So, what do you need?

[Sean Waters]

Lots of talk about changing what we've got, made me think that, perhaps, rather than spreading what we have thinner, we ought to look at where there are holes and see if we can plug them with something new.

 

To warrant a new power or characteristic or whatever you'd have to be able to show that either Hero can not do it at present or it can but the build or handwaving is just excessive.

 

I'm thinking that we could do with a power to control stuff. 'Control' seems like a good name for it.

 

Now you can do animate matter with summon or telekinesis, or perhaps with a sort of mind control, but none of them cover the simple brief 'can control a substance or object' (so you could make a gun fire on its own, or a computer screen display a message).

 

Control would allow you to do with a device whatever an operator could do - switch it on and off, for instance. If the object were a car you could effectively drive it as if you had an invisible driver obeying your commands, and if the object were a computer you could get it to run programs or display/send messages, format its hard drive or whatever. if the object was a gun you could get it to fire. It is up to the GM to decide what is within the normal parameters of operation, for instance a gun might be able to fire buy might not be able to aim itself.

 

You should not generally use control to move objects unless they can move as part of their normal operation (so you could get a helicopter to move but not a kettle).

 

Generally control allows you to do what a single operator could do.

 

Single object: 10 points

Class of objects: 20 points

Large class of objects: 30 points

Any mechanical device OR any electrical device 40

Twice the number of virtual operators +5 points

 

Thoughts?

 

Any areas where the rules look a bit threadbare, even if it is in simulating a particular sfx?

[ghost-angel]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

Steve wrote up a similar Power called Activate in Digital Hero.

He used the 10/20/30 structure you have just to activate (turn on/off, fire a gun, etc).

 

It's also suggested Continuous might be a good Advantage for this power. It's similar to what you have there.

[Sean Waters]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

A great mind seldom differs

[spaceprincessecho]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

It's also suggested Continuous might be a good Advantage for this power. It's similar to what you have there.

 

It could just as easily be made a Constant power by default - which would seem reasonable to me (more reasonable, in the instance of most machines).

[Lord Liaden]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

IMHO we really need an official way to do "Melee Reflection," the HTH counterpart to Missile Reflection. Rules-legal constructs I've seen, including suggestions by Steve Long, are complicated patchworks of Damage Shield, Stretching, Trigger, or the much-maligned Variable Power Pool.

 

In my own games I've sometimes used the Reflection Adder from Missile Deflection as a Naked Adder for the Block Maneuver, which after all is free to all characters, and mechanically almost identical against HTH attacks as MD is against Ranged ones. However, I've never quite worked out how to cost giving this "Melee Reflection" a Ranged capacity, e.g. Reflecting HTH damage to a third party some distance away, or possibly Blocking a HTH attack against a third party. Missile Deflection has its own version of the Ranged Advantage, but that's applied to the whole cost of MD plus Reflection, which is less than my proposed Naked Adder. Moreover, Block already has an option for protecting someone in an adjacent hex, while MD requires a +1/2 Advantage to allow it to do that.

[BNakagawa]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

I'm not a big fan of this sort of thing, because the cost and effect are entirely unrelated.

 

For a paltry handful of points, you could build the power to activate (that is, detonate) any nuclear warhead in the world.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

Good point. There would, presumably, be range issues, but megascale isn’t that expensive. I wouldn’t disregard the idea as a whole, but it would probably need to be better defined. Of course, like almost all things in Hero, some of it comes down to common sense and GM discretion.

[JmOz]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

Maybe switch it to the transform model of 5/10/15, then make it a die roll vs a complexity/stability value based on something or other (A car is easier to use than a nuke)...just spitting in the wind, have not given it much thought

[BNakagawa]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

Maybe switch it to the transform model of 5/10/15' date=' then make it a die roll vs a complexity/stability value based on something or other (A car is easier to use than a nuke)...just spitting in the wind, have not given it much thought[/quote']

 

That sort of depends, A manual transmission car requires a lot more (and analog) inputs than a primitive nuclear warhead...

[Sean Waters]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

I'm not a big fan of this sort of thing, because the cost and effect are entirely unrelated.

 

For a paltry handful of points, you could build the power to activate (that is, detonate) any nuclear warhead in the world.

 

Not entirely.

 

First of all there are plenty of relatively arbitrary costings in Hero. Second, to detonate stuff you can't see you'll need targeting powers and plenty of advantages that up the cost. This would obviously have to be a STOP power.

 

Secondly I did have in mind a sort of cost structure. Basically what I'm imagining is that you operate the device, which is a kind of random thing, in terms of cost - transform doesn't necessarily work well because something with a lot of power does not necessarily have a lot of Body, and vice versa BUT you could operate any piece of kit if you had an operator or some sort of tech there to do it for you.

 

To summon a creature that has 10 points in the relevant operational skills, and is permanently desolid, but can affect the real world with STR, you'd need to summon a 125 point creature.

 

A 125 point creature costs 25 points to summon. If the limitation for 'only to operate a specific device' is -1 1/2 then the power costs 10 points.

 

It is very rough and ready, but it is a sort of structure. Arguably it should be twice that cost to make it 'totally loyal'.

 

It would be a continuous power (summoned creatures stay around) but no range as a default. You'd probably need lots of them to operate a nuke (and you'd need megacale range and indirect too, probably).

 

Anyway, that is what I'm basing my costs on but in a sort of 'that's so kludgy it deserves a seperate power' type of stylee.

[BNakagawa]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

That's useful, posting your rationale behind your suggested power, that being the relative cost to summon a creature capable of operating such a device.

 

It also points out the flaw in your reasoning.

 

Your creature is merely capable of operating the device while not being affected by mundane limitations like locks or being assaulted or interfered with by physical beings.

 

However, the point is that a powerful device is (generally) paid for in points, which is not accounted for in your scheme. A device such as a garage door opener is fine when activated by a 20 active point power.

 

A device such as an infinitely expensive doomsday device is rather less fine when activated by a 20 active point power.

 

By investing the points in an expensive device, the purchaser is also buying the right to use it at their discretion. (assuming they didn't do something retarded like buying it with the independent limitation)

 

And what about trigger locks or codes needed for operation? How does your power account for these?

 

What about devices within devices? What's to stop someone from building a power that activates (or deactivates) all spark plugs in a 3 mile radius? All pacemakers? All batteries?

 

I see far too many flaws for this to be of any use in its current incarnation.

[Sean Waters]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

That's useful, posting your rationale behind your suggested power, that being the relative cost to summon a creature capable of operating such a device.

 

It also points out the flaw in your reasoning.

 

Your creature is merely capable of operating the device while not being affected by mundane limitations like locks or being assaulted or interfered with by physical beings.

 

However, the point is that a powerful device is (generally) paid for in points, which is not accounted for in your scheme. A device such as a garage door opener is fine when activated by a 20 active point power.

 

A device such as an infinitely expensive doomsday device is rather less fine when activated by a 20 active point power.

 

By investing the points in an expensive device, the purchaser is also buying the right to use it at their discretion. (assuming they didn't do something retarded like buying it with the independent limitation)

 

And what about trigger locks or codes needed for operation? How does your power account for these?

 

What about devices within devices? What's to stop someone from building a power that activates (or deactivates) all spark plugs in a 3 mile radius? All pacemakers? All batteries?

 

I see far too many flaws for this to be of any use in its current incarnation.

 

The same argument could apply to mind control too - 60 points in mind control could allow you to use 125 character points (an unenhanced normal) or 475 character points (say a 350 point brick), so I'd asay there is a precedent.

 

I'm not suggesting that the power actually summons a virtual operator, that's just a cost model. You'd need some way to target the location of the devide you want operated and you may need to buy multiple operators to take control of a large device (what's the crew of the Nimitz? )

 

The other way to do it would be an analogue of mind control, but that would have to be based on some characteristic of the device allowing you to control it, and the only thing I can think of that would be useful is active points - and I don't feel that would work well.

 

Mind you you could have some sort of defence - say power defence - and each point cancels a 'virtual operator' - so for 'hardened' or coded devices you could eaily stop the power operating unless it was considerably enhanced.

[BNakagawa]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

Bricks are written with the knowledge that there are mentalists. If they decide to leave themselves entirely vulnerable to a generic 60 AP mentalist, that's their choice.

 

Machines and devices, including foci in all of the published products so far are not written up with this 'control' power in mind.

 

Therefore, if this were to be retroactively introduced to a champions game, every device would have to be rewritten or else this power would be unbalanced.

 

Any change that requires a complete overhaul of the published products is a bad one, IMO.

[SteveZilla]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

Machines and devices, including foci in all of the published products so far are not written up with this 'control' power in mind.

 

Therefore, if this were to be retroactively introduced to a champions game, every device would have to be rewritten or else this power would be unbalanced.

 

I agree that creating a new way to "attack" a character though his foci is IMO not a good thing. This is also my main complaint against Machine Class of Minds Mental Powers having free reign against certain SFX -- like Battlesuits. If I have a Battlesuit character with his OIF powers defined as being part of a "computerized battlesuit" SFX, but define no INT/EGO for the "computer", what then?

 

And if I actually buy a computer for it, does that now open up a new avenue of attack, effectively making the character *more* vulnerable than before?

[Kdansky]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

What about reverse Dispell?

 

2 or 3 points per 1d6, you have to roll the AP of the thing. That would work very well for anything we can build, but AP sometimes are quite high. Counter: Hard to Dispell/Control

[Sean Waters]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

I agree that creating a new way to "attack" a character though his foci is IMO not a good thing. This is also my main complaint against Machine Class of Minds Mental Powers having free reign against certain SFX -- like Battlesuits. If I have a Battlesuit character with his OIF powers defined as being part of a "computerized battlesuit" SFX, but define no INT/EGO for the "computer", what then?

 

And if I actually buy a computer for it, does that now open up a new avenue of attack, effectively making the character *more* vulnerable than before?

 

There are two imperatives in looking at possible new powers:

 

1. Does it add to the game experience and

2. Does it detract from the game experience

 

At present, short of transform, or, in a limited way, telekinesis, there is no way to control a non-sentient machine, so I'd argue that an ability to do that would add to the game experience. I'm not necessarily suggesting I've got it right first time, but there should be some sort of power to do it available.

 

As to detraction, well, yes, it could be seen as a power that will be unduly prejudicial to focus users, but not necessarily. First off, foci are easy to kill if you want to do that, with dispel or a penetrating KA. Secondly you could allow focus users some sort of defence or way to avoid/reduce the effects of the power, for instance you could have an adder or advantage 'shielded', or 'coded' and the control power would then need one or more levels of an advantage (invasive?) to actualy control the device.

 

Kdansky suggests dispel as a base power, which has the advantage of scalability.

 

I'm not sure. For instance, a fighter jet would be very expensive to control in that way, but a single person (with the right training) can control the device. Sometimes all it takes to activate a serious bit of kit is the push of a button, whereas it can be far more complex to control a device that would not cost a lot of points.

 

I'm open to suggestions, just playing devil's advocate, really - I acknowledge that a scaleable power is more Hero, but if that is what we are after then we might as well just use transform and have done with it (a cosmetic transform can activate a device, or turn it off, assuming a relatively obvious way to do so, a minor transform can make a device perform any of its normal functions and a major transform can make a device do things that it could not normally do (like a suit of armour walking around on its own). Use AP/5 as the 'body' of the device.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

What I need is some way to make gods into something other than 3000 point superheroes.

[spaceprincessecho]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

What I need is some way to make gods into something other than 3000 point superheroes.

 

This is something I've wondered about, too. In one way, the question comes to "what is a god?" And I don't mean in an agnostic curiosity sort of way.

 

By some fantasy interpretations, they are just 3000 point superheroes. By some more real-world interpretations, they're omnipotent and, effectively, unstattable beings.

 

One of the best suggestions I've received on this is a big cosmic VPP, with a limitation along the lines of "only for powers related to portfolio", where portfolio is the particular area the deity has a near-supreme level of dominion.

 

Although, in one game I recently played, we brawled with Thor and he was basically just a 450 point warrior.

 

As far as new powers, I think we'd need a more concrete idea what is desired first. What should gods do that makes them different from not-gods, even if the non-divine characters in question are of equivalent point values?

[Sean Waters]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

What I need is some way to make gods into something other than 3000 point superheroes.

 

To paraphrase 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' : 'any sufficiently powerful superhero is indistinguishable from a god'. Can't kill it, can't stop it, you do what it says or hope it ignores you.

[SteveZilla]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

To paraphrase 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' : 'any sufficiently powerful superhero is indistinguishable from a god'. Can't kill it' date=' can't stop it, you do what it says or hope it ignores you.[/quote']

 

The same can be said about any sufficiently powerful character, irrespective of genre (superhero, fantasy, futuristic, etc.)

 

The Mythos* is one of the things that AFAIK is always left up to the GM to design in his game. And the Gods and their abilities depend entirely upon the chosen Mythos.

 

*By Mythos I mean the story of how they and the world came into being, what falls under each diety's pervue, etc. Not just "Roman", "Greek", or "Egyptian" -- though the GM could model his game's Mythos on them.

[Sean Waters]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

The same can be said about any sufficiently powerful character, irrespective of genre (superhero, fantasy, futuristic, etc.)

 

The Mythos* is one of the things that AFAIK is always left up to the GM to design in his game. And the Gods and their abilities depend entirely upon the chosen Mythos.

 

*By Mythos I mean the story of how they and the world came into being, what falls under each diety's pervue, etc. Not just "Roman", "Greek", or "Egyptian" -- though the GM could model his game's Mythos on them.

 

I would very highly recommend Roger Zelazny's 'Lord of light' if you have not read it - an excellent and believeable account of very human gods that still manage to be very godlike indeed.

[Sean Waters]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

We had one campaign where the characters had some pretty epic battles with some pretty epic forces then we played another game in the same world set many years later with (largely) different characters. The original characters had become perhaps god-like, certainly mythic. Cool game.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

Personally I would avoid adding any new flat cost abilities -- they simply do not scale well. Effect driven costs scale up and down the point levels and accommodate modifiers more consistently.

 

Mind Control seems like the closest parallel to a Object Control power. Types of devices is similar to types of minds. Level of Effect could be vs a base of (Active Points / 5) vs EGO.

 

For that matter "Breakout" could be based on a roll of (Active Points / 5)- roll (60 AP = 12- roll, 120 AP = 24- roll) with a free attempt at onset just like MC -- this makes very complex / powerful devices much harder to lock on to but not impossible. All the effect driven penalties to breakout and associated behavior of MC could be mapped over pretty cleanly I think.

 

And so on.

 

Just sayin....

[Sean Waters]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

Personally I would avoid adding any new flat cost abilities -- they simply do not scale well. Effect driven costs scale up and down the point levels and accommodate modifiers more consistently.

 

Mind Control seems like the closest parallel to a Object Control power. Types of devices is similar to types of minds. Level of Effect could be vs a base of (Active Points / 5) vs EGO.

 

For that matter "Breakout" could be based on a roll of (Active Points / 5)- roll (60 AP = 12- roll, 120 AP = 24- roll) with a free attempt at onset just like MC -- this makes very complex / powerful devices much harder to lock on to but not impossible. All the effect driven penalties to breakout and associated behavior of MC could be mapped over pretty cleanly I think.

 

And so on.

 

Just sayin....

 

I agree in large part (although the idea was presented to sort of scale - just not to active points - but to actual complexity of operation).

 

There are complications you don't have to worry about with targets of mind: machines are often not a single big unit, but are composed of many small units, so how do you decide if you can control a bit of a machine, just not all of it (say the gun on a tank, but not the engine) if it is not itself centrally controlled (and what if it is, can you control a bit of it anyway?)

 

Also the problem with using active points/5 is you actually need to know how many active points the target is built on, which makes things a lot more complicated: it is not enough to know there is a car in the road, you need a point value if anyone can control it - we don't (well I don't) bother statting out most stuff. Whilst this is a better and more balanced approach I think it would make the power far harder to actually play.

[BNakagawa]

Re: So, what do you need?

 

I agree in large part (although the idea was presented to sort of scale - just not to active points - but to actual complexity of operation).

 

There are complications you don't have to worry about with targets of mind: machines are often not a single big unit, but are composed of many small units, so how do you decide if you can control a bit of a machine, just not all of it (say the gun on a tank, but not the engine) if it is not itself centrally controlled (and what if it is, can you control a bit of it anyway?)

 

Also the problem with using active points/5 is you actually need to know how many active points the target is built on, which makes things a lot more complicated: it is not enough to know there is a car in the road, you need a point value if anyone can control it - we don't (well I don't) bother statting out most stuff. Whilst this is a better and more balanced approach I think it would make the power far harder to actually play.

 

So let's go back to the original post and ask the question: Who needs this?

 

Isn't this just a case of: This would be a cost effective way of being way too effective in any post-stone age campaign setting?

 

I mean, D&D has been around longer than the hero system in any incarnation and they've never felt the need for any defined method of activating somebody else's wands, scrolls, alchemical devices, potions, etc other than taking over their minds and making them do it for you. (which of course is difficult and has predefined methods of defending against it)

 

This conceptual power has a distinct odor of cheese, to me.