Meta Rule Number 6

[Agent X]

Originally posted by GamePhil

I doubt it. It's much more likely that he has a similar definition of the "equally valid" portion of the rule as Derek presented earlier.

 

All Rule 6 is saying is, "If you abuse the rules to get a cheaper power, you need to buy the more expensive one", and never, "If you can come up a power that is more expensive, no matter how much more complex it is than the most obvious one, you must buy it that way." If you somehow get a 20d6 EB with no restriction for 5 points, technically legally, you still have to pay 100. But if you want Persistant Resistant Defense, you buy Armor.

That may have been his meaning but he used a bazooka where a fly-swatter would have worked.

[Mephron]

Re: Cost of Armor

 

Originally posted by Southern Cross

Of course,if you state that all Powers built with the "Costs END" Limitation are Visible by default,Armor with the "Costs END" Limitation has the same Real Cost as an equally-effective Force Field.

 

you know, I was just going through and working the math out on this, and about to note just the same thing, when I said, "Hey, this is a multipage thread!" and saw your post. Oh well.

 

But the issue is that basically, DR = Armor, if you do the math (2 points of PD, made resistant is 1 point; therefore it's 3 for every 2 points).

 

So if you take Armor, Costs End (-1/2), it becomes 2 points for 2 points... and that's Force Field.

 

How is Force Field broken when you can derive it properly? They're all balanced with each other.

[tesuji]

Re: Re: Cost of Armor

 

Originally posted by Mephron

How is Force Field broken when you can derive it properly? They're all balanced with each other.

 

Can i play?

 

15/15 armour = 45 ap.

-1/2 costs end real cost 30 rp

end cost per phase 4.

amount of multipower reserve needed to run: 45

 

15/15 force field = 30 ap

real cost 30 rp

end cost 3 per phase

amount of multipower reserve needed to run 30.

 

Even HERO 5 rules themselves do not go for the oversimplistic view that as long as RP cost evens out then the powers are balanced against each other.

 

HERO 5 has this hidden secret thing which only those with the proper decoder rings can know about, but at risk of having large men come and stuff me into my trunk, i will reveal it to you guys. Just don't tell anyone it was me.

 

Its called active points.

 

[looks over shoulder nervously before continuing.]

 

See the errr... non-inactive points affect a great many myriad and diverse properties within the game, including endurance, difficulty with skill checks, and how well or poorly the power goes into frameworks.

 

Even the hero 5 rules dismiss using real points as a good measure of a power's effectiveness. They have never, as i recall, advised "its an ok power if its real cost is lower then x." On occasion active point limits have been discussed. (though they admit that doesn't work either.)

[Vondy]

D-Man's House Rule #1: Ignore meta-rule #6

 

I don't care how much it costs. Instead I apply the following criteria:

 

Is this the easiest way to accurately build this power?

Is this unbalancing compared to campaign standards?

Is this bereft of cheese odors?

 

Relying on the accounting side for power management and design is devoid of both perspective and common sense.

[Tom McCarthy]

If I might throw in a contentious example...

 

The Jericho Effect

 

A superpowered being takes control of another individual's body and uses it as his own. If the body is attacked physically, it takes the abuse (leaving the owner battered when the possessor leaves), but mental attacks hit the possessor.

 

 

There have been lots of different ways to build this. One way is as a very large mind control, with some associated powers to cover extra effects. Seems reasonable; it closely follows the Mind Control concept of "making someone do what I want". The extra powers bit can be contentious.

 

If the possessor becomes desolid, invisible, and clings to the target, then he pays a great number of points to have Mind Control affect the physical world, plus lots of points for the extras.

 

If the possessor uses extra dimensional movement to another dimension, he pays extra points for transdimensional mind control and plus points for extra dimensional movement and the transdimensional clairsentience to perceive the world through the possessed body's senses.

 

Clearly, the first is the most expensive. But does that make it the right answer ? I'm inclined to say No. Even the second seems to cost far too much, because this Jericho Effect does not seem inherently more valuable than Mind Control. The mind controller becomes safe from physical assault, but loses the ability to control multiple targets, and loses the advantages of having two bodies (such as fleeing during the mayhem, or using his own phases to support his mind control victim, etc.).

 

I'm leaning strongly towards the interpretation that this is just Mind Control with unusual side effects (mentalist's body disappears while target is controlled; mentalist not target is affected by mental attacks on target's body while controlled; mentalist's body reappears when breakout occurs; mentalist may cause breakout at any time).

[JmOz]

I like that, add in the character takes an equal amount of stun as the victom does, and I think you have it (In otherwords you will feel there pain), also figure in a Succor to Aid and I think you may have it (They can usualy wake them up if they posses them)

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by D-Man

D-Man's House Rule #1: Ignore meta-rule #6

I don't care how much it costs. Instead I apply the following criteria:

Is this the easiest way to accurately build this power?

Is this unbalancing compared to campaign standards?

Is this bereft of cheese odors?

Again, this doesn't violate or ignore metarule #6 at all. Your criteria are simply defining "valid." What would you do if there were two ways to build an effect, one of which was slightly more expensive than the other, and both seemed equally easy and accurate, neither seemed unbalancing, and both seemed cheese-free? Metarule #6 simply suggests that, in such a case, going with the one that's a little more expensive avoids abuse.

 

I go back to the very first thing I said. People worry too much about metarule #6.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

I go back to the very first thing I said. People worry too much about metarule #6.

Eh, if they were REALLY too worried about it, we'd be well past page 3 by now.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

Again, this doesn't violate or ignore metarule #6 at all. Your criteria are simply defining "valid." What would you do if there were two ways to build an effect, one of which was slightly more expensive than the other, and both seemed equally easy and accurate, neither seemed unbalancing, and both seemed cheese-free? Metarule #6 simply suggests that, in such a case, going with the one that's a little more expensive avoids abuse.

 

I go back to the very first thing I said. People worry too much about metarule #6.

 

I admire munchkinism in moderation (elegant point savers as opposed to abusive ones).

 

I'd let them use the cheaper one if it met my criteria.

 

Fortuanately I'm the one who looks at the massive point wastes my players hand me (with one notable exception) and makes suggestions on how to do things a bit cheaper (and simpler).

 

The exception is the reason I have to go over fine characters with a fine tooth comb at all.

[ShadowRaptor]

Before I saw this I was thinking...what is Meta-Rule #6 as I open the thread, then I read the posts and I decided that I am not letting anybody in my group read this meta-rule and therefore save the headaches for something else.