OK, I don't understand Continuous

[GAZZA]

I used to think I knew what the Continuous advantage was. I've recently come to the conclusion that I don't, so perhaps some of you can help drum it into my thick skull.

 

Here's what I used to think it did: it turned an Instant power into a Constant power. That's what 5ER pretty much says it does. All good, right? Whack it on an attack, and then all you have to do is feed END to it each phase (no further actions required). You can even smack the same person over and over again with (say) a Continuous Energy Blast, and make them feel the pain of several such attacks going off every one of your phases, at least until you run out of END.

 

But I'm wrong, because if I were right:

• Continuous would be meaningless for Suppress and Succor. They're already Constant powers; how does one make them "more Constant"? I don't see why you can't already Suppress someone, Suppress them again, Suppress them a third time, and then keep paying END for all of them. Let's say I have a 2d6 Suppress STUN (nonrandom output for simplicity), Continuous and 4 SPD. Apparently this means if I fire it off on phase 3, then on Phase 3 you lose 6 STUN. On phase 6 I hit you with it again, and apparently it fires off again from last phase, so you're now losing 12 STUN from the first attack and another 6 from the second... the effect of Continuous appears to stack with Constant powers. Does this mean that I can stick Continuous on an already Continuous RKA? Let's say a 1d6 RKA (nonrandom again) with Continuous Continuous - does this do 3 BODY on Phase 3 and another 9 on Phase 6, assuming I fire it off both times? If not, why not? Why are Suppress and Succor allowed to do this but not other Constant powers? I don't understand.
  
• Damage Shield would now automatically keep affecting targets after they stop touching you. If I hit you with a 1d6 Continuous RKA, then you will take damage from it as long as you are within my LOS (and I keep spending END). So if I have a 1d6 RKA Continuous Damage Shield, then once you touch me all I have to do is keep you in my LOS. I very much doubt this is the way Damage Shield is supposed to work, but otherwise why require Continuous? Trigger is a very similar power to Damage Shield (were it not for the specific prohibition against "whenever I am touched" triggers, the former would be unnecessary), and yet Trigger doesn't need to be Continuous. I don't understand.

I think my old friend Continuous is being recruited to play parts that he was never intended to play, and that his meaning has become obscured as a result. What am I missing?

[Zed-F]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

Constant and Continuous are not exactly the same. When applied to an Instant power with no duration effects like a regular EB, Continuous mimics that power being Constant, but as soon as duration effects enter the picture you can spot the difference.

 

Continuous means you don't need to keep spending attack actions to keep hitting someone with a power. If I hit you with a regular 2d6 Suppress, I can hit you with it again to make it a 2d6+2d6 Suppress, but I have to roll to hit and spend my attack action to do it. With a Continuous attack, if I hit you with the first suppress, I will automatically hit you again in following rounds with another suppress, and another, and another, until I turn off the power, am Stunned, lose LOS, etc.

 

Damage shields don't keep on working after the target stops touching the shield -- no range takes priority over continuous. You can use triggers to build a damage shield instead if you want; IIRC it works out the same (a +1 advantage.)

[Doc Democracy]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

Damage shields don't keep on working after the target stops touching the shield -- no range takes priority over continuous. You can use triggers to build a damage shield instead if you want; IIRC it works out the same (a +1 advantage.)

 

Which suggests that continuous is irrelevant for damage shields but not if you also add sticky to the equation - for Mr Napalm - when you hit him you splash yourself with napalm which continues to burn after that.

 

 

Doc

[GAZZA]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

Constant and Continuous are not exactly the same. When applied to an Instant power with no duration effects like a regular EB' date=' Continuous mimics that power being Constant, but as soon as duration effects enter the picture you can spot the difference.[/quote']

I guess where I'm getting confused here is 5ER pp 98 ("Constant powers include ... any power bought with the Continuous Advantage") and 5ER pp 257 ("In other words ... converts an Instant Power into a Constant Power, and all rules governing Constant Powers apply to it").

 

It was while rereading your post on Infinite Succor that I began to see that something was wonky with my understanding. Succor and Suppress aren't the only innately Constant attack powers; Mind Scan is another example, and while Mind Scan doesn't normally benefit from multiple attacks, one only has to speculate what happens if I put Cumulative and Continuous on it.

 

If Continuous isn't the same as Constant, then 5ER is at the very least very misleading (since it says that it is! Explicitly no less ), but it is pretty much required not to be the same if putting Continuous on Constant powers is to be meaningful. But I'm curious as to whether or not you can stack Continuous with itself - can you make a 1d6 RKA that is doubly Continuous and mimics the geometric effect of successive Continuous Suppresses? Surely if the latter is balanced then the former should be as well, I would think.

 

Damage shields don't keep on working after the target stops touching the shield -- no range takes priority over continuous.

Interesting, but I'm not sure that solves my confusion. Assume I'm SPD 4:

• On phase 3 I Grab you. You take 1d6 KA from my Continuous Damage Shield. On phase 6, the previous instance of my Continuous Damage Shield is still running, so you take 1d6 KA from that plus another 1d6 KA from the fact that I'm still Grabbing you; on phase 9 you'll take 3d6, and so forth. Again, I don't think that is the way Damage Shield is supposed to be interpreted as working, but it's absolutely consistent with the way Continuous attacks work, and if I Grab you you don't escape via the No Range clause.
  
• Let's say "Detachable Man" has a Continuous Hand Attack defined as grabbing you round the throat with his hand and squeezing, and then releasing his hand so that he can move on and bash other people. Hand Attack is a no range power; does it continue to work because it's Continuous, or does it terminate the moment that Detachable Man moves out of range? Or is that just for Damage Shield?

You can use triggers to build a damage shield instead if you want; IIRC it works out the same (a +1 advantage.)

Seems to violate the intent of Damage Shield, does it not? Since the latter would be a minimum of +1 1/2 (including Continuous)?

 

Oh, don't get me wrong - I think DS is way overpriced with the "clarification" that Continuous must be applied - but that's the current RAW, and as such I think building it with Trigger is a bit mechanically dubious.

[Zed-F]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

If Continuous isn't the same as Constant' date=' then 5ER is at the very least very misleading [/quote']

My version of FREd says that it makes an INSTANT power behave as if it were Constant. It doesn't say anything about the effects of making a Constant power Continuous.

 

But I'm curious as to whether or not you can stack Continuous with itself - can you make a 1d6 RKA that is doubly Continuous and mimics the geometric effect of successive Continuous Suppresses? Surely if the latter is balanced then the former should be as well, I would think.

Officially, no. In theory, you could make a house rule to that effect. However, beware of advantage stacking unbalancing your construct. Also beware of geometrically escalating END costs, and note that Continuous+Reduced END is a way to quickly wind up in cheese territory if you are not careful about balancing.

 

You take 1d6 KA from my Continuous Damage Shield.

The KA is an Instant power. It does not have any further effect once the first application is resolved -- what Continuous does is let you automatically repeat applications at suitable intervals (once per phase), in this case as long as the Grab is maintained. So you apply one KA, then you apply the next KA, then you apply the next KA on successive phases. Each KA is only applied once, because there is no maintained or duration effect.

 

You only get geometric progressions if you apply Continuous to a power that already has a maintained effect or an effect that otherwise has a duration.

 

Let's say "Detachable Man" has a Continuous Hand Attack defined as grabbing you round the throat with his hand and squeezing, and then releasing his hand so that he can move on and bash other people.

Sure, but you wouldn't build that as a Damage Shield. That's just a regular Continuous attack. Moreover, I don't think you can legally build that as a Hand Attack, since he obviously can't use his STR to boost it if his arm is elsewhere. I think that might be defined as a Continuous physical EB with a limitation 'Must Follow Grab'. Even better might be TK with Limited Effect and Must Follow Grab.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

Maybe this might help.

 

60 Example 1: Generic Continuous Attack: Energy Blast 6d6, Continuous (+1) (60 Active Points) - END=6

 

75 Example 2: Generic Damage Shield (no 'Attack Action' required for use): Energy Blast 6d6, Damage Shield (+1/2), Continuous (+1) (75 Active Points) - END=7

 

82 Example 3: Generic Damage Shield Variant (use via 'Attack Action' is optional): Energy Blast 6d6, Damage Shield (Offensive; +3/4), Continuous (+1) (82 Active Points) [Notes: (5E pg 163; 5ER pg 254) Opponents take damage from Damage Shield when struck by HTH Attacks or Grabs.] - END=8

 

Note that Example 2 will NOT affect a target when struck by HTH Attacks or Grabs.

[MorpheousXO]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

See, I think it makes more sense for Damage Shield to be a +1 advantage, with no continuous required. Then the price is more in line with its' usefulness, and you can add continuous to represent the guy catching on fire when he attacks you, thus getting burned even after he stops attacking you. I think I might actually run that as a house rule, in fact.

 

In any case, I wasn't actually aware you could put continuous on a constant power, and I'm not entirely sure I like the idea. Not really sure I'd allow it, honestly.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

...

 

In any case, I wasn't actually aware you could put continuous on a constant power, and I'm not entirely sure I like the idea. Not really sure I'd allow it, honestly.

 

Costing debate aside, the current rules do not allow you to apply the Damage Shield Advantage to an attack power without applying the Continuous Advantage to it first.

 

If you are referring to Doc D's Napalm suggestion it would actually require Uncontrolled which is slightly different than Continuous.

 

112 Example 4: 'Napalm' Damage Shield (Uncontrolled and Sticky): Energy Blast 6d6, Sticky (+1/2), Uncontrolled (+1/2), Damage Shield (Offensive; +3/4), Continuous (+1) (112 Active Points) [Notes: Uncontrolled: (5E pg 175; 5ER pg 272) A Constant Power with this Advantage can maintain itself without conscious thought from its user. Sticky: (5E pg 173; 5ER pg 268) This Advantage makes a Power "sticky" -- any character who touches a character affected by the Power will also be affected.] - END=11

[MorpheousXO]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

Oh, i know the current rules require it, I just don't think it's necessary and makes it cost too much, hence house rule. And yeah, that is how you would handle something like napalm, although there are times where you might want to be in complete control over it, thus continuous so you could always turn it of whenever you wanted.

 

And on the costing thing, you could even have damage shield cost +1 1/2, I really don't think continuous is necessary for it.

[schir1964]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

GAZZA,

 

Thought you might find this interesting. [[thread=43282]Continuous[/thread]]

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Hyper-Man]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

...

 

And on the costing thing, you could even have damage shield cost +1 1/2, I really don't think continuous is necessary for it.

 

Umm,

+1 1/2 IS what the cost of the basic Damage Shield and Continous add up to. So you're basically saying that an Advantage that allows an attack power of a character automatically effect anyone who attacks the character in HTH combat regardless of your character's phases shouldn't include the Continuous Advantage in it's description because that doesn't sound like a Contuous effect? That's rich.

[GAZZA]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

Umm,

+1 1/2 IS what the cost of the basic Damage Shield and Continous add up to. So you're basically saying that an Advantage that allows an attack power of a character automatically effect anyone who attacks the character in HTH combat regardless of your character's phases shouldn't include the Continuous Advantage in it's description because that doesn't sound like a Contuous effect? That's rich.

I think that the way Damage Shield works has more in common with Trigger than with Continuous.

 

For example: I don't see anything wrong with the idea of FlameGuy having a Damage Shield that will set anyone who touches him on fire. But that is quite tricky to build with Damage Shield; the "set people on fire" effect is a Continuous effect itself, but (AFAIK - I'm still not really sure on this) you aren't permitted to "stack" Continuous.

 

It would be trivial to implement with Trigger, though, were it not for the "Trigger can't duplicate Damage Shield" prohibition.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

I think that the way Damage Shield works has more in common with Trigger than with Continuous.

 

For example: I don't see anything wrong with the idea of FlameGuy having a Damage Shield that will set anyone who touches him on fire. But that is quite tricky to build with Damage Shield; the "set people on fire" effect is a Continuous effect itself, but (AFAIK - I'm still not really sure on this) you aren't permitted to "stack" Continuous.

 

It would be trivial to implement with Trigger, though, were it not for the "Trigger can't duplicate Damage Shield" prohibition.

 

Um, I already covered this with the previous build example. The "set people on fire" effect is covered by Uncontrolled and Sticky (added on top of the Continuous and Damage Shield).

 

Are you arguing costs or just the Advantage-Labels used to display the costs?

[GAZZA]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

Um' date=' I already covered this with the previous build example. The "set people on fire" effect is covered by Uncontrolled and Sticky (added on top of the Continuous and Damage Shield).[/quote']

My understanding is that Sticky applies the entire power to the "stickified dude", which means in turn that anyone who touches you gets their very own Damage Shield - am I wrong about that?

 

Are you arguing costs or just the Advantage-Labels used to display the costs?

Neither; I'm honestly confused about what Continuous is supposed to mean. If the Damage Shield advantage didn't exist, you wouldn't need Continuous Triggers to get the effect, so I'm not really sure what Damage Shield needs it for (if it's just to make it cost +1 1/2, then I don't really understand why they didn't simply go ahead and set that as the cost). I'm also unsure why Continuous can stack with some Constant powers (like Suppress) but not with itself (since it's supposed to make Instant powers Constant).

 

I'm coming to the suspicion that this is a Mental Paralysis/Regeneration situation - that is, using an advantage to change something to do something different that isn't exactly in line with what that advantage normally does.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

My understanding is that Sticky applies the entire power to the "stickified dude", which means in turn that anyone who touches you gets their very own Damage Shield - am I wrong about that?

 

 

 

Well, it may appear to behave like a UOO Damage Shield on the 1st affected character but with the main difference being that character has no control over the duration of the original power (that is determined by how much END is allocated to the Uncontrolled Sticky power by it's owner).

 

It does seem like much of your hang up is just with labels. The same arguments could be made just as easily vs. the Explosion Advantage (It is afterall just a variation of AOE. Why does it need to be a seperate Advantage).

 

I believe there are several old threads talking about Damage Shield vs. Trigger. I am not sure but it seems likely that Trigger can be used to describe the exact same effect for the exact same cost. However, Damage Shield and Continuous probably takes up less room on a character sheet to describe that specific use of Trigger.

[caris]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

I used to think I knew what the Continuous advantage was. I've recently come to the conclusion that I don't, so perhaps some of you can help drum it into my thick skull.

 

Here's what I used to think it did: it turned an Instant power into a Constant power. That's what 5ER pretty much says it does. All good, right? Whack it on an attack, and then all you have to do is feed END to it each phase (no further actions required). You can even smack the same person over and over again with (say) a Continuous Energy Blast, and make them feel the pain of several such attacks going off every one of your phases, at least until you run out of END.

 

But I'm wrong, because if I were right:

• Continuous would be meaningless for Suppress and Succor. They're already Constant powers; how does one make them "more Constant"? I don't see why you can't already Suppress someone, Suppress them again, Suppress them a third time, and then keep paying END for all of them. Let's say I have a 2d6 Suppress STUN (nonrandom output for simplicity), Continuous and 4 SPD. Apparently this means if I fire it off on phase 3, then on Phase 3 you lose 6 STUN. On phase 6 I hit you with it again, and apparently it fires off again from last phase, so you're now losing 12 STUN from the first attack and another 6 from the second... the effect of Continuous appears to stack with Constant powers. Does this mean that I can stick Continuous on an already Continuous RKA? Let's say a 1d6 RKA (nonrandom again) with Continuous Continuous - does this do 3 BODY on Phase 3 and another 9 on Phase 6, assuming I fire it off both times? If not, why not? Why are Suppress and Succor allowed to do this but not other Constant powers? I don't understand.

 
There are many things that have been included in 5er that do not make sense to me, this is one of them. Since Steve chooses not to share his reasoning, I doubt it ever will. Therefore I exercise my senses of fair play and game balance and toss out this rule.
 

Damage Shield would now automatically keep affecting targets after they stop touching you. If I hit you with a 1d6 Continuous RKA' date=' then you will take damage from it as long as you are within my LOS (and I keep spending END). So if I have a 1d6 RKA Continuous Damage Shield, then once you touch me all I have to do is keep you in my LOS. I very much doubt this is the way Damage Shield is supposed to work, but otherwise why require Continuous? Trigger is a [i']very[/i] similar power to Damage Shield (were it not for the specific prohibition against "whenever I am touched" triggers, the former would be unnecessary), and yet Trigger doesn't need to be Continuous. I don't understand.

I think my old friend Continuous is being recruited to play parts that he was never intended to play, and that his meaning has become obscured as a result. What am I missing?

 

On the other hand if you hit my hex with a 1-hex AOE continuous RKA, I will not take damage after I leave the hex. With Damage Sheild you do not hit me with your Damage Shield. Even hitting me wiht your fist does not do Damage Shield damage. Grabbing me with your STR will allow you to do Damage Shield damage. It sounds like Damage Shield may be some modified combination of AOE and Personal Immunity.

 

Of course, I agree with you that it seems odd that Continuous is something you have to buy separately. To me it makes sense that the Constant aspect of Damage Shield should have been built into the advantage in the first place, or at the least had Damage Shield been described as an add on to Continuous , like Persistent is an add on to Reduced Endurance.

[MorpheousXO]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

Umm,

+1 1/2 IS what the cost of the basic Damage Shield and Continous add up to. So you're basically saying that an Advantage that allows an attack power of a character automatically effect anyone who attacks the character in HTH combat regardless of your character's phases shouldn't include the Continuous Advantage in it's description because that doesn't sound like a Contuous effect? That's rich.

 

Exactly, it shouldn't require continuous because it's not continuously affecting the person the damage shield damages. Uncontrolled is uncontrolled, so you can't say "I don't wanna hurt him anymore", though you could ask the GM to kindly stop since it's under his control. Thus, if damage shield is really worth a total of +1 1/2 advantages, then increase it's costs and remove continuous.

 

In a way I'm actually arguing both costs and advantage-labels, but the total cost of Damage Shield isn't the subject of this thread, it just ended up coming out because of how wonky continuous works with it. By the way, that's MY opinion of wonkiness. I don't think it works well like that. I think the trigger like aspects of damage shield should be built into damage shield, not tacked on incongruously with continuous.

 

We now return to your Continuous () Thread, already in progress.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

Exactly, it shouldn't require continuous because it's not continuously affecting the person the damage shield damages. Uncontrolled is uncontrolled, so you can't say "I don't wanna hurt him anymore", though you could ask the GM to kindly stop since it's under his control. Thus, if damage shield is really worth a total of +1 1/2 advantages, then increase it's costs and remove continuous.

 

In a way I'm actually arguing both costs and advantage-labels, but the total cost of Damage Shield isn't the subject of this thread, it just ended up coming out because of how wonky continuous works with it. By the way, that's MY opinion of wonkiness. I don't think it works well like that. I think the trigger like aspects of damage shield should be built into damage shield, not tacked on incongruously with continuous.

 

We now return to your Continuous () Thread, already in progress.

 

Ideas to consider:

 

Assuming that Reduced End (0 END) is not also applied, Continuous makes any power it is applied to cost END exactly once per phase. An attack power with the Trigger Advantage still costs END per each Trigger activation. So without Continuous (as you propose), an attack power with the Damage Shield Advantage would also cost END each time it is activated by the character being hit in HTH combat.

 

An attack power with the Damage Shield (as well as Continuous) Advantage automatically hits the target when activated. An attack power with the Trigger Advantage does not. The Triggered attack still uses the OCV of the character who set it or turned it on. The only way to give it the semblence of an automatic hit would be to apply AOE as well.

 

Here is another example illustrating that Damage Shield is just a specifically tailored case of Trigger. Note that the end result of each example is as close as the rules will allow since no other attack (with the Trigger Advantage or not) can be built with no chance of missing. AOE 1 Hex Accurate is as close at it comes in HTH combat.

 

90 Example 2a: Generic Damage Shield (no 'Attack Action' required for use): Energy Blast 6d6, Damage Shield (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Continuous (+1) (90 Active Points) - END=0

 

90 Example 2b: Generic Damage Shield (built with Trigger): Energy Blast 6d6, Area Of Effect Accurate (One Hex; +1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger resets automatically, immediately after it activates; +1) (90 Active Points) - END=0

 

Note, as I stated earlier, the Trigger version is just longer. The final cost for essentially the same result is exactly the same in both cases.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

90 Example 2a: Generic Damage Shield (no 'Attack Action' required for use): Energy Blast 6d6, Damage Shield (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Continuous (+1) (90 Active Points) - END=0

 

90 Example 2b: Generic Damage Shield (built with Trigger): Energy Blast 6d6, Area Of Effect Accurate (One Hex; +1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger resets automatically, immediately after it activates; +1) (90 Active Points) - END=0

 

Note, as I stated earlier, the Trigger version is just longer. The final cost for essentially the same result is exactly the same in both cases.

It seems to me that example 2b ought to have No Range (-1/2), for a cost of 60.

 

There are many things that have been included in 5er that do not make sense to me' date=' this is one of them. Since Steve chooses not to share his reasoning, I doubt it ever will. Therefore I exercise my senses of fair play and game balance and toss out this rule.[/quote']

I think this describes the situation exactly. Instant and Constant don't really mean anything useful in game terms. They both cost END each phase they are used. Continuous on the other hand, makes a power continue to affect the target without additional attack rolls. What's the game-mechanical difference between a Continuous EB defined as "setting someone on fire so they burn continuously" and a Continuous EB defined as an automatic guided weapon that locks on its target and then zaps it instantly each phase? The only difference is SFX - the first appears as a constant attack, while the second appears like a sequence of instant attacks.

 

I don't require Continuous as a prerequisite for Damage Shield in my games, because the intant/constant distinction is an SFX issue, and you shouldn't have to pay for SFX. If you're concerned about Active Point costs, you could require Continuous and then let Damage Shield be a -1/2 *Limitation*.

 

Does anyone honestly think that a 6d6 EB Damage Shield (75 Active) is equivalent to a 15d6 EB?

[GAZZA]

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

 

Does anyone honestly think that a 6d6 EB Damage Shield (75 Active) is equivalent to a 15d6 EB?

It doesn't appear as if Hero Games does, since UNTIL and the Ultimate books tend to stack advantages on their Damage Shield powers to squeeze out some effectiveness.