A question of balance

[Sean Waters]

I was building a character yesterday, a telekinetic, with the ability to reach through objects to damage them internally. The main attack is built as follows:

 

1d6 RKA NND (Telekinetic shields or hardened defences) Does BODY Indirect IPE

 

Now this got me thinking about balance in the system, and what it means. The particular point I was concerned about was the utility of IPE.

 

For a +1 advantage you have a power that can be used with no visible special effects. No observer can tell where the power is coming from or even that it is doing anything, but they will see that the target is writing around in agony.

 

The target will be aware that they are being attacked and will generally be able to identify the attacker.

 

There are no combat bonuses for this attack, although you can probably swing more surprise attacks past a GM than usual.

 

I can see how this would be useful for an assassin or some such, but it just did not seem that useful, given the cost, a full +1, to the character. I’m keeping it because that is how I see the power working, but it got me thinking about point balance in the system.

 

There is a principle that point cost should reflect utility. I suppose we need to look at what ‘utility’ means. In the average superhero combat, and to my mind that is where the balance generally lies – in combat – utility could be defined as making it more or less likely that you or a target will be affected or how much effect will occur.

 

Unfortunately there are a number of powers where that definition only assists peripherally. Movement can, for instance, be used both offensively or defensively, but cannot be thought of in terms of strict combat utility as it fulfils a non-combat role too.

 

To my way of thinking, an advantage like IPE really has no effect on combat once it is joined. Unless you are fortunate enough to be battling in the middle of a crowd, so your targets have no idea who to shoot at, it is a pretty useless power in combat – generally the two (or more) sides are reasonably obvious, and even if TK Boy is not obviously taking part, his presence and the process of deduction will likely make him a target in any event.

 

Out of combat, IPE attacks are probably only useful if you want to work as an assassin, by and large.

 

This principle applies to powers as well as advantages: shapeshift has a potentially substantial effect out of combat, and a tactical one in combat (and then, generally, only if you have a certain build i.e. one that involves imitation), but is expensive for the combat effectiveness, and the out-of combat advantages are very dependent on the style of the game you play.

 

There are plenty of other similar examples, but one other area is fixed cost powers, like, for example, Life Support – in high point games, a full suite of LS is a relatively inexpensive defence, whereas in starting level games, spending the full 45 points is probably more than most can afford, even if the concept allows for it. This category has variable cost/utility, depending on the point level of the campaign.

 

So, this waffling preamble is leading to a reasonably straightforward question – is there any principle we can divine or create that allows us to apply principles to point balancing in Hero, or, if not, then can we at least work towards a principle of what is important when looking at point cost?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: A question of balance

 

Sean

 

I think that the cost is correct - it provides a utility and it is up to you whether you want to use it to its fullest potential. If you are concerned that the power does not provide you with its fullest effect for the points spent then why not put it in a multipower, one slot with IPE one without.

 

Out of combat you can use your IPE and get that effect, in combat you effectively push the power with subsequent greater effect and visible special effects.

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: A question of balance

 

Sean

 

I think that the cost is correct - it provides a utility and it is up to you whether you want to use it to its fullest potential. If you are concerned that the power does not provide you with its fullest effect for the points spent then why not put it in a multipower, one slot with IPE one without.

 

Out of combat you can use your IPE and get that effect, in combat you effectively push the power with subsequent greater effect and visible special effects.

 

 

Doc

 

The problem with that build is that the power I envisage is not normally visible, so the MP idea, a good one for point utility, doesn't work well for me, and in the average superhero game, IPE just does not seem worth it. Not for Heroes, anyway. I could change the concept to say that when 'really pushing it', the effect becomes visible, but, like I said, that is not what I was after, so I'm paying quite a lot for something that is largely sfx. Largely. I'll think of some cunning stuff, I'm sure This guy has enough problems - he can reach inside someone and lacerate their internal orgams - but that is not a particularly heroic thing to do, and will get him into a lot of trouble if he uses it in anything but a situation where life is in imminent danger. I could put a non-lethal version in a MP, but again the point is that he has the power, like it or lunp it - whilst I chose the poers for the character, the character did not chose...

 

However, that was really not the point of the post so much as trying to get at the underlying principles of cost utility. One argument says that the amount you pay should determine the utility - it is up to you and the GM to MAKE that IPE worth it - but that places a lot of work on individuals already doing enough just placing the game and means that there will be substantial differences between the way in which different groups use the same rules. Whilst that may be largely unavoidable, it might help to make those decisions more easily if some principles of cost/utility were more transparent, or at least if their coverings were

[TheJudge]

Re: A question of balance

 

If the target does not have the appropiate senses to detect the attack they would not be able to know who is attacking them. There is no rules that make the target automatically aware of the attacker if they cant perceive it then oh well. As far as combat well the rules state that if you cant perceive an incoming attack you're at 1/2 DCV so it's safe to say the target would suffer from that reduction.

 

I understand the difference between invisibility and IPE but it would appear there is a lot of confusion surrounding the matter. Invisiblity makes the person invisible but not his attacks with the exception of those made by his STR and or martial arts but any other attack ranged or otherwise that was not purchased with IPE would be perceivable and able to be effectively dodged. The real advantage of Invisible is it becomes harder to hit the person that has the power H-T-H attacks are made at 1/2 OCV and range 0 OCV if target cant be perceived. IPE the advantage of this is that even though the attacker can still be seen and attacked as normal the attack would not be perceived and the target would suffer from the penalties of fighting blind in reference to their DCV because they cant perceive the in coming attacks.

 

Mental powers used to attacke a target cant be seen except by those with the proper senses. So if they cant see where the attack originated from they have no way of knowing who attacked them just that they have been mentally violated.

[Markdoc]

Re: A question of balance

 

Agree with the previous two posters. Yes, it is possible to act in a way that you don't gain any benefit from IPE, but it can be extremely useful. When combined with indirect or mental powers, it can be horrifically effective.

 

It is true that a standard stand-up-and-sock'em-type hero will get less use out of it than a hide-in-shadows-assassin type - but then, the latter gets less use out of his armour. Should he get it cheaper?

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Samson]

Re: A question of balance

 

The target will be aware that they are being attacked and will generally be able to identify the attacker.

 

Actually no, or not necessarily. It depends on the circumnstance of coarse. If you attack from a state such that the target cannot sense you (Invisibility, Stealth, great range, ect.) then the target does not know where you are to attempt to retaliate (or at least make a PER to determine your exact location). Without this advantage, game mechanics wise, they know where you are.

[GAZZA]

Re: A question of balance

 

I must be missing something.

 

I'm looking at 5ER Invisible Power Effects, page 261-262, and it looks to me that if you use a power that is IPE the target won't know you were the one that did it. It specifically mentions (under Invisible Effects On The Target) that he might be able to figure it out based on the trajectory of the attack, but since your TK is Indirect as well, it doesn't look like that's going to help.

 

But I'm quite prepared to be shown here - where does it say that the attacker will still know who hit him?

[Sean Waters]

Re: A question of balance

 

I think we are looking at the same thing and seeing it differently.

 

IPE to the +1 level allows observers to see the effects of an attack and work out (not necessarily automatically) the source of an attack. Doubling the cost prevents observers doing this, but the target still feels the attack and can still (presumably) work out (not necessarily automatically) who is attacking them.

 

That's what I am seeing.

 

As to the assassin/armour point, no, I'd say he does not get it cheaper. Armour has a clear and set effect, IPE doesn't. This may just be my perception () or it may be that the description could do with a little clarification in the next edition. Bear very much in mind that IPE is MAINLY useful for assassin types, and, whilst you can build and play anything in Hero, that is not the sort of archetype that you are likely to have in most games as a PC, not even in most Dark Champions games, unless it is a solo/Punisher type game. Your games may be different. The character creation rules should be PC biased.

[GAZZA]

Re: A question of balance

 

I think we are looking at the same thing and seeing it differently.

 

IPE to the +1 level allows observers to see the effects of an attack and work out (not necessarily automatically) the source of an attack. Doubling the cost prevents observers doing this, but the target still feels the attack and can still (presumably) work out (not necessarily automatically) who is attacking them.

I thought that the doubling of it means that there are no indications to anyone other than the target that he was even attacked. For example, if it's a gun then there's no bullet wound. If it's a flame then there are no burns. The target still feels the effect (as an aside, this sort of begs the question as to how you can manage to hurt someone without them knowing about it - but I suppose some sort of Mental Illusions or Mind Control could be pressed into service), but he doesn't necessarily associate it with an attack.

 

Way back in 4th edition days (my goodness I feel old - it's all downhill from 34, I guess - only a few more months until I can no longer say I'm in my early thirties, and will have to start saying "mid thirties"), the back of the BBB had a sample adventure where someone used an IPE Stun Only Energy Blast and it was described that the targets would feel woozy but wouldn't know exactly why. That's the sort of thing I would have thought IPE was for.

 

But for what it's worth, there have been many times when I just didn't bother buying IPE even for powers where it would technically have been appropriate, for much the "utility" reasons you describe.

 

I suppose one advantage of IPE attacks is that they can't be Missile Deflected, they won't activate "Damage Reduction: Must Be Aware of Attack" that some martial artists have, and you probably can't Block them. Whether all that lot is worth +1/2 is a good question, though.

[GAZZA]

Re: A question of balance

 

Here's how I always thought IPE was supposed to work.

 

Let's say I have a character called LaserDude, who can project beams of focussed light throughout the whole electromagnetic spectrum. Assume he has an appropriate Multipower of Energy Blasts (or RKAs, if you think that's a better way to do lasers - it makes no difference for this example).

 

If he blasts you with a normal EB, then a beam of energy emerges from his eyes and strikes you. You can see LaserDude blast you, and so can anyone else who was looking. (At this point I realise I have chosen a spectacularly bad example, since lasers shouldn't really be perceivable unless there's dust around or something, but ... work with me, OK? ).

 

So instead he switches to his X-Ray laser, which has Invisible To Sight (though not to the Radio sense group). If he blasts you now, you don't know he did it, and nor does anyone else. You do know you've been hit with some sort of laser, and from the burns that appear on your chest so do bystanders. And if LaserDude did knockback, you would fly back directly away from him. Taking into account his superhero name, and cross referencing your knockback path, you might be able to figure it out (and so could anyone else).

 

Undaunted, he next switches to his Gamma laser, which has Invisible to Sight at the +1 level. Now, when you get hit, it still hurts (so you know something's happened), but there's no visible scarring. Unless you're a nancy boy and yell out, nobody around will know anything happened (and even if you are a girl's blouse and scream, they won't necessarily conclude that you've been attacked - perhaps they'll think you're just re-enacting the time that you fell off your bike, you wimp! When I were a lad... but I digress). Again, if there's knockback involved, you might conclude that LaserDude was responsible, but a bystander unaware of LaserDude's abilities might think there was a stray gust of wind or something - there's no visible reason why you should suddenly feel the need to leap fifty feet into the air and scatter yourself over a wide area.

 

If you're concluding from this that it's handy to have No Knockback on Invisible Power Effects attacks, then you're on the right page.

 

Anyway, if I'm wrong about how IPE is supposed to work, by all means edumicate me. But the above doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A question of balance

 

'Visible' is a - 1/4 limtation.

 

I'm thinking IPE is too expensive.

 

Perhaps +1/4 would get you invisible to one targetting or two non-targetting senses and +1/2 would do you for 'no detectable sfx'.

 

Mind you, the whole utility of the power is that the target and others should not know where the attack is coming from.

 

Gazza's interpretaion makes a great deal of sense (especially the 'no KB' bit - definitely an advantage for this build, rather than any kind of limitation).

 

Really, and logically, if a target was completely unaware of an attack then they should be subject to similar penalties as being attacked by an invisible attacker, but they are not.

 

There seem to be three areas for 'visibility':

 

Source visibility

Attack visibility

Effect visibility, which can split into observer and target.

 

So, I could live with each being a +1/4 advantage, or for +1 no one, not even the target would know they were being attacker. Until, presumably, they fell over.

 

I can see that being useful (just keep him talking....) so maybe Target effect visibility should be more expensive, say +3/4, making the whole shebang cost + 1 1/2.

 

Cool.

 

Possibly.

[schir1964]

Re: A question of balance

 

This also touches on the discussion on whether standard hand weapons (rifles, pistols, etc...) should have some level of Invisible Power Effects, since the actual damage path is not visible to the naked eye.

 

So if a character is shot in the middle of the crowd in the city, even though they may hear the gunshot, they may still not know immediately where they were shot from.

 

Just An Aside

 

- Christopher Mullins

[CourtFool]

Re: A question of balance

 

To the actual question, can we agree on the usefulness of any particular ability when point totals vary, campaigns vary, GMs and players vary…even sessions vary?

[tesuji]

Re: A question of balance

 

 

So, this waffling preamble is leading to a reasonably straightforward question – is there any principle we can divine or create that allows us to apply principles to point balancing in Hero, or, if not, then can we at least work towards a principle of what is important when looking at point cost?

 

yes, there is a principle...

 

as the gm, its your job to make things play out as worth what you told the players they were worth, no more and no less, and if you can do this close enough, then you have created balance.

 

you speak of how useful ipe is... as if there is a universal constant scenario where all games play.

 

as a GM, if a PLAYER choses to invest points in an IPE power, especially if he makes it a SIGNIFICANT power (cost spent, focus of background, or maybe his only unique trait) then AS THE GM who told him "its worth +1, i will script challenges which make it worthwhile.

 

that likely means some "sneak in" kind of scenarios where being able to use said ability without attracting attention is important. one example might be his being able to destroy/disable some object while others around are unawares. many others exist.

 

the challenges you create for your play are what determines the "worth in play" of their traits, and as gm you also assign or approve the prices they paid for those traits... so both major elements of balance... pre=play cost and in play need... are in your control.

 

if you make both decisions in sync, then you create balance in play... which is what matters.

 

IMO way too much time and effort and focus is spent on pre-game costs (including a complex system of mathematical gyrations) and way way way too little is spent on challenge choice and how to use it to create in play balance. At least, in most point-based systems.

 

then again, i could be insane.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A question of balance

 

To the actual question' date=' can we agree on the usefulness of any particular ability when point totals vary, campaigns vary, GMs and players vary…even sessions vary?[/quote']

 

Certainly we can agree on that.

 

The trick is to pick a number that is going to keep the largest number of people happy OR to define the abilities a little more clearly so that there is less variation in use. Or both.

 

yes, there is a principle...

 

as the gm, its your job to make things play out as worth what you told the players they were worth, no more and no less, and if you can do this close enough, then you have created balance.

 

you speak of how useful ipe is... as if there is a universal constant scenario where all games play.

 

as a GM, if a PLAYER choses to invest points in an IPE power, especially if he makes it a SIGNIFICANT power (cost spent, focus of background, or maybe his only unique trait) then AS THE GM who told him "its worth +1, i will script challenges which make it worthwhile.

 

that likely means some "sneak in" kind of scenarios where being able to use said ability without attracting attention is important. one example might be his being able to destroy/disable some object while others around are unawares. many others exist.

 

the challenges you create for your play are what determines the "worth in play" of their traits, and as gm you also assign or approve the prices they paid for those traits... so both major elements of balance... pre=play cost and in play need... are in your control.

 

if you make both decisions in sync, then you create balance in play... which is what matters.

 

IMO way too much time and effort and focus is spent on pre-game costs (including a complex system of mathematical gyrations) and way way way too little is spent on challenge choice and how to use it to create in play balance. At least, in most point-based systems.

 

then again, i could be insane.

 

You are clearly insane. Join the club

 

You make an excellent point I need to keep being reminded of: Hero lets you build pretty much anything, including balanced characters in balanced games and munchkinfests.

 

I like to think that these littel discussions, if nothing else, flag up the potential balance flarepoints and help to preven them occurring. I'm not so sanguine about the idea of it being up to the GM to make it worthwhile - that sounds like more work than a GM needs, given everything else that needs doing.

 

I am insane.

[CourtFool]

Re: A question of balance

 

The trick is to pick a number that is going to keep the largest number of people happy OR to define the abilities a little more clearly so that there is less variation in use. Or both.

 

For me, Hero does that.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A question of balance

 

For me' date=' Hero does that.[/quote']

 

I'll send you my players.

 

Best of luck.

[CourtFool]

Re: A question of balance

 

I'll send you my players.

 

Fantastic. I could use some more.