Elemental Control Variant

[Rkane_1]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

In response to Tetsuji:

It seems that you're saying that one alien, who has (say) energy manipulation powers and disads related to being an alien (he looks like one, and people treat him like one) should have a cost discount on his powers, while another alien, whos metemorphic powers include cellular level shapeshift (and thus any disads relating to his race would be worth zero points since he can appear to be human to virtually all tests) must pay full price? In my opinion, it amounts to giving one character free points because of which disads they took, as opposed to how many they took.

 

In any case, much of my original opposition to requiring a character to take disads was a knee-jerk reaction, but having had time to process the information I now see a more fundamental flaw in it.

 

A - Every character is going to take as many disads as they can get

B - Virtually any disad can be made to be related to their EC power, unless some kind of restriction is placed on what disads are eligible for this distinction.

C - Therefore, the overwhelmingly vast majority of characters who take an EC would not have their disadvantages affected in any way by this requirement.

D - If this rule isn't going to affect anyone, by the virtue of allready complying anyways, then why have the rule at all? Its just a waste of neurons.

 

It has a purpose. The purpose is to request of the player a well thought out series of disadvantages that characters who they come up against can deduce thetere weakness or presence of certain powers from. Some EC Disads make it harder to hide your powers ("He's cold to the touch and looks bluish...whats up with that kid?", others tie directly to the element that they "support" and thus are easyier to figure out the counter for ("He wants to give me the cold shoulder? I will be more than happy to TURN UP THE HEAT! *FLAME ON!*) and other merely add effects that GM would endorse for the character tied to such a theme such as the Weather Manipulator who has mood swings with the weather. They all tie a character more strongly to the Elelemnet they are supposed to control.

 

I can see the GM treating this as an Optional Requirement as I think it is obviously a matter of taste but I, for one, have been using it as a house Rule with much success. The players yunderstand thay they get a nice price discount for making their powers either obvious from Distinctive Feature or more Vulnerable to attack or susceptible in keeping with the theme. Anyone that the GM approves is okay.

 

But, YMMV.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

Actually' date=' I would consider the Amnesia and Psychopathic tenadancies just a part of his personality....that and patrt of the personality of half the people I play RPG's with. *smile*[/quote']

 

Wolvie has been written as having his amnesia in some manner stem from his regenerative powers. He regenerates brain matter to eliminate painful memories or some such story.

 

Of course, one could also link amnesia to the trauma of being used as a government experiment.

 

Mind you, I don't see Wolvie having an EC anyway. Now Spiderman might have an EC...

[David Johnston]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

 

The reason I choose Real Cost is it is actually quite a small amount when compared to the total amount of CP garnered by disads.

 

Assuming, that is, that you aren't dealing with cosmic power levels. Then it would start to fall apart.

[Rkane_1]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

Nothing falls apart with enough duct tape, David....NOTHING!

 

*smile*

 

Can you give me an example?

[tesuji]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

 

In response to Tetsuji:

It seems that you're saying that one alien, who has (say) energy manipulation powers and disads related to being an alien (he looks like one, and people treat him like one) should have a cost discount on his powers, while another alien, whos metemorphic powers include cellular level shapeshift (and thus any disads relating to his race would be worth zero points since he can appear to be human to virtually all tests) must pay full price? In my opinion, it amounts to giving one character free points because of which disads they took, as opposed to how many they took.

yes, as aopposed to now in which all that is required is "put it in an EC".

 

In response to Tetsuji:

A - Every character is going to take as many disads as they can get

true in general in HERO now, more or less.

In response to Tetsuji:

B - Virtually any disad can be made to be related to their EC power, unless some kind of restriction is placed on what disads are eligible for this distinction.

here we disagree. however, as stated, the question of what qualifies and what doesn't is the GM decision.

 

In response to Tetsuji:

C - Therefore, the overwhelmingly vast majority of characters who take an EC would not have their disadvantages affected in any way by this requirement.

only true if you accept 2, which i do not.

In response to Tetsuji:

D - If this rule isn't going to affect anyone, by the virtue of allready complying anyways, then why have the rule at all? Its just a waste of neurons.

again, all premises on the notion that "disads related to" or as i put it "closely related to" the power is meaningless.

 

i agree completely that if the requirement is meaningless, there is no point.

 

We just differ on whether it is meaningless.

 

Then again, you are looking for "how it could fail" and i am looking for "how it could work" and we seem both to be assuming GMing towards that presupposed goal.

 

go figure.

 

When i run it, it wont be true that any disads fit the criteria.

 

I have already said that one criteria i would use would be "is it obvious that if i totally changed the SFX like say to fire powers, this disad would be inappropriate?"

 

Another might well be "if these powers were removed, neutralized totally, or lost for good, would this disad also be no longer applicable?"

 

neither of those criteria, and certainly not both of them taken together, would result in the restriction being meaningless or too braod as to have any effect.

 

But likely, you would not Gm it this way.

 

and thats cool too.

[David Johnston]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

Nothing falls apart with enough duct tape, David....NOTHING!

 

*smile*

 

Can you give me an example?

 

Well suppose you are playing in the Gods of Terambia campaign where every character is a card carrying worshipped god with vast powers over portfolios like storms, fire and basket weaving, and your characters reflect with 15 damage class powers and lots and lots of area effect to be used as needed.

So we're talking about something like requiring 50 or 60 points of mandatary elemental disadvantages. Stormgod Fred is going to be hard pressed to come up with 50 or 60 points worth of storm related disadvantages.

[Rkane_1]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

Do you honestly *NEED* EC's at this level to save a few points.

 

But I see your point. I suppose it should be based on the base points the character started with. Hmmmm....ideas?

[gojira]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

Well suppose you are playing in the Gods of Terambia campaign where every character is a card carrying worshipped god with vast powers over portfolios like storms, fire and basket weaving, and your characters reflect with 15 damage class powers and lots and lots of area effect to be used as needed.

So we're talking about something like requiring 50 or 60 points of mandatary elemental disadvantages. Stormgod Fred is going to be hard pressed to come up with 50 or 60 points worth of storm related disadvantages.

 

Basket weaving?!?? Man that's woth 50 or 60 points right with all the damn hippies you're going to have as worshippers!!

[Frenchman]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

The players yunderstand thay they get a nice price discount for making their powers either obvious from Distinctive Feature or more Vulnerable to attack or susceptible in keeping with the theme. Anyone that the GM approves is okay.

I have already said that one criteria i would use would be "is it obvious that if i totally changed the SFX like say to fire powers, this disad would be inappropriate?"

 

Another might well be "if these powers were removed, neutralized totally, or lost for good, would this disad also be no longer applicable?"

 

This is what I was talking about - a restriction on what disads can be taken beyond what the player can con their GM into accepting (Though, I guess that con is really what everything is based on)

 

If the disads must make their powers obvious even while not in use, or make them vulnerable to something obvious, then the restriction of requireing them to purchase an EC has some meaning. Like this, I agree with you...

 

In Theory. It would still reward certain concepts over others - such as the Iceman who is the source of his extreme cold, and is therefore protected from both cold & heat, or Temperature Control Dog, who can turn his body into fiery frozen fossil fuels - because while you can get some distinctive features out of that, without a vulnerability (maybe to green-powered hippies?) its going to be hard to get a 40 or 50 point EC.

I like RKane's thought of basing the amount of disads needed as a flat cost per campaign rather than dependant on the size of the EC - maybe something along the lines of 1/10 of the starting character points or so - so a 350 point Super would need 35 points of Disads, while a 150 point Fantasy character would only need 15 of them.

I'm liking it more as we hash it out - so keep it coming!

 

PS - I had written a typically (for me) long response to your earlier posts, Tesuji & David Johnston, but when I went to post it 11 hours ago, I found my internet had crashed. I had some good counter-arguments in there, but I think they're largely irrelivant now. Damn Sattelite!

[Frenchman]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

Basket weaving?!?? Man that's woth 50 or 60 points right with all the damn hippies you're going to have as worshippers!!

What about Underwater Basket Weaving & BB Stacking? My g/f has her AA in that. Sadly, I'm not joking.

[sbarron]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

Alright, how about a slightly different approach? Lets say a character just has to take disads related to his EC SFX as part of the point saving measure in creating an EC, and not linked to his actual character disad totals. It is already a given that there needs to be a specific SFX for ECs, so forcing PCs to define some disad for it might even help define whether the powers are acutally well suited for an EC.

 

Lets take the example first discussed.

 

Cold Based Powers, all slots Elemental Control Mod (-1)

Core Cost (60 Active Points); EC Mod (-1) - 30 points

---------

EC Powers:

30 SnowBalls-Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points); EC Mod (-1) - 30 pts

30 Ice Spear-Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points); ECMod (-1) - 30 pts

30 Ice Wall-Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF (60 Active Points); EC Mod (-1) - 30 pts

---------------------

Total Cost = 120 pts.

Total Savings = 60

This character spent 30 points to set up the EC, and is saving 30 pts on each power in it. Forcing the character to take say, 1/2 the EC base cost in disads associated with the EC, in this case 15 points, as additional payment for saving so many points doesn't seem wildly unfair to me. Let's take a look at the same EC with disads...

 

Cold Based Powers, all slots Elemental Control Mod (-1)

Core Cost (60 Active Points); EC Mod (-1) - 30 points

---------

EC Powers:

30 SnowBalls-Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points); EC Mod (-1) - 30 pts

30 Ice Spear-Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points); ECMod (-1) - 30 pts

30 Ice Wall-Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF (60 Active Points); EC Mod (-1) - 30 pts

---------------------

EC Disads:

10 Vulerability to Fire: x1 1/2 Stun from Fire based attacks

5 Distinctive features: Icy Skin (cold to touch, blue tint)

 

Total Cost = 120 pts.

Total Savings = 45

Characters taking an EC wouldn't get quite as many points in savings as they did before, but they still get a substantial discount. And because it is only 1/2 the base cost, it would scale better than the 1-to-1 for cosmic level EC.

 

Anyone have thoughts on this idea?

[Lucius]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

I dunno.

 

Requiring disads seems to infringe on the player's character concept too much. What wrong with a weather controller who has all of her disads in social and phsycological catagory? What's wrong with an energy controller who's vulnerabilites have nothing to do with his EC?

 

There's nothing wrong with a GM looking at a player's character sheet and saying "Dude, these disads suck!" but as long as the player has a cool list of disads, why restrict what they can take?

 

Just my two pennies.

 

 

*puts on a sombero*

 

*munches on some chips*

 

He doesn’t have to take the disads.

 

He doesn’t have to take the elemental control either.

 

I did - I cut and pasted your post and changed the costs to reflect my changes. A by the book EC would cost more than either of ours. Heres a table with costs for 1st build/2nd build.

 

Traditional Your Way "My" Way

174/100 136/100 165/94

 

The book method encourages large powers and penalizes smaller ones, while our methods either discourage or encourage limitations

 

As for the sFX of Wolverine's EC, I would say either Animalistic Regenerator (which doesn't fit the adamant bones inside of it) or Government Experiment

 

At which point my question is – why bother requiring a “theme†at all?

 

If you think either or both of those are acceptable “elemental†themes, I don’t know what WOULDN’T be, or what set of powers couldn’t be lumped together and called an “elemental control.â€

 

Well suppose you are playing in the Gods of Terambia campaign where every character is a card carrying worshipped god with vast powers over portfolios like storms, fire and basket weaving, and your characters reflect with 15 damage class powers and lots and lots of area effect to be used as needed.

So we're talking about something like requiring 50 or 60 points of mandatary elemental disadvantages. Stormgod Fred is going to be hard pressed to come up with 50 or 60 points worth of storm related disadvantages.

 

 

Dependent Non Player Characters: Worshippers: Normal (5) <= 8 (5) Group: at least 1,000 (+50)

 

There’s at least 60 pts just for being a Deity. Even if a God is not motivated by compassion, one would assume that considerations of personal honor, or of prestige among the pantheon, would move Him to take some care of His followers. Even if you assume that only His clergy can call on Him like this, compared to Him even a fantasy priest is “normal†– and there may still be a thousand of them.

 

Distinctive Features: Storm God (Surrounded by clouds, Divine countenance, etc.)

Concealable with effort, major reaction 15 pts

 

“The Uncontrollable Fury of the Storm†– Enraged in combat, <= 14, recover <= 14 25 pts

 

Divine Nature: Distinctive Features not Concealable, major reaction, only by unusual senses or tests (even disguised, other Gods and some wise and insightful mortals can tell Who You are.) 10 pts.

 

“A God Needs no Introduction.†Reputation: <= 14 15 pts, plus Public ID 15 pts.

 

“The Epiphany.†Accidental Change, Always change to True Form if called by True Name 20 pts

 

Rivalry with the Sun God 5 pts (or 10, if they are both vying for the favor of the Earth Goddess.)

 

Vulnerability: 2X effect of weather effecting powers (He IS the weather) 10 pts

 

“Stormy Personality.†Psych limit: impulsive, wrathful but quick to forgive and forget, restless and must keep moving, etc. 15 pts.

 

I could go on…..

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary adds: and on, and on….

[Frenchman]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

He doesn’t have to take the disads.

 

He doesn’t have to take the elemental control either.

 

Hey, he could even spend all of his points of COM, too!

 

 

 

At which point my question is – why bother requiring a “theme†at all?

 

And from the list of disads you give, I question why bother requireing them? Players will take them anyways.

 

If you think either or both of those are acceptable “elemental†themes' date=' I don’t know what WOULDN’T be, or what set of powers couldn’t be lumped together and called an “elemental control.â€[/quote']

 

The theme of an Elemental Control doesn't have to have anything to do with the elements. Or control, for that matter. An elemental control can have the same theme as any other power framework, it is simply the least flexible and least restrictive (use-of-powers wise) power framework.

 

I could go on…..

 

No-one here is questioning your creativity, we all can come up with similar lists on our own. I'm questioning the usefullness of requiring a player to take disads - if these are your examples of what you'd allow a player to take in connection to their EC, then a player can just go through the disads they would have chosen anyways, and on the off chance they hadn't allready selected enough 'properly-defined' ones then they just have to add the name of their special effect into it.

 

Stubborn becomes Unbending Will of the Storm

Wishy-Washy becomes Unpredictable Nature of the Storm

Emotionless becomes Callousness of the Storm

Mood Swings.... you get the idea

 

Now if this Storm God had to take a certain number of a certain kind of disadvantages, then we have a requirement that isn't just an exercise in verbal gymnastics.

[David Johnston]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

I could go on…..

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

You could but I'd dispute the validity of a lot of those choices. Yes, he's a god but "being a god" isn't an element any more than "being a superhero" is an element or "being a magician" even if that type of character is comes with inherent disadvantages. And the idea of the storm god being every weather wizard's punching bag....

 

This requirement complicates the character design process without actually limiting the character in any meaningful way. All it does is make for arguments with the gm during character generation about whether "rivalry with the Sun god" is really a legitimate downside to having weather as your element. The inherent limitation on Elementals is "a group of powers sharing the same special effect" If that isn't worth a -1, then reduce the limitation.

[Lucius]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

I could go on…..

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

You could but I'd dispute the validity of a lot of those choices. Yes, he's a god but "being a god" isn't an element any more than "being a superhero" is an element or "being a magician" even if that type of character is comes with inherent disadvantages. And the idea of the storm god being every weather wizard's punching bag....

 

 

*shrug*

 

Personally, I've never liked or cared for elemental controls at all; you could excise them from the system and I wouldn't miss them. So I have no real stake in defending them, in any form.

 

But at the point levels I think we're talking about, even a 2X vulnerability isn't going to make a God any mortal's "punching bag."

 

Hm...but let me see, being a God or a magician isn't an Elemental Control, but being an alien or a mutant or a "government experiment" is....whatever.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Elemental Control: Palindromedary Powers. naahh...

[David Johnston]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

 

Hm...but let me see, being a God or a magician isn't an Elemental Control, but being an alien or a mutant or a "government experiment" is.....

 

No, none of those things are elementals either.

[Rkane_1]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

No' date=' none of those things are elementals either.[/quote']

 

I think one of the fundamental problems is the system itself does not clearly define what is and what is not "Elemental" except to say.....:

 

"A Character with an Elemental Control ('EC') can buy several Powers that are related by a common special effect (for example: Fire Powers, Mental Powers, Weather Control Powers, or Telekinetic Powers) at a reduced cost. ..." (Page 312 of FRed)

 

Getting into the defination of a Special effect, it says :

 

"There's no 'master list' of special effects because there are no restrictions on the concepts other than your own imagination."

 

So, because it is left to the GM, the GM would be the one to determine what Disads qualified for the EC package, but then it is often up to the GM to determine what is or is not copacetic for his characters just as he will allow one power to be defined by one special effect and not another. The GM has to be the one to outline what is and is not acceptible.

 

I can see your points when it comes to "restircting character choices" but, by the same token, I believe that inxsiting the character take disads in them with their character is logical. It also gives them a distinct disadvantage in that thier disads are tied to their powers. The disads should be either easier for the opponent to figure out, or the disads tip the others in the campaign to your powers (which can be an added disadvantage as opponents can prepare for your powers), or just fall in theme with the EC itself in the case of Hunteds or the others.

 

Maybe, instead of tying it to the EC, perhaps we can take it from a different point of view.

 

Sorry about the weird twist here, but what about a +5 pts modifier for Vulnerability for "Obvious" disad where its obvious what sort of diad your character should have (Fire Vuln for Ice Characters) and a +5 bonus for Dist Features when they are "Revealing" as to the characters powers, other disads, or characteristics?

 

Divorce the aspect of Disads from the EC (Or make it Optional) and go another new Twist...

 

Elemental Link: For everypower in a traditional EC (without the restriction of must cost END) You may have another power that is tightly linked to the EC with a Modifier of -1 provided the Active Cost is under the Reserve Cost of the Elemental Control.

 

Your thoughts?

[tesuji]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

Sorry about the weird twist here, but what about a +5 pts modifier for Vulnerability for "Obvious" disad where its obvious what sort of diad your character should have (Fire Vuln for Ice Characters) and a +5 bonus for Dist Features when they are "Revealing" as to the characters powers, other disads, or characteristics?

 

Well, wouldn't these simply adjust the "frequency" level?

 

A fire guy who is vulnerable to fire powers won't have many people try to use them against him, so he gets an infrequent level for his vulnerability.

 

An ice guy who is vulnerable to fire powers will see many people think "hey, torchie, you go after him first" and so he will have frequent or perhaps higher on his vuln to fire powers.

 

Basically, its a problem for ice-boy more often than its a problem for fire guy, cuz the enemy flamers will go for ice bou first and then everyone else and then fire boy when no other uses are obvious.

[Frenchman]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

Divorce the aspect of Disads from the EC (Or make it Optional) and go another new Twist...

 

As may be obvious, I like this one.

 

Elemental Link: For everypower in a traditional EC (without the restriction of must cost END) You may have another power that is tightly linked to the EC with a Modifier of -1 provided the Active Cost is under the Reserve Cost of the Elemental Control.

 

I also like this, you can't have very many small powers without having just as many large ones - good idea.

 

How about, instead of making it a flat -1 limitation (or equivalent multiplier, for those of us who like that better) the limitation is based on the broadness of the EC theme. So something rather narrow, like Body of Metal, might get a -1 1/2 or -2, and 'average' ones, like fire or ice, get a -1, while very broad ones, like Mutant or Wizard, get only a -1/2 or -1/4, or are deemed to be too broad to get any limit at all, so they don't get an EC.

[Rkane_1]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

I don't know. Something in me doesn't like the arbitrary halfing of the cost and what. I prefer the -1 Limitation but I am also understanding the point made earlier about it making characters avoid limitations because of the reduced amount of points gotten from them....but then, they are getting a HUGE discount already just by having the powers in the EC anyway, all other points they get discounted are just gravy.

 

For me, I think I am going to go with my original EC alternative with the changes of the following:

-A character may not take more powers that have under half the active points of the main EC Core Cost than those over half the Active Point cost of the Core Cost.

 

-No more Disads linked to EC, but man...that just seems so right for some reason, but doing so is problematic.

 

I suppose the easiest thing would be to define sharply the EC's but then that goes against the "openness" of the system...the freedom of choice and the creativity behind choosing your special effect.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

I don't know. Something in me doesn't like the arbitrary halfing of the cost and what. I prefer the -1 Limitation but I am also understanding the point made earlier about it making characters avoid limitations because of the reduced amount of points gotten from them....but then' date=' they are getting a HUGE discount already just by having the powers in the EC anyway, all other points they get discounted are just gravy.[/quote']

 

This implies that a power which is within an OAF is somehow less limited because it is in an EC. That could certainly be argued either way, however.

 

For me, I think I am going to go with my original EC alternative with the changes of the following:

-A character may not take more powers that have under half the active points of the main EC Core Cost than those over half the Active Point cost of the Core Cost.

 

I think this provides a better break for the EC than is currently the case. It allows the midpoint power to be used as the base for the EC, rather than the lowest point power. To take an extreme example, assume an EC with 5 powers, costing 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 points.

 

Current System

 

5 points (half the cost of the 10 point power) for the EC, then 5, 15, 25, 35, 45 for the powers = 130 points. A more efficient configuration could be found, however. Buy the 10 and 20 point normally, pay 15 for the EC and 15, 25, 35 for the larger powers and the cost is 120.

 

Proposed System

 

15 points (half the 30 point power) for the EC and 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 for the slots = 90 points for the EC.

 

With this in mind, what impact will the change likely have on the way EC's are used? The proposed system provides a greater point break for EC's with a broad range of power "sizes", and will encourage these. It will reduce the cost break for limitations on EC powers, and therefore will discourage limitations on EC's. I find it helpful to assess the likely impact of these changes on character design. I'd bet if you implement the change, you'll see more EC's, and ore slots in EC's, but less limited powers in EC's.

 

I suppose the easiest thing would be to define sharply the EC's but then that goes against the "openness" of the system...the freedom of choice and the creativity behind choosing your special effect.

 

I think there's a lot of room between "pre-define acceptable EC's" and "accept Mutant, Government Experiment or Alien as valid EC's". I often come back to the racial EC example in the books.

 

I also tend to look towards some defining issue with the SFX that could be used by an opponent. For example, fire works poorly underwater or covered in fire retardant foam, and electrical characters can presumably be grounded.

 

One of the best defining tests I've seen for an EC is that it's not multiple powers, but one power with multiple uses. That's not really true of "Mutant Powers" or "Alien Powers", but is of "Fire Powers" or "Electrical Powers".

[Rkane_1]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

This implies that a power which is within an OAF is somehow less limited because it is in an EC. That could certainly be argued either way, however.

 

I think this provides a better break for the EC than is currently the case. It allows the midpoint power to be used as the base for the EC, rather than the lowest point power. To take an extreme example, assume an EC with 5 powers, costing 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 points.

 

Current System

 

5 points (half the cost of the 10 point power) for the EC, then 5, 15, 25, 35, 45 for the powers = 130 points. A more efficient configuration could be found, however. Buy the 10 and 20 point normally, pay 15 for the EC and 15, 25, 35 for the larger powers and the cost is 120.

 

Proposed System

 

15 points (half the 30 point power) for the EC and 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 for the slots = 90 points for the EC.

 

With this in mind, what impact will the change likely have on the way EC's are used? The proposed system provides a greater point break for EC's with a broad range of power "sizes", and will encourage these. It will reduce the cost break for limitations on EC powers, and therefore will discourage limitations on EC's. I find it helpful to assess the likely impact of these changes on character design. I'd bet if you implement the change, you'll see more EC's, and ore slots in EC's, but less limited powers in EC's.

 

Crap....back to the drawing board.

 

You could also, I suppose have EC's stand as is but offer limitation of Elemental Link (-1/2) on powers that don't fit in the EC according to standard rules. The actual limitation is even though they don't get the price break of the EC, they get some points off because if the EC is drained, so are those powers with this Limitation.

 

I think there's a lot of room between "pre-define acceptable EC's" and "accept Mutant, Government Experiment or Alien as valid EC's". I often come back to the racial EC example in the books.

 

I also tend to look towards some defining issue with the SFX that could be used by an opponent. For example, fire works poorly underwater or covered in fire retardant foam, and electrical characters can presumably be grounded.

 

One of the best defining tests I've seen for an EC is that it's not multiple powers, but one power with multiple uses. That's not really true of "Mutant Powers" or "Alien Powers", but is of "Fire Powers" or "Electrical Powers".

I am very partial to this description and wish it was part of the official definition. Has anyone gotten the GURPS Powers book. All in all I thought it was pricey for what little it provided BUT it did offer an interesting section on the difference between a Power Source (Where the power comes from:Magicks, Spirit, Psionic, Device, etc) and Power Focus (In GURPS terminology, Special Effect:Fire, Electricity, Water, etc). I thought it had some interesting concepts that should be adapted to HERO.

[Lucius]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

Crap....back to the drawing board.

 

You could also, I suppose have EC's stand as is but offer limitation of Elemental Link (-1/2) on powers that don't fit in the EC according to standard rules. The actual limitation is even though they don't get the price break of the EC, they get some points off because if the EC is drained, so are those powers with this Limitation..

 

Now, that's an interesting idea. But expect some people to argue it should be only -1/4.

 

I am very partial to this description and wish it was part of the official definition. Has anyone gotten the GURPS Powers book. All in all I thought it was pricey for what little it provided BUT it did offer an interesting section on the difference between a Power Source (Where the power comes from:Magicks' date=' Spirit, Psionic, Device, etc) and Power Focus (In GURPS terminology, Special Effect:Fire, Electricity, Water, etc). I thought it had some interesting concepts that should be adapted to HERO.[/quote']

 

I see - GURPS is making a distinction that is not so explicitly made in Hero, but it is a useful distinction. Might be worth mentioning in the "fundamental changes" thread?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wants a magical psionic mutant device, until I ask how a "device" can be "mutated."

[Rkane_1]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

I see - GURPS is making a distinction that is not so explicitly made in Hero' date=' but it is a useful distinction. Might be worth mentioning in the "fundamental changes" thread? [/quote']

 

What are you CRAZY? They'd KILL me in their! Look at the the triple AP, Penetrating RKA's I am getting for touching on the beloved Block maneuver! YIKES! *chuckle*

[Rkane_1]

Re: Elemental Control Variant

 

Now' date=' that's an interesting idea. But expect some people to argue it should be only -1/4.[/quote']

 

I was thinking of -1/2 but most of these powers are low points powers anyway so they would be MORE vulnerable to even the smallest drains. I suppose you could take a -1/4 Elemental Link with the provision that the total EC Core Cost be eleiminated before these would be touched....also, these powers obviously couldn't take "Inherent" as an Advantage.

 

I see - GURPS is making a distinction that is not so explicitly made in Hero' date=' but it is a useful distinction. Might be worth mentioning in the "fundamental changes" thread? [/quote']

 

I like how they differentiate it. I guess you would say the following are sources: Biological, Psionic, Divine, Spirit, Technology, etc.

 

While Special Effects are more delineated such as: Fire, Cold, Ice, Electricity, etc.

 

While it is possible to combine a Source and a Special effect (Divine Fire (Hellfire), Psionic Electricity (Electrokinesis), Technological Cold (Cryonic Freeze ray) it is difficult to combine a Special Effect with a Special Effect and a Source with a Source.

 

Sources can be cut-off from their power sources where as Special Effects can be countered. Thus someone with a Tecnological Cold power could be cut-off from his souce (taking the weapon away, EMP pulse could junk it, etc) the Cold can be countered by sufficient Heat powers.

 

It was an interesting difference....Better explained in the book but I thought it worth the read...