Somewhat Confused

[torelin32]

Hi guys,

 

I'm writing up another power and I'm wondering if it is a Power Skill or power unto itself.

 

I'll explain....

 

Imagine Mage A wants to cast a spell...he has gestures and incantations, it takes him a full phase say something like, "little girls are made of spice, little boys and puppy dog tail, etc, etc, ad naeusim" for and example.

 

Same Mage A again in a life and death situation, want to get his spell off, so he shortens it to "little girls and boys" for example and the spell goes off, not as powerful mind you, but it does the trick for him in that pinch.

 

So my question to all you guys and girls out there is how do you write this beastie up.

 

Is it a power skill, is it a power onto itself, since it is esscense the same spell, just that the casting time is shortened and the overall effect is reduced in accordance.

 

So I could really use the help writing this up.

 

Thanks in advance

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

I think your best bet will be to use Variable Limitation in some form or another (either for everything or only for what can be switched out like extra-time for increased endurance as an example).

[Beast]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

have the base power in a vpp that can be quick cast

add the extra power outside of any power frame work with the added limitations

[ghost-angel]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

Either Variable Limitation, or - if I get the gist right - it's a Partially Limited Power.

 

For example if it's a Fireball (so I can use the nice Energy Blast Power):

 

4D6 EB + 4D6EB;Incantations;Full Phase

 

So if he uses the short phrase it's only at half power, if he spends a Full Phase Incanting it's at full power.

[JohnTaber]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

As with everything in Hero there are multiple options.

 

If this is for a fantasy game and ANY mage can do this you may want to "hand wave it" as part of the campaign rules. For example, you could set a campaign rule that says you can cast spells that normally have incantations at a faster pace and take a 50% hit to your active points. You could set the numbers but you get the idea.

[tesuji]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

you likely want to avoid variable limitation with the extra nonsense that was stuck into it for 5er

 

my solution would be a partially limited power as described above.

 

if your spell is 60 ap for instance, only apply the "extra time" to 30 ap of the power. same for the other limitations

 

for example

 

2d6 AOE fireball 20 ap -1/4 incantations 16 cp

+2d6 aoe fireball incantations and gestures 13 cp

+2d6 aoe fireball inc and gest and extra time 10 cp

total fireball cost is 39 cp

 

Now back before variable limitation got screwed, i used to love to represent various magical alternatives using it.

 

for example one "style" had to take a variable lim that included extra time and concentration and extra endurance so that school "used" gestures and incantations to make the spell easier (didn't have to burn extra endurance) but who could in a pinch just throw everything he had into getting the spell off by brute force (high end cost)

 

another school had to choose between side effects and double endurance as they believed in controlling magic by effort "wrestling the beast into line" and so they either pushed hard on their spells or they risked side effects.

 

yet another school used propr, specifically an enchanted personal docus of some sort as a crutch and without it they risked side effects.

 

all these were accomplished with the old 4e maybe 5e pre-5er variable lim.

 

it worked great in play.

 

nowadays with the changes to variable lim, i would still do the same thing only call them "custom limitations - limited power" and thus avoid the variable lim.

 

:-)

[Istaran]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

tesuji, could you explain what changed in the variable lim rules that makes it not as good to you? I have only played 5er so I'm interested in the historical perspective.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

The change from 4th to 5th is that it takes a Full Phase Action to switch up which Limitations are currently being used by the Variable Limitation.

 

I'm not real keen on it myself, personally, I think it then becomes too restrictive.

[tesuji]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

Actual;ly i thought it occurred between 5e and 5er after a debate on these boards.

 

the 5er text requires now a full phase action at 1/2 dcv to change between lims. there didn't use to be any requirement between switches.

 

My perspective - the limitation used to be some thing like "choose a small set of limitations and get to select one or more of them to match the total value of lims at any one time - and get half the lim value

 

As in - "must concentrate or it takes double endurance" apply -1/2 worth of lims at any moment and get to apply a -1/4 value limitation-1/4

 

you always have to apply -1/2 worth in some combo but you can waffle back and forth.

 

One potential use of this was what i called the "enabler" focus, where you have an item which helps you use your power - as in the exact same thing above except its focus instead of concentrate

 

example: Without my magfield focusing wristbands (OIF) it takes twice the endurance to fire my plasma bolts due to waste.

 

Which would be bought very simply as VARLIM -1/4 (double end or oif -1/2)

 

but then in 5e they wrote up something similar to this (cyclops eye beams oif or always on) with a very convoluted thing which did not use varlim AND had more active points than the same unlimited beam.

 

Example 12d6 EB Always on for 60 ap and 40 rp. then also buy 20 ap (always on) limited with focus for 13 cp for a net cost of 80 ap and 53 cp which is somehow supposed to be right at 20 ap more than an unrestricted 12d6 eb.

 

(note for purists - i know i left off 0 end and persistent yahddeee yahddee)

 

now to me the original notion of oif and 2xe in a varlim seemed perfectly fine since it means that "some time he will have the focus and be fine and sometime he will not and have double end cost" earning him -1/4 when compared to "some times he will have the focus and be fine and sometimes he will not have the focus and not have the power" at -1/2. seemed about right to me and a simple build.

 

then the hue and cry over how wrong this is... and before we were done we had new restrictions on varlim requiring difficulty in changing between lims which blows for most concepts using varlim i have ever seen.

 

so now i just write up "without my focusing bands it takes double end" as a custom lim and am less concerned with/ have less faith in the RAW than before.

 

I mean, really, i would certainly place that as a custom lim right between NO LIm and either OIF -1/2 or 2xend -1/2 and thats exactly what using varlim so terribly wrongly did.

 

:-)

 

 

Aside: to me the big balance issue with varlim has nothing to do with switxching but with the list of allowed lims - allowing too many circumstantial based lims such as "only in" or "when not" etc can create a never limited result. the care and feeding of this lim needs to be focused on the lims you allow to be paired together, not how much it takes to switch between them. the former is not really addressed at all in the haste and furor over switching to focus and back.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

but then in 5e they wrote up something similar to this (cyclops eye beams oif or always on) with a very convoluted thing which did not use varlim AND had more active points than the same unlimited beam.

 

Example 12d6 EB Always on for 60 ap and 40 rp. then also buy 20 ap (always on) limited with focus for 13 cp for a net cost of 80 ap and 53 cp which is somehow supposed to be right at 20 ap more than an unrestricted 12d6 eb.

 

 

Do you remember what book this example was in?

 

I don't think the points spent on the focus (used to negate the Always On Limitation) are supposed to stack with the base power for purposes of figuring Active Points.

[tesuji]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

Do you remember what book this example was in?

 

I don't think the points spent on the focus (used to negate the Always On Limitation) are supposed to stack with the base power for purposes of figuring Active Points.

 

I am pretty ure it was a sidebar power in CHAMPIONS and i am also sure there was, may still be, an FAQ question specifically covering the active points issue.

[tesuji]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

see below from FAQ

 

Net summary putting a 12d6 eb that requires double end except when a focus is used into a multipower slot requires 80 ap for thee slot while putting a totally non-restricted 12d6 eb only requires 60.

 

are we having fun yet?

 

 

HERO FAQ

 

If a character buys off a Limitation on a Power through, for example, a Focus, how does that effect the Active Points of the power?

 

Here’s an example. Suppose a character buys an EB 12d6, No Range (-1/2). The power has 60 Active Points, 40 Real Points.

Now he buys MegaBands — armbands that allow him to project his EB as a Ranged attack. He buys off the No Range Limitation (20 points) on an OIF. This is a power with 20 Active Points, 13 Real Points.

What he now has is two separate powers, one with 60 Active Points, one with 20 Active Points. If for some reason he wanted to consider them a “unit” (for example, to put them in a Multipower slot), they’d have “80 Active Points” together, so to speak — but they’re really two distinct abilities, with distinct costs.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

see below from FAQ

 

Net summary putting a 12d6 eb that requires double end except when a focus is used into a multipower slot requires 80 ap for thee slot while putting a totally non-restricted 12d6 eb only requires 60.

 

are we having fun yet?

 

 

HERO FAQ

 

If a character buys off a Limitation on a Power through, for example, a Focus, how does that effect the Active Points of the power?

 

Here’s an example. Suppose a character buys an EB 12d6, No Range (-1/2). The power has 60 Active Points, 40 Real Points.

Now he buys MegaBands — armbands that allow him to project his EB as a Ranged attack. He buys off the No Range Limitation (20 points) on an OIF. This is a power with 20 Active Points, 13 Real Points.

What he now has is two separate powers, one with 60 Active Points, one with 20 Active Points. If for some reason he wanted to consider them a “unit” (for example, to put them in a Multipower slot), they’d have “80 Active Points” together, so to speak — but they’re really two distinct abilities, with distinct costs.

 

Yes, well, one more good reason not to read the FAQ. This assumes the power is bought, effectively with a naked advantage, even if that is not the case as such, but a 12d6 ranged attack is only 60 AP, adding a limtiation 'not ranged unless wearing megabands', however you calculate that, shouldn't up the active point cost.

 

Not in a world that makes sense, anyway.

 

60 point EB

 

No range -1/2: -20 points

 

Limitation on the limitation: when not wearing megabands (OIF) -1/2

 

Total cost reduction 13 points, total cost 47 points, 60 active, and I don't care if that is wrong, that's the most appropriate way to do it (or you could just buy it with a No range limitation at -1/4 and note that the 'no range' only operates if the character does not have megabands, and the cost is then 48 points - rougher and readier but also simpler, which has a lot to recommend it - and no possible quibble over active points.)

[tesuji]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

(or you could just buy it with a No range limitation at -1/4 and note that the 'no range' only operates if the character does not have megabands, and the cost is then 48 points - rougher and readier but also simpler, which has a lot to recommend it - and no possible quibble over active points.)

 

yup and thats my current answer now that I cannot legally choose to write this down as "variable advantage -1/4 (choose between oif or double end) without the silly unwarranted 1/2 dcv full phase nonsense.

 

:-)

[ghost-angel]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

Actual;ly i thought it occurred between 5e and 5er after a debate on these boards.

 

Wow - it was a 5E to 5ER change.

 

Now I find it REALLY stupid. The whole 1/2 DCV Full Phase makes it much to Limiting compared to the actual value gained.

 

I could see at most needing to take a 1/2 Phase Action to change out the Limitations. Tops.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

Wow - it was a 5E to 5ER change.

 

Now I find it REALLY stupid. The whole 1/2 DCV Full Phase makes it much to Limiting compared to the actual value gained.

 

I could see at most needing to take a 1/2 Phase Action to change out the Limitations. Tops.

 

This looks like a job for....

 

A House Rule!

[Armitage]

Re: Somewhat Confused

 

If it's appropriate, depending on the nature of the campaign and the spells, Fantasy Hero offers two different options.

 

1. If the spell costs END, each -1/4 of Limitation avoided moves the END cost one step down on the Increased Endurance Cost chart. FH, p. 246.

 

2. If the spell requires a Skill Roll, each -1/4 of Limitation avoided imposes a -2 penalty on the Roll. FH, p. 248.

 

The latter seems to provide a likely justification for using the Power Skill, but H5R, p. 67 says "Characters shouldn't use Power...to overcome Limitations (except in rare circumstances)".

 

But remember the joke.

How many Champions players does it take to change a light bulb?

That's a GM call.