Elemental Controls

[Tech]

It's interesting reading, I'll say. I have my own houserule version of EC that I use. It's not 5th ed EC but it works.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

Let me clarify my EC position...My house rule is that anythings in an EC automatically costs END...there is no limitation. You may buy these powers to 0 END and persistant. Which defeats the purposes of the munchkin, but the concept people see to-may-toes and toe-ma-toes.

 

Well, it makes full (50 base) Life Support worth 100 points, or 67 if you accept that "always on" is a limitation (not sure why you would for life support...). If your EC already has 100 point powers in it, you pay the same for life support inside or outside. I think I'd take it outside and avoid the extra impact of drains.

 

Essentially, this comes back to just another way to make the cost higher if it goes in an EC. My question is, if Life Support is worth 50 points and 10d6 Energy Blast is worth 50 points, why is it OK to reduce the cost of Energy Blast by having it in an EC, but not OK to reduce the cost of Life Support? Is EB overpriced, or life support underpriced, to justify this differing treatment? If so, change the price. If not, why is it (and other o END powers) singled out for special treatment in this regard?

 

Originally posted by Farkling

On the subject of misc oddball defenses (Mental/Power/Flash), your special effects and justification for scores over 20 need to be bloody good in an EC. Concept people...no problem. Munchkins prefer to gnash their teeth at my "changeing the rules"

 

On the one hand, I'm inclined to agree that justification for 20+ points in any of those defenses needs to be pretty good, EC or not. On the other hand, if you want to waste ANOTHER 20 points on flash defense, who am I to tell you "no"? When's the last time you saw a 20 BOD flash attack anyway? There's always AVLD, but a 6d6 (75 AB) AVLD will be getting 1 stun a shot on someone with 20 flash defense. Personally, I'll pay 10 points for Flash Defense outside my EC. I don't need 50 points' flash defense, my 50 point EX doesn't support any less and I'm not spending 15 more points for DEF I'll never use.

 

Power and Mental defenses have a bit more value at the high end, of course. I can't think of many valid special effects for power defense in an EC. Mental defense for mental powers makes sense, I suppose, but again not many other effects. There's always the "Android Body" effect, but that's a racial EC to me, and I have to accept all androids have that much power defense or I won't allow it in the EC.

 

I don't often see EC's small enough that 10 or 20 point powers fit effectively anywa.

 

Maybe my players are especially reasonable, as they've never asked for an EC of this nature. Maybe I'm not aggressive enough since I've never tried to set one up for my character (thought about it once or twice...)

 

As for changing the rules, I believe we have the standard intro that the GM is the final arbitrator of what the rules are. In challenging my rules calls, the munchkins are breaking the rules anyway. Personally, if I depart from the rules, I'll tell people up front "Yep, I'm changing them". Generally, I think I'm pretty lenient, but then I also don't use canned characters "as written", and they get the same benefits the players do.

 

Something to remember - if you can have an "EC: Exotic Defenses", bet on a lot of your opponents having the same thing. Or having extra dice with some limit or other that gelds your excessive defenses, while not being worth using on the other opponents. Hey, I'll tell you once, maybe twice, if I think the ability (or character) is unreasonable. After that, it's not worth the hassle - I'll just make sure the opposition gets equalized in a manner that negates your unfair advantage withut punishing those who chose to heed the voice of reason.

[Farkling]

Hmm...I hadn't thought about the full Life Support package...ugh. I hate making exemptions. I guess I may have to re-examine my ruling. Where IS that copy of MetaCreator?

 

My logic is that a 6d6 Energy Blast at 0 END with Armor Piercing or Penetrating is usually less useful (game impacting) than the "free EC" break of 65 Mental Defense for the same pricing. So I artificially infalte the cost instead of just saying "nope, against the rules." Players are usually happy to come and say "I'd like Mental Defense in my EC, but this is a little more than my concept" I have compromise material ready. The limitation applied outside the EC, or being inside the EC with the character neding to cope with END expenditure.

 

Come to think of it, the Reserve using character thought it was neat that there was actually a "decision" as to how much Power Defense to have up out of the 40 points worth. The Power Defense backed up the opinion of "I'm a God...it is VERY difficult to Drain or Suppress a God's powers when he puts his mind overcoming adversity." It's a good schtick...our friendly God usually has 1-2 END of Powere Defense running.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

My logic is that a 6d6 Energy Blast at 0 END with Armor Piercing or Penetrating is usually less useful (game impacting) than the "free EC" break of 65 Mental Defense for the same pricing. So I artificially infalte the cost instead of just saying "nope, against the rules."

 

It's a general hallmark of the system that defense costs less than attack. It just means you don't spend the same amount on defense as offense.

 

Try this: "I wouldn't let you have a 65 PD or a 65 ED. Why would you think I'll allow 65 Mental Defense?" Hey, if you can buy a 65 Mental Defense, why shouldn't other characters get to buy DEF 65 against YOUR attacks? That tends to result in a much more reasonable character rewrite.

[Mentor]

Originally posted by OddHat

Different issue. Unless I'm majorly spacing on the rules, powers bought to 0 End in ECs are fine. It's inherently 0 End powers (LS, Power Def, Mental Def, etc.) and Characteristics that shouldn't be placed in ECs. A FF allows you to place defences in your EC, even if you buty the force field down to 0 End.

Armor and Damage Resistance are commonly used non END using powers players often request in ECs. Ultimately buying a Force Field down to 0 END costs the same but the concept must be reasonable as must the special effect. Armor and Damage Resistance then become expensive but don't go down when the PC is stunned. Too useful to allow in an EC 90% of the time.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Mentor

Armor and Damage Resistance are commonly used non END using powers players often request in ECs. Ultimately buying a Force Field down to 0 END costs the same but the concept must be reasonable as must the special effect. Armor and Damage Resistance then become expensive but don't go down when the PC is stunned. Too useful to allow in an EC 90% of the time.

 

This is the problem I have with the whole issue of certain powers not being allowed in an EC. If the power is "too cheap", why don't we make it more expensive for ALL characters, not just for those who have an EC it would reasonably fit in?

 

If Armor or Damage Resistance are "too useful to allow in an EC", but force field is not "too useful to allow in an EC", this seems to imply that Force Field is "too overpriced to buy outside an EC" and it would be better to buy armor. In other words, force field is overpriced (or armor is underpriced). Yet no one is suggesting we change the costs of the powers outside an EC, only prohibit the cost break in an EC.

 

Why is saving half the cost of a force field by including it in an EC not a problem, but saving half the cost of armor by having that power in an EC is unbalancing?

 

 

[Farkling]

I dunno. I picture EC's as being a cost break because of the the linked special effects...that's how it works in my head. In other words, everything is supposed to be a modification (modulation?) of the chosen form of energy expenditures. Weather witches, Iceman, Nuclearman, The Human Bomb... allowing powers that do NOT require inherent energy expenditure seems retro design concept to me. So I let people put what they please in an EC, and it costs END when it is put in there. They can proceed to buy it down, off, or persistant from there.

 

I also personally feel that EC's should allow for reasonably common or discernable flaws to exist in the powers. The force field fails with stunning or unconsciousness (unless appropriate prices are paid)...having powers in an EC that are inherently equal value with no flaws...that's doesn't work for me. The convoluted logic being that the character should at least be required to 'set up' the power to run by itself. Armor and Damage Resistance "always are" regardless. A persistant power though, must be turned on. I do not allow Inherent in EC's...as of yet. ( I may someday see a good reason)

 

However, Your Mileage May Vary.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

I dunno. I picture EC's as being a cost break because of the the linked special effects...that's how it works in my head. In other words, everything is supposed to be a modification (modulation?) of the chosen form of energy expenditures. Weather witches, Iceman, Nuclearman, The Human Bomb... allowing powers that do NOT require inherent energy expenditure seems retro design concept to me. So I let people put what they please in an EC, and it costs END when it is put in there. They can proceed to buy it down, off, or persistant from there.

 

Funny...you list lots of good examples of EC's, but what I see is:

 

Weather Witches - Isn't missile defelection using the wind a logical power in that EC?

 

Iceman - say, doesn't he have Armor? Armor that doesn't melt on knockout, too?

 

Say, those are both illegal in an EC, aren't they?

 

Nuclearman - sorry, never heard of him.

 

Human Bomb - not sure he would have an EC (if we're both thinking of the Golden Age/Freedom Fighter character).

 

What about EC: Luck Powers? Well, you can have one, but you can't put Luck in it!

 

Healing is OK for your EC, but not Aid, by the way.

 

Something's wrong with this picture...

 

Originally posted by Farkling

I also personally feel that EC's should allow for reasonably common or discernable flaws to exist in the powers. The force field fails with stunning or unconsciousness (unless appropriate prices are paid)...having powers in an EC that are inherently equal value with no flaws...that's doesn't work for me. The convoluted logic being that the character should at least be required to 'set up' the power to run by itself. Armor and Damage Resistance "always are" regardless. A persistant power though, must be turned on. I do not allow Inherent in EC's...as of yet. ( I may someday see a good reason)

 

If a power has "no flaws", it should not cost the same as "an inherently equal value" power which does have flaws, should it?

[DevoDog]

Originally posted by Farkling

I dunno. I picture EC's as being a cost break because of the the linked special effects...that's how it works in my head. In other words, everything is supposed to be a modification (modulation?) of the chosen form of energy expenditures. Weather witches, Iceman, Nuclearman, The Human Bomb... allowing powers that do NOT require inherent energy expenditure seems retro design concept to me. So I let people put what they please in an EC, and it costs END when it is put in there. They can proceed to buy it down, off, or persistant from there.

 

I tend to agree with Farkling on this one.

 

I've been playing the Hero system since 1st Edition of Champions. Talk about changes in EC's since then!

 

I tend to be of the mind-set that an EC is a control of some type of energy. So, things like EC: Android Body might be allowed (since it's simply control over a character's internet electronic/mechanical systems), I would disallow EC: Vampire Power or EC: Kryptonian Powers.

 

I don't agree with the new ruling on adjustment powers affecting all powers in an EC. Adjustment powers already have an option to affect all powers of a certain SFX.

 

I'll have to give some more consideration to allowing powers that don't normally cost END in an EC. Someone made the point that Armor is basically Force Field with advantages (0 END, Persistent, and Invisible). If you go back to 1-3 edition of Champions, END costs were higher and reduced END costs were much more expensive. So, Armor wasn't simply the same as a FF with those advantages.

[Farkling]

Hmmm....you know, thinking back to first edition...perhaps this is just a holdover rule?

 

After all, much power rebalancing has happened. Does anyone on this thread have access to a large quantity of published characters? Do the stock characters from the Champions Universe violate the no END rule? This an interesting question to consider... Think of the abuse though, I can buy +20/+20 Armor in one slot, and then buy +20/+20 Force Field at 0 END on top of it. And I have NOT violated the campaign power limits, or the campaign defense limit. I can use them both. At once. If I can't, I get a FURTHER discount for the additional limitation... I'm invulnerable. Now you must crush me with the GM's Fiat. *sounds of engine starting in the distance*

 

As to the weather witch....we ddin't go with missile deflection, we bought DCV levels that cost END, to special effect the fact that she had to maintain that tornado around her. Rolling a block was too fine of control for her...her hurricane force wind attack was a VERY crude TK effect. The effect IN the EC was a seperate Force Field slot.

 

I've seen Iceman done with Armor and a Multipower. You can put Armor in a Multipower, thought the construction I saw had it outside. (Safety rule:: Never put movement, attack AND defense in a Multipower unless the reserve is far larger than campaign limits. Or your SPD is superb. Half Power attack/defense is not real effective). He pretty much has multiple cold attacks, runnning, and entangles. In light of the long discussion on Force Walls I got into, I would drop the force wall and just go with a barrier entangle as a seperate slot.

 

Nuclearman was a cheap shot. It's from an in-house storyline. He wanted a few lifesupport powers in his EC. He instead bought them linked to his force field. Under the FREd rules he'd probably add the 'similar powers' limitation also...he was kind of a munchkin at times...

 

The Human Bomb...yeah...it was the guy in the asbestos suit I was thinking of. The EC 'could' have an explosive attack with personal immunity, a BIG explosive attack dependent on his suit being destroyed (without personal immunity) and enough Regeneration to raise him from the dead afterwards...I think the cost break would be better on the seperate powers...why use an EC ??

 

Yes, regeneration can go in an EC, check the construction. It DOES cost END....it has simply been bought down to persistant.

(winces at posting this in public for the munchkins to see)

 

I am also against EC:: *Alien Race* Powers or EC:: *Monster* Powers. I'm the GM, I don't need Elemental Controls to justify the expenditures...and any character showing up with one of these needs to rethink his concept. I do allow "rider" limitations for effects like that...a block limitation for "vampiric powers" is more acceptable to me than an EC. The limitation makes the power vulnerable to the "Special Effect" modifier on the Power Atttacks. I also tend to shy away from EC:: Cybernetics. Again, I prefer a widely applied "cybernetic" or "restrainable" limitation instead (depending on the size of the "Shadowrun" feel I am searching for). It's personal taste and preference. I also only allow one Framework per character (in Supers level games)...and have yet to find a character with a justified exemption. (Though one of my PC's has a good oppurtunity for it)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

Hmmm....you know, thinking back to first edition...perhaps this is just a holdover rule?

 

After all, much power rebalancing has happened. Does anyone on this thread have access to a large quantity of published characters? Do the stock characters from the Champions Universe violate the no END rule? This an interesting question to consider...

 

There has been a lot of rebalancing over the years. The "must cost END is a 5th Ed change, however - 4th uses a werewolf example with Damage Reduction. Frankly, I just don't see the abuvse.

 

I haven't looked at the CU characters, although Icicle in the example lost her armor in favour of a 0 END force field.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

Think of the abuse though, I can buy +20/+20 Armor in one slot, and then buy +20/+20 Force Field at 0 END on top of it. And I have NOT violated the campaign power limits, or the campaign defense limit. I can use them both. At once. If I can't, I get a FURTHER discount for the additional limitation... I'm invulnerable. Now you must crush me with the GM's Fiat. *sounds of engine starting in the distance*

 

It would violate MY campaign defense limits, as I look at total defenses. It would also violate my "common sense" limit. I wouldn;t allow it outside an EC either, however. If your conception and special effect justified both armor and force field, I would have no problem having them in the EC. But it's not going to take your overall defenses over my limits - if it will, you'll have to reduce them.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

As to the weather witch....we ddin't go with missile deflection, we bought DCV levels that cost END

 

Fair enough, and I would allow that as well. Note, however, that you are breaking a different rule now. Skills as a power are "special powers", which aren't allowed in ANY power framework without GM permission. As they aren't allowed in any framework, it follows they are ven more abusive than powers costing no END, which are only banned from EC's.

 

I've seen Iceman done with Armor and a Multipower. You can put Armor in a Multipower, thought the construction I saw had it outside. He pretty much has multiple cold attacks, runnning, and entangles. In light of the long discussion on Force Walls I got into, I would drop the force wall and just go with a barrier entangle as a seperate slot.

 

And that's a legit way to build him. Equally legit, however, would be an EC with Running, Armor and perhaps Force Wall, a change environment related to his ice powers or what have you. Attack powers are more effectively placed in an MP, especially with the rule that EC powers can't multiple power attack. [isn't the EC ineffective enough for buying multiple attacks? May get too effective if mutiple power attacks are allowed.]

 

The Human Bomb...yeah...it was the guy in the asbestos suit I was thinking of. The EC 'could' have an explosive attack with personal immunity, a BIG explosive attack dependent on his suit being destroyed (without personal immunity) and enough Regeneration to raise him from the dead afterwards...I think the cost break would be better on the seperate powers...why use an EC ??

 

I built an homage once for a game I was running with a WWII time travel scenario. He got a hand attack (gloves on), an explosion w/ personal immunity and a big explosion w/ pers immun, and a number of limitations, if the suit was off. EC would have been extra-costly.

 

Yes, regeneration can go in an EC, check the construction. It DOES cost END....it has simply been bought down to persistant. (winces at posting this in public for the munchkins to see)

 

This just highlights the absurdity of the whole issue. If considered as a separate power (and it is - Healing has a cap on how much can be healed in a time period), Regeneration is ineligible because it costs no END. If it's considered an advantaged/limited Heal, now it can go in an EC. What if it had been built as an AID construct with an advantage "No fade of points up to character's base" and a limit " only to restore lost points"? Now it's ineligible again. But it's exactly the same power!

 

Originally posted by Farkling

I am also against EC:: *Alien Race* Powers or EC:: *Monster* Powers. I'm the GM, I don't need Elemental Controls to justify the expenditures...and any character showing up with one of these needs to rethink his concept. I do allow "rider" limitations for effects like that...a block limitation for "vampiric powers" is more acceptable to me than an EC.

 

I can see the racial EC, with FREd's caveats, but I think the limitations are more appropriate. These are also "natural state" powers in many cases which should be inherent and, given the big drawback of an EC is the adjustment powers impact, it seems reasonable to ban Inherent powers from EC's anyway.

 

Besides, I really don't see the link between Multiform (3 animal forms), Desolid, Transform and Mind Control subject to range penalties. Just because they are traditional Vampire powers doesn't mean they should carry a cost break. Strength, Flight, EB and Damage Resistance (or Armor) are traditional Superman powers, and that shouldn't be an EC either!

 

"He's an alien" or "he's a werewolf" is how he got his powers, not a special effect. EC is about special effects.

[Farkling]

Clarification....the DCV levels were OUTSIDE the EC

 

And after that thread on Force Walls, and Steve's observations, I would definitely build the walls as an Entangle... force walls are definitely meant ot be enery constructs. Entangles can be tunneled....force walls cannot.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

Clarification....the DCV levels were OUTSIDE the EC

 

Yet they were a perfectly valid power tightly linked to the character's special effects. Realistically, I would say they were an appropriate EC power. As such, I would waive the "no special powers" rule for that construct.

 

What I would not do is allow the character's DCV to be unbalancingly high. How high is that? Well, it depends - is it offset by other weaknesses? A 14 DCV might be allowable, but not for a character with 30 PD/30 ED resistant. Maybe I'd allow both if the character is below campaign norms in other respects (perhaps offensive capability is only 6 or 8 DC where the norm is 12-14 DC). It always depends - the system itself is a balancing act.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

And after that thread on Force Walls, and Steve's observations, I would definitely build the walls as an Entangle... force walls are definitely meant to be energy constructs. Entangles can be tunneled....force walls cannot.

 

I agree based on Steve's comments (forgot about those). Transform (air into ice) may be another approach - now we have an ability to create solid objects "out of thin air". That wasn't around when people were building earth ramparts as force walls in Champions supplements (Megan Pearce; The Circle)

[Farkling]

Here's my observation on the Transform...instead of transforming air, by buy the Transform as "ice" or "my entangles" as the valid target...Now you throw the entangle (which creates a large amount of ice by special effects) and morph it "on the fly" with your transform. RSR for the Transform, defined as Ice Powers skill. Heck, now you even have a BODY/Active Points Total to affect with the Entangle. Fooey on the air modifier and the air transform.

 

Of course, that is for the columns, artificial walls, igloos, etc that we construct with Ice Powers....

 

Freezing someone in a block of ice could be a Transform or an Entangle....Entangle mechanics seem better for a combat prison effect...

 

Now OUTSIDE of combat....4D6 Major Transform, target into "corpsicle", Transform reversed by being submerged in warm ocean water for a sufficient period...

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

Here's my observation on the Transform...instead of transforming air, by buy the Transform as "ice" or "my entangles" as the valid target...Now you throw the entangle (which creates a large amount of ice by special effects) and morph it "on the fly" with your transform. RSR for the Transform, defined as Ice Powers skill. Heck, now you even have a BODY/Active Points Total to affect with the Entangle. Fooey on the air modifier and the air transform.

 

This will also work. The Transform should be less expensive (air to ice vs. ice to ice in different shapes), but you now need two phases, one to entangle and one to shape. They're both reasonable approaches, IMO. I'd require some kind of skill roll to Transform air to ice in a specific configuration, so that's a cost over and above the transform.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

Of course, that is for the columns, artificial walls, igloos, etc that we construct with Ice Powers....

 

Freezing someone in a block of ice could be a Transform or an Entangle....Entangle mechanics seem better for a combat prison effect...

 

That's what Entangle is for anyway. I might let you use a Major Transform (air into ice) to freeze a target in a solid block of ice, but I'd probably limit it to an Entangle effect of the same dice as the Transform, so you're looking at a weaker effect since Transform costs more. Better to take the Entangle and Transform both in a Multipower.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

Now OUTSIDE of combat....4D6 Major Transform, target into "corpsicle", Transform reversed by being submerged in warm ocean water for a sufficient period...

 

Transform - live creatureinto dead creature. RKA NND Does Body - frozen from the inside out. OUCH!