Post "gotchas" here

[SteveZilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Now that you mention that' date=' that would have been a nice +1/4 value to add to Linked.[/quote']

 

I think it depends upon the powers involved. In the case of a Drain w/ Linked Aid to "build" Transfer, the amount of Aid is limited by the amount of Drain though defenses. Aid is rarely if ever resisted by Power Defense, yet in a Transfer build it is effectively limited by the Drain target's Power Defense. I think that the loss of a "second chance to roll high" coupled with the limitation I described above, I'd peg it at an additional -1/4.

 

Not sure it'd be worth more than a +/-0 Personally. You could easily roll high on one side and low on the other, high on both, or low on both.

 

While it's probably desireably to always roll high, sometimes that low roll gets ya.

 

AFAIK, the only time (barring strange character builds) rolling low is good is on to-hit, not on the effect roll.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

The method by which an attack is delivered and it's special effect are cumulative for the purposes of Vulnerabilities. I house ruled this away, I don't believe a player should get additional rewards for putting a VPP on his sheet and defining it as magic with a bunch of spells that generate various effects, or just for buying a gadget pool.

 

In previous editions, if I shot you with a magically generated fire effect, it was fire. Now it's fire AND magic.

 

If I shot you with technologically generated oatmeal in 5th, it was oatmeal. Now it's technological oatmeal.

 

[Homer Simpson]Mmmm, technological oatmeal. Ahhghghllgh.[/Homer Simpson]

 

It matters because I might have a defense against one SFX, and a Drain/Dispel against a different SFX. I doubt that spraying a Wizard with an ABC Fire Extinguisher is going to stop his Fireball spell, but it works wonders against The Human Torch...

 

I.e., The SFX of the power itself (ball of fire), and the SFX of how its generated (Magic or Mutation) can be different.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

AFAIK, the only time (barring strange character builds) rolling low is good is on to-hit, not on the effect roll.

 

My point exactly.

 

But the low roll is part of the game, and hence not really Limiting.

 

The reason I don't thin it's a Limitation is that sometimes you could Drain 2, but Aid 10. Or Drain 10 and Aid 2. Depending on which part you're counting on more will determine which of those two scenarios you'd prefer.

 

Either way I don't see it as a Limitation that the odds aren't always in your favor.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

My point exactly.

 

But the low roll is part of the game, and hence not really Limiting.

 

The reason I don't thin it's a Limitation is that sometimes you could Drain 2, but Aid 10. Or Drain 10 and Aid 2. Depending on which part you're counting on more will determine which of those two scenarios you'd prefer.

 

Either way I don't see it as a Limitation that the odds aren't always in your favor.

 

IMO making a build that reduces the odds of a favorable result is worth considering having a Limitation (though by itself, it might not be sufficient to rise to -1/4). YMMV, of course.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

...yet in a Transfer build it is effectively limited by the Drain target's Power Defense. I think that the loss of a "second chance to roll high" coupled with the limitation I described above' date=' I'd peg it at an additional -1/4.[/quote']

 

Ah, now that is a good point. The Drain target's Power Defense works against the Aid on self. Yes. That is definitely worth a Limitation whether or not the Drain and Aid are done with the same Effect Roll.

[EverKnight]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

...yet in a Transfer build it is effectively limited by the Drain target's Power Defense. I think that the loss of a "second chance to roll high" coupled with the limitation I described above' date=' I'd peg it at an additional -1/4.[/quote']

 

Ah' date=' now [i']that[/i] is a good point. The Drain target's Power Defense works against the Aid on self. Yes. That is definitely worth a Limitation whether or not the Drain and Aid are done with the same Effect Roll.

 

It is a good point. I will have to add it into one of the characters I have converted from 5th to 6th. I would also peg the limitation at -1/2 at least given that AVAD adds -1/2 for each step up the defence table.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

My point exactly.

 

But the low roll is part of the game, and hence not really Limiting.

 

The reason I don't thin it's a Limitation is that sometimes you could Drain 2, but Aid 10. Or Drain 10 and Aid 2. Depending on which part you're counting on more will determine which of those two scenarios you'd prefer.

 

Either way I don't see it as a Limitation that the odds aren't always in your favor.

 

I'm with GA on this. If you roll separately for the Drain and the Aid, this is beneficial if the Aid dice are higher than the Drain dice, and detrimental if the Drain dice are higher than the Aid dice (assuming you would otherwise have used the Drain dice as the Aid value). As such, I don't see "roll once for both effects" being an advantage or a limitation.

 

I do see "aid is limited to the amount drained from the target" as a valid limitation on the Aid, since the target's power defense would typically not reduce the benefits of the Aid. I also wonder whether the Linked limitation is undervalued in this case, as the character is denied the opportunity to buff himself out of combat, an issue that does not arise when, say, linking a Flash to a Blast.

 

It would also seem reasonable to apply Unified Power to the Aid and Drain - a Transfer would be affected by a single adjustment power.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Unified Power I see being a valid idea. Just Linking two Powers does not itself make them one Power.

[The Main Man]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Either way, I think that we may be stumbling upon a slightly new spin on certain design philosophies in HERO.

 

That is to say, Transfer ceases to exist because it can be made with other powers through such discussed methodology, but many new constructs could be made that way as well.

 

Not to say that these ideas did not technically exist before, but I think that we are bringing it to light.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Either way, I think that we may be stumbling upon a slightly new spin on certain design philosophies in HERO.

 

That is to say, Transfer ceases to exist because it can be made with other powers through such discussed methodology, but many new constructs could be made that way as well.

 

Not to say that these ideas did not technically exist before, but I think that we are bringing it to light.

 

I thought the design philosophy was clear...

 

Whenever possible, make it more complicated.

[The Main Man]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I thought the design philosophy was clear...

 

Whenever possible, make it more complicated.

 

I remember there being a user who quoted that piece of text from 5e in which it says not to sweat the small stuff on design and that there is no correct, exact way to build any given thing, to which he said underneath, "Yeah, like that'll happen."

 

Truer words never before spoken about us HERO gamers.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Either way, I think that we may be stumbling upon a slightly new spin on certain design philosophies in HERO.

 

That is to say, Transfer ceases to exist because it can be made with other powers through such discussed methodology, but many new constructs could be made that way as well.

 

Not to say that these ideas did not technically exist before, but I think that we are bringing it to light.

 

I don't think it's that new. I had similar feelings (and comments) about a lot of the reworking that went into 5e.

 

Realistically, it's bound to happen:

 

You have new ownership; new players; new ideas. New feedback, new problems---

 

and, if you happen to own it, this is your chance to "fix" the issues you've had, or to make improvements you'd like to see. Honestly, when Derrick first told me years ago that there was a 5e in the wind, I was terrified. Then it came out.

 

While it wasn't particularly to my liking, I found that it was fairly easy to follow the logic behind most of the changes, and that a great deal more care had been taken with regard to the quality of the fixes instituted. I was rather impressed with the whole thing. As a whole item, it wasn't for me or my group, but we found ourselves going over our house rules and rewritting a lot of them with an eye toward what had transpired in 5e. Should I get lucky enough to swing a 6e (I missed the boat on a 5er, and there's no way I can afford both), I expect that we will likely see the same thing then, too.

[torchwolf]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Either way, I think that we may be stumbling upon a slightly new spin on certain design philosophies in HERO.

 

That is to say, Transfer ceases to exist because it can be made with other powers through such discussed methodology, but many new constructs could be made that way as well.

 

Not to say that these ideas did not technically exist before, but I think that we are bringing it to light.

 

This is also a spin on how Aid and Drain can be combined into variant of Transfer. As it comes up, I think it's perfectly reasonable to use Unified Power on this structure.

 

I agree, there are new constructs that can be made in other ways they have traditionally been made. Some of those new constructs will resemble older ideas, and some will be new. I find that exciting.

[Bloodstone]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

This is also a spin on how Aid and Drain can be combined into variant of Transfer. As it comes up' date=' I think it's perfectly reasonable to use Unified Power on this structure.[/quote']

 

And in fact the Stun Transfer example in the book apparently does just that.

 

Making your typical Transfer will now cost less Real Points, but will be considerably more Active Points.

 

In 5E Transfer was 15 pts per die (a bit too expensive IMO), so a 4d6 Transfer was a 60 AP power.

 

The 6E build with Drain+Aid comes out around 12pts per "die", but a "4d6 Transfer" is going to end up as an 88 point compound power.

 

This may be a problem for some concepts in games with AP caps.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

This may be a problem for some concepts in games with AP caps.

 

Although I understand the reluctance to disclose game design philosophy in the rules, I really wish Steve had put his philosophy on AP caps directly in the book. He has indicated (although I'm not sure whether it was on the Boards) that he does not consider AP caps to be a rule of Hero system, and he will not design the system to accommodate AP caps.

 

I'm inclined to agree. A power that only does knockback, or is otherwise heavily limited, also becomes problematic with AP caps. Many unusual abilities that are fairly costed using real points have inappropriate AP costs. Changing that would require a revision much broader than anything changed between 5e and 6e, and I include the loss of figured characteristics in this.

[ideasmith]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Although I understand the reluctance to disclose game design philosophy in the rules, I really wish Steve had put his philosophy on AP caps directly in the book. He has indicated (although I'm not sure whether it was on the Boards) that he does not consider AP caps to be a rule of Hero system, and he will not design the system to accommodate AP caps.

 

I'm inclined to agree. A power that only does knockback, or is otherwise heavily limited, also becomes problematic with AP caps. Many unusual abilities that are fairly costed using real points have inappropriate AP costs. Changing that would require a revision much broader than anything changed between 5e and 6e, and I include the loss of figured characteristics in this.

 

I am not sure that having 'active' Limitations which count towards active cost and 'passive' Advantages which do not is that big a change. Even if it would mean sometimes using the real cost formula for active costs and the active cost formula for real costs. Nor am I sure that this wouldn't solve (or mostly solve) the problem.

[The Main Man]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I am not sure that having 'active' Limitations which count towards active cost and 'passive' Advantages which do not is that big a change. Even if it would mean sometimes using the real cost formula for active costs and the active cost formula for real costs. Nor am I sure that this wouldn't solve (or mostly solve) the problem.

I remember suggesting an alternate dichotomy of Power Modifiers as Active and Utility Modifiers. (courtesy goes to Klaus Mogenson for the names)

 

They were not based on positive nor negative value, but rather on function.

 

Active Modifiers dealt with the raw mechanics of a power like range, END cost, duration, or damage.

 

Examples of this were Reduced/Increased END Cost, Continuous/Persistent, Inherent/Instant, or Extra Time.

 

Active Modifiers, whether positive or negative, added up to configure the Active Cost of a power, which in theory could mean a power that has lower Active Points than Base or Real because that would be the result of decreased raw functions.

 

 

 

Utility Modifiers dealt with the less mechanical aspects of the power that places them in the context of the game world itself.

 

Examples of this include Focus, Usable by Other, or Delayed Effect.

 

Utility Modifiers, whether positive or negative, added up to calculate the Real Cost of a power, which in theory meant that the Real Cost could be higher than the Active Cost as it's in-game functions made it better than it's raw mechanics would otherwise indicate.

[James Gillen]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Although I understand the reluctance to disclose game design philosophy in the rules, I really wish Steve had put his philosophy on AP caps directly in the book. He has indicated (although I'm not sure whether it was on the Boards) that he does not consider AP caps to be a rule of Hero system, and he will not design the system to accommodate AP caps.

 

I'm inclined to agree. A power that only does knockback, or is otherwise heavily limited, also becomes problematic with AP caps. Many unusual abilities that are fairly costed using real points have inappropriate AP costs. Changing that would require a revision much broader than anything changed between 5e and 6e, and I include the loss of figured characteristics in this.

 

Anyone who actually has imposed AP caps on his game will find that a lot of Powers become impossible even if they're heavily Limited. This might also explain why the new VPP rules "de-couple" the basic Pool Cost from the Control Cost, which can be Limited and now represents Active Points (as opposed to the 5E base Pool, which used to represent both Active and Real Cost).

 

JG

[Ice9]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Active Modifiers dealt with the raw mechanics of a power like range, END cost, duration, or damage.

 

Examples of this were Reduced/Increased END Cost, Continuous/Persistent, Inherent/Instant, or Extra Time.

 

...

 

Utility Modifiers dealt with the less mechanical aspects of the power that places them in the context of the game world itself.

 

Examples of this include Focus, Usable by Other, or Delayed Effect.

 

...

While interesting, I don't think this gives any better correlation between true effectiveness and Active Points than the standard system. For instance, 0-End, while potentially potent with continuous powers, generally doesn't make a power any stronger in terms of effect. Usable by Others - especially Usable as Attack - can make a power vastly more potent.

 

Ultimately, I think powers vary so much that there's no reliable rule for whether a modifier "should" be affecting the active points or not. Extra Time (extra phase) on a Blast? That's a significant weakness, and would merit a higher base DC, IMO. Extra Time (extra phase) on a Summon? Often won't even matter, not a reason to have a more powerful Summon than normally allowed.

 

For which reason, I prefer a combination of rough DC (not AP) caps and case-by-case ruling.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I don't know if this is really a gotcha or not, but if you make your Per roll to spot that Images are fake, they can't block your Line of Sight. How the heck spotting that a wall isn't textured well enough to be a real wall lets you somehow suddently detect the light coming through it is beyond me. Knowing something is fake and stopping it from having any affect on your senses are two wildly different things in my mind. So we're going to have to start linking some Darkness into most of our Images powers now, or what?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Uh... I think you're going to just apply common sense.

 

If it's an Image of a wall in empty space, and you see through it then it can't block your sight.

If it's an Image of a different Wallpaper on a normal wall and you see through it - then congratulations you've got clear line of site to the real wall.

 

Seriously... how was that even a concern?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Uh... I think you're going to just apply common sense.

 

If it's an Image of a wall in empty space, and you see through it then it can't block your sight.

If it's an Image of a different Wallpaper on a normal wall and you see through it - then congratulations you've got clear line of site to the real wall.

 

Seriously... how was that even a concern?

 

I guess my issue is with that term, "seeing through it," that you use. It doesn't make sense to me (for most SFX I can imagine of the Images Power) that making a Per roll let's you literally see through the image. Most of the time I'd see that Per roll as allowing you to detect small elements of the illusion (discrepancies, lack of detail, etc.) that wouldn't make sense if it were real, meaning you detect it as a fake and, "see through it," in a figurative sense, not a literal one.

[Hierax]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Why not have it both ways? If you just barely make the PER Roll, you know the wall is fake but can still see it; if you make the PER Roll by a bunch you see right through it as if it wasn't there. Sort of like a Transparency setting slider, if you will, the more you make the roll by the more faded the fake wall is.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I don't know if this is really a gotcha or not' date=' but if you make your Per roll to spot that Images are fake, they can't block your Line of Sight. How the heck spotting that a wall isn't textured well enough to be a real wall lets you somehow suddently detect the light coming through it is beyond me. Knowing something is fake and stopping it from having any affect on your senses are two wildly different things in [i']my[/i] mind. So we're going to have to start linking some Darkness into most of our Images powers now, or what?

 

How about using an adder called Opaque that, even when the Image is detected as a non-real non-object, it still blocks LoS for the Sense Group it is bought for?

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

How about using an adder called Opaque that' date=' even when the Image is detected as a non-real non-object, it still blocks LoS for the Sense Group it is bought for?[/quote']

 

If I'm going to house rule anything, it'll probably just be that basic Images can block LOS even if the Per roll is made. I just think it is wonky that that's the official way the Power works, and it might be an easy one for people to miss.