Power Construction - theoretical question

[zornwil]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

By the way, I don't know that "Make damage Killing" should be a 10 point Adder. After all:

 

1d6 Energy Blast has range, does on average 1 BODY, does on average 3.5 STUN, costs 5 points

 

1 pip RKA has range, does 1 Body, does on average 2.67 STUN, is only stopped by Resistant defenses, costs 5 points

 

Is "only stopped by Resistant defenses" really the equivalent in cost per 1 BODY to an additional 0.83 STUN?

Fair point. I'm taking it more from the simplistic "KA = +2 Advantage" argument which has been (to my satisfaction) rebutted as an approach and applying instead the logical Adder value.

 

I think you have to bear in mind, too, though, that the STUN multiple is either a wash and/or a benefit at some levels of power and/or a minor limitation at others, depending on how you look at it.

 

Although in general I think I'd rather scale an Ego Killing Blast as 20 pts/d6 rather than a +1 Does BODY Advantage if other Advantages will be tacked on. It definitely scales better at least to my taste. A 10d6 Ego Killing Blast with AoE is 400 points rather than 300 points this way; a 5d6 one is 200 rather than 150 points.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

I doubt we'll every be able to come up with a precise formula / subset / toolkit for the toolkit or whatever you want to call it, simply because I don't believe the system was constructed like that way back when, and it's evolved considerably since then.

 

About the best we can hope for is to get a reasonable "fitting a curve to the data points" sort of framework, and then tweak a few "trouble spots" by hand.

[schir1964]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

As I understand it, beyond the 1d6 Damage per 5 Points rule, there is no magic formula for evaluating new mechanics. The system that we know now is the result of trial and error testing over the years. They would create something new, discover it would wreak havoc, tweak it, discover it was useless, tweak it, etc...

 

Then there are guidelines for Limitations for judging what the limitation value should be. It's either based on the reduction of effectiveness of the power it's applied to, or how often in the game that reduction of effectiveness will occur. It's a very vague rule that and the GM must rely on his experience to decide what a proper value should be, which by it's very nature, is subjective as opposed to objective.

 

That's why I like to hash out new ideas out here. Draw on the pool of experience and boost my judgement and perspective. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

(snip)

 

This "stunning" power, as an example... smacks of game state exploitation IMO. It is looking at the System Mechanic for "Con Stunning" and building a power to exploit that game state. The "charges on an END Reserve" is an example of this... as I can't really figure out ANY effect this is simulating... it is simply applying two Mechanics in a way to exploit a game state of Zero END plus Reduced Cost.

 

First, as a general comment, I agree in a somewhat large part. I think there might be more occassions to make powers than you probably do, but I also think there's rarely a really good reason, and as far as the game itself goes, the orthodox rules don't need much at all added. Thing is, there's a few difficult SFX I can see messing with, and the current answers for Invulnerability I find unsatisfactory, and I think that applicability is not just one or two genres. So more liberal than you but I don't fundamentally disagree in terms of criteria.

 

Re the Stunning example, and I think you got this, I just want to stress it was only as an example. I don't consider it in any way a power needed in HERO. But I was inspired to use this solely because it is a power in Mutants and Masterminds and one I can easily see people wanting to do in HERO, especially with less experience in the game.

 

Also, I would add to your post that I think that some of my comments above regarding Advantages and specifically stacking Advantages at the least imply that there is a structural issue here.

 

(oh... and lose the duck... bring back the lizard! )

 

All in due time!

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

All in due time!

"When will then be now?"

-- Dark Helmet

 

"Soon!"

-- Col. Sandurz

[schir1964]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

... Thing is' date=' there's a few difficult SFX I can see messing with, and the current answers for Invulnerability I find unsatisfactory, and I think that applicability is not just one or two genres...[/quote']

And the interesting thing is, Steve Longs official Invulnerability construct is waayyy more expensive than any of the suggested extrapolations done here. So, from his perspective, Invulnerability should be so expensive most people will ignore it, and those who do get it, will be massively less effective in other areas. Basically, they become pinballs in a pinball machine. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

I doubt we'll every be able to come up with a precise formula / subset / toolkit for the toolkit or whatever you want to call it, simply because I don't believe the system was constructed like that way back when, and it's evolved considerably since then.

 

About the best we can hope for is to get a reasonable "fitting a curve to the data points" sort of framework, and then tweak a few "trouble spots" by hand.

I agree with that...

 

...whoever you are!?!?

 

(Simon003 - AKA Dr. Anomaly I take it)

[zornwil]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

As I understand it, beyond the 1d6 Damage per 5 Points rule, there is no magic formula for evaluating new mechanics. The system that we know now is the result of trial and error testing over the years. They would create something new, discover it would wreak havoc, tweak it, discover it was useless, tweak it, etc...

 

Then there are guidelines for Limitations for judging what the limitation value should be. It's either based on the reduction of effectiveness of the power it's applied to, or how often in the game that reduction of effectiveness will occur. It's a very vague rule that and the GM must rely on his experience to decide what a proper value should be, which by it's very nature, is subjective as opposed to objective.

 

That's why I like to hash out new ideas out here. Draw on the pool of experience and boost my judgement and perspective. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

Although I agree with Dr. A's (I think) point, I should add that I think there was a fairly robust formula early on, even if it was implicit, in the system's simplicity. I think it became muddled because it remained implicit.

 

I think we can draw that out and make it explicit. Then we can make exceptions to those rules much more intelligently.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

I agree with that...

 

...whoever you are!?!?

 

(Simon003 - AKA Dr. Anomaly I take it)

Good catch!

[schir1964]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

I thought there would be a lot more discussion on this. Hmm...

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

Well, we also hit the weekend as I posted so Friday, so that's part of it, I think. Plus, thanks for the comments in the other thread.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

Zornwil' date=' you forgot that Armor is also Persistant, which Force Field is not.[/quote']

And let's not forget Invisible Power Effects. Unless it has been FAQed away somewhere, Armor costs no End in its unmodified form, and thus requires no visible Special Effects (though most people buy it through a Focus, so that becomes moot).

[schir1964]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

And let's not forget Invisible Power Effects. Unless it has been FAQed away somewhere' date=' Armor costs no End in its unmodified form, and thus requires no visible Special Effects (though most people buy it through a Focus, so that becomes moot).[/quote']

I wasn't going to batter Zornwil with those details. In the thread that delved into comparing Armor to Force Field, many little advantages/limitations were needed to "effectively" turn one into the other.

 

However, the bigger point is, both of these should have been built from a more basic construct that would be common to both.

 

Also, I seem to recall that with 5th Edition, another nuance that made the two powers different on the mechanic level, is that you can add PD, MD, and PwrD to a Force Field, but with Armor you can't. Again, I only know this because of building the Hero 5th Edition Template for Metacreator. Steve may have changed his mind on this since then though.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

Also' date=' I seem to recall that with 5th Edition, another nuance that made the two powers different on the mechanic level, is that you can add PD, MD, and PwrD to a Force Field, but with Armor you can't.[/quote']

On Force Field? Hmm. I don't remember that part. I know you can add it to Force Wall, and then you can make it transparent to some forms of attack as well. You could certainly be right, though these defenses would be more expensive than a normal variety that Costs End.

[schir1964]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

On Force Field? Hmm. I don't remember that part. I know you can add it to Force Wall' date=' and then you can make it transparent to some forms of attack as well. You could certainly be right, though these defenses would be more expensive than a normal variety that Costs End.[/quote']

Verified.

In 5th Edition Revised, it clearly denotes that the player must specify which defenses (it lists all the defenses available) that the FF will have and that it can't be changed thereafter. Armor specifically states that only PD and ED can be purchased.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

Verified.

In 5th Edition Revised, it clearly denotes that the player must specify which defenses (it lists all the defenses available) that the FF will have and that it can't be changed thereafter. Armor specifically states that only PD and ED can be purchased.

Huh. Interesting. Pointless for the extra cost, it seems (except that I guess you can consider the whole thing as one Power for purposes of Adjustment applications).

[Beastial]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

There's at least one theoretical (and very rare) advantage to getting your power/flash/ego defense through a FF: It's resistant for free.

 

Now I've never seen a 'killing' attack against any of those, but if someone came along with one, you'd be all set. Reaching a bit... stretching even (at least 5" worth).

[Warp9]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

Grrr, you're not Hyper-man!

 

Mentor, to you and Dust Raven, I have a bit of a challenge - the powers in the book are themselves constructions from a more core set of elemental abilities/powers. If we do not leverage the toolkit to learn to create powers, we cannot reverse engineer the powers that exist. If we do not reverse engineer the powers that exist, I contend that we are limiting our ability to then properly modify the system as needed long-term. See my thoughts in my post most recently above for related thoughts. Wonder what you (plural) think...

As I remember it, there is a comment in one of the books (maybe it was 4th Edition), about the idea of having a very general list of abilities.

 

I can't seem to find it in any of my books, so it may be that I am mis-remembering. (it would be nice to be able to find the exact quote)

 

The concept was that there would be 1 Attack Power, 1 Movement Power, 1 Defense Power, and 1 Sense Power. These 4 Base Powers would then have limitations and advantages applied to them simulate all the various possibilities. This concept sounds like it would be very much in line with what you are talking about.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

Hello.

 

I instinctively like this idea, as has been mentioned there is precedent in the construction of Talents.

 

However (as always) a caveat:

 

This would only work, IMO, as a useful tool for the GM to introduce powers to a campaign for the players to use, as a way of encouraging certain constructs.

 

It would be potentially disastrous to just hand this as a tool to players?

 

Why?

 

Well, the cunning player will take the damn thing and make points out of it.

 

Take an example (ALL OR NOTHING BLAST)

 

1d6 EB (NND +1) and (11- activation -1), base cost 5 points

 

BUT if the player gets hold of it and builds it like this:

 

1d6 EB (11- activation -1), base cost 2 points, calls that ALL OR NOTHING BLAST and then adds the advantage, it works out at 4 points per dice.

 

Over 10 or 12 dice, that is quite a saving...in effect it allows you to reverse the ususal rule that advantages are applied first...

 

(Equally, depending on the constructed power, a player could end up paying far more due to the order the multipliers and dividers are added)

 

I think the problem, to my mind, is that it makes keeping an eye on power level is more difficult this way, and there is no easy way of spotting the active cost (if you use that as a guidline)

 

I suppose my fear is that you are going to end up with a more complicated system rather than a simpler one in that what will happen is that the player will calculate the cost building from scratch, then compare it to the pre-built power and chose the most favourable one.

 

If ALL the powers in your campaign are chosen from a pre-built list then no problem, but otherise they are just going to pick the best one for them, so you'll be running two systems rather than one streamlined system.

 

Mind you, despite all this party pooping I do like the idea in principle. I will ponder some more....

[zornwil]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

As I remember it, there is a comment in one of the books (maybe it was 4th Edition), about the idea of having a very general list of abilities.

 

I can't seem to find it in any of my books, so it may be that I am mis-remembering. (it would be nice to be able to find the exact quote)

 

The concept was that there would be 1 Attack Power, 1 Movement Power, 1 Defense Power, and 1 Sense Power. These 4 Base Powers would then have limitations and advantages applied to them simulate all the various possibilities. This concept sounds like it would be very much in line with what you are talking about.

I have seen such talk but I don't believe it was ever in the HERO rule books.

 

I don't think such a system would be playable, but it would be the necessary framework to any tinkering with the system, much more desirable than what we have now in terms of understanding what basis we're tinkering from.

[zornwil]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

Hello.

 

I instinctively like this idea, as has been mentioned there is precedent in the construction of Talents.

 

However (as always) a caveat:

 

This would only work, IMO, as a useful tool for the GM to introduce powers to a campaign for the players to use, as a way of encouraging certain constructs.

 

It would be potentially disastrous to just hand this as a tool to players?

 

Why?

 

Well, the cunning player will take the damn thing and make points out of it.

 

Take an example (ALL OR NOTHING BLAST)

 

1d6 EB (NND +1) and (11- activation -1), base cost 5 points

 

BUT if the player gets hold of it and builds it like this:

 

1d6 EB (11- activation -1), base cost 2 points, calls that ALL OR NOTHING BLAST and then adds the advantage, it works out at 4 points per dice.

 

Over 10 or 12 dice, that is quite a saving...in effect it allows you to reverse the ususal rule that advantages are applied first...

 

(Equally, depending on the constructed power, a player could end up paying far more due to the order the multipliers and dividers are added)

 

I think the problem, to my mind, is that it makes keeping an eye on power level is more difficult this way, and there is no easy way of spotting the active cost (if you use that as a guidline)

 

I suppose my fear is that you are going to end up with a more complicated system rather than a simpler one in that what will happen is that the player will calculate the cost building from scratch, then compare it to the pre-built power and chose the most favourable one.

 

If ALL the powers in your campaign are chosen from a pre-built list then no problem, but otherise they are just going to pick the best one for them, so you'll be running two systems rather than one streamlined system.

 

Mind you, despite all this party pooping I do like the idea in principle. I will ponder some more....

I'm not really suggesting a change per se or the idea of doing derived powers as simple composite, new points-per-dice powers in general, but given that some of the powers we have in the book (RKA being a prime sort of example) seem to have been derived this way, I think there must be some times that one "should" do it this way.

 

I do wonder if "serious" Advantages scale better as adders to base values, though, given some of the comments above and how the math works out. At the least, treating Autofire this way along with Does Body seems to make any powers derived on those scale more slowly, which seems better and more balanced.

[Ganesh]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

Zornwil: it seems like your mathematical objection there is due to rounding error. If not for that, do you think it would still be a problem? You could just as easily only have people buy from the "more basic" power list, which gives you a similar effect to just a more extreme HERO.

 

 

As an aside, I've been working on pulling apart the basic components of HERO and stringing them into something much more basic, with far fewer powers for some while now. Unfortunately, ever since changing ISPs, I haven't been able to make the wiki accessable anywhere outside the house network. ::sigh::

 

Anyway, the way I dealt with the "what's the base power?" problem was to change the way advantages and limitations stacked...each +1/2 advantage was a PowerEnhancer, every 2 PowerEnhancers doubled the cost of the power, every 3 PowerEnhancers trippled the cost of the power. Actually approximated things with the 7th root of 12, and made a chart.

 

Limitations were similar...every -1/2 limitation was a PowerLimiter, and then you reduced the effective number of PowerEnhancers. Reduce by one for one PowerLimiter, by two for three PowerLimiters, by three for six PowerLimiters, by four for ten, etc. The GM (and only the GM) has the option to allow some number of limiters to just cancel with some number of enhancers, creating a new "base power."

 

 

My "short power list" wound up being Defense (cost 10 points a die for all corporial damage, limitation to make it nonresistant, and with options to make it into things like Damage Reduction), Body Modification (with pulled-apart bits of DI, Stretching, Growth, Shrinking, some of the "touch sense group" shapeshift effects, etc.), Change Environment, Endurance Reserve, Luck, Images (with modifications like "must overcome target's {Characteristic} to allow for Mental Illusion and modifiers to make Darkness or many of the effects of Shapeshift), Summon/Create (for forcewalls, entangles, and summons of different stripes), Move (for making flight, jumping, teleportation, TK, EDM and a number of other effects), Adjustment, Blast, and Command (which is definitely a stopsign power, the thing used to build mind control).

 

Missile Deflection, Senses (including seekersense/mindscan, clairsentience, and mind-link), and most Movement was made part of the skill system (skills do All-Or-Nothing much better, and aren't affected by adjustment powers nearly as much).

 

It's actually been a lot of fun to put together. I heartily recommend it as a mental excercise.

[zornwil]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

Zornwil: it seems like your mathematical objection there is due to rounding error.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not sure which exactly you're referring to? When I understand, will be glad to answer your question of course.

 

Also, to be clear, I think the fundamental question is how and why to embed a Modifier inside of a power and then expose the whole thing as a single power to be further modified, as opposed to building the power as a single construct but with Modifiers exposed. I don't think (?) that the difference between the two is merely rounding. I think if we take the example of EB => RKA and believe that there is an Advantage equaling +2 for "Killing Damage", then there's also a good reason that the Advantage is "buried" in the base cost and not simply added to - it scales much better this way than having a +2 Killing Damage Advantage.

 

If not for that, do you think it would still be a problem? You could just as easily only have people buy from the "more basic" power list, which gives you a similar effect to just a more extreme HERO.

 

 

As an aside, I've been working on pulling apart the basic components of HERO and stringing them into something much more basic, with far fewer powers for some while now. Unfortunately, ever since changing ISPs, I haven't been able to make the wiki accessable anywhere outside the house network. ::sigh::

 

Anyway, the way I dealt with the "what's the base power?" problem was to change the way advantages and limitations stacked...each +1/2 advantage was a PowerEnhancer, every 2 PowerEnhancers doubled the cost of the power, every 3 PowerEnhancers trippled the cost of the power. Actually approximated things with the 7th root of 12, and made a chart.

 

Limitations were similar...every -1/2 limitation was a PowerLimiter, and then you reduced the effective number of PowerEnhancers. Reduce by one for one PowerLimiter, by two for three PowerLimiters, by three for six PowerLimiters, by four for ten, etc. The GM (and only the GM) has the option to allow some number of limiters to just cancel with some number of enhancers, creating a new "base power."

 

 

My "short power list" wound up being Defense (cost 10 points a die for all corporial damage, limitation to make it nonresistant, and with options to make it into things like Damage Reduction), Body Modification (with pulled-apart bits of DI, Stretching, Growth, Shrinking, some of the "touch sense group" shapeshift effects, etc.), Change Environment, Endurance Reserve, Luck, Images (with modifications like "must overcome target's {Characteristic} to allow for Mental Illusion and modifiers to make Darkness or many of the effects of Shapeshift), Summon/Create (for forcewalls, entangles, and summons of different stripes), Move (for making flight, jumping, teleportation, TK, EDM and a number of other effects), Adjustment, Blast, and Command (which is definitely a stopsign power, the thing used to build mind control).

 

Missile Deflection, Senses (including seekersense/mindscan, clairsentience, and mind-link), and most Movement was made part of the skill system (skills do All-Or-Nothing much better, and aren't affected by adjustment powers nearly as much).

 

It's actually been a lot of fun to put together. I heartily recommend it as a mental excercise.

 

Very interesting, will you post your work? I would like to see it.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

Well, for one thing if we had multiplicative Advantages and Limitations, this wouldn't be an issue. I'll give an example. If you had a Power with a 40 Base Cost, two +1/2 Advantages, a -1/4 Limitation, and a -1 Limitation, the Real Cost might be calculated as follows:

 

    (1+1/2)(1+1/2)        9   4
40 . -------------- = 40 . - . -- = 36
     (1+1/4)(1+1)         4   10

Now, I think costs would have to be re-worked quite a lot, and the +1s really wouldn't be necessary (every Advantage and Limitation would simply have a value greater than one). Things would have to be fooled with, thought out, and play tested quite a bit.

 

I'm also not sure exactly how you would do Active Points (maybe just carry them along independently of the cost, and always apply only Advantages, and not Limitations, to them?). But this system has obvious benefits where scalability is concerned; the new cost can simply be multiplied by a new Advantage or divided by a new Limitation, at any time and without really considering the "original" cost of the Power.

 

Another problem with it, though, is that things tend to explode quite rapidly. Might work with adjusted values; might not. Only testing could tell for sure, I think.

[zornwil]

Re: Power Construction - theoretical question

 

Looks interesting. I do think it has the opposite problem of blowing up the numbers too much, but I only say that from gut feel, would have to really look at the various mixtures and see how it looks.