Hmmm. More on Special Effects

[Doc Democracy]

You know, it is a long time since I read a rule book cover to cover - I think that Champions III might have been it. I have gotten by with looking up stuff as I played the game and being here on the forums to keep up to date with changes.

 

However, I no longer actually play HERO as much as I used to and the forums aren't as rules geeky as they used to be - I miss Christopher and Sean and a few other rule geeks.

 

Anyway. I was reading the Voodoo Mind Screen thread and it struck me that there is room for an advantage that makes a defence power apply across a special effect rather than being stuck in its very game mechanic role. This might be in the rules just now - in which case can someone point me to it, as I said, I rarely read cover to cover any more.

 

The example there was using shapeshift (mental) to make someone seem as though they had no supernatural mind abilities. It was raised that the shapeshift would have to be bought against every sense that might be used to detect that kind of thing. personally I think that it should be paid for with the most likely sense and then pay a supplement (dunno what +1/2, more?) to expand it to the special effect of hiding mental abilities regardless of the sense being used.

 

There will be wider applications of this but too often things get too expensive to cover all the angles and then the game looks silly when the power does not work coz some villain has a different ability set.

 

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I wasn't referring to Special Effect back then. I was referring how Sense affecting powers work in general (6E1 159).

 

Especially:

When you make yourself Invisible to the Mental Group and sombody has a Mental Awareness (Sense) defined as belonging to the Sight, Hearing or Scent Group, the Invisibility won't help you at any point.

 

Of course, the downside of not aligning it to the Mental Group are the higher Limitations Regarding Range and general Overcrowding of the Visual/Audio/Olfcatoric Medium in Human environments.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I see this as a metagame question. Would you rather it be easier for people to be detected, or remain undetected?

 

Your proposal could lead to characters who cannot be detected by unusual sense groups (either with shapeshift or Invisibility). While a character who is being attacked still knows they are beign attacked (with some exceptions), it does increase the ease of being undetected. I personally think this is a bad thing, because I’d rather people be able to detect each other than not.

[phoenix240]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

You know, it is a long time since I read a rule book cover to cover - I think that Champions III might have been it. I have gotten by with looking up stuff as I played the game and being here on the forums to keep up to date with changes.

 

 

However, I no longer actually play HERO as much as I used to and the forums aren't as rules geeky as they used to be - I miss Christopher and Sean and a few other rule geeks.

 

 

Anyway. I was reading the Voodoo Mind Screen thread and it struck me that there is room for an advantage that makes a defence power apply across a special effect rather than being stuck in its very game mechanic role. This might be in the rules just now - in which case can someone point me to it, as I said, I rarely read cover to cover any more.

 

 

The example there was using shapeshift (mental) to make someone seem as though they had no supernatural mind abilities. It was raised that the shapeshift would have to be bought against every sense that might be used to detect that kind of thing. personally I think that it should be paid for with the most likely sense and then pay a supplement (dunno what +1/2, more?) to expand it to the special effect of hiding mental abilities regardless of the sense being used.

 

 

There will be wider applications of this but too often things get too expensive to cover all the angles and then the game looks silly when the power does not work coz some villain has a different ability set.

 

 

 

 

Doc

 

 

 

 

I know what you mean. The biggest benefit and problem with Hero System is that there is an almost unlimited way to do anything. Its practically impossible to cover the basis. And this can make some things too expensive for their relative utility or leave the character with odd gaps in their concept and abilities. A universal "SFX" defense Power/Modifier might work but I don't have any immediate idea how it would work. IMO, this really becomes an issue with "Outside the box" type build that use a Power non intuitively. For example Teleport UAA with SFX of "Mind Control:Go over there."). It would completely sidestep most character's defense against mental powers unless built "correctly". IIRC, the example build didn't have anything that took normal mental combat factors (ECV, Ego, Mental Defense) into account.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generally, I try to take SFX and concept into account when I GM, perhaps more than I should as I give advantages and disadvantages pretty regularly based on how the SFX interact. But other GMs might be more literal minded.

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

What you wna to do is simple:

Take Invisibility to sight, than add other Sens Groups as much as you like. Sooner or later you end up with Invisbiltiy agaisnt all Sense Groups (including Mental Sense Group).

The only thing that can Still detect are those not defined as belonging to one of the affected Groups. But then they need a lot of Adders to even be Ranged, Targetting and useable without action.

 

If all you want is being completly invisible to one, single sense (like Mental Awareness, Mind Scan, or Infrared Perception) the GM may allow you to buy Invisibility (Whatever you want) and rate it as Invisibiltiy to a targetting Sense Group.

 

Each of that is written into the Sense Affection Powers Base Rules on 6E1 159

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Christopher, I don't think you are quite getting what I mean. Pheonix240's example might be better than mine.

 

However, the system has intuitive gaps in it. Obviously GMs can fill those in or the system can provide the tools for the players to fill them in. I prefer the second route as it means a player is not dependent on a GM making a 'reasonable' call during the game.

 

Roy has a good point though, there is something to be said for opponents being able to detect one another. However, I was not looking to make sense affecting stuff go from one sense to universal. I was looking for something to allow it to provide defences whenever a particular SFX was used. So if I had a ring of fire protection built with rED and someone fought me with a sword of fire built as a physical EB then I would get no benefit from my ring of fire protection. That makes no in-game sense though it is entirely reasonable as far as the rules go.

 

If I could tell the player that he could build his ring with rED and then add rPD and maybe some other stuff to cover other types of attack it gets pretty expensive awfully fast for something that would use the rED more often than not. For the addition of +1/2 you would get the benefit of the points spent on rED against any attack using fire as a special effect.

 

See where I am coming from now?

 

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Where is the problem? I really don't see it:

Energy Damage Negation, Only vs. Fire(-1/2) That coves normal, Killing, Drain STUN/BODY and Avad based on Fire sfx

 

Why would you define a Sword of Fire as Physical Attack?

It's either made out of fire - then it is Energy Damage.

Or it's a normal sword surrounded by Fire, then it has the "Multiple Special Effects" Advantage, to Count as both Fire and Blade and use the worst Defense on your part since the attacker payed for that.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I was looking for something to allow it to provide defences whenever a particular SFX was used. So if I had a ring of fire protection built with rED and someone fought me with a sword of fire built as a physical EB then I would get no benefit from my ring of fire protection. That makes no in-game sense though it is entirely reasonable as far as the rules go.

 

APG 13 has some discussion on some discussion on this, but not much. It's probably worth expanding upon in APG2, if it hasn't been mentioned in that thread already.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Where is the problem? I really don't see it:

Energy Damage Negation, Only vs. Fire(-1/2) That coves normal, Killing, Drain STUN/BODY and Avad based on Fire sfx

 

All attacks based on Fire SFX or only those bought as working against Energy Defences?

 

Why would you define a Sword of Fire as Physical Attack?

 

And there you have the crux of the issue. With fire it is pretty black and white, few people would define a fire based attack as dealing physical damage but there is nothing against it in the rules. There will be other SFX where the interpretation is less black and white, and that is where this kind of thing would come into its own.

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

APG 13 has some discussion on some discussion on this' date=' but not much. It's probably worth expanding upon in APG2, if it hasn't been mentioned in that thread already.[/quote']

 

I began reading this and thought I was further out of the loop than I thought. APG13???!!?!?

 

Anyway - you make a good point, I should go to the APG2 thread.

 

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

And there you have the crux of the issue. With fire it is pretty black and white' date=' few people would define a fire based attack as dealing physical damage but there is nothing against it in the rules. There will be other SFX where the interpretation is less black and white, and that is where this kind of thing would come into its own.[/quote']

Nope, you can't make a Fire based Physical Attack.

What you can do is create a Physical Weapon out of Energy. But as the word suggest, it does Physical Damage, it is a Phsical Weapon and thus it does not counts as Fire SFX. Whatever you do to fire that it has a solid shape so it does blunt or cutting damage, also stops it from applying much heat to the target.

 

When you want that it does both, use the "Multiple Special Effects" from APG 138, otherwise decide between energy or physical damage.

 

For better visualisation, there is a difference in Originating SFX and Resulting SFX. Using Superspeed Powers to Heat something via friction may have the originating SFX of superspeed, but the target is affected by a Heat based SFX.

[dmjalund]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

As has been said, with Fire not being a Physical attack. But other things are far less straightforward.

 

I can easily see someone wanting to build Mystical defenses as a type of DEF that works against any attack with the Magic Special effect.

As I see it, currently you would have to buy PD, ED, Flash Defense (vs All senses), Pow Def & Mental Defense, all with a limitation - only vs Magic Special Effect

 

this seems expensive, even with it using a -2 limitation

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

As has been said, with Fire not being a Physical attack. But other things are far less straightforward.

 

I can easily see someone wanting to build Mystical defenses as a type of DEF that works against any attack with the Magic Special effect.

As I see it, currently you would have to buy PD, ED, Flash Defense (vs All senses), Pow Def & Mental Defense, all with a limitation - only vs Magic Special Effect

 

this seems expensive, even with it using a -2 limitation

It is powerfull, even if it only applies agaisnt a SFX that warants a -2 Limitation. And actually, taking this power says the GM you want to have enemys with that attacks - so you are a good counter to them - and thus it suddenly falls into the more common type.

That, or the GM just says: "We don't have Magic SFX, so this power has no game effect and Cost you 0 Real Cost".

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

The System is wide open, which is why you do need to define and lock down a Game. A Hero Game is as much about was isn't included as what is.

 

Absolute Effecg Rules should be enforced if used, for example.

 

I might, personally be inclined to include the Variable & Expanded Effects from adjustment powers to include other things. Taking the 'magic defense' example; if you don't have a campaign specific Magical Defense you could use: Resistant Defense +2: Expanded Effect/Variable Effect (all magic at once) +4. it does not get a Limitation Magic Only, but it will cover any magic that goes against a defense (I may exclude NNDs).

 

Expensive, possibly, but simple and fully covered.

[Zephrosyne]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Well, I am not a very experienced Hero System gm but to me a lot of this comes down to the gm setting campaign standards. When I gm'ed the game, I basically said, what (as in power) can and can not be used for what (as in effect) as well as what exist and what does not exist. For example, I would never allow Teleport (the power) to be used to simulate the effect "telling someone to come here." While books like Champions Powers and its 5th Edition equivalent were great supplements, I made it perfectly clear to players that just because a power construct is in that book doesn't mean that it is appropriate for the campaign. The desired effect might be ok, but I might not permit how it is constructed. I didn't overwhelm my players with a lot of excessive information at the table, but I did have some guidelines for myself that I kept handy. It allowed me to make most of the decisions quickly and keep things consistent. Basically, I think a little advanced planning and deciding how you want things to work in the campaign can go a long way to reigning in some of the wide openness of the system.

[Mister E]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

However' date=' I no longer actually play HERO as much as I used to and the forums aren't as rules geeky as they used to be - I miss Christopher and Sean and a few other rule geeks.[/quote']

 

Maybe this is fallout from the 6th edition shift.

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Actually the magic example (like Firearms and Gadgeteering) is a good example for the difference between source SFX and Result SFX.

We all know a magic Fireball has the Source SFX of Magic (a Energy), but the result SFX of Fire.

The same way a Magically Summoned Sword has the Source SFX of Magic/Summoning, but the result SFX of Slashing Damage.

The same with a time alteration Spell, a spell of haste, and virtually any other Spell. Nerly no Spell has the SFX of just magic, magic is used to create other SFX as nessesary.

 

"I build a Flamethrower inside my Modern Weapons VPP":

Source SFX Gadget/Firearm/Modern Weapon, Result SFX Fire

[Mister E]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Nerly no Spell has the SFX of just magic' date=' magic is used to create other SFX as nessesary.[/quote']

 

Perhaps only meta-magic spells have "magic" as their Result SFX.

 

With meta-magic, you can then create Powers that have "some other" Source SFX, & "magic" as the Result SFX... like baking magic cookies that make everyone seem un-magical (mundane) when consumed.

 

 

~ Mister E ("eat me/drink me")

[RexMundi]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Maybe this is fallout from the 6th edition shift.

 

There was Fallout? Heh. Interesting thread though. Applying some Absolute Effect vs various SFX's works well for my game in just about any edition I've run it in.

 

~Rex....just a few lines of notes really....makes it easy.

[Mister E]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

There was Fallout?

 

Well, the 6th edition is pretty thorough. =P

[RexMundi]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

True very true.

 

~Rex.....IS the critter in Super 8!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I think a lot comes down to player and GM discussion and understanding of objectives. If I want my character to be "the strongest one there is", then the GM needs to do one of two things. First, he could tell me "no - PC's will not have that guarantee". Second, he can agree that this will be accepted as my concept, set an STR level established as "the strongest one there is", and agree that no one in the campaign will be as strong.

 

But if I just slap a high STR on my character and don't talk to the GM, I'm setting this up to be a problem later on.

 

Similar with "mystic defense". I want my character to be protected against all mystic powers. Maybe the GM says "no, I'm not allowing that in my game". If he's prepared to say "yes" (and he should, IMO, if this is not a game breaker), then we need to work out a mechanic and a cost. Maybe it's Damage Negation, Mystic and we agree all mystic attacks are reduced against it. Depending on how common mystic powers are, that may warrant a price increase, or maybe straight Negation works. Or we use GA's model of Defenses with Advantages.

 

But, having agreed that the character has Mystic Defense, I can't then toss in a mystic power and say his defense doesn't work - that breaches our agreement. If I want such powers, I should make that clear to the player before he commits to a concept I will later render incomplete. Maybe he's OK with being defended against most mystic attacks, or maybe he goes with a different concept and saves this one for a GM more willing to accommodate it.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Christopher , I love it that things are so black and white in your world. mine seems to come with more shades of gray. Makes my gaming needs more complicated too.

 

Doc

[ghost-angel]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Well, Christopher does bring up some good points;

 

Let's take the example of Mental Invisibility;

 

Invisibility: Mental Group

 

Should, for all intents and purposes, makes you invisible to Mind Scan, and other assorted Mental Powers. But...

 

"I Can Hear You Thinking" Detect: Minds; Hearing Group

 

Completely valid build - but didn't the GM say, "No, that's not really going to work in this campaign. Mental Powers should always be Mental Group:

 

"I Can Hear You Thinking" Detect: Minds; Mental Group; Sense Affected As Hearing Group

 

1) not only is it possibly cheaper (unless the GM rules the Sense Affected As at -0 for some reason);

2) it falls back within expectations of Mental Senses are part of the Mental Group, not automatically negating the original Invisibility Power.

 

I do have a GM that makes all Fire Effects go versus PD. He never randomly switches it over to ED for some reason - it's always PD in his campaigns. It's a design decision and no one has to worry their Fire Immunity will suddenly be less useful because Fire suddenly goes against ED.

 

It's not that things are "black and white" it's that inside the construct of a Campaign/Game - you do actually have control over these factors. There is a GM/Player contract. I can't think of a single situation that can't be dealt with like this.

 

If there is a "Magic Defense" the GM either needs to create one, or decide all "Magic" works against the same Defense in his game. He does need to decide if there is a difference between a Torch and a Magic Flame burning you - are they both "Fire" or is one "Fire" and the other "Magic"? If it's "Magic" what's the defense against "Magic?"

 

Design consideration plays an important role in this. If you just do everything willy-nilly and don't want to keep a consistent parameter across the board; I suggest you use my previous suggestion of adapting Expanded and Variable Effect to Defenses.

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I do have a GM that makes all Fire Effects go versus PD. He never randomly switches it over to ED for some reason - it's always PD in his campaigns. It's a design decision and no one has to worry their Fire Immunity will suddenly be less useful because Fire suddenly goes against ED.

Then this is a campaign rule and anybody building "Fireproof" with ED didn't knew about it. Not very difficulty to replace a E with a P here.

I too am a fan of "not chaging the defense against an SFX". I think there are people who might think their Fireblaster cloud use a power that works against PD (if just against his nemesis with the fireproof clothing). I even think that could be a legal Fire VPP Power.

But fire burns, electricity shocks, a blade cuts, a club makes *boing* on heads. When you "Flaming Sword" cuts the enemys instead of burning them, then my Common Sense says me it's not a Fire Power, but a Blade Power in effect. That change has it's advantages and drawbacks, like ever time you set the SFX for a power.

Most would allow it as a focus build version (a plain normal sword/club/whatever), so in the end it just costs the player more point and is more difficulty to disable (or is disabled with the rest of his flame origin powers). Really nothing I could not do with just using the rules as written in this chase.