power limitations as naked power advantages?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

I like the idea of paying positive points to apply the limitation to someone else's powers. Adjustment powere adders and advantages should aply. For example:

 

"Magic Energy Drain: 2x END on all magical powers of target" might stat out as follows:

 

2x END on powers up to 90 AP (45 AP - IIRC 2x END is -1/2) on all magical powers possessed by target (+2 advantage) = 135 points (and 13 END).

 

Add in a radius for +1 and it's 180 AP (and 18 END, 36 if you're in your own radius). Not cheap to maintain.

 

Not cheap, but controllable by reducing the increase to END, reducing the max AP affected or targeting 1 power at a time. Pretty useful in a fantasy game where one special effect is ultra-common.

[OddHat]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

I'd take a consevative approach to this and make it an Area Suppress vs END. If everyone starts out down 20+ END, it's effectively the same as all powers being at double END cost. END will snap back once they leave the field, which is the main difference between this and a drain. The main drawback is that it also "doubles" the END cost of non-magical powers.

 

Alternatively, you could make it an Area Selective Drain End with a trigger ("Spell Cast"), but that would cost more for less actual utility.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

That's not really what he's after, though, OddHat. Consider:

 

Someone (your basic normal guy) has 20 END to start with. If all actions cost double END, then it cost him 2 END instead of 1 END to walk or whatever, making him tire out in half the time. If you use the 'Suppress END' approach, then he's down to 0 END and any action he takes will put him into negative END. Not the same thing at all.

 

The real problem here is that you can't do it by trying to model it after Adjustment Powers. After all, +2 is "All powers of a given SFX, at the same time" so All Magical Powers, for example, would be as broad-ranging as you could get. Spectre wants an ability that makes everything (and I'm going to assume that means regardless of SFX) to cost double END cost.

 

I'd be inclined to go with Sean's build, or do as he suggested and use Change Environment.

[prestidigitator]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

I would be more inclined to use Suppress Rec rather than Suppress End. The amount of End a character spends in a Turn is:

(Sum of End Costs for actions taken) - Rec

unless Recovery actions are performed and successful. That means in order to make a target's actions more tiring you could either increase the End Cost of all their actions or decrease their Rec.

Example

Bruno (heroic game; in supers there are going to be Powers that Cost End to make up for the decreased cost of using Str):

Str 20

Spd 3

End 30

Rec 8

When going full force, Bruno pays 4-5 End per Phase to throw around his Str and possibly move. That's 12-15 End per Turn, minus his Rec comes to 4-7 net End used per Turn. Bruno can go full force for about 3-5 Turns without taking damage or resting.

 

Now if Bruno's Rec is reduced to 4 from a Suppress, he suddenly spends 8-11 End per Turn and can only last 2-3 Turns at full force without needing a rest. He effectively tires about twice as fast!

 

EDIT: And if you reduced his Rec to 2 or below he could only act at full force for 2 Turns without resting.

To mimic that the SFX is supposed to be making the actions themselves more tiring, you could take Limitations like, "Cannot Reduce Rec Below 1 (-1/4)," and, "Does Not Affect Recovery Actions (-1/2)," or, "Half Effect For Recovery Actions (-1/4)."

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

2x END on powers up to 90 AP (45 AP - IIRC 2x END is -1/2) on all magical powers possessed by target (+2 advantage) = 135 points (and 13 END).

 

Add in a radius for +1 and it's 180 AP (and 18 END, 36 if you're in your own radius). Not cheap to maintain.

It seems to me that a -1/2 on a 90 point power takes it down to 60, a 30 point difference, not 45. Therefore, I'd make the base price 30, +2 "all powers" = 90, +1 radius = 120. Still fairly expensive.

 

But I'm not sure I would build it that way anyway. My first thought was Suppress vs ALL Powers, with a limitation that it doesn't work if the target spends 2x END. That sort of works but it's a little klunky.

 

But I think the best build is a Drain END, with a limitation (at least -1/2, maybe as much as -1) "Only up to amount of END Spent."

 

This keeps the base cost down and allows for a reasonable power level. Say 4d6 END Drain (28 END on an average roll - how often is an FH character going to be spending more than 28 END in one phase? Or you could use the standard effect rule for 24 END) AoE: Radius, Continuous = 20 * (1+1+1) = 60 active points. What should the value of the limitation be? If it's -1/2, that takes the total cost down to 40 points.

 

Anyone within the radius pays double END for everything (once normally, and once for the Drain). Let's say our spellcaster rolls 20 on the 4d6. Ron wants to spend 2 END to run 10". William wants to spend 9 END to wield a weapon with his 20 STR and +5 pushing. Maggie wants to use a magic spell that costs 15 END to cast. And a huge demon wants to use its incredible demon power that costs 30 END per use. Sid wants to sit and do nothing. Ron loses an additional 2 END from the drain. William loses 9 in addition to the 9 he spent. Maggie spends a total of 30 (15+15). The demon loses 50, 30 for the power and 20 for the drain, since it didn't roll high enough to double the huge END cost of the demon's huge power. Sid loses no END at all, since he didn't spend any.

 

So is -1/2 a good value for the limitation? Should it be more?

[Spectre]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

Ok, what I'm looking for is a way to increase the END cost of any and all END expenditures in a small area of effect. END costs should double, but any character who doesn't spend END should remain unaffected by the power. Several of the suggestions have been very good. I'm thinking either... increased END as a naked power advantage... or a limited Drain vs. END as a continous AoE damage shield.

[Sean Waters]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

Not damage shield oh god, no...

 

A continuous AE like the one I suggested would double END cost , on average, for 10 points worth of power for each 1 real point you spend on the power. The example given should cover you up to 140 active point powers, or less if they already have increased END cost limitations.

 

The only other way I can think of would be a transform that adds the 'double END cost' limit to all powers, which is horribly clunky but not dependent on the points in the power like the limited drain or the 'limitation as a power' options

[Black Rose]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

Barring some sort of kitbash (I'm not opposed to such, just saying), I'd go with PhilFleischmann's setup; it'll be reasonably priced, and, provided you buy it high enough, will cover the effect. As much as I'd love to be able to inflict Limitations on targets at range, it looks like it would get too expensive too quickly.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

It seems to me that a -1/2 on a 90 point power takes it down to 60' date=' a 30 point difference, not 45. Therefore, I'd make the base price 30, +2 "all powers" = 90, +1 radius = 120. Still fairly expensive.[/quote']

 

I had considered treating the "limitation" as an "advantage" in my calculations. I hadn't considered the alternative approach that the cost of removing a -1/2 limitation from a 90 AP power wuld be 30. I like your approach better.

 

But I think the best build is a Drain END, with a limitation (at least -1/2, maybe as much as -1) "Only up to amount of END Spent."

 

This keeps the base cost down and allows for a reasonable power level. Say 4d6 END Drain (28 END on an average roll - how often is an FH character going to be spending more than 28 END in one phase? Or you could use the standard effect rule for 24 END) AoE: Radius, Continuous = 20 * (1+1+1) = 60 active points. What should the value of the limitation be? If it's -1/2, that takes the total cost down to 40 points.

 

I'd use Standard Effect (24 END) to avoid wild fluctuations. After all, 48 END is highly unlikely, while 8 END is likely to be exceeded at some point. Is -1/2 a reasonable value? Good question. I lean to -1, since the target gets to control the impact of the power (within limits) by carefully controlling their END use, and because you're unlikely to get the full effect on any given target. If it was only 1d6, I'd likely suggest a lower limitation is appropriate.

 

Problems with this approach (well, flaw or feature depending on your point of view, I suppose):

 

- Power Defense mitigates the loss. I'd probably allow that the damage inflicted, not base damage, is capped to END used, but that Demon's 10 Power Defense will mitigate the loss considerably.

 

- As you note, some crreatures may spend enough END per phase to exceed the Drain. This can either be resolved with a handwave, or with the acceptance the power has limits which may sometimes be exceeded. Want to max out on the Demon (or the mage with an extremely high END spell)? Buy more dice.

 

- If I have 30 END, and cast a 20 END spell, doubling the END cost means I lose 5d6 Stun in lieu of that 10 END I didn't have. Technicsally, under the Drain, I think I spend 20 END (10 left), then get drained to negative 10 END. I know the "official rule" is that you don't take STUN from being drained into negative END. Next phase, if I want to spend 4 END, I'll take 2d6 STUN and go to -14 END, rather than taking 4d6 STUN.

 

- Recovery is also weird, as I will get back my REC in END for END spent, plus 10 for the recovery rate on drains (regardless of my REC). This may mean I recover faster or slower, depending on REC.

 

- Recovery is also capped at 1 REC per turn, even for a character who rests to catch his breath, and the drained aEND cannot be recovered through the normal REC process. Given the likely effect of the spell as described should be for the characters to spot off, a couple spenmding END while others rest to regain the END lost from this extra strain, this can impact the feel of the spell.

 

- Speed differences will matter a lot. Assume that Demon has a 21 DEX, 5 SPD, and my spellcaster has a 15 DEX, 3 SPD. On Phase 9, I cast my spell. The Demon moves on phase 10, and spends 30 END, plus 24 for my spell. On phase 12, the Demon can spend another 30 END with no effect from my spell, since the Drain only rolls at each of my phases.

 

- Doubling END makes a lot more difference than draining if you're using the long-term END rules. Easily dealot with by ruling END loss from any source impacts LTE, but that helps out a straight END drain as well. A handwave that LTE counts only for this spell would work, but if it's an exception, it should pay for the adbvantage.

 

Some of these are less than common - the cap only applies if massive END is being spent. Even if the opponent gets 2 phases, he has to average over 12 END per phase to "overload" my spell.

 

The REC issue will be constant, however.

 

Of course, other approaches also have issues. For example, making all abilities cost 2x END gets the right mechanical result, but determining how to cost that out requires making up some new rules.

[prestidigitator]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

I still say something like this would simulate what you want pretty well:

Suppress: 3d6 Rec;

Area of Effect: 3" radius (+5/4);

Personal Immunity (+1/4);

Half Effect For Recovery Actions (-1/4);

Cannot Reduce Rec Below 1 (-1/4);

[37 Active, 25 Real]

That would Suppress an average of 5 Rec, halved for purposes of taking a Recovery Action, and never reducing it below 1.

 

EDIT: Sorry. Fixed costs and amounts.

[Spectre]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

If I go with the END drain as I am leaning toward. It will be bought with the limitations... 'cannot reduce maximum value' @-1/2 and 'can be recovered normally' @-1/2 amongst all the other advantages and limitations. This way the END expenditure increases without having the really nasty effects of long term drains. Yes, I believe that this will be the best way to represent the power, keep it affordable, and not be overly powerfull. Power defence will still be applicable against this power as there should be some form of defence against it. I considered suppress, but that really doesn't give me the effect I want.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

Is -1/2 a reasonable value? Good question. I lean to -1' date=' since the target gets to control the impact of the power (within limits) by carefully controlling their END use, and because you're unlikely to get the full effect on any given target. If it was only 1d6, I'd likely suggest a lower limitation is appropriate.[/quote']

That's a good point. -1 might be closer to the true value than -1/2.

 

Problems with this approach (well, flaw or feature depending on your point of view, I suppose):

You make some good points here:

 

- Power Defense mitigates the loss. I'd probably allow that the damage inflicted, not base damage, is capped to END used, but that Demon's 10 Power Defense will mitigate the loss considerably.

I don't see this as a problem. Attack Powers should have defenses, and doubling someone else's END expenditures certainly counts as an attack. Note however that with a 24 END Standard Effect, a target with 10 Power Def, can still lose up to 14 additional END. If the target uses, say 12 END, he will still suffer the full effect of the power, despite his Power Defense.

 

- As you note, some crreatures may spend enough END per phase to exceed the Drain. .... Want to max out on the Demon (or the mage with an extremely high END spell)? Buy more dice.

Yes. That is as it should be, IMO. Almost all powers "max out" at some point and you have to buy more dice to have more effect.

 

- If I have 30 END, and cast a 20 END spell, doubling the END cost means I lose 5d6 Stun in lieu of that 10 END I didn't have. Technicsally, under the Drain, I think I spend 20 END (10 left), then get drained to negative 10 END. I know the "official rule" is that you don't take STUN from being drained into negative END. Next phase, if I want to spend 4 END, I'll take 2d6 STUN and go to -14 END, rather than taking 4d6 STUN.

I think that's OK. Negative END is probably good enough, especially if it takes the guy by surprise. It seems rather harsh to surprise someone with a loss of STUN because their END cost went up without their knowledge. OTOH, the GM could rule that the target knows in advance that the 20 END power will now cost 40 END, and will have a chance to decide first if they want to spend STUN as END, or if they don't want to use that Power (or use it at a lower level).

 

- Recovery is also weird....

Yeah. I didn't really think about the recovery issues. I'd do a GM handwave and say that instead of getting REC (up to lowered max END value) + 5 on each post-12, and REC (up to lowered max END value) on each recovery phase, you get REC (up to full normal END value) on each recovery phase and post-12. I'd call this a +0 Advantage (or maybe a -0 Limitation). In other words, you don't get the +5/turn that you'd normally get back from a Drain, but in exchange you get back your full REC, regardless of the lowered value. Hmmm... this might be a +1/4 Advantage...

 

- Speed differences will matter a lot. Assume that Demon has a 21 DEX, 5 SPD, .... On phase 12, the Demon can spend another 30 END with no effect from my spell, since the Drain only rolls at each of my phases.

This is just another example of "buy more dice if you want more power." That's a pretty powerful demon, after all! Also, I don't expect that even this demon is going to want to spend 30 END for two phases in a row. The 30 END is for a really big power that he uses once in a while - and it probably already has Increased END on it. Which brings up another point: What about powers that already have Increased END Cost? For my Drain approach, it doesn't really matter, but for a "naked limitation" power, it should only increase the END cost by the -1/2 more limitation, i.e., a 2x END power would become a 3x END power (not 4x), a 3x would become a 4x (not 6x), etc.

 

- Doubling END makes a lot more difference than draining if you're using the long-term END rules. Easily dealot with by ruling END loss from any source impacts LTE, but that helps out a straight END drain as well. A handwave that LTE counts only for this spell would work, but if it's an exception, it should pay for the adbvantage.

Good point! I agree. It is an advantage, and should be paid for (if the LTE rules are being used). I'd say it's only a +1/4, though. And I think it should be taken to get the feel of what Spectre wanted.

 

Thank you, Spectre! This is a really neat idea for a power. I'm going to have to use it! I think I'll give it to a demon and sic it on my players.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

I'd go with the Transform. You're changing the target's Powers around.

[Grail Quest]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

A player in my fantasy hero game wants to build a spell that increases the END cost of all actions over an AoE and I'm really not sure how to construct this ability. It's like a naked power advantage but with a power limitation.

 

This seems to be building the power around a mechanic, rather than the SFX. I would find quibbling over the exact mechanical definition of a power to be somewhat suspect, but anyway...

 

Sounds like the player wants actions to be more strenous.

In that case, I would just build it as an END Suppress. If you normally have 100 END, an action that costs 5 END takes up 5% effort. If you suddenly only have 50 END, now it costs 10% effort. The more END you suppress, in SFX terms the more effort will be felt by those in the AoE for each action they wish to take that costs any END at all.

 

It's possible that the player wants instead, or in addition, that actions tire people out more.

In that case, I'd go with a REC Suppress.

In SFX terms, it might be similar to being tired out faster. If you could, say, sprint for 2 minutes before getting a heart attack, now you might only go for 1 minute before the same.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

My concerns with the Drain builds revolves around the 'max effect' rules.

 

How is this power to affect a group of targets? Is it less effective against a group, or does that not make a difference?

 

Or characters with lots of End / RedEnd powers. If this drain goes on long enough to have drained 'max,' then it will cease to function, correct? Granted, there are work-arounds, such as increasing the drain limit or buying more dice, but the limit, even if difficult to attain, is still there. I suppose it can serve as a built-in 'timer' of sorts to end the spell.

 

I have concerns with the recovery problem as well, but those have been addressed by previous posters, so I'll not go into it again.

[prestidigitator]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

My concerns with the Drain builds revolves around the 'max effect' rules.

 

How is this power to affect a group of targets? Is it less effective against a group, or does that not make a difference?

 

Or characters with lots of End / RedEnd powers. If this drain goes on long enough to have drained 'max,' then it will cease to function, correct? Granted, there are work-arounds, such as increasing the drain limit or buying more dice, but the limit, even if difficult to attain, is still there. I suppose it can serve as a built-in 'timer' of sorts to end the spell.

 

I have concerns with the recovery problem as well, but those have been addressed by previous posters, so I'll not go into it again.

Drain and Suppress have no maximum effect limits (see last paragraph under, "Using Drain," on 5ER p. 151 and the fourth paragraph under, "Using Suppress," on 5ER p. 227).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

You make some good points here:

 

Thank you. Your analysis also raises some good issues.

 

Note however that with a 24 END Standard Effect' date=' a target with 10 Power Def, can still lose up to 14 additional END.[/quote']

 

Power defense defends against the character points drained, so 1 point of Power Defense blocks 2 points of END loss. With 4d6, standard effect, I get 12 CP standard effect (24 END). 10 Pow Def reduces that to 2 CP (4 END).

[Sean Waters]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

Given that this is a fantasy hero power, I wouldn't be too worried about power defence: any such defence is likely to be magical in nature and therefore might 'reasonably' act as a protection.

 

If this was a Champions power, and was defined as a spell, you could make it NND (doesn't work against magical defences) or somesuch.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages?

 

Power defense defends against the character points drained' date=' so 1 point of Power Defense blocks 2 points of END loss. With 4d6, standard effect, I get 12 CP standard effect (24 END). 10 Pow Def reduces that to 2 CP (4 END).[/quote']

Whoops! I hate it when I do that.