EC balance fix

[Bloodstone]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I've always looked at EC's as the Power Skill writen up as an actual power. You are using one power and here are some tricks you have figured out how to do with it reliably.

 

So I would probably give Darkstar a EC. But it would ultimatly depend on what the player had in that EC and what we agreed the "Darkforrce" should be able to do.

 

I would probably not give somone like the Mandarin a single "Ten Rings of Power" EC. Each ring is an entirly seperate power, with vastly different SFX. The only thing that ties them all together is the fact that they are all rings created by the Mandarin from Alien tech.

 

In actual play however, I would not be surprised if a player decided to focus on one ring and develop tricks with it, so that it eventually became an EC or MP. Take the Mento Intensifier Ring. In the comics, I believe all it does is Mind Control against a single target. I could easily see a player working towards expanding that mind control as well as developing powers like Mental Illusions, Telepathy and/or Mind Scan. At that point I could see giving the player a "Mento Intensifier Ring" EC.

[David Blue]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I've always looked at EC's as the Power Skill writen up as an actual power. You are using one power and here are some tricks you have figured out how to do with it reliably.

 

So I would probably give Darkstar a EC. But it would ultimatly depend on what the player had in that EC and what we agreed the "Darkforrce" should be able to do.

That sounds to me like a solid and well-considered "maybe, maybe not, depending."

 

That of course is what I expect: uncertainty.

 

Still, it's always reasonable to ask for details.

 

OK, I'll fill in the details. And I'll be as simple as can be.

 

The prospective player of Natasha Shaposhnikova, Darklight, intends to defend the Motherland with the following power built as an Elemental Control:

 

Cost Power

30 Dark Force Powers: Elemental Control, 60-point powers

30 1) Dark Force Blast: Energy Blast 12d6

30 2) Dark Force Pseudo-Tar Attack: Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF

30 3) Dark Force Flight: Flight 30"

Total Cost of Dark Force Powers: 120 Points

 

Legal? Or not legal? A true Elemental Control? Or not a true Elemental Control?

 

Three powers? One power built with three Powers? Three Essences in one Substance? And what about the filioque?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

 

(wink)

[incrdbil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I'm still in the camp that believes this is not a problem and doesn't need a fix. But to me, the easy fix would be a simple house rule that, in addition to EC's automatically being "drain one drain all", the character's power defense can never apply to anything draining his EC - an automatic -0 limitation.

 

 

I'm with you right up to the PD not applying to the EC. I'm ok with that--if I've decided to allow the character power defense at all. I'm admittedly stingy on power defense. It's hard to justify unless your main power base consists of drains, transfers, or some type of FX that says 'this power is given only to the chosen one'--and even then, I'll define that as PowerDef only vs transfer. How to do build up a resistance ott your powers being drained? and even if you have a teem 'leech', is that type of training useful against the different affect of a suppress power?

 

so I don't worry much in my campaigns--It's going to be the incredibly rare character with an EC and power defense, and even then, its goign to be such a minor amount--10 points sounds nice, but when a 5 to 6d6 drain hits (or a 10 d6 suppress), that EC and all its powers are still going to be weakened somewhat.

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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).

Looking back, I think your definition of EC is basically fine. I wouldn't have a problem with that, either, as a standard rule for it. I think it is also a better rule than what we have now, and while it would leave open some room for fudge in applying Adjustment SFX it's still much clearer as to rationale than the current system.

 

BTW, I didn't know that Steve Long disagreed that EC was essentially one power.

[Bloodstone]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I would have to talk to the prospective player a bit and ask a my usual barage of questions, but something like that would most likley get approved with little to no alteration.

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Just thinking further along the "truly one power" lines...one interesting side note is that in theory you'd expect them to share some sort of basic Advs/Lims and where not they'd need a Variable SFX or Variable Effect or whatever to pay for the increased flexibility for a slot. Not sure how/if you'd codify that, though. Maybe just a basic instruction that slots should share similar/the same Advs/Lims in general and any exceptions are with GM permission. As simple as that, perhaps.

 

BTW, one thing that really bugs me about ECs is the basic construction in that you can't get any price break for adding powers smaller than the reserve. I think there should be some way to deal with this as well.

[Gary]

Re: EC balance fix

 

BTW, one thing that really bugs me about ECs is the basic construction in that you can't get any price break for adding powers smaller than the reserve. I think there should be some way to deal with this as well.

 

 

Easy. Just replace the EC with a -1/4 'drain one drain all' Limitation on all powers in the 'framework'. Now you can combine 5 pt powers with 60 pt powers and still have benefits.

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Easy. Just replace the EC with a -1/4 'drain one drain all' Limitation on all powers in the 'framework'. Now you can combine 5 pt powers with 60 pt powers and still have benefits.

Sure, so long as the cost differential is one people are willing to take (re the price drop with EC).

 

Maybe an interesting way to do EC would be the -1/4 Lim you indicate plus a rule to allow you to offset an ADDITIONAL (to the -1/4) control cost among EC powers for any offsetting Disads relevant to all EC powers, as suggested above. Putting these 2 together might be a very good way to revise ECs.

[Mentor]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I guess I am both purust and heretic about many things EC. I always saw it as the counter balance to the old number crunching gamer (me included) trick of buying lots of STR and CON to make everyone looking for pure combat efficiency a Brick, if everything is bought raw. While it is possible to cheese the construct up badly, that is true with any aspect of the system.

 

Thus the EC is the balancer. The issues of SFX, character concept, and campaign limits come in to play yet again in determinig whether someone can or should be buying tons of Power Defense or any exotic defense for that matter. Thus the energy based PC, Mentalist, or Versatility Guy can play in the same league as the unadulterated Brick, who still holds his own in most campaigns.

 

On the other hand, I do take the writers of the rules at thier word. When a construct calls for GM discretion, as GM I consider my discretion to be sufficient justification to allow changes. I feel no guilt or pause at all about allowing some non END powers in the Elemental Control. Likewise, when a construct is unbalanced and completely book legal, I am willing and able to say no. I trust and expect the players in our campaign to adhere to the "spirit of the law" as to how our campaign works.

[Vondy]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Easy. Just replace the EC with a -1/4 'drain one drain all' Limitation on all powers in the 'framework'. Now you can combine 5 pt powers with 60 pt powers and still have benefits.

 

I usually allow a -1/2 for the lim, since an EC amounts a -1 lim for the individual slots, less the EC itself, but its a variable GM call when all is said and done. In fact, this construct has pretty much replaced ECs in my game (partly because my players know what I think about EC's in general).

[Dust Raven]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Walk me through an example.

...

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

...

Show me what this means.

 

In short, I would probably allow the example, but I should elaborate.

 

Take the well known example of Witchcraft and her Helpful Witcheries:

 

15	Helpful Witcheries: Elemental Control, 30-point powers
15	1) Shield Of Sorcery: FF (10 PD/10 ED), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2)	0
15	2) Wings Of The Wind: Flight 15"	3

 

As written, I would not allow it. It's two seperate spells. Sure, they are both magic, but they are two different magical effects, both mechanically and by SFX. It wouldn't fly. But if you make a few changes...

 

15	Fairhand's Floating Field: Elemental Control, 30-point powers
15	1) Field: FF (10 PD/10 ED), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2)	0
15	2) Floating: Flight 15"	3

 

This I would allow. What's different? Just the names as far as what's printed on the sheet, but the names indicate something that the mechanics cannot. This is a single spell, a single power. It does two things, and those two things don't necessarily have to happen at the same time (Linked is inappropriate). You could easily have the Field up and "float" with your feet firmly on the ground, and you could easily float while only having the field beneath your feet (but with 0 END on the field, why would you?).

[Dust Raven]

Re: EC balance fix

 

BTW, I didn't know that Steve Long disagreed that EC was essentially one power.

 

It's really an assumption of mine, but it seems rather apparent from some of his replies to questions related to EC and how it's presented in his rules.

[Sean Waters]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Hmn.

 

Elemental controls? All frameworks are a necessary evil, but EC is the least necessary.

 

People like them becasue they get more points to play with. Fair enough, but it is all a matter of balance. The idea of removing the restrictions imposed by the rules is daft though. You want points because you're so great that you've come up with a brilliant character concept? Oh my aching ribs.

 

The trade-off of an EC is the easy drain.

 

There's nothing to stop you buying as much power defence as you like to overcome this. Well, nothing but the GM, who will, if they have any sense.

 

Like many things in Hero, it isn't a problem with the rules, it's a problem with the way they are used.

 

Boy I'm in a good mood today, ain't I?

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I usually allow a -1/2 for the lim' date=' since an EC amounts a -1 lim for the individual slots, less the EC itself, but its a variable GM call when all is said and done. In fact, this construct has pretty much replaced ECs in my game (partly because my players know what I think about EC's in general).[/quote']

Some time back during one of these EC discussions I think it amounted to, on a non-scientific average, around an 80%-90% of original value cost break (obviously, this depends entirely on the character in question, but IIRC this was derived from various reasonable, common builds), so -1/2 certainly seems reasonable. I think many HERO gamers would be more accepting of this than a -1/4 value, plus I think many might accept trading in the vagaries and questions for how it stands now with a more specific and clear rule such as this.

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Hmn.

 

Elemental controls? All frameworks are a necessary evil, but EC is the least necessary.

 

People like them becasue they get more points to play with. Fair enough, but it is all a matter of balance. The idea of removing the restrictions imposed by the rules is daft though. You want points because you're so great that you've come up with a brilliant character concept? Oh my aching ribs.

 

The trade-off of an EC is the easy drain.

 

There's nothing to stop you buying as much power defence as you like to overcome this. Well, nothing but the GM, who will, if they have any sense.

 

Like many things in Hero, it isn't a problem with the rules, it's a problem with the way they are used.

 

Boy I'm in a good mood today, ain't I?

I really believe ECs are a wonderful evil. They represent a way to build some constructs encouraged by the source material but expensive otherwise.

 

Let me tell you about an evil, abusive EC I allowed. We have a character who wants to be a robot. With his concept and with the points allowed for characters, I had two choices: give him more points than anyone else, or fudge the EC. I chose to fudge the EC. Because it was there! It allowed his well-conceived, specific concept to function. The concept has many implied deficiencies, not all written out in Disads nor even possible to really say they are "cost-effective", but definitely there in SFX.

 

It works great. It is an EC most GMs, from the sounds of the boards, would not let happen - includes characteristics and 0 END powers, oh my! But it is a useful way to "game" the system yet allow for a character who by all rights should fit.

 

I think more GMs will be willing to abuse a construct than to go "points-less" or seem to favor a player with more points. But I ALSO think that "abuse' is really a misnomor; a very well-conceived EC should have apparent drawbacks, as with any tight SFX. Why? Because "any idiot" can see what they can do to a robot - big old magnets, steel cutters, and so on all become useful against the robot, and other things are not. Other EC concepts should wield a similar predictability.

 

To me that's what ECs make a lot of sense for and should be better stated in the rules and possibly even codified - they outright suggest courses of actions to others! If they do not, then they should not qualify as an EC.

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I guess I am both purust and heretic about many things EC. I always saw it as the counter balance to the old number crunching gamer (me included) trick of buying lots of STR and CON to make everyone looking for pure combat efficiency a Brick, if everything is bought raw. While it is possible to cheese the construct up badly, that is true with any aspect of the system.

 

Thus the EC is the balancer. The issues of SFX, character concept, and campaign limits come in to play yet again in determinig whether someone can or should be buying tons of Power Defense or any exotic defense for that matter. Thus the energy based PC, Mentalist, or Versatility Guy can play in the same league as the unadulterated Brick, who still holds his own in most campaigns.

 

On the other hand, I do take the writers of the rules at thier word. When a construct calls for GM discretion, as GM I consider my discretion to be sufficient justification to allow changes. I feel no guilt or pause at all about allowing some non END powers in the Elemental Control. Likewise, when a construct is unbalanced and completely book legal, I am willing and able to say no. I trust and expect the players in our campaign to adhere to the "spirit of the law" as to how our campaign works.

My problem is that I want it all. From a real-world perspective, I'm fine with and employ an approach such as yours. And I think that HERO does necessarily demand a little more GM involvement in character design than other systems, and this is just part of that.

 

But I want the system to be more rational in a way that is less arbitrary than the current (and not just 5th, they've been this way for some time) way in which they handle ECs - the simple "no 0 END" and "drain one/drain all" fiats are in and of themselves aberrant from other rules in the system, on the whole, and I just don't think they are necessary.

[Kristopher]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I've never considered the "drains-1-drains-all" rule as anything but an unneeded kludge.

[David Blue]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Just thinking further along the "truly one power" lines...one interesting side note is that in theory you'd expect them to share some sort of basic Advs/Lims and where not they'd need a Variable SFX or Variable Effect or whatever to pay for the increased flexibility for a slot.

Well, let's try this example, which is the same as my previous example:

 

Ice Girl wants the following power, built as an Elemental Control:

 

Cost Power

30 Ice Powers: Elemental Control, 60-point Powers

30 1) Ice Blast: Energy Blast 12d6

30 2) Ice Block: Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF

30 3) Ice Slides: Running +30"

Total Cost: 120 points.

 

Ice Girl, like Darklight, is built line for line from page 72 of Sidekick: this is the example where it shows you how to do an ideal, textbook legal plain vanilla Elemental Control. (All I did different for Darklight was swap in Flight for Running, since I didn't think running extra fast on black, sticky pseudo-tar would look good.)

 

I like this example, because as I noted before, it conforms perfectly to a "real" Marvel universe power. That's simulation!

 

Yet they (the Powers) are not sharing any advantages or limitations at all, as zornwil would expect them to.

 

Is refusing to play the Hero System munchkin game of accumulating advantages and -1/4 limitations inconsistent with Elemental Controls? (Or is it just so strange to think about a character built on four-coloured rather than Hero System concepts that one readily forgets ... ? (laughing) Hmm?)

 

Dust Raven: "In short, I would probably allow the example ..."

 

Bloodstone: "I would have to talk to the prospective player a bit and ask a my usual barage of questions, but something like that would most likley get approved with little to no alteration."

 

Is this how it's supposed to be for the simplest, most in-genre, most book-legal thing you could possibly write down regarding an Elemental Control?

 

Why is it so easy to get special treatment for nasty, complicated "grey zone" concepts (and sympathy for 0 END powers in the Elemental Control, small powers in the Elemental Control and so on), why is it readily acceptable that Elemental Controls are limited only by Adjustment attacks that nobody (or hardly anybody) may be using, and yet the simplest, most good-guy thing you can do gets a firm "probably"?

 

Truly, Hero System makes the straightforward hero pass his ideas through the eye of a needle, while it swallows the villain's Death Star whole.

 

These complicated fixes and re-interpretations intended to make an over-ripe rules system smell sweet tend to make things worse, not better.

 

The fancier you get, the tougher it is on character concepts that aren't supposed to be fancy.

 

However, I admit I did love the example of Fairhand's Floating Field. That was helpful.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: EC balance fix

 

I've never considered the "drains-1-drains-all" rule as anything but an unneeded kludge.

 

Ditto.

 

Seems pointless, harsh, and cruel.

 

In my games I just don't touch it.

 

That said I generally don't use or allow many adjustment powers, because of my understanding of the recovery record keeping. Which is a bear, but I think the way the rules read. So I just avoid the whole issue and keep adjustments: Rarer than a Virgin in Bangkok Whorehouse.

 

Hawksmoor

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Well, let's try this example, which is the same as my previous example:

 

Ice Girl wants the following power, built as an Elemental Control:

 

Cost Power

30 Ice Powers: Elemental Control, 60-point Powers

30 1) Ice Blast: Energy Blast 12d6

30 2) Ice Block: Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF

30 3) Ice Slides: Running +30"

Total Cost: 120 points.

 

Ice Girl, like Darklight, is built line for line from page 72 of Sidekick: this is the example where it shows you how to do an ideal, textbook legal plain vanilla Elemental Control. (All I did different for Darklight was swap in Flight for Running, since I didn't think running extra fast on black, sticky pseudo-tar would look good.)

 

I like this example, because as I noted before, it conforms perfectly to a "real" Marvel universe power. That's simulation!

 

Yet they (the Powers) are not sharing any advantages or limitations at all, as zornwil would expect them to.

 

To be fair, though, they don't have any advs/lims, so they fit my "proposed rule" (which, please note, is more of a musing about rules than anything else) in that they share the same level of non-tweaked powers.

 

Is refusing to play the Hero System munchkin game of accumulating advantages and -1/4 limitations inconsistent with Elemental Controls? (Or is it just so strange to think about a character built on four-coloured rather than Hero System concepts that one readily forgets ... ? (laughing) Hmm?)

 

Actually, this response raises a question we're not properly tackling - is this a genre issue? If it is, it should not be in core rules. If it is not, then what are the other source material instances we are emulating?

 

I think EC is a good sort of idea in general. I think it can be used for many purposes. I don't doubt that we will never reach a "holy grail" of EC with a solid, coherent, specific set of rules that most people fully agree to and follow carefullly. The very concept (SFX-based) is a bit nebulous for HERO to handle, actually, and requires GM adjudication, much as Adjustment Powers, which share the whole issue of being very wedded to SFX, share.

 

Dust Raven: "In short, I would probably allow the example ..."

 

Bloodstone: "I would have to talk to the prospective player a bit and ask a my usual barage of questions, but something like that would most likley get approved with little to no alteration."

 

Is this how it's supposed to be for the simplest, most in-genre, most book-legal thing you could possibly write down regarding an Elemental Control?

 

Well...kinda...

 

I mean, the biggest failure in ANY construct is where the GM and Player do not share an understanding. ECs essentially FORCE them to do so, as the concept itself has a fudginess (tight SFX) which begs a question. A good GM may ask a few questions on the example you've given, simply because there shouldn't be too much grey about how these will function if (for example) a Drain hits only one power among the set.

 

Why is it so easy to get special treatment for nasty, complicated "grey zone" concepts (and sympathy for 0 END powers in the Elemental Control, small powers in the Elemental Control and so on), why is it readily acceptable that Elemental Controls are limited only by Adjustment attacks that nobody (or hardly anybody) may be using, and yet the simplest, most good-guy thing you can do gets a firm "probably"?

 

You certainly raise a good point here. But I wonder how much more ECs *really* get challenged off the boards as opposed to our yakkity-tak here...

 

Truly, Hero System makes the straightforward hero pass his ideas through the eye of a needle, while it swallows the villain's Death Star whole.

 

This doesn't strike me as fair. Villains are plot devices in some significant part and aren't subject to scrutiny because the GM can control them at will, including toning down if the power is too great. Heroes are harder - they are played by other people, and for cooperative storytelling to work, some level of shared concept is essential.

 

These complicated fixes and re-interpretations intended to make an over-ripe rules system smell sweet tend to make things worse, not better.

 

The fancier you get, the tougher it is on character concepts that aren't supposed to be fancy.

 

To your second sentence of this snippet, I do agree. That's why I support a simple (even if fudgey) set of EC (or any other) rules that make sense, that's all. I still think the original EC rules weren't so bad, they were just easy to abuse when adding more powers and with certain stacks.

 

It's a hard line to draw. I suggest the rules should generally be more conservative and tip off the players as to how to liberalize, rather than the other way around, merely because this is presumably more manageable for those less versed in the system. But I don't think we should be so conservative we try to address every situation.

 

However, I admit I did love the example of Fairhand's Floating Field. That was helpful.

 

Agreed.

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Ditto.

 

Seems pointless, harsh, and cruel.

 

In my games I just don't touch it.

 

That said I generally don't use or allow many adjustment powers, because of my understanding of the recovery record keeping. Which is a bear, but I think the way the rules read. So I just avoid the whole issue and keep adjustments: Rarer than a Virgin in Bangkok Whorehouse.

 

Hawksmoor

I think the 0 END ban is worse.

 

What bugs me about drain one/drain all is that I don't think there's an "SFX permitting" caveat for it as there should be - perhaps I'm wrong, though.

[David Blue]

Re: EC balance fix

 

To be fair' date=' though, they don't have any advs/lims, so they fit my "proposed rule" (which, please note, is more of a musing about rules than anything else) in that they share the same level of non-tweaked powers.[/quote']To be fair, you're right.

 

Actually' date=' this response raises a question we're not properly tackling - is this a genre issue? If it is, it should not be in core rules. If it is not, then what are the other source material instances we are emulating?[/quote']Good point!

 

I'm not familiar with the latest incarnation of Fantasy Hero. How are elementals and elemental magics typically built now?

 

I think EC is a good sort of idea in general. I think it can be used for many purposes. I don't doubt that we will never reach a "holy grail" of EC with a solid' date=' coherent, specific set of rules that most people fully agree to and follow carefullly. The very concept (SFX-based) is a bit nebulous for HERO to handle, actually, and requires GM adjudication, much as Adjustment Powers, which share the whole issue of being very wedded to SFX, share.[/quote']OK.

 

This doesn't strike me as fair. Villains are plot devices in some significant part and aren't subject to scrutiny because the GM can control them at will' date=' including toning down if the power is too great. Heroes are harder - they are played by other people, and for cooperative storytelling to work, some level of shared concept is essential.[/quote']With great respect, I think I'll stick to my guns here.

 

Hero system seems to function like a suspicious mommy when you want to do something that's a basic, heroic "bit". Wanna be BIG? The improved 5th Edition rules breathe an atmosphere of suspicion that the player not get away with something. Wanna do the Miracleman/Kid Miracleman mach-several power dive slamming into hard ground and bounce up fighting? How well do the rules support that? And so on - I could multiply examples. Yet do something truly nasty, and the design glances blearily over its newspaper at the breakfast table, says "good" and goes back to reading 600 pages of rules.

 

This does seem to apply to Elemental Controls. And how could it not? It's pervasive. Do everything "right" - at a considerable cost in efficiency - and you get "probably". Go another way - cool! Radical! Interesting! Want to tangle Elemental Controls with Adjustment? (And my feelings on that are the same as Hawksmmore's - his post had me rolling on the floor laughing at how he expressed it too.) That's supposed to be mandatory in the core rules now.

 

In the Star Wars universe, the Dark Side is not superior, just faster. In the Hero System genre, which overlays and mingles with other genres, Yoda would be wrong, or he'd have to change his story. There is a wind that blows constantly to the Dark Side - and that applies to player characters, not just non-player characters. Again and again, gamemasters see player characters discovering that Killing Attacks are OK after all - because they want to be effective, and that's the way the system works. (Which would be terrific if I wanted to play Dark Champions.) Character concepts that should be basic get funky, because the game system pushes and lures them that way, all the time.

 

Sure, the gamemaster can outpower and defeat the tendency of the game. But I'd rather the game system worked for me, or at least not against me unless I deliberately put effort into stifling it.

 

In other words: "No, Bob, not good!"

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

To be fair, you're right.

 

Good point!

 

I'm not familiar with the latest incarnation of Fantasy Hero. How are elementals and elemental magics typically built now?

 

Not sure, I did read it, but it was large and it was a while ago. I don't recall much discussion on ECs. And my FH book is at home while I am on a plane to Germany. I hope someone else can check and elaborate.

 

OK.

 

With great respect, I think I'll stick to my guns here.

 

Hero system seems to function like a suspicious mommy when you want to do something that's a basic, heroic "bit". Wanna be BIG? The improved 5th Edition rules breathe an atmosphere of suspicion that the player not get away with something. Wanna do the Miracleman/Kid Miracleman mach-several power dive slamming into hard ground and bounce up fighting? How well do the rules support that? And so on - I could multiply examples. Yet do something truly nasty, and the design glances blearily over its newspaper at the breakfast table, says "good" and goes back to reading 600 pages of rules.

 

This does seem to apply to Elemental Controls. And how could it not? It's pervasive. Do everything "right" - at a considerable cost in efficiency - and you get "probably". Go another way - cool! Radical! Interesting! Want to tangle Elemental Controls with Adjustment? (And my feelings on that are the same as Hawksmmore's - his post had me rolling on the floor laughing at how he expressed it too.) That's supposed to be mandatory in the core rules now.

 

In the Star Wars universe, the Dark Side is not superior, just faster. In the Hero System genre, which overlays and mingles with other genres, Yoda would be wrong, or he'd have to change his story. There is a wind that blows constantly to the Dark Side - and that applies to player characters, not just non-player characters. Again and again, gamemasters see player characters discovering that Killing Attacks are OK after all - because they want to be effective, and that's the way the system works. (Which would be terrific if I wanted to play Dark Champions.) Character concepts that should be basic get funky, because the game system pushes and lures them that way, all the time.

 

Sure, the gamemaster can outpower and defeat the tendency of the game. But I'd rather the game system worked for me, or at least not against me unless I deliberately put effort into stifling it.

 

In other words: "No, Bob, not good!"

 

I dunno. Some age-old simple constructs such as MP persevere with no substantive criticism or challenging. I don't think KAs have been made any more or less effective, in general. And it's not as if the 5th edition rules changed EC much if at all; I'd have to go back and review, but as I recall 4th edition had the same general prohibitions (it counsels against 0 END, I would have to check again re drain one/drain all).

 

I'm not dismissing your thoughts/concerns. It's a worthwhile thought, not without merit, but I'm not sure how real this issue is.

 

Away from the boards and our dubious speculations, how have you seen this concern play out in games?

[Phil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

player submits character to GM, GM asks why do you have superhuman stats? player responds "because i have a superhuman physique " GM nods and approves character.

 

Later player is hit by 6d6 str drain, GM informs him "because all your Stats are based of the same sfx all your stats are affected even though the drain didnt have the +2 adv"

 

Players reply is unprintable

Quite right, because Player didnt get a major cost break for the single SFX. I remember doing a pretty detailed analysis of the three different power frameworks for the old HERO email list a couple of years back, and my conclusion from that was that ECs are mathematically broken. Wish I still had that somewhere! Of course, this is no substitute for game play experience, and that's fine. For me, the benefit of a fairly standard EC with 4 50pt powers saving 75 pts for 4 powers that can all be active at the same time (unlike most VPPs and multipowers, unless you have a 200 point pool!) is just too great, and even the 5th edition draw-back of Drains / Adjustment powers doesnt balance this out.

 

Although I agree with one of the posts above - if there's one thing worse than by-the-rules ECs, it's some of the dodgy uses of ECs among 'official' characters!

[zornwil]

Re: EC balance fix

 

Ah, the rules say no-no, but the examples say yes-yes...

 

And I think neither is wrong. I just wish that there was a better indication in character examples explicitly as to where/why things are done in certain ways seemingly antithetical to the rules. I think THAT is where explanations become more valuable, certainly as compared to what are basically "what-ifs" embodied in the rules now.

 

I think that if a detailed analysis shows a mathematical problem, that is useful info, but we should be careful not to declare something "broken" so much as simply a warning sign or stop sign issue, depending, of course.