Hmmm. More on Special Effects

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Erm' date=' I have not read everything in this thread so this may already have been covered, but to address the OP, surely the best way to make it look like you have not got mental powers is to buy those powers with invisible/non-obvious sfx rather than building a seperate power to hide them? Well, I say 'best', certainly not that cheap, but it would work against anything.[/quote']

 

Was that my post, or the one I used as an excuse for an argument about SFX??

 

Welcome back Sean - I missed you so much I had to stir a rules argument all by myself!

 

As for sfx v damage types other than the mechanically defined ones, there is something in The Ultimate Energy Projector, and possible AGP, called something like 'unified defence', which works like normal defences only against absolutely anything. Well, this is Her: not ANYTHING - you can still get around it with NND type attacks.

 

The best universal defence is damage reduction, which can specifically be defined as working against a sfx, however the base power is built (Damage Reduction as Immunity: 6E1.185). That even works against NNDs.

 

Yeah - but it is not built for fine scale work that can add to other defences...we have been through a few iterations of unified power and damage reduction. Though Damage Reduction and Damage Negation both provide precedent for SFX based defences.

 

 

Doc

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Ummmm ... because ED works against defined mechanisms? As does PD' date=' MD, etc? Buying +5 ED, only vs fire, is pretty straightforward. If the attack goes against ED and the SFX is fire, then you know where you are.[/quote']

 

Assumimng we always agree to whether the SFX does, or does not, fit the SFX description. Fire? Probably reasonably easy. What if the defense is to "Mental SFX"? We're back to the same concern of definitions raised in your post.

 

Sure: Here's "Resistant to mental powers"

 

Suppress 1d6, all [special effect] powers simultaneously (+2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), MegaScale (1" = 1,000 km; +1), Damage Shield (Affects Mental And Physical Attackers; +1), Continuous (+1) (37 Active Points); Limited Special Effect: Mental powers Uncommon SFX (-1), Custom Modifier: affected powers recover immediately (-1), Always On (-1/2), Custom Modifier: only those powers affecting player (-1/2) 9 real. Set it at Standard effect and it costs 9 points to reduce any mental power by 3 active points. Since it's bought as a passive surface "damage shield" and "only those powers which affect him" it doesn't bring down all mental powers in the area, despite his "all mental powers simultaneously" advantage - but it would protect against any number of attacks.

 

Damage Shield doesn't activate until the character is hit. As such, the Suppress will only activate after the opponent has attacked, by which time it is too late to reduce the damage inflicted. Since it recovers immediately, it has no impact at all.

 

The defense provided varies depending on whether the attacker's power has reduced END. Assessing the impact of 3, 6, 9, etc. AP on each mental power in play would be a pain, but can always be done beforehand as the GM will know when the power will be effective. Does it Suppress a Mental Force Field if this character attacks the target with a mental force field? By description, it should. And if it fully suppresses the force field, it must be reactivated to turn on again.

 

Of course, we get the same potential debate as to whether the power has "mental SFX". And what does a loss of 9 AP to your Psionic Invisibility example do, exactly? Finally, there's a host of subjectively valued limitations in that extremely bulky and complex build.

 

A brand-new Hero player may just have a bit of trouble intuiting your very obvious power structure.

 

EDIT: I also suspect there will be some logical disconnect when you explain that the character is less resistant to attacks made by opponents with Power Defense. "Well, you aren't as resistant to his mental powers since he has power defense to erode your resistance." Hmmm...now, is his Power Defense that prevents me from being as resistant to his mental powers a mental power itself, such that your construct reduces it in order to make y resistance more effective?

 

And technically speaking it might not affect "Invisibility bought as mind control: don't notice me" since that doesn't require contact. A GM might however rule that that "affected" him and therefore was reduced.

 

Wasn't that kind of uncertain GM fiat what you were trying to avoid?

 

So what' date=' PCs can't define their own powers, because their special effect might conflict with a new power that works off special effects? Tell me you are not serious. [/quote']

 

Doc D handled that one perfectly.

 

A simple construct like the one I outlined above' date=' avoids those sort of GM fiat problems and in addition tells me exactly how many active points are affected, how the power interacts with adjustment powers, or power frameworks, or other powers, when it works, when it doesn't. I can make a simple, transparent ruling on "psionic invisibility" using the rules we already have. See, this whole "Makin' stuff up on the fly" is [b']exactly[/b] what I want to avoid and why SFX-based mechanisms need to be approached with caution. The only other option to making new rules interpretations all the time is to work out every potential power combo in advance - or we're back in D&D territory, making new rules on the fly all the time.

 

Hand that construct to a brand new Hero player, or toss it into a pickup game with an experienced GM. How long does it take to work out its effects in mid-combat?

[dmjalund]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

if you were to buy Defenses limited vs special effect, It may be more logical (but a lot messier) to give each defense a separate SFX limitation.

e.g. Defense vs Fire;

PD (-2)

ED (-1/2)

MD (-2)

Flash (-1)

PowD (-2)

[ideasmith]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

if you were to buy Defenses limited vs special effect, It may be more logical (but a lot messier) to give each defense a separate SFX limitation.

e.g. Defense vs Fire;

PD (-2)

ED (-1/2)

MD (-2)

Flash (-1)

PowD (-2)

 

The Limitation value for Flash Defense would depend on Sense Group effected. While -1 is appropriate for Sight (blinding flare), and at least defensible for Hearing (crackling flames), and Smell/Taste (smoke up your nose), Radio and Mental would logically get a higher Limitation.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Was that my post, or the one I used as an excuse for an argument about SFX??

 

Welcome back Sean - I missed you so much I had to stir a rules argument all by myself!

 

I hadn't meant to be away for so long, and can only apologise for the unforseen effect leaving my niche unoccupied has had .

 

 

 

Yeah - but it is not built for fine scale work that can add to other defences...we have been through a few iterations of unified power and damage reduction. Though Damage Reduction and Damage Negation both provide precedent for SFX based defences.

 

 

Doc

 

Doc

 

Funnily enough, modifiers are not really built for fine scale either, if you think about it. I vaguely recall working out that it costs about 66 points for 'universal defence' against 1 DC. Now that seems wrong (I think that was under 5e where killing attacks skewed the result a bit) and I'm going to have to do it again...

 

Let's see: 6 pd, 2 of which is resistant: 7 points

same for ED: 14 points

3 points of power defence: 17

3 points of mental defence: 20

6 points of flash defence: 26

2 points of KBR: 30

 

So: 30 points should make you reasonably bombproof (I may have left some stuff out) although it does not cover advantaged attacks like AVAD and Armor Piercing. There is no way to deal with AVAD other than go for arbitrary: say we apply a 50% price hike - we then work out at about 45 points and say that stops 1DC of anything.

 

Damage Negation is pretty cheap, looked at that way...

 

So if we start with a 45 point 'base cost' for 1DC (arguably that cost is high as it covers extreme roll possibilities rather than averages).

 

Look what happens to that cost if you apply modifiers:

 

-0 45 (0)

-1/2 30 (-15)

-1 22 (-8)

-1 1/2 18 (-4)

-2 15 (-3)

 

The point is that the cost saving simply does not reflect the change in utility: a defence that you hardly ever use is only half as cheap as one you use 2/3 of the time.

 

Of course few people will splash out 45 points to be invulnerable to 1DC of damage whatever the source, but it might look more attractive if we did something like this:

 

1DC of ANY damage: 40 points

1DC of ANY damage with occasional limitations (does not work in strong magnetic fields, that shade of kidney): 30 points

1DC of ANY damage with common limitations (does not work in darkness or against women): 20 points

1DC of ANY damage with frequent limitations (only works against a common special effect eg fire and heat): 10 points

1DC of ANY damage with almost ubiquitous limitations (only works against an uncommon SFX eg vacuum): 5 points

 

Now a pricing structure like that seems more attractive: your character who is supposed to be invulnerable to any fire based sfx can spend 40 points and takes 4DC of anything flame based (which, let's face it, is likely to make a real difference). Of course for that same 40 points then he could simply buy 40 points of resistant ED only v fire and be even more invulnerable - but still get tagged by 'fire drains and heat flashes', so maybe the base pricing is too high and should contain a discount for trying to cover everything, when that often will not be needed.

 

Alternatively buy 'defence' at 2 points per point, +1/2 to make it resistant (that is the cost of 1PD+1ED). That works against a very common special effect (all 'normal' attacks, for example - both physical and energy, but not mental, flash, KB, etc). Alteratively you can define it as working against a common sfx (Heat, say) and it works no matter what and even against AVAD attacks if the sfx fits, no matter how their defence is normally defined, or how the attack is built. Less common SFX would take a limitation value.

 

There is also the possibility of using Life Support, which we have discussed before: rather than LS heat being a 2 point power, 2 points gets you 1DC of invulnerability to heat, and you buy as much of it as you like. Less common sfx would be 1 point per DC (or common is 3 points, uncommon is 2 points and rare is 1 point: whatever works). That would not be unbalancing IMO, and in many ways I like that best: I'm always having trouble squaring how LS Heat can protect you from the heat of the sun but not from a Zippo.

 

While I was writing this I thought it might be an idea to have a defence power that forces an oponent's attack to take an average roll, to simulate a character who does not have any real vulnerabilities or weak spots (not a standard roll, an avrage roll - very important): for 10 points (or 20, depending on how useful it seems) you do not need to worry about extreme rolls KOing Invulnera.

 

Damn. I'm burbling...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Sean, I think you numbers skew to the high end as you start with the assumption the DC rolls maximum damage. As well, charging +50% to address AVAD (which, as you already covered most common non-NND defenses, is a pretty limited pool) exacerbates this high cost.

 

For 30 points, the character will take 1 STUN from a typical 2 DC normal attack, nothing from a typical 2 DC killing attack and block 2 or more DC's of most other attacks. Why not buy the defenses (an extra 10 or 15 points tossed in on the top means he can have even more defenses, and/or some exotic powers like life support, smell flash defense, etc.)? That will be far more effective.

 

Bringing in the reduced effectiveness helps, but then, shouldn't the defenses have the same limitation implied for the "block 1 DC of damage" power?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

I agree entirely: moreover the more dice you roll the less likely you are to get an extreme roll. Realistically, if you have 4 pd per DC then you are pretty much immune to normal physical attacks once you get to about 6 to 8 dice: the number of points you'll get by the defences are negligible over time unless you are desperately unlucky. It is still more of an issue with killing attacks, despite the changes to killing attacks: rolling 36 stun with 6d6 is 1 in 46000, rolling it with 2d6 killing is 1 in 216. That would mean you could probably start with about 2/3 of the cost I suggested. That would meanabout a 20 point base. AVAD is a difficult one because:

a) the bulk of non-defence defences tend to be Life Support options, and it costs 40 points for pretty much the lot, which is a one off cost so you wouldn't need to pay it every time

AVAD tends to come up quite a bit in many games I play, as does AP, but that could just be me.

 

Even if we said that the AVAD factor was only worth a nominal 1 point per DC, we'd still be looking at 21 points for immunity to 1DC of damage from any source. That is roughly comparable to damage negation (1DC of Physical+Mental+Energy=15 points plus some additinal power defence as that only stops Stun and Body damage not other sorts of adjustments plus a minor limitation as Damage Negation is itself negatable with the appropriate adder). Mind you for the same cost you can buy 7 points of fully resistant PD and ED, which is functionally close to damage immunity to 2DCs of damage.

 

So, we have the cost issue, but that is just arguing about numbers. 21 points for 'invulnerability' to 1DC of damage is about right, although that will inevitably get rounded to 20

 

More of an issue to my mind is the use of modifiers: starting at 21 points, immunity to 1DC of a pretty damn unlikely damage source, say ionising radiation (a -2 limitation, as low as we normally go), will still cost 7 points, which feels like a lot. The trouble with modifiers, love them as I do, is that they don't do a great job of dealing with powers that represent favour more than power. The only limitations that cross the -2 boundary are Extra Time, Increased END and some species of extreme Side Effects. -2 means you divide by 3, which should, on a cost/benefit comparison, mean that the power is about 1/3 as useful, but in most games 'Ionising Radiation' is going to represent a lot less than 1 in 3 attacks.

 

Then you have the issue that you might apply a -2 to 'Energy Defence' to represent a defence against Ionising Radiation. Applying it to a 'universal defence' should mean a higher defence as it also covers physical and mental damage, which would never logically produce Ionising Radiation attacks, so the limtiation should be at least twice as much. Twice -2 in Hero is -5. Try explaining that to someone!

 

All of that means I tend to favour NOT having an 'invulnerability' power generally (just buy good defences) but would be happy for SFX limited invulnerability to be bought on a LS-like basis, but scaled, at (say) 1,2 or 3 points per DC depending on how common the sfx is (and it obviously has to be a lot less common than'energy' or 'physical'). It is a kludge, but anything you build will be a kludge, and at least has the advantage of being easy to administer both in character creation and in game. 30 points gets you immunity to 10DCs of Fire attacks (for example), which, with other defences in place, if well and truly functional invulnerability to Fire. It is a significant cost, but not so great that the 'everyday' bits of the character are crippled.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Then, of course, there is the problem of non-damaging powers: what if you are immune to attacks using temporal energy and someone fires a ChronoBeam at you that is built with EDM (Time Travel) and Useable As Attack? Defences do not interact with that power at all, yet logically if Temporal Energy has little or no effect on you then neither should the ChronoBeam. The only answer that is consistent with the game system that I can think of is that all non-damaging 'attack' powers should include (possibly as a -0 limitation) a 'GM Fiat' that the power doesn't work against certain defences, or you have to roll 'Active Points in Power/5+9' for the attack and the defence and see which wins.

 

Hmm. That could work...

[Markdoc]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

So the pricing is 3 points/+1. A bit more expensive than we had been planning but not entirely out of the same ballpark.

 

Actually not only a different ballpark, but one designed for a different-shaped ball.

 

First off, it's a mechanical construct: it's not "immunity to everything with this special effect" - it's specifically a drain that will offer good protection under defined circumstances.

Secondly, although it may work out at 3 points per +1 (I did that on purpose, the original draft had an odd divisor ) but it's over 10 active points per +1. That greatly changes how it interacts with the rest of the rules. You can't easily cram 30 points of "SFX defence" built like this into your average power framework (I see that as a plus: it's relatively powerful effect - far more than I'd allow for 3 real points ... or 1 real point with a focus!)

 

Not exactly. Simply questioning the design of the power. Is it Psionic Invisibility if mental defence does not aid in countering it? If not' date=' why not. If it is reasonable that the mental defence does not work then any defence with mental powers SFX should not work against it either.[/quote']

 

Simple answer? Because that is how the rules work.

 

More useful (perhaps) answer is that psionic invisibility is a perfectly fine power: not only have I had in a game I've run without problems, I've seen it on other characters in published material. So it's not an unreasonable/unusual construct. The problem is with the concept of buying "resistance against all special effects" as though it were PD. It's one of the problems I pointed out with buying SFX defence in the first place. We could find plenty of other, similar problems. Basically, buying something that inhibits other powers based on SFX as a defence simply isn't going to work that well, because not all powers are attacks.

 

I understand the appeal of simple mechanics, but I am not fond of making significant mechanical changes to rules - and creating significant problems along the way, as illustrated by your point - just for simplicity.

 

Ahem - I see in the construct this little gem "Limited Special Effect: Mental powers Uncommon SFX (-1)". Far as I can see' date=' any ruling you make based on this build could just as easily be based on 3 points of defence against powers with mental powers SFX. [/quote']

 

The answers are:

1. "I didn't write that, it's straight off the pop-down in Heromaker"

and

2. No, not in the slightest: it's a modifier on the Suppress version of Drain and therefore all the rules applying to adjustment powers apply to this "defence".

 

It is in fact, a beast of a very different species, even though it does almost everything requested in the original post.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Then' date=' of course, there is the problem of non-damaging powers: what if you are immune to attacks using temporal energy and someone fires a ChronoBeam at you that is built with EDM (Time Travel) and Useable As Attack? Defences do not interact with that power at all, yet logically if Temporal Energy has little or no effect on you then neither should the ChronoBeam. The only answer that is consistent with the game system that I can think of is that all non-damaging 'attack' powers should include (possibly as a -0 limitation) a 'GM Fiat' that the power doesn't work against certain defences, or you have to roll 'Active Points in Power/5+9' for the attack and the defence and see which wins.[/quote']

 

Chronobeam must have a reasonably common defense, or group of them, much like NND. If a "SFX Defense" were adopted, it would seem reasonable that appropriate SFX Defense would be part of the defense against powers such as this, even if it were treated as a defense against an NND that rolls damage.

[Markdoc]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Damage Shield doesn't activate until the character is hit. As such' date=' the Suppress will only activate after the opponent has attacked, by which time it is too late to reduce the damage inflicted. Since it recovers immediately, it has no impact at all.[/quote']

 

I would point to the rules on page 167 regarding suppression fields and also the rules on using adjustment powers as a defence: you may indeed reduce the power attacking you - that's why I made the power continuous.

Still, on reflection, damage shield (which I had thought of as a way to restrict the effect to powers used against the character) is probably overkill.

I blame the suggestion that such powers should be bought like defences!

 

Here's a simpler - even slightly cheaper - construct.

 

Suppress 1d6, all [special effect] powers simultaneously (+2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), MegaScale (1" = 10,000 km; +1 1/4) (29 Active Points); Custom Modifier: reduces a maximum of 3 points (-2), Custom Modifier: reduction only applies to character (-1), Always On (-1/2), Custom Modifier: Power only reduces powers defined as affecting character (-1/2) real cost 6.

 

This power reduces mental effects by 3 active points for anyone on the planet ... as long as the power is defined as affecting the character - and only for him/her. So Mentor's Ego blast loses effect against him - but still affects everyone else normally. Mentor's psionic invisibility works normally against everyone else, but it will be reduced by 3 active points against Mental Resistance Lad.

 

The defense provided varies depending on whether the attacker's power has reduced END. Assessing the impact of 3' date=' 6, 9, etc. AP on each mental power in play would be a pain, but can always be done beforehand as the GM will know when the power will be effective. Does it Suppress a Mental Force Field if this character attacks the target with a mental force field? By description, it should. And if it fully suppresses the force field, it must be reactivated to turn on again.[/quote']

 

Yup, exactly! See, it plays nice with the rest of the rules. As you point out, that's the major advantage of this approach and why (to speed up the game) I'd go for stand effect here.

 

Of course' date=' we get the same potential debate as to whether the power has "mental SFX". And what does a loss of 9 AP to your Psionic Invisibility example do, exactly? Finally, there's a host of subjectively valued limitations in that extremely bulky and complex build.[/quote']

 

Actually, we already have rules for what a loss of 9 AP does to invisibility - in this case, nothing much. That's the advantage of actually working with the rules: they've already been extensively playtested.

See page 138 6E1 for reducing non-incremental powers

As for bulky and complex, it took me 2-3 minutes to generate the power (less to generate the simpler version above) and in play, it takes about as much time to adjudicate as PD. It's really not complex.

 

A brand-new Hero player may just have a bit of trouble intuiting your very obvious power structure.

 

I doubt it: in play it's simplicity itself (it's always on) and it falls to the GM to adjudicate effects. As an objection that's pretty weak sauce.

 

EDIT: I also suspect there will be some logical disconnect when you explain that the character is less resistant to attacks made by opponents with Power Defense. "Well' date=' you aren't as resistant to his mental powers since he has power defense to erode your resistance." Hmmm...now, is his Power Defense that prevents me from being as resistant to his mental powers a mental power itself, such that your construct reduces it in order to make y resistance more effective?[/quote']

 

Sure: see you worked it out without problems! I agree there could be some logical disconnect with power defence - power defence has often in the past generated some odd effects, because it's a slightly oddball defence. However, I like the fact that this approach reduces the power defence if it is also defined as a mental power

 

Wasn't that kind of uncertain GM fiat what you were trying to avoid?

 

Yup, but to a far lesser degree than the "defense" paradigm previously suggested. In truth, you'll never avoid some uncertainty when working with SFX. And as noted, a simple build avoids that particular uncertainty entirely, so I guess we've solved that problem.

 

Hand that construct to a brand new Hero player' date=' or toss it into a pickup game with an experienced GM. How long does it take to work out its effects in mid-combat?[/quote']

 

10 seconds? 15 tops? It's really very simple, in play.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Here's a simpler - even slightly cheaper - construct.

 

Suppress 1d6, all [special effect] powers simultaneously (+2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), MegaScale (1" = 10,000 km; +1 1/4) (29 Active Points); Custom Modifier: reduces a maximum of 3 points (-2), Custom Modifier: reduction only applies to character (-1), Always On (-1/2), Custom Modifier: Power only reduces powers defined as affecting character (-1/2) real cost 6.

 

This power reduces mental effects by 3 active points for anyone on the planet ... as long as the power is defined as affecting the character - and only for him/her. So Mentor's Ego blast loses effect against him - but still affects everyone else normally. Mentor's psionic invisibility works normally against everyone else, but it will be reduced by 3 active points against Mental Resistance Lad.

 

Does a force field work against the character?

 

Yup' date=' exactly! See, it plays nice with the rest of the rules. As you point out, that's the major advantage of this approach and why (to speed up the game) I'd go for stand effect here.[/quote']

 

So what's the answer when the player asks you how much he needs to buy to be pretty confident in being unharmed by an above average attack of his SFX? Since the effects of the power are variable, so is the answer to that question.

 

Watch out, by the way, for Unified Powers. One power of the correct SFX means all of them are reduced. Maybe that falls into one of the many subjectively valued limitations required to build the power, or maybe it adds yet another subjectively valued limitation.

 

Actually' date=' we already have rules for what a loss of 9 AP does to invisibility - in this case, nothing much. That's the advantage of actually working with the rules: they've already been extensively playtested.[/quote']

 

So, after your initial complaint that the player will be unhappy his mental resistance provides no protection against a character using psionic invisibility, your solution is a power that provides no such protection.

 

As for bulky and complex' date=' it took me 2-3 minutes to generate the power (less to generate the simpler version above) and in play, it takes about as much time to adjudicate as PD. It's really not complex. [/quote']

 

That depends on how many mental powers you need to revalue by 3 (or whatever multiple of 3 we buy) in the course of any given game. At least that can be done in advance if the powers are all known to the GM.

 

Why not make it even easier? Suppress 1d6, all [special effect] powers simultaneously (+2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), MegaScale (1" = 10,000 km; +1 1/4) (29 Active Points); Custom Modifier: reduction only applies to character (-1), Always On (-1/2), Custom Modifier: Power only reduces powers defined as affecting character (-1/2) real cost 10.

 

Now all mental powers on the planet drop by 3 points per phase until they're gone. Of course, the easy answer is that this would be pretty powerful to pay 10 points for virtually complete immunity to any one SFX. But why should someone pay 12 points to reduce AP by 6 when they can have the above for 10? They'd need a "reasonably common method to stop the suppress", but they technically need that for the construct you set out. Practically, I'd say capping it at 3 is good enough, but you were trying to avoid varying or handwaving rules, weren't you?

 

As well, if I can use that construct with "maximum 3" as a -2 limitation, what's the limitation for a maximum of, say, 5, 10 or 15? How high can that maximum go before we say "Oh, that's TOO resistant for a power that costs, maximum, 10 points"?

 

I doubt it: in play it's simplicity itself (it's always on) and it falls to the GM to adjudicate effects.

 

Which means mathing it out on every power as it arises. The explaining that to any PC with a power that's been affected (Mind Control, anyone?)

 

Sure: see you worked it out without problems! I agree there could be some logical disconnect with power defence - power defence has often in the past generated some odd effects' date=' because it's a slightly oddball defence. However, I like the fact that this approach reduces the power defence if it is also defined as a mental power [/quote']

 

It only reduced mental power defense if it's less than 6 (and unadvantaged...). "You're resistant to all mental powers except from certain mentalists" wasn't really the desired effect.

 

Yup' date=' but to a far lesser degree than the "defense" paradigm previously suggested. [b']In truth, you'll never avoid some uncertainty when working with SFX[/b]. And as noted, a simple build avoids that particular uncertainty entirely, so I guess we've solved that problem.

 

So what if he Suppresses 21 points? We still need to assess which powers do, and don't, have a mental SFX.

 

And I don't concur that a three line power with three custom limitations and a handwave ("reasonably common shutdown") qualifies as a simple build. Mind you, the backup for SFX Defense is pretty lengthy as well, so we could always make your approach a Talent as well.

 

Here's hoping the character doesn't have any Mental Powers of his own (would adding Personal Immunity simplify the math/rounding any?) I suspect many characters with SFX resistance would have powers of the same SFX that effect them (such as the Resistance itself). I guess they just need to buy 6 points of power defense.

[dmjalund]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Then, of course, there is the problem of non-damaging powers: what if you are immune to attacks using temporal energy and someone fires a ChronoBeam at you that is built with EDM (Time Travel) and Useable As Attack? Defences do not interact with that power at all, yet logically if Temporal Energy has little or no effect on you then neither should the ChronoBeam. The only answer that is consistent with the game system that I can think of is that all non-damaging 'attack' powers should include (possibly as a -0 limitation) a 'GM Fiat' that the power doesn't work against certain defences, or you have to roll 'Active Points in Power/5+9' for the attack and the defence and see which wins.

 

Hmm. That could work...

Doesn't UAA powers require a reasonably common defense that stops the power?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Doesn't UAA powers require a reasonably common defense that stops the power?

 

It does, as Hugh mentioned, and it would be entirely reasonable to assume that being invulnerable to temporal energy would be that defence, or part of it. There is no requirement, however, for the attack builder to be at all reasonable, and they could define the defence as wearing something blue.

 

Moreover, whilst UAA has to have a defence built in, a simple EDM (time travel) with extra weight allowance doesn't, so someone with that could grab your temporally invulnerable character and TAKE them through the timestream. Same effect - being made to travel in time - different mechanical, er, mechanism and one that does not allow for defences at all.

 

Gentlemen, and that funnily dressed one at the back, we may have to enter the terrifying realm of common sense!

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Moreover' date=' whilst UAA has to have a defence built in, a simple EDM (time travel) with extra weight allowance doesn't, so someone with that could grab your temporally invulnerable character and TAKE them through the timestream. Same effect - being made to travel in time - different mechanical, er, mechanism and one that does not allow for defences at all. [/quote']

 

See, this is where I think that HERO should be able to make its heavy number base shine in gameplay. But it does not. The grab and translocate in time tactic works but the person who has the defence should make it more difficult. How much more difficult - well the defence has some numbers attached. What it that defence? 5 points of time effect defence? Well then, what sounds reasonable. It is difficult to make the EDM different but the time traveller does have to grab and hold his victim. perhaps we should use those 5 points to make the grab more difficult - the defence increases the drag of the time field - by giving the defender +5 STR versus the grab??

 

This is not in the rules but having something with numbers should surely make agreement on effects much more easy to get to...

 

Gentlemen' date=' and that funnily dressed one at the back, we may have to enter the terrifying realm of common sense! [/quote']

 

I cannot believe Sean raised using EDM and entering the realm of common sense in the same post!

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

It does' date=' as Hugh mentioned, and it would be entirely reasonable to assume that being invulnerable to temporal energy would be that defence, or part of it. There is no requirement, however, for the attack builder to be at all reasonable, and they could define the defence as wearing something blue.[/quote']

 

Which is where we get into appropriate character design. The Blue Defense is just a more extreme example of the character with Psionic Invisibility who does not limit the power's effectiveness against targets with mental defense. The power is designed for mechanical advantage rather than to simulate a specific effect.

 

Moreover' date=' whilst UAA has to have a defence built in, a simple EDM (time travel) with extra weight allowance doesn't, so someone with that could grab your temporally invulnerable character and TAKE them through the timestream. Same effect - being made to travel in time - different mechanical, er, mechanism and one that does not allow for defences at all.[/quote']

 

While true, this seems like an outlier. What defense does one purchase to be immune to someone picking him up and flying away with him? Probably not a defense we would usually think of to defend against Flying UAA.

[Lucius]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Extra-Dimensional Movement (Single Dimension (The Realm of Common Sense)), Usable Simultaneously (up to 2 people at once; +1 1/2), all targets standing within 10 meters of Grantor (50 Active Points); Requires A Roll (PER roll, -1 per 5 Active Points modifier; Must be made each Phase/use, Jammed; -2), Side Effects (Travels to some other destination instead: for example The Island of Conclusions (easily jumped to but harder to escape) or the Realm of Unexamined Assumptions or even the Mountains of Ignorance; -1/2) Real Cost: 14

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary makes a perception check to notice that negative modifier to perception

[Lucius]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

What defense does one purchase to be immune to someone picking him up and flying away with him? Probably not a defense we would usually think of to defend against Flying UAA.

 

While we're at it, what's the defense against someone picking me up and RUNNING away with me?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that Lucius often gets carried away with himself

[Jagged]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Extra-Dimensional Movement (Single Dimension (The Realm of Common Sense))

 

I think that whoever set up the campaign world we live in, included defense against this attack as part of a very common package deal

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Which is where we get into appropriate character design. The Blue Defense is just a more extreme example of the character with Psionic Invisibility who does not limit the power's effectiveness against targets with mental defense. The power is designed for mechanical advantage rather than to simulate a specific effect.

 

True, although I'm thinking right now of a particularly slipery player who can argue that retty much any sfx is logical in context. No, hang on, I'm sitting opposite a mirror...

 

 

 

While true' date=' this seems like an outlier. What defense does one purchase to be immune to someone picking him up and flying away with him? Probably not a defense we would usually think of to defend against Flying UAA.[/quote']

 

Logical defences to UAA flight might include increased mass, or gravity powers, having flight yourself or just being able to grab an achored object. Certainly increased mass could prevent a grab and fly and the others could potentially counter the effects too, and as Doc says, anything that makes a grab more difficult works too, after a fashion.

 

It might be nice though to have a game mechanic to compare different powers when there is no system method to do so. It could be as simple as an oposed roll using 9+(points in power/5), and you could buy more 'levels' for your powers too. That way if someone with a 35 point temporal EDM (roll 9+7=16-) tried to time-shift someone with 20 'temporal sfx' defences ((roll 9+4=13-) you have a straightforward way to see what happens.

[dmjalund]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Teleport/EDM resistance: 2 x mass for the purpose of calculating T-port ability.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Teleport/EDM resistance: 2 x mass for the purpose of calculating T-port ability.

 

Nice idea, but the rules are against you: increased mass only revents teleportation/EDm if you are moving the inanimate. IIRC you can always teleport 'a target' of a UAA Teleport, whatever their mass, so long as they are a single target, so Wasp and Galactus both get teleported. You make an excellent point though that the 'basic' teleport 'grab and teleport' atatck would be foiled by that, and that has given me an idea.

 

So, tweaking slightly:

 

Forced Movement Resistance

Type: Standard Defense power

Duration: Persistent

Target: Self only

Range: Self

Costs END: No

Cost: 2 points per 2x notional mass

 

Teleport defence doubles your mass for the purpose of resisting forced movement. Your actual mas does not change. It only applies to others trying to move you whether by the 'grab and move' tactic or by movement bought as an attack, even though that form of attack usually affects a sigle target irrespective of mass. It can also apply to 'gates'. It does not prevent you moving yourself if you have the power to do so. If your attacker can move your notional mass then you go anyway, to the place that they want to move you. Forced Movement Defence applies to ONE movement type. For +1/4 the power applies to two movement modes. For +1/2 it applies to up to 4 movement modes, for +3/4 it applies to up to 8 movement modes and for +1 it applies to all movement modes For the purposes of this power, being picked up and thrown is considered a form of forced movement, although the rules are slightly different: the notional mass is used to calculate how far you can be thrown i.e. it is not necessarily all or nothing. It can not apply to reduce knockback.

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Nice idea' date=' but the rules are against you: increased mass only revents teleportation/EDm if you are moving the inanimate.[/quote']

When teleporting the Animate or Inanimate, it still has to fit in your Teleportation/EDM Mass Limit.

You can't teleport a 200 Kilo Person with a 100 Kilo Teleport/EDM, UAA or UOO.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

When teleporting the Animate or Inanimate, it still has to fit in your Teleportation/EDM Mass Limit.

You can't teleport a 200 Kilo Person with a 100 Kilo Teleport/EDM, UAA or UOO.

 

You're right, because it specifically says that with basic attacks that have mass rules, those rules still apply. Mind you there is no easy way to increase your mass without actually increasing your mass in Hero, and the same mass/target thing would not apply to a grab and fly away power as that is based on STR not a 'set' 100kg. You can probably UAA Fly a target irrespective of mass. Probably.

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

You're right' date=' because it specifically says that with basic attacks that have mass rules, those rules still apply. Mind you there is no easy way to increase your mass without actually increasing your mass in Hero, and the same mass/target thing would not apply to a grab and fly away power as that is based on STR not a 'set' 100kg. You can probably UAA Fly a target irrespective of mass. Probably.[/quote']

Flight, UAA always was a neagtive example fo what you should ....

a) not build in the first place

If you build it anyway, apply Valueless limitations to until it is "at least as bad as the attack it is copying".

 

About normal grab and fly: How can you fly with something, when you can't even lift it of the ground? You may add your Movement to your STR (but that movement is no longer availibe for moving) to add a little, but nothing else.