The application of added effort

[Doc Democracy]

I am sure I had this discussion before but I cannot find it - so will subject you all to it again in the hope of gaining wisdom.

 

I was looking at the combat manoeuvres which show that you can do something untrained (try to dodge) that you do trained. You just tend to be better at it or get the same result with better CV values.

 

I was thinking that you should be able to manipulate your powers more than just pushing for extra effect. You can currently gain more power by piling in more energy (END). That is kind of a blunt effect.

 

I was thinking that you might use added effort instead, for example, to give you armour piercing by focussing the power or area effect by broadening it out.

 

I was thinking that you would be able to apply 1 END to add +1/4 to 10 active points, reduced END would not affect this END expenditure but multiplied END limitations would.

 

This would allow powers to be a bit more malleable at the cost of extra END expenditure and (obviously) all changes to be agreed by the GM with good SFX rationales.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Doc

 

 

PS: thought of the power skill but it explicitly rules this out and I'm not sure it fits the broad concept.

[Escafarc]

Re: The application of added effort

 

Isn't this what the Power Skill is for?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: The application of added effort

 

Did you miss the PS? Or did you just respond before I added it as an afterthought?

 

I had considered the power skill but the text of the skill explicitly rules out adding advantages to powers...it seems as though it is very much more about broadening the SFX of the power, not the game effect of the purchased power.

 

 

Doc

[Escafarc]

Re: The application of added effort

 

Did you miss the PS? Or did you just respond before I added it as an afterthought?

 

I had considered the power skill but the text of the skill explicitly rules out adding advantages to powers...it seems as though it is very much more about broadening the SFX of the power, not the game effect of the purchased power.

 

 

Doc

 

I must have posted before you added it. How about Variable Naked Advantage with Increased END Cost and Requires a Roll?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: The application of added effort

 

Well, that is a paid for way, I was thinking of giving this as an option (unpaid) to everyone...

 

Doc

[Escafarc]

Re: The application of added effort

 

Looks to me this would makes Advantages and Multi-Powers less effective when I can get the same result by just buying more END. But that said one other thing you may want to consider is Heroic Action Points from 6E2 and allowing them to add Advantages.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: The application of added effort

 

I am sure I had this discussion before but I cannot find it - so will subject you all to it again in the hope of gaining wisdom.

 

I was looking at the combat manoeuvres which show that you can do something untrained (try to dodge) that you do trained. You just tend to be better at it or get the same result with better CV values.

 

I was thinking that you should be able to manipulate your powers more than just pushing for extra effect. You can currently gain more power by piling in more energy (END). That is kind of a blunt effect.

 

I was thinking that you might use added effort instead, for example, to give you armour piercing by focussing the power or area effect by broadening it out.

 

I was thinking that you would be able to apply 1 END to add +1/4 to 10 active points, reduced END would not affect this END expenditure but multiplied END limitations would.

 

This would allow powers to be a bit more malleable at the cost of extra END expenditure and (obviously) all changes to be agreed by the GM with good SFX rationales.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Doc

 

 

PS: thought of the power skill but it explicitly rules this out and I'm not sure it fits the broad concept.

I think that what you're describing is a good rationale for having a Multipower...

[Doc Democracy]

Re: The application of added effort

 

Hmmm. Not considered those.

 

I think something else I forgot was to limit the amount of END that might be applied. Pushing has not meant that people bought smaller attacks. I think that spending lots of added END is something that we should encourage - it highlights a decent part of the HERO system build - too many characters in my experience are built to play it END safe - I want to tempt them to the point of knocking themselves out to gain a competitive advantage!

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: The application of added effort

 

I think that what you're describing is a good rationale for having a Multipower...

 

Actually one of the things I wanted to avoid was the proliferation of multipowers by players who had the thought "What if I need...."

 

I want players to think about the special effects of their powers and how to use and exploit those effects without having to think about whether they have built that into their points...

 

Doc

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: The application of added effort

 

Actually one of the things I wanted to avoid was the proliferation of multipowers by players who had the thought "What if I need...."

 

I want players to think about the special effects of their powers and how to use and exploit those effects without having to think about whether they have built that into their points...

Then that definitely sounds like the Power Skill to me. I know the main rule book description rules this effect out, but the Advanced Player's Guide discusses allowing this effect (and others) for Power. If you want to still tie it into END, maybe they could buy bonuses to the Power roll, with the Limitations Costs END and possibly Increased END Cost.

[Mr Reasonable]

Re: The application of added effort

 

If you want this as a campaign rule, I would use the pushing rules, as that seems closest to what you are after. Perhaps you can add a +1/4 advantage for 5 END as a push and a +1/2 advantage for 10 END, and you could use a Power Skill roll rather than an Ego roll. This will substantially affect the relative values of advantages and END in your campaign, so you'll want to monitor excessive expenditure on END or REC. To combat this you could apply a -1 to the roll for a +1/4 advantage and a -2 for a +1/2.

 

If you think that is too powerful, you might leverage the Power Skill roll a bit more: for each +1 you buy for it you can add a specific advantage, and if you try to apply that advantage then you do not get the advantage of the +1 for that roll. If you blow the roll you spend the END anyway and he power does not work at all, not even the base effect.

 

For example you might want to add armor piercing to your roll, a +1/4 advantage in sixth edition, so you need to have bought at least Power Skill +1 and dedicated that +1 to 'armor piercing' to have any chance of accomplishing it on a Power Skill roll at -1, and it would cost 5 extra END and, if you fail to apply the advantage effectively, the power does not work at all, but you spend the END and take the time you normally would have for an attack action.

 

You would have to play with the application in practice to see if that is too advantageous or not worth it or just right.

[Matt Holck]

Re: The application of added effort

 

Hmmm. Not considered those.

 

I think something else I forgot was to limit the amount of END that might be applied. Pushing has not meant that people bought smaller attacks. I think that spending lots of added END is something that we should encourage - it highlights a decent part of the HERO system build - too many characters in my experience are built to play it END safe - I want to tempt them to the point of knocking themselves out to gain a competitive advantage!

 

Doc

 

 

Here Here

 

Actually one of the things I wanted to avoid was the proliferation of multipowers by players who had the thought "What if I need...."

 

I want players to think about the special effects of their powers and how to use and exploit those effects without having to think about whether they have built that into their points...

 

Doc

 

I suggest a limited cosmic pool defined by the special effect of the power

[bigbywolfe]

Re: The application of added effort

 

I suggest a limited cosmic pool defined by the special effect of the power

That still has to be paid for. And built for that matter...

[Utech]

Re: The application of added effort

 

An option I floated some time ago: Rule that any Power may take any amount of Advantages (except Variable Advantage, which would be silly) at any time so long as that number is balanced by an equal amount of Limitations.

 

If you prefer, limit the kinds of Powers that can do this.

If you prefer, change the ratio so that rather than 1:1, it is 1:2, or 1:3 or what-have-you.

If you prefer, limit the available Limitation to Increased END Cost.

 

The idea here is to make every hero more flexible. This allows your players to come up with all sorts of interesting ways to use their Powers right from the get-go. Of course, there's still quite an advantage (pun intended) to having full-time Advantages and/or Limitations on your Powers.

[dmjalund]

Re: The application of added effort

 

flexibility of power does not seem appropriate for all concepts

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The application of added effort

 

flexibility of power does not seem appropriate for all concepts

 

No? How many longstanding characters in the source material seem to only use their abilities in a very few pre-defined ways, versus how many use them in creative and unanticipated ways to solve unusual challlenges (and often never use the ability that way again, only occasionally adding the trick to their repertoire on an ongoing basis)?

 

Mechanically, I'd want to ensure this doesn't invalidate existing advantages. For example, a 10d6 AP energy blast costs 62 points. A character with a 10d6 EB (50 points) could spend 5 END to make it AP. If he spends his 12 saved points on END, he can use the attack as AP, or any other +1/4 advantage, 12 times in a combat. He seems to be at an advantage over the character who paid for AP. That suggests to me that 1 END per 10 AP receiving a +1/4 advantage is too cheap.

 

Maybe it should cost more END. Alternatively, maybe it should pro rate. By spending 5 END, the character can convert his 10d6 EB to an 8d6 AP EB, adding the advantage but not enhancing the AP of his attack. That requires more on the fly math. Is it a more equitable result? He could have spent 60 to buy a Multipower of 10d6 EB and 8d6 AP EB, so taking this approach still saves 10 points, which would buy 50 END. Maybe it should be 1 END per 5 AP granted a +1/4 advantage. The shift would now cost 10 END, akin to the cost of pushing the attack by 2d6. That seems a bit more equitable. A third character could have had a 12d6 EB for the extra 10 points, and a 10d6 blast can be pushed to a 12d6 blast for the cost of 10 END.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: The application of added effort

 

Well, that costing was my problem - without looking it up I had taken AP to be a +1/2 advantage. Did it use to be +1/2??

 

Anyway - I agree. I was looking for the advantage of armour piercing being the cost of a current push - so +1 END per 5 active points.

 

Would the maximum push be dictated by active points or END spent? I'm tending to END spent but could be convinced about maximum 50 active points with as many advantages as justified...

 

 

Doc

 

 

Doc

[Mr Reasonable]

Re: The application of added effort

 

flexibility of power does not seem appropriate for all concepts

 

Quoted for truth. Perhaps, in addition to the power skill, or instead of it, you could have a campaign Perk that allowed you greater flexibility with powers. Base the cost on what it would cost to actually build it: as a naked advantage on 60 points of Blast, you'd spend 3 points* to add a specified +1/4 advantage that cost 10x END on a roll of 11-. Make the 'Flexible Power' perk cost 3 points, have it apply to a small number of powers or advantages for 5 points, a large number of powers or advantages for 8 points and a large number of powers and advantages for 12 points.

 

That way only people whose concept includes flexible powers buy power flexibility and have them.

 

*Naked Advantage: Armor Piercing (+1/4) for up to 60 Active Points (15 Active Points); Increased Endurance Cost (x10 END; -4), Requires A Roll (11- roll; -1/2) 15 active and 3 real

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The application of added effort

 

Well' date=' that costing was my problem - without looking it up I had taken AP to be a +1/2 advantage. Did it use to be +1/2??[/quote']

 

It was +1/2 prior to 6e (which is why virtually no one paid for an AP attack outside a Multipower).

 

Anyway - I agree. I was looking for the advantage of armour piercing being the cost of a current push - so +1 END per 5 active points.

 

Would the maximum push be dictated by active points or END spent? I'm tending to END spent but could be convinced about maximum 50 active points with as many advantages as justified...

 

What about adapting the current Push rules in that regard as well? You get +10 AP with the "base push" (ego roll or standard, depending on campaign settings), and IIRC +1 AP per point the roll is made by? So shifting an existing 50 AP power to 50 AP including a +1/4 advantage costs 10 END and requires the base requirement for Pushing.

 

Maybe the default would better be that you can add a +1/4 advantage to a "campaign standard AP" attack as a base push, at a cost of 1 END per AP added/shifted in this manner (+1 per 5 AP the +1/4 advantage is applied to). So if campaign standard is 50 AP, you can convert a 10d6 EB to an 8d6 AP (or small area) attack for 10 END. If the standard is 75 AP, a 15d6 EB can be converted to 12d6 AP at the cost of 15 END (but that's a basic push). If you want to push higher, you need the Ego roll to succeed by enough to make the points available. The END cost stays 1 per AP, so it scales up as campaign power scales up (just like END use, END scores and REC does).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: The application of added effort

 

Ignoring the issue of how common characters with, or without, flexibility are in the source material, it seems clear Doc's goal is to add flexibility as a standard, easily accessed option, and not something points must be paid for. Expanding the Pushing rules seems a reasonable way of achieving this without devaluing the advantages people do pay for. Basically, this takes the "naked advantage with extra END and a skill roll" and makes it an Everyman power.

 

This looks like a great tool for the toolbox and, thinking on it, a great candidate for APG 2

[Doc Democracy]

Re: The application of added effort

 

It was +1/2 prior to 6e (which is why virtually no one paid for an AP attack outside a Multipower).

 

 

I feel better that it is simply that I have not yet internalised 6E costings!

 

 

 

What about adapting the current Push rules in that regard as well? You get +10 AP with the "base push" (ego roll or standard, depending on campaign settings), and IIRC +1 AP per point the roll is made by? So shifting an existing 50 AP power to 50 AP including a +1/4 advantage costs 10 END and requires the base requirement for Pushing.

 

Maybe the default would better be that you can add a +1/4 advantage to a "campaign standard AP" attack as a base push, at a cost of 1 END per AP added/shifted in this manner (+1 per 5 AP the +1/4 advantage is applied to). So if campaign standard is 50 AP, you can convert a 10d6 EB to an 8d6 AP (or small area) attack for 10 END. If the standard is 75 AP, a 15d6 EB can be converted to 12d6 AP at the cost of 15 END (but that's a basic push). If you want to push higher, you need the Ego roll to succeed by enough to make the points available. The END cost stays 1 per AP, so it scales up as campaign power scales up (just like END use, END scores and REC does).

 

That sounds pretty equitable - a nice way to allow people to shift their powers and apply them at need. So a push either adds to the damage or the flexibility. Added effort can provide more damage or more flexibility.

 

Might try this if I get to a superhero game again.

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: The application of added effort

 

That way only people whose concept includes flexible powers buy power flexibility and have them.

 

My problem with that is that you then discriminate against some concepts simply because you (as GM) do not think they warrant any flexibility. I do not feel that we should discriminate that way and leave it for players to describe what they want to do with their powers.

 

It is exactly why I want to do this - it will make the players think a bit more about their powers and how they are using them rather than look at the numbers on the sheet and roll the appropriate dice.

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: The application of added effort

 

This looks like a great tool for the toolbox and' date=' thinking on it, a great candidate for APG 2[/quote']

 

Thank you - I haven't yet been able to put my hands on APG1 as yet...

 

 

Doc

[Utech]

Re: The application of added effort

 

flexibility of power does not seem appropriate for all concepts

Punching is not appropriate for all concepts. But it's available for all characters anyway.

[ayinde]

Re: The application of added effort

 

in game my group run we use special martial arts maneuvers to simulate what your describing if you want i could post what i mean