6e Characteristics

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Perception is a separate Power' date=' Initiative never was.[/quote']

 

How is "Enhanced Perception" materially different from "Lightning Reflexes"? Both are one component of the benefits a specific characteristic would otherwise provide. While I don't see a compelling need to split Initiative off from DEX, I don't see the possibility as being ridiculous.

 

Sure, someone with incredible reflexes should buy up his combat order. But so should a combat-trained grunt with standard reflexes, or a quick-thinking mentalist.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Lightning Reflexes is a 5E construct.

 

And it's also built as Limited Dex; which tells me Lightning Reflexes isn't a Power in it's own right. It's specialized Dexterity.

 

Enhanced Perception is a Power. Lightning Reflexes is a Talent, based on DEX. Essentially, completely different animals.

[lemming]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Lightning Reflexes is a 5E construct.

 

It's from much earlier. 4th edition Dark Champions had it. Possibly earlier, but unsure on that.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Oh, cool. Never owned 4E DC, learn something new every day. Either way, rest of the debate stands

[lemming]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Oh' date=' cool. Never owned 4E DC, learn something new every day. Either way, rest of the debate stands [/quote']

 

Yea, didn't have an issue with the argument. Just couldn't help myself.

 

And of course, it's still a Steve Long construct if it's from DC.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Lightning Reflexes is a 5E construct.

 

And it's also built as Limited Dex; which tells me Lightning Reflexes isn't a Power in it's own right. It's specialized Dexterity.

 

Enhanced Perception is a Power. Lightning Reflexes is a Talent, based on DEX. Essentially, completely different animals.

 

Semantics. Enhanced Perception could just as easily be +1 level with perception rolls, or a talent built on INT, only for PER Rolls. It is a construct to allow the character to move quicker in the combat order while having no other benefits of enhanced dexterity.

 

While the specific mechanic selected for each build differs, the end result is the same. As such, I stand by my original belief that there is no material difference.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

There is no end result difference. They both increase something. You're right.

 

But the fact that there is a fundamental underlying construct difference, really does place them in different buckets.

 

You could construct pretty much everything off of 5 Points for 1D6 (i.e. Energy Blast).

But we don't. We create separate and different rules for different things - sometimes costing based less on Theoretical Build and more on Fair Pricing.

 

I doubt we'll see eye to eye on this one.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

I can see a character having great reasoning and memory abilities but not particularly acute senses/not particularly focussed on the here and now, so I can see wanting a lower PER than INT (or lower PER roll than INT roll).

 

I can only see a need to seperate DEX and initiative if you would want to buy Iniitative down from DEX (as well as, potentially, up).

 

Whilst it is possible (they guy is incredibly dextrous - but freezes in combat) I think it is not going to be common and probably not going to be the sort of thing you need to have point differentiations on. The link between DEX and Initiative is pretty clear.

 

There also has to be a point at which you have to stop breaking things down, of course, or at least beceom increasingly careful about what you break down, lest the character sheet become a 10 page wasteland of numeric meaninglessness.

 

...or, to put it another way, you get unnecessary bloat. To illustrate what that might look like with a real-world example:

 

http://garrettwalker.com/today_at/content/images/contstructionworkers_web.jpg

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

But we don't. We create separate and different rules for different things - sometimes costing based less on Theoretical Build and more on Fair Pricing.

 

If the Theoretical build doesn't get a Fair price something is wrong with the pricing.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Ego Attack.

[ajackson]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Ego Attack.

Ego Attack can be seen as evidence for a problem with the costing of AVLD.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Some build of something always proves or disproves something isn't priced correctly for that specific build of something, and someone else comes along and proves it is priced correctly for another build of something else.

 

In the end, a lot of it is pretty subjective, but mostly it seems to be working. Cha'know.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

EGO attack works because we basically ignore all the inbuilt advantages because we know the pricing is wrong. We just can't help ourselves: we have been indoctrinated to points=power. Someone buys Ego attack at 10 points per 1d6 and wants to snipe through solid objects from a safe distance and we laugh them out of the Cognoscenti Club, despite their protestations that it is all perfectly legal: what has that to do with it?

 

A more interesting example, where I think that the 'non-reversibility' of Hero works, is Force Field v Armour. Force Field gives better protection for the points but is visible and costs END. Building Armour 'down' to Force Field is messy and building Force Field 'up' to Armour is expensive, but it works.

 

It works because IPE is either too expensive or not useful enough and it works because what really matters with defences is how much defence they provide.

 

Force Field (END TO ACTIVATE*) and Armour (visible) cost the same (real) and do almost the same job.

 

Ultimately they are different, but neither is a clear winner over the other.

 

However, to suggest that we can not get it right is simply defeatist. It may be accurate, but it is still defeatist: we can certainly get a damn sight closer to right than we are at present.

 

 

 

* Best not to even get started on whether that one is priced 'right': that way lies only madness

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Sniping through solid objects requires the purchase of another sense that isn't Targeting normally as Targeting.

 

We allow it all the time. As do we make liberal use of the fact that Ego Attack can't be seen by normal senses. In one of our campaigns it was a regularly used tool in our arsenal.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Sniping through solid objects requires the purchase of another sense that isn't Targeting normally as Targeting.

 

We allow it all the time. As do we make liberal use of the fact that Ego Attack can't be seen by normal senses. In one of our campaigns it was a regularly used tool in our arsenal.

 

Then Ego attack in your campaigns is ridiculously overpowered.

[ajackson]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

A more interesting example' date=' where I think that the 'non-reversibility' of Hero works, is Force Field v Armour. Force Field gives better protection for the points but is visible and costs END. Building Armour 'down' to Force Field is messy and building Force Field 'up' to Armour is expensive, but it works.[/quote']

Not really. Force Field is essentially always worse than armor, because even if IPE were free, the fact that armor is Persistent is enough to make it better.

Force Field (END TO ACTIVATE*) and Armour (visible) cost the same (real) and do almost the same job.

No they don't. The force field goes down if you're stunned, the armor doesn't.

[Ice9]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

There's as much reason for supporting an unobservant genius as a clumsy combat master, and while both could be done just with limitations, the clumsy combat master is apparently important enough to make things streamlined for. So personally, I'm for separating PER as well.

[ajackson]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

There's as much reason for supporting an unobservant genius as a clumsy combat master' date=' and while both could be done just with limitations, the clumsy combat master is apparently important enough to make things streamlined for. So personally, I'm for separating PER as well.[/quote']

Main difficulty is that Int, without Per, is often of very marginal utility, and the entire stat might not be worth x1 at that point.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

As for my thoughts on Nightvision: I think that nighttime effects could have been corrected as being akin to temperature levels' date=' with a level that represents absolute darkness; Nightvision would be gradual and built as levels against darkness penalties.[/quote']

 

I suggested something like this in the 6e threads. I don't know if Steve included it or not.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Then Ego attack in your campaigns is ridiculously overpowered.

 

Which explains why every single character in the game world has an Ego Attack.

 

No wait.. they don't.

 

Careful how you level ultimatums like that. Overpowered in one campaign is underpowered in another.

[The Main Man]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

I suggested something like this in the 6e threads. I don't know if Steve included it or not.

 

Oh.

 

Sorry I didn't notice then.

 

Either way though, we can always hope that he did.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Which explains why every single character in the game world has an Ego Attack.

 

No wait.. they don't.

 

Careful how you level ultimatums like that. Overpowered in one campaign is underpowered in another.

 

 

Just because not everyone takes it doesn't mean it is not overpowered. Actually 'overpowered' may be the wrong word. It has too much utility: in a straight fight it is not better than the next attack, but you'd have to be dim to use it in a straight fight if you had a choice. Of course you can limit the potential utility enormously by denying the character senses that can see through barriers(sense mind, perhaps) as that prevents tehm using indirect and LOS most of the time, but that comes back to what I'm saying: we have to knobble it to make it work.

 

If it is not overpowered then BOECV, IPE, LOS and Indirect are not accorded proper value for cost then. The simple fact is that Ego Attack is a substantial bonus on that package of power modifiers, so either Ego attack is overpowered, or the power modifiers are underpriced.

[Sean Waters]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Not really. Force Field is essentially always worse than armor, because even if IPE were free, the fact that armor is Persistent is enough to make it better.

 

No they don't. The force field goes down if you're stunned, the armor doesn't.

 

To demonstrate how Force Field can be more useful than Armour, consider this:

 

30 Defensive Multipower

3 Slot 1: Passive Protection 10/10 Armour

3 Slot 2: Acive Protection: 15/15 Force Field

 

The point is that, for a given active cost, Force Field provides better protection than Armour against attacks.

 

In combat, for defensive powers, IPE is almost worthless (which is why I have suggested in th epast that IPE for non-attack powers should have the cost halved). If you are still conscious then persistent is irrelevant (and if you are stunned then the combat is probably going to be over quick anyway - but it is certainly a point to Armour). What makes more practical difference is the END cost, but, again, looking at what actually happens, that only usually becomes a factor later on in extended fights.

 

If you convert one to the other then the cost comes out wrong, and you can of course make Armour visble and non-persistent and have the same real cost as Force FIeld - but a more useful power (it does not cost END). Where active points are important though (which is why I gave a framework example) Force Field is a more useful power in terms of actual protection - which is what you usually buy defensive poers for.

 

Arguably (and I'd agree) that is too narrow a band of utility to justify the relative costs and utilities and the cost/benefit relationship should be looked at again.

 

The trouble with changing cost is that you either make Armour more expensive (in which case everyone buys damage resistance) or Force Field less expensive, giving access to much higher defensive levels.

 

One option would be to make Force Field either Persistent or Partially IPE (Choose: FF is invisible to sight OR only visible to sight).

 

That would largely fix the issues.

 

Of course then it beceomes increasingly difficult to justify having two powers...

 

One other point, while I am ranting: the problem is not really caused by FF/Armour but by 'visible+non-persistent' giving the same saving as 'Costs END' but not being as limiting. Fix that and FF/Armour makes more sense.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

Ego Attack.

 

Ego Attack can be seen as evidence for a problem with the costing of AVLD.

 

EGO attack works because we basically ignore all the inbuilt advantages because we know the pricing is wrong. We just can't help ourselves: we have been indoctrinated to points=power. Someone buys Ego attack at 10 points per 1d6 and wants to snipe through solid objects from a safe distance and we laugh them out of the Cognoscenti Club' date=' despite their protestations that it is all perfectly legal: what has that to do with it?[/quote']

 

I'm with Sean on this one. Anyone who tries to use Ego Attack to its full potential, being an IPE attack with no range modifiers so long as one is within LOS, is viewed extremely negatively by the Hero Community. Why should the mentalist wear a brightly coloured costume and dance around the battlefield? A drab suit or casual clothes, standing in the crowd the police are holding back will allow him to go virtually unnoticed.

 

The same attack built from the ground up (and assuming "targets ECV vs ECV" is +0, which is the least it could be worth), would be an AVLD (+1 1/2) IPE (+3/4) Line of Sight (+1/2) Indirect (+1/2) 1/2 END (to get back to 1 END per d6; +1/4) attack, perhaps with a limitation that it only affects sentient humanoids (ie no machines or animals). That's 5 x 5 = 25 AP per d6, so that limitation needs to be -1 1/2 to get us back to 10 points per d6. I don't think the limitation is worth that much, even if some of the advantages may be overpriced. If I paid for those full advantages, I would expect to be allowed to use them to maximum effect.

 

Of course, he can be made more effective with other powers in his power suite:

 

- Flight, so he can snipe from the rooftops

- any rapid movement power, so he can stay at extreme range

- Invisibility, so he's tough to keep track of

- A big Force Wall, keeping your attacks away from him while he takes advantage of its transparency to mental powers.

- Tunneling and an enhanced targeting sense so he can attack you from underground

- X Ray Vision and Telescopic Vision so he can see you from considerable distance (hey, why not make his sight Megascale?)

- Clairsentience and a big Mind Scan so he can just lock on at his convenience from a Caribbean island

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: 6e Characteristics

 

A more interesting example, where I think that the 'non-reversibility' of Hero works, is Force Field v Armour. Force Field gives better protection for the points but is visible and costs END. Building Armour 'down' to Force Field is messy and building Force Field 'up' to Armour is expensive, but it works.

 

It works because IPE is either too expensive or not useful enough and it works because what really matters with defences is how much defence they provide.

 

Force Field (END TO ACTIVATE*) and Armour (visible) cost the same (real) and do almost the same job.

 

More to the point, Force Field and Armour, Visible, Nonpersistent cost exactly the same, but the Force Field costs END. I view this as an evolutionary problem. In the first edition, we didn't have rules for Persistent or visibility of powers. If the power cost 0 END, there was no reason it would collapse if you were Stunned or KO'd, or that you could or could not see the Armor. And Armor's cost was different than Force Field 0 END as well.

 

Then we added Persistent and IPE, and made the costs for Force Field, Armor and Resistant PD/ED consistent such that, by 4e, Force Field was Armor that Costs END. But Costs END subsumed the loss of advantages like Persistent and IPE, so it cost way more to go from a power that costs END to one that had all the advantages of one that was 0 END by default.