Transform - Do We Need It?

[GAZZA]

(short answer: "yes" - that way all of you guys who hate me, but are wondering if this is a post that might desperately need a response, don't get their time wasted).

 

I really don't Transform. It's always been pretty much a catch-all power used to do things when you run out of ways to do them any other way ("always" being defined for me as "since 4th edition", since while I own 1st I've never played it).

 

Consider this example: for 60 Active Points, I can buy a 4d6 Major Transform "human into permanently blind human". Or, instead, I could buy 4d6 Major Transform "human into permanently blind human. Oh, and permanently deaf as well. Actually, bugger it, no senses at all. Ooh - wait - let's strip him of all of his mutant powers too! And what the heck, let's make him a quadriplegic on top of that."

 

The latter power does everything the first one does, and costs exactly the same. But more to the point, why do we find ourselves looking at Transform here even for the first power? "Blinding - hmm, that sounds like Flash or Darkness - oh, but wait a minute, you can't Flash someone into permanently blindness, and I can't see a way to make Darkness work without some funky use of UAA and limitations that might not really work - I guess I need Transform." ARGH! We nearly have the tools to do it without resulting to "Transform, the ultimate 'Miscellaneous'", but we don't quite get there.

 

 

Another example: permanent (there's that word again) Mind Control. Can't do it with Mind Control, because even if you achieve a result such that the target needs a 2 or less to break out, they still snap it on a 3 (and the odds are good that they'll roll a 3 before they die of old age - even if you ignore the fact that the rolls get gradually better).

 

I always cringe when I see Transform abilities, because they have the same sort of costing issues as some Usable Against Attack powers - they are completely arbitrary. The idea for Transform is that it has the cost based on RKA, since if you can kill someone you might as well transform them - but that completely ignores that not all transformations are created equal. Permanently blinding someone is not as debilitating as permanently blinding them and tattooing "loser" across their forehead, but it costs the same.

 

Change Environment was given a complete overhaul for 5th edition, and it's now a much better power than it used to be. I'm wondering if something similar couldn't be done to Transform to get a little more granularity in there.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

I think this power falls well within the GM Arbitration rule. The specific Transformation should (and in my games, must) be defined when the power is bought. Example: Sighted person into Blind person. How this is done must also be defined. Example: Extremely bright flash.

 

To do anything else with that particular transform, then the character has to buy the Improved Results Advantage (Hero 5th Edition:Revised Page 240). That there largely negates most of your argument. To do what you described effectively doubles the cost of the Transform.

 

In regard to stripping a mutant of all his powers, I would seriously consider the implementing an inverse to the rule for adding Abilities (see 5ER: Page 239). Instead of having a cost offset (Disadvantages to offset Abilities) I would go with a straight Points Subtracted/5 added to the Target's BODY for purposes of determining if the Transform was successful. This is, as far as I know, not official, but it does make sense.

 

Note: The 5ER book specifically precludes that sort of thing, but even with the specific example (adding the 25 point Disadvantage: Blind) I disagree. You add 5 Body to the target for purposes of the Transformation. Since Transform is Cumulative by default these days, I don't see that as an unreasonable adjustment to the rules.

 

For that matter, somebody would really have to justify to me how to strip another character of his powers anyway. In the mutant case, does it rewrite the DNA of the subject? Does the process take time? If not, what sort of massive alien tech landed in his backyard that enables him to "insta-change" a mutant to a normal. Can he do it more than once? If so, how many times? Is the character going to be some unstoppable killing machine if I let that power in? Yeah, I'd probably just say no.

 

I would say that defense versus Transform is really what is broke. Power Defense may be well and good versus some sort of raw energy manipulation, but what about the above example of extremely bright light causing damage to the eyes. I would say that Sight Flash Defense is a way more appropriate defense. What if it were acid that caused the blindness. Somehow, good ol' rPD sounds like the winner there.

 

So, I guess after that, I have to agree with you. Transform is almost right. Where I disagree is that it is GM responsibility to make sure that any power (Transform or otherwise) fits within the scope and scale of his game. I cited two specific areas that I would change (Cost Offset to Body roll and varied Defense defined at power construction). What would you change to make it better for your game?

[GAZZA]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

For that matter' date=' somebody would really have to justify to me how to strip another character of his powers anyway. In the mutant case, does it rewrite the DNA of the subject? Does the process take time? If not, what sort of massive alien tech landed in his backyard that enables him to "insta-change" a mutant to a normal. Can he do it more than once? If so, how many times? Is the character going to be some unstoppable killing machine if I let that power in? Yeah, I'd probably just say no.[/quote']

Note that it isn't necessarily a PC, though.

 

Power stripping attacks are not that uncommon. A Drain "all mutant powers" (+2) could be bought such that the recovery rate was 5 points per century or something ridiculous. If that's allowed, then the only object to using Transform for it is that it's cheaper - the effect is the same.

 

(And of course my example was not intended to be completely serious anyway ).

[Zed-F]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

For some things, depending on genre, you don't need transform. If you're using disabling rules, a person can be blinded with a called shot to the eyes if you can do enough BOD damage to them.

 

As far as how much it costs goes, I don't have an issue with it. Permanently blinding someone isn't as effective in most genres as simply killing them, either. You're giving up 'power' in exchange to get exactly the effect you want. It's up to you to define the effect you want, within what's reasonable for your SFX, and the effect you want defines how much 'power' you have to give up. If you really want 'power' then just go with a BOD Drain or a RKA.

 

There's nothing that says I can't have a 'Transform: Person to Frog' spell and a 'Drain BOD: Flesh to Stone' spell. The former leaves the target alive in a state I specify. The latter simply kills them with a nifty SFX.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

IMO, the real problem is the overuse of Major Transforms. Aside from one or two cosmetic transforms, *everything* is done as a Major Transform.

 

Major Transform is supposed to be an effect serious enough to totally change someone's life, kinda like death does. Petrification fits. Polymorphing into an animal fits. Arguably, permanent blinding fits.

 

However, removing their shadow and adding 3d6 Unluck is not. Neither is adding a temporaryish psych limit of less than Total.

 

IOW, about half the Transforms in existing writeups should probably be Minor Transforms, not Major.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

Oh boy! Another opportunity to plug my Transform ideas! I've posted these many times before (especially the second one, below), and sometimes that are met with general approval, and sometimes they are met with all sorts of criticism (sometimes unnecessarily angry or irrelevent). I don't know what causes the different reactions. It might be the phase of the moon. In either case, my suggestions are usually forgotten in the end. But I humbly urge you not to forget them, and actually use them in your games. I've been doing so for years, and find they work quite well. I'd even go so far as to say they are an improvement on the existing system.

 

Suggestion 1 - A slight alteration to the Transform categories:

Based on the principle of reasoning from effect, throw out any notions of how drastic of a change a particular Transform "feels" according to its SFX, and instead focus on the actual game effects.

 

The cost of Major Transform is based on the cost of RKA - it's as "drastic" as changing someone from living to dead. Why do you want someone dead? Because you want a corpse? Usually not. Usually, you simply want to halt your opponent's activities. Therefore, I say throw away the "Cosmetic Transform" (you won't miss it, trust me); cosmetic effects should be mostly SFX anyway. And let the three categories for Transform be:

 

Minor - 5 points per d6 - Minor inconvenience to the target

Major - 10 points per d6 - Major inconvenience to the target

Total - 15 points per d6 - Totally incapacitates the target

 

What constitutes Minor and Major will vary slightly between games, but offhand, I'd say that Minor examples would include: losing a sense other than Sight, losing the use of the fingers on one hand, losing the ability to speak.

 

Major examples would be: losing the sense of Sight, losing the use of both arms, losing the ability to walk, losing the ability to understand speech and writing.

 

Total examples: turning to stone, total paralysis, turning into a frog or other small harmless animal, being turned into a photograph of oneself.

 

Minor Transforms cause some hindrance in combat. Major Transforms seriously impair combat capability. Total Transforms completely remove someone from the combat.

 

Suggestion 2 - A method by which powers other than Transform can be used in many cases:

Many effects you might want to achieve can be thought of as inflicting Disadvantages on one's opponent, such as making him permanently blind (Physical Limitation, All the Time, Fully: 25 points). So think of Disads as being "negative powers". This makes sense, since characters "pay for" some of their powers by taking an equal number of points worth of Disadvantages. Once you allow for this, you can then let Adjustment Powers affect Disadvantages just like they do with Powers, only "backwards". For example, if you want a power to permanently blind someone, you buy a Drain vs Sight, i.e., a Drain that "adds" on the PhysLim: Blind. You need to acheive 25 points of effect on a normal person to blind them. Remember that Power Defense and similar Defense Powers affect these Drains just like they would normal Drains. You could also build a Suppress Sight power which causes the blindness to last only as long as you pay END. And you could also buy Aid or Healing to remove (temporarily or permanently, the Physical Limitation of blindness).

 

In many cases, additional Powers based on the thing being drained should also count against the Drain. For example, Joe Normal may only have 25 points of Sight to Drain, but Eyeball Man has +5 Enhanced Vision, X-Ray Vision, Telescopic Vision, Microspocic Vision, Infrared, Ultraviolet, and lots more. All of these would be useless if he was suddenly blinded, so they shoudl count as part of his Sight with respect to the Drain. If the Mad Blinder scores 25 points worth of Drain Sight on Eyeball Man, he should only lose 25 points worth of his special enhanced vision powers, say the +5 Enhanced Vision goes first (10 points), and the X-Ray (10 points), and one level the Microscopic Vision (5 points). The precise order in which powers are drained should be determined by the GM, based on the SFX and source of the powers being drained as well as of the Drain itself.

 

At the cost of slightly more complexity, the GM could allow partial effects. If the Mad Blinder Drains 15 points of Joe Normal's normal vision, he won't be totally blinded, but maybe will have to make all PER Rolls at -3 until the Drain wears off.

 

Oh, and speaking of the Drain wearing off, I almost forgot to mention that you will also need to buy down the fade rate to make the effect last for the desired amount of time. If you want to blind a normal person, a +3 Advantage (regain 5 points per 25 years) should be more than adequate. If fact, +2.75 (5 per 5 years) might be good enough. And for most purposes, even less of an Advantage might be all you need - a +1.5 would leave them blind for a few days.

 

And you can also apply variable effects Advantages to the Adjustment Powers used. Drain vs "Any One Sense" would be a +1/4 Advantage, although the GM might rule that some special senses might be immune - that it works only against the normal human senses, not against a radio's ability to pick up broadcasts, or a psychic's Claisentience.

 

And you could apply this to many other types of Disadvantages: Here comes Super-Therapist with an Aid vs. Any One Psychological Problem! 1d6 Aid, +14 Maximum effect (Up to 20 points - he can't quite remove every last vestige of a "Very Common, Total", but he can reduce it down to a "Uncommon, Moderate"), Any one "psychological problem" (physically/chemically caused mental defects don't count, and neither do codes of conduct, or similar PsychLims), Points Fade 5 points per 25 years (+3) (72 Active Points); Extra Time, Concentration, Incantations, Only in Office, etc.

 

Yes, the GM needs to make sure this power isn't used to screw up the story line. You can't just cure Matt Murdock's blindness, or make the Joker sane. At least not permanently.

[ajackson]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

I've pondered implementing Transform using a Mind Control mechanic, vs Power Defense and Body (Con rolls to break out?) rather than vs Mental Defense and Ego. The problem with Transform is that it's really a pair of catchall mechanics (Generic Disable Target, Generic Assist Target) for powers that can't be done conveniently in any other way.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

I think you DO need it fro fairy tale magic. prince into frog sort of stuff. That's really all I use it for myself.

[GAZZA]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

(snip!)

Beautiful - exactly what I was looking for.

 

Now, if we could just plug some sample numbers into the "minor combat effects" and such - eg, is minor "up to -3 OCV", and so forth? Similar to the way Change Environment is (now) defined.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

The problem with Transform is that it's really a pair of catchall mechanics (Generic Disable Target' date=' Generic Assist Target) for powers that can't be done conveniently in any other way.[/quote']

And my second suggestion gives you a convenient other way to do many such effects.

 

Now' date=' if we could just plug some sample numbers into the "minor combat effects" and such - eg, is minor "up to -3 OCV", and so forth? Similar to the way Change Environment is (now) defined.[/quote']

Glad you liked it! I don't have any hard numbers as to where the line is between Major and Minor. Another possible way to express it is: Minor means you've still got a fighting chance to win this combat, or you can probably escape if you want. Major means you probably won't win this fight, but you've got a fighting chance to escape. Total means you are no longer relevent to this combat and you are not going to escape. Remember that these are only rough guidelines. Some Transforms won't work out this way.

 

Also, for those of us who are brave enough to face numbers that aren't multiples of 5, you can increase the granularity when appropriate and have Transforms that seem to be more than Minor but less than Major and have them cost 7 or 8 points per d6, or ones that are even more than Major, but less than Total, for say 12 or 13 points per d6. Adjust to taste.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

not all transformations are created equal.

 

That's why we have GMs. Or Common and Dramatic Sense.

 

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't want the System to babysit me. I want the system to let me do what I want to get what I need.

 

A lot of stuff in Hero falls under GM and Player needing to talk things over, come to an agreement and decide on how it will work in the Game they're setting up. And it might change from one game to the next.

 

That's WHY I play Hero.

 

 

All Powers Are Equal, Some Powers Are More Equal Than Others.

[Nolgroth]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

(And of course my example was not intended to be completely serious anyway ).

Apologies if I came off snippy or rude.

[schir1964]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

Beautiful - exactly what I was looking for.

 

Now, if we could just plug some sample numbers into the "minor combat effects" and such - eg, is minor "up to -3 OCV", and so forth? Similar to the way Change Environment is (now) defined.

Phil beat me to it with his second suggestion. I was going to suggest the same type of mechanic. Basically this Transform represents how much, in Active Points, you can change the target with Disadvantages/Limitations.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Ganesh]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

Oh boy! Another opportunity to plug my

Suggestion 2 - A method by which powers other than Transform can be used in many cases:

Many effects you might want to achieve can be thought of as inflicting Disadvantages on one's opponent, such as making him permanently blind (Physical Limitation, All the Time, Fully: 25 points). So think of Disads as being "negative powers". This makes sense, since characters "pay for" some of their powers by taking an equal number of points worth of Disadvantages. Once you allow for this, you can then let Adjustment Powers affect Disadvantages just like they do with Powers, only "backwards". For example, if you want a power to permanently blind someone, you buy a Drain vs Sight, i.e., a Drain that "adds" on the PhysLim: Blind. You need to acheive 25 points of effect on a normal person to blind them. Remember that Power Defense and similar Defense Powers affect these Drains just like they would normal Drains. You could also build a Suppress Sight power which causes the blindness to last only as long as you pay END. And you could also buy Aid or Healing to remove (temporarily or permanently, the Physical Limitation of blindness).

 

In many cases, additional Powers based on the thing being drained should also count against the Drain. For example, Joe Normal may only have 25 points of Sight to Drain, but Eyeball Man has +5 Enhanced Vision, X-Ray Vision, Telescopic Vision, Microspocic Vision, Infrared, Ultraviolet, and lots more. All of these would be useless if he was suddenly blinded, so they shoudl count as part of his Sight with respect to the Drain. If the Mad Blinder scores 25 points worth of Drain Sight on Eyeball Man, he should only lose 25 points worth of his special enhanced vision powers, say the +5 Enhanced Vision goes first (10 points), and the X-Ray (10 points), and one level the Microscopic Vision (5 points). The precise order in which powers are drained should be determined by the GM, based on the SFX and source of the powers being drained as well as of the Drain itself.

 

At the cost of slightly more complexity, the GM could allow partial effects. If the Mad Blinder Drains 15 points of Joe Normal's normal vision, he won't be totally blinded, but maybe will have to make all PER Rolls at -3 until the Drain wears off.

 

Oh, and speaking of the Drain wearing off, I almost forgot to mention that you will also need to buy down the fade rate to make the effect last for the desired amount of time. If you want to blind a normal person, a +3 Advantage (regain 5 points per 25 years) should be more than adequate. If fact, +2.75 (5 per 5 years) might be good enough. And for most purposes, even less of an Advantage might be all you need - a +1.5 would leave them blind for a few days.

 

And you can also apply variable effects Advantages to the Adjustment Powers used. Drain vs "Any One Sense" would be a +1/4 Advantage, although the GM might rule that some special senses might be immune - that it works only against the normal human senses, not against a radio's ability to pick up broadcasts, or a psychic's Claisentience.

 

And you could apply this to many other types of Disadvantages: Here comes Super-Therapist with an Aid vs. Any One Psychological Problem! 1d6 Aid, +14 Maximum effect (Up to 20 points - he can't quite remove every last vestige of a "Very Common, Total", but he can reduce it down to a "Uncommon, Moderate"), Any one "psychological problem" (physically/chemically caused mental defects don't count, and neither do codes of conduct, or similar PsychLims), Points Fade 5 points per 25 years (+3) (72 Active Points); Extra Time, Concentration, Incantations, Only in Office, etc.

 

Yes, the GM needs to make sure this power isn't used to screw up the story line. You can't just cure Matt Murdock's blindness, or make the Joker sane. At least not permanently.

 

 

I've been thinking about this (dangerous, I know...) ... basically, you're talking about allowing the basic adjustment powers to add and remove disadvantages. The one thing this doesn't do that transform does is permanent effects, but Permanent is dangerous -- it's an absolute effect, and we all know HERO has a positive allergy to absolute effects.

 

But I'm curious how you would cost this. It sounds dangerously powerful -- giving people vulnerabilities, dependencies, and the like is a mighty effect. My off-the-cuff instinct would be to say that adjustment powers that grant new disadvantages are double cost, and that the reduced fade rade advantage is doubled as well. Oh, and if you're making someone vulnerable to a power or SFX, it's defined to be Ubiquitous, unless there's noone in the party who actually has that power or SFX, and no way for anyone in the party to carry it.

 

 

And the other question, of course, is that if an adjustment power can grant a disadvantage, how about granting a power? What would that do to the system?

[GAZZA]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

And the other question' date=' of course, is that if an adjustment power can grant a disadvantage, how about granting a power? What would that do to the system?[/quote']

I've often toyed with the idea of creating a character with the bare minimum of every power in the book, and then using some sort of Transfer with a big increase to the maximum as a sort of Rogue style "power stealing" effect - never bothered to check whether or not it could be made efficient to do this.

 

With a friendly GM you could say that you have effectively "0 points in everything not listed on your character sheet" and then allow adjusting from 0 to some positive number - but I doubt that's the intent of the RAW. Power stealing characters have always been traditionally tricky to do efficiently with Hero (the current paradigm seems to have shifted away from a big VPP and now uses a VPP of Multiforms, but that strikes me as taking an already borderline abusive power and then creating a cookbook of "and here's how you'd go about abusing it..." ).

[Ganesh]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

I've often toyed with the idea of creating a character with the bare minimum of every power in the book, and then using some sort of Transfer with a big increase to the maximum as a sort of Rogue style "power stealing" effect - never bothered to check whether or not it could be made efficient to do this.

 

With a friendly GM you could say that you have effectively "0 points in everything not listed on your character sheet" and then allow adjusting from 0 to some positive number - but I doubt that's the intent of the RAW. Power stealing characters have always been traditionally tricky to do efficiently with Hero (the current paradigm seems to have shifted away from a big VPP and now uses a VPP of Multiforms, but that strikes me as taking an already borderline abusive power and then creating a cookbook of "and here's how you'd go about abusing it..." ).

 

well, that's kind of what I'm wondering -- I've already had some fun with house rules replacing Elemental Controls with lumps of self-only, 0-end Aid, all powers with this SFX, appropriate number at a time, limitation: affected by any negative adjustment that affects any power this is aiding. The flexibility of adjustment powers was what originally caught my eye about HERO.

 

If the VPP of Multiforms is a specific form of "approved" abuse, would some form of adjustment power, which seems the intuitive way to build a "power stealer," be more balanced?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

The one thing this doesn't do that transform does is permanent effects' date=' but Permanent is dangerous -- it's an absolute effect, and we all know HERO has a positive allergy to absolute effects.[/quote']

Slightly OT, but I disagree with this. Transform isn't "permanent" either - there is either a way to change back, or else it wears off over time. I don't think there's any allergy to ideas of "permanent" and "absolute" in HERO, provided you have reasonable definitions. It isn't so much HERO's allergy, but players' paranoia. Want "absolute" immunity to fire? Buy a billion points of Resistant ED. Is there ever going to be a fire attack in the campaign that exceeds a billion pips of damage? No? Then congratulations, you're absolutely immune! Want to cause a "permanent" Disadvantage with a Drain? Buy Delayed Return Rate up to 5 points per 100 centuries. Is the campaign ever going to cover that long of a time span? No? Then congradulations, you've got a permanent Drain Disad effect!

 

But I'm curious how you would cost this. It sounds dangerously powerful -- giving people vulnerabilities, dependencies, and the like is a mighty effect.

I would cost it exactly as I've described: just like any other Adjustment Power. Yes, it's powerful, that's why it's expensive. You want to give someone a 25-point Disad? You'll need about 8d6 of Drain, for a base of 80 points. It only causes *one* Disad, defined when you buy the power, and it wears off completely in about a minute. Sure, you could get away with only 5d6 Drain, for only 50 points, but then you'll need at least two attacks (or a very lucky damage roll), and it still only causes one fixed disad, and still wears off in a minute. For 62 points, it will wear off in about 5 minutes, but still needs two hits. For 75 points it will last about a half an hour.

 

My off-the-cuff instinct would be to say that adjustment powers that grant new disadvantages are double cost, and that the reduced fade rade advantage is doubled as well. Oh, and if you're making someone vulnerable to a power or SFX, it's defined to be Ubiquitous, unless there's noone in the party who actually has that power or SFX, and no way for anyone in the party to carry it.

I'm glad you mentioned this because it reminds me of something I forgot to say in my earlier post: Certain types of Disadvantages - Susceptibility, Vulnerability, and Dependence - should be considered "Defensive Disadvantages" and Adjustment Powers that affect them have only half their normal effect, just like they would for Defensive Powers. So if you want to give someone a 30-point Vulnerability, you need 60 points of effect on your Drain dice. Also, the commonness of the Disad should be based at least in some significant part on whether you, the adjusting character, generates the specified phenomenon. If the Living Cheese Log causes Susceptibility to the smell of cheese, it should be considered "Very Common," since the smell of cheese is indeed very common whenever the Living Cheese Log is around.

 

Another thing to think about, which I haven't quite made up my mind about, is that Drains which add Disads should be considered to have a limit (the maximum rollable on the dice) just like Aid does with increasing a power. So you can't just keep Draining away someone's luck, giving them more and more dice of Unluck indefinitely. All of the "positive" Adjustment Powers have a limit set on their maximum effect (with the possible exception of Succor). But even Drain has a limit in a sense: you can't Drain a power below 0. There's no such thing as "negitive running" or "negative EB". So if you're adding on a new disad (or increasing an existing one) there should be a limit.

 

The only question then becomes if you can only give someone up to 25 points worth of PhysLim: Blind, what about Eyeball Man? Can you only Drain off 25 points worth of his enhanced vision? Off hand, I'd say you should be able to Drain off all of his sight sense powers, and then cause the 25-point blindness (though it would proabably take a while).

 

Most of these details can be worked out at character creation time between the player and GM. Like: What happens if you have a Drain that causes Unluck against a person with Luck? Do you Drain off the Luck dice first, and then add the Unluck Dice? Or do you just add on the Unluck dice so the target has both Luck and Unluck? This could work either way, depending on concept.

 

Yes, this option requires some thought, as a good RPG should.

 

And the other question, of course, is that if an adjustment power can grant a disadvantage, how about granting a power? What would that do to the system?

I know the rules say you can't do this, but I've never seen any reason why not. I allow it in my games and I don't see any unbalance. If Aiding someone's EB from 12d6 you 16d6 is OK, why not aid someone from no EB, to a 4d6 EB? What additional harm could that possibly do, beyond a more usual application of an Aid?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

I know the rules say you can't do this' date=' but I've never seen any reason why not. I allow it in my games and I don't see any unbalance. If Aiding someone's EB from 12d6 you 16d6 is OK, why not aid someone from no EB, to a 4d6 EB? What additional harm could that possibly do, beyond a more usual application of an Aid?[/quote']

 

You can most absolutely use Transform to give someone a Power they don't own.

 

5ER p239 (or FREd p153) covers this in detail.

 

You must achieve their BODY+Active Points Added with your Transform Dice to do so.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

You can most absolutely use Transform to give someone a Power they don't own.

 

5ER p239 (or FREd p153) covers this in detail.

 

You must achieve their BODY+Active Points Added with your Transform Dice to do so.

Aid. Or other Adjustment Powers. I wasn't talking about Transform.

 

And the mechanics of doing this with Transform are somewhat illogical - why should it be harder to give a new power to someone with more BODY than someone with less BODY? - which is part of why I suggest allowing Aid or other Adjustment Powers to do the trick, despite the prohibition in the rules.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

 

Aid. Or other Adjustment Powers. I wasn't talking about Transform.

 

And the mechanics of doing this with Transform are somewhat illogical - why should it be harder to give a new power to someone with more BODY than someone with less BODY? - which is part of why I suggest allowing Aid or other Adjustment Powers to do the trick, despite the prohibition in the rules.

 

Ah, my misunderstanding.

 

As for the BODY question, mechanical balance I suppose. Or the people with more BODY are less susceptable to change possibly.