This Seems Busted

[Sean Waters]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Because the normal character is 4 times his size and looks like a Giant to him.

 

For the exact same reasons that -+ 2 DCV was added to the Growth and Shrinking powers in the first place.

 

The range issue you bring up, though, is an issue. If one really wanted to model it, the example would be that Miniblast at 16 hexes would be +2 to hit (for size), but -2 to hit due to how far 16 hexes looks to Miniblast (64 hexes). Maxiblast would be at -2 to hit (for size), but +2 to hit due to how short 16 hexes looks to Maxiblast (4 hexes).

 

In this example, if appropriate range modifier (based on size) rules were put in place (in addition to size rules), both Miniblast and Maxiblast would have the same chance to hit Normalla at that range.

 

But, that requires more effort to create those special range rules.

 

Interesting take, but to me whether you hit at range is not so much about subjective size but how much of the landscape the target takes up, and that is the same no matter the size of the attacker. Yes the target might appear to be 4x bigger than me, but so does the rest of the world (i.e. the opportunities to miss!).

 

How much of the landscape the target takes up is a function of both size and distance, but it would be the same no matter the size of the perceiver.

[schir1964]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Size Stat

 

I'll try to find the link later.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Mister E]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

A GM should be able to easily shift the base scale of a game: That is, shift it from human-centric to giant/hobbit/squirrel/ant-centric, using a meta-dimensional scaling method that is built as a continuum of size ranges.

 

The current stock toolkitting model doesn't do this; but I predict that the HERO System can still handle it.

 

+/-1 or +/-2... it doesn't really matter to me as long as it's consistent. Which ever is chosen, the rest of the game must follow.

 

My quick list of wants for representing 'size-challenged' characters:

• Zero and negative STR DC's. (or some reasonable replacement)
  
• A BODY system able to expand up and down into greater and finer dimensions without loss of consistency.
  
• "Sub"-Hexes. (In part, for potential AoE attacks against shrunk characters)
  
• A fractional AoE system. (Modeled after "sub"-hexes to get bonuses from hitting fractions of hexes)
  
• An expansion of the Beam limitation.
  

I'm going to tinker around this evening, and see what I can come up with. I think the results will be obvious.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

A GM should be able to easily shift the base scale of a game: That is, shift it from human-centric to giant/hobbit/squirrel/ant-centric, using a meta-dimensional scaling method that is built as a continuum of size ranges.

 

The current stock toolkitting model doesn't do this; but I predict that the HERO System can still handle it.

 

+/-1 or +/-2... it doesn't really matter to me as long as it's consistent. Which ever is chosen, the rest of the game must follow.

 

My quick list of wants for representing 'size-challenged' characters:

• Zero and negative STR DC's. (or some reasonable replacement)
  
• A BODY system able to expand up and down into greater and finer dimensions without loss of consistency.
  
• "Sub"-Hexes. (In part, for potential AoE attacks against shrunk characters)
  
• A fractional AoE system. (Modeled after "sub"-hexes to get bonuses to hit fractions of hexes)
  
• An expansion of the Beam limitation.
  

I'm going to tinker around this evening, and see what I can come up with. I think the results will be obvious.

 

A headache?

[Mister E]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Size Stat

 

Right... right... right... something that can be directly and simply effected by powers.

 

A headache?

 

I've got lots of coffee.

[ghost-angel]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Ah' date=' bugger, I don't have the revised rules. I guess I'll have to find them.[/quote']

 

Ah, sorry. Size Modifiers for combar: FREd p252

[schir1964]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

[thread=54747]Size Stat[/thread]

 

Here's the link.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Mister E]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

[All of the following are brainstormings determined using the new modifiers of +/-1 for doublings/halvings of size.]

 

Growing Hand-Prints vs. Shrinking Foot-Prints:

 

Growth 60 = AoE one hex (hex) = No Shrinking

Growth 55

Growth 50

Growth 45 = AoE 1/2 hex (sub1hex) = Shrinking 10

Growth 40

Growth 35

Growth 30 = AoE 1/4 hex (sub2hex) = Shrinking 20

Growth 25

Growth 20

Growth 15 = AoE 1/8 hex (sub3hex) = Shrinking 30

Growth 10

Growth 5

No Growth = AoE 1/16 hex (sub4hex) = Shrinking 40

 

Note: the fractional hexes aren't representative of actual area; e.g., "AoE 1/2 hex," is a 1/2 inched hex. For table-mapping, the juncture of three sub1hexes is the middle of one normal hex.

 

This is interesting. From this, we can deduce that a human-sized character can attack the sub4hex that a character with 4 levels of Shrinking is standing in, making it impossible to use its DCV (assuming its mobility is consistent with its size).

 

Targeting (sub)-Hexes:

 

AoE one hex (hex) = DCV 3

AoE 1/2 hex (sub1hex) = DCV 4

AoE 1/4 hex (sub2hex) = DCV 5

AoE 1/8 hex (sub3hex) = DCV 6

AoE 1/16 hex (sub4hex) = DCV 7

 

How cool is that? Hitting a sub4hex is as hard as hitting a character with DEX 21, with no other modifiers!

 

CV modifiers for size :

 

Shrinking 40 = +4

Shrinking 30 = +3

Shrinking 20 = +2

Shrinking 10 = +1

Normal-Sized Human = No Modifier

Growth 15 = -1

Growth 30 = -2

Growth 45 = -3

Growth 60 = -4

 

Mandatory Linkage of OCV size modifiers is how I would do it... though, a simplified version that just dropped them straight into size powers (or a Size stat) also appeals to me.

 

In conclusion: I don't think +/-2 is the way to go. It quickly creates disparities between size ranges that are irreconcilable; and I simply don't think it offers the kind of useful granularity that a +/-1 based method gives you.

 

Thus, here is a short list of changes I want made to the rules (open for more suggestions):

• Size modifiers (to +/-1 CV per size level)
  
• Range modifiers (to -1 per doubling of range)
  
• Hit Locations (divide all by half, round down... "center-of-mass" body shots would thus be free)
  

 

Furthermore, it's obvious to me that Shrinking needs to be changed dramatically so that it can be bought in increments that halve mass so that BODY and DC's can be appropriately figured. It must directly correlate with Growth in that respect.

 

Also, if we are going to create a Size stat (a necessity I think), a similarly scaled Mobility stat (related to Movement) needs to be made in order to create flea-type characters... allowing them to use their DCV against AoE attacks, and attack targets according to larger hex templates than normal.

[Mister E]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Here's my solution to the BODY/DC problem:

 

The BODY of a character must be viewed as a meta-stat, directly proportional only to other beings of the same size. Thus, even an ant or a macrophage can commonly have a 10 BODY (likewise, so also could a bear or sperm whale).

 

This concept somewhat corresponds to the optional damage rules for Impairing and Disabling, which uses the character's BODY stat as the benchmark for determining whether individual Hit Locations suffer from ruinous effects... rather than use some fraction of the BODY stat determined from the actual mass of the Hit Location.

 

From there on, it is needful to consider the extra complication of Relative Size for determining DC's and other game effects. (This breaks the universal rule that simple is better... ). Basically, the DC of an attack (or game effect) must be considered in light of the relative sizes between the attacker and the target.

 

Relative Size modifiers for DC's and other game effects (based on doublings/halvings of mass... or rather relative Growth increments of 5 pts):

 

+1 size (or x 2 mass) = +1 DC

-1 size (or x 1/2 mass) = -1 DC

... and so on.

 

Example:

 

NPC villain Baron Blasto (a standard human-sized character) targets the party with 3 separate 10d6 Energy Blasts. The party consists of Mouse-Man, weighing in at 12.5 kg (3 sizes smaller)... Man-Man, 100 kg (same size)... and The 400 Ton Goggathon (12 sizes larger).

 

To Mouse-Man, Baron Blasto's attack is a 13d6 EB.

 

Man-Man takes his as the standard 10d6 EB.

 

The 400 Ton Goggathon is merely singed cosmetically! (10d6 EB minus 12 DC's = something less than zero)

 

From this example, it is obvious that size is a big deal. Two new rules must be added to fix things: Drilling and Explosion vs. Size.

 

Drilling is based on the concept that what one squirrel can't do, dozens can. For every doubling of the number of attacks, you mitigate the DC penalty for -1 size category. The attacks don't have to be all at the same time, but in order the stretch the Drilling over more than one phase, the attacker(s) must declare how many size levels they wish to mitigate before rolling effect. (This is almost precisely modeled after the Cumulative advantage).

 

Example:

 

Baron Blasto takes out all the party members except for The 400 Ton Goggathon.

 

Using Duplication, the Baron makes 7 copies of himself, and attempts to

Drill

the giant hero with eight 10d6 Enargy Blasts. '8 attacks' represents 3 doublings of the number of attacks, thus Blasto's EB mitigates 3 DC penalties for relative size. T400TG (who is still 12 sizes bigger) only gets to subtract 9 DC from the

Drilling

attack, and suffers as if hit with a 1d6 EB.

 

T400TG howls with rage. Baron Blasto grows desperate.

 

Declaring that he's going to continue Drilling the titanoid until 5 of the relative size penalties have been mitigated (which would take 4 phases at 8 attacks per phase), the Baron begins Drilling. After 4 phases of this, T400TG is effected as if hit with a 3d6 EB (10d6 EB minus 12-5 or 7 DC's).

 

Explosion vs. Size is a new rule that make it so that all the DC's in an Explosion advantaged attack are considered able to circumvent all relative size penalties, as long as the total area of effect matches or exceeds the target's Hand-Print(see prior post). This rule basically takes its cue from most Vehicle weapon builds. Classic AoE advantaged attacks may also qualify for this rule.

 

Example:

 

Baron Blasto spends a few turns looking at his watch, while The 400 Ton Goggathon variously murders his duplicates.

 

Determined not to lose, Blasto fires a 5d6 Explosive EB at T400TG. All of the damage gets through... the hero is stunned... and the Baron flies away, hoping to quickly return home to the Barony of Blastoia.

[zornwil]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Just wanted to say, as I didn't exactly see it stated, to GAZZA that many of these have been rather hotly debated. But 0 END for an EC is actually an old rule, I think the only "change" is that it was more firmly stated in this edition - we did some research on prior editions and it was there before. However, I think it is a poor application for the sake of balance. And have some similar differences with many of these items as you. This is all documented in many, many other threads. Suffice to say that you're not alone in having some differences with these.

[GAZZA]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

I'm kind of adjusting. I haven't enforced the "no 0 END powers in an EC" rule and I feel better about it now (since I was blissfully unaware of it being the case in 4th edition, and I seem not to have suffered), but I've played with the Permanent Size rules a bit and I no longer believe they are as bad as I thought (big guys still get a raw deal compared to strong-but-normal-sized guys, but they get a much better deal than they got with Always On Growth, so it's not so awful).

 

I have found over the years with Hero that I have become more liberal with applying rules than I used to. When I first started out I made sure PCs paid points for having a car to go to work with in their secret ID, but now I don't mind if superheroes use cellphones to talk to each other (especially since it's so much fun to have supervillains intercept such calls - hey, if you get to talk for free, you can't expect security...) I used to make gadgeteers buy any Special Power devices outside their VPP, but now I've been known to let characters have naked power advantages inside an EC - not always, but there are times when I've felt it was appropriate.

 

That doesn't mean that I don't use house rules, though. (On the day I let someone sneak an infinite recursion Succor or Suppress power by me, Satan will be iceskating to work - although I found that thread highly illuminating).

[Metaphysician]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

I didn't like the "most cost END normally" limit at first, but having played with the system, and seen character writeups, for some years now, I've changed to the other end: I think ECs should be eliminated entirely.

 

As is, naturally 0 END powers tend to be exactly the stuff that appears in the most abusive EC configurations. I think it was a good move, overall, forbidding such.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

I didn't like the "most cost END normally" limit at first, but having played with the system, and seen character writeups, for some years now, I've changed to the other end: I think ECs should be eliminated entirely.

 

As is, naturally 0 END powers tend to be exactly the stuff that appears in the most abusive EC configurations. I think it was a good move, overall, forbidding such.

 

So it's somehow more abusive to have a +15/+15 Force Field, 0 END than +15/+15 Armor in your EC? This structure doesn't work, in my view, because the determination of which powers cost END by default includes a number of arbitrary choices. Aid changed between 4e and 5e - is Healing 0 END somehow less likely to be abused than Aid 0 END?

 

Why not also allow only attacks that have no range by default or take the No Range limitation?

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Suffice to say that you're not alone in having some differences with these.

 

Yeah. I dropped that, but went with the whole "Drain one, drain 'em all" aspect of ECs. The SFX has to be tight enough that if one power in the EC is drained they all lose that amount (I drop the double effect due to EC reserve being dropped). While not a complete balancing issue (after all how often does it come up), it make a decent rule of thumb for figuring which powers can go into an EC and which can't.

[Reality Czech]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

Drilling is based on the concept that what one squirrel can't do' date=' dozens can. [/quote']

 

Squirrelball: 6D6 EB, AoE 1 hex, penetrating, continous, uncontrolled.

 

Nobody stands up to a mass of angry, biting squirrels forever.

[Metaphysician]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

In theory, that works fine, but in practice, it only makes sense if the character puts *every* power derived from the source in the EC.

 

Put another way, my fundamental objection to ECs: they are the only framework that gives you a point break on the powers you are using at any given time. With multipowers and VPPs, if you are using a 60 AP energy blast, a 60 AP force field, and 60 AP flight in a given phase, you'll have to have paid 180 total AP worth of points, whether inside your framework or out. The extra points you paid benefit you by having more configurations, but you still only get as many AP as you paid for.

 

With an EC, OTOH, those same powers, used simultaneously, only cost you 120 active points. You effectively get a -1/2 limit on all your powers, in exchange for the dubious restriction of being subjects to Drains in a vaguely more hazardous manner. Given that ECs *also* give you the benefit of being able to stack limitations on each slot for significant real point savings ( as opposed to the other frameworks, where significant cost savings only comes if the limit is applicable to *every* slot ), -1/2 is way too big a point break. If you have to build several associated powers that only work together, you should use the Linked limit instead ( Force Field and Flight, both Linked to Damage Shield, for a Human Torch style fire aura ).

[JmOz]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

I have another couple of issues.

 

Damage Shield Must Be Continuous

I find this to be a very bad change. IF Damage Shield was thought to be too efficient at +1/2 - and it's a big if - then raise the cost. Raise it all the way to +1 1/2 if you feel that's what it should cost.

 

What's the difference? Well, there's a few problems:

• 
  
• Power modifiers should be self contained. This isn't always possible (Persistent requires 0 END, for example), but when you make an exception there should be a very good reason for it.
  
• Previously, if you bought Continuous on a Damage Shield, you were actually creating a power that continued to harm the victim after they weren't touching you anymore (eg a poison, or setting them alight, or whatever). Now this can't be done unless you creatively apply Usable Against Others.
  
• At +1 1/2, you're going to encourage "Advantage Stacking" to try and squeeze some sort of utility from the power. A 10DC power comes out to a feeble 4d6 with +1 1/2 on it, something that even many agent level villains will laugh at. Do we really want to encourage adding Penetrating and 1/2 END, lowering it to only 3d6 (or more likely a 1d6 HKA, since you're still allowed to add STR apparently)?

It would take an exceedingly well reasoned argument to convince me to adopt this over the straight +1/2 from the BBB.

 

Elemental Controls and No END Powers

If this was an attempt at a more generalised "No Special Powers in Frameworks" rule, it's a bad one. Powers that do not cost END are not inherently more powerful than those that do. I just see no real point in this restriction at all - of all the things to pick on, END cost is just such so trivial. Powergamers will still buy everything in an EC; they'll just grab a big END Reserve outside it (indeed buying every power with "costs END" or sometimes even "2x END" and using some of the saved points to get a big END Reserve is a tried and tested powergamer mechanism for squeezing more point efficiency). This also cuts out powers with charges from an EC (unless you buy them as costs END as well, I suppose).

 

My house rule on Damage Shields: If the power is to effective there is a +1 surcharge attached to the cost of DS, otherwise it is a +1/2. Too effective is somewhat a GM call, but things like NND or AVLD, basicaly take a good look at the rules for AF for an idea...

[GAZZA]

Re: This Seems Busted

 

In theory' date=' that works fine, but in practice, it only makes sense if the character puts *every* power derived from the source in the EC.[/quote']

(snip!)

 

Or you could get rid of Multipowers, and buy the separate abilities with the "Lockout" limitation.

 

ECs have a lot of weird characteristics. I view them basically as a cost break for having a unified theme uniting several powers, but Mr Surbrook and I disagree a bit on this. If you have several powers of different Active Point totals, it can work out more cost efficient to buy some of the smaller ones outside the EC. Since my perspective is that the cost break is the main reason to use an EC, I'll go ahead and do that - Mr Surbrook views an EC something that is (sfx wise) "one power" and if that means you pay more by sticking the appropriate abilities into an EC, so be it. (I hope I am not misrepresenting his position here).

 

ECs are definitely the only framework that actively punishes you for having a few weak and a few strong powers (AP wise).

 

I think the main reason that frameworks are so tenacious is the obvious: many characters would require hundreds more points to build without them. Should they? Good question. But if you build basic superheroes on 500 points (a rough guess: energy projectors on 350 have about 4 slots to their 50 AP multipower, so that's an extra 130 points they'd need, and many have ECs as well) then what are bricks and martial artists going to spend the extra points on? Are Energy Projectors (the main framework using archetype, as far as I can see) overpowering their compatriots at the moment to the point that such a balance is needed?