Elemental Controls

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by zornwil

GASP - we might be agreeing!

 

EDIT - and that also means Hugh's contention regarding how easy it is to deal with an EC is also where we'd agree the current EC "works" on a points-balanced basis - I think.

 

Optimist

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

Let me ask you and everybody else on this thread. Would you, Zornwill, Farkling, AgentX, Badger, and anybody else who I'm missing, allow a 80 base point multipower that could have 140 pts worth of slots with continuing charges of movements, defenses, and utility powers and thus have 220 pts of powers up at the same time? While I'm at it, how many of you would allow 0 end powers in a EC?

 

If you're saying (but I don't think you are) an actual expenditure of 220 real points, I probably would as the player is putting most of their character into this one construct, and of course this assumes he and I are clear as to the rationale and okay with the consequences, EXCEPT for the continuous part. I'd "tamper" with that in all likelihood - unless the utility of those powers were appropriately limited otherwise. So it's a yes/no answer, not as such. If it's 220 Active Points and there's other lims and such going on, I'm sure there'd be substantial revisions although I might end up with the spirit of what the character wanted.

 

Regarding 0 END powers in an EC, nearly all the time I do although I've been blessed with players who reel themselves in to some degree (some less than others, but on the whole I don't have to really watchdog it too often).

 

However, as evidenced by a couple separate messages, I see merit to estabilshing a more rigorous form of control/restraint in the EC discounts. For me, the system that i proposed (which is based on yours and Hugh's thread so I don't take direct credit) will fix any cost imbalances in my games that I may not have been attentive to before, although I may not go there with current games, waiting isntead to apply it to future games. The actual real-world implementation I'm not sure of yet, in other words.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Optimist

 

Probably. At the very least I think we're getting a handle on where Gary's unhappy with ECs and where you're happy with them - it seems to be about the ease of "dispelling" (not in the game power mechanical term) the EC and having that on order with NNDs, a fairly brilliant point Hugh and one which I think ought to be considered in future editions of HERO, regardless of whether a finer cost break mechanism is ever deemed necessary. I don't believe any current or prior edition of HERO was successful in placing it in a game-consistent context as you have, you deserve a lot of credit for that.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

There is a difference between prohibiting the character and denying them an EC. First, you argue that EC's are unfairly beneficial in all cases. Then you argue that pretty much any special effect one wishes to apply can be applied. Should they be restricted, or shouldn't they? Tighter control over SFX is one way to restrict them - and a method that does not require significant change to the mechanics.

 

You haven't answered my questions. Would you disallow Mr. Fantastic with a stretching EC or Medusa with a Hair Control EC or a telekinetic EC? And if you don't disallow those ECs, why in the world would you disallow Lariat's EC?

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

First you were arguing that ECs weren't abusive based simply on powers and cost structures. Now you're saying that they are abusive, and therefore should be controlled tightly. Which is it? And I disagree that Lariat is in any way pushing the limits of a EC. Unless you're willing to say that every Stretching, Telekinetic, or Hair Control EC is pushing the limits.

 

It's interesting that you argue for restrictions to "continuing charges" powers because the FAQ says the GM should watch for abuse, but not for any restrictions to EC's, which FREd says should be watched for abuse. Now I haven't read through all the 5th Ed characters - any example of a published character with continuing charges?

 

I can't recall any continuing charges multis except for stuff like smoke grenades.

 

I support restrictions on ECs and mandate that they have to have a tight special effect and an active control of an "element". My question is why you don't consider Lariat to have those qualities?

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I know the FAQ discusses several times whether a power with lasting effects should "vanish" when the multipower point reserve is shifted. Adjustment powers and summon, for example, get this question. The rule is that they do not. Would you deny Summon with continuing charges because now there's a statement that says "watch for abuse", but allow a multipower with 10 different Summons without charges which is used to summon 10 powerful helpers, one at a time?

 

Adjustment powers and summon are "fire and forget" powers. They are very different from calling something that gives you active control of the power after switching slots in the multipower. Although I might argue that you have no control over your summons if you switch slots.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

How is it a big advantage to EC over Multi that you can use all the powers at the same time, if you rarely if ever need or want to use all the powers at the same time? You're down on ZedF for having a -1/4 limit for something that almost never happens, but you're OK with a multipower giving a -4 or -9 limitation for something that almost never happens. Mr. Apple, meet Mr. Orange!

 

You need to look at the EC more closely. If Lariat feels the need to deflect an incoming attack, she can still keep her FF up at the same time, keep an opponent grabbed from 10 meters away, and could have half leaped in the same phase. A multi guy cannot do all this, especially if he spent only 78 pts on his multi with the same limitation structure.

 

And if Lariat is wary of an ambush or is blinded or is in a darkness field, she can still keep up her FF, attack someone 10 meters away, and half leap in the same phase.

 

Just because she doesn't keep them up all the time doesn't mean that there aren't situations where it isn't vital and desirable to do so.

 

Incidentally, any comments on the character herself instead of her EC?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Of course, the martial artist would NEVER consider using soecial maneuvers which permit him to do things pure STR cannot. That would be silly, wouldn't it? Better he should try to duplicate a Brick's abilities, but not actually be Brick.

 

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised - your other examples want to use a Multipower to do what an EC does best, rather than focus on what a multipower does best.

 

Such as? I used the exact same baselines, and the exact same basic 10 pts of maneuvers. The MA could certainly buy more maneuvers, but the brick can buy the same maneuvers at the same cost. The only things that MAs might do is buy some NND, Flash, or KA maneuvers which he would do better than the brick. However, the brick could use those extra points spent on maneuvers to buy stuff like flash defense or life support. And honestly, the option of purchasing those maneuvers isn't even close to the value of the extra characteristics, lifting, and free occasional area effects of a brick.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

There are certainly GM enforced items in the game. That's why we need all the stop signs, caution signs, "watch for abuses" comments, etc. etc. etc. The game's flexibility makes these necessray to imnpose some restraints.

 

But if bricks are truly overpowered because STR is cheap, I would suggest that, when I set a campaign ground rule of "Everyone selects their character independently", I would get a disproportionate number of Brick proposals. I've done that. Getting two Brick proposals is pretty rare. Everyone (or even a large majority) having an EC is rare.

 

[before we start that thread, the idea is "send a brief character outline" indepoendently - if someone else already took that schtick, I'll reject the later one. But I have never had to reject a Brick. I have had a group co-ordinate character selection and argue about who would play the Brick - everyone thought we should have one, but no one wanted to play him.]

 

Do you have campaign limits on DC or Dex/Spd for different archetypes? That might explain the scarcity of bricks. Bricks are no fun if limited to 20 dex/4 spd, while everyone else has 23/5 or 26/6.

 

Would you reject Lariat?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The EC effectively got a -1 limitation to add a power. The Multi slot got -4 or -9 for "lockout", remember? The more limitations you stack, the less effective they become.

 

And here is where the "double dipping" aspect of a EC comes in. Normally, a -1 limitation stacked another -1 limitation is a -2 limitation. A 60 pt power would drop to 20 pts.

 

With a EC, you're essentially dividing by 2 twice instead of dividing by 3 once. The same 60 pt power drops to 15 pts.

 

However, it doesn't negate my point that if you only want limitations on individual slots instead of the entire framework, you get a much bigger benefit from a EC than a Multi.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

But if bricks are truly overpowered because STR is cheap, I would suggest that, when I set a campaign ground rule of "Everyone selects their character independently", I would get a disproportionate number of Brick proposals. I've done that. Getting two Brick proposals is pretty rare. Everyone (or even a large majority) having an EC is rare.

 

[before we start that thread, the idea is "send a brief character outline" indepoendently - if someone else already took that schtick, I'll reject the later one. But I have never had to reject a Brick. I have had a group co-ordinate character selection and argue about who would play the Brick - everyone thought we should have one, but no one wanted to play him.]

I have a hard time getting someone to play a brick. When they do, it's not because they get whomping heap-loads of point efficiency in figured characteristics - it's because they want to fling things around and soak up punishment. And if someone wants to play a martial artist, they're going to expect to have and are almost certain to get DCV's and plentiful phases enough to avoid the need to use lots of PD, REC, and STUN. Much the same goes for other non-brick character concepts. Demonstrating a high STR amounts to putting a great big "Hit Me" sign on - you're likely to scare people, they know you've probably got the defenses to make taking you down not a thing for half-measures, and most importantly, you're almost certainly elminating any range mod penalties for them voluntarily by closing in to whack them.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

And here is where the "double dipping" aspect of a EC comes in. Normally, a -1 limitation stacked another -1 limitation is a -2 limitation. A 60 pt power would drop to 20 pts.

 

With a EC, you're essentially dividing by 2 twice instead of dividing by 3 once. The same 60 pt power drops to 15 pts.

 

However, it doesn't negate my point that if you only want limitations on individual slots instead of the entire framework, you get a much bigger benefit from a EC than a Multi.

 

Not quite, at least not if you're comparing to an MP. The MP is divided once by 5 or 10, and then a -1 halves that AGAIN, not makes the divisor 6 or 11 (though as you bring it up it's not such a bad idea).

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil

GASP - we might be agreeing!

 

EDIT - and that also means Hugh's contention regarding how easy it is to deal with an EC is also where we'd agree the current EC "works" on a points-balanced basis - I think.

 

Zornwil, do you think Lariat's EC is too cheap for the benefits she gets from it? She paid 78 pts for powers that would cost 125 if paid straight, or 103 if they each took a -1/4 limitation, and she's not really limited in how she uses those powers. It'd be really hard to duplicate that suite of abilities with 78 pts using a multipower with m slots.

[Zed-F]

I would require some modifications to Lariat, but I wouldn't reject the character out of hand. Characteristics-wise, she violates campaign maxima for the campaigns I tend to run, but I run lower-powered campaigns. Even in a 350-point campaign, though, she runs close to campaign maxima for too many things at once. STR, DEX, CON, SPD, PD, ED, all pretty much at campaign maxima? I don't think so. Too hard to hurt, for starters. Not to say that as GM I can't work around it, but including Lariat-busting attacks in the villains' repertoires is not going to make life any easier on your teammates.

 

I am also not a big fan of 10-point MA packages, I would probably require you to take at least double that in maneuvers. Additionally, I would require some changes to the EC - the missile deflect could stay, if bought with END cost required, though since it's limited you'd have to buy 5-point levels for it not 2-point levels, so your deflect roll would go down some. However, the spatial awareness would probably be an issue. I'd also suggest you take extra limbs (outside the EC) for your force tendrils, or else you will have problems doing more than one thing at a time.

 

From your description, a "superleap piledriver" wouldn't work that way. In my game, such an attack would be a move through, not a martial throw. Martial throw normally works off how fast your opponent is moving, not how fast you are moving.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil

Not quite, at least not if you're comparing to an MP. The MP is divided once by 5 or 10, and then a -1 halves that AGAIN, not makes the divisor 6 or 11 (though as you bring it up it's not such a bad idea).

 

Well, if you have a 40 pt EC vs a 40 pt multipower, limiting a slot of the EC by -1/2 would save you 7 pts while it would save you 1 pt with a 4 pt ultra slot and 3 pts with a 8 pt flex slot. It's far more cost effective putting limitations in a single slot or a few slots of a EC rather than putting limitations on a single slot or a few slots of a multi.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Zed-F

I would require some modifications to Lariat, but I wouldn't reject the character out of hand. Characteristics-wise, she violates campaign maxima for the campaigns I tend to run, but I run lower-powered campaigns. Even in a 350-point campaign, though, she runs close to campaign maxima for too many things at once. STR, DEX, CON, SPD, PD, ED, all pretty much at campaign maxima? I don't think so. Too hard to hurt, for starters. Not to say that as GM I can't work around it, but including Lariat-busting attacks in the villains' repertoires is not going to make life any easier on your teammates.

 

Yeah I actually agree with you. The original version that I played started with 23 dex/5 spd as well as other lowered stats due to campaign limits. She did upgrade as the campaign went on. I just posted the character to show how dangerous a combined characteristic monster/EC fiend could be.

 

Originally posted by Zed-F

I am also not a big fan of 10-point MA packages, I would probably require you to take at least double that in maneuvers. Additionally, I would require some changes to the EC - the missile deflect could stay, if bought with END cost required, though since it's limited you'd have to buy 5-point levels for it not 2-point levels, so your deflect roll would go down some. However, the spatial awareness would probably be an issue. I'd also suggest you take extra limbs (outside the EC) for your force tendrils, or else you will have problems doing more than one thing at a time.

 

She does have extra limbs outside the EC. Good point about the 5 pt missile deflect skill levels. The spatial awareness does fit within the special effects of her power, but I wouldn't argue if you asked me to move it.

 

Originally posted by Zed-F

From your description, a "superleap piledriver" wouldn't work that way. In my game, such an attack would be a move through, not a martial throw. Martial throw normally works off how fast your opponent is moving, not how fast you are moving.

 

If I have the target grabbed and leap with him, his velocity is my velocity. Just be glad I didn't purchase passing strike.

 

Would you allow the emergency power?

 

Thanks for the comments.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

Well, if you have a 40 pt EC vs a 40 pt multipower, limiting a slot of the EC by -1/2 would save you 7 pts while it would save you 1 pt with a 4 pt ultra slot and 3 pts with a 8 pt flex slot. It's far more cost effective putting limitations in a single slot or a few slots of a EC rather than putting limitations on a single slot or a few slots of a multi.

 

Irrelevant. My point was simply that you can't say that both frameworks don't reduce cost by a division and THEN apply another division. MP slots (like EC) are not built on "-4" limitation or "-9" limitation.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

Zornwil, do you think Lariat's EC is too cheap for the benefits she gets from it? She paid 78 pts for powers that would cost 125 if paid straight, or 103 if they each took a -1/4 limitation, and she's not really limited in how she uses those powers. It'd be really hard to duplicate that suite of abilities with 78 pts using a multipower with m slots.

 

I don't know why you're throwing MPs into this one.

 

Anyway, whether it's too cheap depends on how Lariat and the GM will play it out. You cannot divorce that from the equation however much you want to - as you know, the gameplay of a character is separate from what you see on paper.

 

I think Hugh set the correct standard for what should be a canonical EC: it should pass the same test as an NND to be justified.

 

So if Lariat girl's EC powers can be restrained by a clever but normal guy with access to Home Depot and some prep time, the cost break is not too cheap.

 

However, if Lariat girl can only be restrained by an appropriately prepared super-character, I'd go with the discount on each EC slot as being equal to 1/4 of the Control Cost.

 

So are we in agreement by example?

 

(EDIT - changed "Lariat girl" to "Lariat girl's EC powers" above).

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by zornwil

Probably. At the very least I think we're getting a handle on where Gary's unhappy with ECs and where you're happy with them - it seems to be about the ease of "dispelling" (not in the game power mechanical term) the EC and having that on order with NNDs, a fairly brilliant point Hugh and one which I think ought to be considered in future editions of HERO, regardless of whether a finer cost break mechanism is ever deemed necessary. I don't believe any current or prior edition of HERO was successful in placing it in a game-consistent context as you have, you deserve a lot of credit for that.

 

Now if I only applied it consistently in my games, huh? These things tend to be a lot easier in theory than in practice.

 

Thanks for the support, though.

 

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Now if I only applied it consistently in my games, huh? These things tend to be a lot easier in theory than in practice.

 

Yeah, I know what you mean. I will freely admit to being pretty free with ECs (well, as free as the books, which are pretty free). I think using the NND standard as the test using a fractional method of applying the discount where it's not up to the NND standard will give me the proper focus to at least improve how I'm allowing these.

 

Of course this whole debate hasn't even talked about whether ECs, even liberally applied, have had any impact on the fun we have in the game. It's a personal question. All I can say is that they haven't for me and they don't seem to have for the vast majority.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil

I don't know why you're throwing MPs into this one.

 

Anyway, whether it's too cheap depends on how Lariat and the GM will play it out. You cannot divorce that from the equation however much you want to - as you know, the gameplay of a character is separate from what you see on paper.

 

I think Hugh set the correct standard for what should be a canonical EC: it should pass the same test as an NND to be justified.

 

So if Lariat girl's EC powers can be restrained by a clever but normal guy with access to Home Depot and some prep time, the cost break is not too cheap.

 

However, if Lariat girl can only be restrained by an appropriately prepared super-character, I'd go with the discount on each EC slot as being equal to 1/4 of the Control Cost.

 

So are we in agreement by example?

 

(EDIT - changed "Lariat girl" to "Lariat girl's EC powers" above).

 

I actually agree with you. You should get a benefit based on how much the power actually limits you, which in the case of most ECs isn't -1 and certainly isn't in Lariat's case. She is essentially getting some free points. This is something I've been saying all along. But Lariat's EC is something legal "by the book", and fits all published guidelines. Now do you understand why I have a problem with the "by the book" EC?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

Do you have campaign limits on DC or Dex/Spd for different archetypes? That might explain the scarcity of bricks. Bricks are no fun if limited to 20 dex/4 spd, while everyone else has 23/5 or 26/6.

 

I'm a "holistic character reviewer". I don't restruct different archetypes differntly, I eyeball the characters and decide what is, or is not, acceptable. Is an 18 DCV unreasonable? That depends on the rest of the character. I don't expect to allow a 18 DCV combined with 35 defenses! Is an 8 speed (or a 10) unreasnable? Again, it depends. Does the character combine it with the highest attacks in the group, or the lowest?

 

Flexibility also enters the picture - is our high PD/ED character vulnerable to special attacks, or does he have a swack of special defenses as well? Is our 18d6 attacker versatile, or helpless if his usual attack isn't suited for the task at hand? Does this character have excessive power offensively, but suffer defensively (or vice versa)? It's all about the tradeoffs.

 

I haven't commented on Lariat because, frankly, I haven't looked hard at the character outside the EC.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Zed-F

Even in a 350-point campaign, though, she runs close to campaign maxima for too many things at once. STR, DEX, CON, SPD, PD, ED, all pretty much at campaign maxima?

 

I'd agree with all of Zed-F's comments, especially that one. So I guess I likely wouldn't allow the character without some modifications. I don't make a habit of rejecting characters out of hand, so I wuld not dismiss the concept, but the execution has to be within realistic campaign parameters.

 

Nice all on the levels by Zed-F. by the way, aren't skills as powers "special powers" not normally permitted in frameworks? Gary, you're the guy who has been calling down "special permission" continuing charges in a multipower, so I would think you would set an example!

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by zornwil

Of course this whole debate hasn't even talked about whether ECs, even liberally applied, have had any impact on the fun we have in the game. It's a personal question. All I can say is that they haven't for me and they don't seem to have for the vast majority.

 

A key reason for keeping the status quo, at least in my opinion. If it's not broken, why fix it?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I'd agree with all of Zed-F's comments, especially that one. So I guess I likely wouldn't allow the character without some modifications. I don't make a habit of rejecting characters out of hand, so I wuld not dismiss the concept, but the execution has to be within realistic campaign parameters.

 

Nice all on the levels by Zed-F. by the way, aren't skills as powers "special powers" not normally permitted in frameworks? Gary, you're the guy who has been calling down "special permission" continuing charges in a multipower, so I would think you would set an example!

 

Sorry, that was a legacy of 4th edition when it was legal. Missed it. I would probably trade it in for an adder with some additional range.

 

Incidentally, the character, Vibron, in CKC has +8 DCV costs end in a EC.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

I actually agree with you. You should get a benefit based on how much the power actually limits you, which in the case of most ECs isn't -1 and certainly isn't in Lariat's case. She is essentially getting some free points. This is something I've been saying all along. But Lariat's EC is something legal "by the book", and fits all published guidelines. Now do you understand why I have a problem with the "by the book" EC?

 

Yes, the fundamental misunderstanding appears to be around what people consider a "valid EC." I agree the book is quite liberal on the matter, or at least it is when viewed through many supplements. However, it sounds like actual usage runs from strict enough to qualify for -1 to loose enough to not qualify for any limitation.

 

I would still be somewhat liberal because I believe, unlike you, that the other constructs (MP and VPP) grant "free" points as a concept award, but we don't strictly need to go there in order to agree on the issue at hand and valid approaches.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

A key reason for keeping the status quo, at least in my opinion. If it's not broken, why fix it?

 

Well, what I think is broken, as revealed by these exchanges, is the lack of a real standard to judge ECs by. I'm less concerned with how flexible published characters are - in fact published characters often break the rules in some way or are more liberal in interpretation than many GMs.

 

So I would argue that the inclusion of the "NND standard" be necessary to the EC framework. That is where Gary's fundamental problem gets resolved and doesn't break any campaigns. I also think that obviates the need to exclude 0 END powers (though I would not particularly object if that remains the rule, I just house-rule that out) and I even think it defines the SFX linkage well enough to not have to state drain-one-drain-all.

 

Now, on a tangent, I think the EXECUTION (not the rule) for NNDs is broken when you review published characters. I do not agree that "having a force field" is adequate to an NND unless it's better qualified to mean that this "force field" would be achievable by an ordinary human (not necessarily without some cleverness and preparation though).

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil

Yes, the fundamental misunderstanding appears to be around what people consider a "valid EC." I agree the book is quite liberal on the matter, or at least it is when viewed through many supplements. However, it sounds like actual usage runs from strict enough to qualify for -1 to loose enough to not qualify for any limitation.

 

I would still be somewhat liberal because I believe, unlike you, that the other constructs (MP and VPP) grant "free" points as a concept award, but we don't strictly need to go there in order to agree on the issue at hand and valid approaches.

 

Just out of curiousity, if you think multipowers are giving out free points, what do you think would be a "market" price where it stops giving free points? 1/5 for ultra slots and 2/5 for flex slots?

 

If a multipower did charge those prices, I don't think it would be competitive with buying straight powers at all. 120 pts for a 5 slot 60 pt multi?

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

Just out of curiousity, if you think multipowers are giving out free points, what do you think would be a "market" price where it stops giving free points? 1/5 for ultra slots and 2/5 for flex slots?

 

If a multipower did charge those prices, I don't think it would be competitive with buying straight powers at all. 120 pts for a 5 slot 60 pt multi?

 

I dunno, I thnk it would require a LOT of study AND playtesting, but I'd think it'd be more like:

 

- apply MP (and EC and VPP) as actual limitations (or in the case of VPPs advantages) on the slots (or in the case of VPP control costs) rather than having these applied as before-the-fact dividers/multipliers

 

- given that, my guesstimate for ECs would be -1/2 (again, if we're using the NND standard), MP flexis -3, MP ultras -6, and VPP control costs +3/4 or +1.