Negatory

[Nevenall]

Re: Negatory

 

I recall that Steve posted something about it. I recall that he gave some reasons for everything that I looked at, but I don't remember them now. I recall that he's the one who made the decisions about what did and didn't happen in 6E. I recall that he didn't have to justify his reasons to any of us, but he did ask for input on what he was doing, which is far more than most company's would do for something like this.

 

This thread is much ado about nothing. There are 0 characteristic values, and they fit the bill close enough. The difference between 0 and -30 wasn't worth the printing to put them in the book, IMHO.

 

Nicely put.

[phookz]

Re: Negatory

 

I don't want to leave with just complaining about people complaining, so let me offer something constructive.

 

The rule is a bias toward damaging powers (like Blast): you can never defeat an opponent with an EGO Drain. I don't like any rule that constricts charatcer design like that. I want to be able to hit an opponent with a power that can render them (eventually) mindless' date=' incapable of independent thought - why should I have to do that with an attack that does Stun damage and contrived sfx?[/quote']

 

You can defeat an opponent without resorting to damaging powers. Reasoning from effect, your mindless, incapable of independent thought opponent, effectively a zombie, could be created with a Mental Transform (AVAD Mental Defense), Works Against EGO, Not BODY, yadda yadda (6E1 p306).

 

No negative characteristics required.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Negatory

 

This thread is much ado about nothing. There are 0 characteristic values' date=' and they fit the bill close enough. The difference between 0 and -30 wasn't worth the printing to put them in the book, IMHO.[/quote']

 

To some, perhaps. At least a few of us liked the rules. I personally thought they were great. The added detail there was one of the few changes from 4E to 5E that I actually felt was a truly positive and noteworthy addition.

 

And given how I--and most likely the original poster--felt about the rules, calling this discussion, "much ado about nothing," is frankly a bit rude. Feel free not to contribute to a thread that's worth nothing; that's a somewhat more positive contribution than that kind of inflamatory slur.

[jtelson]

Re: Negatory

 

I don't want to leave with just complaining about people complaining, so let me offer something constructive.

 

 

 

You can defeat an opponent without resorting to damaging powers. Reasoning from effect, your mindless, incapable of independent thought opponent, effectively a zombie, could be created with a Mental Transform (AVAD Mental Defense), Works Against EGO, Not BODY, yadda yadda (6E1 p306).

 

No negative characteristics required.

 

Huzzah - we're capable of replacing an elegant subsystem with a cludgy power build, we should all be thrilled about that. How do we handle degrading characteristic based rolls below 9 or less ala slow poisons that reduce a target's health or dexterity? Oh yeah, a different cludgy build.

[Jagged]

Re: Negatory

 

To some, perhaps. At least a few of us liked the rules. I personally thought they were great. The added detail there was one of the few changes from 4E to 5E that I actually felt was a truly positive and noteworthy addition.

 

And given how I--and most likely the original poster--felt about the rules, calling this discussion, "much ado about nothing," is frankly a bit rude. Feel free not to contribute to a thread that's worth nothing; that's a somewhat more positive contribution than that kind of inflamatory slur.

 

Agreed.

 

The use of negative characteristics was consistant and logical. I like "consistant and logical", especially in my rule systems.

 

Has anyone come up with a reason why negative characteristics cause such a problem that they needed removing?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Negatory

 

Huzzah - we're capable of replacing an elegant subsystem with a cludgy power build' date=' we should all be thrilled about that. How do we handle degrading characteristic based rolls below 9 or less ala slow poisons that reduce a target's health or dexterity? Oh yeah, a different cludgy build.[/quote']

 

See my suggestion above--if you drain all the "mental" or "physical" stats down to 0, you don't get a lower roll...but you most likely have to make 2 or 3 9 or less rolls each time you want to try to do something, which is extremely difficult to achieve.

[phookz]

Re: Negatory

 

To some, perhaps. At least a few of us liked the rules. I personally thought they were great. The added detail there was one of the few changes from 4E to 5E that I actually felt was a truly positive and noteworthy addition.

 

And given how I--and most likely the original poster--felt about the rules, calling this discussion, "much ado about nothing," is frankly a bit rude. Feel free not to contribute to a thread that's worth nothing; that's a somewhat more positive contribution than that kind of inflamatory slur.

 

I must have misunderstood the purpose of the forums. I thought it was a place for discussion - sometimes with opposing views. My view is either the 5E or 6E version is workable. I could have been more clear in my post, however - my "much ado" comment was more specifically pointed at the discussion about how Steve could do this and what justification he had.

[phookz]

Re: Negatory

 

Huzzah - we're capable of replacing an elegant subsystem with a cludgy power build' date=' we should all be thrilled about that. How do we handle degrading characteristic based rolls below 9 or less ala slow poisons that reduce a target's health or dexterity? Oh yeah, a different cludgy build.[/quote']

 

I don't see what's kludgy about that build. That's specifically what Transform is for. That build was offered in response to a post that without the -30 characteristic rules for EGO there was no way to make an opponent mindless and without breakout rolls. Transform can do exactly that. It is no more a kludgy solution than using it to turn someone into stone, or a frog, or anything else that effectively removes them from the game.

 

The 5E EGO-30 rules mean that a drain to that level and you can now tell the character to kill themselves and they get no resistance to it - effectively killing them, for only the cost of a Drain, which is 10cp / d6 and versus Power Defense, which is less common than PD, ED or MD.

 

Compare this to a Mind Control to do the same thing. In order to get someone to kill themselves you have to achieve EGO+30 and have a good chance of this going against a Psychological Complication, so you might even have to hit EGO+40. Granted, Mind Control is half the cost of Drain at 5cp/d6, but it's not cumulative unless you buy an advantage for it, and that starts to add up quick. And even after all of this, Mind Control allows a breakout roll.

 

Drains are still effective, even with a 9- EGO roll. But they aren't a guaranteed kill, and they shouldn't be. For that use the powers that were designed (and costed) to achieve that type of effect, one of which is Transform.

 

With regards to poisons that affect the target's health or DEX, I would ask what effect you're trying to achieve - once we know that we can work on a build to achieve that.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

I was going to just walk away....

 

*sigh*

 

Look, it isn't worth bringing this down to a personal level. I can understand that me saying I don't like the rules can be interpreted as having a go at Steve knowing that Steve is not going to wade in to defend himself, but let me assure you that's not the point.

 

The point is simply that I want to discuss the rules not the personal shortcomings of anyone. I'm qualified to comment on the rules.

 

So, look. I know negative characteristcs are gone, they are not coming back officially and I can house rule them back if I want to. I know there was a reason for doing so. I don't imagine for a moment that Steve decided to remove the rules on a random basis, but I have no idea what the actual reason was. I feel they were a nice, neat and 'reality consistent' set of rules that took up no more space than the current rules, which have (and I'm going to stop writing IMO - assume it is all opinion unless I'm quoting a source) the advantage that they do not impose an arbitrary stop point (surely you can drain DEX until the target is incapable of any coordinated movement? No.)

 

I think, given that there has to be rules for this stuff anyway, and the old rules are no more extensive than the new, this is a change for the worse. In fact I can not see any reason for the change.

 

I'd be happy to hear any contrary opinions, and discuss our differences on the rules, but this is getting snarky.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

Part of the reason for the removal of negative characteristics, which has the effect of making negative adjustment powers used on characteristics less useful, is that characteristics are now cheaper. Probably. I can understand that. It makes sense. I just don;t think the solution is to remove a perfectly good rule and replace it with one that has become arbitrary, and to be clear, I mean by that 9- is the nadir. You can't get worse than that with adjustment powers.

 

As for draining to -30 EGO allowing you to order someone to kill themselves, sure: but so what? Any of their friends can countermand that and you get no choice about not killing yourself and, frankly, if someone has taken the time and effort to do that much 'damage', they should probably be allowed to kill you anyway. Reduce your stun to zero and they can coup de grace you and you get no roll to resist. This is no different in practice. You are dead.

 

Like I said it is now MUCH easier to reduce characteristics because they are cheaper, so we have this odd 'some characteristics are defences' rule. Would it not have been easier on a number of levels to simply say ALL characteristics halve effect against negative adjustment, and leave the negative characteristic rules alone?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Negatory

 

Personally, I don't think they actually add anything to the game. Even on a Mind Control, a 9- plus Modifiers puts the first few Breakout Rolls well into "good luck with that" range IMO.

 

I also like the idea of just having a bottom of the barrel. Even if -33 is a theoretical "so low don't bother with a roll" you could always keep going to really drive it home. And I just don't see that actually adding to the game experience.

[archermoo]

Re: Negatory

 

I was going to just walk away....

 

*sigh*

 

Look, it isn't worth bringing this down to a personal level. I can understand that me saying I don't like the rules can be interpreted as having a go at Steve knowing that Steve is not going to wade in to defend himself, but let me assure you that's not the point.

 

The point is simply that I want to discuss the rules not the personal shortcomings of anyone. I'm qualified to comment on the rules.

 

So, look. I know negative characteristcs are gone, they are not coming back officially and I can house rule them back if I want to. I know there was a reason for doing so. I don't imagine for a moment that Steve decided to remove the rules on a random basis, but I have no idea what the actual reason was. I feel they were a nice, neat and 'reality consistent' set of rules that took up no more space than the current rules, which have (and I'm going to stop writing IMO - assume it is all opinion unless I'm quoting a source) the advantage that they do not impose an arbitrary stop point (surely you can drain DEX until the target is incapable of any coordinated movement? No.)

 

I think, given that there has to be rules for this stuff anyway, and the old rules are no more extensive than the new, this is a change for the worse. In fact I can not see any reason for the change.

 

I'd be happy to hear any contrary opinions, and discuss our differences on the rules, but this is getting snarky.

 

Sorry, I wasn't trying to take it to a personal level. I just see people using the term "change for the sake of change" when they generally really mean either "change that I don't understand the reason for" or "change that I don't agree with". And it bothers me.

 

Change for the sake of change is change that was done solely to be able to say that you changed something. I've come across plenty of examples of it in my life, most often from people in work environments that feel the need to put their stamp on things, and so change things just to prove to people that they can. It is an insulting term, and insinuates that the person responsible for the change did it on a whim or at random, just to be changing something.

 

I have no problems discussing the rules, and certainly agree that you are qualified to do it. I don't have any problems when people disagree with changes that have been made to the rules. And I certainly don't see you disagreeing with the changes that Steve has made as you having a go at him. I just think that if you know he had a reason for changing the rule in question, even if you don't know what it is and even if you don't agree with it, you still shouldn't claim that he didn't have a reason other than simply wanting to make a change.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

Personally, I don't think they actually add anything to the game. Even on a Mind Control, a 9- plus Modifiers puts the first few Breakout Rolls well into "good luck with that" range IMO.

 

I also like the idea of just having a bottom of the barrel. Even if -33 is a theoretical "so low don't bother with a roll" you could always keep going to really drive it home. And I just don't see that actually adding to the game experience.

 

You can keep going anyway - we still COUNT negative characteristics for recovery. I suppose all my arguments for keeping them and all the arguments for the current rules point one thing out - it is a pretty minor issue - and, given that, I'm surprised that there was a perceived need to change it. Other than the reduced cost of characteristics in 6e I can see no need at all to address the issue. Bear in mind that a 6d6 drain does 21 character points so to get even a 10 EGO character with no power defence down to -33 would require 86 points of effect, or 4 to 5 successful hits.

 

Now it will only take 43 points of effect or 2-3 successful hits, hence my suggestion that, whilst there mey be a real problem now, it may not have been addressed in the most appropriate way.

 

You can now get someone to 0 EGO with one hit, and, to be honest, the most sensible command is not 'kill yourself' but 'get as far away from here as you can', thuse removing the target from combat (ans soliloquies take no time) and getting them away from any team mates who might countermand your order.

 

It is a hugely powerful attack is a 6d6 EGO drain, even with a 0 Floor. Not far off a one hit kill (and I mean by 'kill' something that permanently takes you out of this combat) on most characters that works about 2/3 of the time.

 

If you want buzz-kill, that looks like it to me.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

Sorry, I wasn't trying to take it to a personal level. I just see people using the term "change for the sake of change" when they generally really mean either "change that I don't understand the reason for" or "change that I don't agree with". And it bothers me.

 

Change for the sake of change is change that was done solely to be able to say that you changed something. I've come across plenty of examples of it in my life, most often from people in work environments that feel the need to put their stamp on things, and so change things just to prove to people that they can. It is an insulting term, and insinuates that the person responsible for the change did it on a whim or at random, just to be changing something.

 

I have no problems discussing the rules, and certainly agree that you are qualified to do it. I don't have any problems when people disagree with changes that have been made to the rules. And I certainly don't see you disagreeing with the changes that Steve has made as you having a go at him. I just think that if you know he had a reason for changing the rule in question, even if you don't know what it is and even if you don't agree with it, you still shouldn't claim that he didn't have a reason other than simply wanting to make a change.

 

 

Fair enough, I accept that criticism: my words were ill considered. I hope my more recent post has clarified my position.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Negatory

 

Huzzah - we're capable of replacing an elegant subsystem with a cludgy power build' date=' we should all be thrilled about that.[/quote']

 

We certainly are when the book does it. Wait-- more correctly, in my own experience:

 

we certainly were when 5e first did it:

 

"This power is now gone / modified. It's now a division of that power."

 

My all-time favorite eye-rolling cobble:

 

Instant Change is gone, and is now 'more properly' built using Transform. Then we pick some random advantages and limitations until it costs the same. And add in a couple of minor handwaves so it works the same.

 

yeah...

 

much better.....

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

We certainly are when the book does it. Wait-- more correctly, in my own experience:

 

we certainly were when 5e first did it:

 

"This power is now gone / modified. It's now a division of that power."

 

My all-time favorite eye-rolling cobble:

 

Instant Change is gone, and is now 'more properly' built using Transform. Then we pick some random advantages and limitations until it costs the same. And add in a couple of minor handwaves so it works the same.

 

yeah...

 

much better.....

 

We ought to have a new power called 'Cool Stuff' which costs 5 points, no END and can be used to do cool stuff that has no effect on combat and only minor or occasional effects on the game. You can not apply power modifiers or adders to 'Cool Stuff'. Cool Stuff can only have an effect in your immediate vicinity unless having an effect further away would be cool. It can be Instant or Constant but is always Obvious. That's the point.

 

Wonder Woman style 'instant change'? Cool Stuff. Surrounded by hovering balls of light that quietly sing Gregorian Chants? Cool Stuff. Teeth glint when you smile? Cool Stuff. You can use a low power version of your Laser Vision as a torch? Cool Stuff. Every radio within 50 m of you blares the first three bars of 'God Save The Queen' when you appear? Cool Stuff. You can always pull the Ace of Spades out of a deck of cards? Cool Stuff.

 

I could go on, but you get the idea

[ghost-angel]

Re: Negatory

 

You can keep going anyway - we still COUNT negative characteristics for recovery. I suppose all my arguments for keeping them and all the arguments for the current rules point one thing out - it is a pretty minor issue - and, given that, I'm surprised that there was a perceived need to change it. Other than the reduced cost of characteristics in 6e I can see no need at all to address the issue. Bear in mind that a 6d6 drain does 21 character points so to get even a 10 EGO character with no power defence down to -33 would require 86 points of effect, or 4 to 5 successful hits.

 

Now it will only take 43 points of effect or 2-3 successful hits, hence my suggestion that, whilst there mey be a real problem now, it may not have been addressed in the most appropriate way.

 

You can now get someone to 0 EGO with one hit, and, to be honest, the most sensible command is not 'kill yourself' but 'get as far away from here as you can', thuse removing the target from combat (ans soliloquies take no time) and getting them away from any team mates who might countermand your order.

 

It is a hugely powerful attack is a 6d6 EGO drain, even with a 0 Floor. Not far off a one hit kill (and I mean by 'kill' something that permanently takes you out of this combat) on most characters that works about 2/3 of the time.

 

If you want buzz-kill, that looks like it to me.

 

None of that addresses the idea that I like a floor, I like the floor at 0.

I know we track below that, but it has no effect.

 

The Effect Floor is 0. I think that's appropriate. Whatever the cost is.

In fact the cost is utterly irrelevant, I'm not sure why it's even mentioned.

 

And also, you're math is wrong. If a 6D6 Drain does 21 Effect, under both 5E and 6E and 10EGO is at 0 Effect. Were we keeping Effects Of Negative Characterisitcs around, under 6E that would be -10EGO. More effective in the new model. But that's neither here nor there, nor anywhere. Non Sequitor.

 

Zero is bottom when determining what happens. Anything else just delays how soon you get back to 1+. Which is effective enough in its own right IMO.

[archermoo]

Re: Negatory

 

Fair enough' date=' I accept that criticism: my words were ill considered. I hope my more recent post has clarified my position.[/quote']

 

Indeed it did.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Negatory

 

Just double checking--am I right that you can now drain SPD to zero, when you were limited to draining it down to 1 before?

 

If I am, that there is a VERY powerful ability. You could beat Dr. Destroyer that way(in theory, anyway.)

[ghost-angel]

Re: Negatory

 

You could always Drain SPD to 0. Nothing has changed. 5ER even has specifics on what SPD0 does.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Negatory

 

You could always Drain SPD to 0. Nothing has changed. 5ER even has specifics on what SPD0 does.

 

Hmm. I thought in at least 4th Ed, you couldn't. At any rate, it's still an extremely powerful ability.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Negatory

 

Just double checking--am I right that you can now drain SPD to zero, when you were limited to draining it down to 1 before?

 

If I am, that there is a VERY powerful ability. You could beat Dr. Destroyer that way(in theory, anyway.)

 

True, but in theory you could also Transform Dr. Destroyer into a frog. Same kind of argument applies (Dr. D. should have Power Defense, etc.). **shrug**

[ghost-angel]

Re: Negatory

 

True' date=' but in theory you could also Transform Dr. Destroyer into a frog. Same kind of argument applies (Dr. D. should have Power Defense, etc.). **shrug**[/quote']

 

16pts, Hardened. You're going to need a very big Drain. . .

[megaplayboy]

Re: Negatory

 

16pts' date=' Hardened. You're going to need a very big Drain. . .[/quote']

 

What about a whole bunch of little ones(everybody has a 2-shot stasis bazooka)? 6d6 gets 5 points through at a time. 16 hits gets him to SPD 0.

8d6 would take only 7 hits, and 10d6 would take 4 or 5.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Negatory

 

None of that addresses the idea that I like a floor, I like the floor at 0.

I know we track below that, but it has no effect.

 

The Effect Floor is 0. I think that's appropriate. Whatever the cost is.

In fact the cost is utterly irrelevant, I'm not sure why it's even mentioned.

 

And also, you're math is wrong. If a 6D6 Drain does 21 Effect, under both 5E and 6E and 10EGO is at 0 Effect. Were we keeping Effects Of Negative Characterisitcs around, under 6E that would be -10EGO. More effective in the new model. But that's neither here nor there, nor anywhere. Non Sequitor.

 

Zero is bottom when determining what happens. Anything else just delays how soon you get back to 1+. Which is effective enough in its own right IMO.

 

Not a non-sequitur because it would be pretty rare for a character to have jsut 10 EGO. Cost matters. IMO it is important to think about how many hits it takes for a power to incapacitate a target - it helps balance them, it puts them in context.

 

Thing is I'm not sure the new approach makes any sense: there are SOME characteristics that you can use to incapacitate someone with using adjustment powers: Stun, Body, Speed, and to a lesser extent, END.

 

Why should the system, assuming you want to be able to actually 'put someone down' force you to chose those characteristics over any other? What if I want to build a character who can reduce the brain energy of a target until their brain actually shuts down? Drain looks to eb the obvious choice - but isn;t because you can not create that effect with an INT Drain. You'd have to do something far less obvious: a stun drain, or a transform.

 

My main objection is that it is arbitrary. Why should there be a point at whic there is no more effect from continuied application?