Limitation for only to spread

[Bartman]

I am creating a character and I want him to be able to pull of a number of tricks with his EB. All of these tricks seem to be covered under the spread rules. But I don't want him to have to reduce the power of his blasts to get the effects. So the answer is obvious, buy him additional dice of EB with the disad only to spread. The additional dice would be unable to add stun, body or knockback to the attack. So how much of a disad is this worth?

[Agent X]

Re: Limitation for only to spread

 

Originally posted by Bartman

I am creating a character and I want him to be able to pull of a number of tricks with his EB. All of these tricks seem to be covered under the spread rules. But I don't want him to have to reduce the power of his blasts to get the effects. So the answer is obvious, buy him additional dice of EB with the disad only to spread. The additional dice would be unable to add stun, body or knockback to the attack. So how much of a disad is this worth?

Invictus, an old Champions character from 3rd ed.(?) had this limitation on some additional dice of eb. It was assigned a -1/2 limitation.

[SkyKnight]

A quick gut check

 

-1/4 loses about 1/4 of its effectivness. Very few characters would spread their EB 3 times out of 4, so this is too low.

 

-1/2 loses about 1/3 of its effectiveness. My energy projectors have never spread 2 times out of 3, but if the character is set up with spread effects in mind, this seems fairly reasonable.

 

=-1 loses about 1/2 of its effectiveness. Spreading is genuinely useful, so this level of limitation is probably too high.

 

I'd go with 1/2

 

SkyKnight

[Magmarock]

Yikes

 

Uhm, im my group, we only give limitations if it actually limits a power. If your PC only spreads his attacks, then how is this limiting your PC?

 

If you make his spread attack just as effective as his normal attacks, then why would he ever use a normal one?

 

Not a limitiation in my book. You need to find another way to make the power cheaper...

[lemming]

Re: Yikes

 

Originally posted by Magmarock

Uhm, im my group, we only give limitations if it actually limits a power. If your PC only spreads his attacks, then how is this limiting your PC?

Um, he's limiting the extra dice. Which means he wouldn't be ever using the dice for extra stun, etc... That's a limit.

 

I'd go with -1/2.

[Agent X]

Re: Yikes

 

Originally posted by Magmarock

Uhm, im my group, we only give limitations if it actually limits a power. If your PC only spreads his attacks, then how is this limiting your PC?

 

If you make his spread attack just as effective as his normal attacks, then why would he ever use a normal one?

 

Not a limitiation in my book. You need to find another way to make the power cheaper...

With that line of reasoning you should force everyone who wants missile deflection to buy missile reflection because that is more expensive and produces more options than they plan on using, just like making someone who wants a 12d6 attack that he spreads with an additional 4 dice pay the full cost of 16d6 energy blast.

[Bartman]

Re: Re: Limitation for only to spread

 

Originally posted by Agent X

Invictus, an old Champions character from 3rd ed.(?) had this limitation on some additional dice of eb. It was assigned a -1/2 limitation.

 

Yes Invictus, I remember him. That's exactly the effect I was looking for. Well -1 seemed too much. As everyone seems to agrees on -1/2 that's what I'll go with.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Yikes

 

Originally posted by Magmarock

Uhm, im my group, we only give limitations if it actually limits a power. If your PC only spreads his attacks, then how is this limiting your PC?

 

If you make his spread attack just as effective as his normal attacks, then why would he ever use a normal one?

 

Not a limitiation in my book. You need to find another way to make the power cheaper...

 

He has given up the option of hitting a single target for more dice. This is like saying "Only to do knockback" doesn't limit your EB, because you were only going to do knockback anyway.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Re: Re: Limitation for only to spread

 

Originally posted by Bartman

Yes Invictus, I remember him. That's exactly the effect I was looking for. Well -1 seemed too much. As everyone seems to agrees on -1/2 that's what I'll go with.

..

 

IIRC, Invictus could only spread to hit two targets instead of one. That's no longer even needed - he can just use Rapid Fire (mind you, he needs 2 levels with OCV and several with DCV when using rapid fire, so maybe the spread dice are still worthwhile).

 

How often do you see EB dice used to spread? If virtually never, that implies a higher limit if that's all they could do. -1 may be reasonable if characters generally fire at full power. After all, losing the ability to spread is only a -1/4 limitation.

[tesuji]

i would actually giver it -1.

 

The main effect from spreading is +1 ocv.

+1 OCV for a single attack costs 2 cp.

Now, you have more options like spreading to hit multiple targets, but then you lose the +1 ocv and such... so thats more like a trade off than an additional boost.

 

-1 would price each d6 at 2 or 3 points, making the net cost very similar to buying a mixture of 2 pt ocv levels and 3 point CV levels with this ONE attack.

 

That seems about right.

 

However, as GM, i would count the extra dice against whatever campaign limitds i have, I might count them as OCV but i probably would count them as DC or at least as i would count area effect. So this would not be just a way to slip above the campaign standards.

[Hugh Neilson]

I've got to side with tesuji on this one. Losing the ability to use those dice to add damage is a severe limitation. I would point out, however, that equating the dice with bonus OCV requires they also cost no END. 5 x 1.5 = 7.5 /2 = 3.75 bonus OCV levels instead.

 

However, Spreading allows other constructs that OCV levels alone clearly do not, so I think -1 is probably fair.

Maybe -1 1/2 to get 2 points each costing 1 END per 2 dice, but I'd have to see it in action first and decide -1 wasn't granting enough of a reduction.

[Gary]

Well, does no stun is a -3/4 and does no knockback is a -1/4. So -1 seems appropriate.

 

There really aren't any additional limitations or benefits that need to be thrown into the mix.

[Agent X]

I've actually played a character with a 15d6 energy blast with an additional 5d6 only to spread with the lim at -1/2. After seeing it in play, I thought I got my money's worth. It is a very effective power arrangement at that cost. I would not have objected if the GM had let me put the limitation at -1 but I didn't feel cheated at -1/2 either.

[Bartman]

A -1? That seems generous to me. I think you are underestimating the multiple targets ability. Yeah it can be duplicated with the rapid fire manouver. But with spread I don't have to deal with -2 OCV per target or with the 1/2 DCV for making the attack or having to take a full phase that rapid fire has. With five dice for spreading I can have move in, blast up to 5 characters (if they are close enough) and have a very good chance of hitting all of them, all while still maintaining a good DCV. This is a very useful ability and one that I imagine I will use frequently.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Bartman

A -1? That seems generous to me. I think you are underestimating the multiple targets ability. Yeah it can be duplicated with the rapid fire manouver. But with spread I don't have to deal with -2 OCV per target or with the 1/2 DCV for making the attack or having to take a full phase that rapid fire has. With five dice for spreading I can have move in, blast up to 5 characters (if they are close enough) and have a very good chance of hitting all of them, all while still maintaining a good DCV. This is a very useful ability and one that I imagine I will use frequently.

 

Then I suppose I should buy it "Does no STUN" and "Does no Knockback". It can still do BOD if I want, but I'll just always use it for spreading. Maybe I'll just buy the dice "does no STUN", and have the facility to use it for knockback if the need arises.

 

For those who believe this is too lenient, and spreading is more useful than those of us leaning to -1 believe, let's put the shoe on the other foot. How much of a limit should it be for "cannot spread"? If "Only to spread" is -1/2, you believe it has lost 1/3 of its effectiveness [FRED 194]. Losing the remaining 2/3 instead ("cannot spread") must be worth -1 1/2 (loses 2/3 effectiveness). Total effectiveness should be 1, right?

 

At -1, "only to spread" and "cannot spread" should each be worth -1, yet Beam Attack (which denies spreading, firing at lower power and destroying, rather than hole punching, obstacles) is only -1/4. Maybe we're too mean requiring players to pay half price for "only to spread", but I'm more inclined to raise the value of "beam effect" if spreading is considered such a powerful ability. I still don't think I'd go beyond -1/2, and -1/4 for only "cannot spread". And I think I'd look at -1 for "only to spread".

[Farkling]

Didn't we have a big discussion about Frameworks recently?

 

I am also on the -1 bandwagon, simply because of Multipowers and EC's...the character COULD jus buy an Area Effect Attack with selective fire and not run through the hoops.

 

I also think -1 is acceptable, you softie Hugh.

(As a note on Beam Attack, you forgot it can't be bounced also...)

 

Consider this...is removing the DAMAGE and KNOCKBACK from the dice of the attack the same as removing the RANGE from the attack? That is also -1/2. THAT doesn't work for me.

 

Now, to support my rep as a mean GM;

I would not normally allow a character to stack the does no STUN and Does No KB limitations on an attack...I would ask for a rationalization, or send him to a Killing Attack with no STUN, or give him a value for the single limitation "only does BODY"

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Farkling

Didn't we have a big discussion about Frameworks recently?

 

I am also on the -1 bandwagon, simply because of Multipowers and EC's...the character COULD jus buy an Area Effect Attack with selective fire and not run through the hoops.

 

I also think -1 is acceptable, you softie Hugh.

(As a note on Beam Attack, you forgot it can't be bounced also...)

 

Consider this...is removing the DAMAGE and KNOCKBACK from the dice of the attack the same as removing the RANGE from the attack? That is also -1/2. THAT doesn't work for me.

 

Now, to support my rep as a mean GM;

I would not normally allow a character to stack the does no STUN and Does No KB limitations on an attack...I would ask for a rationalization, or send him to a Killing Attack with no STUN, or give him a value for the single limitation "only does BODY"

Why would you ask for a rationalization for this? What is so abusive?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

Now, to support my rep as a mean GM;

I would not normally allow a character to stack the does no STUN and Does No KB limitations on an attack...I would ask for a rationalization, or send him to a Killing Attack with no STUN, or give him a value for the single limitation "only does BODY"

 

But what would you give him for "BOD Only"?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Bartman

A -1? That seems generous to me. I think you are underestimating the multiple targets ability. Yeah it can be duplicated with the rapid fire manouver. But with spread I don't have to deal with -2 OCV per target or with the 1/2 DCV for making the attack or having to take a full phase that rapid fire has. With five dice for spreading I can have move in, blast up to 5 characters (if they are close enough) and have a very good chance of hitting all of them, all while still maintaining a good DCV. This is a very useful ability and one that I imagine I will use frequently.

 

You're paying 17 pts for 5d6 if you only allow -1/2 for spreading only.

 

What you're saying is that losing the ability to do 17.5 extra stun and 5" extra knockback per attack is worth only 8 pts. Is that correct?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary

You're paying 17 pts for 5d6 if you only allow -1/2 for spreading only.

 

What you're saying is that losing the ability to do 17.5 extra stun and 5" extra knockback per attack is worth only 8 pts. Is that correct?

This argument has merit in games with damage caps/active points caps that include the dice only to spread in the damage caps/active points caps. In games without such caps, I'm not sure that a -1 limitation is the way to go.

[Bartman]

Originally posted by Gary

You're paying 17 pts for 5d6 if you only allow -1/2 for spreading only.

 

What you're saying is that losing the ability to do 17.5 extra stun and 5" extra knockback per attack is worth only 8 pts. Is that correct?

 

No I'm paying 17pts for 10pts of CSLs with EB, 7pts of Penalty SLs with rapid fire and, 10pts of 5pt DCV CSLs with a -1 lim only for rapid fire (to overcome the 1/2 DCV). As I am the player in question, I would love to be able to justify the -1 lim but I don't think it is reasonable. Although I may try to go with a -3/4.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Bartman

No I'm paying 17pts for 10pts of CSLs with EB, 7pts of Penalty SLs with rapid fire and, 10pts of 5pt DCV CSLs with a -1 lim only for rapid fire (to overcome the 1/2 DCV). As I am the player in question, I would love to be able to justify the -1 lim but I don't think it is reasonable. Although I may try to go with a -3/4.

 

I have to go with Gary - you're selling 17.5 average STUN and 5" Knockback for 8 points. The skill level analogy isn't quite all there. If you had all those levels, you could use them all at once. If you didn't have them, but just had 5 extra d6 of Energy Blast, you could do all of those things, plus add damage at the cost of losing those levels.

 

The ability to spread an energy blast is the counterpoint to all the extra abilities you get from STR, like figured characteristics, leaping movement, grabs, lifting capacity and throwing things.

 

To buy "damage only" STR is a -1/2 limitation (Hand Attack), implying a power that loses 1/3 of its effectiveness. Why should "no damage" EB be considered to lose only 1/3 of its effectiveness?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Bartman

No I'm paying 17pts for 10pts of CSLs with EB, 7pts of Penalty SLs with rapid fire and, 10pts of 5pt DCV CSLs with a -1 lim only for rapid fire (to overcome the 1/2 DCV). As I am the player in question, I would love to be able to justify the -1 lim but I don't think it is reasonable. Although I may try to go with a -3/4.

 

A few problems. If you spread, you can't use those "levels" simutaneously as you would if you actually bought true levels.

 

Second, you're paying End for spreading EB whereas you wouldn't if you bought levels.

 

Third, the book clearly gives a -3/4 limitation for Does No Stun. Spreading only is a more severe limitation than Does No Stun and thus should be worth more.

[tesuji]

I think part of the disagreement is the disconnect between HERO's description of what you shoudl do and what it does.

 

The people saying, like i do, its a severe lim worth -1 or more are looking at the parts of HERo which talk about what -1/2 and -1 are suppoesed to represent. Me, i am also looking at other ways to buy similar pieces (skill levels.)

 

The ones saying almost universally -1/2 are ***I believe*** wotrking off another set of "how to do things" in HERo, the examples.

 

HERO is rife with examples of -1/2 "does only one of the things it can normally do" values.

 

For example, and my book is not in fornt of me, so please bear with me...

 

Mind Control "one command" or perhaps most often shown as FEAR ONLY is typically assigned -1/2. Now, i think almost all of us can agree that a serious level of mind control is worth a whole lot more than 3x what FEAR ONLY is. The vast amount of stuff you can do with MC dwarfs the value of "fear only." There are a lot more examples, from 5th as well as 4th, where -1/2 "one thing only" is SHOWn to us as an example.

 

So, when you look at SPREAD as "one thing of several it could do" the -1/2 seems to fall more in line.

 

I think it is easily -1 and likely -1.5 after considering the endurance thing, but even i will admit my first gut reaction was "thats the "-1/2 for only one thing" rule."

 

I would say that if in your game mind control SLEEP only or mind control fear only would be represented with -1/2 limitations, then thats probably just as appropriate for Eb spread only. in both cases you are saying "yeah, it lost a ton of options but kept a very useful option" and i think they should be priced similarly, not necessarily exactly, but similarly.

[prestidigitator]

I would probably think of this as an:

• Area of Effect: 2x (original active points)/10, Non-Selective (+1)

I think Non-Selective subtracts 1/4 from the cost of the Advantage, anyway. I don't have the book at the moment.

 

My reasoning is as follows:

1. With an Any Area, you can catch a number of adjacent hexes. This is equivalent to spreading your EB area-wise.
2. With Non-Selective, you have to make an attack roll against all targets, just like with a spread EB.
3. If you were to take double your origianl EB, and use the extra dice to spread, you would be able to hit (original active points)/5 hexes, which is the same as the number of hexes in the Area of Effect.

Now, let's consider the differences between the Non-Selective Any Area and the extra dice:

1. The Area of Effect hits multiple targets in the same hex (although from the wording in the book, I am not sure the spread EB does not).
2. The extra cost for the Area of Effect cannot be used to increase the damage to a single target.
3. The Any Area must be shaped in some regular fasion (GM might well let you ignore this).
4. With the Area of Effect you have to make an attack roll just to place the area (on top of hitting each target).

This means the Area of Effect is actually more limited than the extra dice, and should be no more expensive. I am currently having a hard time justifying any value to the Only to Spread Limitation. Can anyone argue against this? It is being a real headache for me.