How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Second' date=' as to what the rules "should" be, I fully understand that from an orthodox perspective a blanket +1/2 granting this "always on" in effect power is a departure in that it includes those other continuous sorts of effects. But, boy, Treb, in light of other such considerations (such as when you couple NND and Autofire and such), we are going to get in SUCH a mess if we start creating all these qualifiers for interlocking advantages (and presumably at some point then limitations). I think it is a slippery slope to a complexity that is unjustified even if it is primarily only an issue for serious PC creation (though I argue it complicates in general even for those who care to write out NPCs "accurately").[/quote']Well, I'll admit that special case costing for various Advantages is a can of worms probably best left unopened. On the other hand, there are already quite a few Advantages that can only be taken if another one is taken first. (Such as Persistent requiring the purchase of 0 END Cost first.) So to an extent it's already a mess. But a fresh discussion of the general topic would certainly be of interest.

 

And look on the bright side: Programming these kinds of interlocking special cases for Advantages into Hero Designer v2 should provide years of gainful employment for Ben Seeman.

[Trebuchet]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I would agree now that I have looked it over: Damage Sheild as a +1 advantage that makes an instant power constant and allows an undodgable retaliatory hit.

I knew I'd pummel you into submission eventually.

[zornwil]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Well, I'll admit that special case costing for various Advantages is a can of worms probably best left unopened. On the other hand, there are already quite a few Advantages that can only be taken if another one is taken first. (Such as Persistent requiring the purchase of 0 END Cost first.) So to an extent it's already a mess. But a fresh discussion of the general topic would certainly be of interest.

 

And look on the bright side: Programming these kinds of interlocking special cases for Advantages into Hero Designer v2 should provide years of gainful employment for Ben Seeman.

Isn't that Dan Simon? Not that it matters which person, other than being nit-picky?

[DrFurious]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

Perhaps there is a thread to Continuous we ought to think about? Perhaps in general these "only if" modifiers need to be rethought out with either:

- more usable "general" modifiers for "Decreased" or "Increased" effectiveness and then list these types of combos as "examples"; this is fudgy but better for consistency in my mind and puts the ball in the court of GMs reasonably enough while still having a "rule" to assist

- or perhaps more elegantly, should we just not admit that we should rethink the stacking effect of advs and lims, and perhaps the value always should be decreased marginally for each successive adv or lim after the first??? This is more complex, yes, but at least VERY consistent and I bet fixes most issues with stackers for most situations.

 

There was a thread on the old boards that advocated breaking up continous into two +1/2 advantages. The idea struck me as a good one although I haven't used it in any of my games.

 

edit: Rather than continue cluttering up this thread with a DS discussion, I've created a new thread here:

http://herogame.dans.cust.servlets.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17313

 

From http://www.herogames.com/oldForum/HeroSystemDiscussion/000499.html

I agree that the logic of making a damage shield continuous seems to be solid at first glance. However, further study and interpretation reveal that this is not necessarily the case.

 

In the first place, I think Continuous is too broad in scope and too expensive. I feel that it should be broken down into 2 separate advantages to cover the 2 very different effects that it has:

 

1. Continuous makes an instant power into a Constant Power. Consequently, any power with this advantage is in effect for the entire duration that Endurance is spent for it.

 

2. Continuous also allows attack powers to affect a target multiple times after a single successful attack roll.

 

These two advantages are separate and need not be tied together under one advantage whose value is relatively high (+1). I feel that it should be split into 2 separate Advantages, each worth +½.

 

Example:

New Advantages: Constant and Continuous

1. Constant: this +½ power Advantage changes any Instant power into a Constant power. When in use, the power stays in effect on the segments between the character's active phases. As with any other Constant Power, if the user is ever stunned, knocked unconscious, or loses LOS, the power stops functioning.

 

In the case of Mental Powers, this advantage automatically prevents the deterioration over time of a continuing-effect mental power, such as Mental Illusion, Mind Control, or Telepathy.

 

By itself, this advantage is not very useful, since it does not allow an attack power to affect a target multiple times after a single attack roll, regardless of the amount of Endurance used to maintain the power. However, when used in conjunction with other advantages, it's utility becomes more apparent:

 

A. All attack powers with the Damage Shield advantage must also take the Constant advantage, to simulate the fact that the shield is up the entire time that END is paid for it. Ranged attack powers which take Constant and Damage Shield must also take "No Range" as a limitation.

 

B. Any Instant Power with the Area Effect advantage which also takes the Constant advantage will immediately affect someone who enters the area, but will affect them only ONE time. Remaining in the area will not cause the target in the area to acrue additional effects. To affect a target multiple times with only one attack roll, buy Continuous (see below).

 

Note: This advantage allows some interesting effects that may have been difficult or cludgy to model with the old version of Continuous, such as a Spotlight that temporarily blinds someone until their eyes adjust (Flash: Area effect - Hex, Constant), or a Dispel Magic in a hallway that only affects someone when they first enter the hall (Dispel vs All Magic, AE-Line, Constant).

 

2. Continuous: This +½ Advantage can only be purchased for powers which have also been bought with the Constant advantage described above. Powers purchased with the Continuous advantage will continue to affect their targets as long as the user continues to pay the Endurance cost. In the case of a Damage Shield with this advantage, the power will continue to affect the character even after he is no longer in contact with the Damage Shield. Someone who leaves an Area of Effect with Continuous will still be affected by the power even after they leave the area. Powers with this advantage must have a reasonable common and obvious method of "turning off" the Continuous power, to prevent system imbalance and abuse.

 

I think that using this breakdown (or something similar to it), would help tremendously with the problems people seem to have with the new Damage Shield, as well as presenting the ability to create some interesting new effects.

 

The cost effectiveness makes sense, too. It allows people to create Damage Shields that still have a significant effect, while not forcing them to pay exorbitant amounts for them. Under the new rule, someone could buy the following example powers:

 

Fire Shield: 6d6 EB, Constant (+½), Damage Shield (+½), No Range (-½). Active Cost = 60, Real Cost = 40.

Strength Leech: 2d6 Transfer STR to STR, Constant (+½), Damage Shield (+½). Active Cost = 60, Real Cost = 60.

Aura of Exhaustion: 3d6 Drain vs. END, Constant (+½), Damage Shield (+½). Active Cost = 60, Real Cost = 60.

 

Under the current system, all 3 of these examples would be 75 Active points rather than 60. Under the old system, they would have only been 45, which I feel was too low. I think this way is logical, yet doesn't unbalance the system unfairly against Damage Shields.

 

Does anyone else think this would be viable. Are there any obvious flaws in this that I might have missed?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

 

I think it is a slippery slope to a complexity that is unjustified even if it is primarily only an issue for serious PC creation (though I argue it complicates in general even for those who care to write out NPCs "accurately").

 

EDIT/PS - admittedly, this is just food for thought, not well-thought solutions, but do people share my philosophical rules concern here?

 

I think this is one reason Damage Shield was simply a separate advantage in prior editions. 5e seems to have taken a few constructs and opted for using other mechanics rather than simply "its own power". Regeneration, Instant Change, Damage Shield...funny, all are unpopular with long-term Hero gamers.

 

I think the old +1/2 worked by combining the inability to attack directly (outside a Grab), aspects of continuous, and absence of range. However, this made DS on attacxks already lacking Range an obvious choice, because you didn't lose Range for free. I'm inclined to say Damage Shield as a fully independent advantage which is +1/2, or +1 if the power it applies to has No Range. Alternatively, it could be mandatory that the power first have Range, whether inherently or by paying for the advantage (still effectivve +1 for a power which has no range).

 

I'm a big fan of Steve's Trigger article in Digital Hero #11, which posited an expansion to the Trigger rules, which, rumor has, will be incorporated into 5eR. That article provided for a new construct for a Damage Shield which would have a total of +1 1/2 advantages, but which would permit No Range if the attack otherwise would have had range. Let's compare the models using two examples:

 

(a) 8d6 EB Damage Shield:

 

4e: 60 points

 

5e: 100 points

 

Trigger: 100 Active Points; 67 Real Points

 

DS Advantage: 60 points (my kludge above; 40 x 1.5)

 

( 4d6 Stun Drain:

 

4e: 60 points

 

5e: 100 points

 

Trigger: 100 Points

 

DS Advantage: 80 points (my kludge above; 40 x 2)

 

The Trigger approach gets a reasonable result for the EB, in my opinion. It's tougher to squeeze into a framework, especially a Multipower, than a straight +1/2 or +1 advantage would be. The Drain doesn't work out quite so well, but that should be more expensive. It's only a question of how much more expensive. I think I could live with the Trigger aproach here, though I think 80 is the more reasonable cost.

 

However, what about energy projectors with Variable Advantage? They can't flush that -1/2 limit through, and Variable Advantage to create a DS seems reasonable. That leads me to favour a straight advantage for Damage Shield, rather than the Trigger approach. However the Trigger approach appeals to me as a systems purist.

 

I suspect the Trigger approach will end up in 5eR, given the comments that this enhancement to Trigger will be in 5e. Maybe Steve has some comments (maybe Steve will delete my post to avoid giving away to much of his DH article for free ) Steve, if I'm giving away too much free info here, go ahead and edit or delete - your ideas, your decisions.