Not Taking Advantage

[Sean Waters]

So I’ve always been a bit niggled by the fact that, when you buy an advantage, you have to use it, that it locks you in. Now you can get round it (MP With 8d6 EB and an 8d6 EB Explosion), but it is a bit awkward building it that way, and there is the awful temptation to bump the EB up to 12d6 J. The other way you can do it is by buying a naked advantage, but, it seems to me, the main reason for naked advantages existing is to get around this rule. That seems unnecessarily complicated.

 

So, what to do? Here’s how I think I’m going to solve it for me and I’d be chuffed if you’d let me have your thoughts.

 

When you build a power with an advantage, you define if you always have to use that advantage. If you DO, then it forms part of the power, and the active points are included for purposes of drains and other negative adjustment powers. If you DON’T then such powers just affect the base points.

 

Example: 8d6 EB (40 AP) EXPLOSION (60 AP) hit by a 15 point drain,

 

Must use power: 60-15=45 points, and you are left with a 6d6 EB Explosion

 

Don’t have to use power: 40-15=25 points, and you are left with a 5d6 Explosion

 

Basically, if the advantage is NOT an integral part of the power, then it is easier to affect with drain/dispel etc. This would have no effect on positive adjustment powers – you’d need to increase the base power and the advantage even if they were ‘separate’.

[Opal]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

You can take Variable Advantage. When not using Explosion, you could switch it to AP or 0 END or whatever.

[Tonio]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

I don't like it, but then I think of Advantages not as "added mechanics" but as changing how the power works.

 

What you're describing, though... doesn't that work exactly like an NPA, except for the purposes of positive adjustment powers?

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

This is essentially NPA.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

Specifically in light of Variable Advantage, allow me to suggest a new Advantage.

 

Awesome: A Power with this Advantage is Awesome. The cost of Awesome is +1/4 per level. Powers with multiple levels of Awesome are even more Awesome. Awesome has no game effect, unless the GM rules otherwise.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

This is essentially NPA.

 

Yes, well, i thought if I just came out and suggested that we should get rid of NPA because it is rubbish, it might not sit right with some people. But it is. And we should.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

Yes' date=' well, i thought if I just came out and suggested that we should get rid of NPA because it is rubbish, it might not sit right with some people. But it is. And we should.[/quote']

 

There are plenty of valid reasons to keep it, and plenty of valid SFX where it is useful, but it is often used where it needs not to be (IMO because of Hero Designer).

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

... I'm tired. Maybe I need to eat. But I have no idea what you're talking about, Sean.

[Tonio]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

... I'm tired. Maybe I need to eat. But I have no idea what you're talking about' date=' Sean.[/quote']

 

Sean wants Advantages to be able to be defined as either "Always On" or "Optional". If "Always On", everything works exactly like it does now. If "Optional", adjustment powers that lower the APs in the power with the Advantage work against the APs in the power without the Advantage (adjustment powers that boost the power work normally).

 

This would allow building, for example, an Energy Blast that can be made into an Explosion without losing anything, without using Naked Power Advantages.

 

Apparently, he also thinks we should get rid of Naked Power Advantages.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

Laydeez and Gentlespoons, may I present my officiial interpreter

[Sean Waters]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

NPAs are useful, to an extent, in heroic games where you want to, for instance, be able to autofire any weapon you pick up. OTOH, isn't that what 'rapid fire' is for?

 

Other than that it is just a way of getting round the rule that you have to use an advantage with the power it is bought for.

 

So, one more rule we don't really need.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

I think a factor Sean's house rule doesn't consider, though, is that not all Advantages are universally "advantageous." Meaning, many of them have aspects that make them troublesome to use in some circumstances or against certain targets, etc. (Area Effect is a perfect example.) And the existence of these "drawbacks" within the Advantage is factored into their costs. For example, maybe Explosion would cost more if it weren't for the fact that explosions are sometimes inconvenient to their owner too.

 

By allowing Advantages to be optional, you're allowing these built-in drawbacks to be bypassed whenever bypassing them would be desirable.

[Opal]

I have trouble remembering that NPAs are kosher, now - they were /so/ illegal before.

 

I take it that in my (long) absence a consensus has emerged that Variable Advantage isn't up to snuff? Actually, I'm having trouble recalling exactly how it works, now, since I used a variant version of it for so long. Still, it seems there'd be some point to it if multipowers weren't an option for whatever reason.

 

Perhaps, for a lesser cost, you could have a 'Selective Advantage' Advantage that simply let you turn off other Advantages on the power?

[Tonio]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

I think a factor Sean's house rule doesn't consider, though, is that not all Advantages are universally "advantageous." Meaning, many of them have aspects that make them troublesome to use in some circumstances or against certain targets, etc. (Area Effect is a perfect example.) And the existence of these "drawbacks" within the Advantage is factored into their costs. For example, maybe Explosion would cost more if it weren't for the fact that explosions are sometimes inconvenient to their owner too.

 

By allowing Advantages to be optional, you're allowing these built-in drawbacks to be bypassed whenever bypassing them would be desirable.

 

I'd say the canonical example of this would be Damage Shield!

 

On the other hand, NPAs offer more utility than might be wanted. For example, I buy four EBs, then I buy a NPA defined as AoE for up to XX of EB, and I can apply it to any of the 4 EBs. What if I only want one of those to be AoE-able? Well, I guess I could Link it... would that work?

 

I dunno, a part of me wants optional advantages, another part says "no". I think the part of me that says "no" is the part that says "there's already a way to do this, and it's not too weird or unbalancing". Or maybe it's the part that says "Sean's insane, don't listen to what he says!".

[Sean Waters]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

I think a factor Sean's house rule doesn't consider, though, is that not all Advantages are universally "advantageous." Meaning, many of them have aspects that make them troublesome to use in some circumstances or against certain targets, etc. (Area Effect is a perfect example.) And the existence of these "drawbacks" within the Advantage is factored into their costs. For example, maybe Explosion would cost more if it weren't for the fact that explosions are sometimes inconvenient to their owner too.

 

By allowing Advantages to be optional, you're allowing these built-in drawbacks to be bypassed whenever bypassing them would be desirable.

 

Well that's another issue. In my book (the one with all the crayon), advantages should always be advantageous, limitations should all be limiting, and we wouldn't be worrying too much about it all making sense in the real world - we'd just be building a toolkit. For instance, all focii would be personal and not work for anyone else unless you boughtt he UBO advantage. Damage shields woudn't prevent the attack being used at range. Oh it would be glorious.

 

The point I very shakily make is that NPAs exist, and allow you to do what I'm suggesting advantages should be able to do. The rule is already there, in fact, we just wouldn't need to call the damn things naked power advantages. The official way around AoE Strength is the NPA.

 

Then you have this freaky thing with END.

 

Buy 8d6 EB 0 END with an AP NA, and it costs you 80 points and you have to pay 2 END for the NPA unless you buy 0 END for the NPA. Eh? If I buy 8d6 EB explosion with an AP NA, I don't need to buy explosion for the AP NA. Why the unnecessary complexity?

 

The whole thing is simply more arbitrary and complicated than it need be. Unnecessary comlpexity is bad, so NA is bad.

[Tonio]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

Well that's another issue. In my book (the one with all the crayon)' date=' advantages should always be advantageous, limitations should all be limiting, and we wouldn't be worrying too much about it all making sense in the real world - we'd just be building a toolkit. For instance, all focii would be personal and not work for anyone else unless you boughtt he UBO advantage. Damage shields woudn't prevent the attack being used at range. Oh it would be glorious.[/quote']

 

That's just crazy talk. Crazy.

[Opal]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

Hey, Sean, I know exactly what you mean. I am personally familiar with the impulse to create a system that is perfectly elegant, perfectly internally consistent, absolutely complete - and virtually impossible to read through without falling asleep, let alone play. Even though it's not practical to achieve, it's nice to work toward it, or, at least, not stray to far from the ideal.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

I'd say the canonical example of this would be Damage Shield!

 

On the other hand, NPAs offer more utility than might be wanted. For example, I buy four EBs, then I buy a NPA defined as AoE for up to XX of EB, and I can apply it to any of the 4 EBs. What if I only want one of those to be AoE-able? Well, I guess I could Link it... would that work?

 

I dunno, a part of me wants optional advantages, another part says "no". I think the part of me that says "no" is the part that says "there's already a way to do this, and it's not too weird or unbalancing". Or maybe it's the part that says "Sean's insane, don't listen to what he says!".

 

There's a way to do that, at least in 5e (I don't have 5er so I don't know, but it should say on the first page of the Advantages section -- anyone want to confirm or deny it for me?). You can buy a Limited Advantage. Buy your AoE with IIF Magic AoE-Making Thingy. Then, when you throw your Power, you can choose to, or not to, use your Magic AoE-Making Thingy, depending on whether you want your attack to be AoE or not. (For even more weirdness, you could buy several AoE Advantages, each based on a different IIF: Magic AoE-Radius-Making Thingy, IIF: Magic Explosion-Making Thingy, IIF: Magic AoE-Any-Area-Making Thingy, etc., and choose which AoE you want -- but at this point Variable Advantage is cheaper, and don't forget the Awesome Advantage .)

 

(The Limited Advantage method is, as far as I am aware, entirely unsupported in Hero Designer.)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

...............Or maybe it's the part that says "Sean's insane' date=' don't listen to what he says!".[/quote']

 

I'd listen to that bit, if I were you

[Sean Waters]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

I'd say the canonical example of this would be Damage Shield!

 

On the other hand, NPAs offer more utility than might be wanted. For example, I buy four EBs, then I buy a NPA defined as AoE for up to XX of EB, and I can apply it to any of the 4 EBs. What if I only want one of those to be AoE-able? Well, I guess I could Link it... would that work?

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

 

 

That is part of my problem with NPAs - there is no cost differentiation between an NPA that is useable with a single power and a NPA that is useable with 4, or 40 for that matter. You can't limit the NPA by linking it because then it would be cheaper than buying the advantaged power and the system choses not to make any cost differentiation between an NPA that can be used for one or more than one power.

 

Grr.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

Hey' date=' Sean, I know exactly what you mean. I am personally familiar with the impulse to create a system that is perfectly elegant, perfectly internally consistent, absolutely complete - and virtually impossible to read through without falling asleep, let alone play. Even though it's not practical to achieve, it's nice to work toward it, or, at least, not stray to far from the ideal.[/quote']

 

 

Might sell better if we didn't build it with a double penetrating stun drain? Good point.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

Chris - I lost you in all the magic making thingy stuff

 

How about you define the power thusly

 

10D6 EB - Explosion (only when making the BIG gesture).

 

The advantage is limited and so you can fire the explosion whenever you want by making a special gesture.

 

 

No need for NPA and it even costs you less points....

 

 

Doc

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

Chris - I lost you in all the magic making thingy stuff

 

How about you define the power thusly

 

10D6 EB - Explosion (only when making the BIG gesture).

 

The advantage is limited and so you can fire the explosion whenever you want by making a special gesture.

 

 

No need for NPA and it even costs you less points....

 

Even better. For even more fun, you can still fire it for 10d6, non explosion, when you can't make the BIG gesture, say when your hands are bound.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

...and so, kinda gives Sean what he was looking for

[Tonio]

Re: Not Taking Advantage

 

...and so' date=' kinda gives Sean what he was looking for[/quote']

 

Except it runs into the "Limitation making power more useful" problem. If adding a Limitation to an Advantage now means I can fire the power without the Advantage, then I now have an option I didn't use to have.

 

To look at it another way:

 

Say the limitation on the Explosion part isn't "Gestures (-1/4)", but rather "Only when I want to (-0)". Now I can choose when to apply Explosion, and when not to, for the same cost as the original power, for which I could not choose.