Mental Powers

[caris]

Re: Mental Powers

 

The alternative' date=' a cost of 180 points to have a 60 AP mental power which affects animals, humans and fuzzy blue things from Alpha Centauri, is no more appealing to me when other powers affect all three without such modifiers. [/quote']

 

I was thinking of an Advantage rather than requiring all three powers separately. The fact that the rules apply an arbitrary cost is not an argument against the Power. If a 12D6 Energy Blast: Fire = 60 pts, and a 12D6 Energy Blast: Cold Beam = 60pts, why does an Energy Blast that can be either cost 75pts?

 

And I need only make this determination with the player and the GM, which I will do from the very well-defined special effects this one player has written out for WHY his mental power affects only women. And there may well be a second character out there whose power does not affect women, and whose special effects will mean that the decision for that character is different than for the first.

 

When the default is set by the game system, the definition needs to be provided up front, in suficient detail to allow players (and GM) to know exactly what the ground rules are. The player has no choice but to define what classes he can and cannot affect, and cannot simply decide his mental power is "universal".

 

No, actually, it is the responsibility of the GM to set down and determine what classes of mind he is going to be using for his campaign. The class of mind “everything†is absolutely viable and does not contradict anything in the rules. If the rules were to say “the classes of minds are:…†I might agree with you, but the phrasing is indicative that the list was not meant to be either comprehensive or exclusive.

 

In my little world, Hunted does not mean "every time I make the roll, your Hunted shows up, in game time, and engages you in combat". If it does in yours, the same problem exists - people will get sick of the hunter. This is also a good reason to avoid 14- Hunteds.

 

Similarly, Vulnerability is quite effective when it does show up, and affects the character's tactical choices. "Common" sfx will generally show up frequently enough without looking forced, at least in my games.

 

However, there are not a lot of mentalists who affect unusual mind classes, so it will look forced if I make them show up as often as mentalists who affect the Human class of minds. The default system enshrines the "limitation" for only affecting alien-class minds as -0. I define the limitation for "not versus fire" or "only versus electricity", so the game has not (and should not) attempted to define the frequency of such SFX in my specific game. Nor should it seek to define how common alien minds will be.

 

Let me see if I get this straight. Since you are unable to run a game without making being a class of mind other than what every other player is running worth zero points within that game without boring your players, or making it feel forced, it is the mechanics fault. On the other hand if Bob, has the same problem with Hunteds or Vulnerablities, it is Bob’s fault?

 

Please, explain to me how that is not a double standard?

 

I think you are overexaggerating the need to have classes of mind in the first place. Without them' date=' the need to define them vanishes quite nicely. I'm also curious why, if my players cannot agree on definitions of classes of mind, that's not the game system's problem, but the inability of your players to comprehend the meaning of "toolkit" is the game system's problem. Perhaps the answer is that your players would be more comfortable playing a game which provides setting-specific rules, and not that my group should accept the imposition of setting-specific rules overriding the generic toolkit. [/quote']

 

You will forgive me, that is not the point I have been trying to make. The points that I have been trying to make is that the rules do not magically prevent misunderstanding between GMs and players. That there are plenty of rules that already exist in the system that do create problems, and that to remove a mechanic that is established in the rules, you have to prove that it is producing unreasonable problems. I actually prefer rules that make it clear there is something that the GM and the players need to discuss. It seems that this rule has rather nicely conveyed that point to you.

 

 

 

In exactly the same way that powers which cost no END do not go in an elemental control is a defining requirement. It is the default rule included in the mechanics' date=' and applies unless the GM consciously changes it (overall or for any specific instance). [/quote']

 

You really can not grasp the linguistic differences between those paragraphs? If not than I assume you also limit E.C.s to the special effects listed under “Acceptable Elemental Controls†on page 204? As far as I can tell, as much “orthodoxy†is put into making those the “defaults†for Elemental Controls as there is for viewing Classes of Mind the way you claim it is.

 

If your players cannot understand imposing a requirement not contained in the core rules' date=' how can they understand changing the parameters set out in the core rules? [/quote']

 

Call it crazy, but I’ve always found it easier to get players to accept something like “I don’t use Classes of Mind, basically everything is the same class.†Than to get them to accept “OK, everyone if you buy this power you have to put these Limitations on them.â€

 

I'm specifically asking for a genre example where ALL aliens are immune to mental powers of humans, and vice versa (with rare exceptions explicable as "purchasing the adder"). I've yet to see one.

 

For my money, the Ferengi immunity is just as effectively explained as a campaign ground rule ("all mental powers have the -0 limitation not vs Ferengi"). However, a large point cost for the immunity would explain the relative lack of other game-useful skills and abilities Ferengi seem to possess

 

And Sentinels are easily explained as either mental defense or (more likely) automaton status.

 

Actually, you were originally only asking for proof that the “classes of mind†were common. Now, you want the specific of the “alien†class. I’m sorry, but I really don’t see any point in trying. If I can not convince you that from at the very least the story arc that lead to Jean Gray being replaced by the Phoenix Force, that Sentinels don’t qualify as Automatons than I have no hope of convincing you of any other genre example.

 

How is me as a GM defining that all Mental Powers most take a –0 Limitation: not vs. Ferengi, differ from me defining Ferengi as a separate class of mind for my game?

 

Question, though, wasn’t one of your complaints about this is that it creates some builds that are only viable as NPCs (i.e. that this requires all PCs to be of the same class of mind so that they can not play aliens or robots for example)? Does that mean that you either don’t use Automaton (which would sort of invalidate them as a example of a possible solution to the problem) or players are allowed to play Automatons (which sort of invalidates the not letting players have something for free based on background argument)?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

God I hate long posts...

You don't seem to get my point. The source material should not be expected to bend to the Hero Sytem rules. The rules should be capale of emulating the source material. They should not dovetail with one type of source material, but should be capable of emulating a broad array of source material. Unless Classes of Mind is near-universal, across all genres, in the course material, I consider it an ainappropriate inclusion to the base rules. And I do not see classes of mind in sufficient source material to make it an appropriate inclusion in the core rules.

 

When I read the rules, I don't see anything jump out at me like Classes of Mind does as specifically imposing a setting rule on what should be a toolkit of mechanics.

You seem have missed my point as well. I got your point, I was just telling you that you are wrong. Source material does not need to bend, neither to the rules. Classes of mind can explain a LOT of what happens in source material. In other cases it seesm irrelavent. The only reason you don't like Classes of Mind is because you, personally, don't think Mental Powers should work that way. The fact that they can work using Classes of Mind seem unimportant to you. You've admitted it works, that it can work, that it can fit various settings. You just would rather do it differently, and would very much like your way to be the official rule.

 

If I have this wrong, please correct me and explain.

 

As to the standard applied, I don't see anything in the fore rules which violates the principal of "toolkit", the principal of separating mechanics from special effects, to the same extent Classes of Mind does. And I see very few problems in the core rules which are so readily fixed. Open "Core Rules". Highlight "Classes of Mind". Strike "Control X". Open Ultimate Mentalist. Start chapter on optional rules. Strike "Control V". In other words, the core rules would not suffer, in my opinion, from removsal of classes of mind. Inclusion as an optional rule, used where appropriate to the game? I could support that 100%, even if I never use the rule in my games.

In my opinion, such a change would cause the rules to suffer, even if only slightly. As I said before, and will likely say again. The Classes of Mind rules allows for your way of thinking, built right in. Your way of thinking does not allow for Classes of Mind. Classes of mind are obviously supperior due to flexibility.

 

 

 

What is classes of mind SOLVING? Should we add a "classes of body" rule so that extradimensional wierdlings are immune to physical damage? After all, Star Trek seems to abound with creatures that phasers have no effect on. The rule is not needed. Extraneous rules should not be part of the core system.

Why does something have to be broken? Why does there have to be a problem in order to solve for the rules to improve?

 

 

 

I am against including Classes of Mind or required -0 limitations as concepts included as standard core rules. I am for their inclusion as optional rules to be applied where the genre/game setting madates this. Do you have an inability top perceive the difference between the tools in the toolkit, and the application of those tools to a specific task?

No, but you are seeming to have trouble with it. I may be wrong, but I fail to see how classes of mind implies any kind of specific application (excluding Steve Long's FAQ entry), but you seem to be reading a lot into the rules that isn't there.

 

I have no problem with a GM saying "In this game setting, certain creatures are, by default, immune to mental (or physical, or whatever subset of) powers. This is reflected as a mandatory -0 limitation on all such powers purchased." I do have a problem with the core rules themselves imposing this structure on all game settings. And, contrary to your constant statements above, the core rules provide for four specific classes of mind - Alien, Human, Machine and Animal. The FAQ does not have a question "what are the default classes of mind". The Mental Powers section begins with "What qualifies for the “Alien†class of minds?"

Will you please quote for me, the from the rules, the definitions of each of those classes? Go ahead and include the FAQ if you'd like. I'd really like to know what the rules have to say on this because everytime I look I can't seem to find anything about it. Perhaps you have a different book than I do.

 

 

 

I say it could be the best approach in some cases. I also say it is not the best approach in every case, and is not a viable approach in all cases. As suich, I consider its inclusion as a core rule inappropriate. Just as I would consider "Magic is always simulated by memorizing spells which are forgotten upon casting" to be an inappropriate core rule, but certainly an option the system should be capable of permitting.

Again, by your own words, your method of doing without classes of mind is not a viable approach in all cases, and by your own arguement the rules should not include classless minds. Interesting paradox, is it not? Once more, classes of mind allows for a one class of mind setting, thus allows for your perspective of how mental powers work to prevail, but your perspective of how mental powers work does not allow for a multiple class of mind setting. The rules should not restrict, as you suggest, and the class of mind rules is clearly in improvement upon the rules.

 

If I want to simulate the D&Dism of "magic resistance", I can do so by saying "some creatures are inherently resistant to magic, and all spells cast upon them will have a chance of failure. This is a -0 limitation which applies to all magical spells in this game setting". This does not mean I support the inclusion of a "classes of creature" core rule which renders some creatures invulnerable to magic.

This is irrelevant. I'm discussion game mechanics, not SFX. Mental Powers are a game mechanic, magic is not.

 

 

 

Are you saying the addition of an optional rule in 4e (3e, 2e, 1e) was impossible? I do not believe Clases of Mind belong in the core rules. They do, as several people have already pointed out, serve precisely the same purpose as simply imposing a -0 limitation on all mental powers that they do not affect certain types of targets, with an adder structure to permit affecting such targets at a cost. A -0 limitation seems quite adequate ton accomplish this. Making different classes more resistant, rather than immune, is also a viable approach. Broad classes of mind or very narrow classes of mind would work. Creatures immune to power types other than mental powers would also be quite adequate.

The only person I've seen state such things is you (if anyone else has, please announce so in case I've missed it). In any case, as I mentioned before, it's not the same. Classes of mind allows for an Adder (or initial selection of target class) for some Mental Powers to work on targets of different classes of mind, while a required Limitation does not. Need I mention which I feel is a superior method?

 

Presentation of the concept as "classes of mind" as an option in a book on mental powers, or a setting book where classes of mind form part of the setting, would be great. "Here is another option for GM's to use in customizing their game worlds" is desirable.

 

However, enshrining them as a core rule generally applicable to mental powers across all genres and settings unnecessarily and unduly limits the possibilities. "Here is the Hero Standard for mental powers" should not exist. There is no reason not to have a CU, a Turakian Age, a Terran Empire, or a "Hero Universe" standard for mental powers. However, cush standards should not be imposed as a core mechanical rule. This unduly limits the toolbox.

 

Such optional rules should exist to be added to the core mechanic as needed or desired. They should not be presented as "the way things normally work" for GM's to strip away.

Are you even reading my posts?

 

 

 

I do not agree the absence of "classes of mind" grants mentalists free points because they are mentalists. Would you also say the system grants free points to energy projectors, who may place a limitation on their energy blast because it "Does not affect animals"? Do you feel that BioFeedback Man, whose adjustment powers are "Halved effectiveness against targets with an unusal metaboliosm and no effect against targets lacking an organic metabolism" receives free points? No - they receive point breaks because their powers are restricted in effect. Only mental powers are singled out, by the core "classes of mind" rules, to be unable to affect a broad category of character builds solely due to those builds' special effects and back stories, while being mechanically identical.

 

Which, incendentally, is how I feel Mental Powers should work. Natural barriers. Did you know the default for Telepathy is to not be based on language? Odd, considering studies have proven that the human mind thinks in language. What would happend if you tried to read the mind of a dog, which has no language conprehensible to humans? You wouldn't get anything like thoughts, not like humans understand them. Now imagine trying to read the mind of something completel not of this earth...

 

Of course, you think that all living things, and even some things that aren't living, think the same way, and in a way that is easily understodd by everything capable of thinking. I think you are wrong. Which one of us is right? Neither. But the only rules that allows for either viewpoint is the classes of mind rule. Go figure.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

One issue not mentioned above, as far as I can see. It is a "Hero-ism" that every attack has a defense, and the defense is cheaper than the attack.

 

Under the Classes of Mind rule, according to the FAQ, it is possible to change your class of mind using Multiform to change to an identical being with a different class of mind. The cost of such a Multiform is 1/5 of the character points of the second form.

 

The cost of affecting a separate class of mind is 10 points. The "defense" is not being of that class of mind. That costs less than the adder only if the character is build on (and, after all experience, stays built on) less than 50 points in aggregate.

 

As such, Classes of Mind can be perceived to violate a core principal of Hero - "for every attack, a defense, and the defense costs less than the attack".

 

Oh, that's week... you're reaching now.

[caris]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I'm interested that you think you require +50 Ego or +100 mental defense (+100 would cost 67 under your parameters) to achieve the desired result' date=' but that's just mathing it out. For myself, I would consider imposing a -1/4 (or -0) limitation on the Mind Control powers of betazeds that their powers "do not work on Ferengi". Add any other species where you consider this appropriate, based on your vision of the ST universe, and add the same limitation to any other telepathic races, and away we go. [/quote']

 

It was early and I had a limited amount of time left before I had to leave for work. I got my math wrong (forgot Ego was 2 per to be specific). Betazeds are not the only people proven incapable of reading Ferengi minds, plus in this case, I was attempting to highlight the problem with the high Ego/Mental Defense thing. Basically, to get it to do what I want it to do, that I have to set the amount so high that it becomes prohibitively expensive for anything except an NPC.

 

My other example, points out the problem that the rules don’t really give the GM the authority to impose Limitations. Oh, sure we all throw it around like it is a given, but I’ve never found it explicitly stated. It may just have been something I missed.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Not it doesn't. It deliberately leaves the classes undefinded (you have to look in the FAQ just to find a "default", which is not in the rules at all). I have no idea why you feel discouraged from something like this, or if you don't why you feel others might.

 

 

This does not apply. Nothing in the rules are being changed, simply used. Defining how classes of minds work is no different than defining how many starting points player characters get. It's not a change of the rules.

 

 

 

Oddly, the only people I've seen even comment on it are the old timers. My guess is that the newbies don't have a problem with it. In any case, there is no element of new players not knowing better. A new player is still a player and is likely to be able to think and analyse... this is evidenced by the numerous posts about various rules, constructs and so on we see on these boards. New players aren't stupid, and the fact we don't see thread after thread of some newbie asking about the f---ed up classes of mind rule should indecate the rule isn't broken.

Newbies don't have a problem with it because they don't know better. That's not a criticism or a way of saying they're dull at all, what I am saying is that they don't understand how it worked without that and are not coming at it from the freeer perspective.

 

If those comments on points balance and the fact they give a default in the core (universal toolkit) rules mean nothing, then I guess point values in general mean nothing...I don't see how you have it both way. I do take the points values seriously, of course we all have our quibbles, but they do have meaning, I say.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Actually, this is where you disagree with Steve Long.

 

The FAQ are considered "Official" clarications and extensions of the rules. Steve considers anything that he answers there "Official Rules". He's changed his mind on couple of his own rulings in them, but he still considers them "Official". If you doubt that just ask him.

 

Now whether you, I, or anyone else accepts that fact is not relevant. He wrote the rules and he wrote the Offical FAQ to clarify those rules.

 

Now on the other end of the spectrum, it doesn't matter what's written the rules or in the FAQ, the GM is the final arbiter of how things work in his campaign. Regardless of what Steve Long may think or even the players in the game.

 

All that's being argued here, as far as I can tell, is what ruling would best fit to handle the needs of everyone who might need them.

 

For those who don't care what the rules say or the FAQ, changing the rules doesn't matter since they'll do what they want anyway.

 

For those who care about keeping things generic, consistent, flexible, or however you want to express it, changing the rules would benefit everyone, in their opnion.

 

The real question is to ask yourself which side you fall on.

 

Just My Observation Of The Debate

 

- Christopher Mullins

Well, it's galling that everyone doesn't realize they just need to listen to me!

 

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Newbies don't have a problem with it because they don't know better. That's not a criticism or a way of saying they're dull at all' date=' what I am saying is that they don't understand how it worked without that and are not coming at it from the freeer perspective.[/quote']

They don't know better than what? I was a newbie once as well, and while I'm no Einstein I could still tell the difference between something that worked and something that didn't, and definately knew if I didn't understand something. The rule isn't that complicated. My guess is that it's actually easier for the newbies to realize the classes of mind rule is open and highly maleable, as they haven't been playing under any preconceptions for 10 to 20 years.

 

If those comments on points balance and the fact they give a default in the core (universal toolkit) rules mean nothing, then I guess point values in general mean nothing...I don't see how you have it both way. I do take the points values seriously, of course we all have our quibbles, but they do have meaning, I say.

I did not say they mean nothing. It's obvious they do, please give me that much credit at least. What I mean is that adjusting the classes of mind for any particlar campaign is just as easy, and just as significent, as adjusting the starting points for characters. It also has just as much bearing on the campaign and setting. You aren't going to have 1,500 point heroes in a low fantasy setting any more than you are going to have alien minds in a Hong Kong martial arts epic.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Uh' date=' zornwil, I think there is a very important difference of opinion here that you haven’t considered. Three years after its introduction, you are no longer arguing against the inclusion of a new mechanic, you already lost that debate three years ago. You are now arguing for the replacement of an existing rule. Now the burden is on you to prove that the mechanic that you want to replace the existing one is the better mechanic.[/quote']

 

That's a rather solipsistic argument, don't you think? I am referring to changes in rules. I can go back to changes from 2nd to 3rd and 3rd to 4th and make all of the same judgements, and I think one ought to. The reason for an introduction of a rule in any system at any time, whether it's AD&D over D&D or whatever, is whether it improves the game.

 

As to CoM and 3 years ago, I will say I never once heard debates around the notion of classes of minds, and if anything that speaks volumes to the lack of need. There were plenty of discussions on scaling big-sized attacks and movement, plenty on how Flash should work, plenty on the inconsistencies of multiple character models, and lots on Summon, if we are talking of the 4th to 5th period. Discussions on mentalism did include issues, but I don't recall any revolving around dividing up classes of organic minds, which isn't to say that absolutely none occurred but they would appear to be rare as far as I can tell.

 

Which comes back to me not really caring if I convince you to accepting the Class of Mind construct. The most important part of the concept that I like, both you and Hough are more than happy to accept and that is the idea that the rules should codify that a GM can/should enforce a Limitation across power builds to enforce balance, genre, world integrety, etc. I’m really just pointing out, that if you really want to change the mechanic, you need to improve your arguments, or find some way to replace the current decision makers in terms of the book with some one more amiable to your position.

 

I don't understand any of that. This is a discussion on the value of the change and whether it should have occurred. Nobody is making a claim that it will change the system. It is an academic argument, just like 90% of the discussions here, well, aside from implementation/build ideas.

 

I’m sorry, but you are fairly off the mark on what my objections to Martial Arts are. I do not particularly have a problem them introducing SFX, the way they do. I do think it is somewhat unnecessary, but I don’t really care. It is that I find them unbalancingly cost effective when combined with a low number of points, and players not having access to other cost saving methods like power frameworks. This is typified for me by the “Call of Cthullu in Hero System†game a friend ran, where all 5 of the pcs had one form of Martial Art or another, and the time where I tried to run a character based around Combat Skill Levels in a game where everyone else had Martial Arts. My character was the least Combat Effective and only marginally more versatile in combat than all the other characters, and given the very hard and fast nature of the way both these mechanics are defined, the only part of the problem that I could lay at the GM’s feet was with the way he managed effectiveness caps.

 

If it's just cost, that's relatively easy to fix, it's not a structural issue at least. I had thought you brought it up in relation to CoM as evidence of a greater wrong in that direction.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Conceptually, I don't see a difference between saying:

 

there are classes of minds, minds work according to a divisory system which introduces game balance, roughly equally (as a matter of population with utility) dividing the game population, and there are defaults according to broad types, and it's normative though not necessary to have some 4 classes of minds or thereabouts; this game uses aliens, animals, humans, and machine as a normative value although settings may vary widely

 

versus

 

there are races of people, bodies working according to a divisory system which balances among them and their occurence in the game, and there are default large populations, and it's normative to have a variety, among the main races, of some 4-6 jmajor races, though not necessary; this game uses elves, halflings, humans, gnomes, and orcs as a normative value although settings may vary widely

[caris]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Conceptually, I don't see a difference between saying:

 

there are classes of minds, minds work according to a divisory system which introduces game balance, roughly equally (as a matter of population with utility) dividing the game population, and there are defaults according to broad types, and it's normative though not necessary to have some 4 classes of minds or thereabouts; this game uses aliens, animals, humans, and machine as a normative value although settings may vary widely

 

versus

 

there are races of people, bodies working according to a divisory system which balances among them and their occurence in the game, and there are default large populations, and it's normative to have a variety, among the main races, of some 4-6 jmajor races, though not necessary; this game uses elves, halflings, humans, gnomes, and orcs as a normative value although settings may vary widely

 

OK, is the second a passage in the book that I haven't read somewhere? Are you claiming that the second passage is inappropriate? I'm just not understanding the context you want us to read this in.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I'm comparing it to D&D's races concept and execution. You could model any race you like but...there is a standard suggested. Though at least it's built on a singular fantasy world premise. HERO...isn't. And I suggest if HERO put a "races and classes" blatantly into the book it'd go over like a lead balloon, but I don't see CoM as much removed.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Uh' date=' zornwil, I think there is a very important difference of opinion here that you haven’t considered. Three years after its introduction, you are no longer arguing against the inclusion of a new mechanic, you already lost that debate three years ago. You are now arguing for the replacement of an existing rule. Now the burden is on you to prove that the mechanic that you want to replace the existing one is the better mechanic.[/quote']

 

Not to put words in Zornwil's mouth (be pullin' back a stump!), but the age of the rule isn't the issue. The need for the additional rule of "classes of mind" is. It adds complexity and reduces universality. It adds nothing that the rule set needs mechanically. As such, it should properly be an optional rule.

 

Which comes back to me not really caring if I convince you to accepting the Class of Mind construct. The most important part of the concept that I like' date=' both you and Hough are more than happy to accept and that is the idea that the rules should codify that a GM can/should enforce a Limitation across power builds to enforce balance, genre, world integrety, etc. I’m really just pointing out, that if you really want to change the mechanic, you need to improve your arguments, or find some way to replace the current decision makers in terms of the book with some one more amiable to your position. [/quote']

 

It's purely a matter of opinion. Mine is that classes of mind do not belong as a core rule. It should be an option for creating the effects you note above. To have a specific mechanic targetting mental powers in this fashion is both overkill (in that it incorporates such a limitation in the core rules, rather than as an option for settings where such limitations are appropriate) and insufficiently broad (in that it implies such limitations should only apply to mental powers and not, say EB's, RKA's blades and/or punches).

 

It's a means for customizing the mechanics to a specific setting or genre. It should not be presented as a core mechanic.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

They don't know better than what? I was a newbie once as well, and while I'm no Einstein I could still tell the difference between something that worked and something that didn't, and definately knew if I didn't understand something. The rule isn't that complicated. My guess is that it's actually easier for the newbies to realize the classes of mind rule is open and highly maleable, as they haven't been playing under any preconceptions for 10 to 20 years.

 

I did not say they mean nothing. It's obvious they do, please give me that much credit at least. What I mean is that adjusting the classes of mind for any particlar campaign is just as easy, and just as significent, as adjusting the starting points for characters. It also has just as much bearing on the campaign and setting. You aren't going to have 1,500 point heroes in a low fantasy setting any more than you are going to have alien minds in a Hong Kong martial arts epic.

Um, I specifically said what they don't know better than - "don't understand how it worked without that and are not coming at it from the freeer perspective."

 

And "open and highly malleable" is still coming from the "this is the standard". "Gee, I guess this HERO game divides up mental powers by types of brains, okay, I get it.." - that's freaking scary if you ask me...but that is EXACTLY what the core book suggests.

 

Will CoM "work"? Sure. Does D&D "work"? Sure. Which do you prefer to play?

 

As to the points thing, okay, but that's not quite what I meant. My point is quite simply that the rules do indicate that this is a balanced system and therefore one presumes that CoM is part of a balanced system. Which ...it isn't.

[caris]

Re: Mental Powers

 

That's a rather solipsistic argument, don't you think? I am referring to changes in rules. I can go back to changes from 2nd to 3rd and 3rd to 4th and make all of the same judgements, and I think one ought to. The reason for an introduction of a rule in any system at any time, whether it's AD&D over D&D or whatever, is whether it improves the game

 

I don't understand any of that. This is a discussion on the value of the change and whether it should have occurred. Nobody is making a claim that it will change the system. It is an academic argument, just like 90% of the discussions here, well, aside from implementation/build ideas.

 

I see than I appologize for wasting time and bandwith. I could only imagine that you and Hugh were actively interested in seeing the rule changed to have devouted this much time to the topic.

 

If all you are interested in doing is debating wether the rule should have been implemented in the first place, well, that is nice, have fun. I'll drop out now.

 

On the MA issue, you were making the case that even if you and Hugh were the only ones that had a problem with CoM that would not make everyone else right and you wrong. I mentioned Martial Arts as another perfect example of that, meaning that even though it often seems to me that I'm the only one who finds MA a problem, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Lots of things that bother us about the rules are "easily fixed," but we can still dislike them anyways. I would say ignoring the CoM is a heck of a lot easier than repricing all the manuevers in the UMA.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I see than I appologize for wasting time and bandwith. I could only imagine that you and Hugh were actively interested in seeing the rule changed to have devouted this much time to the topic.

 

If all you are interested in doing is debating wether the rule should have been implemented in the first place, well, that is nice, have fun. I'll drop out now.

 

On the MA issue, you were making the case that even if you and Hugh were the only ones that had a problem with CoM that would not make everyone else right and you wrong. I mentioned Martial Arts as another perfect example of that, meaning that even though it often seems to me that I'm the only one who finds MA a problem, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Lots of things that bother us about the rules are "easily fixed," but we can still dislike them anyways. I would say ignoring the CoM is a heck of a lot easier than repricing all the manuevers in the UMA.

Well, yes, I would "like" a change, but I think it's foolish for anyone to think that dicussing it on the boards in one thread is any great movement.

 

Of course debating if it should be changed is much the same as debating whether it should have been introduced.

 

Over time, could this yakkety-yak make a difference? Possibly, but probably not. I don't like to meander with illusions.

 

But more importantly, I don't see the vigor and vim of HERO as related strictly to the core rules. I think conversations like this are the real life blood of the system's application in practicality, so I think these have a useful nature for many of us and cause us to reconsider and change how we do things. Individual change, sure.

 

Okay re your MA point.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

PS to my point above (it's been a bit so new post time)...I would add that conversations like these at least raise the issue for newbies, so they are at least aware there is a contrasting viewpoint and it may (or may not) better represent the legacy of the system.

 

PPS - on a real tangent, ever notice how as the arguments get a bit more intense but also aging how misspellings and grammar start to fall by the wayside? As far as i can see it's true for almost everyone relative to their starting point, except of course if they get REALLY mad and then they want to kick out the jams in a meaningful verbal assault, in which case they often heed what VDM said about condescension working much better if you at least spell correctly.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

I was thinking of an Advantage rather than requiring all three powers separately. The fact that the rules apply an arbitrary cost is not an argument against the Power. If a 12D6 Energy Blast: Fire = 60 pts' date=' and a 12D6 Energy Blast: Cold Beam = 60pts, why does an Energy Blast that can be either cost 75pts?[/quote']

 

The ability to select between heat and cold does not swap the targets the energy blast can have an effect on. Most targets will take the same damage from either (those with vulnerabilities or limited defenses being the unusual exception). The ability to switch between Human and Alien class minds swaps the viable targets of the attacks, except for those very rare individuals who are considered to belong to two classes simultaneously.

 

If the "-3ECV and -10 Effect" approach were used, an adder would make more sense. With the classes being mutually exclusive, they are more like separate powers. I do agree an advantage is more appropriate than an adder, however, in that the benefits increase as the base power increases, so the cost should also increase.

 

No' date=' actually, it is the responsibility of the GM to set down and determine what classes of mind he is going to be using for his campaign. The class of mind “everything†is absolutely viable and does not contradict anything in the rules. If the rules were to say “the classes of minds are:…†I might agree with you, but the phrasing is indicative that the list was not meant to be either comprehensive or exclusive. [/quote']

 

"At their base level, all mental powers affect only one class of minds. The basic classes include Human, Animal, Machine and Alien; the GM can add other classes or alter these as he sees fit."

 

To me, this reads as "here are the default rules. The GM may change them as he sees fit". I read this similarly to "A character cannot normally abort to a movement Action...", followed closely by "At the GM's option, characters may be allowed to abort to other forms of movement in appropriate circumstances". The first phrase sets out the default rule. The next sentence provides the GM with "official" authority to change this default as he sees fit.

 

Let me see if I get this straight. Since you are unable to run a game without making being a class of mind other than what every other player is running worth zero points within that game without boring your players, or making it feel forced, it is the mechanics fault. On the other hand if Bob, has the same problem with Hunteds or Vulnerablities, it is Bob’s fault?

 

Please, explain to me how that is not a double standard?

 

The GM sets the value of all disadvantages and limitations based on how limiting they will be to this specific character, in his specific campaign. Only the limitation "Only affects one class of minds" is prescribed by a core mechanic applying only to mentalists.

 

I would call that a double standard - the GM should set the value for such a limitation on mental attacks using the same criteria he would use for physical attacks subject to the same limitation.

 

You really can not grasp the linguistic differences between those paragraphs? If not than I assume you also limit E.C.s to the special effects listed under “Acceptable Elemental Controls†on page 204? As far as I can tell' date=' as much “orthodoxy†is put into making those the “defaults†for Elemental Controls as there is for viewing Classes of Mind the way you claim it is. [/quote']

 

[mode=snide]First off, if you're going to tell me anything introduced in 5e is "arguing for the replacement of an existing rule", you should really get a current edition of those rules so you're quoting from the current existing rules [end snide mode]

 

More to the point, I see a significant differences between "Some example Elemental Controls include" in a sidebar labelled "Example Elemental Controls" when the book has already advised the sidebars themselves are for examples of the application of the rules, and an inclusion in the overview discussion of mental powers setting out the "basic classes of minds". The mental powers discussion looks a lot more like a core rule than an example. That's probably why questions about the four default classes appear in the FAQ, and questions about the sample EC's do not/

 

Call it crazy' date=' but I’ve always found it easier to get players to accept something like “I don’t use Classes of Mind, basically everything is the same class.†Than to get them to accept “OK, everyone if you buy this power you have to put these Limitations on them.â€[/quote']

 

It's crazy. Both modify the default rules of the game. Both are, to me, perfectly acceptable rules to establish the special effects of a given setting. And neither belongs in the core/default rules.

 

Actually' date=' you were originally only asking for proof that the “classes of mind†were common. Now, you want the specific of the “alien†class. I’m sorry, but I really don’t see any point in trying. If I can not convince you that from at the very least the story arc that lead to Jean Gray being replaced by the Phoenix Force, that Sentinels don’t qualify as Automatons than I have no hope of convincing you of any other genre example. [/quote']

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest I might have a better idea what I was originally asking for than you do. It may not have been communicated as well as it could be.

 

As a core mechanic, I am looking for evidence that the "classes of mind" mechanic (as written for the default version of mental powers) is universal, or virtually so, throughout the source material. That is, wherever mental powers appear, their effects differ depending on which class of mind the target belongs to. In the Pulps, it should be clear they almost never affect both human and animal (and aliens/sentient robots where such exist). In SciFi, humans and aliens should have separate mental powers, which don't affect the other, and neither affects artificial intelligence. And so on through the genres.

 

Quite the contrary, virtually every genre with aliens and mental powers has examples of alien mentalists who have no difficulty affecting human minds. How is this consistent with "classes of mind" as presented in the core rules?

 

How is me as a GM defining that all Mental Powers most take a –0 Limitation: not vs. Ferengi' date=' differ from me defining Ferengi as a separate class of mind for my game?[/quote']

 

Only one involves taking a core mechanic which should not be a core mechanic and modifying it. The other involves use of pure mechanics (powers and limitations) and setting specific requirements and applications for your setting. "Classes of Mind" imposes a specific set of special effects/"how does it work" for mental powers. I don't feel the toolbox should set these special effects as being the "official Hero SFX" any more than Hero should have "one right way" to simulate magic.

 

Question' date=' though, wasn’t one of your complaints about this is that it creates some builds that are only viable as NPCs (i.e. that this requires all PCs to be of the same class of mind so that they can not play aliens or robots for example)? Does that mean that you either don’t use Automaton (which would sort of invalidate them as a example of a possible solution to the problem) or players are allowed to play Automatons (which sort of invalidates the not letting players have something for free based on background argument)?[/quote']

 

Automotons are completely separate mechanically, and are not acceptable as player characters because they lack an Ego stat, and lack self-will. I also don't consder bases, rocks or coatracks to make appropriate player characters.

 

I would probably allow a PC to take some of the Automaton powers if they were appropriate to the character. The classic "Robotman" human brain in a robot body, for example, would logically take no stun, but be damaged as the body is injured. However, the human brain provides both self-will and an ego stat, removing the "tool rather than character" aspect of the character, and the immunity to mental powers. Similarly, if the character were patterned on the Vision (artificial intelligence with self-will) it would not be an automaton (though it too might persuade me to allow purchase of some automaton powers), and would be affected by mental powers. However, if you want to be immune to Stun, you need to (mechanically) pay the points for this, and your enhanced defenses, (SFX) persuade me of how this is appropriate to your character and (game balance) show me the character will not be overbalanced and, more important, can be stopped without being killed.

 

Similarly, if you want your machine mind to protect you from mental abilities, you need to pay the points for the powers, justify it with SFX and provide me with a character who is not overbalanced.

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Hugh, did you know you just passed 4000 posts? Congrats (I think)!

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

)smo[_Quite the contrary, virtually every genre with aliens and mental powers has examples of alien mentalists who have no difficulty affecting human minds. How is this consistent with "classes of mind" as presented in the core rules?

 

Because they just forgot to put the clause in "Significant NPCs should be treated like PCs and as such aliens are counted as humans...except among other aliens..."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

God I hate long posts...

 

It's getting late - let's try to keep it short

 

You seem have missed my point as well. I got your point' date=' I was just telling you that you are wrong. Source material does not need to bend, neither to the rules. Classes of mind can explain a LOT of what happens in source material. In other cases it seesm irrelavent. The only reason you don't like Classes of Mind is because you, personally, don't think Mental Powers should work that way.[/quote']

 

The fact that I can see it working many ways means I don't want to see one way rammed down my throat. Classes of mind segregates "human" and "alien". I cannot recall a single source material example of alien mentalists who find affecting their own race easier than affecting humans. Pulp, Supers, SciFi and even Fantasy contain numerous different races, often as alien as it's possible to expect, which can affect human minds as or more easily than their own race.

 

In my opinion' date=' such a change would cause the rules to suffer, even if only slightly. As I said before, and will likely say again. The Classes of Mind rules allows for your way of thinking, built right in. Your way of thinking does not allow for Classes of Mind. Classes of mind are obviously supperior due to flexibility.[/quote']

 

Conversion to an optional rule from the default still allows for your way of thinking, as well as approaches which differentiate between beings on a basis other than species. To me, that is more flexible. And saying "The GM can modify the rules" is not, to me, flexible. The GM can change any rule to suit his game.

 

Why does something have to be broken? Why does there have to be a problem in order to solve for the rules to improve?

 

How does hardwiring the backdrop of "how mental powers work" improve the game? I would much rather take the standard Hero approach of segregating mechanics and special effects. Classes of Mind is far more about special effects than mechanics, and there is no reason for it to be so enshrined in the core rules.

 

No' date=' but you are seeming to have trouble with it. I may be wrong, but I fail to see how classes of mind implies any kind of specific application (excluding Steve Long's FAQ entry), but you seem to be reading a lot into the rules that isn't there.[/quote']

 

The rules set out four basic classes of mind, "Human", "Animal", "Alien" and "Machine". That implies a very specific application.

 

Will you please quote for me' date=' the from the rules, the definitions of each of those classes? Go ahead and include the FAQ if you'd like. I'd really like to know what the rules have to say on this because everytime I look I can't seem to find anything about it. Perhaps you have a different book than I do.[/quote']

 

First off, the lack of any definition for these core rules is a further fault. If you're going to set out "classes of mind" as a ground rule for mental powers, definitions seem reasonable. The rules seem to assume there will be no difficulty defining the classes of mind. They also assume a "tight group of attacks", a "reasonably common defense" and the difference between a cosmetic, minor and major transform will be clearly understood. There's only so many pages. Maybe real core mechanics could be better defined using space saved by pushing optional rules into options books

 

Q: What qualifies for the “Alien†class of minds?

 

A: That’s something each GM has to define for his own purposes (and it’s definitely a topic for discussion in The Ultimate Mentalist). Generally, Alien is “any sentient species other than the species the character belongs to, that does not qualify for any other category.â€

 

However, “Alien†status might vary depending on the closeness of the relationship between the two species. For example, if you have an Atlantis where the inhabitants were once Human, but have since somehow evolved away from that and are a distinct species, they might count as Alien. Or you might rule that because they come from Human stock, they still count as Human for the purposes of Mental Powers.

 

As definitive as, say, the appropriateness and structuring of a racial elemental control.

 

Q: If a character has a Multiform that lets him switch to something other than human (say, a wolf), does that change his class of mind?

 

A: If the wolf retains human intellect and the like, then he’s still got a Human mind. If not (if the character becomes completely wolf-like mentally [to the point where his INT and EGO drop to wolf levels, etc.], or loses his personality to the effects of the Personality Loss Limitation), then he’d have an Animal mind.

 

Some definition of human versus animal mind there, I'd say.

 

This is irrelevant. I'm discussion game mechanics' date=' not SFX. Mental Powers are a game mechanic, magic is not.[/quote']

 

To me, "classes of mind" imposes special effects on mental powers. It creates "one system way" for mental powers, just as D&D and many other fantasy games create "one system way" for magic. In my view, Hero should strive for flexibility in this regard. That is why I do not dismiss classes of mind as an optional rule, only as a core mechanic.

 

The only person I've seen state such things is you (if anyone else has' date=' please announce so in case I've missed it). In any case, as I mentioned before, it's not the same. Classes of mind allows for an Adder (or initial selection of target class) for some Mental Powers to work on targets of different classes of mind, while a required Limitation does not. Need I mention which I feel is a superior method?[/quote']

 

A required Limitation could include a rule for an adder, advantage or separate power to override the limitation. On the other hand, a GM could prohibit one or all adders, so classes of mind become impermeable.

 

Are you even reading my posts?

 

With, apparently, the same degree of success you have reading mine.

 

Which' date=' incendentally, is how I feel Mental Powers should work. Natural barriers. Did you know the default for Telepathy is to not be based on language? Odd, considering studies have proven that the human mind thinks in language. What would happend if you tried to read the mind of a dog, which has no language conprehensible to humans? You wouldn't get anything like thoughts, not like humans understand them. Now imagine trying to read the mind of something completel not of this earth...[/quote']

 

Now imagine reading the mind of a six month old infant. It is widely theorized that the reason we lack memories of infancy is not that they aren't in the brain, but that our processing changed so markedly when we gained language skills that we can no longer access them. By this logic, a human infant should be more "alien" than an English-speaking alien.

 

However, while I acknowledge, scientifically, a language barrier exists, it IS a near-universal feature in the source material that mental powers lack any language barrier. Therefore I accept it for game purposes.

 

For that matter, why should a caveman and a 21st century scientist have mental patters that have more in common than that 21st century scientist and the artificial intelligence he created and programmed? Will he somehow have programmed it to think in a manner different to humans?

 

Of course' date=' you think that all living things, and even some things that aren't living, think the same way, and in a way that is easily understodd by everything capable of thinking. I think you are wrong. Which one of us is right? Neither. But the only rules that allows for either viewpoint is the classes of mind rule. Go figure.[/quote']

 

You're putting words in my mouth (lucky thing I lack Zornwil's teeth, but still unsanitary). I think neither is necessarily cortrect, so either is an assumption imposed on the game world. However, I consider classes of mind to impose the viewpoint that there are, in fact, different classes of minds (illogical though that interpretation of the plain English may be ).

 

Sorry; not very short!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Hugh' date=' did you know you just passed 4000 posts? Congrats (I think)![/quote']

 

I did notice that. Whether congratulations or condolences are in order, I don't know. [And to the "topic police", this thread has a lot to do with hitting that mark, so it's at least related to the topic ]

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Because they just forgot to put the clause in "Significant NPCs should be treated like PCs and as such aliens are counted as humans...except among other aliens..."

 

Hmmm...maybe it's in Ultimate Mentalist. Or maybe that tome explores the possibility of mental power frameworks other than Classes of Mind...no, that would be heresy!

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

Um, I specifically said what they don't know better than - "don't understand how it worked without that and are not coming at it from the freeer perspective."

 

And "open and highly malleable" is still coming from the "this is the standard". "Gee, I guess this HERO game divides up mental powers by types of brains, okay, I get it.." - that's freaking scary if you ask me...but that is EXACTLY what the core book suggests.

 

Will CoM "work"? Sure. Does D&D "work"? Sure. Which do you prefer to play?

 

As to the points thing, okay, but that's not quite what I meant. My point is quite simply that the rules do indicate that this is a balanced system and therefore one presumes that CoM is part of a balanced system. Which ...it isn't.

In what way does a player with 10 years experience with the rules have a freeer perspective than one with zero? I would think the later would be the one most likely to see the current rules without bias.

 

And yes, the standard rule is open and highly malleable. Yes, the Hero System divides up mental powers by types of brains. And yes (though for some reason you didn't mention it), that standard rule allows the GM to divide up those brains as he sees fit for any particular game. He could put them all in one basket, put them in several, or even have some minds (and Power) that are in more than one. Why does that scare you?

[zornwil]

Re: Mental Powers

 

In what way does a player with 10 years experience with the rules have a freeer perspective than one with zero? I would think the later would be the one most likely to see the current rules without bias.

 

And yes, the standard rule is open and highly malleable. Yes, the Hero System divides up mental powers by types of brains. And yes (though for some reason you didn't mention it), that standard rule allows the GM to divide up those brains as he sees fit for any particular game. He could put them all in one basket, put them in several, or even have some minds (and Power) that are in more than one. Why does that scare you?

I'm referring to the system having been freeer (whether that was good or bad of course being the matter of debate, but at least those of us who've been around have seen it the other way). Not referring to a free perspective in open-mindedness.

 

I mentioned earlier that it does, at the least in responses, as to the fact that GMs can change it. You don't have to agree with my point, of course, but I have repeatedly pointed out the "why", that being the whole issue that the system now very strongly implies that CoM is a necessary balancing technique and properly simulation of some sort of critical mass of genra. Otherwise why cost it out and why have it? And if it were a valid balancing and were representative of some critical mass or core fictional work, that's fine, it'd be great, but all that just ain't so. Is it snazzy? Is it pretty? In some ways, yes. But that's no reason to be a rule nor do such criteria make it advantageous over the preexisting approach (again, aside from Mechanical which had that whole "no EGO' thing).

[Dust Raven]

Re: Mental Powers

 

It's getting late - let's try to keep it short

Umm...

 

 

 

The fact that I can see it working many ways means I don't want to see one way rammed down my throat. Classes of mind segregates "human" and "alien". I cannot recall a single source material example of alien mentalists who find affecting their own race easier than affecting humans. Pulp, Supers, SciFi and even Fantasy contain numerous different races, often as alien as it's possible to expect, which can affect human minds as or more easily than their own race.

 

 

 

Conversion to an optional rule from the default still allows for your way of thinking, as well as approaches which differentiate between beings on a basis other than species. To me, that is more flexible. And saying "The GM can modify the rules" is not, to me, flexible. The GM can change any rule to suit his game.

It's not being rammed down your throat any more than "EB cost 5 points per d6" is. You just don't like it. Maybe leaves a bad taste in your mouth or it just not your cup of tea. That doesn't mean it's bad and shouldn't be a standard rule.

How does hardwiring the backdrop of "how mental powers work" improve the game? I would much rather take the standard Hero approach of segregating mechanics and special effects. Classes of Mind is far more about special effects than mechanics, and there is no reason for it to be so enshrined in the core rules.

This again. It's not about SFX. It's about applicability. It lets you know what you can and can't use the Power on. You can't shoot the air with your EB, or can you attack an idea with an EB. You can't use a STUN Drain on a brick wall. You can't use a Dispel Flight on a target without flight. And you can't use Telepathy versus Human Minds against a frog with an Animal Mind. Applicability, not SFX.

The rules set out four basic classes of mind, "Human", "Animal", "Alien" and "Machine". That implies a very specific application.

 

 

 

First off, the lack of any definition for these core rules is a further fault. If you're going to set out "classes of mind" as a ground rule for mental powers, definitions seem reasonable. The rules seem to assume there will be no difficulty defining the classes of mind. They also assume a "tight group of attacks", a "reasonably common defense" and the difference between a cosmetic, minor and major transform will be clearly understood. There's only so many pages. Maybe real core mechanics could be better defined using space saved by pushing optional rules into options books

 

As definitive as, say, the appropriateness and structuring of a racial elemental control.

 

Some definition of human versus animal mind there, I'd say.

Possibly, but Classes of Mind is not an optional rule, just a maleable one, like sense groups. Even more maleable actually. Do you HeroDesigner? Try to type in your own sense groups for a Sense or Sense-Affecting Power (you can't). Now try to type in your own class of mind for a Mental Power (you can). Interesting, isn't it?

 

As for the definition of terms, classes of mind, tight groups and whatnot are all the same. It's up to the GM what classifies as a certian class of mind, just as it is what classifies as a tight group. Suggestions are made, of course, as there are for a number of things, and that number of things are freely admited to be necessarily different depending upon any given campaign's setting and GM preferences.

 

 

 

To me, "classes of mind" imposes special effects on mental powers. It creates "one system way" for mental powers, just as D&D and many other fantasy games create "one system way" for magic. In my view, Hero should strive for flexibility in this regard. That is why I do not dismiss classes of mind as an optional rule, only as a core mechanic.

It's not a "one system way" in any sense of the term. Why do you see it as such? Your thinking and comprehension is not that limited. I'm convinced you just don't like it and now stubbornly refuse to look at it any other way.

 

I've asked you to give me a reason why removing it from the rules would be an improvement, and why adding it was not. All you've told me is colored in personal bias, incorrect information and irrelevant data.

 

You're putting words in my mouth (lucky thing I lack Zornwil's teeth, but still unsanitary). I think neither is necessarily cortrect, so either is an assumption imposed on the game world. However, I consider classes of mind to impose the viewpoint that there are, in fact, different classes of minds (illogical though that interpretation of the plain English may be ).

Just paraphrasing what you've previously said concerning the applicability of Mental Powers.

 

But, yes. the classes of mind rule does impose that viewpoint, and also allows for there to be any number of classes, or as few as one. It's not a change in the rules to do this, but merely a use of them.

 

One more time, because no mater how many times I say this, you either haven't noticed it or have simply not responded to it: The rules for class of mind allow for how I, personally, believe Mental Powers should be applied, and also how you, personally, believe Mental Powers should be applied. Doing it either way is not a change in the rules, just a correct application of them. If it's stricken from the rules, or made an optional rule, it requires a player or GM to purchase a second book (possibly full of rules of no use to him) just to have that option that takes up less then a column of space to write out.

 

Sorry; not very short!

 

Well, at least we tried.