Instant, Constant, Persistent

[ghost-angel]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

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.

 

1) I never said Hero was perfect.

2) I don't think the rule change was a bad idea. A direct chain seems like a bad idea to me. I like the opened circle of I/C/P.

3) You can say "I don't like it, I'm changing it back"

4) But you can not say it's an "interpretation" of the rule. Because it's not.

 

I would never begrudge anyone a house rule to alter an aspect they don't like. Heck - that's part of the appeal of Hero.

 

But to say I'm misinterpreting is false. I'm not interpreting, I'm reading directly.

 

Love or Hate it, that's the long and short.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

1) I never said Hero was perfect.

2) I don't think the rule change was a bad idea. A direct chain seems like a bad idea to me. I like the opened circle of I/C/P.

3) You can say "I don't like it, I'm changing it back"

4) But you can not say it's an "interpretation" of the rule. Because it's not.

 

I would never begrudge anyone a house rule to alter an aspect they don't like. Heck - that's part of the appeal of Hero.

 

But to say I'm misinterpreting is false. I'm not interpreting, I'm reading directly.

 

Love or Hate it, that's the long and short.

 

 

Hate it then, if they are the only choices you'll allow.

 

Moreover, you are misrepresenting what I said. I expressed an opinion, rather sharply, I accept, but appropriate to the tone of your post, and I did not say that you were misinterpreting the rule, I said that the rule was plain broken. I appreciate you don't like people saying that, but it is how I feel. Even Steve conceeds that 'regeneration is a special case' and, to my mind, the rules as currently presented do not make internal sense.

 

I've made a number of points to back this up. Why not address them?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

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.

Seems pretty straight forward to me to. Instant Powers should not be allowed the Persistent Advantage unless they also have Continuous. You see, we have different rulings, neither of which contradict the official rules and according to Steve Long are perfectly valid. This is my confusion. We are both 100% correct even though we disagree. While this is good in some aspects, both of our interpretations cannot be official rules. There simply is no official rule here. Just an open door for house rules to fill an empty void.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

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.

 

Sure, very clear.

 

What does an EB 6d6 0 END Persistent do? How is it different from EB 6d6 0 END Continuous Persistent and EB 6d6 0 END?

 

According to a ruling by Steve Long, previously quoted in this thread, EB 6d6 0 END Persistent is identical to EB 6d6 0 END Continuous Persistent. Does that even sound remotely right to you?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

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 tending to agree here. A few years ago, I would not have, and perhaps whole heartedly did not agree on the boards as I recall a similar discussion then. However, I'm starting to feel the little phrase "Instant or" in the description of Persistent is just an excuse to say the official Regen build is a legal build and server no other purpose

[Comic]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Sure, very clear.

 

What does an EB 6d6 0 END Persistent do? How is it different from EB 6d6 0 END Continuous Persistent and EB 6d6 0 END?

 

According to a ruling by Steve Long, previously quoted in this thread, EB 6d6 0 END Persistent is identical to EB 6d6 0 END Continuous Persistent. Does that even sound remotely right to you?

 

Huh.

 

I'd have had the first (persistent, Non-continuous) fire off a pulse every phase -- in random directions unless an attack action was used to aim it -- while turned on.

 

The second would continue all the way through the phase as a stream, so could form a barrier that you can't cross without taking the damage, for example.

[schir1964]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

The second would continue all the way through the phase as a stream' date=' so could form a barrier that you can't cross without taking the damage, for example.[/quote']

Except that the rules say that it doesn't.

 

To create a barrier as you suggest requires you use the Cover Fire option or Area Effect (Line) to affect targets on segments after the attack is made. Applying the Continuous Advantage doesn't grant this capability to attacks. I won't bother stating what Continuous grants since I'm sure you already know that.

 

Just A Clarification

 

- Christopher Mullins

[archermoo]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Seems pretty straight forward to me to. Instant Powers should not be allowed the Persistent Advantage unless they also have Continuous. You see' date=' we have different rulings, neither of which contradict the official rules and according to Steve Long are perfectly valid. This is my confusion. We are both 100% correct even though we disagree. While this is good in some aspects, both of our interpretations cannot be official rules. There simply is no official rule here. Just an open door for house rules to fill an empty void.[/quote']

 

There is an official rule about it. It is written down on p257 of 5ER. Persistent is an Advantage that can be added to both Instant and Constant powers. Yes, you can choose to make a house rule to disallow the use of Persistant on Instant powers if you so choose, but by the default rules it is allowed. No ambiguity.

 

Sure, very clear.

 

What does an EB 6d6 0 END Persistent do? How is it different from EB 6d6 0 END Continuous Persistent and EB 6d6 0 END?

 

According to a ruling by Steve Long, previously quoted in this thread, EB 6d6 0 END Persistent is identical to EB 6d6 0 END Continuous Persistent. Does that even sound remotely right to you?

 

Adding Persistent to an Instant Power that requires an Attack Roll (like EB) doesn't really do much of anything for it. It means the power stays on until turned off, but since it hasn't also had the Continuous Advantage added to it you still need to make an Attack Roll every phase to actually hit something with it. About the only advantage I can see to adding Persistent without Continuous to an Attack Power would be if it requires a long time to start it up, but once started you can attack with it every Phase. Adding Continuous to it means that you no longer have to roll to hit with it every one of your Phases to continue damging your currently hit target.

 

And no, Steve didn't say that Persistent and Continuous do the same thing. If he had, that would indeed not sound even remotely right. Fortunately he didn't.

[archermoo]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

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' date=' 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...[/quote']

 

And I don't see it as an inconsistancy in Persistant, but just due to Steve not taking the lengths that munchkins will go to weasel the rules into account. It is, at least to me, obvious that the rule about Persistent Powers converting to Constant powers when Persistence is removed from them refers to powers that are innately Persistent. I see little reason that that would need to be stated, as (Persistent (+1/2), Nonpersistent (-1/4)) is, again at least to me, obviously invalid. Possibly the Persistent Advantage could use the phrase "This Advantage cannot be added to Powers for which it would be invalid" to it, but that seems needlessly complex.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

And I don't see it as an inconsistancy in Persistant' date=' but just due to Steve not taking the lengths that munchkins will go to weasel the rules into account. It is, at least to me, obvious that the rule about Persistent Powers converting to Constant powers when Persistence is removed from them refers to powers that are innately Persistent. I see little reason that that would need to be stated, as (Persistent (+1/2), Nonpersistent (-1/4)) is, again at least to me, obviously invalid. Possibly the Persistent Advantage could use the phrase "This Advantage cannot be added to Powers for which it would be invalid" to it, but that seems needlessly complex.[/quote']

 

 

If we all contribute 1 XP I am sure we can afford a 'Sense Munchkin' sense for Steve

 

I agree +P-P is silly, and should never be allowed, but the point I make is that the whole rule about I2C2P, or rather P2C2I, if reverseable, implies (as it always used to0 that C was the middle step.

 

The other point I'd like to make (just thought of this today, so may not have covered all teh bases) is that P and C do more or less the same thing, but with important differences. Part of the uncomfortable feeling I get about all of this is that no other advantages overlap to that extent, that I am aware of. It just feels wrong.

 

If we are to have a suite of advantages that enables these various elements, I'd rather break down the elements, which would allow far greater concept matching*:

 

Continuous +1/2 The power continues to operate between phases, but requires maintenance by the character. For an attack power, this means making an attack roll and using an attack action each phase. If the power is an attack with an area, then anyone entering the area between phases takes damage, without any additional END expenditure. For a non attack power, this is a zero phase action.

 

Constant +1/2 An attack power that is already continuous can continue to damage a target after the initial successful roll to hit and attack action as a zero pohase action, as if it were a non attack power, and without further rolls to hit.

 

Persistent +1/2 A power that is already continuous will operate even if the character is unable to maintain the power, for instance even if they are unconsious. An attack power will continue to target the same point in space it was targetting when the character became unconscious and the character is considered to have line of sight to that point unless something else intervenes, even though they are unconscious and unable to actually perceive the point. A persistent power must be 0 END.

 

+1/2 Uncontrolled (as the book) EXCEPT for a non attack power, Uncontrolled only requires 'Continuous', for an attack power the attack must be 'Constant' as a pre-requisite.

 

If a power that is noted as Persistent has the non-persistent limitation applied, or some other limitation that prevents it being persistent (like Costs END or Activation) then it is considered a Continuous power, unless the advantage 'Constant' has been bought for it.

 

Powers that are made 'self only' are not considered attack powers.

 

 

 

*Two things:

 

1. I really like the term 'Concept Matching', and

2. This is a discussion - I'm not saying this is the best way, or I Know Better - I'm asking what people think.

[archermoo]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

If we all contribute 1 XP I am sure we can afford a 'Sense Munchkin' sense for Steve

 

I agree +P-P is silly, and should never be allowed, but the point I make is that the whole rule about I2C2P, or rather P2C2I, if reverseable, implies (as it always used to0 that C was the middle step.

 

The other point I'd like to make (just thought of this today, so may not have covered all teh bases) is that P and C do more or less the same thing, but with important differences. Part of the uncomfortable feeling I get about all of this is that no other advantages overlap to that extent, that I am aware of. It just feels wrong.

 

If we are to have a suite of advantages that enables these various elements, I'd rather break down the elements, which would allow far greater concept matching*:

 

-snip for brevity-

 

 

Your changes just seem like needless complication to me. It just seems much easier to go with the assumption that you cannot add Persistent to Powers for which it would be invalid, and then just leave it there. Obviously YMMV...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Your changes just seem like needless complication to me. It just seems much easier to go with the assumption that you cannot add Persistent to Powers for which it would be invalid' date=' and then just leave it there. Obviously YMMV...[/quote']

 

I can't rep you, and I should, because that did make me laugh.

[archermoo]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

I can't rep you' date=' and I should, because that did make me laugh.[/quote']

 

Making you laugh is in and of itself worth it.

[Comic]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Except that the rules say that it doesn't.

 

To create a barrier as you suggest requires you use the Cover Fire option or Area Effect (Line) to affect targets on segments after the attack is made. Applying the Continuous Advantage doesn't grant this capability to attacks. I won't bother stating what Continuous grants since I'm sure you already know that.

 

Just A Clarification

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Well, to rephrase, a persistent EB without Continuous would be a pulse, so Cover Fire would involve pulsed shots, and with Continuous would involve a nonpulsing stream. Either could have AoE applied. Each might have bonuses to use in particular circumstances.

 

But these would be marginal, mostly non-game-functional, hair-splitting differences which as easily could be described as just special effects, except for the other stated benefits of Persistent or Continuous.

 

There aren't a whole lot of times where either effect on an EB is exactly a great Advantage, unless Damage Shield is also taken, for example.

 

Being knocked out with one's EB running either persistently or continuously just makes a character a hazard. Easier to find, by tracing back to the source of the destruction, harder to entangle, but otherwise mainly it's a nuisance.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Well, to rephrase, a persistent EB without Continuous would be a pulse, so Cover Fire would involve pulsed shots, and with Continuous would involve a nonpulsing stream. Either could have AoE applied. Each might have bonuses to use in particular circumstances.

 

But these would be marginal, mostly non-game-functional, hair-splitting differences which as easily could be described as just special effects, except for the other stated benefits of Persistent or Continuous.

 

There aren't a whole lot of times where either effect on an EB is exactly a great Advantage, unless Damage Shield is also taken, for example.

 

Being knocked out with one's EB running either persistently or continuously just makes a character a hazard. Easier to find, by tracing back to the source of the destruction, harder to entangle, but otherwise mainly it's a nuisance.

 

I don't think either continuous or persistent (assuming this is a valid use) imply a 'beam' between the attacker and the target whether pulsed or not - the target continues to take damage without you needing to shoot at it again. Even if the sfx were that each new damage was a new attack, if something intervened, then line of sight would be lost and the power would fail, rather than damaging the intervening object.

[Comic]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

I don't think either continuous or persistent (assuming this is a valid use) imply a 'beam' between the attacker and the target whether pulsed or not - the target continues to take damage without you needing to shoot at it again. Even if the sfx were that each new damage was a new attack' date=' if something intervened, then line of sight would be lost and the power would fail, rather than damaging the intervening object.[/quote']

 

Oh. You mean sane, reasonable interpretations of the rules based on common sense, dramatic sense, etc.

 

No, no.

 

Afraid I wasn't so lucky for the character I was trying to give a simple lasting effect attack, insofar as my GM at the time preferred funny, pun-based, punitive interpretations.

 

Reasoning that the power was persistent, not the attack, the buyer didn't get that convenient 'no need to re-target' bit.

 

Except for Mental Powers, where the power could only be re-targetted after the previous target broke out of the attack (or died).

 

Made for interesting campaigns.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Oh. You mean sane, reasonable interpretations of the rules based on common sense, dramatic sense, etc.

 

No, no.

 

Afraid I wasn't so lucky for the character I was trying to give a simple lasting effect attack, insofar as my GM at the time preferred funny, pun-based, punitive interpretations.

 

Reasoning that the power was persistent, not the attack, the buyer didn't get that convenient 'no need to re-target' bit.

 

Except for Mental Powers, where the power could only be re-targetted after the previous target broke out of the attack (or died).

 

Made for interesting campaigns.

 

 

Do I know you?

 

 

 

 

[archermoo]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

I don't think either continuous or persistent (assuming this is a valid use) imply a 'beam' between the attacker and the target whether pulsed or not - the target continues to take damage without you needing to shoot at it again. Even if the sfx were that each new damage was a new attack' date=' if something intervened, then line of sight would be lost and the power would fail, rather than damaging the intervening object.[/quote']

 

Well, Continuous certainly means that as long as LOS is maintained the target continues to take damage each Phase. Persistant just means that the power doesn't turn off normally.

[Oruncrest]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Howzabout a scene from a cartoon as an example of a Persistent EB:

 

In the first battle between Son Goku & Prince Vegita on DragonBall Z, Goku flashes Veggie-kun (who's in giant Monkey form) with a Taiyoken (8D6 Explosive Sight Flash) and slips away while Vegita's blinded. Once he's far enough away, Goku starts collecting enough energy for a Genki-Dama.

 

Now Susano's built the Genki-Dama as a 5D6 RKA that gains 2D6 after 1 Turn and another 2D6 after 1 minute, but that doesn't cover all of what happened with that attack in that story, so I'll make some adjustments to it:

 

10u Genki-Dama: 294 Active Points; 98 Real Points

3D6 RKA, Area Effect (5" Radius, +1), 0 END, Persistent, Usable by 1 Other (+¼); Extra Time (Full Phase, -½), Cannot be used while in SSJ Mode (-½), Concentration (0 DCV, -½), Can be missile deflected (-¼), Attack Ends when Genki-Ball successfully hits something (-¼); 146 Active Points; 49 Real Points

plus 2½D6 Aid Genki-Dama Ball, Standard Effect (+7 APs), +187 Aps to Maximum (+202 Aps total), Delayed Fade Rate (-5 APs/minute, +¼); Cannot be used while in SSJ Mode (-½), Requires a Straight (but Jammable) PRE Roll (-¼), Concentration (0 DCV, -½); 148 Active Points; 49 Real Points

 

Basically, the Genki Ball itself is created and in that phase is instantly Aided 7pts (not enough to increase its effect by a DC, but after 29 phases, the Genki Ball's damage is at 9D6 RKA 14" Radius, Usable by 1 Other (the Aided points didn't need 0 END, Persistent as they have their own fade rate), and on that final phase before he starts to lose APs, he tosses the Genki Ball. Because the Genki-Ball is 0 END, Persistent, it's treated as a separate object, and the Aided points go into the Genki-Ball that's there now, not Gokus ability to make future Genki-Balls. Once the Genki-Ball hits something, those points are gone and have to be Aided back to the next Genki-Ball. The 'Requires a Straight (but jammable) PRE Roll' limitation reflects the fact that Goku has to appeal to every living thing in the biosphere for some of their life energy and sometimes the living things don't feel like giving up any (like in the final battle with Buu), but others can appeal for him (like Mr. Hercule Satan in the final battle with Buu).

 

Back to the fight. Goku has blinded Veggie-kun for 28 segments (let's call that phase 12 of turn 0). On Gokus next phase (2 segments have passed), He flies to a rock some 30" away and on the phase after that (4 segments down), Goku creates the Genki-Ball and begins feeding chi into it.

 

On phase 4 of turn 3, Vegitas vision finally returns and he starts looking for Goku. Goku's still 30" away (so Vegita incurs a -6 penalty to his PER Roll), but by this time, the Genki-Ball is a 6D6-1 RKA and is 17" in diameter (+10 to his PER roll), so Vegita needs to roll under 16 to spot Goku. Vegita rolls a six, enough to tell that Goku has to stand stock still while collecting that Chi-Ball. Not wanting to get hit with that big ball of chi, Vegita cuts loose with his Chi Breath (adding +6 STUN with 4 of his Combat levels since Goku's a sitting duck). He hits! And Goku is stunned. Because the Genki-dama is 0 END, Persistent, Goku doesn't lose the attack and can throw it anytime he has a shot, although he can no longer feed chi into it since he he was interrupted.

 

About 10 minutes later, after Goku's had nearly every bone in his body broken and lil' Gohan is throwing down with Vegita, Goku gives what's left of the Genki-Ball (about a 4D6 RKA) to Krillin to hit Vegita with. Krillin waits (almost losing another 5 pts from the Genki-Ball) before finally throwing it. However, Vegeta spotted it coming and flew out of the way (basically, he dove for cover straight up. However Gohan was able to Missile Reflect the Genki-Ball (because Gohan was able to deflect the Genki-Ball, the Genki-Ball was ruled not to have successfully hit him) back at Veggie-kun (who, having made a DFC once, can't do it again).

 

Krillin (since he was the one who threw the Genki-Ball) wins big on both the STUN Lotto (×5) and the BODY roll (24!). Vegita loses on knockback (-2). Vegita's KO'd, kicked another 22' into the air and will have to wait til' the next episode to come down (where he'll take another 25D6 from the fall).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

I don't mean this in a bad way, but I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[Oruncrest]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

I don't mean this in a bad way' date=' but I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.[/quote']

 

 

Sorry 'bout that, but the question 'what can an Instant power made Persistent do, anyway?' came up earlier, and you and Comic were arguing over wether an attack made 0 END, Persistent would look like a 'pulse' or a 'stream', and somehow, Goku's Genki-Dama sprang into my head as an example of an Instant power (in this case, RKA) made Persistent. Guess I got carried away.

 

In the episode I was referring to, Goku started an attack that took a long time (almost a minute) to get to full power and was interrupted. If the combat were played out in HERO, such an interruption would cancel out all the work that Goku put into that attack, but Goku was able to 'hold on to' some of that energy and made a smaller, weaker Genki-Dama that he handed off to Krillin. How could Goku make that smaller Genki-Dama in HERO terms? IMO, it could be done by making the RKA Persistent.

 

Since a persistent power is maintained even if the wielder is stunned or KO'd, a persistent attack power that gains effectiveness over time wouldn't be lost like it would be if it was an instant power and could be fired off at whatever level had been achieved before it was interrupted as soon as the wielder was able to throw it.

 

Umm... did I make more sense that time?

 

Oh and I think that a persistent attack would look more like a 'pulse' than a 'beam'.

[Comic]

Re: Instant, Constant, Persistent

 

Sean Waters and I never argue.

 

We are in complete accord in all things, at all times.

 

United as we are, we are clearly correct about all things we agree upon.

 

Unless Hyperman disagrees.

 

Then we're back to square one.

 

Or any Moderator.

 

Moderators, too, are always right, and never argued with.

 

Steve Long, of course, is always right, too.