The cost of Transformation

[Sean Waters]

Transform costs 15 points for a major transform and is so costed, IIRC, because 'that is the same cost of a killing attack, and if you could kill the target you might as well do something else with it'

 

2 points:

 

1. Killing attack use resistant defences, and transform uses power defence, effectively AVLD killing attack, so surely the cost should be 37 points per 1d6?

 

2. Transform enemy into friend is much more useful than transform enemy into corpse.

 

Over the years and editions transform has gone through a number of transformations. Given that it is a very powerful effect, should we be looking at the cost again rather than just sticking a STOP sign on it, or at least assuming that as a base it works against resistant defences?

 

Or am I, as usual, missing something?

[Dr.Device]

Re: The cost of Transformation

 

You included the advantages, but not the limitations.

 

Does no stun (-1/2 or -1?)

Does no Knockback (-1/4)

No effect until “dead.” (-1/4?)

 

So maybe it's priced right after all.

 

Or maybe not. For its current price, I would return it to the old non-cumulative default, if it were up to me. It could then just use the cumulative advantage.

[Sean Waters]

Re: The cost of Transformation

 

Yes, point taken, but 'no effect until 'dead' is common to taking actual Body damage unless you are using impairing rules or bleeding (OK at negative Body you lose 1 per turn, but that is easy enough to stop once you are out fo combat).

 

'Does no stun or KB' is definitely a limitation but balanced against the utility of a transformed target as opposed to just a corpse?

 

Say:

 

1d6 RKA 15 points

 

AVLD +1/1/4

Transformed target +1/2

 

No stun -1/2

No kb -1/4

 

=25 points

 

Even if you do include 'no effect until dead' and don't include the 'transformation advantage' the cost should still be at least 18 points per die.

 

Going at it the other way you could use drain: you need 2d6 ranged drain for a 1d6 transform (in effect, as drain is not ranged and BODy is 2 points per point) which would cost 30 points per die.

 

Anyway you look at it it seems a bargain to me.

[Dr.Device]

Re: The cost of Transformation

 

Ah, but let's not forget that the effects of all killing attacks and BODY drains are cumulative with each other, whereas each transform is cumulative only with itself.

 

Thus, if I reduce Captain Hero to 1 BODY with my Spell of the Leech™ (4d6 Body Drain, ranged), Amana, my comrade in villainy can help finish him off with his Microwave Gun of Quick Death™ (3d6 RKA).

 

If instead I use my Vitrification wand (2d6 Transform), Amana and I won't finish him off any faster together than we would alone.

 

This is especially important when you consider the effect this will have on my target's tactics. If I am trying to transform Captain Heroic, he knows that if he can stop me before that last BODY of transform gets through, he'll be safe. If I'm zapping him with BODY dealing lightning bolts, or Leeching away his BODY with drains, he may well be left near death, an easy target for anyone who can get a little bit of BODY through his defenses.

 

As to the turning an enemy into an ally, that would be a mental transformation which requires BOECV (+1) and Works Against Ego, not Body (probably +1/4). So that aspect is noticeably more expensive than just removing them from the combat.

[zornwil]

Re: The cost of Transformation

 

Transform costs 15 points for a major transform and is so costed, IIRC, because 'that is the same cost of a killing attack, and if you could kill the target you might as well do something else with it'

 

2 points:

 

1. Killing attack use resistant defences, and transform uses power defence, effectively AVLD killing attack, so surely the cost should be 37 points per 1d6?

 

2. Transform enemy into friend is much more useful than transform enemy into corpse.

 

Over the years and editions transform has gone through a number of transformations. Given that it is a very powerful effect, should we be looking at the cost again rather than just sticking a STOP sign on it, or at least assuming that as a base it works against resistant defences?

 

Or am I, as usual, missing something?

I don't know, but at the very least a solid understanding of when one is blurring Transform with Summon or UBO (or the like) needs to be at hand in the book. At the least, Transform probably should be disallowed when/if the net effect is simply granting an ability such as UBO should (I would think) generally do.

 

Although in effect I have not found Transform to be an issue and have always run it much more liberally than the book, along with other Adjustment Powers. However, it also balances out because I apply all Adjustment Powers against a form of defense figured by INT/5 by default, replacing Power Defense with what I call Supernatural Defense. So defenses are much more common in general. I do sometimes think that Power Defense (as my own variant is game-specific) should at least have an option to be formed by INT/5 or such, giving it parity with MD and PD and ED. But I also sometimes realize that might throw the system off-kilter. Then again I think the Adjustment Powers in HERO are fairly whack at the moment, getting worse with each edition as incremental change rather than rewriting of them has been done, and I think it's a major challenge that I can easily complain about but would be hard-pressed to have a great solution, either.

[transmetahuman]

Re: The cost of Transformation

 

When I came back to Hero with 5er, I was upset by Transform now being cumulative, for the same reason. I remembered (or think I remembered) the justification being something like Vs. Power Defense +N, All-Or-Nothing -N (even back then I remember it bugged me that the AVLD didn't have Does Body). I'm really glad you posted this thread, because the other posters have pointed out implications that I didn't think of - it makes a lot more sense, now.

 

Ignoring for the moment the "transformed thing might be more useful than a corpse" bit, we've got

 

1d6 RKA, AVLD (PowDef) +1 1/2, Does Body +1 (37 active)

No STUN -3/4

No KNB -1/4

Can't be Bounced? -1/4

No impairing or bleeding -1/4?

Can't help or be helped by other attacks -1?

 

Even without the No Bounce and/or No Impair/Bleed, -1 1/2 seems not totally unreasonable for the "uncumulative" nature of Transform damage. I wish this had been spelled out in the text, and I still think All-Or-Nothing should be worth more than -1/2, but now I'm a lot happier with Transform. Thanks, guys.

[tesuji]

Re: The cost of Transformation

 

Most experience with HERO 4... some 5 and some 3...

 

never had a problem in play with transform.

Seen RKA be very effective and used a lot.

Not so for transform as "the attack to stop the guy." even if it did mean "and turn him friendly as such."

 

If you want to turn him friendly... you buy good mind control. Quicker and cheaper than transform.

 

for 60 AP i buy 4d6 Transform....enemy into totally loyal slave willing to fight for me. against a 14 body character with 5 power defense... not uncommon, I need ~four hits to get my result. Thats working against body (2 per point) aand powDef (1 per point.)

 

Or for the same 60 cp I buy something like 7d6 Mind control +5 ap for +10 to max and +1/2 for cumulative. Now after three shots against an EGO 14 Mental def 5 guy, i have something like a 60 pt effect, some 46 above his ego and after knocking off 30 thats still an eg roll at -3 to resist me. Sure he gets a turn later a roll at -2... but weigh that against all the "dont need a +30 to get whatI want" and... you get the idea.

 

then again, a lot will depend on typical defenses against attackks... if your typical super drops from two hits, common based on dc and def ranges shown in the 5e core, then taking three-four hits might be "too long". Why not just knock them out and the do a slow 1 dice cumulative fr free transform to turn "captured bad guy into willing slave"... thats what... 15 ap and a little patience?

 

transform as my main attack... not a big problem IMX... transform as a slow "get what i want"... maybe a problem.

[zornwil]

Re: The cost of Transformation

 

Most experience with HERO 4... some 5 and some 3...

 

never had a problem in play with transform.

Seen RKA be very effective and used a lot.

Not so for transform as "the attack to stop the guy." even if it did mean "and turn him friendly as such."

 

If you want to turn him friendly... you buy good mind control. Quicker and cheaper than transform.

 

for 60 AP i buy 4d6 Transform....enemy into totally loyal slave willing to fight for me. against a 14 body character with 5 power defense... not uncommon, I need ~four hits to get my result. Thats working against body (2 per point) aand powDef (1 per point.)

 

Or for the same 60 cp I buy something like 7d6 Mind control +5 ap for +10 to max and +1/2 for cumulative. Now after three shots against an EGO 14 Mental def 5 guy, i have something like a 60 pt effect, some 46 above his ego and after knocking off 30 thats still an eg roll at -3 to resist me. Sure he gets a turn later a roll at -2... but weigh that against all the "dont need a +30 to get whatI want" and... you get the idea.

 

then again, a lot will depend on typical defenses against attackks... if your typical super drops from two hits, common based on dc and def ranges shown in the 5e core, then taking three-four hits might be "too long". Why not just knock them out and the do a slow 1 dice cumulative fr free transform to turn "captured bad guy into willing slave"... thats what... 15 ap and a little patience?

 

transform as my main attack... not a big problem IMX... transform as a slow "get what i want"... maybe a problem.

You probably saw the other argument that really Transform for +30 level Mind Controls can be more cost effective, just depending, and I think that's true. But it runs afoul of the issue that one is not supposed to get something cheaper that a given standard power has built-in, or otherwise one is supposed to take the most expensive build (not that everyone agrees with that but it is the rule and one can always GM around it).

 

However, the most effective means of Mind Control don't generally involve +30 level manipulation.

 

(PS - but I agree with your post)

[Outsider]

Re: The cost of Transformation

 

Back before Transform was automatically cumulative, how often did anyone buy a Major Transform? With a 60 AP limit on attacks (pretty standard) that'd be 4d6, and one's odds of successfully transforming even a normal was pretty slim, and the chance of transforming a super who might have a wee bit of power defence (5) or a BODY of 13 or more was nil.

 

Or one can look at it as "how effective is transforming an opponent out of the fight vs just blasting him out?"

 

Again using 60 AP attacks (vs 25 PD/ED, 0 PwD)

 

Transform : 14 BOD/hit = 2-3 hits to put the target out. (Transform 14 to 21 BOD)

EB : 17 STUN/hit = 2-3 hits to put the target out. 34-51 STUN done)

 

The problem is that characters have an in-combat ability to recover from losing stun, but generally not one to stave off the accumulation of Transform pips.

 

If one is overly worried about it, buy 5 PwD. Heck, buy 10 (only vs Transforms (-1)) and call it "Morphic Stability".

[tesuji]

Re: The cost of Transformation

 

But it runs afoul of the issue that one is not supposed to get something cheaper that a given standard power has built-in, or otherwise one is supposed to take the most expensive build (not that everyone agrees with that but it is the rule and one can always GM around it).

 

IU always chuckle when i see that rule.

 

for me the rule is you choose whihever power cost is most appropriate given the value and utility comparatively the powers will see in the game. "Most expensive" isn't a better choices than least expensive by much... and both pale beside "what yu can actually do" as "the better answer."

 

In the majority of cases, I would say, the simplest huild that produces the effect is going to produce the best cost... but then to my way of thinking value in play has much more to do with "what the Gm chooses" than "the way it was built" for any given effect so the best rule might well be "choose whicheever the GM prefers".

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The cost of Transformation

 

IU always chuckle when i see that rule.

 

So do I, primarily because it's virtually always misquoted. The actual rule is that the most expensive choice of two or more equally valid builds should be selected. I think the one-line build is more valid than one which requires a dozen modifiers to work.

 

If this were not the case, we could write out Ego Attack (it would be much more costly constructed as an energy blast with advantages), Armor and PD/ED with Damage Resistance (buy a Force Field with 0 END, persistent, invisible instead), among other staple abilities.

[tesuji]

Re: The cost of Transformation

 

So do I, primarily because it's virtually always misquoted. The actual rule is that the most expensive choice of two or more equally valid builds should be selected. I think the one-line build is more valid than one which requires a dozen modifiers to work.

 

and therein lies the ,main problem with the rule or guideline... once its use depends on unspecified subjective criteria... "equally valid"... then its utility diminishes greatly.

 

you and i might see simplicity as a better criteria... so much that it for you kicks in the "validity" door and for me that it trumps the entire rule... somone else might see a wholly different aspect as just as crucial like " not using stop sign powers" vs "using stop sign powers" or "not using "special powers"" etc...

Heck a very strong case can be made foir "equally valid" kickin' in for all those powers like transform and change environment which have cautions bout "using this powers to emulate other already existing powers" and so on.

 

without defining validity or some criteria for determining "are these equally valid builds" the meta rule has little to no real meaning beyond "choose the one the GM likes" IMO.

[zornwil]

Re: The cost of Transformation

 

So do I, primarily because it's virtually always misquoted. The actual rule is that the most expensive choice of two or more equally valid builds should be selected. I think the one-line build is more valid than one which requires a dozen modifiers to work.

 

If this were not the case, we could write out Ego Attack (it would be much more costly constructed as an energy blast with advantages), Armor and PD/ED with Damage Resistance (buy a Force Field with 0 END, persistent, invisible instead), among other staple abilities.

I believe there's also something if not written that is traditional for most of us that if a power directly does something it should be used, so if you want to give a mental command to do something, Transform is generally considered inappropriate, even if cheaper. I'm not saying I would be against Transform in all cases as I can imagine some cases where a mental command might be something intended as a true change of mind forever, which then to me bleeds into Transform, but a simple "do this" seems to me to be a bit of cheating (so to speak) to do in Transform just because it's cheaper.