Instant, Constant, Persistent

[Sean Waters]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

While you folks are exploring the non-regen questions, I'd like to pursue the regen-oriented ones, too.

................

 

 

I think any build with 'continuous' does not require attack actions after initial activation, and so would work for a combat regen. A build with persistent and continuous will continue to function if the character is unconscious.

 

Uncontrolled should probably be used for resurrection builds as it continues to function even if the person witht he power dies, but it has the problem that it can be 'switched off' by a reasonably common or obvious circumstance.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Hmmm, so it is. Thanks!

 

Reading 5ER, it looks legal to me to slap 0 END and Persistent on an Instant Power.

 

Glancing through the BBB this morning, the wording on Instant, Constant, and Persistent is different. It indicates that an Instant Power can be made Constant, and a Constant power can be made Persistent. No mention of Instant to Persistent, as in 5ER. Maybe that's a factor - the old-timers know that it's I -> C -> P, because that's how it used to be...

 

Does anyone have an Fifth Edition official example writeup taking Instant to Persistent (other than Regeneration, that is, as it's wonky in other ways as well)? The examples in 5ER (Flight, Force Field, and Desolidification) all start with a Continuous Power.

 

I think I may be remembering the BBB and this is why it feels wrong to me in the current format.

 

Having read through Comic's post, I've been thinking.

 

Technically what extra time does (for an attack action) is require you to activate (as normal) using an attack action then wait the requisite time (in this instance to PS12), and you cannot take another attack action in the interim.

 

Applying that, under the current rules, you can build regeneration with persistent but not continuous BUT, if you do then it is more or less useless in combat. I'm pretty sure that is not how the build is being used.

[JmOz]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

I will restate: it was a mistake to remove the power regeneration from the game

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

It is now legal to put Persistent on EB (assuming it's already 0 END) and get Continuous for free... and it is also illegal under the exact same rule. It is also neither at the same time.

 

Schrödinger's power build!!

[Comic]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

I had a character once with Persistent EB.

 

That is, every round she was in Hero ID, her 0 END IPE EB went off. If she didn't have an attack action, it went off in a random direction, but it did go off.

 

I wouldn't have called it an advantage, exactly.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

What a grievous misinterpretation of the rules.

 

Nope, my interpretation is just as valid, or invalid, as anyone else's, as there is no official interpretation or guideline. Do whatever you want. The text in the rules may well have included "please insert a house rule to determine how this works" in the description of Persistent regarding Instant Powers.

[archermoo]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

I'm not surprised by Steve Long's answer.

 

He is slowly being forced into not giving an "official" answer to rules questions. If he gives one, then it is second guessed by others who claim it doesn't make sense not to mention he must now make some note of it for future reference. If he doesn't give an answer and leaves it to GM discretion, then it leaves everyone in a haze where there are disagreements over something "should" be built or interpreted, but it certainly doesn't require any more effort on his part.

 

Steve had to make decision when he picked up the fumbled ball of Herogames and run with it. He could make the system more consistent but he would have to "break" all the past official builds and possibly alienate the faithful following Herogames had. Or he could keep much of the system as is and try to clarify, expand, and attempt to fix a few obvious glitches it always seem to have.

 

He chose to go with the second route and there is no going back due to the amount of investment in the current version. There would have to be major financial incentive to make any sort of sweeping change at this point, and there currently isn't enough people disgruntled enough with the system to create that financial influence.

 

And to be fair, the current system works "well enough" for "most games" that making sweeping changes is very risky financially.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

As a note, Steve had already written a version of the 5th edition rules before Darren et. al. even started looking at buying out the Hero Game IP.

 

I personally don't see anything evasive about Steve's response. There aren't a whole lot of circumstances where it is advantageous to make an Instant Power Persistent unless it has also been made Continuous.

 

I've seen no reticence on Steve's part in giving official answers. His answers are frequently in terms of "read the rules on suchandsuch page of suchandsuch book and ask again if you are still unclear", but that is certainly reasonable.

 

I think ScubaHero hit the nail on the head. People are confused about the issue because the Persistant and Continuous advantages don't work exactly like they used to.

[archermoo]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Nope' date=' my interpretation is just as valid, or invalid, as anyone else's, as there is no official interpretation or guideline. Do whatever you want. The text in the rules may well have included "please insert a house rule to determine how this works" in the description of Persistent regarding Instant Powers.[/quote']

 

Where did you get that there is nothing official? Persistant can be applied to Instant Powers. There are very few circumstances where that is advantageous, so it is left up to the players and the Ref to determine when they think it is reasonable.

 

How does that equal "please insert a house rule"?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Where did you get that there is nothing official? Persistant can be applied to Instant Powers. There are very few circumstances where that is advantageous, so it is left up to the players and the Ref to determine when they think it is reasonable.

 

How does that equal "please insert a house rule"?

 

There are no guidelines as to when it may be applied to an Instant Power:

 

http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58680

[archermoo]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

There are no guidelines as to when it may be applied to an Instant Power:

 

http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58680

 

What guidelines were you looking for? As I've stated on several occasions, there are very few circumstances where it is actually advantageous to apply Persistent to an Instant Power. Determining which of those uncommon circumstances are appropriate for their campaign is up to the Ref.

 

For the most part Persistent is only useful for Constant/Continuous powers. But as there are potentially circumstances that it would be appropriate for an Instant power as well, they are included in what powers it may be applied to.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Can I just say that I was wrong?

 

Having had this discussion (this ongoing discussion, I hope) I concede that it is not wrong to apply Persistent in the regeneration build. I'll reserve comment on the rest of the build for another time...

 

HOWEVER, if persistent is applied there, it has certain...disadvantages...which I do not believe are widely appreciated. The most obvious one is that you need to take at least one attack action per turn to keep the power going, if 'Continuous' is not also included in the build, which will prevent you attacking on that phase. I'm not sure how useful that is - after all WITHOUT the limitation (if the rest fo the build works) you could just take an attack action and regenerate. Moreover, whilst Persistent allows you to maintain a power, even when you are unconscious, you cannot take attack actions whilst unconscious (OK, that is a Sean ruling, but not an unreasonable one, I'd have thought*), so having it at all is almost pointless.

 

Moreover I cannot see any other situation in which adding Persistent straight to an instant power (without going through 'Continuous first) is going to allow you to do anything that you could not do without having the advantage, just by activating the power.

 

So, where I am at at the moment, unless anyone can illuminate a different path for me, is that Persistent is a perfectly legitimate advantage for an instant power, just, you know, pointless.

 

 

 

 

 

* If you CAN - if Persistent allows you to dedicate an attack action when unconscious, then it has SOME use, including the ability to regenerate when unconscious, and, for instance, maintaining a wall of fire (or a damage shield not built with the 'damage shield' 'advantage') whilst unconscious....but it would still be of no use to you whilst conscious, any more than just activating the power would be.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Now to argue against myself, can I just point at this:

 

10d6 EB Persistent (+1/2) 0 END (+1/2), Non-Persistent (-1/4) 100 Active points, 80 Real points

 

If you CAN add 'Persistent' straight to an instant power, the above is a perfectly munchkin-legal way to create a surprisingly cheap (in both active and real points) constant attack that would normally cost you 125 points active and real (10d6 Continuous 0 END).

[archermoo]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Now to argue against myself, can I just point at this:

 

10d6 EB Persistent (+1/2) 0 END (+1/2), Non-Persistent (-1/4) 100 Active points, 80 Real points

 

If you CAN add 'Persistent' straight to an instant power, the above is a perfectly munchkin-legal way to create a surprisingly cheap (in both active and real points) constant attack that would normally cost you 125 points active and real (10d6 Continuous 0 END).

 

Except that since Persistent in no way adds Continuous to a Power it doesn't really work.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Except that since Persistent in no way adds Continuous to a Power it doesn't really work.

 

You say that, but the book disagrees I'm pretty sure it is on page 100 of 5ER: a persistent power that is made non-persistent becomes constant, and continuous is just a way to make a power constant.

 

I have FRED with me and the page reference is 69.

[archermoo]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

You say that, but the book disagrees I'm pretty sure it is on page 100 of 5ER: a persistent power that is made non-persistent becomes constant, and continuous is just a way to make a power constant.

 

I have FRED with me and the page reference is 69.

 

Off the bat this runs afoul of the concept that if you find a more convoluted and cheaper way of doing something, it is probably against the rules.

 

My assumption is that the intent of the rule was that a Persistant Power that stops being Persistant becomes Constant is for Powers that are innately Persistant, and that Powers that would otherwise be converted to Non-Persistant status cannot have the Persistant Advantage added to them in the first place.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

What guidelines were you looking for? As I've stated on several occasions, there are very few circumstances where it is actually advantageous to apply Persistent to an Instant Power. Determining which of those uncommon circumstances are appropriate for their campaign is up to the Ref.

 

For the most part Persistent is only useful for Constant/Continuous powers. But as there are potentially circumstances that it would be appropriate for an Instant power as well, they are included in what powers it may be applied to.

 

My confusion in this is perhaps making me unclear.

 

I don't want to know when it would be advantageous, just possible or allowed. There are times when it would not be advantageous to buy nearly anything. However, for nearly everything else in Hero, it's fairly obvious as to then it is legal or not legal to apply certain Modifiers. For example, you can only apply Self Only to a Power that can normally affect both the self and others. However, there is no Power which meets the logical requirements for Persistent unless it is Constant or Continuous, yet it lists Instant as a viable option.

 

Also, in the cases it is allowed/legal, what are the effects of its application if the Instant Power is not also Continuous/Constant?

 

My general complaint is there are no guidelines as to what is legal, or what the effects are when it is legal. None, or at least I can't find them. Everybody's opinions and guesses are nice and my help me develop my own concerning this, but in the end they are just opinions and guesses and not actually rules.

[archermoo]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

My confusion in this is perhaps making me unclear.

 

I don't want to know when it would be advantageous, just possible or allowed. There are times when it would not be advantageous to buy nearly anything. However, for nearly everything else in Hero, it's fairly obvious as to then it is legal or not legal to apply certain Modifiers. For example, you can only apply Self Only to a Power that can normally affect both the self and others. However, there is no Power which meets the logical requirements for Persistent unless it is Constant or Continuous, yet it lists Instant as a viable option.

 

Also, in the cases it is allowed/legal, what are the effects of its application if the Instant Power is not also Continuous/Constant?

 

My general complaint is there are no guidelines as to what is legal, or what the effects are when it is legal. None, or at least I can't find them. Everybody's opinions and guesses are nice and my help me develop my own concerning this, but in the end they are just opinions and guesses and not actually rules.

 

I guess I just don't understand the confusion. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Instant Powers which you would need to make an attack roll to use don't gain anything by adding Persistent to them, so probably shouldn't get it. Instant Powers which don't require an attack roll do gain something, so should be looked at by the Ref to see if they are appropraite for the campaign.

 

Energy Blast? Not so much. Self only Aid? Much more likely.

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

But the Advantage itself is extremely vague - considering Persistent in 4E is listed as part of the Reduced Endurance Advantage.

I forgot to give the page reference earlier; the I -> C -> -> P progression is clearly stated on p. 52 of the BBB.

 

I'm on the road (again ) and don't have the BBB with me, so I can't comment on the Advantage being vague.

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

You say that, but the book disagrees I'm pretty sure it is on page 100 of 5ER: a persistent power that is made non-persistent becomes constant, and continuous is just a way to make a power constant.

 

I have FRED with me and the page reference is 69.

I do have FRED with me, and you are correct. The build is rules-legal.

 

Off the bat this runs afoul of the concept that if you find a more convoluted and cheaper way of doing something, it is probably against the rules.

 

My assumption is that the intent of the rule was that a Persistant Power that stops being Persistant becomes Constant is for Powers that are innately Persistant, and that Powers that would otherwise be converted to Non-Persistant status cannot have the Persistant Advantage added to them in the first place.

Yah. The build is rules-legal, and immediately outlawed by the GM as munchkiny.

 

 

Still, a good one to save for the next Munchkin Power Build thread.

[archermoo]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

I do have FRED with me, and you are correct. The build is rules-legal.

 

Yah. The build is rules-legal, and immediately outlawed by the GM as munchkiny.

 

 

Still, a good one to save for the next Munchkin Power Build thread.

 

I've never been fond of the term "rules-legal".

 

As I said before, I think if anything it is a of a case of the rule not being explicit enough. All of the Powers that are innately Persistent are Powers that would otherwise be Constant powers, and it is simply providing rules for what happens when modifiers are added to those powers that would remove their Persistant status. Though it might be a good one to report to Steve so that it can be added to the FAQ, assuming it isn't already there...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Off the bat this runs afoul of the concept that if you find a more convoluted and cheaper way of doing something, it is probably against the rules.

 

My assumption is that the intent of the rule was that a Persistant Power that stops being Persistant becomes Constant is for Powers that are innately Persistant, and that Powers that would otherwise be converted to Non-Persistant status cannot have the Persistant Advantage added to them in the first place.

 

Personally I think it runs afoul of the words 'Instant or' in the definition of persistent . I am not seriously suggesting anyone should ever get away with it, but it is what the rules say. They can be 'clarified' to say something different, but I'm still struggling to see a use for Persistent on an instant power without 'Continuous'. I was just using this to demonstrate a further inconsistency in the current edition 'Persistent'. I don;t want to be cruel to camels, but those straws are mounting up...

[ghost-angel]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

I thought my taser build was pretty clever use of Persistent on Instant.

 

But you know - just because we can't think of anything doesn't mean someone, somewhere, won't. Who knows- might be some gamer had a great use for it.

 

And rightfully enough the rules allow it. Says so right there in the book. Persistent may be applied to Instant or Constant.

 

For all the railing against Steve's exposition and "restrictions" and "can't be dones" I've seen complained about over the past 5 years now we're b-ing and moaning about the rules being too opened ended?

 

Gimme a frickin break.

 

You can do it. End Of Story.

 

It's up to the gamer to find a use for it, not the system.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Nope' date=' my interpretation is just as valid, or invalid, as anyone else's, as there is no official interpretation or guideline. Do whatever you want. The text in the rules may well have included "please insert a house rule to determine how this works" in the description of Persistent regarding Instant Powers.[/quote']

 

For the record. I'm not interpreting anything.

 

I'm reading the rules verbatim under the Persistent Advantage which is EXPLICITLY CLEAR that the Persistent Advantage may be added to an Instant Or Constant Power, as long as the END Cost is Zero.

 

Written Out. Not Interpreted. Made Very Clear.

 

As I said in the post just previous to this one - it's not up to the system to find uses for things, just provide the means for it.

[Comic]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Oooh.

 

Looks like I got my builds wrong, per Steve Long:

 

Typically a power that requires an Attack Action and is Persistent requires the Attack Action to activate, then remains in effect thereafter until somehow shut off.

 

This means 'Constant' isn't necessary, and Healing with IPE, Reduced to Zero END, Persistent is in effect on until the character wills it to stop or it is turned off some other way, and resumes whenever the character takes an attack action to start it up again. No losing attack actions while healing. Much less messy.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

I thought my taser build was pretty clever use of Persistent on Instant.

 

But you know - just because we can't think of anything doesn't mean someone, somewhere, won't. Who knows- might be some gamer had a great use for it.

 

And rightfully enough the rules allow it. Says so right there in the book. Persistent may be applied to Instant or Constant.

 

For all the railing against Steve's exposition and "restrictions" and "can't be dones" I've seen complained about over the past 5 years now we're b-ing and moaning about the rules being too opened ended?

 

Gimme a frickin break.

 

You can do it. End Of Story.

 

It's up to the gamer to find a use for it, not the system.

 

 

Not the end of story by a long chalk. This was a rule that did not need changing that was changed to enable the grandfathering of another machanic that did not need changing (regeneration) that is retrospectively being justified now that the inconsistencies are becoming obvious.

 

I'm sorry you don't like the discussion. A lot of people seem interested. Hero is not perfect, yet, and if we just accept everything and 'work around' then it never will be.