Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

 

I am curious about your own-different-experiences... I always like hearing what does and does not work, what does and does not 'go', in other peoples games.

 

I've got hundreds of characters on my site and hundreds more besides from pre-HD days not online.

 

Characters

 

Feel free to browse.

 

And as to random-grab-bag boy... Its funny, but when I stop and think about it, many of the most iconic superheros are random-grab-bags. Superman? Only Unifying SFX is "Im a Kryptonian"... which he invented. Wonder Woman? Strength, Speed, Indestructable Bracers, and a Lasso of Binding and Truth. Do What? Martian Manhunter is Superman-Plus-More-Wierd.

 

And what about Batman? Does "Gear" equal an elemental control? What about Iron Man? Power Suit even makes drain-one-drain-all sense, but it seems to me 'battle suit' can be the excuse for almost any power one might want to buy... grabbag land, again.

 

How do we deal with this? Is 'All on Fire Guy' going to be built on more points than "Kryptonian Guy'?

 

Im going back and forth internally, and a bit frustrated, so am seeking commentary/thoughts.

 

I think its more common in DC and more common in old-skool legacy characters. I also usually find such characters uninteresting. I can't stand Superman for instance and never liked him even as a kid.

 

As to "points", I think its an odd example of gamist perspective when people try to impose the internal logic of a game like the HERO System on material completely external to it. There is no assumption that if Character A and Character B were "converted" into the HERO System that they must equal points, or have any preselected point value at all, or that they can be brought in whole cloth and be on the same scale as the characters native to the HERO System. Also, given five different converters you'll get at least seven different versions of the same character in HERO SYstem terms; the longer a given character has been around the more likely it is there will be a lack of agreement around how to do that character.

 

As even a simple for instance my version of Wolverine came in at 1025 and I was cutting things out. This other one I found with a google search is 250. Both are arguably recognizable as versions of the same idea. Both are valid in their own way. Neither are 100% correct.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

It gets fun when you put a formerly 0 END cost power in a framework by adding Costs END' date=' but include a traditional END costing power with the advantage "Costs 0 END" in the same framework. Makes perfect sense.[/quote']

 

Ideally "Aid" and "Healing", or "Force Field" and "Armor"

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

I think that the rule has more to do with the Visibility* of the powers eligible for EC's than costing END. It just happens that a power that has 0 END by default is also IPE by default. As soon as you apply any form of Costs END to the power it then becomes a Visible power as well.

 

* If an Elemental Control is supposed to represent several different aspects of the same power (even more so than a Multipower and VPP) it stands to reason that all aspects should be equally visible to any observers.

 

Assuming I were to accept this explanation, why would the rules not say "powers which are not visible by default must take the "visible" limitation"?

 

In any case, most mental powers cost END, are invisible by default (to all but mental senses) and would be legitimate inclusions in an EC: Mental Powers.

[Istaran]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Assuming I were to accept this explanation, why would the rules not say "powers which are not visible by default must take the "visible" limitation"?

 

In any case, most mental powers cost END, are invisible by default (to all but mental senses) and would be legitimate inclusions in an EC: Mental Powers.

 

Or make them visible as an overriding default. IPE is available in ECs too.

[Marcus]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

I've got hundreds of characters on my site and hundreds more besides from pre-HD days not online.

 

Characters

 

Feel free to browse.

 

 

 

I think its more common in DC and more common in old-skool legacy characters. I also usually find such characters uninteresting. I can't stand Superman for instance and never liked him even as a kid.

 

As to "points", I think its an odd example of gamist perspective when people try to impose the internal logic of a game like the HERO System on material completely external to it. There is no assumption that if Character A and Character B were "converted" into the HERO System that they must equal points, or have any preselected point value at all, or that they can be brought in whole cloth and be on the same scale as the characters native to the HERO System. Also, given five different converters you'll get at least seven different versions of the same character in HERO SYstem terms; the longer a given character has been around the more likely it is there will be a lack of agreement around how to do that character.

 

As even a simple for instance my version of Wolverine came in at 1025 and I was cutting things out. This other one I found with a google search is 250. Both are arguably recognizable as versions of the same idea. Both are valid in their own way. Neither are 100% correct.

 

RE: Characters: I've browed your site before, and when its my next turn at the GM wheel, may borrow some of your stuff (likely with serial numbers suitablly altered to fit the game). If I do, I'll let you know how they work out.

 

And as for gamist and imposing internal logic on a thing external to it... inasmuch as Champions is a superhero roleplaying game, and thus a genre simulation, I think its worthwhile to keep our eyes on the parent genre. While the Champions RPG is not the Marvel (or DC, or whatever) universe, I think its worthwhile to look at how our simulation reflects, or does not reflect, the genre which it simulates.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

RE: Characters: I've browed your site before, and when its my next turn at the GM wheel, may borrow some of your stuff (likely with serial numbers suitablly altered to fit the game). If I do, I'll let you know how they work out.

 

And as for gamist and imposing internal logic on a thing external to it... inasmuch as Champions is a superhero roleplaying game, and thus a genre simulation, I think its worthwhile to keep our eyes on the parent genre. While the Champions RPG is not the Marvel (or DC, or whatever) universe, I think its worthwhile to look at how our simulation reflects, or does not reflect, the genre which it simulates.

 

Sure. What I'm saying is that you shouldnt be surprised, dismayed, or even concerned when they don't match up (which they very frequently wont), and if you find yourself trying too hard to force the issue you'll just get frustrated. Any conversion from source is at best a close approximation.

[Vulcan]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

My understanding of the 'powers in EC must cost END' is a balancing issue.

 

The theory (as I understand it) is that since you can have all your EC powers active at one time, the combined END cost is the real limitation on the use of EC's.

 

I don't neccessarily agree with it but there you are.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Or make them visible as an overriding default. IPE is available in ECs too.

 

Seems that my Light Powers EC, including warping light around me (Invisibility) and a Focused Laser Beam (IPE) is illegal. Oh well - those concepts really aren't related to light powers, are they?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Assuming I were to accept this explanation, why would the rules not say "powers which are not visible by default must take the "visible" limitation"?

 

In any case, most mental powers cost END, are invisible by default (to all but mental senses) and would be legitimate inclusions in an EC: Mental Powers.

 

Hugh, I think you are hacking away at my statement without attempting to see trying to see the spirit behind it.

 

Two of the key components of EC's are the way Adjustment powers affect them and their common recognizable special effect. Even mental powers are visible to other mentalists unless the IPE Advantage is applied.

 

What would you do if a player came to you as a GM and wanted to build a character with the ability to make using superpowers harder for others? He's not necessarily Draining or Suppressing the powers per se but rather increasing their END cost. How would you build such an effect and would it interact differently with powers inside an EC than those outside?

[Istaran]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Seems that my Light Powers EC' date=' including warping light around me (Invisibility) and a Focused Laser Beam (IPE) is illegal. Oh well - those concepts really aren't related to light powers, are they? [/quote']

 

They are neither illegal now nor under my off the cuff suggestion. Actually, they wouldn't even be affected by my suggestion. The effect would be that powers such as Armor would gain implied Visible when put in an EC, and then could be bought with IPE to change that if desired.

[Istaran]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

What would you do if a player came to you as a GM and wanted to build a character with the ability to make using superpowers harder for others? He's not necessarily Draining or Suppressing the powers per se but rather increasing their END cost. How would you build such an effect and would it interact differently with powers inside an EC than those outside?

 

Random thought: Make up an 1 pt adder that can be applied to any power:

New Adder:

Costly

You pay the END cost for this adder as normal. It doesn't do anything else. You can apply this adder to a power as many times as you wish.

 

Then have the character build an Aid or Succor with the "Can add Adders" Advantage. And have them run around adding "Costly" to everyone else's powers all day.

That will really hit EC guy hard if he bought Armor (Costs END) and such. Not so bad if he bought Force Field (0 END) though. (You really don't want to be the guy with x5 END powers.)

[Tech]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Ok this may be a stupid question, and it may come up a ton, but why would anyone ever take an Elemental Control power framework over a Multipower? It seems that multipower is just always better from a point cost standpoint?

 

Sorry if this comes up often.

 

Why use an Elemental Control? Because it's fun!

Why use a Multipower? Because it's fun!

 

This definitive non-answer brought to you by the makers of Brighto!

Larry: Is it for drinking?

Curly: Is it for cleaning?

Moe: It's for selling... (bop!)

[JmOz]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

First' date=' good luck getting a GM to allow skill levels in a power framework [i']at all[/i], much less allow 8 of them! I've never met a GM who would.

 

And taking Doc's example a bit further, the 15 points saved can be used to raise the MP reserve to 60 AP, but that still leaves you well short of being able to use 2 powers at full capacity, much less all 3. The EC, on the other hand, allows the use of all three, at full capacity, all the time.

 

The real utility of the MP is for easy expansion. For a mere handful of points, another slot can be added to the MP. It often takes 20 or more points to add a new slot to an EC.

 

Hi, My name is Jason, I am a GM who often allows skill levels, combat skill levels, and penalty skill levels in a MP if it makes sense (but I do require them to be the level that allows them to be modified by limitations so 5 point for CSL's, etc...)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Hugh, I think you are hacking away at my statement without attempting to see trying to see the spirit behind it.

 

Two of the key components of EC's are the way Adjustment powers affect them and their common recognizable special effect. Even mental powers are visible to other mentalists unless the IPE Advantage is applied.

 

What would you do if a player came to you as a GM and wanted to build a character with the ability to make using superpowers harder for others? He's not necessarily Draining or Suppressing the powers per se but rather increasing their END cost. How would you build such an effect and would it interact differently with powers inside an EC than those outside?

 

There's no reason it would interact differently with powers in an EC than those outside it. As to construction, some form of continuous triggered END Drain would seem like the approach, but it would be an ugly construct (like any construct designed to act based on an opponent's actions).

 

They are neither illegal now nor under my off the cuff suggestion. Actually' date=' they wouldn't even be affected by my suggestion. The effect would be that powers such as Armor would gain implied Visible when put in an EC, and then could be bought with IPE to change that if desired.[/quote']

 

So all non-visible powers lose their non-visible status by default (ie are penalized) by being placed in an EC. I'm not seeing this as an improvement. To me, it seems no less arbitrary than "they all have to cost END, but you can buy them 0 END if you want to, unless you had to put Costs END on them".

[Istaran]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

So all non-visible powers lose their non-visible status by default (ie are penalized) by being placed in an EC. I'm not seeing this as an improvement. To me, it seems no less arbitrary than "they all have to cost END, but you can buy them 0 END if you want to, unless you had to put Costs END on them".

I'm perfectly okay with just throwing the current END based requirements for EC out the window. I simply completely don't understand the purpose. For what it's worth though, the current system does already do what my proposal does, with the singular odd exception of Density Increase (which is inherently IPE despite costing END). Any other power in an EC is Visible by default, since Costs END makes it Visible.

 

My suggestion is less intrusive than the current EC rules but maintains the Visibility concept that Hyperman suggested was the purpose of the rule. I don't really think that is a purpose I subscribe to, but I have shown you how I would achieve it. Your idea of "powers which are not visible by default must take the "visible" limitation" would be much the same sort of mess as we have now with END costs: you would only be able to have IPE on powers that normally don't have it, but not on ones that do. My suggestion makes it so all powers can exist with or without END cost, with or without Visibility, and with or without being Persistant. The one big difference is normally IPE powers have to pay the same for IPE within the framework as other powers.

 

If you take it that part of the limitation that justifies the point break for ECs is that people can see all your powers and see that they are obviously related and therefore guess that a Drain might hurt them all.. then it stands to reason that protecting against that observation by using IPE should be expensive for all powers, not just some.

 

I'm not really convinced, but I think there is some truth to it.

[Vulcan]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Hi' date=' My name is Jason, I am a GM who often allows skill levels, combat skill levels, and penalty skill levels in a MP if it makes sense (but I do require them to be the level that allows them to be modified by limitations so 5 point for CSL's, etc...)[/quote']

 

Hi JmOz, I'm Vulcan. Glad to meet you!

 

Now I can say I have met a GM who will allow it...

[JmOz]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Hi JmOz, I'm Vulcan. Glad to meet you!

 

Now I can say I have met a GM who will allow it...

 

Good to meet you. Actualy I have not found it to be that abusive, as long as we keep to the basic rule of "Effect before mechanic". If I am building a Shield weilder, like Captain America, having a slot with DCV levels (Shield Block) and another with EB (Shield Throw) is not abusive as it is effect based, now if I just want to cram all my skill levels into a MP to save points yah that can be abusive

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Hi' date=' My name is Jason, I am a GM who often allows skill levels, combat skill levels, and penalty skill levels in a MP if it makes sense (but I do require them to be the level that allows them to be modified by limitations so 5 point for CSL's, etc...)[/quote']

 

I allow it too, if it makes sense for a character's MP. Like a super speedster, or a force field MP, a shield (actually, official shields put DCV levels in an MP), etc. You just have to enforce the activation of powers and allocation of skill levels rules correctly (which you should be doing anyway), and it all works out fine. Some characters could of course be built around abusing it, but that's a factor of other effects being introduced rather than an intrinsic problem with the basic idea of levels in an MP.

 

 

I also allow it for VPP's; spells that grant bonuses for instance are a good use case for it.

 

 

I can't recall every allowing it in an EC, but the points are usually so low on levels and the need to cost END make it impractical anyway. Fundamentally I'd allow it if a particular build made sense in context. I'd definitely allow it as part of compound / linked power arrangement.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

I think we have to face the simple fact that the limitations on ECs are there to balance the added point utility, and so are the limtiations on MPs.

 

They don't make sense except in that context, which is why ignoring them and allowing frameworks doesn't make much sense either.

 

Can anyone think of other interesting ways in which we can balance the point utility of frameworks.

[Marcus]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

I'll admit, it always seemed to me that the point of frameworks was to let 'powers' characters work, especially when the 'powers' characters have more-than-three powers (formally, Flight, EB, and FF).

 

Theres an awful lot of powers that, lets be honest, you just wont buy at full value. For those things, theres ECs. That cutesy change environment that costs 60 points and mostly makes it rain. The entirely character-appropriate Damage Shield, 4d6 Energy Blast.

 

Those are the things that make me glad ECs and MPs exist, to reflect the decreased utility of buying additional powers, especially additional powers that arent 1.) Big Attack Power, 2.) Big Defense Power, and 3.) Big Movement Power.

[JmOz]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

I think we have to face the simple fact that the limitations on ECs are there to balance the added point utility, and so are the limtiations on MPs.

 

They don't make sense except in that context, which is why ignoring them and allowing frameworks doesn't make much sense either.

 

Can anyone think of other interesting ways in which we can balance the point utility of frameworks.

 

Also, and especialy EC's they are late additions to the system, I personaly feel that EC's especialy balance very nicely with the whole figured characteristics issue. Put another way they balance the Brick (High Str type) with the Blaster (Flight/EB/FF) type...

[Kdansky]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

I recommend using VPPs and MPs, but utterly ignoring ECs. They are cumbersome and weirdly priced and generally only work in Champions as a setting. If you want to use their concept, use

 

Unified Power (-1/4)

 

on all powers that are Drained As One and have the same SFX. Not only does it make calculations a lot easier, it doesn't bother about end costs or AP costs and so on. And in the end, it actually saves a comparable amount of points (a bit less, which is usually justified since EC isn't very limiting to the character).

 

Why do we have ECs? Because it's a relic from older editions. That does not make them any good though, only old. Figureds? Yeah, those are unbalanced too and nobody can stop a character from having figureds AND an EC. As I demonstrated countless times, you can usually rebuild any blaster with AP-capped strength instead of whatever he had to begin with without losing anything important (you might have 18" flight instead of 20" in the end, but you gain 60 strength vs 10, hardly a difficult comparison in utility, since str is incredibly useful at all times for all characters).

[Vulcan]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

But what if I don't want to play a Energy Projector with a 60 STR? Does your dislike of EC's mean that I am forced to use your builds just to stay competative?

 

I don't think so.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

But what if I don't want to play a Energy Projector with a 60 STR? Does your dislike of EC's mean that I am forced to use your builds just to stay competative?

 

I'm not sure that the two sentences follow.

 

You may not want to play an Energy Projector with 60 STR, but someone else in the team does. They can do that and be competitive with you on everything else.

 

Kdansky is simply pointing out that the system ensures that there is an incentive to tag on the STR as there is essentially no downside to it.

 

Why not have the extra STR - it comes in handy in many situations such as breaking out of that entangle. A 3 DEF 3 BODY entangle can delay a STR 10 Energy Projector but if he had 60 STR then a casual us of his STR would allow that to be broken and still have time to launch a ranged attack on his opponents.

 

You are not 'forced' to use any build but if the system allows things then certain builds can be much more effective if you want to be competitive (though there is nothing in an RPG that dictates you have to be combat competitive with your fellow gamers).

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Why not have the extra STR - it comes in handy in many situations such as breaking out of that entangle. A 3 DEF 3 BODY entangle can delay a STR 10 Energy Projector but if he had 60 STR then a casual us of his STR would allow that to be broken and still have time to launch a ranged attack on his opponents.

 

Simple answer: other attacks should also be usable as "casual" with rules the same as casual STR. The Brick can charge through a 2 DEF/2 BOD wall using half his 60 STR. The EP should be able to Casually blast through the same wall with half his 12d6 EB, and the guy with the claws should be able to Casually claw through with half his KA.

 

For some reason, we keep adding new abilities to STR, but not to other attack powers. I'd rather see the effectiveness of STR being converted to ranged attacks sharply curtailed, and abilities like "Casual Use" extended over other attack powers. I would note that:

 

- the FAQ notes that Grabbing is an attack action and that, while you can throw as part of a Grab, if you want to target someone else with that throw, you CANNOT do that as part of the Grab, but must use another attack action. This should make its way to 6e.

 

- 5e extended many combat maneuvers to attacks other than STR. Casual Use could easily be made a combat maneuver to apply to other attacks.

 

- the Brick did not pay for the objects he throws - they should be considered non-proficient.

 

- it would make sense to apply some Encumbrance rules when the Brick lifts and throws heavy objects.

 

I think this gets crossed to 6e.