Radical Adjustment

[Sean Waters]

Here's a thought. Let us get rid of power defence and say that all adjustment powers have to be bought so that they are defended against by either PD or ED, unless you buy them AVLD or NND.

 

Boy would that make my life easier. Might need a little cost re-jigging. Might not.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

...or an appropriately defined Special Effects Defense.

[Razoric]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

...or an appropriately defined Special Effects Defense.

 

Like Power Defense ^^

[Trebuchet]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

Here's a thought. Let us get rid of power defence and say that all adjustment powers have to be bought so that they are defended against by either PD or ED, unless you buy them AVLD or NND.

 

Boy would that make my life easier. Might need a little cost re-jigging. Might not.

It wouldn't bother me, but we don't use Adjustment Powers much in our campaign. They'd have to be recosted, of course.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

Why not make them NND by default and allow a limitation to drop them to vs PD/ED? That's probably costed about right.

[Markdoc]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

Here's a thought. Let us get rid of power defence and say that all adjustment powers have to be bought so that they are defended against by either PD or ED, unless you buy them AVLD or NND.

 

Boy would that make my life easier. Might need a little cost re-jigging. Might not.

 

Why not make them NND by default and allow a limitation to drop them to vs PD/ED? That's probably costed about right.

 

These ideas have merit. I don't have a big problem with power defence in game, but as a concept, it's kind of slippery.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

Adjustment powers are just too fuzzy a group to have a single defence work against them all without having to seriously suspend disbelief. as they have no unified mechanic, power defence always runs into definition problems.

 

Personally I think that adjustment powers are probably too powerful already, so I would not be keen to assume they start as NND, but that is just arguing about price. I could be persuaded.

 

The important thing to me is that power defence just doesn't work well - it is difficult to think of a defineable defence that inhibits drug effect, negative energies, electric shocks, nerve strikes and a couple of dozen other sfx too.

 

If you start with the assumption that they work against PD or ED you bring in more definition from the start, and being able to upgrade to NND or AVLD ices the cake. So to speak. You wind up with a richer (and more calorific) game experience by getting rid of a power. Sometimes less is more.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

Two things:

 

1. If this was to work against pd/ed then the cost should be less than 10 points per 1d6 for drain otherwise it would never get through campaign average defences, but 5 points per 1d6 probably allows too much through, so we are looking at somewhere in the middle. You could assume 15 points per 1d6 and effectively make it NND (with a -1 limitaiton 'pd or ed as a defence') but then you run into active point caps, which will discourage the use of the limitation in a broad range of applications.

 

2. Wouldn't it be better for the fade rate to be based on target REC rather than 5/turn, which would help scale the power to any campaign (at present adjustment powers are disproportionately useful in high powered games where REC is usually >5).

[Razoric]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

2. Wouldn't it be better for the fade rate to be based on target REC rather than 5/turn' date=' which would help scale the power to any campaign (at present adjustment powers are disproportionately useful in high powered games where REC is usually >5).[/quote']

 

That'd kinda gimp AID, though, if you have a REC of 8 and use a 2d6 AID. Bam, gone in one turn.

[casualplayer]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

2. Wouldn't it be better for the fade rate to be based on target REC rather than 5/turn' date=' which would help scale the power to any campaign (at present adjustment powers are disproportionately useful in high powered games where REC is usually >5).[/quote']

 

This house rule, that I have been using for decades, obviates a lot of the problems of Power Defense. It makes it better to just take the hit and RECover from it in a blink, as the ones who have the phenomenal RECs are also the ones you'd expect to bounce back from adjustment powers quickly.

 

Aid, in my games, still fades at 5/turn.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

This house rule' date=' that I have been using for decades, obviates a lot of the problems of Power Defense. It makes it better to just take the hit and RECover from it in a blink, as the ones who have the phenomenal RECs are also the ones you'd expect to bounce back from adjustment powers quickly.[/quote']

 

... Unless you Drain all their REC. Then how do they RECover from the Drain?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

... Unless you Drain all their REC. Then how do they RECover from the Drain?

 

Very nice point: I suppose you would recover drained characteristics at 1/turn or REC/turn, whichever is faster.

[casualplayer]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

... Unless you Drain all their REC. Then how do they RECover from the Drain?

 

Funny you should mention that. I have a curse that works precisely that way. (What you do is find someone who can Aid REC.)

[SteveZilla]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

Funny you should mention that. I have a curse that works precisely that way. (What you do is find someone who can Aid REC.)

 

Which if I understand things correctly would be technically impossible for one to do without assistance, or having their movement bought to zero END. Wouldn't this also muck with the Long Term END Loss rules?

[casualplayer]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

Which if I understand things correctly would be technically impossible for one to do without assistance' date=' or having their movement bought to zero END. Wouldn't this also muck with the Long Term END Loss rules?[/quote']

 

That's why it's considered a curse!

[SteveZilla]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

And for some strange reason, with no Advantages, Drain REC is much, much more disabling than, say, Drain EGO (another 2 pt per 1 stat). Doesn't make much sense that one is vastly more effective than the other at being a curse.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

And for some strange reason' date=' with no Advantages, Drain REC is much, much more disabling than, say, Drain EGO (another 2 pt per 1 stat). Doesn't make much sense that one is vastly more effective than the other at being a curse.[/quote']

 

The other way to address this is, in the same way as defences 'cost' more to drain, you could require that REC drains only use half/third/quarter of the points rolled (subject to getting the balance about right).

 

The trouble with the straight 5 point fade rate is that it changes the effectvieness of the power from genre to genre and there is no way in the game at present to change the fade rate.

 

Another possibility is stick with the 5 point fade rate but allow characters to buy it up (1 point per point). This would affect both positive and negative fade rate. Consider your fade rate inherent, so that it cannot be adjusted. This effectively adds 5 points to the cost of a base template character.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

The other way to address this is' date=' in the same way as defences 'cost' more to drain, you could require that REC drains only use half/third/quarter of the points rolled (subject to getting the balance about right).[/quote']

 

IMO no matter what ratio you apply specifically to Adjustments of REC in this system, you still have the problem of what happens when REC is reduced to Zero. The problem is just "delayed" in a manner of speaking.

 

The trouble with the straight 5 point fade rate is that it changes the effectvieness of the power from genre to genre and there is no way in the game at present to change the fade rate.

 

I don't quite agree with this. If I were to think it were a problem, I would think it's more due to the overall power level of the particular game instead of the specific Genre of the game.

 

A 3d6 Drain REC would be just as bad in nearly all genres of the same power level, IMO.

 

Another possibility is stick with the 5 point fade rate but allow characters to buy it up (1 point per point). This would affect both positive and negative fade rate. Consider your fade rate inherent' date=' so that it cannot be adjusted. This effectively adds 5 points to the cost of a base template character.[/quote']

 

If using REC to determine how fast an Adjustment fades is meant to simulate the target's body recovering from the effect of the power, then what about charaters with Regenerative abilities (i.e., Regeneration)? Surely if their body can recover from wounds vastly faster than others, wouldn't that also imply they recover vastly faster from Adjustments?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

I agree with SteveZilla's point regarding the effectiveness of drain REC. What if Adjustment powers were to recover at the greater of REC and 5? Or the greater of some fraction of REC and 5? Absent Drains, characters in any game with REC under 5 are pretty uncommon.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

I wouldn't directly object to Adjustments fading at either 5 pts per Turn or REC per Turn, whichever is Greater... By providing a low-end cutoff of 5 pts per Turn, it short-circuits the abusability of REC Adjustments.

 

But it should be pointed out that using REC (even partially like above) improves the utility of STR and CON -- something that amplifies the effectiveness of Archetypes that are heavy in those areas -- namely Bricks.

[Beast]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

what about only going against resistant defences

 

 

Two things:

 

1. If this was to work against pd/ed then the cost should be less than 10 points per 1d6 for drain otherwise it would never get through campaign average defences, but 5 points per 1d6 probably allows too much through, so we are looking at somewhere in the middle. You could assume 15 points per 1d6 and effectively make it NND (with a -1 limitaiton 'pd or ed as a defence') but then you run into active point caps, which will discourage the use of the limitation in a broad range of applications.

 

2. Wouldn't it be better for the fade rate to be based on target REC rather than 5/turn, which would help scale the power to any campaign (at present adjustment powers are disproportionately useful in high powered games where REC is usually >5).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

I wouldn't directly object to Adjustments fading at either 5 pts per Turn or REC per Turn, whichever is Greater... By providing a low-end cutoff of 5 pts per Turn, it short-circuits the abusability of REC Adjustments.

 

But it should be pointed out that using REC (even partially like above) improves the utility of STR and CON -- something that amplifies the effectiveness of Archetypes that are heavy in those areas -- namely Bricks.

 

I'm more inclined to keep the current system. Switching to REC makes life more complex with variant rules for positive and negative adjustments (BTW, which rule does Transfer follow?), timing issues (can I recover every phase? If I'm KO'd, do I still get adjustment recoveries each turn?) and likely other complexities. The current system works.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

I'm more inclined to keep the current system. Switching to REC makes life more complex with variant rules for positive and negative adjustments (BTW' date=' which rule does Transfer follow?), timing issues (can I recover every phase? If I'm KO'd, do I still get adjustment recoveries each turn?) and likely other complexities. The current system works.[/quote']

 

That was my decision as well -- I was mainly trying to illustrate the ramifications of this rule.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

That which you fear is already here

 

Healing allows you to recover reduced characteristics more quickly (but doesn't affect the fade rate of positively adjusted powers) so there is already a system in place for 5 points OR more as the recovery rate - it is just that it is a relatively complex build for something that could be a quite common requirement and rides roughshod over adjustment powers with reduced recovery rate: if you have spent points on the power fading at 5/minute and the target has healing, those points were wasted. OK, maybe that is not a bad thing as such, but in a highly customisable game it seems odd that we do not have the option to increase the recovery rate. If you could buy it up then it wouild not affect the frequency of recovery, just the points per recovery.

 

I can understand the potential problems with using REC, but I don't see it as that much of a problem myself. I don't know what the average PowDef out there is but a 60 AP drain removes 21 points of a power or characteristic. If the average PowDef is 10 (and it is probably less) that means that a single hit will reduce DEX (for instance) by 3 points (and a second hit to a total of DEX-7), which is likely to have a profound effect on combat, given the bell curve. Now if we all followed the rules for adjustment powers i.e. that each seperate adjustment recovers seperately, who the hell knows what recovery rate we are actually seeing (effectively 5 against one hit, 10 against 2 hits, 15 against 3 and so on....) - but we don't. Let us simplify, use REC (or a number (say 5 or 1), whichever is higher) and assume that you don't have to seperately track adjustments.

 

Easy life. Big tick.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Radical Adjustment

 

what about only going against resistant defences

 

That is a very nice idea and could work really well. I tend to assume that resistant defences are usually around DCx1 for a given game and non-resistant around DCx2, so using resistant defences allows us to leave the cost where it is and still have a significant but not overwhelming: about 9 points of effect after defences on average (meaning the NND version gets slightly more through, but of a simular order (10-11 points).

 

That works really well for me.

 

What does everyone else think?