Infinite Loops

[GAZZA]

The Hulk. The angrier he gets, the stronger he gets. There is no upper limit.

 

1d6 Aid, increase max to 42 (+18), increase STR and Aid simultaneously (+1/2) [42 Active Points]

 

After 42 points, this becomes a 2d6 Aid, increase max to 84... and so on. It is an infinite loop. And a similar loop can be constructed as long as the total advantages are less than +1. If you wanted to lower the fade rate to 5 pts/minute, say:

 

1d6 Aid, increase max to 98 (+46), increase STR and Aid simultaneously (+1/2), fade rate 5pts/minute (+1/4) [98 Active Points].

 

This is nothing new. Similar loops have been possible since the BBB (and perhaps before that). I'm just curious as to whether any GM has ever allowed such a construction - on a PC or NPC.

 

The only published example I've seen was the Thanatic Rod in the old Mystic Masters supplement, which actually wouldn't have worked the way it was built (it was a Continuous Uncontrolled 0 END Persistent Transfer - but with +2 1/2 in advantages, it's not possible to construct an infinite loop in this fashion. Perhaps it is possible some other way - anyone got any ideas?)

[Markdoc]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Yeah, I have used it. The abuse potential is limited by the fade rate (as you have already noted) and the fact that it takes a long time to get up steam.

 

In my FH game - apprentices in the Dymerian style of magic learn an Aid spell that works in exactly this fashion, so that apprentice 1 casts the Aid on #2, who casts it on #3, etc until apprentice #20 casts the boosted Aid on his master who lets rip with the Big-*** spell . It's never been an abuse problem, because of the need to drag a whole bunch of apprentices around.

 

I've also used it for sorcerors who cast the aid on their sorcery VPP and the Aid itself. This allows them to make the VPP bigger so they can add advantages to their other spells or make them more powerful. It gives you powerful and flexible magic - at the cost of the fact that you can't do diddly without 6-8 phases of preparation and hand-wiggling and chanting.

 

I've also had a Gawain inspired chracter who got progressively stronger as the sun Rose - same mechanism as for Hulk.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Zed-F]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Here's an easier way to make an infinite 'loop', if the GM will allow it as appropriate for a character like the Hulk:

 

Succor STR xd6, Continuous (+1)

 

This will keep going until the character decides to stop paying END or gets stunned, and will keep adding indefinitely. To make it more effective you could add Costs END Only to Activate (+1/4), 0 END (+1/2), and/or Persistent (+1/2). All of those would be GM option land, however.

[specks]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Our group calls Aid the perpetual motion machine power with the way it can be used and abused.

[GAZZA]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Here's an easier way to make an infinite 'loop', if the GM will allow it as appropriate for a character like the Hulk:

 

Succor STR xd6, Continuous (+1)

 

This will keep going until the character decides to stop paying END or gets stunned, and will keep adding indefinitely. To make it more effective you could add Costs END Only to Activate (+1/4), 0 END (+1/2), and/or Persistent (+1/2). All of those would be GM option land, however.

That doesn't work:

• Succor is a variant of Aid, and barring a ruling to the contrary subject to the same maximum as Aid (ie whatever the maximum you can roll on those d6s is).
  
• Succor is already a Constant power (by implication, since the boost lasts as long as you keep paying END), so Continuous is meaningless.
  

I'm using the 5th ed book as my reference; if FRED says something different about Succor, then I guess the above is wrong.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Succor has not upper limit is you keep using an Attack Action to add to it, END costs can spiral up pretty quickly though.

 

Adding Continuous to the Succor allows one to continue "attacking" without using an Attack Action thus allowing you to spiral the Succor up infinitely without using a half action every Phase.

 

(Edit: minor point for clatification: 5th Ed. is referred to as FRED, the Revised is referred to as 5ER.)

[GAZZA]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

That in Revised, or the FAQ, or something? Because I'm not believing it.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Edit:

 

Succor: 5ER pg 134.

 

Continuous/Constant: 5ER pg 98

 

Playing the game so it simulates what you want it to do: Pageless.

[schir1964]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

That in Revised' date=' or the FAQ, or something? Because I'm not believing it.[/quote']

It also states it in the 5th Edition. It works just like Suppress, which has no upper limit.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[prestidigitator]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Succor has not upper limit is you keep using an Attack Action to add to it, END costs can spiral up pretty quickly though.

 

Adding Continuous to the Succor allows one to continue "attacking" without using an Attack Action thus allowing you to spiral the Succor up infinitely without using a half action every Phase.

 

(Edit: minor point for clatification: 5th Ed. is referred to as FRED, the Revised is referred to as 5ER.)

However, I think this would work in the same way as Suppress, and a recent answer by Steve Long indicates that this will result in a geometrically increasing End Cost, which seems to be a decent balance (as long as you do not allow Succor to be bought to 0 End, which I recommend--except maybe for over-the-top NPC constructs; those are always fun).

[Zed-F]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

I just noticed that myself, and was about to point it out, but you beat me to it.

 

However, I should also point out that according to this new ruling, using Costs END Only To Activate would keep the cost linear -- you only pay the END once for each attack, but you get a 'free' attack with the power every phase. This is a way to keep the END cost of the power from growing at a ridiculous rate, so that you can actually maintain an initially small power for more than a mere handful of phases while it builds up, while still making it likely that you won't be able to maintain the power indefinitely.

 

I'll further note that the new ruling doesn't prevent you from attacking with the same power again, on the same or on a different target, just like any other constant attack power. Just watch out for those END costs.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

However' date=' I should also point out that according to this new ruling, using Costs END Only To Activate would keep the cost linear[/quote']

 

Of course, if one goes by the book, "costs END only to activate" is applicable only to a very restricted group of powers (body-affecting, IIRC).

 

Notwithstanding the fact that many of us allow and use it for other powers, it's not Steve's fault if someone breaks the game using a technically illegal construct, is it?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

However' date=' I think this would work in the same way as Suppress, and a recent answer by Steve Long indicates that this will result in a geometrically increasing End Cost, which seems to be a decent balance (as long as you do not allow Succor to be bought to 0 End, which I recommend--except maybe for over-the-top NPC constructs; those are always fun).

Yep, hence the "spiraling END costs" comment...

 

And I agree, 0END should never be bought for Succor except in extreme cases.

[Zed-F]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

On a scale of possibly abusive constructs, I don't think using Costs END to Activate on non-body-affecting powers is ranked all that highly. Although, increasingly, I find that the rules according to HD is becoming the defacto ruleset for character construction. That just means that, as usual, it's incumbent on the GM to decide whether to nix anything that's technically illegal but allowed by HD.

 

Combining Costs END to Activate with a Continuous power ranks a bit higher, but is still within the realm of being potentially acceptable, depending on the specifics of the power involved and the campaign it will be used in.

[GAZZA]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

OK, something doesn't smell right here.

 

Let us assume for the moment that Succor does indeed include a "works just like Suppress" phrase (don't have the book on me; it may well do).

 

Firstly: Suppress is a Constant power. Making it Continuous is meaningless.

 

Secondly: Suppress does indeed have an upper limit. You activate the power, roll your dice, and that amount is suppressed. You continue to keep it activated, and that amount of power is still suppressed; once you stop paying END (or get Stunned, or whatever), the target instantly gets his points back. If you have a 5d6 Suppress with the "non-random output" modifier, and you point it at my 10d6 Energy Blast, then I have a 7d6 Energy Blast. I don't have a 7d6 Energy Blast on the first phase, a 4d6 on the second, and so forth.

 

The waters are murkier when you ask questions such as "what if I hit you with 2 Suppresses/Succors", but for the standard case, I'm going to stick to my guns here and say that Succor cannot do this. If Steve Long has said that it can, then Steve Long (AFAIC) is wrong.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

OK, something doesn't smell right here.

 

Let us assume for the moment that Succor does indeed include a "works just like Suppress" phrase (don't have the book on me; it may well do).

 

Firstly: Suppress is a Constant power. Making it Continuous is meaningless.

 

Secondly: Suppress does indeed have an upper limit. You activate the power, roll your dice, and that amount is suppressed. You continue to keep it activated, and that amount of power is still suppressed; once you stop paying END (or get Stunned, or whatever), the target instantly gets his points back. If you have a 5d6 Suppress with the "non-random output" modifier, and you point it at my 10d6 Energy Blast, then I have a 7d6 Energy Blast. I don't have a 7d6 Energy Blast on the first phase, a 4d6 on the second, and so forth.

 

The waters are murkier when you ask questions such as "what if I hit you with 2 Suppresses/Succors", but for the standard case, I'm going to stick to my guns here and say that Succor cannot do this. If Steve Long has said that it can, then Steve Long (AFAIC) is wrong.

On adding Continuous to a Constant Power:

One application of a Constant Power sticks around as long as it is maintained. A second application requires a second attack roll. Applying Continuous to a Constant power removes the need for a second attack roll on a second application. This should be carefully watched.

 

As for your last statement on the right/wrong ... for games you run that may very well be true.

 

You have asked the boards, the boards will go by book legal constructs to help you, and let you adjust to taste. No one here will argue what you do in your games and what works for you. We're just offering Book Legal Constructs.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

On adding Continuous to a Constant Power:

One application of a Constant Power sticks around as long as it is maintained. A second application requires a second attack roll. Applying Continuous to a Constant power removes the need for a second attack roll on a second application. This should be carefully watched.

Yeah. And not just the second attack roll, but the second attack action, as well. Meaning you can go ahead and do other stuff while you pump yourself up with Succor or pump someone else down (if you'll forgive the expression) with Suppress. It can indeed get dangerous, which is why End constructs and Charges need to be watched carefully. (Man End Reserve is cheap! )

[GAZZA]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Fair enough. That's one more thing to throw in the "5th edition stuffed this up" basket, then, along with Regeneration, Knockback Resistance, and inability to combine framework slots in Multiple Power Attacks...

 

Why there was ever a need to define what happens when you make a Constant power "more Constant" baffles me. I can see why you would want something "in between" a normal Continuous attack (where you have to spend a half phase attack action each phase to keep it going) and a Continuous Uncontrolled attack (where you don't even have to be conscious to keep it going), but I don't see why that was the chosen "solution", since I'm having no trouble at all finding ways to abuse that and quite a bit of trouble thinking of constructs using this modifier that are not abusive.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Fair enough. That's one more thing to throw in the "5th edition stuffed this up" basket' date=' then, along with Regeneration, Knockback Resistance, and inability to combine framework slots in Multiple Power Attacks... [/quote']

 

Fox1?? (kidding).

 

Ok, I can see (if not agree with) arguements for all that, but Knockback Resistance?? wow, ok.

 

Why there was ever a need to define what happens when you make a Constant power "more Constant" baffles me. I can see why you would want something "in between" a normal Continuous attack (where you have to spend a half phase attack action each phase to keep it going) and a Continuous Uncontrolled attack (where you don't even have to be conscious to keep it going)' date=' but I don't see why that was the chosen "solution", since I'm having no trouble at all finding ways to abuse that and quite a bit of trouble thinking of constructs using this modifier that are [b']not[/b] abusive.

Just so it's available. Options are better than not having any.

 

I've said it before, I should put it in my sig I've said it so often...

 

Controlling the Game is up to you, not the system.

[Zed-F]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Define 'abusive.'

 

Guess what, it varies from game to game, GM to GM, and player to player -- and often all three at the same time. Something that is fine in a high-power JLA game may not fly in a more down-to-earth setting. But if you want to have the Hulk rage, and rage, and rage some more, guess what -- Continuous Succor can be your friend. Wasn't that the original point of the discussion?

[GAZZA]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Ok, I can see (if not agree with) arguements for all that, but Knockback Resistance?? wow, ok.

In another thread, it has recently been clarified that if you have Shrinking (1 level) and hence +3" Knockback, then you get knocked back 3" minimum. It's not simply +3 added to the BODY before subtracting 2d6 (or whatever). If you get hit with a 1d6 Punch, you get blasted back 3". This is apparently a clarification from Steve. (It's in the Permanent Size Alterations thread, I think, or maybe Stun from Growth).

 

So I guess I'm talking about "negative Knockback Resistance" here; my bad for not being clearer.

 

And incidentally: options are not always good. I agree with the use for a construct that can make attack powers "fire and forget but not uncontrolled", but I don't agree with the way it was done. I also have issues with Succor and Suppress not having upper limits, but that's a murkier area; since the construct allows you to fire off the Suppress over and over, the same way you could fire off (say) a NND EB choking gas attack, we're now functionally into the "if I Suppress you for 15 points and he Suppresses you for 15 points, how many points are Suppressed?"

 

The answer there should be 15, I think, but I am perfectly prepared to believe that the official answer is 30. There's precedent for arguing it that way. Drains, for example, are certainly cumulative, and Suppresses have several features in common with Drains. My reason for arguing otherwise is fundamentally that Suppress will quickly become far more cost effective than Drain if this is allowed, largely making Drain a useless power.

 

But hey, I'm just GAZZA, not Steve Long. No doubt there are reasons that it works the way it does.

[GAZZA]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Define 'abusive.'

Certainly. "Too cost effective for the points".

 

Guess what, it varies from game to game, GM to GM, and player to player -- and often all three at the same time.

I would argue that it doesn't, in fact. Certainly some games tolerate some abuses and do not tolerate others. That's not the same as saying that the abuse potential isn't there.

 

For example, a Continuous Uncontrolled 0 END Persistent attack is potentially a very abusive construct. Some GMs will allow it for certain powers, in certain games, for certain players, for certain affects. But no matter how many do so, it's still a potentially abusive construct. Not all potentially abusive constructs are abused, of course.

 

But if you want to have the Hulk rage, and rage, and rage some more, guess what -- Continuous Succor can be your friend. Wasn't that the original point of the discussion?

Infinite looping Aids (or Transfers, or Absorption) are potentially abusive. You can argue that the potential is restricted because of the time it takes to build up to a really high level of power, but the potential is definitely there. It's something to keep an eye on.

 

Continuous Succor blows Aid loops out of the water. Not only is it not the same ballpark, it isn't even the same sport. Continuous Succor actually gets more efficient the more advantages you stick on it (since that extra +1 costs - comparatively - less and less), meaning that you can cheaply and easily achieve even +2 "affects all powers of a special effect" level infinity loops - something that you can't do (directly, at any rate) with the Aid version. Continuous Succor may be a book-legal way to do this - I say "may be" because despite all the well meaning intentions of those demonstrating the official position supports them, I'm still having trouble believing anything so utterly awful is actually correct - but it's nobody's friend.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

In another thread, it has recently been clarified that if you have Shrinking (1 level) and hence +3" Knockback, then you get knocked back 3" minimum. It's not simply +3 added to the BODY before subtracting 2d6 (or whatever). If you get hit with a 1d6 Punch, you get blasted back 3". This is apparently a clarification from Steve. (It's in the Permanent Size Alterations thread, I think, or maybe Stun from Growth).

 

So I guess I'm talking about "negative Knockback Resistance" here; my bad for not being clearer.

 

ah, yes. that. I'm in complete agreeance there. silly rule, I'd ignore it. Very unheroic to get batted around all the time just 'cuz yer little.

 

And incidentally: options are not always good. I agree with the use for a construct that can make attack powers "fire and forget but not uncontrolled", but I don't agree with the way it was done. I also have issues with Succor and Suppress not having upper limits, but that's a murkier area; since the construct allows you to fire off the Suppress over and over, the same way you could fire off (say) a NND EB choking gas attack, we're now functionally into the "if I Suppress you for 15 points and he Suppresses you for 15 points, how many points are Suppressed?"

 

The answer there should be 15, I think, but I am perfectly prepared to believe that the official answer is 30. There's precedent for arguing it that way. Drains, for example, are certainly cumulative, and Suppresses have several features in common with Drains. My reason for arguing otherwise is fundamentally that Suppress will quickly become far more cost effective than Drain if this is allowed, largely making Drain a useless power.

 

But hey, I'm just GAZZA, not Steve Long. No doubt there are reasons that it works the way it does.

to each their own. Certainly won't tell you you're wrong on the Supress. I'd have to get at my rulebook (at work, avoiding doing any of it..) to look into it.

[GAZZA]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Unfortunately I suspect I am wrong as far as the official position is concerned. I'll try asking the big dude, I guess - but I have a horrible feeling that I'm officially incorrect in this stance.

 

(And I'm avoiding work too.

[Zed-F]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Certainly. "Too cost effective for the points".

The problem here, is in order to answer that, you must also answer, 'relative to what.' And everyone has a different standard.

 

I would argue that it doesn't, in fact. Certainly some games tolerate some abuses and do not tolerate others. That's not the same as saying that the abuse potential isn't there.

 

For example, a Continuous Uncontrolled 0 END Persistent attack is potentially a very abusive construct. Some GMs will allow it for certain powers, in certain games, for certain players, for certain affects. But no matter how many do so, it's still a potentially abusive construct. Not all potentially abusive constructs are abused, of course.

Everyone measures potential for abuse a bit differently too. There are some common threads, of course, but everyone has different control mechanisms in mind when they spot something that could be abusive. I'll agree that how abusive a power is varies in practice from game to game more than the perceived potential for abuse varies, however.

 

Infinite looping Aids (or Transfers, or Absorption) are potentially abusive. You can argue that the potential is restricted because of the time it takes to build up to a really high level of power, but the potential is definitely there. It's something to keep an eye on.

 

Continuous Succor blows Aid loops out of the water. Not only is it not the same ballpark, it isn't even the same sport. Continuous Succor actually gets more efficient the more advantages you stick on it (since that extra +1 costs - comparatively - less and less), meaning that you can cheaply and easily achieve even +2 "affects all powers of a special effect" level infinity loops - something that you can't do (directly, at any rate) with the Aid version. Continuous Succor may be a book-legal way to do this - I say "may be" because despite all the well meaning intentions of those demonstrating the official position supports them, I'm still having trouble believing anything so utterly awful is actually correct - but it's nobody's friend.

It's way more elegant than a continuous Aid that aids itself is, as you don't have to do any clunky math to figure out how much the aid maximum goes up over time. You just set it up how you like and let it run. It's quite easy to put some simple but effective controls on it as well, and is naturally more limited in many ways. As a constant power, it goes away when the person generating the power gets stunned, how long it stays up is dictated quite nicely by END concerns (assuming you don't go for the 0 END version) and you can quite simply state a maximum level of effect if you're concerned about the power going on forever -- assign it an appropriate maximum boost, and you'll get a reasonable power that comes up slowly but tops off a bit higher than just buying the same amount of AP of characteristics (for example) would, for about the same price. No problems with balance there at all, it just requires a bit of GM control. (And what power doesn't?) I definitely prefer it to the relatively clunky Aid version. But to each his own.