Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

[Jeff]

Please pardon me for bringing them up at what's probably a late date for most people here. I just picked up the 5th edition a few weeks ago. I suppose, on the whole, it's an improvement, or at any rate, fresh support for recognizable Hero is thrilling any which way.

 

There are some specific changes that strike me as arbitrarily, well, bad, and I was wondering if there were reasons for them to ease the perplexity. There's also one specific change that I was surprised to find neither in the 5th edition rules or The Ultimate Vehicle.

 

The odd changes:

1) Insisting that light generation go through Images rather than Change Environment. Images is basically there to create the appearance of something else. Change Environment is there to provide various relatively minor changes in the environment. (Duh.) Getting lit is a relatively minor change in the environment. It's not the appearance of something else.

 

2) Eliminating Instant Change and replacing it with a Transform on your clothes. It was essentially a convenience on the one hand and a tip of the hat to a genre bit on the other - replaced by a need to concern oneself with the BODY value of the wardrobe. It's particularly odd when there's an alternative just sitting there - Shapeshift with limitations.

 

3) The refusal to use Growth, Shrinking, and/or Density Increase and Always On for characters that are big, small, and/or dense all the time. Instead, we're to buy basically the same effects with other powers - when there _aren't_ other powers specifically to affect size or mass - and take disads for the drawbacks - when actually using those powers and Always On would conveniently define those drawbacks.

 

These are the first times I've ever seen Hero Games development deliberately do things the hard way - when the tremendous flexibility of the system trots out easy ways with all its usual charm.

 

The change I'm surprised wasn't made was suggested in an Adventurer's Club article on vehicles - tripling the cost of their defenses. It's done for the Takes No STUN automatons for the very same reason - if you don't have to worry about STUN, standard costs for defenses make BODY damage trivially easy to avoid.

 

So - any word on what was behind these?

[Monolith]

Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Jeff

1) Insisting that light generation go through Images rather than Change Environment. Images is basically there to create the appearance of something else. Change Environment is there to provide various relatively minor changes in the environment. (Duh.) Getting lit is a relatively minor change in the environment. It's not the appearance of something else.

This one has been argued many times. The general idea is that Images, as written in FREd, is used to create something from nothing. Change Environment, once again as in FREd, primarily deals with taking away. If you look at all the possible modifiers in CE you will see that most of them are negative modifiers (minus to PER, to Skill Roll, To Movement, etc).

 

2) Eliminating Instant Change and replacing it with a Transform on your clothes. It was essentially a convenience on the one hand and a tip of the hat to a genre bit on the other - replaced by a need to concern oneself with the BODY value of the wardrobe. It's particularly odd when there's an alternative just sitting there - Shapeshift with limitations.

This one does not bother mean, and even has some perks (such as being able to put it in a Power Framework). The power basically states that you do not need to concern yourself with the actual rolling. Using the Standard Effect rule it always works.

 

3) The refusal to use Growth, Shrinking, and/or Density Increase and Always On for characters that are big, small, and/or dense all the time. Instead, we're to buy basically the same effects with other powers - when there _aren't_ other powers specifically to affect size or mass - and take disads for the drawbacks - when actually using those powers and Always On would conveniently define those drawbacks.

I actually prefer doing it the FREd way, so I will not bother to debate you on the issue. The main issue here is that Growth and Shrinking are supposed to be for characters who can alter their size, not those that are always stuck at a certain size. If you choose to go the Always On route you would also have to take Inherent.

 

The change I'm surprised wasn't made was suggested in an Adventurer's Club article on vehicles - tripling the cost of their defenses. It's done for the Takes No STUN automatons for the very same reason - if you don't have to worry about STUN, standard costs for defenses make BODY damage trivially easy to avoid.

Vehicles already have the cost of the DEF triples (+1 DEF cost 3 points). An Automation, unless he takes the No Stun Option, only has to pay +1 for 1 point (it becomes +1 for 3 points if he takes the No Stun option).

[schir1964]

You may want to do some searches for existing threads on these specific things you mentioned. All of them have had huge debate on them. So don't be alarmed, you're not the only one. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Monolith]

Originally posted by schir1964

You may want to do some searches for existing threads on these specific things you mentioned. All of them have had huge debate on them. So don't be alarmed, you're not the only one. (8^D)

I think all the debates were in the old forum, and I am not sure if that is searchable.

[Gary]

Re: Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Monolith

Vehicles already have the cost of the DEF triples (+1 DEF cost 3 points). An Automation, unless he takes the No Stun Option, only has to pay +1 for 1 point (it becomes +1 for 3 points if he takes the No Stun option).

 

Not really. Vehicles get +1 resistant PD and ED for 3 pts, essentially the cost of armor. A Takes No Stun automaton would pay 9 pts for the same level of protection.

[Monolith]

Re: Re: Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Gary

Not really. Vehicles get +1 resistant PD and ED for 3 pts, essentially the cost of armor. A Takes No Stun automaton would pay 9 pts for the same level of protection.

This is true. I cannot argue that, but I do not think it is something which needs to be changed. Automations have other advantages that vehicles do not (such as having a brain and independent action). The extra cost of DEF does not bother me because of that.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Jeff

1) Insisting that light generation go through Images rather than Change Environment. Images is basically there to create the appearance of something else. Change Environment is there to provide various relatively minor changes in the environment. (Duh.) Getting lit is a relatively minor change in the environment. It's not the appearance of something else.

No, but it is the creation of an effect from nothing. Also, Images has an existing mechanism for PER modifiers, making it easy (if you wish) to define exactly how bright the light is, etc.

2) Eliminating Instant Change and replacing it with a Transform on your clothes.

I'm not too keen on this one either, mainly just from a simplicity point of view. We still use the 4th Edition versions in our games. I imagine the reason it was rolled into Transform was to make the core rules less superhero-centric.

3) The refusal to use Growth, Shrinking, and/or Density Increase and Always On for characters that are big, small, and/or dense all the time.

I have no problem with the concept. My only point of disagreement with the 5th Edition paradigm is saying that you can't use Growth, Shinking, or DI with Always On to simulate the effect if you want to.

 

There are a lot of advantages to doing it the 5th Edition way, not the least of which is that you don't have to buy every element of the effect if you don't want to. Perhaps you have a spry giant who shouldn't get as big a DCV penality or something. Not buying Growth lets you work around this.

 

But on the other hand, if you do want everything that Growth includes, I see no reason not to let you buy it as Growth, Always On if you want to. I allow either method in my games, though I tend to build things the 5th Edition way myself.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Monolith

I think all the debates were in the old forum, and I am not sure if that is searchable.

 

Judging from an hour going at it for Instant Change - I thought it'd be the easiest one for the search engine - I think you're right on that one.

[JmOz]

Derek, you said

 

No, but it is the creation of an effect from nothing. Also, Images has an existing mechanism for PER modifiers, making it easy (if you wish) to define exactly how bright the light is, etc.

 

 

Problem is that you could have just as easily changed it to a positive modifier in CE instead of Images. I personaly feel that it wuold be more appropriate for CE than Images be the power to do that (and for that matter the power to generate homing signals, etc...)

[Gary]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Monolith

This is true. I cannot argue that, but I do not think it is something which needs to be changed. Automations have other advantages that vehicles do not (such as having a brain and independent action). The extra cost of DEF does not bother me because of that.

 

The problem comes when vehicles fight PCs. It's ridiculously cheap for a vehicle to buy lots of Def or Force Field and make themselves virtually invulnerable to PC's.

 

If vehicles only fight vehicles, and PCs only fight other PC's, there is no problem. If you have them face each other, an equal point vehicle will almost certainly beat the typical PC. This may be "realistic", but it certainly doesn't have a superheroic feel.

[Monolith]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Gary

The problem comes when vehicles fight PCs. It's ridiculously cheap for a vehicle to buy lots of Def or Force Field and make themselves virtually invulnerable to PC's.

 

If vehicles only fight vehicles, and PCs only fight other PC's, there is no problem. If you have them face each other, an equal point vehicle will almost certainly beat the typical PC. This may be "realistic", but it certainly doesn't have a superheroic feel.

While I do not disagree with you I do think that the example you describe above is what the GM is for. The GM is the judge and is responsible for making sure a game does not become unbalanced. Increasing the cost of a vehicle's defenses is not going to stop people from creating munckin vehicles if they desire. Everything is on a 5 to 1 ratio as it is, so spending another 10 points gets you another 50 points of DEF.

 

I do not think every rule needs to be absolutely equal. I just think the GM needs to set his own standards for balance between PCs and Vehicles.

[Jeff]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Gary

The problem comes when vehicles fight PCs. It's ridiculously cheap for a vehicle to buy lots of Def or Force Field and make themselves virtually invulnerable to PC's.

 

If vehicles only fight vehicles, and PCs only fight other PC's, there is no problem. If you have them face each other, an equal point vehicle will almost certainly beat the typical PC. This may be "realistic", but it certainly doesn't have a superheroic feel.

 

If you don't increase the cost of vehicle defenses, or put very low caps on them, you get bizarre results for the points for vehicle on vehicle combat too. 60 points will get you a 4d6 RKA, doing 14 BODY on an average roll. Unlike KA STUN values, you get a serious bell curve for 3, 4 or more d6 on the BODY values - the extreme results are fairly rare. 60 points of standard vehicle DEF will get you 20 points resistant PD and ED. So you need significantly more active points in attacks before you even begin to penetrate a little on an average roll. Mind you, you might be more easily able to pile on more limitations on the attacks to get comparable real point costs - maybe - and the system tends to have somewhat higher active point totals for attacks than for defenses. But you still get vehicles that have a far, far harder time getting hurt than characters do, just because the game's damage system assumes that most significant damage is going to be STUN damage rather than BODY damage.

[Monolith]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Jeff

But you still get vehicles that have a far, far harder time getting hurt than characters do, just because the game's damage system assumes that most significant damage is going to be STUN damage rather than BODY damage.

Your theory has a couple of flaws. First off, 60 points of attack power never equates to 60 points of defensive power. I can make a superhero with 60 points of defensive powers who is completely immune to an average roll of 4d6 killing too.

 

Secondly, when designing vehicles you take into account what you are fighting. If it is fighting a superhero who does 12d6 of damage then the GM makes a conscious decision as to how much DEF he gives the vehicles. If the GM gives it 13 DEF he is expecting the hero to exceed his limits by being forced to push or use Haymakers on a constant basis to defeat the vehicle. If the GM gives the vehicle 10 DEF then he is expecting the hero to defeat the vehicle within a few hits.

 

You do not need to increase the cost of vehicle's defense to work within that concept. While you make a good point about stun, the fact of the matter is that that stun damage will still carry through to the occupants of the vehicle in some cases. That is never the case with an Automation who takes the No Stun power. You are not getting away with anything because a vehicle has proportionately equal defense cost.

[Paragon]

Re: Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Monolith

Vehicles already have the cost of the DEF triples (+1 DEF cost 3 points). An Automation, unless he takes the No Stun Option, only has to pay +1 for 1 point (it becomes +1 for 3 points if he takes the No Stun option).

 

1. This is a common error; unless it's changed in 5th, defense on vehicles is bought for both PD and ED, and is resistant as a default. As such, the price given is exactly the same as buying armor; there's no increase at all.

 

2. Vehicles already take no stun, so they're already in the same category as the latter sort of automaton.

 

It really is simply inconsistent. And it make vehicles way too efficient a way to effectively buy defense.

 

[Monolith]

Re: Re: Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Paragon

It really is simply inconsistent. And it make vehicles way too efficient a way to effectively buy defense.

Well, you are not supposed to be buying a vehicle just to get some DEF. You are supposed to be buying a vehicle to get something to ride around in/on.

 

I will just stick with my opinion, expressed in my last post, that the GM is the final arbiter as to how much DEF is too much. The untimate difference in cost, whether it is 3 points for 1 DEF or 5 points per DEF like Force Wall is really unimportant if the GM limits the vehicle to 10 DEF (+8 DEF costs a player 5 points at 3 per and 8 points at 5 per. 3 points one way or the other does not make any real difference).

[Paragon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Monolith

Well, you are not supposed to be buying a vehicle just to get some DEF. You are supposed to be buying a vehicle to get something to ride around in/on.

 

I will just stick with my opinion, expressed in my last post, that the GM is the final arbiter as to how much DEF is too much. The untimate difference in cost, whether it is 3 points for 1 DEF or 5 points per DEF like Force Wall is really unimportant if the GM limits the vehicle to 10 DEF (+8 DEF costs a player 5 points at 3 per and 8 points at 5 per. 3 points one way or the other does not make any real difference).

 

I'm afraid I can't agree; costs should be commensurate with value, or what's the point in having a cost system? While a different cap for vehicles than characters produces the effect, it's an overt sign that the costs are off when otherwise the process would be overly attractive.

 

And vehicles and vehicle-like constructs are a bit too common for me to find this something I can feel blaise about.

[Agent X]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Paragon

I'm afraid I can't agree; costs should be commensurate with value, or what's the point in having a cost system? While a different cap for vehicles than characters produces the effect, it's an overt sign that the costs are off when otherwise the process would be overly attractive.

 

And vehicles and vehicle-like constructs are a bit too common for me to find this something I can feel blaise about.

What's your fix? Superhero games aren't all about building your vehicles. If we set costs on vehicles high enough to alleviate your concern, then we punish people for wanting to have a Weavel-Mobile. There is more to game balance than simply measuring the cost of DEF for vehicles and the cost of Armor for characters.

[Paragon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Agent X

What's your fix? Superhero games aren't all about building your vehicles. If we set costs on vehicles high enough to alleviate your concern, then we punish people for wanting to have a Weavel-Mobile. There is more to game balance than simply measuring the cost of DEF for vehicles and the cost of Armor for characters.

 

Trippling the cost, same as for automatons. I see nothing punishing about that; for a routine vehicle the difference will be trivial; it's only armored vehicles which will show a noticeable increase.

 

And in this case I think that the game balance issue really _is_ that simple.

[Agent X]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Paragon

Trippling the cost, same as for automatons. I see nothing punishing about that; for a routine vehicle the difference will be trivial; it's only armored vehicles which will show a noticeable increase.

 

And in this case I think that the game balance issue really _is_ that simple.

So, if you don't want to ride around in a paper tissue, you have to spend a great deal of points on something that often won't even be involved in the adventure. We have a difference of opinion.

[Paragon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Agent X

So, if you don't want to ride around in a paper tissue, you have to spend a great deal of points on something that often won't even be involved in the adventure. We have a difference of opinion.

 

The fact you already pay one-fifth the cost of buying the defense normally makes me remarkably unsympathetic to this claim; if it really rarely is involved in the game, why is the player being charged at all? If it's occuring often enough you should charge him, then I think it should be charged appropriate to what the defense often means...which is that no damage gets to the character at all.

[TheEmerged]

Shamless plug!

 

Anybody interested in a listing of the changes can find one at my site. In fact, thanks for bringing an obvious one I'd missed to my attention (Instant Change).

[Agent X]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition

 

Originally posted by Paragon

The fact you already pay one-fifth the cost of buying the defense normally makes me remarkably unsympathetic to this claim; if it really rarely is involved in the game, why is the player being charged at all? If it's occuring often enough you should charge him, then I think it should be charged appropriate to what the defense often means...which is that no damage gets to the character at all.

You have to buy most stuff in Champions, including the Weavel-Mobile. Now, the Weavel-Mobile maybe a really tough car and it may occasionally be useful in combat, but it may also not be helpful in the underground hq of the villain, the other-dimensional realm the heroes get whisked to, etc. Still, the Weavel wants his Weavel-Mobile and he wants it to be cool! He wants it to have stats and be unique and he wants to be effective when not driving the Weavel-Mobile.

 

I hear your criticism about potential abuses but I haven't seen them take shape. Why change a system because somebody you would probably tell to leave your game table would do something extraordinarily silly? Why inconvenience a player from buildng a cool character with a cool vehicle because of what some joker you wouldn't play with would do? Dont' you have the GM look over every character construction anyway? Doesn't the GM have the right to say no to a character that is legalistically correct but abusive to the spirit of the game? I can build some very mighty characters that will whip vehicle boy and don't require cheesy power constructions. Simple is often the most effective.

[Monolith]

The only time the DEF number of a vehicle really becomes an issue is when the GM allows a player to buy one as a Powered Armor suit. Any other time a vehicle becomes nothing more than a plot device.

 

Batman is driving down the street, the Joker's thugs shoot at him in the Batmobile, Batman loses control and crashes into a dumpster, Batman gets out and beats up the Joker and his thugs.

 

The Avengers are flying from New York to St. Louis and over Ohio the Quinjet is hit by some missiles. Thor uses his weather powers to create wind and help Cap land the jet.

 

99.9% of the time a vehicle is nothing more than a conveyance device. It gets attacked if the GM wants to advance the plot (Oh No! The X-Men are trapped in the Savage Lands!) but most of the time it is just a way to get from point A to point B. There is no real need to increase the cost of a vehicle's DEF when it is not a central point of the character. Those points are better spent on things the character WILL use 99% of the time, IMO.

[Paragon]

Originally posted by Monolith

The only time the DEF number of a vehicle really becomes an issue is when the GM allows a player to buy one as a Powered Armor suit. Any other time a vehicle becomes nothing more than a plot device.

 

I'm sorry, but I can't agree; any character who is built around a vehicle as an operating prodedure will use it frequently, not just the power suit vehicles. Mecha drivers, your Jetboy equivelents and more. It's not an extremely common trope, but it's not as rare as you're putting on here.

 

 

Batman is driving down the street, the Joker's thugs shoot at him in the Batmobile, Batman loses control and crashes into a dumpster, Batman gets out and beats up the Joker and his thugs.

 

The Avengers are flying from New York to St. Louis and over Ohio the Quinjet is hit by some missiles. Thor uses his weather powers to create wind and help Cap land the jet.

 

99.9% of the time a vehicle is nothing more than a conveyance device. It gets attacked if the GM wants to advance the plot (Oh No! The X-Men are trapped in the Savage Lands!) but most of the time it is just a way to get from point A to point B. There is no real need to increase the cost of a vehicle's DEF when it is not a central point of the character. Those points are better spent on things the character WILL use 99% of the time, IMO.

 

And in most of those cases I don't see why the players should be purchasing the vehicle in the first place; it's a convenience for the GM, not a functional ability ot the PC. It's the cases where they do purchase them where I expect them to be problematic, and those are just the cases where I expect the costs to be relevant in the first place.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Paragon

I'm sorry, but I can't agree; any character who is built around a vehicle as an operating prodedure will use it frequently, not just the power suit vehicles. Mecha drivers, your Jetboy equivelents and more. It's not an extremely common trope, but it's not as rare as you're putting on here.

 

 

 

And in most of those cases I don't see why the players should be purchasing the vehicle in the first place; it's a convenience for the GM, not a functional ability ot the PC. It's the cases where they do purchase them where I expect them to be problematic, and those are just the cases where I expect the costs to be relevant in the first place.

Do you get any of the logistical considerations in why vehicles are 5/1 and that you don't want to spend most of your points allotted to vehicles to be based on DEF just so you don't have to worry about 30 strength characters turning your vehicle into Swiss Cheese?

 

Mecha Drivers and Jetboys are usually centered on just their vehicle. Many characters have useful vehicles that are not the principle theme of the character and it really shouldn't be set up in the system to punish players for daring to run a complex character with bases, vehicles, etc.