Hugh Neilson Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Since you asked... Originally posted by Gary Here's an example of a character I actually ran for a few years. This character combined the efficiencies of characteristics with that of EC's. This has been edited for 5th edition and 350 pts with a 60 pt DC cap. I'm doing this from memory since I don't have a character sheet in front of me. She was a great character. I don't claim that this is the most efficient way to build a character, but I'm sure most people would agree that she is an efficient character. Lariat Ann Bowen 60 Str 50 30 Dex 60 33 Con 46 10 Body 0 18 Int 8 14 Ego 8 15 Pre 5 22 Com 6 12 PD 0 12 ED 5 6 SPD 20 15 Rec -8 66 End 0 57 Stun 0 200 characteristics cost As noted previously, I'm with ZedF on this - nothing over campaign max, but everything at max, doesn't do it for me. Originally posted by Gary 5 Extra limbs (force tendrils) 15 EC force tendrils 15 12/12 force field 1/2 end 13 5" stretching 1/2 end no noncombat stretching (-1/4) 15 24" leap 1/2 end (36" total) 10 missile deflection all with +5 to roll cost end (-1/2) 9 360 degree spatial awareness +1 to perception roll cost end (-1/2) range limited to stretching (-1/4) touch sense group This one I'm not clear on, obviously. Are the Extra Limbs needed to run the EC? Aren't they part of the "force tendrils"? Clearly yes, but not in the EC because of cost issues. I continue to see the tendrils as a stretch (no pun intended). Let's discuss how similar to Stretching they are. If targeted (as they reach around a corner for Spatial Awareness), can you be injured through them, for example? They are sensitive to touch (spatial awareness), yet used to deflect laser beams and provide defenses? Nope, not seeing the logic! Originally posted by Gary 16 8/8 armor OIF costume This just smacks of "I want every kind of defenses in the book". Originally posted by Gary 7 explosion on 60 str personal immunity on explosion X10 end cost (-4) (emergency power) I'm generally down on abilities like this one. Would YOU have a problem if every second villain had a similarly effective "one trick" type power? Sure, it costs 47 END, leaves 19 + 15 for PS 12 recovery used at the start = 34 END to fight with. I'd let you have it provided you reduce the cost somewhat - specifically, by removing "personal immunity" - you're in the center of the sonic boom, and I see no indication why the character should be immune to it. I also question whether this is "explosive STR" or an EB with no range (ie buy the whole thing). 105 powers cost Originally posted by Gary Martial arts 5 Defensive Strike 12d6 3 Martial Grab 70 str 3 Martial Throw 12d6 + v/5 6 2 levels with MA While I don't have the same concern about 10 points MA, I agree with Zed F that you can't martial throw based on your velocity. Martial Throw uses your opponent's velocity against him. If you're holding a target and leaping, your tendrils are a little busy to also achieve the fine dynamics of Martial Throw. I woldn't allow a flying martial artist to do this either, and at least flight has some control while you're in the air. Leap doesn't even have that. If I allowed the pass by attack, you'd sure see a lot of OPPONENTS with martial throw, though. Originally posted by Gary Total OCV/DCV of 10 with 2 levels. 32/32 def, 20 resistent. See, that all looks so reasonable, doesn't it. Ignores the DCV boost and the inclusion of just about every available defense to build PD/ED. On the other hand, the character has no exotic defenses, so that mitigates it somewhat. Originally posted by Gary She is a mutant who is superstrong, agile, and fast. She has the mutant power to convert her internal str into energy tendrils that can be used for a wide variety of effects. These energy tendrils can be manipulated by her as if they were an extension of herself. She can use them to cover her body (FF), push against the ground to travel far distances (superleap), make attacks and use fine manipulation at up to 10 meters away (stretching), block attacks (missile deflection), and she can use them to "feel" around her in a 10 meter radius (spatial awareness). Originally posted by Gary In combat, she usually uses her defensive strike or grab. She can grab or strike from 10 meters away. If she grabs an opponent and thinks the opponent can take the damage, she does a superleap piledriver (martial throw) for 19d6 damage. She has also been known to use tough grabbed opponents as shields with her missile deflection. The "grab and block" maneuver is legit. However, you choose either Block to interpose the Grabbed opponent or Missile deflect. They are different abilities. Once the target is hit, you can either take the knockback with him or let him go, by the way. Originally posted by Gary Notes Defensive strike is the best maneuver if you have a DC cap, combined with maxing strength. Little manipulators like that are one reason I apply an overall reasonableness standard rather than one of "does it fit these technical parameters". Originally posted by Gary She is the owner of Bowen Industries, a huge conglomerate that specializes in fashion. A very lucrative part of her business is making protective clothing of a special patented nature that feels like regular clothing, but protects like kevlar. So it's OK if everyone you meet has 8/8 armor then? That's a bit of a campaign changer. Hardly central to the character, though, and background really isn't the point of this little exercise. Frankly, while I'm a bit down on the EC special effects, the EC itself isn't really a game breaker for me. It's the combined abilities of the character - everything above average. Toned down a bit, the character wouldn't be a bad fit in my campaign (mind you my present campaign is a bit higher powered than the norm for 350 points anyway). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Originally posted by Gary 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 find the current MP structure quite workable, but I also find the current EC structure doesn't cost me a lot of sleep either. I'm not trying to change the system, just assess what your change might do to its balance. Because, so far, it's been pretty balanced with the present structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Originally posted by Hugh Neilson Since you asked... As noted previously, I'm with ZedF on this - nothing over campaign max, but everything at max, doesn't do it for me. I agree. Despite how it appears in this thread, I'm very reasonable when working with a GM to produce a viable character. The GM asked me to reduce her dex/spd to 23/5 among other things and I agreed. Originally posted by Hugh Neilson This one I'm not clear on, obviously. Are the Extra Limbs needed to run the EC? Aren't they part of the "force tendrils"? Clearly yes, but not in the EC because of cost issues. Bingo. It's stupid putting a 5 pt power in a 30 pt EC. And extra limbs don't cost end so they don't even meet that test. Originally posted by Hugh Neilson I continue to see the tendrils as a stretch (no pun intended). Let's discuss how similar to Stretching they are. If targeted (as they reach around a corner for Spatial Awareness), can you be injured through them, for example? They are sensitive to touch (spatial awareness), yet used to deflect laser beams and provide defenses? Nope, not seeing the logic! The tendrils for spatial awareness are too diffuse for causing her harm if targetted. Sort of like lots of little cilia. For FF and missile deflection, they are too hard to be easily damaged from attacks. In order to use her strength through them to target or manipulate things (stretching), they have to have a certain flexibility and malleability to them, which makes them somewhat vulnerable (if you call 32 Def vulnerable! ) Originally posted by Hugh Neilson This just smacks of "I want every kind of defenses in the book". Yep, it's true. But as you picked up later, it's justified. In fact, Bowen material was the special effect for a number of players buying armored costumes in the game. Originally posted by Hugh Neilson I'm generally down on abilities like this one. Would YOU have a problem if every second villain had a similarly effective "one trick" type power? Sure, it costs 47 END, leaves 19 + 15 for PS 12 recovery used at the start = 34 END to fight with. I'd let you have it provided you reduce the cost somewhat - specifically, by removing "personal immunity" - you're in the center of the sonic boom, and I see no indication why the character should be immune to it. I also question whether this is "explosive STR" or an EB with no range (ie buy the whole thing). 105 powers cost If you asked me to get rid of it, I wouldn't mind. It's not like it was used that often and it does exceed campaign damage caps. Although if you got rid of personal immunity, the end cost drops to 37 and I save a point. Originally posted by Hugh Neilson While I don't have the same concern about 10 points MA, I agree with Zed F that you can't martial throw based on your velocity. Martial Throw uses your opponent's velocity against him. If you're holding a target and leaping, your tendrils are a little busy to also achieve the fine dynamics of Martial Throw. I woldn't allow a flying martial artist to do this either, and at least flight has some control while you're in the air. Leap doesn't even have that. If I allowed the pass by attack, you'd sure see a lot of OPPONENTS with martial throw, though. I have a question with Steve on this. We'll know soon enough. My GM didn't mind since it had to follow a grab and I had enough discretion not to use it on every target. Originally posted by Hugh Neilson See, that all looks so reasonable, doesn't it. Ignores the DCV boost and the inclusion of just about every available defense to build PD/ED. On the other hand, the character has no exotic defenses, so that mitigates it somewhat. She did buy mental defense later. Currently, she's well over 500 points and terrifying powerful. However, she's been retired for a long time. Originally posted by Hugh Neilson The "grab and block" maneuver is legit. However, you choose either Block to interpose the Grabbed opponent or Missile deflect. They are different abilities. Once the target is hit, you can either take the knockback with him or let him go, by the way. Little manipulators like that are one reason I apply an overall reasonableness standard rather than one of "does it fit these technical parameters". That's within your rights as a GM. Originally posted by Hugh Neilson So it's OK if everyone you meet has 8/8 armor then? That's a bit of a campaign changer. Hardly central to the character, though, and background really isn't the point of this little exercise. In practice, it wasn't really a problem. It was too expensive for the average Joe to afford, but VIPs and rich people had it. The President and Congress as well as the Secret Service were very good customers. And if we met hordes of agents with this armor, so what? Hordes of agents would probably have something like kevlar anyway. Originally posted by Hugh Neilson Frankly, while I'm a bit down on the EC special effects, the EC itself isn't really a game breaker for me. It's the combined abilities of the character - everything above average. Toned down a bit, the character wouldn't be a bad fit in my campaign (mind you my present campaign is a bit higher powered than the norm for 350 points anyway). Thanks for your comments. I would like to play in your campaign sometime just to see what it's like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 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? Show me the whole character and I will give my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zed-F Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 If I have the target grabbed and leap with him, his velocity is my velocity. Just be glad I didn't purchase passing strike. Not how it works, sorry. You don't get a martial throw for moving with someone in your grasp. That's essentially the same as a body slam - a move through. Your target would be at 1/2 DCV for being held, though. Would you allow the emergency power? Probably not as it stands, as (a) I don't generally like naked advantages, ( it violates campaign power levels, and © doesn't have enough drawbacks. I'd suggest an explosive HA instead -- and that's already a very efficient structure. Thanks for the comments. [/b] You're welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badger3k Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 After reading the 4 or 5 pages of posts since I left, eek! Just a few comments - even though it was covered neatly, I rarely use ECs because I don't see a benefit to them for the cost - I'm the exact opposite of you. Second, I am way way stricter than you. I would not allow Lariat Girl to have the EC - pure and simple. I can see it now - Me: "What's your reason - what are they based on?" Player: "Force power - telekinetic force "hair', like Medusa." M: "Uh - huh. What can you do?" P: "I can wrap myself up in them (the FF), while strecthing and attacking (stretch), Plus reach around corners (SA), deflect missiles and leap." M: "And your mind is sufficient to maintail subconscious and conscious control of these presumably thousands of tendrils, processing everything, enabling you to be pretty much a battle-globe and master of your little sphere of reach?" P: "Sure - I got a high Int" M: "Your character does - you, however..." Sorry - Medusa and Mr Fantastic are MPs in my book. I do not see medusa or Reed doing multiple things like that (please don't respond to that as a justification - we know comics and the game are two wildly different animals, re the Batman issue). Personal opinion, the character and player is reaching for too much - the concept does not justify the EC in my campaign. You have to have a better justification than that. As for any champs characters that have an EC, I haven't gone through CKC and the rest in detailed look at the abilities, nor does that bother me if every one has an EC and an MP. If I use such a character I may rewrite them, or leave them as is, depending on how they're going to be used. Said I was stricter. Now if after a long time playing, we decided to rework the character, I may be tempted to allow the EC. May. I wouldn't say no, but I haven't seen any reason to do so in the past. Anyway, another post has: This character is EC Force Tendrils, not EC Mutant. How is this any different from EC Telekinetic or EC Hair Control except that Force Tendrils have a shorter (5") range? It's an active control of an "element". Would you disallow EC Telekinesis in your game? Would you disallow Medusa's EC Hair Control in your game? Lariat has a tight special effect that explains all the powers. I think I've adequetly explained how each power works. I'm surprised you would allow any EC in your game if you wouldn't allow a character as well defined as Medusa in your game. Mainly for the EC Telekinesis - nope. Why not? Easy - they all require more concentration and awareness. I just stuck with the elemental part - a fire character may have an EB, FF (with or without damage shield), and flight because having a body surrounded by a flaming field could provide the last two, with the EB requiring the characters attention. Sorry - its how I learned and how I've always played. Telekinesis just doesn't "feel" right. The rest already covered. 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? I'd generally have problems with movement on charges, but I'd need the concept as well as the construction. I don't see a problem with the 0 END powers - If needed, they can buy costs END. If the player had good enough justification, then I would let the power in. Like Steve keeps saying - "based on special effects, common sense, and dramatic sense" along with GM is the final arbiter (sp?)... Looking for something I saw a while back...Here it is! Had to go back several pages - Originally posted by Gary As I said previously, there is nothing stopping a EC guy from buying a multipower as well. That line just struck me as funny. If you're trying to compare a straight EC and multipower for which is better for the exact same power, why should EC guy need a multipower? Here was Hugh's originsl post that you were responding to - Originally posted by Hugh Neilson We can both design constructs that show where a multi is more efficient, or where an EC is the better choice. One attack, one defense and one movement? The EC will perform. Choice between 7 attasks, 4 defenses and 3 movement powers? The Multi is the clear winner. But the issue is whether the EC is so clearly superior to the multipower that we should trash the EC point break in favour of a -1/4 limitation that the Multi Guy can also take. Your system provides the "one attack power; common special effect character" with no advantage at all. A multipower can do everything he can, altbeit with the inability to do it all at once. That gives the EC the advantage, but only where BOTH characters are designed to need to do everything all at once. Let's assume MultiGuy, instead of taking a higher EB, takes a second attack to Drain - Force Field. He can do this with 4 xp (he'll make it an Ultra, 4d6, no limits). So, how's EC Man doing now? Oh, but he can buy a drain too - he only needs another 28 XP to buy a 40 point power with a -1/4 limitation. I think the issue is that the flexibility is part of the multipower, expecially with experience. The last part is what you quoted when you responded (pg 15 I believe). How does EC guy with a superior EC, suddenly get experience and needs to buy a multipower? Hugh was posting that, limiting it like you were, to one EC in character 1, and 1 MP in character 2, character 2 can get a new power at 4 XP. Character 1 can buy the same power with 28 XP. Now, following the basis of your argument, EC guy is better off. Somehow. Apparently by buying a multipower. Supports that argument I guess. I do seem to be going after one point, since I haven't seen your answer, unless that is it. If I missed it, I apologize - there was a LOT to read. Again, how is EC guy advantaged in the experience point issue. Saying he'll buy a MP is weakening the argument - it's saying that an EC is not the best for everything. If you really don't see the experience issue as a factor, can you at least give your views on that? I'm trying to see where your coming from, but I'm sorry, I can't. Is the huge # of AP usable at once worth that much more than the non-combat functionality of many powers? If this seems really argumentative (or even personal), sorry, I really want your view on that. Anyway, like I said before, we play with different styles (and from reading people's posts, I think most don't play like I do). As long as you and yours have fun, that's what matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Hugh Neilson This just smacks of "I want every kind of defenses in the book". -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Gary Yep, it's true. But as you picked up later, it's justified. In fact, Bowen material was the special effect for a number of players buying armored costumes in the game. Justified in background, perhaps. Justified for a charafcter to have every defense power in the book? Maybe not. An easy fix would be to make the EC power "armor, costs END". Same costs, same effect, but the character has to suck up NND Force field attacks now. Not that I haven't run a power armor character with a force field, though. Originally posted by Gary If you asked me to get rid of it, I wouldn't mind. It's not like it was used that often and it does exceed campaign damage caps. Although if you got rid of personal immunity, the end cost drops to 37 and I save a point. And you take damage from it. I think I could get over the 1 point saved. Originally posted by Gary I have a question with Steve on this. We'll know soon enough. My GM didn't mind since it had to follow a grab and I had enough discretion not to use it on every target. Now we know. Originally posted by Gary In practice, it wasn't really a problem. It was too expensive for the average Joe to afford, but VIPs and rich people had it. The President and Congress as well as the Secret Service were very good customers. And if we met hordes of agents with this armor, so what? Hordes of agents would probably have something like kevlar anyway. I don't like the concept of every high profile hostage having a bulletproof suit, though. "Well, don't worry about the President - they'll need more than those .45 automatics to seriously hurt him." takes a lot of the stress out of protecting him. Originally posted by Gary Thanks for your comments. I would like to play in your campaign sometime just to see what it's like. I'd like to run my campaign - it's been a busy couple of years! I still need to look at some 4 to 5ED conversions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Originally posted by badger3k After reading the 4 or 5 pages of posts since I left, eek! Just a few comments - even though it was covered neatly, I rarely use ECs because I don't see a benefit to them for the cost - I'm the exact opposite of you. Second, I am way way stricter than you. I would not allow Lariat Girl to have the EC - pure and simple. I can see it now - Me: "What's your reason - what are they based on?" Player: "Force power - telekinetic force "hair', like Medusa." M: "Uh - huh. What can you do?" P: "I can wrap myself up in them (the FF), while strecthing and attacking (stretch), Plus reach around corners (SA), deflect missiles and leap." M: "And your mind is sufficient to maintail subconscious and conscious control of these presumably thousands of tendrils, processing everything, enabling you to be pretty much a battle-globe and master of your little sphere of reach?" P: "Sure - I got a high Int" M: "Your character does - you, however..." Sorry - Medusa and Mr Fantastic are MPs in my book. I do not see medusa or Reed doing multiple things like that (please don't respond to that as a justification - we know comics and the game are two wildly different animals, re the Batman issue). Personal opinion, the character and player is reaching for too much - the concept does not justify the EC in my campaign. You have to have a better justification than that. Wow! I like that theme for an elemental control. It's a very specifically themed form of telekinesis with obvious limitations to what powers could be bought. I think you are assuming even more limitations to the theme than are required. It seems like your complaint is that the character conception isn't enough like how you see the comic book character Medusa operating. It really annoys me when a GM says that they won't allow a concept like this because it's not "realistic." Superheroes aren't realistic. An example Telekinetic Hair Elemental Control: Base 20 Points 20 a) stretching 8" 20 strength 50 Strength (-1/2, does not add to base strength) 20 c) force field 20/20 Hair Multipower 20 Points 1u 10" Running (-1/2, does not add to base running) 1u 10" Superleap 2u Missile Deflection PS: I dislike these new keyboards. It's way too easy to accidentally post before you intend to because you hit the wrong key. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farkling Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 I am not fond of continuing charges either, and would need to see the rationale. I don't have too much of a problem with the EC, but I think it would be more efficient as a growing multipower. MY house rule on 0 END powers in EC's has been that they cost END when placed in an EC, as a (-0) limit. That seems to balance it out OK. I do allow reduced END and persistant to be bought afterwards....it seems to work in practice. I won't allow the Spatial Awareness in your EC...Special Powers are verboten in there by the book. Put it outside nest to the Extra Limbs. Additionally, ...explain just "how" you learned to apply Martial Arts to your Force Tendrils? Years of Practice with them? A telekinetic Zen monk? Incidentally, this question can stop some of the 10pt MA bricks also...if they didn't have martial arts training BEFORE their powers manifested...who in their STR and weight class trained them? I know for a fact, that in judo and karate, a sloppy well trained and strong person can take out a smaller, weaker, well trained, skillful person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Originally posted by Farkling I am not fond of continuing charges either, and would need to see the rationale. I don't have too much of a problem with the EC, but I think it would be more efficient as a growing multipower. MY house rule on 0 END powers in EC's has been that they cost END when placed in an EC, as a (-0) limit. That seems to balance it out OK. I do allow reduced END and persistant to be bought afterwards....it seems to work in practice. I won't allow the Spatial Awareness in your EC...Special Powers are verboten in there by the book. Put it outside nest to the Extra Limbs. Additionally, ...explain just "how" you learned to apply Martial Arts to your Force Tendrils? Years of Practice with them? A telekinetic Zen monk? Incidentally, this question can stop some of the 10pt MA bricks also...if they didn't have martial arts training BEFORE their powers manifested...who in their STR and weight class trained them? I know for a fact, that in judo and karate, a sloppy well trained and strong person can take out a smaller, weaker, well trained, skillful person. Martial Arts has been used in Champions products to illustrate great skill. It is not required in the rules for the character to have learned them from an instructor or to have practiced with someone in their weight class. Defender in 4th Edition Champions Universe, for example, had martial arts based on his skill with his power armor centering on his flight. You may have a narrow view of what martial arts constitutes but that doesn't mean other people have to justify their character constructs according to your rules philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Originally posted by Farkling MY house rule on 0 END powers in EC's has been that they cost END when placed in an EC, as a (-0) limit. That seems to balance it out OK. I do allow reduced END and persistant to be bought afterwards....it seems to work in practice. We've fought that ione before if I recall correctly. I'll just note that Armor costing END and a force field costing no END both have the same cost in your EC's and leave it at that. Originally posted by Farkling I won't allow the Spatial Awareness in your EC...Special Powers are verboten in there by the book. Put it outside nest to the Extra Limbs. oops... I missed that one. I might allow exceptions based on the nature of the EC and the power but, as noted previously, I'm not comfortable with this EC to begin with. Originally posted by Farkling Additionally, ...explain just "how" you learned to apply Martial Arts to your Force Tendrils? Years of Practice with them? A telekinetic Zen monk? An interesting question. At a minimum, it would seem to imply the starting character should not have these abilities, but could realistically acquire them with experience. The character in question could, however, use martial arts without using the tendrils, as she has a 60 STR, although it eliminates the ability to use the MA at range with stretching.. A 1 point "weapon element" bought with experience would be pretty cheap. The explanation, I agree, is a tough one. Originally posted by Farkling Incidentally, this question can stop some of the 10pt MA bricks also...if they didn't have martial arts training BEFORE their powers manifested...who in their STR and weight class trained them? I know for a fact, that in judo and karate, a sloppy well trained and strong person can take out a smaller, weaker, well trained, skillful person. So now they ALL have martial arts training before their STR was enhanced. I'm no martial artist, so I can't speak from experience on your comparison. It does, however, blow the whole concept of Martial Arts as portrayed not only in the comics but in many other media, especially when we're only talking differences in normal human STR's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Originally posted by Agent X You may have a narrow view of what martial arts constitutes but that doesn't mean other people have to justify their character constructs according to your rules philosophy. The question Gary asked, and Farkling answered, was "Would you allow this character in your campaign?". To be allowed in Farkling's campaign it would have to meet Farkling's campaign rules, which may well include the requirement that martial arts is a skill in which one is trained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Originally posted by Agent X Wow! I like that theme for an elemental control. It's a very specifically themed form of telekinesis with obvious limitations to what powers could be bought. I think you are assuming even more limitations to the theme than are required. This is kind of a waffly one for me. An EC should be surrounded by a common theme, and pretty much any common theme seems to be adequate according to the published characters. Yet the rules also seek to deny certain types of EC. I'm just going to throw out a bunch of questions here, and maybe we can get a sense of what the issues are. First example: the "mechanics EC". An EC is supposed to be abut special effects, so we should not allow "EC: Defenses", right? But "Invulnerability" would seem to be a "special effect", and demands an EC made up of nothing but defenses., doesn't it? Squeezing in a damage aura "Ow! I think I brike my hand!" doesn't seem to make this any more valid than "EC: Defenses", yet there are several characters in the comics who boast the special effect of Invulnerability - for example, the Juggernaut. What about "EC: Absorbtion", since my character absorbs pretty much every attack that's thrown at him? I would argue that is a game mechanic, not a special effect for an EC, but then should I not also deny "EC: Telekinetic Powers"? Or is it sufficient to simply allow the construct as long as it has powers that aren't Telekinesis itself? In that case, "EC: Absorbtion" should be OK as long as I put some defenses limited by the BOD roll on absorbtion, right? And there's lots of EC: Mental Powers, right? Can't I take "EC: Adjustment Powers" and put my absorbtion in there, maybe with a related Healing power to let Absorb restore characteristics below starting maximum? Second example: the "Racial EC". FREd cautions against such an EC, unless the powers and weaknesses of the race are pretty well known (the werewolf example is given). This would seem to deny the obvious "EC: Mutant" or "EC: Alien Powers". But I often hear arguments for "EC: Android Body". Why not "EC: Powered Armor"? Isn't powered armor a special effect through which all my powers manifest? As a subset of the racial EC, what about "EC: Animal Powers"? Is the generic "animal" sufficient, or does a specifc subtype need to be specified? How specific? Is "EC: Birds" OK? Maybe ""EC: Reptiles"? Or do I need the specific species, such as "EC: Sea Turtle" or "EC: Eagle"? And if "EC: Eagle" is legal, why don't eagles have it? No one else has better justification for buying eagle powers! Similarly, Dragons should get "EC: Dragon Powers", vampires "EC: Vampire Powers" and so on. Yet if my character is a vampire, and that's the basis for his powers, should he get a point break over your character, the last survivor of a doomed planet, who wants "EC: Alien Powers" or "EC: Solar Battery Powers"? So that leaves open the question what constitutes an "appropriate" EC special effect? One idea we've discussed here is that maybe it has to be a more "classical" EC, one which can be impaired, frustrated or even dropped out withoout the use of superpowers per se. For example, Fire powers can logically be drianed or dispelled by large volumes of water, or a fire extinguisher. Electrical powers are vulnerable to water, or being grounded. Water powers? Fill him with sand, or boil him. Anyone remember the Marvel book where the Sandman gloats how he will not be stopped so easily? Mr. Fantastic concurs "It would take something truly powerful to halt the Sandman. Something like...A Vacuum Cleaner!" he then proceeds to vacuum up the Sandman and he's trapped in the cannister. Large quantities of water have done him in as well. Alternatively, one could argue that these characters take on an added degree of vulnerability, and should have limitations or disadvantages (Susc: 3d6 Drain to all fire powers if struck by fire extinguisher or large quantiuties of water) Hey, werewolves still get points for vulnerability to silver, right? While a lot of us like the idea, I haven't heard anyone lay claim to actually IMPLEMENTING it. A variant, also discussed, was to apply the current EC rules to such an EC, and reduce the benefits for concepts that have less vulnerability, down to Gary's -1/4 limitation if the onl;y mechanical weakness is a linkage for negative adjustment power effects. Originally posted by Agent X It seems like your complaint is that the character conception isn't enough like how you see the comic book character Medusa operating. It really annoys me when a GM says that they won't allow a concept like this because it's not "realistic." Superheroes aren't realistic. Well, this all starts (20 pages ago) with Gary's concern that many EC's grant free points for having a character concept - which you really should have anyway. I agree with your realism issue. It's pretty tough to throw out "realism" in a game where human beings can toss aircraft around, turn no corporeal, return from the dead and generate electrical energy. But no one is saying that Medusa (or Lariat) isn't a reasonable Champions character conception. The question is whether that conception justifies an elemental control, or constitutes a series of disparate powers. How many of us would allow "EC: Magical Powers"? It's a special effect - the VPP examples say so, and even award a whopping -1/4 limit for restricting yourself to only magical powers. Yet it can legitimately hold virtually any power in the book (albeit some special effects are absent), and there's no mundane means of frustrating it (unless the player applies one in terms of limitations, and that gets him a point savings already). So the question becomes what types of special effects should be required to justify the point break from an Elemental control? I've been pretty loose, historically, in allowing a wide array of EC powers. The discussion in FREd seems to indicate I should tighten up. The published characters tell a very different story. Ultimately, the answer probably depends on your campaign. I haven't seen a disproportionate number of players flock to the EC, so it doesn't seem to be granting excessive benefits as I've histrically run it. On the other hand, a need for a tightly defined special effect which can be frustrated with ingenuity and preparation time (the NND standard, as Zornwil refers to it) seems a less arbitrary approach than banning some powers (those which cost no END as a default; maybe even special powers) from the cost break. I've never seriously enforced those bans either - appropriateness under the special effect was my main concern. After all, a 0 END force field and Armor both have the same basic mechanical effects, and the same cost. The present system allows 0 END healing, but not 0 END absorbtion or 0 END Aid - is there a logic to this? Take it one step further - if they each have 16 charges, neither one costs END, only Healing can get the EC cost break, and only Healing gained any benefit (loss of END cost) by applying the 16 charges limitation. Which powers are banned depends on which ones were selected to have an END cost by default, which sometimes seems an arbitrary decision, motivated by the desire to have the per die cost evenly divisible by 5 and make the power worthwhile. It can't be realism - superpowers aren't realistic anyway! Lots of questions and not a lot of answers - Gary opened up a real can of worms with this one! While I have never seen a real balance issue arising from this, so I have no real vested interest in answering them, the intellectual exercise is an interesting one. It has attracted many of the sharpest "rules experts" on the boards, so I can't be the only one who finds the exercise interesting. 287 replies and 2,118 views to date implies some level of interest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zornwil Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Originally posted by Hugh Neilson This is kind of a waffly one for me. An EC should be surrounded by a common theme, and pretty much any common theme seems to be adequate according to the published characters. Yet the rules also seek to deny certain types of EC. I'm just going to throw out a bunch of questions here, and maybe we can get a sense of what the issues are. Similarly, pretty interested in this topic as this is one of the best threads I've seen on it possibly ever, so would like to just "think out loud" re your points/questions below - First example: the "mechanics EC". An EC is supposed to be abut special effects, so we should not allow "EC: Defenses", right? But "Invulnerability" would seem to be a "special effect", and demands an EC made up of nothing but defenses., doesn't it? Squeezing in a damage aura "Ow! I think I brike my hand!" doesn't seem to make this any more valid than "EC: Defenses", yet there are several characters in the comics who boast the special effect of Invulnerability - for example, the Juggernaut. What about "EC: Absorbtion", since my character absorbs pretty much every attack that's thrown at him? I would argue that is a game mechanic, not a special effect for an EC, but then should I not also deny "EC: Telekinetic Powers"? Or is it sufficient to simply allow the construct as long as it has powers that aren't Telekinesis itself? In that case, "EC: Absorbtion" should be OK as long as I put some defenses limited by the BOD roll on absorbtion, right? And there's lots of EC: Mental Powers, right? Can't I take "EC: Adjustment Powers" and put my absorbtion in there, maybe with a related Healing power to let Absorb restore characteristics below starting maximum? Regardless of how we entitle them, I think all of these could be valid if in fact there's a real elemental basis, such as "EC: Fiery Body" for defenses/invulnerabiltiy or "EC: Energy waves emitted from brain" for telekinesis. As you say, the underyling issue is that the SFX, setting aside the 0 END issue for the moment. More on this below. Second example: the "Racial EC". FREd cautions against such an EC, unless the powers and weaknesses of the race are pretty well known (the werewolf example is given). This would seem to deny the obvious "EC: Mutant" or "EC: Alien Powers". But I often hear arguments for "EC: Android Body". Why not "EC: Powered Armor"? Isn't powered armor a special effect through which all my powers manifest? I agree; "EC: Robot" is similarly rather debatable but I've allowed it. All the powers are united by a combo of electronics and metal that is well-known in how it is dealt with, and if someone cancels those out it affects the entire EC - yet what is really the difference with "EC: Power Amor"? I think one issue is simply the vagueness of such constructs. I can stick virtually my whole character into the EC (however flimsy, "my skills are all computerized learnings that the suit acts on" may apply) - or I can just put a few things in, the basics. So the "well known" part matters apparently in terms of the expectations of those encountering the character. This is interesting as it implies the bar for the cost-break an EC affords is akin to the NND bar. Personally I don't allow "EC: Mutant" although I allow a more specifically defined one ("my powers are based on my mutant rubbery body" would tend to work). As a subset of the racial EC, what about "EC: Animal Powers"? Is the generic "animal" sufficient, or does a specifc subtype need to be specified? How specific? Is "EC: Birds" OK? Maybe ""EC: Reptiles"? Or do I need the specific species, such as "EC: Sea Turtle" or "EC: Eagle"? And if "EC: Eagle" is legal, why don't eagles have it? No one else has better justification for buying eagle powers! Similarly, Dragons should get "EC: Dragon Powers", vampires "EC: Vampire Powers" and so on. Yet if my character is a vampire, and that's the basis for his powers, should he get a point break over your character, the last survivor of a doomed planet, who wants "EC: Alien Powers" or "EC: Solar Battery Powers"? The other question entering into this is, what about "Inherent" and what about "naturaL" states? In 5th we were exposed to the notion that growth and shrinking don't apply to big or small characters. If you're naturally a certain way, then that's not a "power". So in theory, "EC: Eagle" only applies...if you're not an eagle. Which is a seeming paradox. Yet not quite. Earlier, above, I mentioned that an EC, from rule history but moreso the application across many characters and editions, cannot be an excuse to get a discount for all your abilities. To say an eagle gets "EC: Eagle" implies that EVERYTHING the eagle can do, including all its characteristics, would qualify. Yet the discount level that EC affords becomes way too great if we do this. Worse, we can't "stop" an eagle from being an eagle - other than of course killing it. So we "know" that an EC cannot really apply to your "overall" natural state. It has to apply to some subset of your state. This ruins "EC: Robot" as above, but also "EC: Mutant", etc. Then we have another issue; now I get NO cost break for a character whose abilities are in fact linked heavily. And on top of it, how does the rationale of what constitutes an EC run counter to having 0 END powers? Maybe the game mechanics are such that defenses are costed already low enough and should not receive an EC discount. But then we should state that, not "don't include 0 END powers". And I don't buy that 0 END powers are themselves already discounted "enough". So...where do we draw the line? Not just in what constitutes an EC, but what may be fairly discounted therein. So that leaves open the question what constitutes an "appropriate" EC special effect? Just for the record, exactly, as above, this is a problem that it seems no rules edition wants to deal with head-on, really. One idea we've discussed here is that maybe it has to be a more "classical" EC, one which can be impaired, frustrated or even dropped out withoout the use of superpowers per se. For example, Fire powers can logically be drianed or dispelled by large volumes of water, or a fire extinguisher. Electrical powers are vulnerable to water, or being grounded. Water powers? Fill him with sand, or boil him. Anyone remember the Marvel book where the Sandman gloats how he will not be stopped so easily? Mr. Fantastic concurs "It would take something truly powerful to halt the Sandman. Something like...A Vacuum Cleaner!" he then proceeds to vacuum up the Sandman and he's trapped in the cannister. Large quantities of water have done him in as well. Alternatively, one could argue that these characters take on an added degree of vulnerability, and should have limitations or disadvantages (Susc: 3d6 Drain to all fire powers if struck by fire extinguisher or large quantiuties of water) Hey, werewolves still get points for vulnerability to silver, right? See, now we have the extreme other issue - the EC is so easily countered and has such an impact on the character if countered that you should get MORE points of a discount, in these cases usually as Disads. But that's okay, we're talking now about DAMAGE to the character and not his powers per se. However, should we really award "3d6 Drain to all fire powers if struck by..." as a disad when in fact an EC should have some awy of being countered? Well, we can set that aside, at the minimum it's fair to note that some ECs might be so vulnerable they deserve an extra discount. I'd like to comment a bit more below. While a lot of us like the idea, I haven't heard anyone lay claim to actually IMPLEMENTING it. Maybe the poster who indicated they've used 1 EC in 20 years essentially did implicitly implement it...and that was the result! A variant, also discussed, was to apply the current EC rules to such an EC, and reduce the benefits for concepts that have less vulnerability, down to Gary's -1/4 limitation if the onl;y mechanical weakness is a linkage for negative adjustment power effects. Theoretically, then, we could boost the benefit for those easier-to-counter ones above. I'm sort of liking this idea - the EC control cost discount for each power is increased or decreased accordingly to how it measures against the bar. But where to put the bar? Well, this all starts (20 pages ago) with Gary's concern that many EC's grant free points for having a character concept - which you really should have anyway. Again, I still think MP and VPP also grant free points. But upon reflection these free points are more genre-oriented than the EC "concept" free points. However, it should be stated that ECs represent a genre orientation we would frankly do well to reward, at the least in Champions HERO. I agree with your realism issue. It's pretty tough to throw out "realism" in a game where human beings can toss aircraft around, turn no corporeal, return from the dead and generate electrical energy. But no one is saying that Medusa (or Lariat) isn't a reasonable Champions character conception. The question is whether that conception justifies an elemental control, or constitutes a series of disparate powers. How many of us would allow "EC: Magical Powers"? It's a special effect - the VPP examples say so, and even award a whopping -1/4 limit for restricting yourself to only magical powers. Yet it can legitimately hold virtually any power in the book (albeit some special effects are absent), and there's no mundane means of frustrating it (unless the player applies one in terms of limitations, and that gets him a point savings already). So the question becomes what types of special effects should be required to justify the point break from an Elemental control? I've been pretty loose, historically, in allowing a wide array of EC powers. The discussion in FREd seems to indicate I should tighten up. The published characters tell a very different story. The last two sentences are the big issue. The published characters routinely violate the "feeling" or spirit of the published rules that ECs should be granted with caution. This has led to a lot of the confusion I think. I've been pretty loose as well. I think I'm going to try defining the bar and allowing a varaiability to the discount as discussed earlier. Ultimately, the answer probably depends on your campaign. I haven't seen a disproportionate number of players flock to the EC, so it doesn't seem to be granting excessive benefits as I've histrically run it. On the other hand, a need for a tightly defined special effect which can be frustrated with ingenuity and preparation time (the NND standard, as Zornwil refers to it) seems a less arbitrary approach than banning some powers (those which cost no END as a default; maybe even special powers) from the cost break. I do think this is the right path for the next HERO rules edition - let's get a clearer definition. Also, I think one thing you mention in "depends on your campaign" that bears more exploration, ultimately, is whether the EC has a real place outside of Champions. It seems to be very focused on that genre, despite some applications in high-tech and magic areas. In any event, I do question whether the cost break one gets in Champions HERO should be applied in Fantasy or Star HERO, as I think some of the cost-break is super-genre specific. But I'm not sure, would have to think more about it. I've never seriously enforced those bans either - appropriateness under the special effect was my main concern. After all, a 0 END force field and Armor both have the same basic mechanical effects, and the same cost. The present system allows 0 END healing, but not 0 END absorbtion or 0 END Aid - is there a logic to this? Take it one step further - if they each have 16 charges, neither one costs END, only Healing can get the EC cost break, and only Healing gained any benefit (loss of END cost) by applying the 16 charges limitation. Which powers are banned depends on which ones were selected to have an END cost by default, which sometimes seems an arbitrary decision, motivated by the desire to have the per die cost evenly divisible by 5 and make the power worthwhile. It can't be realism - superpowers aren't realistic anyway! The 0 END ban is nonsense. Without getting too far astray here, I'd like to see a more consistent treatment of END in general, with a clearer rationale as to why powers have a natural state of 0 or Cost END. Anyway, agreed, the 0 END ban stands for fixing "something", given its recent addition. I'd be interested in Steve Long's comments- since it's his rules edition. Regardless, I'd rather see the rules address that "something" specifically and not in this roundabout way. In any way that i use ECs, I will not arbitrarily ban 0 END powers. Lots of questions and not a lot of answers - Gary opened up a real can of worms with this one! While I have never seen a real balance issue arising from this, so I have no real vested interest in answering them, the intellectual exercise is an interesting one. It has attracted many of the sharpest "rules experts" on the boards, so I can't be the only one who finds the exercise interesting. 287 replies and 2,118 views to date implies some level of interest! Yeah, I don't see a balance issue either. And given the number of people ignoring the 0 END rule, yet how many of us are still "pondering" ECs, I don't think that the addition of the 0 END ban did anything to address balance - or the EC rationale - to anyone's satisfaction if they did have an issue. Related, why are ECs constructed so that small powers don't work in them without serious finagling or rules altering? One issue that is lurking here re balance though is how many powers you can put in an EC. It's obvious from both the rules and experience that putting too many powers in an EC becomes abusive, that the construct does not scale well (not knocking it necessarily, MPs certainly don't either). But less obviuos is why some powers should be in an EC and some should not. If my unifying SFX really affects ALL my powers AND my STR and CON and INT (or at least portions thereof), from a "purist" perpective they all ought to be in the EC. So another factor is that ultimately an EC should only save you "so many" points, hence, IMHO, the ignoring of smaller powers and the various bans/prohibitions. Maybe you should never save more than some factor times the Control Cost? So if your control cost is 60, no matter how many powers you add, maybe you should only save double the control cost, 120 points for a starting character? Of course this merely encourages players to make that EC control cost as high as possible! But that's easy to deal with from a GM and rules perspective, encourage caps, make the EC cost no more than "x%" of the total character cost, etc.. The reason I bring this up is that I think we need some mechanical balance/rationale to counter the "SFX" basis. With MPs and VPPs it may not be so spelt out, either, but the MECHANICS of those inherently discourage going "too" far. With an MP, as you can only use so much at one time and points for a starting character are limited, you are simply not going to put "most" of your character in there. With VPPs, yes it's easy to put more in there, but there's such a red flag with VPPs to begin with and besides given VPPs only grant the power when "called up", you're still limited as to what you can really rely on there. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 I think the NND Standard is a useful sufficient condition for judging special effects as adequately tight for an EC. I'm not sure I would buy it as necessary. I think Telekinetic Powers would do too, but there's no readily available way to turn them off, other than the obvious render the user unconscious. Does that count? I should hope not, as it would then make any bunch of powers that are apparently non-persistent EC candidates. I think someone should have some very useful information about your likely range of abilities if he knows you've got a particular EC, and that the GM should have a very good idea of the many powers that would never fit in there either. By that standard, Weather Powers are in, Mental Powers are in (not as a game-mechanical group, but as a special effects one), a suitably regulated Android Body is in, Mutant Powers are out, Andromedan Powers are way out, Powered Armor is out, and Robot is out. Other characters and the GM have no idea whatever comes in the Mutant Power or Andromedan Power box, and precious little what's in the Powered Armor or Robot package. Part of suitably regulating the Android Body package is keeping it down to obvious and readily expected Android Body abilities - Armor, increased STR without figured characteristics, maybe some automaton powers, and some elements of Life Support. No blasters, no internal rockets, no teleportation systems, since none of those are virtually inevitable as an android. Mind you, a lot of these abilities that are in aren't normal for EC's - but I'm thinking they've got the best justification, in that they're filling the SFX requirement suberbly. You might well on this basis disallow an EC that doesn't include some of these. Another element in this is that perhaps the EC should imply a good bit about the character outside the EC as well. EC Werewolf Powers may be most palatable because we all know the laundry list of disads that will go with it. EC Android Body is going to imply a bunch of those too - and possession of those may be required to allow the player to take the android body powers as an EC at all, without having the change the way the EC itself is bought. Magical Powers probably wouldn't fit, since they're so broad in range in a typical superheroic game. But if you're running a game with stricter magic limits, that might not apply any longer. Many published characters are likely to fail by these standards, but we're used to that. Maybe they should just be rewritten with purely cosmetic, no game-mechanical effect, no cost savings EC's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pegasus Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 I’ve been skimming through this thread for a while and I see some very good arguments on both sides, but there seems to be a very salient point missing here. The original intention of the EC is that it is supposed to represent Control of an Elemental Force. The word Elemental does not necessarily refer to a classic element (Fire, water, etc.) but to the fundamental and basic aspect of the force or energy. The original examples given in earlier editions were a cold wielder and a fire wielder. I strongly believe that the unifying theme was meant to be a common energy or force that was supposed to be present in the powers. The current ideas of all powers must cost endurance and drain one drain all seem to back me up on this. Looking at it this way solves a lot of problems for me with ECs. The base question still is why the point break for these kinds of power sets? I think it goes to the way powers are typically explained in the comic books. For example, the Human Torch has a matrix of fire powers. This enables him to project flame, sheath himself in fire, fly, etc. Now, in Champions, there are no “fire powers.†Further, if buying separate powers to represent every aspect of fire wielding possible, it gets very expensive. It seems to me the rationale is something along the lines of if HT has already spent 100 points on fire wielding, should he really have to spend full price on something that is really just another aspect of the same base power set? If HT spent 50 on fire blast and 50 on a flame shield, then shooting flame below/beneath him as a form of propulsion isn’t that much of a stretch (in terms of comic book physics, that is). So, how about we cut the cost of each by 50%, and make an EC cost that equals that 50% to be shared by all powers? It’s only when the concepts get stretched, broken, or outright abused that it becomes very unsatisfactory. Acceptable concepts: Fire, heat, ice, cold, light, darkness, telekinesis, telepathy, water, force, Sonics, luck, green light, etc. Unacceptable: Robot body, android body, Amazon physique, “Brick Powers,†and the worst abuse: Battle Suit. (What? -1/2 on everything you have that will likely never come into play isn’t enough of a point break for you?) Where I’m playing now, I can’t stand ECs because of the abuse (STR and DEX through EC=MASSIVE ABUSE). But if they were used as I outlined above (which I firmly believe was the original intention) then I would have little problem with them. Of course that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Originally posted by badger3k After reading the 4 or 5 pages of posts since I left, eek! Just a few comments - even though it was covered neatly, I rarely use ECs because I don't see a benefit to them for the cost - I'm the exact opposite of you. Second, I am way way stricter than you. I would not allow Lariat Girl to have the EC - pure and simple. I can see it now - Me: "What's your reason - what are they based on?" Player: "Force power - telekinetic force "hair', like Medusa." M: "Uh - huh. What can you do?" P: "I can wrap myself up in them (the FF), while strecthing and attacking (stretch), Plus reach around corners (SA), deflect missiles and leap." So far so good. Originally posted by badger3k M: "And your mind is sufficient to maintail subconscious and conscious control of these presumably thousands of tendrils, processing everything, enabling you to be pretty much a battle-globe and master of your little sphere of reach?" P: "Sure - I got a high Int" M: "Your character does - you, however..." If you step back and think about it for a second, imagine just how much information your brain is processing with simple sight. You're getting fine details on thousands of objects with texture, perspective, depth perception, color, etc. for hundreds of meters distance or even km's distance. The amount of information you're processing through your eyes is magnitudes higher than the amount of information you'd be processing through a mere 10 meter radius. Plus, Daredevil does essentially the same thing with his radar sense, except with vastly increased range compared to Lariat. Originally posted by badger3k Sorry - Medusa and Mr Fantastic are MPs in my book. I do not see medusa or Reed doing multiple things like that (please don't respond to that as a justification - we know comics and the game are two wildly different animals, re the Batman issue). Personal opinion, the character and player is reaching for too much - the concept does not justify the EC in my campaign. You have to have a better justification than that. Why is it a multipower? Don't both of them exhibit missile deflection among other things, as well as stretching simutaneously? Originally posted by badger3k As for any champs characters that have an EC, I haven't gone through CKC and the rest in detailed look at the abilities, nor does that bother me if every one has an EC and an MP. If I use such a character I may rewrite them, or leave them as is, depending on how they're going to be used. Said I was stricter. Now if after a long time playing, we decided to rework the character, I may be tempted to allow the EC. May. I wouldn't say no, but I haven't seen any reason to do so in the past. Yep, you're far stricter. So strict that you've only allowed 1 EC in 20 years. Originally posted by badger3k Anyway, another post has: Mainly for the EC Telekinesis - nope. Why not? Easy - they all require more concentration and awareness. I just stuck with the elemental part - a fire character may have an EB, FF (with or without damage shield), and flight because having a body surrounded by a flaming field could provide the last two, with the EB requiring the characters attention. Sorry - its how I learned and how I've always played. Telekinesis just doesn't "feel" right. The rest already covered. Telekinesis is a specific example of an allowable EC in Fred. However, since there's been only 1 EC in 20 years in your campaign, it appears that even fire ECs would have a problem for you. Originally posted by badger3k I'd generally have problems with movement on charges, but I'd need the concept as well as the construction. I don't see a problem with the 0 END powers - If needed, they can buy costs END. If the player had good enough justification, then I would let the power in. Like Steve keeps saying - "based on special effects, common sense, and dramatic sense" along with GM is the final arbiter (sp?)... Looking for something I saw a while back...Here it is! Had to go back several pages - That line just struck me as funny. If you're trying to compare a straight EC and multipower for which is better for the exact same power, why should EC guy need a multipower? Here was Hugh's originsl post that you were responding to - I think the issue is that the flexibility is part of the multipower, expecially with experience. The last part is what you quoted when you responded (pg 15 I believe). How does EC guy with a superior EC, suddenly get experience and needs to buy a multipower? Hugh was posting that, limiting it like you were, to one EC in character 1, and 1 MP in character 2, character 2 can get a new power at 4 XP. Character 1 can buy the same power with 28 XP. Now, following the basis of your argument, EC guy is better off. Somehow. Apparently by buying a multipower. Supports that argument I guess. I do seem to be going after one point, since I haven't seen your answer, unless that is it. If I missed it, I apologize - there was a LOT to read. Again, how is EC guy advantaged in the experience point issue. Saying he'll buy a MP is weakening the argument - it's saying that an EC is not the best for everything. If you really don't see the experience issue as a factor, can you at least give your views on that? I'm trying to see where your coming from, but I'm sorry, I can't. Is the huge # of AP usable at once worth that much more than the non-combat functionality of many powers? If this seems really argumentative (or even personal), sorry, I really want your view on that. Anyway, like I said before, we play with different styles (and from reading people's posts, I think most don't play like I do). As long as you and yours have fun, that's what matters. This is my explanation. Sorry if I'm repeating myself. EC Man > Straight Points Dude. This is easily proven. Suppose EC man has 3 powers in his EC at 40 pts each. 20 EC 20 40 pts Power 1 20 40 pts Power 2 20 40 pts Power 3 He pays 80 pts for something SPD would pay 120 for. Even if you give SPD a -1/4 limitation to simulate the disads of a EC, he's still paying 96 pts. Therefore ECM can do everything SPD could do and still have either 40 or 16 extra points to play with depending on how you look at it. Therefore ECM > SPD, and ECs provide "free" points. Now if you compare SPD with Multi Guy, there is no clear cut winner. If you want to compare an ultra slot multi, then the SPD pays 60 pts for a straight 12d6 EB while MG pays the same 60 pts for a 2 slot multi. Which is better, a straight 12d6 EB, or a multi with 10d6 EB and 3d6+1 RKA? I would say that both are in the same ballpark in terms of value. Or 10d6 EB with +1 SPD might be another fair comparison. Now if you compare flex slots, then SPD would pay 80 pts for 2 40 pt powers. MG would pay the same 80 pts for the following: 58 multipower 11 m 56 pts power 1 11 m 56 pts power 2 Again, the 2 are pretty competitive. SPD has 80 pts of power up all at once, but MG can have more power in either power at the same time at the sacrifice of the other power. Nobody has a clear cut edge. Therefore, SPD is approximately equal to MG, and multipowers don't provide "free" points. If ECM > SPD and SPD = MG, it's simple logic to observe that ECM > MG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Originally posted by Hugh Neilson Justified in background, perhaps. Justified for a charafcter to have every defense power in the book? Maybe not. An easy fix would be to make the EC power "armor, costs END". Same costs, same effect, but the character has to suck up NND Force field attacks now. Not that I haven't run a power armor character with a force field, though. Armor costs end isn't quite the same as FF. First of all, you only get 10/10 armor in the EC. Second of all, you're paying 3 end per phase rather than 1, and you're not allowed to put reduced end on it. No thanks. Third of all, the cost changes to 10 rather than 15. 2 different animals in the context of a EC. Originally posted by Hugh Neilson I don't like the concept of every high profile hostage having a bulletproof suit, though. "Well, don't worry about the President - they'll need more than those .45 automatics to seriously hurt him." takes a lot of the stress out of protecting him. Not really. Unlike PC's who are allowed to buy no activation armor even wearing only a facemask, a NPC would still be vulnerable at the head and neck. The clothing will protect body shots, but most presidents don't wear head gear and the SS still has to worry about the dreaded head shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Originally posted by Farkling Additionally, ...explain just "how" you learned to apply Martial Arts to your Force Tendrils? Years of Practice with them? A telekinetic Zen monk? First of all, she has martial arts training already. However: The defensive strike represents the fact that her dozens of tendrils give her an enormous advantage when striking someone. Similarly, an opponent has a hard time plowing through waves of tendrils to strike at her. Similarly, range attacks need to have a direct hit on her or her tendrils to damage her. Glancing hits will be deflected by the tendrils. Thus the DCV bonus. The martial grab is easy. Someone with dozens of limbs has a huge advantage over someone with only 2 limbs in a grapple. The martial throw is also easy. It's trivial to trip someone with all those limbs, and it's easy to gain leverage over others when your dozens of limbs could stretch 10 meters. (Now that I think about it, I could save 2 pts under 5th edition rules since the stretching is "limited body parts" for a -1/4) This is no different from dirty infighting "martial arts" which requires no formal training, but maximum use of your existing assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 The standard definition of a EC in 5th edition is "active control" of an "element". This would eliminate many problem ECs such as EC "android", "kryptonian", or "mutant" since they are passive elements. The no 0 end powers are a game balancing mechanism. As Hugh pointed out, Lariat has to pay 9 end per phase to maintain everything at full power. There are quantity or duration limitations to how many powers EC Man can maintain at once. If you allow 0 end powers such as armor, damage reduction, or absorption in the EC, there are no such limits. ECM can maintain as many powers up per phase as he wants forever. This would give ECs an even bigger advantage than they already have compared to other character types. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badger3k Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Thanks for the reply. Originally posted by Gary So far so good. If you step back and think about it for a second, imagine just how much information your brain is processing with simple sight. You're getting fine details on thousands of objects with texture, perspective, depth perception, color, etc. for hundreds of meters distance or even km's distance. The amount of information you're processing through your eyes is magnitudes higher than the amount of information you'd be processing through a mere 10 meter radius. Plus, Daredevil does essentially the same thing with his radar sense, except with vastly increased range compared to Lariat. Now here's the difference that I see - Normal sight is one thing - Try to fight, lets say, two people. At once. One behind you, one in front. And feel your surroundings at the same time. And block the baseballs someone is throwing at you. In one second. Looking at something is a lot different than mutliple inputs and multiple attention-focusing bits. Sorry, I just cannot buy all that being done in one second of time. Daredevil's radar sense is different, because it is just a sense - it replaces his sight. Take one away, add one. No change in the basics. Why is it a multipower? Don't both of them exhibit missile deflection among other things, as well as stretching simutaneously? Again, based upon my memory, they have never done everything all at once. Obviously I haven't an encyclopedic knowlege of either in every situation they have been in. But all the instances that I can recall, I've never seen Mr Fantastic stretching out, entagling somebody, striking someone else, while gliding through the air (to put together some of the abilities that would be in an EC for him). Medusa has entangled a lot of people (area effect entangle), fanned air/gas/sand (EB maybe), lowered or lifted herself or others or objects (clinging/Tk maybe). Never all in one panel. Of course, here's where the comic book rationale falls completely apart. I'd say 99% of the characters in books are based on someones ideas and are not made from a game system. Did the designers of the Fantastic Four look up the marvel superheroes game and make sure their characters were in line with some mechanic? Do they do that now? Or does somebody decide - hey, I'd like that power (or whatever) for my character, and then try to put it into game mechanics? And, given the way the Hero system is designed, most people will try to make the character for the least amount of points. Who says that Mr Fantastic or Medusa even have power frameworks? Has Stan Lee provided his input? Has any comic creator/writer/editor posted stats that give the official view? Who says that Mr Fantastic isn't a 1000 point character? Also, how many seconds/phases/turns is one panel of a comic? How do you relate it - one panel equals one phase? Then sometimes a character can't run 10' in a phase. How about the fact that dramatic license and the plotting determine how a power is used. Sure, they have guidelines to follow, but (especially in the early days), the guidelines were tossed aside for the story. Translating characters into a game system are absurd. The standard you use is different than mine and different than anybody else. Yep, you're far stricter. So strict that you've only allowed 1 EC in 20 years. Told you Telekinesis is a specific example of an allowable EC in Fred. However, since there's been only 1 EC in 20 years in your campaign, it appears that even fire ECs would have a problem for you. So I disregard FRED on the TK. I thought I posted it (although one of my pre-post edits may have removed it) that fire is acceptible. (actually looking back, I didn't make it real clear). I started out when elemental controls really meant elemental. I'd say the human torch has an EC for the following reason. He sheaths his body in flames (plasma/whatever it may currently be). The heat/energy protects him from some damage (FF), provides lift that a small concentration (similar to walking) allows the flight (hover would be mostly automatic IMO), and he can project fire blasts (EB) - that's where his focus is. Look to the early ones - he could barely do all three at once. Maybe he started as an MP, then changed with experience, or maybe his EC was small. This is my explanation. Sorry if I'm repeating myself. EC Man > Straight Points Dude. This is easily proven. Suppose EC man has 3 powers in his EC at 40 pts each. 20 EC 20 40 pts Power 1 20 40 pts Power 2 20 40 pts Power 3 He pays 80 pts for something SPD would pay 120 for. Even if you give SPD a -1/4 limitation to simulate the disads of a EC, he's still paying 96 pts. Therefore ECM can do everything SPD could do and still have either 40 or 16 extra points to play with depending on how you look at it. Therefore ECM > SPD, and ECs provide "free" points. Now if you compare SPD with Multi Guy, there is no clear cut winner. If you want to compare an ultra slot multi, then the SPD pays 60 pts for a straight 12d6 EB while MG pays the same 60 pts for a 2 slot multi. Which is better, a straight 12d6 EB, or a multi with 10d6 EB and 3d6+1 RKA? I would say that both are in the same ballpark in terms of value. Or 10d6 EB with +1 SPD might be another fair comparison. Now if you compare flex slots, then SPD would pay 80 pts for 2 40 pt powers. MG would pay the same 80 pts for the following: 58 multipower 11 m 56 pts power 1 11 m 56 pts power 2 Again, the 2 are pretty competitive. SPD has 80 pts of power up all at once, but MG can have more power in either power at the same time at the sacrifice of the other power. Nobody has a clear cut edge. Therefore, SPD is approximately equal to MG, and multipowers don't provide "free" points. If ECM > SPD and SPD = MG, it's simple logic to observe that ECM > MG. I'm going to join in on the apologizing. Sorry, but can you at least even say yes or no to the following question: Is the fact that EC man pays 28 XP for a new power while MP man pays 4 XP for his still indicative that the EC is better off? If you can answer that question please, I'll leave the rest alone - as I said before, I can't buy that argument on more power at the same time. You don't even need to explain why. I just don't see how buying powers at character creation relates to the experience issue - anybody help me if you read this before Gary - there seems to be a lot of people reading this - if you can relate the two - I just can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badger3k Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Originally posted by Crisis I’ve been skimming through this thread for a while and I see some very good arguments on both sides, but there seems to be a very salient point missing here. The original intention of the EC is that it is supposed to represent Control of an Elemental Force. The word Elemental does not necessarily refer to a classic element (Fire, water, etc.) but to the fundamental and basic aspect of the force or energy. The original examples given in earlier editions were a cold wielder and a fire wielder. I strongly believe that the unifying theme was meant to be a common energy or force that was supposed to be present in the powers. The current ideas of all powers must cost endurance and drain one drain all seem to back me up on this. Looking at it this way solves a lot of problems for me with ECs. The base question still is why the point break for these kinds of power sets? I think it goes to the way powers are typically explained in the comic books. For example, the Human Torch has a matrix of fire powers. This enables him to project flame, sheath himself in fire, fly, etc. Now, in Champions, there are no “fire powers.†Further, if buying separate powers to represent every aspect of fire wielding possible, it gets very expensive. It seems to me the rationale is something along the lines of if HT has already spent 100 points on fire wielding, should he really have to spend full price on something that is really just another aspect of the same base power set? If HT spent 50 on fire blast and 50 on a flame shield, then shooting flame below/beneath him as a form of propulsion isn’t that much of a stretch (in terms of comic book physics, that is). So, how about we cut the cost of each by 50%, and make an EC cost that equals that 50% to be shared by all powers? It’s only when the concepts get stretched, broken, or outright abused that it becomes very unsatisfactory. Acceptable concepts: Fire, heat, ice, cold, light, darkness, telekinesis, telepathy, water, force, Sonics, luck, green light, etc. Unacceptable: Robot body, android body, Amazon physique, “Brick Powers,†and the worst abuse: Battle Suit. (What? -1/2 on everything you have that will likely never come into play isn’t enough of a point break for you?) Where I’m playing now, I can’t stand ECs because of the abuse (STR and DEX through EC=MASSIVE ABUSE). But if they were used as I outlined above (which I firmly believe was the original intention) then I would have little problem with them. Of course that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong. I'd disagree on the mental or luck (and others) - it would have to be rationalized/explained real well for me. Str and Dex in an EC would be very hard to justify as well (Str maybe - indirect or something like an ice support), but not DEX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badger3k Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Originally posted by Agent X Wow! I like that theme for an elemental control. It's a very specifically themed form of telekinesis with obvious limitations to what powers could be bought. I think you are assuming even more limitations to the theme than are required. It seems like your complaint is that the character conception isn't enough like how you see the comic book character Medusa operating. It really annoys me when a GM says that they won't allow a concept like this because it's not "realistic." Superheroes aren't realistic. An example Telekinetic Hair Elemental Control: Base 20 Points 20 a) stretching 8" 20 strength 50 Strength (-1/2, does not add to base strength) 20 c) force field 20/20 Hair Multipower 20 Points 1u 10" Running (-1/2, does not add to base running) 1u 10" Superleap 2u Missile Deflection PS: I dislike these new keyboards. It's way too easy to accidentally post before you intend to because you hit the wrong key. Just a note on your reply - my problem isn't that the character isn't like Medusa - it's that I can't buy the TK Hair, especially the way it was written - too much all at once. If the Tendrils can feel things, then they can suffer damage too - maybe feedback on the FF if you want them all active at once. Otherwise you need to concentrate and change them from "strong but numb" to "weak but sensitive" - but not at the same time. As for more limitations of the theme than are required - that's the way I learned it, and that's the way I play. I see no reason to change, not unless there's a good reason. I could say how you can possibly explain, based on the special effects and character (origin, stats, theme, etc) how the construct can be justified. As to your last comment. I'd probably assume (and I may be wrong) that you go by the DC type of powers and characters - people can pick up the moon and all. I prefer a more reduced scale - people can do fantastic things, but some are impossible. Try to pick up the Baxter Building and it will fall apart on you, unless you have some TK or FF for support. Pick up a battleship and it will probably crack, or at least be very, very stressed at the point of the grab. I try to maintain an internal logic and consistency in my campaign. The same as you would in most other genres. Here's some from an earlier version: EC Ego Power: Ego Attack, Mental Illusions, Mind Control EC TK Powers: Telekinesis, TK shield (FF), TK Fist (EB) EC Weather Powers: Fog (darkness), Whirlwinds (EB area), Wind riding (Flight) EC: Ice Powers: Ice Ram (EB), Ice Armor (Armor), Ice Slide (running) Any problems with any of these? Ignore the rules about 0 END and all that - anything wrong with the concepts? Ice maybe - all three at once isn't more than most can have or do. Weather stretches it - fog can be maintained with a slight bit of concentration, but manipulating winds for self-support and striking enemies - iffy, but possible. TK - no - like I said before - just does not feel right - focus your mind and pick up the rock, while hitting someone else, while protecting yourself. Real big stretch. If you drop the TK or EB, then maybe, but its still a stretch for me. Ego powers - ROFLMAOPP - attack, keep up illusions, control minions - all at once . Without even looking at FRED, I'm pretty sure they dropped the ego powers one in a later edition. My two biggest points are the elemental nature - something so fundamental that it is almost inherent. And one second. That said - your hair elemental control is more acceptable - it doesn't violate my 'focus' or 'attention' rules any more than having a force field and hitting someone. It's still iffy to me for concept, but the magnitude is less. If that makes any sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Originally posted by badger3k Thanks for the reply. Now here's the difference that I see - Normal sight is one thing - Try to fight, lets say, two people. At once. One behind you, one in front. And feel your surroundings at the same time. And block the baseballs someone is throwing at you. In one second. Looking at something is a lot different than mutliple inputs and multiple attention-focusing bits. Sorry, I just cannot buy all that being done in one second of time. Daredevil's radar sense is different, because it is just a sense - it replaces his sight. Take one away, add one. No change in the basics. Superheroes in comics do this all the time. Batman and Captain America fight dozens of agents or even villains surrounding them routinely, using hearing and battle experience to deal with those at their backs. Daredevil not only has radar, he also has super hearing, smell and touch. Wolverine is able to use targetting smelling as well as sight in combat, together. And at a greater than 10 meter range I might add. It sounds like you would ban lots of comic book characters in your campaign. Obviously, I couldn't process that info, but I also can't do what Batman, Captain America, Daredevil, or Wolverine could do either. Originally posted by badger3k Again, based upon my memory, they have never done everything all at once. Obviously I haven't an encyclopedic knowlege of either in every situation they have been in. But all the instances that I can recall, I've never seen Mr Fantastic stretching out, entagling somebody, striking someone else, while gliding through the air (to put together some of the abilities that would be in an EC for him). Medusa has entangled a lot of people (area effect entangle), fanned air/gas/sand (EB maybe), lowered or lifted herself or others or objects (clinging/Tk maybe). Never all in one panel. I've seen Reed stretch, grab stuff, entangle, and missile deflect bullets at the same time. Originally posted by badger3k Of course, here's where the comic book rationale falls completely apart. I'd say 99% of the characters in books are based on someones ideas and are not made from a game system. Did the designers of the Fantastic Four look up the marvel superheroes game and make sure their characters were in line with some mechanic? Do they do that now? Or does somebody decide - hey, I'd like that power (or whatever) for my character, and then try to put it into game mechanics? And, given the way the Hero system is designed, most people will try to make the character for the least amount of points. Who says that Mr Fantastic or Medusa even have power frameworks? Has Stan Lee provided his input? Has any comic creator/writer/editor posted stats that give the official view? Who says that Mr Fantastic isn't a 1000 point character? Also, how many seconds/phases/turns is one panel of a comic? How do you relate it - one panel equals one phase? Then sometimes a character can't run 10' in a phase. How about the fact that dramatic license and the plotting determine how a power is used. Sure, they have guidelines to follow, but (especially in the early days), the guidelines were tossed aside for the story. Translating characters into a game system are absurd. The standard you use is different than mine and different than anybody else. But we have to use game mechanics, because we're playing a game. And people are naturally going to use the method to build characters that give them "bang for the buck". If I was going to build Reed or Medusa, I would most definitely use EC if it were available. Originally posted by badger3k So I disregard FRED on the TK. I thought I posted it (although one of my pre-post edits may have removed it) that fire is acceptible. (actually looking back, I didn't make it real clear). I started out when elemental controls really meant elemental. I'd say the human torch has an EC for the following reason. He sheaths his body in flames (plasma/whatever it may currently be). The heat/energy protects him from some damage (FF), provides lift that a small concentration (similar to walking) allows the flight (hover would be mostly automatic IMO), and he can project fire blasts (EB) - that's where his focus is. Look to the early ones - he could barely do all three at once. Maybe he started as an MP, then changed with experience, or maybe his EC was small. Lariat uses her energy tendrils to shield her body, push against the ground, stretch, and feel around her. How is that any different from Human Torch with his abilities? It's active control of an "element". Considering you've had only 1 EC in 20 years, I'm inclined to believe that you would find almost every EC to be unacceptable. Originally posted by badger3k I'm going to join in on the apologizing. Sorry, but can you at least even say yes or no to the following question: Is the fact that EC man pays 28 XP for a new power while MP man pays 4 XP for his still indicative that the EC is better off? If you can answer that question please, I'll leave the rest alone - as I said before, I can't buy that argument on more power at the same time. You don't even need to explain why. I just don't see how buying powers at character creation relates to the experience issue - anybody help me if you read this before Gary - there seems to be a lot of people reading this - if you can relate the two - I just can't. First of all, do you agree with my analysis? That ECM > SPD and SPD = MG and thus ECM > MG? Please answer this, since you've been avoiding this question. Second of all, your costs are wrong. Assuming 40 pt powers, it costs ECM 20 pts vs 4 pts for an ultra slot. Since ECM would only be buying stuff that he wants up at the same time as his other powers, and MG is buying something that he may use only a small fraction of the time, the analysis is: A) 20 pts for power that can be used all the time along without limiting any of the rest of my powers. 4 pts for a power that probably will be used less than 20% of the time, and locks out a lot of other powers when MG does get around to using this power. Sounds fair to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badger3k Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Originally posted by Hugh Neilson I'm just going to throw out a bunch of questions here, and maybe we can get a sense of what the issues are. So that leaves open the question what constitutes an "appropriate" EC special effect? One idea we've discussed here is that maybe it has to be a more "classical" EC, one which can be impaired, frustrated or even dropped out withoout the use of superpowers per se. For example, Fire powers can logically be drianed or dispelled by large volumes of water, or a fire extinguisher. Electrical powers are vulnerable to water, or being grounded. Water powers? Fill him with sand, or boil him. Anyone remember the Marvel book where the Sandman gloats how he will not be stopped so easily? Mr. Fantastic concurs "It would take something truly powerful to halt the Sandman. Something like...A Vacuum Cleaner!" he then proceeds to vacuum up the Sandman and he's trapped in the cannister. Large quantities of water have done him in as well. Alternatively, one could argue that these characters take on an added degree of vulnerability, and should have limitations or disadvantages (Susc: 3d6 Drain to all fire powers if struck by fire extinguisher or large quantiuties of water) Hey, werewolves still get points for vulnerability to silver, right? While a lot of us like the idea, I haven't heard anyone lay claim to actually IMPLEMENTING it. Since I was mentioned in a later post I thought I'd answer this one - we haven't done it as a game mechanic (other than the usual vulnerabilities and susceptibilities) - fire extinguishers can be built as supress/drain fire if you want. We did use some SFX rules though - The character with flight as a jetpack couldn't fly in a vacuum (didn't buy with points limitation, but made sense), or the electical character (villian) who was stopped by a rubber carpet (or something like it - it was insulated and prevented the electricity from connecting/groudning/whatever - it was a while back and forget exactly what happened). I think a lot is assumed - if your character is fire based, do you need limitations on every thing that can stop/suppress/dispell your powers. Even Icicle in CKC has something similar - her powers only work where the humidty is high (like the early iceman), but she has no points for this limitation. A lot depends on (as Steve says) common and dramatic sense. I agree with your realism issue. It's pretty tough to throw out "realism" in a game where human beings can toss aircraft around, turn no corporeal, return from the dead and generate electrical energy. I already covered that, although I don't think I ever used the dreaded r-word. If that word is bad, use in-game realism or internal consistency, if you prefer. I already covered the comic issue. But no one is saying that Medusa (or Lariat) isn't a reasonable Champions character conception. The question is whether that conception justifies an elemental control, or constitutes a series of disparate powers. How many of us would allow "EC: Magical Powers"? It's a special effect - the VPP examples say so, and even award a whopping -1/4 limit for restricting yourself to only magical powers. Yet it can legitimately hold virtually any power in the book (albeit some special effects are absent), and there's no mundane means of frustrating it (unless the player applies one in terms of limitations, and that gets him a point savings already). So the question becomes what types of special effects should be required to justify the point break from an Elemental control? I've been pretty loose, historically, in allowing a wide array of EC powers. The discussion in FREd seems to indicate I should tighten up. The published characters tell a very different story. Which does point to the fact that everybody has different ideas on what an EC is. Your last quote does some it up nicely: Ultimately, the answer probably depends on your campaign. I haven't seen a disproportionate number of players flock to the EC, so it doesn't seem to be granting excessive benefits as I've histrically run it. On the other hand, a need for a tightly defined special effect which can be frustrated with ingenuity and preparation time (the NND standard, as Zornwil refers to it) seems a less arbitrary approach than banning some powers (those which cost no END as a default; maybe even special powers) from the cost break. Lots of questions and not a lot of answers - Gary opened up a real can of worms with this one! While I have never seen a real balance issue arising from this, so I have no real vested interest in answering them, the intellectual exercise is an interesting one. It has attracted many of the sharpest "rules experts" on the boards, so I can't be the only one who finds the exercise interesting. 287 replies and 2,118 views to date implies some level of interest! It is an interesting exercise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.