to ignore this. I'm sure many do, and while I don't I can understand why.

[Vorsch]

Re: EC balance fix

 

You have ageed to a paradox, or at least steve has.

 

Is this serious? the lims default, then you are required to take the lim again?

 

Double Jeapardy

 

Please tell me this is not true or that im "missing" something!

[GamePhil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Well, it's meant as a clarification. It is not a default in the sense that you don't get a Limitation for it, it is default in the same way as the Limitation on Hand Attack is.

[Vorsch]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Ie

 

EC

30 60 EC whatever

20 60 str +40 0 end -/2 lim for no fig ( even though its default ) EC stat

[Vorsch]

Re: EC balance fix

 

If you dont take the lim do you get the figs?

 

or are you just losing out on an extra -1/2lim

[beauxdeigh]

Re: EC balance fix

 

You have ageed to a paradox, or at least steve has.

 

Is this serious? the lims default, then you are required to take the lim again?

 

Double Jeapardy

 

Please tell me this is not true or that im "missing" something!

 

Nope. Not "missing" anything. That's just the way it is. In fact, the official Hero Designer software works that way as well. If you add a Characteristic to any Power Framework, it automatically applies the No Figured Characteristics lim on it.

 

I suppose you could create a House Rule against that if you don't like it though.

[Dust Raven]

Re: EC balance fix

 

If you dont take the lim do you get the figs?

 

or are you just losing out on an extra -1/2lim

It's not written the same way, but as said above about HA, it's much the same. If you absolutely refuse to put the -1/2 Hand Attack Limitation on HA, it still has no range and doesn't add to lifting or Figured Characteristics or anything else it might be based on.

 

If you don't put the -1/2 No Figured Characteristics on a Characteristic that grants Figured's in an EC, they still don't add to them and you're missing out on the bonus for it.

 

Which brings to mind something I've been meaning to bring up about Damage Shield and no range.....

[Hawksmoor]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I am going to have to check my rules but I *thought* that the -1/2 No Figure Characteristics only applied to Characteristics in MP, not in ECs.

 

The reason was that with a MP the points were shifting around all the freeking time and fiqured could get quite unmanagable and abusive.

 

Hawksmoor

-I just don't think that is right. Of course Char in an EC is a frequently GM allowed thing...at least ONE CHAR is often allowed.

[Bloodstone]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I am going to have to check my rules but I *thought* that the -1/2 No Figure Characteristics only applied to Characteristics in MP, not in ECs.

 

Nope. NFC applies to EC's and MP's.

[Kristopher]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Speak for yourself. If I put a Characteristic in an EC, and don't apply the -1/2 NFC limitation, you better believe I'm getting the figured Characteristics.

 

Heck, if you change the settings in Hero Designer so that NFC isn't automatically applied to Characteristics in an EC, you get the figured Characteristics.

[Kdansky]

Re: EC balance fix

 

EC is probably the easiest power framework to abuse. If there aren't any transforms/drains present, you just get 50% off of every power except the first in the framework. I did not think about taking Power Defense up to now, but this is really cheap. 4 powers at 100 AP, EC at 50, brings us to 250 total, add 50 power defense and you're really safe. 25% discount and even got an advantage out of it (50 points Power Def will make you undrainable for up to 14 dice). Impressive.

I rarealy allow ECs anyway:

Firewoman vs any magician, she just get's discount on flight, dmg shield, EB, EF and he does not with his flight: wings (per spell "grow wings"), dmg shield "burning body", EB "lightning blast", EF "magical barrier". Variable Special effect + EC would be cheaper, as special effects are just that.

 

What defines a power: Active Points.

What fleshes it out: Special Effect.

 

Now why do we get discount on Special Effect?

 

On the other hand, there are situations where an EC is a good solution: I've got a mute psionic in my game and he has to use telepathy to tell someone he mind controlled what to do, this is clearly a disadvantage. (Could also buy linked, but then he can't write the commands onto a sheet of paper

[Hawksmoor]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Nope. NFC applies to EC's and MP's.

 

Just looked it up in FRed and Damn but you are correct. By the ink on the page you are correct.

 

I am still not going to use that rule though. ECs are constant additions.

MP and VPPs are not, in fact VPPs are just unlimited slot MPs anyway.

 

Hawksmoor

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Hoo boy, this can of worms again!

 

Gary, I'm not so down with this suggestion, even taking for granted for the moment (and I do not otherwise) that the Power Defense boosted with EC is so dangerous (I say I do not agree outside of "for the moment" as I think Kristougher's point re PC predictability and expoitability stands tall). The reason I say this is that the real issue, I feel, comes back to that which has been the biggest issue for ECs (and I would argue MPs are no different though you and I differ as to those relative issues), scalability abuse.

 

If someone has 90% of their powers in an EC, then, yes, Power Defense is not only crucial to them but very easy to become an abusable component and charging 3x is not so disturbing a proposition. But if someone has 20% of their powers in an EC, then charging 3x seems way excessive to me. In fact I'd be loathe to even consider more than 1x for that small a scale, even assuming I shared the concern on this specific.

 

So I think it would be better to either create some sort of inverse proportion (something more foreign to HERO than the 3x rule so anathema from the consistency perspective), "tier" this for some criteria (# of points or % of points indicates 1x, 2x, or 3x - or 1.5x, 2x, 3x if you prefer), reduce the Power Defense amount to 2x (not consistent with 3x but in my mind this simply won't be nearly so useful as in the automoton/DEF case), or - well blow up ECs entirely.

 

I am still of the camp that ECs fundamentally "work" though primarily WITHOUT the "drain one drain all" BLANKET ruling and WITHOUT the automatic 0 END exclusion, as both of these are rather arbitrary to much of how HERO works, not the least of which being the whole reasoning-from-effect and proceeding to these conclusions issue. So I do see value in reformulating, but I think that value is more in the effort of creating a more coherent framework law. No, not bringing it up to push "my agenda", just rather saying that your point made me feel moreso than before that a total revamp is more appropriate. And yes I still plan to get back to this. Just busy, plus taking it very seriously as I intend to implement what I come up with, as aforementioned, in my game.