Question on Elemental Controls

[ApocalypseZero]

Sorry if this is answered somewhere already, did some looking, but nothing.

 

Okay, I was looking over the EC builds last night and came up with one potentially serious question and no answer.

 

Is it possible to have a power in an EC that has a lower Active Point Cost or Real Point Cost than the Base Cost?

 

Example: Speed Power EC-40 Pts Base

Run: 80 Active Points, 45 Real Points

Running Attack: 50 Active Points, 25 Real Points

Invisible Run: 30 Active Points, 20 Real Points

 

Using the above 3 powers, if I wanted to make the Base EC cost 40 points, could I and what would be the cost for the Invisible Run power then? As I read it, if I a 40 Base, then the Run is 40 points, the Attack is 10 points, and the Invisible Run would be 0 points?

 

Thanks for the help.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

No.

 

Your Base for the Elemental Control must be 1/2 the Active Points of the Smallest power. Because the example above has a 30 Active Point power in it, the Elemental Control is can only be 15 points.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

Yup.

 

So if you wanted all the powers in it, you would have a 15pt EC.

 

Costs would be:

 

EC -15 pts

 

Run = 80active -15(EC) = 65 then apply limitations

 

Running Attack = 50active -15(15) = 35 then apply limitations

 

Invisible Run = 30active -15(EC) = 15 then apply limitations

 

There are some cases where it's more cost effective to drop lower-cost powers from the EC, buying them seperately, and increasing the base cost of the EC in order to get a bigger break on the large powers. Like, if you have 3 80pt powers and a 20 pt power, instead of a 10-pt EC, it's better to get a 40pt EC and buy the 20pt power seperately.

[ApocalypseZero]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

I did leave that other 'option' out of my questioning, but maybe it didn't hit me until after I posted. I was thinking the golden rule 'When in doubt, go with the more expensive' which would be the 1/2 of the Lowest Active Cost. What does surprise me (and positively I might add) is the EC Cost is before Limitations. Now I got to do a little math and see if all will go well.

 

Another save by the Serpent and the Squirrel.

[Zed-F]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

HD makes this work a bit differently.

 

You can take powers that are less AP than you're supposed to in an EC. However, HD automatically rounds the AP in that power up to the minimum level allowed in the EC. So if you have an EC of 30 AP powers, and take +5" Running as a slot (since that's as much as seems reasonable in concept) you can do it, but you still pay for that 10 AP power as if it were a 30 AP power; i.e. assuming no lims, you'd pay 15 points for it.

 

This is occasionally useful for powers that can't be easily adjusted to the EC's level. Suppose you have a EC of 24 point powers, you could put in 3 levels of shrinking for 30-12=18 points, or maybe you only want 2 levels for 20(round up to 24)-12 = 12 points.

[ApocalypseZero]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

Either way, somewhere the cost has to be covered. And since I don't have HD (and after a minute of trying to figure out what HD was, HeroDesigner) I think the best way is just keep thinking 'Pay Points' whenever I hit something.

[Black Rose]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

Somewhat tangential, I know, but for a while I've felt that we'd be better served by going back to the 3rd(?) edition version of Elemental Control, at least as far as power size is concerned.

 

By this I mean powers in an EC can be of any size, and all powers but the one with the highest AP total are costed at 1/2. This would allow smaller powers to be included in the main elemental "power" without being too much of a good deal. Alternately, you could allow the Limitation "Affects One Affects All; -1" on any powers too small to be in the EC, but at that point you might as well simply let them in anyway, since there are simple ways to get munchkin-y by allowin ghte same Limitation on any powers too large to be on the main line of the EC.

 

Any thoughts?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

That was never the rule. Just FYI.

[Gary]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

Somewhat tangential, I know, but for a while I've felt that we'd be better served by going back to the 3rd(?) edition version of Elemental Control, at least as far as power size is concerned.

 

By this I mean powers in an EC can be of any size, and all powers but the one with the highest AP total are costed at 1/2. This would allow smaller powers to be included in the main elemental "power" without being too much of a good deal. Alternately, you could allow the Limitation "Affects One Affects All; -1" on any powers too small to be in the EC, but at that point you might as well simply let them in anyway, since there are simple ways to get munchkin-y by allowin ghte same Limitation on any powers too large to be on the main line of the EC.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Unless adjustment powers are fairly common, I would only allow a -1/4 for "drain one drain all". And I might not even allow that if the character has lots of Power Defense.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

Unless adjustment powers are fairly common' date=' I would only allow a -1/4 for "drain one drain all". And I might not even allow that if the character has lots of Power Defense.[/quote']

 

I'd feel almost obliged to give the limitation (the -1/4), after all the power is limited in that a drain not even targetted at it has the potential to drain.

 

Would you also remove some of the EC cost break because the player bought loads of POW def? It's a similar argument...

 

 

Doc

[Gary]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

I'd feel almost obliged to give the limitation (the -1/4), after all the power is limited in that a drain not even targetted at it has the potential to drain.

 

Would you also remove some of the EC cost break because the player bought loads of POW def? It's a similar argument...

 

 

Doc

 

 

I probably would look extremely closely at someone with a EC and 20 or more points of Power Defense. And if a character had that much PowD in a typical Champions world, I'd give the Limitation a -0 value. IOW, it may come into play, but not often enough to warrant a -1/4. OTOH, if a player voluntarily took the Limitation at the -0 level, I might give him a few minor benefits to compensate for taking this for pure role-playing reasons.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

I probably would look extremely closely at someone with a EC and 20 or more points of Power Defense. And if a character had that much PowD in a typical Champions world' date=' I'd give the Limitation a -0 value. IOW, it may come into play, but not often enough to warrant a -1/4. OTOH, if a player voluntarily took the Limitation at the -0 level, I might give him a few minor benefits to compensate for taking this for pure role-playing reasons.[/quote']

 

You're harsh!

 

I'm just a pushover...

[Gary]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

You're harsh!

 

I'm just a pushover...

 

 

Hey, as long as you're having fun, more power to you.

[Greg]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

AZ and I worked the EC thing out by linking something to the lower cost power and bringing it inline with the rest of framework. Having said that it sort of encourages power gaming once you've bought the framework since everything from that point is going to be at least that level. I found some of my defenses were a little higher then my character concept, but I'm not going to finagle the points just to make my guy weaker.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

I do appreciate that this is not the point, but....

 

.....invisible run? What you can see the guy moving but his legs are appraently motionless?

 

Supreme Serpent's maths is righ: the base cost of the EC is 15 points, which makes the whole thing 135 points.

 

Can I suggest not using a framework (OK they may have been example powers, but....):

 

80 running +40"

13 Invisibility (only when running/linked for -1/2)

 

I'm not sure what you want the 'running attack' to be but you already get +13d6 on movethroughs and +8d6 on movebys just from the velocity. +8 OCV with movethroughs and +2 OCV with movebys only costs 20 points, so the total cost would be 113 points, and you could simply use your velocity to increase damage at the same hit chance as a normal punch. PSLs would be even cheaper (15 points in all, for a total of 108 points)

 

If you wanted to build it as Hand Attack (only while running) you could add 10 dice for 25 points, making it 118 points: still a lot cheaper.

 

Frameworks encourage you to build to a pattern, and can stifle creativity. My advice is just say no

[Greg]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

The character is for AZ's brother and he wanted to run so fast you couldn't see him. Useful for "sneaking" into building or surprising enemies.

 

We talked about giving him some PSLs for move-bys, but it's just generally easier for newbies to have straight powers without a lot of modifiers to OCV/DCV.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

The character is for AZ's brother and he wanted to run so fast you couldn't see him. Useful for "sneaking" into building or surprising enemies.

 

We talked about giving him some PSLs for move-bys, but it's just generally easier for newbies to have straight powers without a lot of modifiers to OCV/DCV.

 

The trouble with IPE is that you are only invisible when running relatively slowly. I'd seriously go with limited invisiblity: far more useful and probably far cheaper.

[ApocalypseZero]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

Well, the Invisible Run idea was something I was coming up with to see if he'd like it.

 

Essentially, being a Speedster, he wants to see some DCV for moving so fast, and since to get that fast, it's over the AP limit or Non-Com Movement, I was looking at an Invisibility while in Motion.

 

As I got it worked out, here are his powers:

Super Speed ('Flying Run'), Speed Shield (Force Field), Blinding Speed (+DCV with Invisible, only while in Motion), and Rapid Healing (he wanted this), Moving Attack (USPD), and Rapid Punch (USPD).

 

Now, Rapid Punch is basically a HA power, does not link in Velocity. Moving Attack is basically a Hex attacking Move-Through/By, without the Velocity Damage or the +/- to O/DCV. May look a little wierd, but all the attacks do not get the Velocity Damage, unless he wants to do an actual Move Through/By, which he's a little against because of the self injury possible.

[zornwil]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

That was never the rule. Just FYI.

Unless I misread Black Rose, I think it was although not in 3rd edition.

 

Champions 2nd edition page 26 "To set up an Elemental Control, buy the First Power at the listed cost. Each subsequent related Power costs half normal cost."

 

To answer Black Rose's post, I still like that, though a few years ago I went ahead and ran it the modern way. But despite my personal liking it, it does ramp up the power level a lot for ECs, at least with lots of powers. I think from a balance perspective the system's current rules probably actually do work better as a default, at least for newer players who may not be able to examine character builds as closely/as well. But I think it would be nice if they'd mention this as an option.

 

One other option is simply to allow all smaller powers that don't fit that reserve cost to be at half price.

 

Another is to lump smaller powers in an EC into a Compound Power and call it good...I have done that almost mercilessly, since I think it's so stupid to not get a break on these smaller powers that really help round out a character.

 

By the way, to harken back to earlier EC debates, the 2nd edition explicitly says:

 

"An Elemental Control is essentially a way of giving the character a bonus for having a good character conception and a cohesive set of powers."

 

It does indicate a ban on skills, characteristics, redundant powers, and 0 END powers. It indicates GMs may allow for characteristics and skills, and when discussing 0 END powers it mentions "normally" this should be the case. It reminds the reader that a Power with a different Advantage is a new Power so that isn't redundant.

[Black Rose]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

Unless adjustment powers are fairly common' date=' I would only allow a -1/4 for "drain one drain all". And I might not even allow that if the character has lots of Power Defense.[/quote']

Well, granted, I don't think it's quite up to the "makes power 50% less effective" level, but I was going for a theme.

 

As far as Power Defence goes, I personally don't care for it all that much. If I design a character with it, it's always built to handle a specific type of Adjustments (chemically-induced, "magic", etc.). I simply can't conceive of a Power Defence that could cover every SFX that wasn't pure Handwavium. "Well, I'm Nifty Man, and so nothing ever hurts me!" Yeah, sure.

 

Unless I misread Black Rose, I think it was although not in 3rd edition.

 

Champions 2nd edition page 26 "To set up an Elemental Control, buy the First Power at the listed cost. Each subsequent related Power costs half normal cost."

Oops. I fell for the fanon that it was a 3rd ed artifact. Since I don't actually have 3rd ed, I trusted foolishly.

 

To answer Black Rose's post' date=' I still like that, though a few years ago I went ahead and ran it the modern way. But despite my personal liking it, it does ramp up the power level a lot for ECs, at least with lots of powers. I think from a balance perspective the system's current rules probably actually do work better as a default, at least for newer players who may not be able to examine character builds as closely/as well. But I think it would be nice if they'd mention this as an option.[/quote']

Once it was explained to me that an EC was, effectively, a single "power" with multiple Power Construct manifestations, it made sense to me that you should be able to have any powers that qualified as a "legit" aspect of the "power" included in the EC. The fact that you are somehow penalized for including a weak power with all your high-end ones seems... odd. I do appreciate the balance issue, though.

 

One other option is simply to allow all smaller powers that don't fit that reserve cost to be at half price.

I like that one, myself. At the risk of making 6th ed look like a soddin' cinder block, I think it would be very nice indeed if there were some of the more... "popular" options included that deviate from the standard mainline of the game. Perhaps with a small breakdown:

 

HOUSE RULE NAME

Description: Blah blah yackety smackety. What the HR changes and why.

Rule Breakdown: Actual changes given here.

Dangers and Pitfalls: Pretty obvious I think, but here you'd say what sort of things you'd want to keep an eye on to keep things running smoothly, and other things to avoid.

Reasoning: Here you'd explain why you'd bother using this HR in the first place.

 

Another is to lump smaller powers in an EC into a Compound Power and call it good...I have done that almost mercilessly' date=' since I think it's so stupid to not get a break on these smaller powers that really help round out a character.[/quote']

Sneaky but good. I like this one, too.

 

By the way, to harken back to earlier EC debates, the 2nd edition explicitly says:

 

"An Elemental Control is essentially a way of giving the character a bonus for having a good character conception and a cohesive set of powers."

 

It does indicate a ban on skills, characteristics, redundant powers, and 0 END powers. It indicates GMs may allow for characteristics and skills, and when discussing 0 END powers it mentions "normally" this should be the case. It reminds the reader that a Power with a different Advantage is a new Power so that isn't redundant.

And as always YMMV. Personally I like putting Characteristics in ECs if it's understood that they are a manifestation of the "power", and will be adversely affected by Adjustments, too.

 

Also, I realize this might sound odd, but does anyone have an opinion on this idea: Since ECs are supposed to be "one power, many faces", why don't beneficial Adjustment Powers boost everything? I realize that it could get obscenely potent, but if you went the "Alter One Alter All; -1/4" route it could be quite effective. Then again, I think the Adverse Adjustments should hit the EC Pool first, the the targeted power, but that's me.

[zornwil]

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

 

(snipped)

And as always YMMV. Personally I like putting Characteristics in ECs if it's understood that they are a manifestation of the "power", and will be adversely affected by Adjustments, too.

 

Yeah, I do, too, I just included that to track back the state of EC since such discussions come up and sometimes people believe no such ban existed - since so many of us ignored it!

 

Also, I realize this might sound odd, but does anyone have an opinion on this idea: Since ECs are supposed to be "one power, many faces", why don't beneficial Adjustment Powers boost everything? I realize that it could get obscenely potent, but if you went the "Alter One Alter All; -1/4" route it could be quite effective. Then again, I think the Adverse Adjustments should hit the EC Pool first, the the targeted power, but that's me.

 

I think this is one of those problems where mechanics contradict common sense, as it were, and it's a question of whether the balance is more important or the "feel" of the game, put rather black-and-white.

 

I was never a fan of drain-one-drain-all as a blanket statement even if it's a single power, because, to me, the drain itself is the central question and the SFX of the drain versus the SFX of the EC. If the drain is, for example, "Drain EB, SFX = Energy which drains 'negative energy'" and it's targeting an EB in an EC which is "EC: The Magic of Life-giving," then while the EB from the magic of life-giving is clearly "negative energy" and several other powers would be as well, the Aid in that EC called "Blessing of Life" shouldn't arbitrarily be drained by the aforementioned drain.

 

From a personal perspective, it would make sense to allow the same for an Aid.

 

Regardless of my personal perspective, the central issue with the drain versus boost of ECs is that the former is basically forming, from a mechanical standpoint, that balance for the points gained, and that's why it supersedes the normal condition where otherwise an Adjustment power would otherwise have to be targeted against multiple powers of a single SFX. And allowing a boost to boost all is basically giving the EC a benefit that isn't supported in points anywhere. It reminds me of that question "should my Disad for "Hates Violence" give me a boost against the Mind Control to hurt someone?" - the Disad was a gain in points for a constriction in options, but at the same time it's character definition and many (as I) would allow for minor benefits.

 

I'm sure I didn't say anything you didn't know in that last paragraph, Black Rose, just sort of walking through it.

 

So to your point I guess it depends on how significant that benefit would be. I'd be worried for sure if ECs and boosts were common. Also, given that people purchasing boosts know that they normally have to pay for broadening them whereas people buying ECs know they normally are having that drain-one-drain-all trade-off, it should be considered it changes the nature of those purchases as the rule changes, and further it becomes easy for PCs to design boosts on teammates for much cheaper than they "should".