Infinite Loops

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

I guess I'm one of the few that think Aid was fixed in 5E and that the 4E construct was terminally broken.

 

I have no complaints about Aid in H5R, personally.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

I guess I'm one of the few that think Aid was fixed in 5E and that the 4E construct was terminally broken.

I'm on the fence here....

On the one hand aid went from my favorite power to one I use much more infrequently...

OTOH, this is probably a fair sign it was too efficent and somewhat broke.

 

I tend to think that the problem is it got overfixed

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

I believe adjustment powers on the whole got "overfixed", in some cases in an illogical fashion. I also beieve the current structure removes some options from the system, and I would like to see those options in the system, even if they are "stop sign" abilities. To wit:

 

- I consider it illogical that Aid, as a default, no longer costs END. Why is it the only adjustment power for which this is the case? Because it's not worth 10 points per die costing END, but it's worth more than 5.

 

- I consider it illogical that Transfer, which is really a Drain linked with a limited form of Aid, has a cap to its drain component. (3)

 

- I consider it a gap in the system that it is not possible to "buy off" the cap on adjustment powers. (1)

 

- I consider the inability to have a power that both Aids and Heals to be a gap. (2)

 

- Transfer is really a Linked Aid and Drain. Why can't the Drain be replaced with Healing (a reasonably common effect in the source material for several genres, IMO)? (4)

 

How would I fix these?

 

(1) Tougher question. I would suggest this can be done for Aid either by allowing the power to feed half to a stat, and half to increasing Aid's maximum (which is +2 for 1 point), or by calling it a +1 Advantage. I don't like the advantage because advantage stacking makes this very powerfu, but I also don't like the loop mechanic because it can't be applied to, say, Healing. A rational middle ground would be an optional version of the powers for which AP is doubled, but there is no cap. However, we also have a precedent, discussed below, that "no cap" for a positive adjustmnent power is a +1 advantage. It's just not in the rules anywhere.

 

(2) Easy. We know there is an ability to buy "no cap" for healing because it's built into, but not priced out for, Regeneration. It can be reconstructed. 1 pt BOD regen costs 8 points, and represents 2/3 of 1d6 as standard effect would be three CP. Therefore, 1d6 of Healing Regeneration costs 12 RP (8 x 1.5), computed as follows: 1d6 Heal (10 Base), 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), standard effec(+0), Not limited/capped (+1), Extra Time (-1), Self only (-1/2) = 10 x 3/2.5 = 12 per die x 2/3 (to get 2 points per die) = 8.

 

As well, we should be able to build Healing with Aid. We know it would Cost End (-1/2) and be Only to Starting Value (-1/2), so we need a +1 advantage to equalize the costs. "Starting points restored do fade" should therefore be +1. We could now eliminate Healing as a power, much as Regeneration became a sub-form of healing. I'm not saying we should, just that we could.

 

 

(3) Consider a 1d6 Drain (10 AP), 1/2 END (+1/4), Linked to Aid (-1/4) + 1d6 Aid, Costs END (-1/2), Linked to Drain (-1/4), Self only (-1/2), limited to points drained (-1/4). Tjhis construct costs 10 RP for Drain + 4 RP for the aid, 1 point less than a 1d6 Transfer, and is less limited in that the Dran has no cap. This becomes even more pronounced if you apply the ruling that affecting multiple stats ,ust be purchased twice to both drain and enhance multiple stats, since you'd only apply it to the component parts in the above build. Easy fix - when we started back in 1st Ed, we had Drain and Transfer (characteristics only - 2nd Ed moved it to all abilities), but no Aid. Aid came along sometime in 3rd Ed when it was needed for Fantasy games. With both components of Transfer now in the books, we could just toast transfer and then build one or two as sample powers linking Aid and Drain. The book could even use combining Drain and Aid into a single power as an example of "changing the rules".

 

(4) Solved by applying a combination of the above. Buy it as Linked Drain and Heal, and put whatever advantages you want on the Heal, or buy it as Linked Drain and Aid, and put "Healing to strating maximum" on the Aid for +1.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Wow. Good points, Hugh. Would you believe that it never even occurred to me that Aid didn't cost End? I mean, it's obvious that it should cost End: what other power works that way (usable on others, roll dice for the effect, etc.) that does not cost End?

 

Rhetorical question, of course.

 

You've given me some things to think about.

[Zed-F]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

I'll agree with the assessment that Aid was broken in 4E, but got 'overfixed' in 5E.

 

I'll also agree with the sentiment that it's relatively easy to abuse Succor. However, since I find it relatively easy to fix this abuse, I don't consider it a big problem. I don't think I would say the power in the book is broken per se, so much as that it's incompletely defined -- which might amount to the same thing from your point of view but I think is sufficiently different to merit a distinction. I think the basis for how the power works is fine, it's just missing something it probably ought to have. So why disallow the power entirely as you were suggesting, when one can simply add that missing bit? I don't know what the proper formula is to determine what the cap should be, I just know I don't like how Aid does it. I'm happy to go with my gut feel until such time as the rule gets updated.

 

In an ideal world, I would like to see changes to both of them, to add a cap (possibly one that can be bought off) to Succor, and to bring Aid's cost more in line with the actual utility and usability of the power, or to improve the utility and usability of the power so that its cost is justified.

 

Perhaps I can put it another way. Forget what I'm saying about it being abusive and let's accept your initial proposition that you can get the same effect just by attacking again with Suppress. If that is really true, then why do we need Continuous Suppress?

We need it to model certain effects that grow on their own over time. I think that for the most part the cost of a continuous suppress and the cost of a regular suppress are reasonably well balanced relative to each other, so the only thing we need the different options for is to model different effects. Of course, that's the point of having such a thing as advantages in the first place.

 

However, since the way Succor is described in FRED and from the apparent "official" answer that it is an "inverted Suppress", then this would mean that Succor is also a Constant power that needs no further attention other than END. If true, then there is no need for Continuous on it to immediately become abusive. I Succor myself for 4d6 Str in my first phase, Succor myself again in the second phase and pay the END to keep the first one going, and so forth... this is basically exactly what you are doing with Suppress above.

Yes, you can succor someone with regular succor over and over again, so long as you keep expending the END and the attack actions to do so. This can also be fixed by assigning a reasonable cap.

 

One further note: there seems to be a problem here with a disconnect between Constant powers and Instant-Made-Constant powers. If I create a Continuous Energy Blast, for example, I have to spend a half phase attack action each phase to keep it on target. (Continuous basically just means I don't have to make the attack roll more than once). I am assuming you're right here in your implication that this isn't the case with attack powers that are naturally Constant such as Suppress.

...

I have a suspicion that Constant powers are subject to the same "must spend a half phase attack action" rule that Continuous powers are. If that's true, then your above 4d6 Suppress can't attack twice without releasing the first attack (but the Continuous version can...)

No, that's not correct. According to the rules, any constant or continuous power can be maintained without expending an attack action each phase, even if it's an attack power, even if it was originally an instant power and is now continuous.

 

With regular Suppress, you can definitely keep maintaining the original attack while attacking again with the same power.

 

An xd6 EB, Continuous (+1) will hit its target every phase for a free attack once it hits the first time, as long as LOS to the target is maintained and the END cost is paid. You can then go and hit the same person again, or another target, as you like, with the same power repeatedly if you want. Continuous Succor and Suppress follow the exact same mechanic.

 

If all it did was remove the need for an attack roll after the initial hit, but not an attack action, Continuous would not be worth +1. It would be worth +1/2 at most.

 

Infinite loops should be excised from the game for all powers.

I suspect Hugh wouldn't agree with you on that, and neither would many other people. OTOH, I can certainly agree that having a limitless upwards cap should not be a freebie, as it currently is with Succor. I don't have a big problem with a limitless suppress since (a) so does Drain, ( there is a point at which there's nothing left to suppress anyway, and © you can't normally start a suppress going beforehand the way you can a succor. Unless you start doing things like adding Trigger or Delayed Effect, at least, and those advantages tend to be abusable in and of themselves.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

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

 

 

Well, that's what they would like you to believe, but, whilst there may not be an upper limit to his strength there is an upper limit to how angry you can get. Well, unless you are a regular poster on these boards....

 

As for continuous loops: I am very pleased that they are available in THE game. They won't be making much of an appearance in MY game, because they are frankly a bit silly.

 

BTW you would need to enhance not just strength but also a No END advantage on it, or it won't be much use to you

[Sean Waters]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Can I suggest a destroy characteristic mechanic?

 

Call it a -1 (which would be at the 'recovers 5 points an hour' level), and then define a circumstance which can allow the lost points to instantly recover. Bit like how transform works.

 

The thing that bugs the hell out of me about adjustment powers is how you have to apply the fade rate to every INDIVIDUAL application of the power, not to the total. More logcal in some ways: it makes buying a bigger drain more attractive, but it is far too much effort for my money.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

I'm on the fence here....

On the one hand aid went from my favorite power to one I use much more infrequently...

OTOH, this is probably a fair sign it was too efficent and somewhat broke.

 

I tend to think that the problem is it got overfixed

Exactly what I was thinking. Rep.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Wow. Good points' date=' Hugh. Would you believe that it never even occurred to me that Aid [b']didn't[/b] cost End? I mean, it's obvious that it should cost End: what other power works that way (usable on others, roll dice for the effect, etc.) that does not cost End?

 

It was only when someone here mentioned it tat I went back to my 5e book and said "Whaddaya know - it eally DOESN"T cost END any more!"

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

I suspect Hugh wouldn't agree with you on that' date=' and neither would many other people. OTOH, I can certainly agree that having a limitless upwards cap should not be a freebie, as it currently is with Succor. I don't have a big problem with a limitless suppress since (a) so does Drain, ( there is a point at which there's nothing left to suppress anyway, and © you can't normally start a suppress going beforehand the way you can a succor. Unless you start doing things like adding Trigger or Delayed Effect, at least, and those advantages tend to be abusable in and of themselves.[/quote']

 

You suspect accurately. It should be possible.

 

I had a character in 4e who had Absorbtion (another power that needs the "no cap" option) to Growth. To check the possible problems, he also had a Susceptibility to being over some # of levels Grown. It was more than biology could withstand. He hit that level only once or twice in the campaign, as I recall, but it imposed a theoretical limit to how powerful (and thus unbalancing) he could become.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

I'll poke at this one again, as it has been a while. I think one of the issues keeping the Adjustment Powers from being simplified into one or two Powers and some good Modifiers is that of the difference between Base Cost and Active Points. What I mean is, two foundation constructs are not equal simply because they have the same Active Points; the one with the fewer Base Points is without question going to be the more efficient one to add another Advantage to, because Advantages do not interact cost-wise. Here is an example:

1. EB: 3d6 [15 Base]; Area of Effect: 2" radius (+1) [30 Active]
   
   
2. RKA: 2d6 [30 Base, 30 Active]

Adding another +1 Advantage to the EB is going to bring it to only 45 Active Points, but adding another +1 Advantage to the RKA is going to bring it to 60 Active Points.

This could be fixed with multiplicative Advantages. The example would become:

1. EB: 3d6 [15]; Area of Effect: 2" radius (x2) [30]
   
   
2. RKA: 2d6 [30]

Modifying either of these with another x2 Advantage would bring them both to 60 Active Points.

Note that I dropped the distinction between, "Base Points," and, "Active Points," because the distinction no longer really matters; two constructs are now 60-point powers whether it took Advantages to bring them to that cost or not. Limitations have similar issues: adding a Limitation to a construct that already has some Limitations has a vastly different effect from adding the same Limitation to a construct which currently has none.

 

With one more qualification (the distinction of whether or how multiplicative Limitations affect Active Cost for things like End Cost, Range, and Area of Effect) all Powers could possibly be snapped into a consistent framework where one is truly built in terms of another (Armor and Force Field would simply have some inverse Advantages/Limitations that would transform one into another, as might Ego Blast vs. BOECV EB).

 

I think this might allow for things like truly defining Aid and Succor in terms of each other, wrapping Regeneration back into the fold or, "breaking it apart," again, making Aid and Healing the same Power again (just with different modifiers), defining Transfer as Aid+Drain (where both building-block Powers may need to be modified differently to build the correct result), etc. The solid boundaries between Powers might just start to fuzz out and not mean as much (because of reliable and consistent way to move between them, not because they are not well defined).

 

Okay. Now

[prestidigitator]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

It was only when someone here mentioned it tat I went back to my 5e book and said "Whaddaya know - it eally DOESN"T cost END any more!"

Yeah. I keep rediscovering that, and then forgetting it because I'd rather not deal with it. I suppose it does mitigate a little bit its high cost, as you can always take Costs End on an Aid to get back a few of those points.

[Zed-F]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

A problem with Aid is that, as an instant boost, it just doesn't compete with raw stat purchases (do I buy 2d6 AID or +20 STR? Gee, tough question) and as a slow buildup power, you really can't use it except when you know in advance you're going into combat and have a few phases to burn using it, but because it doesn't cost END and can re-aid as soon as it starts to fade, you can in theory keep yourself and your allies pumped up all the time. As such you have to worry about usability issues and abusiveness issues both at character construction time and during play.

 

With Succor, since it costs END, you can reasonably say the PC's not going to have it up unless he/she knows it will be needed pretty much immediately. Even costs END to activate on a continuous succor will still cost a fixed amount of END per phase to keep going.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

I'll poke at this one again' date=' as it has been a while. I think one of the issues keeping the Adjustment Powers from being simplified into one or two Powers and some good Modifiers is that of the difference between Base Cost and Active Points.[/quote']

 

I think it should be possible to build one from the other, and to determine how certain modifiers aply to one from how they apply to the other. I don't have a problem keeping them separate powers, for all the reasons you point out, and from the perspective of simplicity. Whether we have several different Adjustment powers, or just one or two, and modifiers to build the rest, makes little mechanical difference (until we get into "what's the base power" and "advantage/limitation stacking", of course), it's easy to see which approach is easier if you want to pick up the book and make a character without a PhD in "Hero System".

[GAZZA]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

OK, here's the reason I think infinite loops should be removed. Basically, I think they are essentially an artefact of the points system and a curious way the algebra works out. I'm not really believing that anyone created the Aid power with a thought in the back of their head, "Hmm, I must make sure that it's possible to make an infinite loop with this."

 

They are unnecessary. Hulk gets stronger and stronger with no upper limit? Nonsense - good PR, that's all. I doubt he could get strong enough to punch out Death or even Galactus. Stronger than Thor or the Thing, sure. Even the old MSH game stopped short of letting him do this.

 

Wherever there is infinity in Hero, you can replace it with something fairly big and never notice the difference. In a game where Thor and the Thing have a 90 STR, say, you can start out Hulk at 90 STR and let him get as high as 150 or so. And frankly I'm in agreement with Zed here to some extent - it would be easier to buy this as a straight addition to STR with appropriate limitations rather than muck about with Adjustment Powers.

 

About the only time you ever have a conceivable "need" for infinity would be if you're dealing with some sort of plot device like Destiny or the Beyonder. And really, why stat that out? Just let it do whatever it needs to do. I'm probably more points conscious than most GMs - I stat out virtually all my villains and pay as much attention to getting efficiency from those points as I do when I'm a player - but I don't bother to lose too much sleep that the Thanatic Rod doesn't technically work the way Mystic Masters wanted it to, and if I decided to destroy the world with a "frickin' laser beam" I wouldn't bother to work out how big an area effect RKA I'd need.

 

That's my take, anyway. How does this translate into mechanical changes? Buggered if I know. I do know that as a result of this discussion Succor and Suppress will not be appearing in my games with anything resembling the "core" rules. I'm not sure how to ban infinite Aid loops without fundamentally changing the power, but of course I know what to look for (and in my experience, Aids have never been particularly popular PC powers anyway - but that doesn't mean it can be ignored, because Absorption can do the same thing, and it's a lot more common).

[Zed-F]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

I do know that as a result of this discussion Succor and Suppress will not be appearing in my games with anything resembling the "core" rules. I'm not sure how to ban infinite Aid loops without fundamentally changing the power,

For Succor, institute reasonable caps, and you're fine. For Suppress, if you want to bring the cost in line with Drain, all you really have to do is make it a no range power by default, as that's Suppress's main advantage. For Aid, just say Aid can never aid Aid.

 

Those changes seem both simple and sufficient to address most if not all concerns. The powers in question can still largely resemble the core rules and yet remain balanced.

[GAZZA]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

We'll have to agree to differ. It has been enlightening, certainly, but my basic opinion tha Succor and Suppress are hopelessly broken has not been changed by this. "Reasonable caps" are what I am implementing; I just consider "reasonable = 0". Aid and Drain can do what Succor and Suppress do, and I can do without the headaches.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

...my basic opinion tha Succor and Suppress are hopelessly broken has not been changed by this.

 

Fortunately, changing your opinion is neither necessary nor sufficient for me to have a fun game.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

The FAQ for 5th Edition clarifies that Succor has not maximum cap on it. This was included in the 5th Edition Revised with a note that it works like a positive form of Suppress.

 

- Christopher Mullins

You are right.

 

I ended up having to use WinXP's file search feature to find the last ever 5E (as opposed to 5ER) FAQ, and it did state that, like suppress, there is no cap for succor. --consider that horse beaten

[Zed-F]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

Well, for everyone other than Gazza, how about this for an example of a power that can reasonably be built with a 0 END continuous suppress:

 

Exorcism: 2d6 Suppress, all powers of a given SFX (+2), Continuous (+1), 0 END (+1/2), Incantations throughtout (-1/2), Gestures throughout (-1/2), 0 DCV Concentration throughout (-1), Only vs. Spiritual, Extradimensional, or Unholy Beings (-1)

 

IMHO, it's quite possible to build a very powerful effect using infinite recursion of succor/suppress, and have it remain a viable power, so long as it's narrow enough in application.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

IMHO' date=' it's quite possible to build a very powerful effect using infinite recursion of succor/suppress, and have it remain a viable power, so long as it's narrow enough in application.[/quote']

 

To me, this statement is the key. And the sample power is a good one.

 

It is possible to build a very powerfiul effect with infinite potential with these powers. That might be an area that gradually suppresses all magical/mutant/whatever powers, until they are completely eliminated and the characters must leave the area/shut off the field in order to regain their powers. I see that reflected in genre source material. Consequently, it should be possible to build it.

 

Is it viable in game? That's a better question. I may not want a character in my game able to crush out all Superpowers within a 1 km radius around him. That being the case, I won't allow the power.

 

The rules describe what is possible. The possibilities should not be limited. Those that have special potential to be gamebreaking should be highlighted (yield/stop sign abilities, or abilities which require GM permission).

 

The gaming group decides what is permissable from the list of things that are possible. My preference, and others won;t share it, I'm sure, is for the game to reflect anything as being possible, and let the gaming group identify items which are not permissable. The gaming group should not have to build mechanics for things they wish to be permissable, but are not possible under the rules as written.

 

[bTW, the Hulk isn't alone. Marathon, of Strikeforce: Morituri, also became more powerful the longer he fought, with no upper limit ever established. While there may be no theoretcial upper limit "infinite loop" powers, there is a practical limit in several ways. First, how long can you keep the infinite loop going? "Hulk is not angry any more". Second, how much END can you burn on the enhanced power (once you are stunned or KO'd using Stun for END, your enhanced powers start to fade away). Third, at some point it no longer matters. At some STR level, the Hulk hits and the opponent is KO'd/destroyed by one shot. Does more STR make a difference at that point?

[zornwil]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

I guess I'm one of the few that think Aid was fixed in 5E and that the 4E construct was terminally broken.

Well, I WISH you were one of the few! I suspect there's more who feel as you do than I do in that I think more feel that Aid is improved but not improved enough as of 5th.

[zornwil]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

I believe adjustment powers on the whole got "overfixed", in some cases in an illogical fashion. I also beieve the current structure removes some options from the system, and I would like to see those options in the system, even if they are "stop sign" abilities. To wit:

 

- I consider it illogical that Aid, as a default, no longer costs END. Why is it the only adjustment power for which this is the case? Because it's not worth 10 points per die costing END, but it's worth more than 5.

 

- I consider it illogical that Transfer, which is really a Drain linked with a limited form of Aid, has a cap to its drain component. (3)

 

- I consider it a gap in the system that it is not possible to "buy off" the cap on adjustment powers. (1)

 

- I consider the inability to have a power that both Aids and Heals to be a gap. (2)

 

- Transfer is really a Linked Aid and Drain. Why can't the Drain be replaced with Healing (a reasonably common effect in the source material for several genres, IMO)? (4)

 

How would I fix these?

 

(1) Tougher question. I would suggest this can be done for Aid either by allowing the power to feed half to a stat, and half to increasing Aid's maximum (which is +2 for 1 point), or by calling it a +1 Advantage. I don't like the advantage because advantage stacking makes this very powerfu, but I also don't like the loop mechanic because it can't be applied to, say, Healing. A rational middle ground would be an optional version of the powers for which AP is doubled, but there is no cap. However, we also have a precedent, discussed below, that "no cap" for a positive adjustmnent power is a +1 advantage. It's just not in the rules anywhere.

 

(2) Easy. We know there is an ability to buy "no cap" for healing because it's built into, but not priced out for, Regeneration. It can be reconstructed. 1 pt BOD regen costs 8 points, and represents 2/3 of 1d6 as standard effect would be three CP. Therefore, 1d6 of Healing Regeneration costs 12 RP (8 x 1.5), computed as follows: 1d6 Heal (10 Base), 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), standard effec(+0), Not limited/capped (+1), Extra Time (-1), Self only (-1/2) = 10 x 3/2.5 = 12 per die x 2/3 (to get 2 points per die) = 8.

 

As well, we should be able to build Healing with Aid. We know it would Cost End (-1/2) and be Only to Starting Value (-1/2), so we need a +1 advantage to equalize the costs. "Starting points restored do fade" should therefore be +1. We could now eliminate Healing as a power, much as Regeneration became a sub-form of healing. I'm not saying we should, just that we could.

 

 

(3) Consider a 1d6 Drain (10 AP), 1/2 END (+1/4), Linked to Aid (-1/4) + 1d6 Aid, Costs END (-1/2), Linked to Drain (-1/4), Self only (-1/2), limited to points drained (-1/4). Tjhis construct costs 10 RP for Drain + 4 RP for the aid, 1 point less than a 1d6 Transfer, and is less limited in that the Dran has no cap. This becomes even more pronounced if you apply the ruling that affecting multiple stats ,ust be purchased twice to both drain and enhance multiple stats, since you'd only apply it to the component parts in the above build. Easy fix - when we started back in 1st Ed, we had Drain and Transfer (characteristics only - 2nd Ed moved it to all abilities), but no Aid. Aid came along sometime in 3rd Ed when it was needed for Fantasy games. With both components of Transfer now in the books, we could just toast transfer and then build one or two as sample powers linking Aid and Drain. The book could even use combining Drain and Aid into a single power as an example of "changing the rules".

 

(4) Solved by applying a combination of the above. Buy it as Linked Drain and Heal, and put whatever advantages you want on the Heal, or buy it as Linked Drain and Aid, and put "Healing to strating maximum" on the Aid for +1.

Great post, and I think "over-fixed" is a great term. I wish PowDef were a char-based defense like others, on a personal level, which alone I think would have fixed a lot of issues, but I grant that probably isn't mechanically the best solution, at least not necessarily. I think the Adjustment Powers suffer from several inconsistencies among themselves.

 

Then again, I have never been so afraid of Adj. Pows. as others have. I made them inherently at range instead of touch, they go against an equivalent of INT/5 defense (I call it supernatural, and eliminated PowDef), and that was the primary extent of changes I made back in 4th, which most would probably argue would be too powerful. Yet it never really seemed to be a problem, in a game with a mage with a VPP and a PC whose main power was a Transfer that took BOD from the target and transferred it to his EB, a sort of vampiric energy. (Then again, I also always made it so that BOD drain couldn't kill, it just left you in a stasis sort of form at 0)

 

Obviously epxeriences vary a lot in regard to the Adj. Pow.s. Perhaps that's a big problem itself, and in a "universal" system it presents a tremendous challenge. But I think that the thing 4th had going for it was a greater consistency among the powers, and it's easier to "fix" (i.e., suit to taste) when the mechanics in the game have clearer and stonger consisteny than when not. And I think it raises a point I've been focused on lately - a universal system CANNOT be perfect, but it can be "close", and as such what it must do is represent the BEST REASONABLE COMPROMISE. So when people complain about skills, I see it, but it seems to me that most complaints are easier to fix from the current base than if the current base were too much in any one person's direction. I think Adj. Pow.s need to be in this camp, they need to hit a happy - and streamlined, consistent - medium from which all the whiners on each end can easily "fix" it.

[zornwil]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

OK, here's the reason I think infinite loops should be removed. Basically, I think they are essentially an artefact of the points system and a curious way the algebra works out. I'm not really believing that anyone created the Aid power with a thought in the back of their head, "Hmm, I must make sure that it's possible to make an infinite loop with this."

 

They are unnecessary. Hulk gets stronger and stronger with no upper limit? Nonsense - good PR, that's all. I doubt he could get strong enough to punch out Death or even Galactus. Stronger than Thor or the Thing, sure. Even the old MSH game stopped short of letting him do this.

 

Wherever there is infinity in Hero, you can replace it with something fairly big and never notice the difference. In a game where Thor and the Thing have a 90 STR, say, you can start out Hulk at 90 STR and let him get as high as 150 or so. And frankly I'm in agreement with Zed here to some extent - it would be easier to buy this as a straight addition to STR with appropriate limitations rather than muck about with Adjustment Powers.

 

About the only time you ever have a conceivable "need" for infinity would be if you're dealing with some sort of plot device like Destiny or the Beyonder. And really, why stat that out? Just let it do whatever it needs to do. I'm probably more points conscious than most GMs - I stat out virtually all my villains and pay as much attention to getting efficiency from those points as I do when I'm a player - but I don't bother to lose too much sleep that the Thanatic Rod doesn't technically work the way Mystic Masters wanted it to, and if I decided to destroy the world with a "frickin' laser beam" I wouldn't bother to work out how big an area effect RKA I'd need.

 

That's my take, anyway. How does this translate into mechanical changes? Buggered if I know. I do know that as a result of this discussion Succor and Suppress will not be appearing in my games with anything resembling the "core" rules. I'm not sure how to ban infinite Aid loops without fundamentally changing the power, but of course I know what to look for (and in my experience, Aids have never been particularly popular PC powers anyway - but that doesn't mean it can be ignored, because Absorption can do the same thing, and it's a lot more common).

Well, I don't have time to apply an infinite loop...

 

Seriously, as Hugh says, the system is best when it allows for "all things possible", forewarns about issues, and lets the GM decide. I'm not worried about infinite loops because we're simply truly not going to play that long, and any group that really wants to do this apparently wants to play a very paritcular sort of game. Most people can easily wave this off if it doesn't make sense. But in the beginning of this thread, I think Markdoc gave us good examples of why you would have strong ongoing loops that could be infinite but practically speaking are used for a particular purpose over a period of time longer than a simple combat.

 

That being said, sure, I have issues with how some things are done in these powers, but it's tno the essential issue of whether it should be "possible".

[zornwil]

Re: Infinite Loops

 

I'll poke at this one again, as it has been a while. I think one of the issues keeping the Adjustment Powers from being simplified into one or two Powers and some good Modifiers is that of the difference between Base Cost and Active Points. What I mean is, two foundation constructs are not equal simply because they have the same Active Points; the one with the fewer Base Points is without question going to be the more efficient one to add another Advantage to, because Advantages do not interact cost-wise. Here is an example:

1. EB: 3d6 [15 Base]; Area of Effect: 2" radius (+1) [30 Active]
   
   
2. RKA: 2d6 [30 Base, 30 Active]

Adding another +1 Advantage to the EB is going to bring it to only 45 Active Points, but adding another +1 Advantage to the RKA is going to bring it to 60 Active Points.

This could be fixed with multiplicative Advantages. The example would become:

1. EB: 3d6 [15]; Area of Effect: 2" radius (x2) [30]
   
   
2. RKA: 2d6 [30]

Modifying either of these with another x2 Advantage would bring them both to 60 Active Points.

Note that I dropped the distinction between, "Base Points," and, "Active Points," because the distinction no longer really matters; two constructs are now 60-point powers whether it took Advantages to bring them to that cost or not. Limitations have similar issues: adding a Limitation to a construct that already has some Limitations has a vastly different effect from adding the same Limitation to a construct which currently has none.

 

With one more qualification (the distinction of whether or how multiplicative Limitations affect Active Cost for things like End Cost, Range, and Area of Effect) all Powers could possibly be snapped into a consistent framework where one is truly built in terms of another (Armor and Force Field would simply have some inverse Advantages/Limitations that would transform one into another, as might Ego Blast vs. BOECV EB).

 

I think this might allow for things like truly defining Aid and Succor in terms of each other, wrapping Regeneration back into the fold or, "breaking it apart," again, making Aid and Healing the same Power again (just with different modifiers), defining Transfer as Aid+Drain (where both building-block Powers may need to be modified differently to build the correct result), etc. The solid boundaries between Powers might just start to fuzz out and not mean as much (because of reliable and consistent way to move between them, not because they are not well defined).

 

Okay. Now

The biggest problem with multiplicative schema is that it scales to higher costs so rapidly, and, at least, the current values don't seem as if they would work well. Just applying a +1 as x2 and then the +1/2 as x1.5 nets a x3 whereas the current way it's x2.5, and so on. And if you rescale the values lower, the +1s become too cheap, potentially. Similar issue with Limitations.

 

I was considering multiplicative strategies to try to deal with "real" base powers (for costing purposes, not meaning the most essential if you devolve the rules, but the ones upon which you'd want to then apply Advs and Lims) and out of that fix the exceptions being made for "don't put this Advantage with that Advantage" (as with Autofire) by costing things more safely and consistently. But it seemed to quickly get into the same problems of balance that created these exceptions.

 

Although I still wonder if something such as "Multiple the first two, highest Advantages, fully, then the 3rd and 4th are at 3/4 price, then 5th and 6th at half price, and so on." Not saying that precisely would work, but some way to deal with the decreased utility as you add more Advantages to some point.