based on ego

[prestidigitator]

Re: based on ego

 

I'd use AVLD to make a pain whip work against the targets Resistance Talent.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: based on ego

 

Here's an example:

 

Player A(pyrokinetic) want to buy a fireball attack. This is exactly what the character is supposed to do. It's his bread and butter, so he can do this pretty much any way he wants. Let's say:

 

3D6 RKA, 1 Hex AOE.

 

Player B(vibration specialist) wants to buy a fireball attack defined as "vibrating the molecules so fast that they combust". Ok, theoretically this is possible. But whereas the pyrokinetic is naturally capable of generating the heat necessary in a specific area, it's pretty basic for him. Not so true of the vibration specialist. It's a bit outside his area of expertise and requires a finer degree of control over his power. When he first buys it at least(I MIGHT be willing to talk about changing things after he uses it a lot), the power is probably going to have take some kind of extra effort(Concentration, Reduced END, whatever). Also, it's VERY hard to rub things together fast enough to create a hot fire, so he probably has to buy it as EB. So he might have to buy it like this:

 

9D6 1 hex AOE, X2 END

 

Note that Plauer A pays 67 points and player B pays 45 points. Player B has a limitation on his power, so this seems reasonable. It's the AVLD vs BOECV example I have difficulty with because the exact same power (using your example of the pain whip below) has a different cost. As well, if the "no range" limitation shoud really be higher for the ego blast, since it loses both range and LOS.

 

In the fireball example, you're imposing your vision of the character on the player, something I personally have a distaste for, but the costs are reasonable. In the pain which example, however, we end up with two characters with powers that are exactly as useful, but have different costs. That's unbalanced, IMO.

[Mike W]

Re: based on ego

 

Note that Plauer A pays 67 points and player B pays 45 points. Player B has a limitation on his power, so this seems reasonable. It's the AVLD vs BOECV example I have difficulty with because the exact same power (using your example of the pain whip below) has a different cost. As well, if the "no range" limitation shoud really be higher for the ego blast, since it loses both range and LOS.

 

In the fireball example, you're imposing your vision of the character on the player, something I personally have a distaste for, but the costs are reasonable. In the pain which example, however, we end up with two characters with powers that are exactly as useful, but have different costs. That's unbalanced, IMO.

 

Hugh,

 

I don't feel I'm "imposing my vision" on a character, just because I won't let him do something that is a bit beyond his character's actual ability. I don't view forcing him to buy something as an EB instead of an RKA any differently than telling him that "no I don't think your character could be that strong" and not letting him have 60 STR when he says he's building a "Luke Cage" type of character.

 

As for the pain whip example, aside from the fact that we probably wouldn't build either one quite like that(at least I wouldn't), I tend to view it similarly to a character with NCM trying to buy 25 STR. Sure, you technically CAN have the character do that(and if you want to stretch the character that way, I'm ok with it) but you have to recognize that it's simply harder for him to do. Pioneering or going "outside the box" is always more difficult. In short, I view the cost of the power as not just representing the power/usefulness of an ability(because, quite frankly, we all know that there are mathematical ways around that) but also the difficulty of what is being attempted(much like Mind Control is modified by how difficult the control/memory change etc you are attempting is). Overall, these things tend to balance out because while the gadgeteer may, in this instance, have to pay more to do the same thing, most of the time he isn't(because of the natural Focus limits he puts on everything) and if you add a Juryrig skill, he'll be able to change his powers in combat, even without a VPP. How many characters can do that? In the end, I find that it all balances out.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: based on ego

 

I don't feel I'm "imposing my vision" on a character' date=' just because I won't let him do something that is a bit beyond his character's actual ability. I don't view forcing him to buy something as an EB instead of an RKA any differently than telling him that "no I don't think your character could be that strong" and not letting him have 60 STR when he says he's building a "Luke Cage" type of character.[/quote']

 

That is the crux of our disagreement. To me, there are a few approaches to your Luke Cage example, as follows:

 

(a) "No, you can't have a 60 STR. That's too strong. It violates the campaign limits." [Maybe because he has a HA that adds +4d6 and my DC max is 12 - he could lower STR or ditch the HA in this case.] The campaign limits are rules, so that's no different than saying "No, you can't buy +50 STR for 25 points - STR costs 1 point each." So I'm OK with this.

 

( "A 60 STR is about as strong as it gets in my game. You mentioned you were looking to build a low-level brick, which would be about 40 STR." The polayer will either drop his STR, or decide his character is a high end Brick. And either is OK - I've just told the player that what he has designed doesn't match what he has described so one of the two needs to go.

 

© "Based solely on your concept, I deem you to have a 40 STR max." If there's no game balance or campaign limit issue, I'm deciding the character for my player. That is where I personally draw the line.

 

Picture a GM (who has somehow missed reading certain comics) saying:

 

"Your character is supposed to be a super-soldier. Soldiers don't have shields. Trash the shield and give him a machine gun instead"

 

"Your character has a bunch of natural powers derived from an animal's abilities. It's stupid to have one of those powers through a focus. Get rid of your web spinners' focus limitation and buy natural spinneretts, you point whore."

 

"So this guy's strong, tough and can fly. I'm OK with all that. But no way can he shoot heat beams from his eyes - that's mixing too many concepts. Oh, and reduce his flight speed, DEX and Speed. Bricks should be slow."

 

"OK, he runs fast, moves fast, thinks fast, etc. All good. I'll even give you "so fast he runs up buildings and doesn't have time to sink in the water". But no way can he move so fast he can vibrate through walls!"

 

It's not the GM's character, and the GM should be open to character builds that may not be quite the way he would design the character [within, of course, balance, campaign limits and campaign tone].

 

As for the pain whip example' date=' aside from the fact that we probably wouldn't build either one quite like that(at least I wouldn't), I tend to view it similarly to a character with NCM trying to buy 25 STR. Sure, you technically CAN have the character do that(and if you want to stretch the character that way, I'm ok with it) but you have to recognize that it's simply harder for him to do. Pioneering or going "outside the box" is always more difficult.[/quote']

 

NCM is either a campaign ground rule (ie a RULE) or a disadvantage the player chose to impose on his character to get disadvantage points. That makes it quite different in my eyes.

 

At the end of the day, when the GM applies extra point costs to the exact same ability because the characters have different SFX, I start thinking (rightly or wrongly) about character classes. "That's a cross-class power or SFX for Gary Gadgeteer - he has to pay double". If I wanted that, I'd play a d20 game instead of a Hero game (and for the record, I do play both).

[The Souljourner]

Re: based on ego

 

I don't feel I'm "imposing my vision" on a character' date=' just because I won't let him do something that is a bit beyond his character's actual ability.[/quote']

 

That's the thing... you don't define the character's "actual ability", he does. If he has defined his control of vibration to be so good that he can effectively cause explosions... well, wow, that's cool. Who are you to say that's beyond the character's ability? It's not like he's asking for multiform because he can vibrate into different shapes. This is a logical extension of his stated ability. Just because it seems "harder" to create a fireball through vibration powers than through fire powers, doesn't mean he should have to pay more.

 

And that brings me to the second point. You're penalizing someone because of their special effects. Game mechanics and special effects are specifically separate in hero. A 6d6 AOE EB costs 60 points regardless of whether it's a fireball, holy smiting, or some guy vibrating molecules really quickly. You should never penalize someone purely for their choice of special effect. If the nuances of creating the power includes limitations, that's fine. Maybe the vibration guy can't do it in a vacuum, and the fire guy can't do it under water. Makes sense. But you shouldn't ever say "that's too hard for you to do, so you'll have to pay more".

 

-Nate

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: based on ego

 

That's the thing... you don't define the character's "actual ability"' date=' he does.[/quote']

 

Your entire post covers my points exactly - only much more concise and far more elegant. Thanks and repped!

[Mike W]

Re: based on ego

 

That is the crux of our disagreement. To me, there are a few approaches to your Luke Cage example, as follows:

 

(a) "No, you can't have a 60 STR. That's too strong. It violates the campaign limits." [Maybe because he has a HA that adds +4d6 and my DC max is 12 - he could lower STR or ditch the HA in this case.] The campaign limits are rules, so that's no different than saying "No, you can't buy +50 STR for 25 points - STR costs 1 point each." So I'm OK with this.

 

( "A 60 STR is about as strong as it gets in my game. You mentioned you were looking to build a low-level brick, which would be about 40 STR." The polayer will either drop his STR, or decide his character is a high end Brick. And either is OK - I've just told the player that what he has designed doesn't match what he has described so one of the two needs to go.

 

© "Based solely on your concept, I deem you to have a 40 STR max." If there's no game balance or campaign limit issue, I'm deciding the character for my player. That is where I personally draw the line.

 

Picture a GM (who has somehow missed reading certain comics) saying:

 

"Your character is supposed to be a super-soldier. Soldiers don't have shields. Trash the shield and give him a machine gun instead"

 

"Your character has a bunch of natural powers derived from an animal's abilities. It's stupid to have one of those powers through a focus. Get rid of your web spinners' focus limitation and buy natural spinneretts, you point whore."

 

"So this guy's strong, tough and can fly. I'm OK with all that. But no way can he shoot heat beams from his eyes - that's mixing too many concepts. Oh, and reduce his flight speed, DEX and Speed. Bricks should be slow."

 

"OK, he runs fast, moves fast, thinks fast, etc. All good. I'll even give you "so fast he runs up buildings and doesn't have time to sink in the water". But no way can he move so fast he can vibrate through walls!"

 

It's not the GM's character, and the GM should be open to character builds that may not be quite the way he would design the character [within, of course, balance, campaign limits and campaign tone].

 

 

 

NCM is either a campaign ground rule (ie a RULE) or a disadvantage the player chose to impose on his character to get disadvantage points. That makes it quite different in my eyes.

 

At the end of the day, when the GM applies extra point costs to the exact same ability because the characters have different SFX, I start thinking (rightly or wrongly) about character classes. "That's a cross-class power or SFX for Gary Gadgeteer - he has to pay double". If I wanted that, I'd play a d20 game instead of a Hero game (and for the record, I do play both).

 

B & C - I never said a guy couldn't change his character archetype when he's building his initial character, but once he's decided that "this is the kind of character I want to play" I'm going to be very careful about where he can expand his powers and how quickly he gets good at them. Logical progression is important. And I also don't want him stepping on the toes of other characters.

 

I don't directly apply "extra point costs" to anything, but I build the power as the character would do it, and if that's more expensive than how someone else might do it, I'm fine with that. I don't feel a need to min/max the character to that degree. Points don't always equal power, directly anyway. They're SUPPOSED to, but we've all seen examples where it doesn't work that way. Go check out one of the abusive power threads. Also, I think it reflects "real life" a bit in that while there is often more than one way to do things, not all of them are as efficient. You can start a fire by rubbing two sticks together with a bow and arrow or you can start a fire with matches and lighter fluid. The second is much easier.

 

I think the real argument here isn't "what I will allow", I'll let people try almost anything that makes sense, BUT I'm not concerned with building it the most point efficient way. I'm concerned with building it based on how the character would do it. But with the way the system is set up, some builds will be more efficient than others. It's the nature of the beast. It's the nature of reality. And I'm fine with that. I'm more concerned with the character making sense and developing in a way that works for the player and is logical at the same time. The math is incidental.

 

Still, I DO enforce campaign limits, and part of that is balancing abilitites. Just because one character has 60 STR doesn't mean everyone can have 60 STR. Balancing characters also involves balancing them against each other. Charcters with higher DEX generally have lower STR to balance them out so there aren't uber characters capable of doing everything. Sure, I COULD build a 350 point character that hardly needs anyone else, but what's the point of playing in a group then? So as a GM I won't allow such a character.

 

And again, not everyone is going to be as good at doing the same thing. So you're probably going to have to at least start off with a less effective build when you step outside the box. Over time, you can get better, but it's not what you're best at, so you don't do it quite as efficiently until you learn more about it/get more practice at it. And that principle is built into the system in all sorts of ways from Skill Enhancers to Power Frameworks.

[Mike W]

Re: based on ego

 

That's the thing... you don't define the character's "actual ability", he does. If he has defined his control of vibration to be so good that he can effectively cause explosions... well, wow, that's cool. Who are you to say that's beyond the character's ability? It's not like he's asking for multiform because he can vibrate into different shapes. This is a logical extension of his stated ability. Just because it seems "harder" to create a fireball through vibration powers than through fire powers, doesn't mean he should have to pay more.

 

And that brings me to the second point. You're penalizing someone because of their special effects. Game mechanics and special effects are specifically separate in hero. A 6d6 AOE EB costs 60 points regardless of whether it's a fireball, holy smiting, or some guy vibrating molecules really quickly. You should never penalize someone purely for their choice of special effect. If the nuances of creating the power includes limitations, that's fine. Maybe the vibration guy can't do it in a vacuum, and the fire guy can't do it under water. Makes sense. But you shouldn't ever say "that's too hard for you to do, so you'll have to pay more".

 

-Nate

 

At some point, as GM you have to impose your vision of the character, to enforce campaign limits and play balance if nothing else. And I'm not "penalizing" anyone. I just ask them to build it how their character would actually do it. If it's not as efficient as how another character would do it, oh well.

 

I also think that at a certain point, special effect DOES define how a power works. An EB is an EB. But frying someone's brain and messing with their nervous system are NOT the same thing.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: based on ego

 

I don't directly apply "extra point costs" to anything' date=' but I build the power as the character would do it, and if that's more expensive than how someone else might do it, I'm fine with that. I don't feel a need to min/max the character to that degree.[/quote']

 

Does the CHARACTER know whether his power is an EB, or a killing attack, or does he know it sets things on fire?

 

Points don't always equal power' date=' directly anyway. They're SUPPOSED to, but we've all seen examples where it doesn't work that way. [/quote']

 

When two abilities accomplish precisely the same game effects, I think they should carry precisely the same cost. When one is clearly superior, it should cost more. The fact that there may be flaws in the system, such that this is not universally achieved, doesn't motivate me to want to create more flaws. It motivates me to look for ways to achieve the goal more universally.

 

You can start a fire by rubbing two sticks together with a bow and arrow or you can start a fire with matches and lighter fluid. The second is much easier.

 

The first should therefore cost less. And it does thanks to the miracle of Extra Time! Unless, perhaps, you don't carry the materials, but must locate them to start the fire - two sticks are more commonly lying around than a pack of matches and lighter fluid. But that's OK because 2 sticks man can use his power more frequently.

[Mike W]

Re: based on ego

 

Does the CHARACTER know whether his power is an EB, or a killing attack, or does he know it sets things on fire?

 

 

 

When two abilities accomplish precisely the same game effects, I think they should carry precisely the same cost. When one is clearly superior, it should cost more. The fact that there may be flaws in the system, such that this is not universally achieved, doesn't motivate me to want to create more flaws. It motivates me to look for ways to achieve the goal more universally.

 

 

 

The first should therefore cost less. And it does thanks to the miracle of Extra Time! Unless, perhaps, you don't carry the materials, but must locate them to start the fire - two sticks are more commonly lying around than a pack of matches and lighter fluid. But that's OK because 2 sticks man can use his power more frequently.

 

Does the character know whether a power is an EB or a KA in ANY circumstance? As a general rule, yes. If for no other reason than they can gauge it by the effect it has. If you're dealing with pyrokinetics then the most logical explanation is that the KA is hotter than the EB. But to say that the character can specifically say that "this power is a killing attack and that one is an energy blast", not they can't. What they CAN tell is "either attack is hot enough to kill(or almost kill) a normal human but this one doesn't do nearly as much permanent damage as the other one does(especially where superhumans are concerned".

 

At this point, I want to fall back on the metarules of the system for a few things:

 

1. If there are two equally valid ways to build a particular ability, you must use the more expensive build.

 

2. When building powers, choose the Power and Modifiers which best represent the special effect of the ability the character has.

 

These are both in the book(in 5th edition it's page 348) and should be. The first helps to cut down on power gaming. The second, which IMO is more imporant, focuses on creating the character according to the concept, not the numbers. The idea is to build the character according to how they would do things, not according to what would be most cost effective. This isn't to say that cost is irrelevant, but it's a secondary consideration. You build the power according to the special effect and if the expense is too great, you find ways to tweak it without changing the build to something that doesn't fit the concept. It is an erroneous assumption that every power that costs the same amount of points will be equally useful/powerful. That's just the way it is. Sometimes, you get more bang for your buck than others. A 6D6 EGO Blast and a 12D6 EB are not the same and are not equal, though they cost the same. Similarly, an attack which overload's someone's nervous system is not the same thing as reaching into their mind and overloading their pain receptors. They do completely different things and should look that way mechanically. An EB is an EB, but an EB is not an EGO attack.

 

Also, I think you're getting too hung up on the points. I'm no more penalizing someone for their concept by making them take a more logical, but less efficient build than I would be rewarding them by allowing them to use a MP or a skill enhancer. Such an approach does not necessarily lead to archetypal characters - that is determined by the creativity of the player. But it DOES ensure that the character will have a unified theme that holds together - even if those parts are drawn from several different archetypes. Superman is more than just a "flying brick" he's an alien with a physiology that converts solar energy - so the heat vision DOES fit his concept, because it can be seen as Superman releasing some of the solar energy he has absorbed in a focused beam. In short, the concept can be as broad as you care to make it, but of necessity, the broader you make the concept, the less likely you are to reach "elite" status at any aspect, because your abilities/points are spread out more than someone who focuses on doing only a handful of things particularly well.

 

Even if you're trying to build similar abilities, because not every character does things exactly the same way, they aren't going to be equally effective at everything, especially not when they first attempt something. Just because you are an All Star basketball player doesn't mean you can suddenly go play baseball and be equally good(ask Michael Jordan). You've got the raw talent(maybe) but you're going to have to start at a lower level and work your way up because there are significant differences. Even switching positions could change your effectiveness. Not many point guards can play center and not many centers can play point guard. They are still basketball players, but they tend to emphasize much different aspects of the game. This doesn't mean you can't have a rare talent who can guard both positions(like Ben Wallace) or an even rarer one who can play both positions on the offensive end(Magic Johnson) but those players are extremely rare and generally have to put in a tremendous amount of work to be consistently effective at such disparate tasks. So forcing a character to start off a new power with a weaker build than their other powers and/or weaker than other characters who attempt something similar is perfectly fair. It doesn't mean the character can't get better at it later, but at the same time, they can't just wake up one day and be as good as everyone else at the power either.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: based on ego

 

At this point, I want to fall back on the metarules of the system for a few things:

 

1. If there are two equally valid ways to build a particular ability, you must use the more expensive build.

 

This applies equally to all characters. If both choices are equally valid, and choice A costs more, choice A should be required of both characters.

 

This comes down to how one interprets "equally valid". Are the following equally valid:

 

(a) an Ego Blast

( an EB, AVLD, Invisible to all but Mental, Range LoS, Custom Advantage: uses ECV; Limitation: only vs Human class of minds

© an energy blast, BoECV, Invisible to all but mental, Limitation: only vs Human class of minds

 

I would say no. They all get the same end result, but the Ego Blast is the straightforward build, thus (IMO) the one intended by the designers to be used for such a power, and thus the most straightforward build.

 

2. When building powers' date=' choose the Power and Modifiers which best represent the special effect of the ability the character has.[/quote']

 

Two characters who both cause spontaneous combustion would seem to have the same ability with the same special effect, even if one approaches causing that combustion differently than the other.

 

Superman is more than just a "flying brick" he's an alien with a physiology that converts solar energy - so the heat vision DOES fit his concept' date=' because it can be seen as Superman releasing some of the solar energy he has absorbed in a focused beam. [/quote']

 

Since 1985. The character was published for 45 years before John Byrne came along and added that theme. Now tie his super breath back to solar power...

 

So forcing a character to start off a new power with a weaker build than their other powers and/or weaker than other characters who attempt something similar is perfectly fair. It doesn't mean the character can't get better at it later' date=' but at the same time, they can't just wake up one day and be as good as everyone else at the power either.[/quote']

 

This depends on approach. "Sorry, you can't buy a 12d6 EB right from square one. You have to start with 1/2d6 and work your way up." Gee, that;'s a useful power! OTOH, I like the idea that the 12d6 EB starts with several limitations, perhaps reducing OCV, requiring Concentration, extra time, extra END and/or other limitations that reflect the character having discovered this new power and now working to master it. This serves a few purposes in game, to my mind.

 

It shows in game play that this is a new and developing ability. All those limitations reduce the cost, so the character need not save up 60 xp to buy the ultimate EB, but can "start smaller". But the character just learning to use his powers to manifest an energy beam should not be required to pay 60 points for a very limited version of an EB when his teammate paid the same 60 points for an unlimited version.