Mental Powers

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Never did I say Smallville would be a typical Champions game' date=' so at best it nudges it a bit. Every genre/setting is different, and thus will have different classes of mind, and different definitions for those classes. There is no default (other than Steve Long's house rules).[/quote']

 

As you state below, if the GM doesn't want to come up with something different, we get Steve Long's written rules in the book. Your statement seems to indicate you consider the "by the book" classes to be Steve's house rules. That is where they should have remained.

 

Necessary' date=' no. An option, yes. If [i']you[/i] were writing a book, made up a new rule that plugged a hole, and found out that rule opened up some rather interesting options... wouldn't you point a few out?

 

I would first consider the impact of those options, and how, and where, they ought best to be pointed out. In this instance, I would have defined how mental powers worked on machines, and that would complete the core rulebook.

 

I would then place the rest of my "classes of minds" ideas in a folder for future development as clearly optional rules with several example structures, in an Ultimate book (Mentalist, in this case) and/or for use in a setting book. They are not needed, nor are they desirable, in the core rules. As Chris Mullins points out, these were an option Steve Long thought was cool, and therefore made it into the core rules with (IMO) the same calm, cool reasoning that brought us the New Regeneration, New Instant Change and New Damage Shield. [Note lack of traditional "and improved" ]

 

What big fudge? No immune for free. Next you'll be telling me that the Automaton is against the core aspects of the rules because it's immune to mental powers too? What's wrong with a Vampire that could easily be written up as an Automaton with an AI for control. What are the rules for targeting an AI that may or may not be somewhere within the body of the Automaton? Personally' date=' I don't see it as any big deal.[/quote']

 

If they don't pay points for the immunity, it is free. The rules permit this due to classes of mind. This is part of my objection to those rules.

 

An automaton is immune to mental powers because it lacks Ego, not because a specific rule makes it so. I would expect "machine/computer" mental powers, for which a construct would still be needed, to be able to affect them.

 

An AI has an Ego. If it has an ego, it would be vulnerable to mental powers, not computer-affecting powers.

 

As for the player that says "but I wanna be a Vamp and be immune to mental powers!!!" I say SHOT THE MUNCHKIN SCUM and get some real players. All PCs should be built on the same guidelines (unless a mutual agreement among the players is made otherwise). That includes a class of mind. If that means they can't play a vampire because all vampires have the "vampire" or "alien" class of mind and all PCs must have "human" or "living"' date=' then they can't play a vampire anymore than they can play a 750 point character in a 200 point game.[/quote']

 

I agree wanting immunity to mental powers for free is "munchkin". I am not the one arguing for the classes of mind paradigm which provides a ready framework for such free immunity.

 

Why is it impossible that being a vampire (or some other class of mind other than human) might fit within a perfectly valid character concept for a given campaign? Adn, once we assume the concept is valid and works in the game (and there have been several vampiric protagonists in source material, without going beyond that one narrow example), why would this one vampire have to pay points for immunity to mental powers when the game already establishes that all the other ones get it for free.

 

[ASIDE: Why does every case of disagreement over how the rules ought to work eventually result in someone playing the munchkin card?]

 

Why are you overlooking this? Do you run games where the players can play whatever they want' date=' and no need damn the GM if their concept is innapproprite for the setting and tone of the campaign 'cuz he'll let them regardless?[/quote']

 

I run (and play in) games where players have input into the type and nature of the game, and can play whatever they want that fits within the setting and tone of the campaign. My first approach to a character which wasn't what I had in mind is to look for a way to fit the concept (or some modification thereof) into the game rather than ban it outright. Most importantly, I run (and play in) games where the rules are, to the fullest extent possible, the same for both the player characters and NPC's. That means, if I say "EDM Usable as an Attack is prohibited", it is prohibited to both PC's and NPC's. And if I say "Aliens are immune to mental powers purchased without an adder", it means ALL aliens, not just the NPC ones.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Complete tangent by taking it out of context:

 

My first approach to a character which wasn't what I had in mind is to look for a way to fit the concept (or some modification thereof) into the game rather than ban it outright.

 

Here here!

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

(snip) And if I say "Aliens are immune to mental powers purchased without an adder"' date=' it means ALL aliens, not just the NPC ones.[/quote']

 

See, that's one of those things that sticks in my craw, are those odd inconsistencies such as this "Alien Class of Mind unaffected unless you're a PC" thing. Very arbitrary. Much as some EC rules, but now I'm dredging up old arguments...

 

(hey, at least we have a new argument for 5th Edition!) (uh, wait, is that good...?)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

One clarification.

 

I like most of what Steve has done in 5e. If I didn't, I'd stick to 4e (it worked fine for our group for many years). But there are a few areas where Steve dropped the ball, IMO (probably a lot less, and a lot more minor, than if I had written 5e), and this is one of them.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I'm sorry, I phrased that poorly. What I meant was would they even be needed.

 

 

Magic Arrow: Energy Blast, AVLD (vs MD), etc...

 

 

Pheromones: Transform, Minor (Disadvantage: Psych Lim), etc...

 

 

Virtual Reality: Images, OIF Bulky, Extra Time, etc...

 

 

Truth Serum: Transform, Minor (Disadvantage: Psych Lim), etc...

 

See what I mean?

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

No.

 

Stun Gun: EB 6d6 NND

 

Stun Gun: EB 12d6 STUN Only

 

Stun Gun: RKA 2d6 +4 STUNx

 

Stun Gun: Drain STUN 4d6 Ranged

 

etc....

 

I see absolutely no need to do away with a Power just because some other Power can have a similar effect through different means. Of course, your examples using Transform are technically illegal, as they duplicate the effects of other Powers.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Hugh,

 

The back-and-forth doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I think I'm missing exactly what you don't like about the classes of minds rule.

 

Is is one of these reason, or a combination of them:

 

1 - Steve's default rule presented in the FAQ sucks.

 

2 - You think there is no such thing as "alien" or "animal" minds.

 

3 - You believe that by allowing different classes, some character get "immunity" for free just because they have a clever concept.

 

4 - You believe Steve's default is the standard rules.

 

5 - You believe the default is immutable and must either use it or do completely without classes minds as a rule.

 

There is probably something I'm missing, or I'm just reading your posts wrong... but I just don't get what it is that you think breaks the system (at least as far as this is concerned).

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Hugh,

 

The back-and-forth doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I think I'm missing exactly what you don't like about the classes of minds rule.

 

Is is one of these reason, or a combination of them:

 

1 - Steve's default rule presented in the FAQ sucks.

 

2 - You think there is no such thing as "alien" or "animal" minds.

 

3 - You believe that by allowing different classes, some character get "immunity" for free just because they have a clever concept.

 

4 - You believe Steve's default is the standard rules.

 

5 - You believe the default is immutable and must either use it or do completely without classes minds as a rule.

 

There is probably something I'm missing, or I'm just reading your posts wrong... but I just don't get what it is that you think breaks the system (at least as far as this is concerned).

I'll try to over-simplify at least as an attempt at creating clarity:

 

increased complexity for not enough gain and a too-restrictive non-toolkit build

 

Elaboration:

 

It's a new construct. It might be good for Machines. It might even be good for Machines, Humans, Plants break-out or for some as-written. But the real issue is that it exists without elaboration as a default that you can change but no real guidelines are given as to the basis of the current split, therefore limiting logical game-to-game reuse. It presumes fundamental differences that may not exist fundamentally in heroic fiction and certainly do not exist in reality. It presumes flavor and SFX, much more greatly than the Physical/Energy distinction. It adds something where there was not a clear need before except for the Machine one pointed out. If that is the target, then one would think it would have been simply Brains/Machine as Classes. The wearing thin of the construct is evident in its arbitrary "if your PC is an Alien, he doesn't get the benefit others do of being an Alien".

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

The back-and-forth doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I think I'm missing exactly what you don't like about the classes of minds rule.

 

Is is one of these reason, or a combination of them:

 

1 - Steve's default rule presented in the FAQ sucks.

 

2 - You think there is no such thing as "alien" or "animal" minds.

 

3 - You believe that by allowing different classes, some character get "immunity" for free just because they have a clever concept.

 

4 - You believe Steve's default is the standard rules.

 

5 - You believe the default is immutable and must either use it or do completely without classes minds as a rule.

 

There is probably something I'm missing, or I'm just reading your posts wrong... but I just don't get what it is that you think breaks the system (at least as far as this is concerned).

 

I'll try to over-simplify at least as an attempt at creating clarity:

 

increased complexity for not enough gain and a too-restrictive non-toolkit build

 

Elaboration:

 

It's a new construct. It might be good for Machines. It might even be good for Machines, Humans, Plants break-out or for some as-written. But the real issue is that it exists without elaboration as a default that you can change but no real guidelines are given as to the basis of the current split, therefore limiting logical game-to-game reuse. It presumes fundamental differences that may not exist fundamentally in heroic fiction and certainly do not exist in reality. It presumes flavor and SFX, much more greatly than the Physical/Energy distinction. It adds something where there was not a clear need before except for the Machine one pointed out. If that is the target, then one would think it would have been simply Brains/Machine as Classes. The wearing thin of the construct is evident in its arbitrary "if your PC is an Alien, he doesn't get the benefit others do of being an Alien".

 

Zornwil's comments are dead on. I will add, to your points:

 

1., 2. The presumption, which is in 5e and 5er, not just the FAQ, that "animal" and "alien" minds are unaffected by base level mental powers imposes an arbitrary restriction which, as both FAQ and this thread demonstrate, is interpreted inconsistently. This restriction is not near common enough in the source material to be an appropriate default. It may be appropriate for specific campaign settings, however such options should both be clearly labelled as optional rules intended for specific settings, and does not merit inclusion in the core mechanics, but rather in an Ultimate book (expanding and providing options for subsets of abilities), a genre book (if it were a common issue in a specific genre) and/or a setting book (presented where it is, in fact, useful). In the case of Classes of Minds, the optional rule belongs in the Ultimate Mentalist.

 

Note that you and I appear to differ as to whether the core rulebook does, in fact, provide a default. In my view, it provides:

 

- first the default that "classes of mind" exist, and restrict use of mental powers, presented as a core mechanic

 

- second, that the default is four classes (Human, Machine, Animal, Alien)

 

- third, that each class of minds is, by default, roughly equally common, as the cost for powers which affect any one class does not vary, and the adder for each class does not vary.

 

The need for a construct which affects Machines was real. It could have been resolved simply by presenting, in the description of Mental Powers, "Mental powers may be purchased in either of two forms. The first form affects sentient beings, defined as anything with an Ego score. This includes animals, alien beings, humans and artificial intelligences. The second form affects machines, defined as anything which has an Intelligence score, but no EGO score. Examples include automotons and computers. In either case, where a power affects only a subset of these targets, an appropriate limitation should be determined by player and GM based on the extent this limits the power in the specific campaign." Alien and Animal class minds lack the same clear differentiation which is inherent in machines, and werre an unnecessary, and incomplete, add-on, in my opinion.

 

I don't say these classes can't exist. I do say they require better definition, which can only be done on a campaign by campaign, or setting by setting basis. The fact that such definition lacks a clear default, in and of itself, makes this an SFX based construct inappropriate for the core rules.

 

3. Yes, I find it inappropriate that some characters receive immunity to a broad class of powers at no cost, simply based on concept. That concept need not even be overly clever. An undead wizard (who need not be evil); the Vampire protaganist (Angel, Hannibal King, Don Sebastian, Anne Rice's setting, I...Vampire, one of the Team Titans, and the gaming World of Darkness all provide vampiric "main character" examples); a robot or android character; Superman, the Martian Manhunter, Captain Mar-Vell, possibly Atlanteans, Inhumans, Eternals or Deviants; an angel; a demon; a ghost; a dwarf, elf, hobbit, gnome, ogre, troll, or gargoyle; a vulcan, andorian, betazed, klingon or romulan; Pinocchio; Puss in Bots, the three little pigs, the three bears (yes, we;re getting off track here...). There are extensive examples in pretty much every genre which has mental powers of characters who, by the defaults in the 5e rulebook, should be of a class of minds other than human (or, alternatively, should be deemed "human", thereby marginalizing the other classes).

 

4., 5. I believe what is presented in 5e as a default is the default. Nothing is immutable, however I believe the core rules should provide a fairly reliable framework for Hero gamers to reference. Incorporation of genre or setting-specific rules in that core framework is not appropriate. The lack of common source material for classes of mind in general, much less the specific ones presented as defaults, makes this an inappropriate inclusion in the core rules at all, and certainly not as a default rule.

 

As a final note, I think the Classes of Minds structure could be an interesting framework for mental powers in a specific campaign setting. Similarly, I thinkl the magic systems presented in Turakian Age, and in the older edition of Fantasy Hero, can each be interesting frameworks for magical spells. I do not, however, feel that any of the three is even close to possessing the universalioty required to merit their inclusion in the core rulebook, much less to incorporate them as the default Hero system.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I believe any person who picks a rulebook up off the shelf and has no history in it and reads that there are 4 Classes of Mind, and they are Alien, Human, Machine, and Animal, would take that as a default, particularly as the GM "can" change it which suggests fluidity, yes, but does not nay-say this is the orthodox default and that any variation is a house rule. In fact I do not know how any other interpretation is possible unless someone has that prior experience with HERO and is grounded in its history, philosphical as well as literal, which, of course, is not the presumed reader even if it is frequently the actual reader.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Mental Powers

 

For a base set of mind classes, I don't have any problem with the 4 default ones. I look at it from a multi-genre POV tho. I don't see most Champions/Superhero Genre "Aliens" as an example of the alien mind class. I see the "alien" class as the mental class equivilent of the "unusual" sense category... the one to use when something is really supposed to be outside normal possible classifications. Whle the mind classes do provide the possibility of global immunity to common mental powers, they also lead to inverse effects, such as global immunity to common alien mental powers for the PC's, the ability to create "selective" attacks based on mind classes and the like. It's all in how the GM and players interact, when all is said and done.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

It presumes flavor and SFX' date=' much more greatly than the Physical/Energy distinction.[/quote']

 

You keep saying this without supporting it. It's simply not true. Do you have but one SFX for Mental Powers?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Zornwil's comments are dead on. I will add, to your points:

 

1., 2. The presumption, which is in 5e and 5er, not just the FAQ, that "animal" and "alien" minds are unaffected by base level mental powers imposes an arbitrary restriction which, as both FAQ and this thread demonstrate, is interpreted inconsistently. This restriction is not near common enough in the source material to be an appropriate default. It may be appropriate for specific campaign settings, however such options should both be clearly labelled as optional rules intended for specific settings, and does not merit inclusion in the core mechanics, but rather in an Ultimate book (expanding and providing options for subsets of abilities), a genre book (if it were a common issue in a specific genre) and/or a setting book (presented where it is, in fact, useful). In the case of Classes of Minds, the optional rule belongs in the Ultimate Mentalist.

Except for the part of the rule needing to be put in a different book, I agree that it needs more definition and explination. It also needs more examples on how it applies in the various official settings of Hero Games. It's a poorly phrased and presented rule. That doesn't make it a bad rule, just often misunderstood and misinterpreted.

 

Note that you and I appear to differ as to whether the core rulebook does, in fact, provide a default. In my view, it provides:

 

- first the default that "classes of mind" exist, and restrict use of mental powers, presented as a core mechanic

 

- second, that the default is four classes (Human, Machine, Animal, Alien)

 

- third, that each class of minds is, by default, roughly equally common, as the cost for powers which affect any one class does not vary, and the adder for each class does not vary.

You are wrong about the last statement. Each class of minds is, by deafult, roughly equally useful to target. Subtle difference, but significent. Commonality doesn't matter, usefullness does. Commonality may affect usefullness, but is not the only thing that affects it.

 

Granted, the rule doesn't go into any further detail, which it should. Everything else is left up the imagination of the players and GM, and it's obvious people are imagining different things.

 

The need for a construct which affects Machines was real. It could have been resolved simply by presenting, in the description of Mental Powers, "Mental powers may be purchased in either of two forms. The first form affects sentient beings, defined as anything with an Ego score. This includes animals, alien beings, humans and artificial intelligences. The second form affects machines, defined as anything which has an Intelligence score, but no EGO score. Examples include automotons and computers. In either case, where a power affects only a subset of these targets, an appropriate limitation should be determined by player and GM based on the extent this limits the power in the specific campaign." Alien and Animal class minds lack the same clear differentiation which is inherent in machines, and werre an unnecessary, and incomplete, add-on, in my opinion.

 

I don't say these classes can't exist. I do say they require better definition, which can only be done on a campaign by campaign, or setting by setting basis. The fact that such definition lacks a clear default, in and of itself, makes this an SFX based construct inappropriate for the core rules.

Agreed. However, what you are describing is pretty close to what I had hoped would have been written. I would have included the classes of mind rule, gave machines as an example, and suggested 2-3 other possible classes the GM may include should there be a need (such as animal, plant, alien, etc).

 

3. Yes, I find it inappropriate that some characters receive immunity to a broad class of powers at no cost, simply based on concept. That concept need not even be overly clever. An undead wizard (who need not be evil); the Vampire protaganist (Angel, Hannibal King, Don Sebastian, Anne Rice's setting, I...Vampire, one of the Team Titans, and the gaming World of Darkness all provide vampiric "main character" examples); a robot or android character; Superman, the Martian Manhunter, Captain Mar-Vell, possibly Atlanteans, Inhumans, Eternals or Deviants; an angel; a demon; a ghost; a dwarf, elf, hobbit, gnome, ogre, troll, or gargoyle; a vulcan, andorian, betazed, klingon or romulan; Pinocchio; Puss in Bots, the three little pigs, the three bears (yes, we;re getting off track here...). There are extensive examples in pretty much every genre which has mental powers of characters who, by the defaults in the 5e rulebook, should be of a class of minds other than human (or, alternatively, should be deemed "human", thereby marginalizing the other classes).

Yet you are okay with Automatons, which do that same thing regardless of their class of mind.

 

4., 5. I believe what is presented in 5e as a default is the default. Nothing is immutable, however I believe the core rules should provide a fairly reliable framework for Hero gamers to reference. Incorporation of genre or setting-specific rules in that core framework is not appropriate. The lack of common source material for classes of mind in general, much less the specific ones presented as defaults, makes this an inappropriate inclusion in the core rules at all, and certainly not as a default rule.

Agreed, see above.

 

As a final note, I think the Classes of Minds structure could be an interesting framework for mental powers in a specific campaign setting. Similarly, I thinkl the magic systems presented in Turakian Age, and in the older edition of Fantasy Hero, can each be interesting frameworks for magical spells. I do not, however, feel that any of the three is even close to possessing the universalioty required to merit their inclusion in the core rulebook, much less to incorporate them as the default Hero system.

This I disagree, for this I think we're just looking at how it's used differently. I feel there are only a few genres, and more often specific settings, that wouldn't make use of the classes of mind. Otherwise it's pretty universal. The machine class of mind more or less proves that.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

You keep saying this without supporting it. It's simply not true. Do you have but one SFX for Mental Powers?

No, and thankfully my version hasn't been enshrined in the rules as the defauilt like this has.

 

I have supported it, you just don't accept the terms or definition or something. As stated, Phys and Ener are real-world SFX that we understand. Mental has no practical real-world analogue. All of our SFX and all the SFX in heroic fiction vary. The rulebook makes a gross assumption to address, beyond Machinery, a non-existing problem in an interesting but ultimately constraining assumption around the SFX of Mental powers.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

(snip)

 

Yet you are okay with Automatons, which do that same thing regardless of their class of mind.

 

 

The difference is a known real-world analogue at least in appreciating the difference. Automotons have no brain and no EGO, that is the most compelling issue.

 

PS - again, I would liken it to Phys/Ener distinction, well-understood and with clear differences. Probably requires a different treatment than P/E given comments I made above.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Except for the part of the rule needing to be put in a different book' date=' I agree that it needs more definition and explination. It also needs more examples on how it applies in the various official settings of Hero Games. It's a poorly phrased and presented rule. That doesn't make it a bad rule, just often misunderstood and misinterpreted.[/quote']

 

It is a rule that has no business being universal. It is not essential to the smooth running of mental powers. It fills no gaps in power creation. A rule for powers analogous to mental powers which work against computers and similar constructs which lack an EGO stat is needed, but going beyond the creation of a variant for this sole and explicit purpose to create "classes of mind" unnecessarily restricts the universality of the toolbox.

 

The difference between "machine telepathy" and "alien/animal class" is simple. The former is essential because, mechanically, telepathy cannot work on a computer because the computer lacks the Ego stat on which telepathy is based. There is no reason compelling mechanics- based reason to segregate Telepathy into Alien, Human, Animal and Machine classes of minds. If anything, it serves only to further muddy the waters, as it leads to questions of whether machines with ego are "machine class" minds, and whether machine class includes both machines with, and without ego or whether the two are separate constrructs.

 

You are wrong about the last statement. Each class of minds is' date=' by deafult, roughly equally [i']useful to target[/i]. Subtle difference, but significent. Commonality doesn't matter, usefullness does. Commonality may affect usefullness, but is not the only thing that affects it.

 

While valid, this is only semantics. The rule presumes equal utility for each class of minds, across all genres and all settings. An exception arguably exists for settings and genres where a given class of mind does not exist at all, as no one would logically spend points on that class in such a setting. However, as the points spent on one of the remaining classes will then be more useful (being useless less frequently), their value should logically be increased, so they should be more expensive.

 

If, in fact, the four classes of mind were of roughly equal utility, mental powers affecting each would logically be equally popular, and equally common, and we would not need the caution that player characters should be restricted to only a single class of minds, across all genres and settings.

 

Granted' date=' the rule doesn't go into any further detail, which it should. Everything else is left up the imagination of the players and GM, and it's obvious people are imagining different things.[/quote']

 

I think we have anough details in the core book already. This construct is far from essential for functional mental powers, so it should be pulled, placed in an optional rules book and there detailed in adequate depth to be useful, and to be readily customized in the genre/setting where it will be used.

 

Yet you are okay with Automatons' date=' which do that same thing regardless of their class of mind.[/quote']

 

Automotons lack the Ego stat. They are a different construct, and are immune to mental powers because, like rocks, trees, walls and buildings, they lack an Ego score and they lack self-motivation or free will. They are not immune because of an arbitrary background difference. They are immune because they are, from any mental perspective, inanimate objects.

 

Inanimate objects take BOD only, no STUN. No one is arguing we need a "classes of body" rule for alien bodies as a consequence.

 

They effectively create a fifth class of minds, since the Hero system provides for some machines which have Ego and some which do not. Is a Zombie automaton human class, machine class or alien (lumped in with small pink fuzzballs from Alpha Centauri)? What if it's a zombie lion - is it animal class now? Classes of mind are distinguishable only on an arbitrary basis. Automatons are distinguishable by the fact they lack an ego score, and any sense of self-will.

 

This I disagree' date=' for this I think we're just looking at how it's used differently. I feel there are only a few genres, and more often specific settings, that wouldn't make use of the classes of mind. Otherwise it's pretty universal. The machine class of mind more or less proves that.[/quote']

 

And you base this, I take it, on the single, solitary example of any source material where, arguably, classes of mind matters. An example that even you indicated was something of a stretch. I have yet to hear of a setting which COULD NOT be duplicated under existing Hero rules with classes of mind ignored in favour of limitations on mental powers (for those unable to affect certain targets) and defenses (for those targets difficult to affect with mental powers).

 

Making the situation worse, I have yet to see an example of a published Hero character which indicates the character's class of mind, or has an adder to affect multiple classes of mind. I haven't read a lot of 5e source material, but I would think we'd have a great example of a character whose concept and SFX demanded such adders, and they were included, if this rule were so seminal to the core system.

 

NOTE: I do not include in this someone desiged to affect machines rather than self-willed entities. I acknowledge a separate rule set for such mechanically different constructs is necessary. Classes of mind go well beyond the necessary mechanics.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I'm sure Steve's thinking "No good deed goes unpunished" when exposed to various threads and arguments like this.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Just as a side note, I created a sort of rule in my primary supers campaign that most robots have human brains at least in terms of neural nets and cells as the basis for their fantastic AI, this simplifies a lot of issues as to SFX and game play. Any exceptions are quite rare, though do exist. As to how our game functions, any distinction in game rules/play for alien vs human would be extremely problematic, and so there is none. I've never envisioned mental SFX to work along these lines, anyway, seeming them more as some variations on biology, electro-chemical stimulus, pure energy projection, and magic.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I'm sure Steve's thinking "No good deed goes unpunished" when exposed to various threads and arguments like this.

 

I expect threads like this that reaffirm his "I don't discuss design philosophy" policy.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

No, and thankfully my version hasn't been enshrined in the rules as the defauilt like this has.

 

I have supported it, you just don't accept the terms or definition or something. As stated, Phys and Ener are real-world SFX that we understand. Mental has no practical real-world analogue. All of our SFX and all the SFX in heroic fiction vary. The rulebook makes a gross assumption to address, beyond Machinery, a non-existing problem in an interesting but ultimately constraining assumption around the SFX of Mental powers.

 

Well, we have "standard" defenses, PD and ED, which are the only types of defense seperated due to a general SFX type thing. Power Defense, Flash Defense and Mental Defense are all singular and don't have much of a SFX base to them (though I've seen many who would like them to be).

 

Mental Defense and the Powers that it protects against are just mechanics. There are just as many SFX for Mental Defense as there are for any other, but I don't think it's any more, or less, specific than Power Defense or Flash Defense. The same goes for Mental Attacks; I don't see those as being any more or less SFX defined than EB or RKA.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I expect threads like this that reaffirm his "I don't discuss design philosophy" policy.

 

And why should he? He has hundred of HeroFans out there to do it for him!

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

It is a rule that has no business being universal. It is not essential to the smooth running of mental powers. It fills no gaps in power creation. A rule for powers analogous to mental powers which work against computers and similar constructs which lack an EGO stat is needed' date=' but going beyond the creation of a variant for this sole and explicit purpose to create "classes of mind" unnecessarily restricts the universality of the toolbox.[/quote']

If that is true, then it must also be true of Instant Change and Regeneration... but I seem to recall you preferred them.

 

The difference between "machine telepathy" and "alien/animal class" is simple. The former is essential because, mechanically, telepathy cannot work on a computer because the computer lacks the Ego stat on which telepathy is based. There is no reason compelling mechanics- based reason to segregate Telepathy into Alien, Human, Animal and Machine classes of minds. If anything, it serves only to further muddy the waters, as it leads to questions of whether machines with ego are "machine class" minds, and whether machine class includes both machines with, and without ego or whether the two are separate constrructs.

Those waters must have been muddied instantly by the inclusion of the seperation of machine and non-machine then. All the rule does is to further seperate the not-machine category. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around your dislike of the rule, but are you effectively saying that it just should have stopped there, at machine/non-machine?

 

 

 

While valid, this is only semantics. The rule presumes equal utility for each class of minds, across all genres and all settings. An exception arguably exists for settings and genres where a given class of mind does not exist at all, as no one would logically spend points on that class in such a setting. However, as the points spent on one of the remaining classes will then be more useful (being useless less frequently), their value should logically be increased, so they should be more expensive.

 

If, in fact, the four classes of mind were of roughly equal utility, mental powers affecting each would logically be equally popular, and equally common, and we would not need the caution that player characters should be restricted to only a single class of minds, across all genres and settings.

I think I see where zornwil is comming from with his talk of SFX... but the system assumes an equal representation and utility of PD and ED and Mental Defense and Power Defense and Flash Defense (sight group) and Flash Defense (smell group) and Flash Defense (spatial awareness) because they all cost the same as well.

 

 

 

And you base this, I take it, on the single, solitary example of any source material where, arguably, classes of mind matters. An example that even you indicated was something of a stretch. I have yet to hear of a setting which COULD NOT be duplicated under existing Hero rules with classes of mind ignored in favour of limitations on mental powers (for those unable to affect certain targets) and defenses (for those targets difficult to affect with mental powers).

Neither can I, but if I find a Champions (or Fantasy Hero, or Star Hero, etc.) game like that, I can assure you Mentalists will be cheep and get far more utility out of their powers than their points are worth. Rare is the setting it wouldn't.

 

Making the situation worse, I have yet to see an example of a published Hero character which indicates the character's class of mind, or has an adder to affect multiple classes of mind. I haven't read a lot of 5e source material, but I would think we'd have a great example of a character whose concept and SFX demanded such adders, and they were included, if this rule were so seminal to the core system.

 

NOTE: I do not include in this someone desiged to affect machines rather than self-willed entities. I acknowledge a separate rule set for such mechanically different constructs is necessary. Classes of mind go well beyond the necessary mechanics.

 

I have, though granted not many. Then again, Steve isn't the one writing up all the characters is he? It's the other authors and so far even they haven't taken to the FAQ ruling.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I expect threads like this that reaffirm his "I don't discuss design philosophy" policy.

Yeah, totally. Personally, I'm too much obsessed and a blabbermouth not to so would in his position, but only probably in very structured forums, not in these board debates, bad bad place for a company rep to get mired in.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Well, we have "standard" defenses, PD and ED, which are the only types of defense seperated due to a general SFX type thing. Power Defense, Flash Defense and Mental Defense are all singular and don't have much of a SFX base to them (though I've seen many who would like them to be).

 

Mental Defense and the Powers that it protects against are just mechanics. There are just as many SFX for Mental Defense as there are for any other, but I don't think it's any more, or less, specific than Power Defense or Flash Defense. The same goes for Mental Attacks; I don't see those as being any more or less SFX defined than EB or RKA.

Yes, that WAS true until we broke Mental into Alien, Animal, Human...

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

(snip)

I have, though granted not many. Then again, Steve isn't the one writing up all the characters is he? It's the other authors and so far even they haven't taken to the FAQ ruling.

 

But I think this only reinforces the suggestion that the whole construct is unnecessary, nobody's even considering it an issue in design, we don't see related SFX Limitations that are so specific and we don't see that CoM attracted attention as some great solution, except where I can see Machine.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

If that is true' date=' then it must also be true of Instant Change and Regeneration... but I seem to recall you preferred them.[/quote']

 

Actually, I can live with either approach for Regeneration and Instant Change, but given we already had powers for each which did the trick, I don't see a compelling need for changing them from their old 4ed approach to their new 5e approach.

 

A bit off topic, but I'm a big fan of the theory that you don't fix it if it ain't broke. Regeneration, Instant Change and Damage Shields woirked just fine under 4e. Even a change which carried equally workable results therefore would not be merited in my eyes. Only a change which makes an improvement commensurate with the complexity of the change is, in my view, worthy of pursuit. Bringing that back on topic, Classes of Minds does not make any improvement I can see that merits its complexity. A simple +0 modifier - power works on non-sentient targets only, targetting INT - would have been adequate to resolve the machine reading/controlling dilemma (without resorting to Transforms and Clarisentience, the other options for simulating use of mental powers on nonsentient contructs).

 

On regen, I like the way 5e dovetails Healing, limb regrowth, and ressurection. I don't like the "unwritten advantage" for healing whicn permits it to exceed the usual "max roll on the dice". I would like to see that advantage recognized explicitly, and not restricted solely to regeneration. But I'd change a lot of the adjustment powers if I were rewriting the rules.

 

Regardless, some mechanic was needed for IC and Regen, and neither choice creates arbitrary distinctions between characters, so I don;t consider them analogous.

 

Those waters must have been muddied instantly by the inclusion of the seperation of machine and non-machine then. All the rule does is to further seperate the not-machine category. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around your dislike of the rule' date=' but are you effectively saying that it just should have stopped there, at machine/non-machine?[/quote']

 

Trying it once more: To me, the differentiation is not the SFX "machine/non-machine". That would differentiate Mechanon from Firewing and Witchcraft. It is the purely mechanical "construct with an Ego score and free will/construct lacking an Ego score and free will". A separate mechanic is needed to be able to apply mental powers (or something similar) to constructs like computers and automaton robots, which lack the Ego score used to determine both whether a mental power hits and, in most cases, whether and how effective it is.

 

Because the mechanics of Mechanon and a computer are different (one has Ego and the other does not) a power which can control Mechanon (Mind COntrol) cannot be applied, mechanically, to the computer (which has no Ego stat). Thus, separate mechanics are needed to have a power which permits a character to exert his will on a computer. The computer differs from Witchcraft, Mechanon and Firewing on a "rules mechanics" level. As a result, a different rules mechanic is needed for a power that controls a computer (or reads its "mind", or implants illusions). Despite having very different backgrounds (special effects), Firewing, Mechanon and Wiotchcraft are, "rules mechanically", not different.l

 

I think I see where zornwil is comming from with his talk of SFX... but the system assumes an equal representation and utility of PD and ED and Mental Defense and Power Defense and Flash Defense (sight group) and Flash Defense (smell group) and Flash Defense (spatial awareness) because they all cost the same as well.

 

In these cases, I believe that the costs of attacks and costs of defenses are, to a reasonable extent, in balance with one another. The "classes of mids" structure goes beyond point mechanics to set a price on the ability to affect a different class of mind, but set no price (no mechanics) on the ability to BE of a different class of mind. Classes of minds, again, blends SFX and rules mechanics. Unlike the case for adjustment powers, this blending is easily avoidable. As a result, it is my opinion that this blending should be avoided, reserved for use where the campaign setting demands it rather than being set as a default.

 

Neither can I' date=' but if I find a Champions (or Fantasy Hero, or Star Hero, etc.) game like that, I can assure you Mentalists will be cheep and get far more utility out of their powers than their points are worth. Rare is the setting it wouldn't.[/quote']

 

When you say "if I find a game like that", do you mean "if I find a setting where this mechanic is necessary, but not in use" (and thus the mechanic would be used appropriiately as an optional rule), or "If I find a game where the CLasses of mind rule is not in use"? The former is circular logic - yes, if the classes of mind rule were, in some bizarre setting, essential, its absence would cripple the game. The lack of any essential mechanic would logically cripple a game.

 

If the latter, in 20+ years using the Hero system, I've yet to see a game where mentalists dominated, or were even considered overpowered compared to non-mentalists. I don't find mentalists any more potentially unbalancing than any number of other constructs and archetypes.

 

I have' date=' though granted not many. Then again, Steve isn't the one writing up all the characters is he? It's the other authors and so far even they haven't taken to the FAQ ruling.[/quote']

 

Two points. First, Steve does edit most of the books. If this rule were so central to the smooth functioning of the game, and preventing mentalists dominating the landscape, would he not be ensuring these rules were, in fact, considered in the supplements?

 

Second, if this rule is so critical, why do Hero authors not pay any attention to it? EDIT: Especially considering that Hero doesn't just throwq jobs out there for freelancers, but is quite selective in who they will use.

 

I can't say it any better than

 

But I think this only reinforces the suggestion that the whole construct is unnecessary' date=' nobody's even considering it an issue in design, we don't see related SFX Limitations that are so specific and we don't see that CoM attracted attention as some great solution, except where I can see Machine.[/quote']