EC balance fix

[Kristopher]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Based on my experiences with the game, I also think that the automatic exclusion of no-END powers, and the "drain blanket", make ECs 2nd-rate in comparison to the other frameworks.

 

My first Champions character would have been lost without his EC, an EC that would be almost entirely illegal under the FREd rules. All the other characters had either a Multipower or a VPP that was used to increadible advantage.

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Based on my experiences with the game, I also think that the automatic exclusion of no-END powers, and the "drain blanket", make ECs 2nd-rate in comparison to the other frameworks.

 

My first Champions character would have been lost without his EC, an EC that would be almost entirely illegal under the FREd rules. All the other characters had either a Multipower or a VPP that was used to increadible advantage.

Though don't you think a substantial portion of that harkens back to that era when we were all messing around with understanding the rule and there was a lot of rules rape in general (at least in my experience and what I heard) of frameworks, powers, etc.? There was a certain "wild west" looseness to the first couple editions of HERO (really Champions of course) as there were so many unresolved areas (e.g., Transform didn't exist until 2nd (or actually wasn't that the SUPPLEMENT to 2nd?), etc.), and I think it's hard to compare those experiences to the more mature system now.

[Kristopher]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Though don't you think a substantial portion of that harkens back to that era when we were all messing around with understanding the rule and there was a lot of rules rape in general (at least in my experience and what I heard) of frameworks' date=' powers, etc.? There was a certain "wild west" looseness to the first couple editions of HERO (really Champions of course) as there were so many unresolved areas (e.g., Transform didn't exist until 2nd (or actually wasn't that the SUPPLEMENT to 2nd?), etc.), and I think it's hard to compare those experiences to the more mature system now.[/quote']

 

Except that I wasn't introduced to HERO until 4th Edition, back in 94 or so.

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Except that I wasn't introduced to HERO until 4th Edition' date=' back in 94 or so.[/quote']

Well, now, that's a fair point.

So I take it your thought is "no, it does not".

[Southern Cross]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Personally,I'd just have used the following general rule for Power Frameworks :"Powers that are Always On may not be placed in Power Frameworks without GM's permission".

[Vorsch]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I object to the fact that a stat EC gives you no figs, as a general rule of EC.

 

Then its up to you if you take the no fig lim.

 

I had previously thought no fig was a condition of EC not a lim.

[Kristopher]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Well, now, that's a fair point.

So I take it your thought is "no, it does not".

 

I don't think that your counterpoint was entirely without merit, because I don't think the same GM would be quite as lenient with the MPs and VPPs now, as he was then.

 

I still think, however, that FREd's new restrictions have unbalanced the relationship between ECs and the other frameworks, and not in favor of the ECs. And as I noted earlier, I think that the common SFX with its resulting

predictability and its extra vulnerability to SFX-based Adjustment Powers is pretty much enough to balance the point savings.

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I don't think that your counterpoint was entirely without merit, because I don't think the same GM would be quite as lenient with the MPs and VPPs now, as he was then.

 

I still think, however, that FREd's new restrictions have unbalanced the relationship between ECs and the other frameworks, and not in favor of the ECs. And as I noted earlier, I think that the common SFX with its resulting

predictability and its extra vulnerability to SFX-based Adjustment Powers is pretty much enough to balance the point savings.

I can't figure out how much 5th's "new" restrictions (which per an earlier thread/investigation apparently arne't so new bu are in some caess more boldly mandated rather than suggested) are hobbling EC but I can tell you I find the est of them illogical compared to the rest of the game. I also find they simply "insist" on a lot of GM intervention to ensure characters are okay, compared to other constructs, and I think some sort of fundamental change would be good. But as it stands, I still think it's all playable. I think those GMs (unlike me) who are strict and use the 5th ed. rules "as is" do tend to balance it out otherwise in other ways ,from what I can see here online (either they run low-powered enough games it doesn't really matter or they seem to be rather tight and attentive in general). And I think GMs who are looser about it...are just fine for the most part.

 

But this is creating more cross-campaign headaches and concerns. I think a resolution is in order. And I have a feeling it will be more fundamental than what Gary's suggested but I also think it will be less fundamental than any of the "universal framework" sorts of notions I've toyed with.

[Vorsch]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Personally' date='I'd just have used the following general rule for Power Frameworks :"Powers that are Always On may not be placed in Power Frameworks without GM's permission". [/quote']

 

Why, there are plenty of persistant powers that fit if a EC.

 

genuinely curious about this?

[Southern Cross]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Actually Vorsch,that rule I just made up was for ALL Power Frameworks,not just EC's.By definition Multipowers & VPPs cannot have Powers with this Limitation,after all.

[David Blue]

Re: EC balance fix

 

One of the problems with the new way that Elemental Controls are supposedly defined is: who is this supposed to be a problem for, the player with the Elemental Control, or me the gamemaster?

 

I won't want Adjustment Powers to be important in my game. They are not central to the sub-genre I'm going for. I want them to be novety acts, not significant or regular events. And they're a pain to keep track of. That conflicts with my strong preference for simplicity and speed, and "clean," transparent character design, and simple, classic effects in play.

 

So what am I supposed to do now: stifle my preferences, break my genre focus, and make drains a big deal, to enforce Elemental Controls being redefined in a way that makes no sense to me? No.

 

This is why Gary's suggestion doesn't appeal to me. It assumes I have to head off the players' response to my wheeling out The Living Drain Regularly - even though I don't want to, merely because 5th Edition rules seem to put an obligation on me to do that.

 

Elemental Controls alway have been free points, with two limitations:

(1) Tight special effect, which don't matter much, but which is nice for colour coordination, and

(2) No powers that don't cost END by default, a rule published characters break, just like Hero system published characters are routinely bad models of character design in other ways.

 

The way I see it is: stick to the old rules, and things work out well enough. Mighty Man gets some cost breaks from his strength and constitution. He spends them on things you can't put in an Elemental Control, like Armour and Telescopic Vision. He's got his thing, he's happy.* Then Energy Projector Lass gets paid: she takes an Elemental Control, with the special effect "purple energy" talks a little bit with the gamemaster about aesthetics and what purple can and can't go with, and fills her Elemental Control with things other characters can't buy as cheaply. Then it's Martial Artist's turn to get paid with brilliant skills at bulk (mega-dexterity) rates, and so on. Everybody's happy, no harm done.

 

Above all, I'm happy, because I don't have to make up Fifth Edition Enforcement Man to come around and drain the characters all the time to enforce a limitation I didn't pick and don't want to dominate my game.

 

Also, I strongly agree with Pattern Ghost in Post #28: the aesthetics and special effects of doing this the 5th Edition way are terrible.

 

Tetsuji: "IMO, ECs began as simply a means of encouraging tight character designs. As such, it tends to promote characters more like the XMEN (where a character has one power used several different ways or maybe two closely related powers) as opposed to "collection of neat unrelated powers" like Martian Manhunter or even SuperMan."

 

Exactly. I will pay you bulk points to colour-coordinate your powers, like all Ice-Man blue-white, is what it comes down to, from my point of view. Nobody's getting points for plaids and paisleys, not from me. Take the style points and later start wearing non-functional belts, spikes, huge shoulder-pads and a codpiece, and you will be unhappy. I will make you unhappy.

 

If I preferred the Martian Manhunter style of character, I would bar Elemental Controls and just give free points for complying with that Manhunter style of character.

 

It's the same as saying: if you want to look like garbage fine, but if you want to avail yourselves of the advantages of an Edna "E" Mode super costume, there are standards.

 

Now, as a related issue: why did we need Elemental Controls in the first place? I think the real need was because of the brutal END costs that used to apply to being an Energy Projector running a Force Field, Flight and Energy Blasts that sucked I pip of END/d6.

 

4th Edition fixed that, so does this mean Energy Projectors don't need their Elemental Controls (as much) any more? I think that's exactly right. And if they were using powers that didn't use END in their Elemental Controls, they didn't need them in the first place.

 

*If he's not happy, because he also wants a point break on his ice slide, ice armour and so on, that's where we need to have a little talk.

[Dust Raven]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Interesting points David.

 

The funny thing about Elemental Controls is that for the longest time all it did was reward a character with a spiffy concept. Another way to look at this is that EC punished characters who didn't have a theme power and weren't all Silver Age happy. Most of the character's from the source material don't have a unifying SFX for their powers; they just have these powers. Sure, there was some justifications for some of it, like 'I'm an alien' or 'I was bitten by a wacked out bug', but the powers actually selected didn't act or look like they should work together. Those character were punished for not looking like Iceman, who only had one power, but could do a lot with it. A LOT of people complained and bitched about it. Many GMs absolutely banned EC in their games because thery weren't gonna reward concept A and punish concept B just because the rules like concept A.

 

5th Edition changed that. They pretty much stated that since concept A is getting all these extra free powers, we're gonna treat them as all one power and if one goes, they all go. Bam! A viable solution and matched the source material and inspiration of the EC. All is well. All is good.

 

Only now people are complaining and bitching about there being a limiting factor on EC. They don't like it. They prefer to hand out free points to some characters and punish others. I don't get it...

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

The "drain one drain all" hardly matches the source material or inspiration of EC in that it defies the SFX of the drain (or other Adjustment Power) itself. A "Drain HTH Strike" that's based on sapping musclepower in the striking area can well reduce Iceman's block-of-ice-hand (HTH strike in EC) since he can't wield it effectively but it hardly reduces his ramp-of-ice Gliding/Flight power.

 

PS - Dust Raven, my complaint remains that the limitations aren't sensible. I'm all for a limitations such as offsetting Disad costs or offsetting common weaknesses or other constructs. Many people are complaining about how artificial the current restraints are.

[Dust Raven]

Re: EC balance fix

 

The "drain one drain all" hardly matches the source material or inspiration of EC in that it defies the SFX of the drain (or other Adjustment Power) itself. A "Drain HTH Strike" that's based on sapping musclepower in the striking area can well reduce Iceman's block-of-ice-hand (HTH strike in EC) since he can't wield it effectively but it hardly reduces his ramp-of-ice Gliding/Flight power.

 

Neither would those SFX apply against any character withh a Focus. So you break by bat by reducing my muscle power?

 

PS - Dust Raven, my complaint remains that the limitations aren't sensible. I'm all for a limitations such as offsetting Disad costs or offsetting common weaknesses or other constructs. Many people are complaining about how artificial the current restraints are.

Depends on the point of view actually. I've noticed that the same people who complain about the limitations on EC are the same people who complain that Adjustment Powers are broken (a generalization, there are exceptions). I do wonder if it's all just a missunderstand of the rules or of how the rules work together.

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Neither would those SFX apply against any character withh a Focus. So you break by bat by reducing my muscle power?

 

I don't see how that's relevant to the issue itself - that's merely a separate issue.

 

Depends on the point of view actually. I've noticed that the same people who complain about the limitations on EC are the same people who complain that Adjustment Powers are broken (a generalization, there are exceptions). I do wonder if it's all just a missunderstand of the rules or of how the rules work together.

 

The EC and Adjustment Powers thing are necessarily conflated, I think. But throwing out Adjustment Powers, I think the 0 END prohibition is just as artificial and a poor limitation. It doesn't seem at all specific to source material.

 

As others here, I've run without either 0 END or artificial relationships to Adjustment Powers. One could choose to express their weakness by saying that stopping the SFX of any one power in their EC stops all and I'd accept that as a balancing weakness, but as a necessary rule it makes no intrinsic sense to me.

[David Blue]

Re: EC balance fix

 

The funny thing about Elemental Controls is that for the longest time all it did was reward a character with a spiffy concept. Another way to look at this is that EC punished characters who didn't have a theme power and weren't all Silver Age happy. Most of the character's from the source material don't have a unifying SFX for their powers; they just have these powers. Sure' date=' there was some justifications for some of it, like 'I'm an alien' or 'I was bitten by a wacked out bug', but the powers actually selected didn't act or look like they should work together.[/quote']Yup. They also (often) failed to cost END by default when they were most strongly linked in the comics. "Spider-sense", sensible or not, is as Spidey-ish as it gets, yet does not belong in an Elemental Control. Which is a reason to think there's something wrong with Elemental Controls.

 

Those character were punished for not looking like Iceman' date=' who only had one power, but could do a lot with it. A LOT of people complained and bitched about it. Many GMs absolutely banned EC in their games because thery weren't gonna reward concept A and punish concept B just because the rules like concept A.[/quote']This is all absolutely right and much to the point. And I wasn't kidding when I said if I was looking for Martian Manhunter and other classic characters like that, next time up, I'd ban Elemental Controls myself. I may very well do so in future. "Magic Lasso" and "Invisble plane" don't ... hmm. (pauses) You're convincing me of, and I'm convincing myself of, something I'd rather not be convinced of, because it's not convenient.

 

But on the other hand, it was and is irritating when the rules are kept, yet published characters and gamemasters make exceptions to the rules - because what's in question here is a pure, point-crunching non-flavour, un-subtle point bonus. Quite a big one too.

 

It's hard to see how the exceptions can not sometimes feel like favouritism. Cyborg X-Plus gets to put his armor and his force field and his damage reduction in his "Cyborg Body" Elemental Control because his character concept is good and deserves a bonus? (While my character gets no such break, which seems to imply ... POUT!)

 

Without any Elemental Control rules that were widely respected and consistently in force, qualifying for an Elemental Control, or not qualifying for it, could so easily have to do with whether you were a long-term gaming buddy of the gamemaster or a newbie. The way the gamemaster wants it must always prevail in any case, but rules that basically come down to "you're cool, get rewards, your character sucks, no biscuit for you" and are highly likely not to be applied as written are a potential exacerbating factor.

 

So there was a problem.

 

5th Edition changed that. They pretty much stated that since concept A is getting all these extra free powers' date=' we're gonna treat them as all one power and if one goes, they all go. Bam! A viable solution and matched the source material and inspiration of the EC. All is well. All is good. [/quote']I think that's exactly where we disagree: everything after Bam! (which is always correct) is in dispute.

 

If anything, I think I'm coming round to the view that the limitation on Elemental Controls has to be something like a Vulnerability or a Susceptibility that the player has to negotiate for, with factors like "what kinds of villains are there in this game?" being highly relevant.

 

(At least the Vulnerability rules are tweaked so you will sting from what you're supposed to be vulnerable to even if you use some of your free points to buy up a defence to it. Gary pointed out that there's a problem with the Elemental Control drain pseudo-Vulnerability, and he's offered us a solution to it. Bravo, Garry, but even so I think that's not as good or as neat as the rules on Vulnerability have been since - forever.)

 

As it is, it's like 5th Edition is saying what the weakness-triggering factor has to be, whether the player had that in mind and whether I want to it to be that common in my game or not. It's like if they'd said the weakness is always intense magnetic fields or the weakness is always magic, regardless of what the gamemaster wanted, and then said, by the way, here's a whole lot of intensely annoying rules on magic and magnetic fields.

 

Only now people are complaining and bitching about there being a limiting factor on EC. They don't like it. They prefer to hand out free points to some characters and punish others. I don't get it...

I don't mind there being "a limiting factor". What I mind is 5th Edition saying what it's going to be, in regard to a bonus that everybody wants, and worse yet selecting that limit as something I don't want around. I do not want the rules defining drains as important, when I don't want that stuff.

 

Dust Raven "They prefer to hand out free points to some characters and punish others." I prefer to make it as clear and consistent as I can, childishly clear, no-brainer clear, who gets rewards and why, and how anyone can equally qualify for rewards regardless of whether they gamed with me before. I think that's an improvement, that is, it's better than a complete mess.

[Vorsch]

Re: EC balance fix

 

The problem stems from the subjective nature of "tight sfx" for ec.

 

Cyborg boddy is a reason not a sfx for powers, as this would logicaly allow "superhuman" as a valid sfx.

 

If Hero publish a list of acceptable ECs with sample powers , as approved by steve (who makes alot of controversial rules decision as it is), then wed have a basis for judging wether a submission was good or not.

 

I for one think my Invulnerability EC is fine, it gives physical invulnerability but includes no EC legal powers. EC was explicitly stated by the original game designers as a cost break (reward) for good concept related powers.

 

RC AP

30 60 EC Invulnerability

45 75 Armour 20pd 20ed, hardened

30 60 75% Physical damage red

30 60 75% Energy damage red

 

a saving of 90 pts, of which some could be used for powerdef (handy sfx invulnerability).

 

If a player brought me this i would accept it, far less cheesy than alot of Book legal/published characters.

 

I mean to say when i see FF bought as sfx armour i cringe. ( of which ive had two submission recently both for power armour characters.)

 

Note i dont consider Power armour suitable for EC.

 

Marvel characters would more likely qualify than DC ones, as DC characters are a collection of unrelated "super" powers, thouch each power could qualify as a EC such as Superspeed/superstrength/invulnerability

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I've been pondering this topic, and the thoughts I've been having are that EC needs to be reworked in much the same way that the old Gadget Pool rules were reworked into the VPP rules. Steps are as follows...

#1) Rename it to something more neutral (Concept Pool? )

#2) Boost the Control cost to 1 RP per 1 active point

#3) remove most of the "illogical for all aplications" built in limits on the EC

#4) add a variety of metagame based Advantages and Limitations to the control cost to allow for simulation of different types of pools... thus the current EC would have something like:

(-1) One power source: Any Adjustment power effecting a power in pool also affects All other powers in pool and control

(-0) Any Stats in pool are required to take No Figured Stats at full limit value (default limit)

(Incedentally, the option for advantages and limits on the control allows for more use variations on the power without GM hand waves... Have a +1/2 Advantage: Persistant powers OK and suddenly GM permission is no longer needed. Or a +1/2: Stats in pool generate normal figured stats. Presto. Problem solved.)

I think that EC has had something like this coming to it for a long time, myself. It has always been a bit of a holdout from the "Good Old Days" and really is one of the last constructs that NEEDS to be dragged kicking and screaming into the toolkit age.

[Dust Raven]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I don't see how that's relevant to the issue itself - that's merely a separate issue.

It was your example . My point was that just because the SFX don't fit a particular Power dosn't mean some other Power or mechanic is broken. It all depends on how you look at it and what you're willing to let a player get away with.

 

 

 

The EC and Adjustment Powers thing are necessarily conflated, I think. But throwing out Adjustment Powers, I think the 0 END prohibition is just as artificial and a poor limitation. It doesn't seem at all specific to source material.

 

As others here, I've run without either 0 END or artificial relationships to Adjustment Powers. One could choose to express their weakness by saying that stopping the SFX of any one power in their EC stops all and I'd accept that as a balancing weakness, but as a necessary rule it makes no intrinsic sense to me.

Adjustment Powers are "necessarily" conflated, but not EC I think. It's rather simple, though misunderstood (by authors as well as players and GMs apparently).

 

I've run games with and without special consderation for EC and I've come to a happy conclusions as to how it works, and is "supposed" to work. It turns out that my conclusion seems to disagree with how Mr. Long and other Herogames authors see EC, but I don't mind much because I'm not actually gaming with any of them. What I do works for me, but I can't help thinking it would work for everybod else too.

 

(I'll get to what I'm getting to in my reply to David Blue)

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

It was your example . My point was that just because the SFX don't fit a particular Power dosn't mean some other Power or mechanic is broken. It all depends on how you look at it and what you're willing to let a player get away with.

 

To be clear, I'm saying the comparison was irrelevant, though your point itself is valid.

 

However, I think the issue is that Adjustment Powers, by their nature, won't really be so clear as to have their SFX warrant such a ruling on EC. It's a confusion that shouldn't be necessary.

 

Adjustment Powers are "necessarily" conflated, but not EC I think. It's rather simple, though misunderstood (by authors as well as players and GMs apparently).

 

I'm saying those two issues are necessarily conflated (I don't know what you mean by "Adjustment Powers are 'necessarily' conflated", they are one item on a list so that doesn't make sense, I think) because the rules for EC specifically include a rule related to Adjustment Powers. The two become inseparable and any issues with one influences the other.

 

I've run games with and without special consderation for EC and I've come to a happy conclusions as to how it works, and is "supposed" to work. It turns out that my conclusion seems to disagree with how Mr. Long and other Herogames authors see EC, but I don't mind much because I'm not actually gaming with any of them. What I do works for me, but I can't help thinking it would work for everybod else too.

 

(I'll get to what I'm getting to in my reply to David Blue)

 

I'll have to look back above re your conclusion.

 

I think there are many possible fixes for ECs that I could support. The idea of Disads traded in for them works, the idea of simply indicating they must have a counter at some level of toughness works. I think a good fix might be fudgier than the current (and prior) Adjustment Powers and 0 END rulings, but I see no fundamental issue there.

[Dust Raven]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Woah... long reply.

 

[digesting]

Yup. They also (often) failed to cost END by default when they were most strongly linked in the comics. "Spider-sense", sensible or not, is as Spidey-ish as it gets, yet does not belong in an Elemental Control. Which is a reason to think there's something wrong with Elemental Controls.

 

This is all absolutely right and much to the point. And I wasn't kidding when I said if I was looking for Martian Manhunter and other classic characters like that, next time up, I'd ban Elemental Controls myself. I may very well do so in future. "Magic Lasso" and "Invisble plane" don't ... hmm. (pauses) You're convincing me of, and I'm convincing myself of, something I'd rather not be convinced of, because it's not convenient.

 

But on the other hand, it was and is irritating when the rules are kept, yet published characters and gamemasters make exceptions to the rules - because what's in question here is a pure, point-crunching non-flavour, un-subtle point bonus. Quite a big one too.

 

It's hard to see how the exceptions can not sometimes feel like favouritism. Cyborg X-Plus gets to put his armor and his force field and his damage reduction in his "Cyborg Body" Elemental Control because his character concept is good and deserves a bonus? (While my character gets no such break, which seems to imply ... POUT!)

 

Without any Elemental Control rules that were widely respected and consistently in force, qualifying for an Elemental Control, or not qualifying for it, could so easily have to do with whether you were a long-term gaming buddy of the gamemaster or a newbie. The way the gamemaster wants it must always prevail in any case, but rules that basically come down to "you're cool, get rewards, your character sucks, no biscuit for you" and are highly likely not to be applied as written are a potential exacerbating factor.

 

So there was a problem.

Seems like we are eye to eye here.

 

I think that's exactly where we disagree: everything after Bam! (which is always correct) is in dispute.

 

I would say that yes, as most people are interpreting EC, it is FUBARed (damn, I haven't used that acronym since the 80s). There's a different way to look at it though, which I'll get to in a moment.

 

If anything, I think I'm coming round to the view that the limitation on Elemental Controls has to be something like a Vulnerability or a Susceptibility that the player has to negotiate for, with factors like "what kinds of villains are there in this game?" being highly relevant.

 

(At least the Vulnerability rules are tweaked so you will sting from what you're supposed to be vulnerable to even if you use some of your free points to buy up a defence to it. Gary pointed out that there's a problem with the Elemental Control drain pseudo-Vulnerability, and he's offered us a solution to it. Bravo, Garry, but even so I think that's not as good or as neat as the rules on Vulnerability have been since - forever.)

Looks kinda like that, but it's not even close to how Vulnerability works. Vuln inceases the effect roll of an attack, the limiting factor on EC simply applies that effect roll to addition Powers in addition to the targeting Power. A Susceptibility is closer, except that the amount of effect varies with the strength of the attack power.

 

As it is, it's like 5th Edition is saying what the weakness-triggering factor has to be, whether the player had that in mind and whether I want to it to be that common in my game or not. It's like if they'd said the weakness is always intense magnetic fields or the weakness is always magic, regardless of what the gamemaster wanted, and then said, by the way, here's a whole lot of intensely annoying rules on magic and magnetic fields.

 

I don't mind there being "a limiting factor". What I mind is 5th Edition saying what it's going to be, in regard to a bonus that everybody wants, and worse yet selecting that limit as something I don't want around. I do not want the rules defining drains as important, when I don't want that stuff.

To a point, I agree. There are nifty ways around this though. There are certain limiting factors on any number of Powers and Frameworks. All a GM has to do is say "instead of the normal rule for this particular instance, we will be using this alternate rules which I've judged to be of equivalent value." Nothing wrong with that, and there's already a lot of precidence for it in the published material (check the USPD and count the number of "exceptions").

 

Dust Raven "They prefer to hand out free points to some characters and punish others." I prefer to make it as clear and consistent as I can, childishly clear, no-brainer clear, who gets rewards and why, and how anyone can equally qualify for rewards regardless of whether they gamed with me before. I think that's an improvement, that is, it's better than a complete mess.

Well, if that's what you want to do, then that's what you do. But that's your game, which at this point has nothing to do with the rules governing character balance. You are specifically giving a bonus to some characters and not others. That's just a house rule. House rules don't mean the real rules are broken.

 

Here's how I see the whole EC thing. Fairly simple really. EC is a group of Powers with a "tight" SFX, and when one Power in the EC is negatively affected by an Adjustment Power, all Powers in the EC are. I won't get into any other "false" limitations having to do with END, which I agree are stupid and make no sense. I'll stand by the general "no Special Powers" rule though, but keep in mind it's followed by "without GM's expressed permission."

 

So, what is an EC? It's a single power. Not Power, but power. Little 'p'. More specifically, it's a single power that is so flexible, useful or well trained that it functions as more than one Power in game mechanics. But EC takes this a step further. Not only is it a single power represented by several Powers, the single power is so "tight", that all of the Powers, the game mechanics that define it, are to be treated as a single Power. So an EC turns many Powers into a single Power, to represent a single power.

 

I really hope this is making sense...

 

Why is this point of view so significant in thinking EC is just fine (without the END restriction crap)? Think of some constructs that actually are a single power that should be represented by a single Power, but the only way to do it is to build it with many Powers. There aren't many, but they exist. As a GM, this is how I quallify an EC in my campaigns. If what the player wants or what the character needs doesn't fit this description, the character doesn't get an EC. If it does, they do, and it doesn't matter what Powers are going into it (though I disallow most Special Powers... as in I haven't yet allowed one).

 

I just don't think many people see EC like this... it's still just a bunch of different powers with the same or similar SFX, like it was in previous editions.

I never take into account previous rules editions when evaluating a current set of rules though. In the end I might like something from a previous edition, but you can only fairly compare a rule to the other rules in the same edition of the rules, as things are likely to have changed across the board. EC is a glaring example. Something big changed and you can't compare it to what it was in previous editions. At least not unless you're gonna take all of the rules associated with it and compare those right along side it in both editions as well.

[Dust Raven]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I'm saying those two issues are necessarily conflated (I don't know what you mean by "Adjustment Powers are 'necessarily' conflated"' date=' they are one item on a list so that doesn't make sense, I think) because the rules for EC specifically include a rule related to Adjustment Powers. The two become inseparable and any issues with one influences the other.[/quote']

 

I think I was being confusing. Basically what I mean to say is that EC and Adjustment Powers are two different things, and are seperable. You can in fact run a game using one without the other (so long as the one you are using isn't EC). I suppose that you can talk about Adjustment Powers without getting involved with EC, but not the other way around, although the Adjustment Powers don't have anything to do with EC.

 

 

 

I'll have to look back above re your conclusion.

 

I think there are many possible fixes for ECs that I could support. The idea of Disads traded in for them works, the idea of simply indicating they must have a counter at some level of toughness works. I think a good fix might be fudgier than the current (and prior) Adjustment Powers and 0 END rulings, but I see no fundamental issue there.

 

From what I've found, most of the fixes I've made to the rules have come about through point of view. I might eventually find a point of view that allows me to remove all of my house rules, but I doubt it, but the fewer house rules I have the better. It's much easier to just to "oh, so that's how it works..." without actually changing anything in the rules (just what those rules mean).

[Vondy]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I don't like to tie my hands with carte blanche rulings. I consider each design in turn with a careful eye towards impact and balance. I don't crunch numbers on it, but I have an experienced eye ad a nose for cheese. In general, I agree that a character with an EC and power defense can be a problem, but I don't allow character's to take "power defense." I require power defense have a defined SFX which is approved before play, and I weigh the sfx of the power defense and the EC on the scales. In many cases, I don't consider it problematic - and I've never run into a problem in play.

[David Blue]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Dust Raven: "Woah... long reply."

 

Heh. I'll go for relative brevity this time. (Looking back - well, I tried.)

 

Dust Raven: "I would say that yes, as most people are interpreting EC, it is FUBARed (damn, I haven't used that acronym since the 80s). There's a different way to look at it though, which I'll get to in a moment."

 

In the meantime, will you agree that before 5th Edition came out there were no Elemental Control rules that were widely respected and consistently in force, and after 5th Edition came out there were still no Elemental Control rules that were widely respected and consistently in force?

 

Dust Raven: "Vuln inceases the effect roll of an attack, the limiting factor on EC simply applies that effect roll to addition Powers in addition to the targeting Power. A Susceptibility is closer, except that the amount of effect varies with the strength of the attack power."

 

Yup. (Assuming you meant "targeted Power" not "targeting power". Typos haunt us all.)

 

Dust Raven: "There are nifty ways around this though. There are certain limiting factors on any number of Powers and Frameworks. All a GM has to do is say "instead of the normal rule for this particular instance, we will be using this alternate rules which I've judged to be of equivalent value." Nothing wrong with that, and there's already a lot of precidence for it in the published material (check the USPD and count the number of "exceptions")."

 

I don't have USPD, but am thinking of getting it. You like it?

 

Dust Raven, re: my "colour" SFX approach: "Well, if that's what you want to do, then that's what you do. But that's your game, which at this point has nothing to do with the rules governing character balance. You are specifically giving a bonus to some characters and not others. That's just a house rule. House rules don't mean the real rules are broken."

 

It seems to me you suggested above that not to apply the rules as written but to create house rules or exceptions was a good approach. Obviously I agree.

 

I hope we also agree that just as house rules don't prove the real rules are broken, they also don't prove the real rules are not broken.

 

Dust Raven: "Here's how I see the whole EC thing. Fairly simple really. EC is a group of Powers with a "tight" SFX, and when one Power in the EC is negatively affected by an Adjustment Power, all Powers in the EC are." [snip] "So, what is an EC? It's a single power. Not Power, but power. Little 'p'. More specifically, it's a single power that is so flexible, useful or well trained that it functions as more than one Power in game mechanics. But EC takes this a step further. Not only is it a single power represented by several Powers, the single power is so "tight", that all of the Powers, the game mechanics that define it, are to be treated as a single Power. So an EC turns many Powers into a single Power, to represent a single power.

 

Dust Raven: "I really hope this is making sense..."

 

Maybe.

[David Blue]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Walk me through an example.

 

Here's an official Marvel power: Darkforce Manipulation. Darkstar (Lania Petrovna of the Soviet Super-Soldiers) has it, among others. It can produce force rams, or shields, or a bunch of different things, though any one character is likely to have just a few tricks (Powers) they use over and over, like fly, ranged energy bash, force wall.

 

I hope it's obvious from what I said before what I'd do with this: I'd rubber-stamp it. Dark-force Powers all using Dark Energy, Purple Powers all using Purple Energy - I'm easy. And I think out of ten guys all applying my approach, nine or ten of them would say: "Power up your Dark Force Manipulation, baby: it's all good."

 

It's not at all clear to me what you'll do with this power.

 

It's even less clear to me that ten different gamemasters trying to apply what I see as the FUBARed Elemental Control rules according to your suggested saving interpretation would all or almost all make the same call on this. I can't see the bright line. It looks like the rule, applied as you suggest, might in practice amount to: "if the gamemaster is in a giving mood that day, you get the Elemental Control bonus, and if not, not."

 

What would you do? Why would you do it? Where's the predicability coming from?

 

Dust Raven: "Think of some constructs that actually are a single power that should be represented by a single Power, but the only way to do it is to build it with many Powers. There aren't many, but they exist. As a GM, this is how I quallify an EC in my campaigns. If what the player wants or what the character needs doesn't fit this description, the character doesn't get an EC. If it does, they do, and it doesn't matter what Powers are going into it (though I disallow most Special Powers... as in I haven't yet allowed one)."

 

Show me what this means.