Hmmm. More on Special Effects

[Markdoc]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Does a force field work against the character?

 

It is - if the special effect is appropriate - reduced ... as it affects the character in question. That's how the power works.

 

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' date=' so is the answer to that question. [/quote']

 

Umm, no it's not: I mentioned up thread that standard effect would be the easiest way to handle this. As to "How much to be unharmed", that depends on how big attacks tend to be: it's pretty damn simple to work out.

 

Watch out' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

The person who took unified power got a limitation for it. If all his powers are reduced ... well, that's what he got the limitation for.

 

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.

 

Ummmmm ... no. You asked how much protection 9 AP offers. The answer by the rules is "none". Surprise, surprise - a 9 point power doesn't cancel a 20 point one. However the construct itself will in fact cancel invisibility if you buy sufficient to cancel invisibility. Seriously, how hard was that to work out?

 

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

.

 

I'm not seeing the problem here. Have you never had adjustment powers in your games?

 

Why not make it even easier? Suppress 1d6' date=' 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?

 

No handwaving required: yes, the power you describe above is rules legal, but it wouldn't work as you describe, since the "only powers affecting the character" means that most powers would be entirely unaffected - until they were used on the character in question. As for reasonably common way to shut off the drain, the build I mentioned shuts off automatically as soon as it no longer affects the character - can't get more common than that.

 

Of course if someone tried the unlimited version, as GM, I'd just say no. I don't allow uncontrollable, continuous killing attacks vs hardened flash defence (smell) either

Yes, it is possible to build abusive powers. This is not news.

 

As well' date=' 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"?[/quote']

 

Drain has no maximum limit. (see p 195 6E1). How high is the limit? The sky's limit, baby!

So yeah, limiting a Drain to doing no more than standard effect is a very substantial limitation, indeed. I'd drop that limitation by half for each doubling (-1, -1/2, -1/4) for 6, 9 and 12 active points, since draining 15 or more means 5 successful attacks without recovery - which is usually a pretty good run: that doesn't sound like it'd be a significant limitation. Other GM's might be a bit more gentle.

 

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' date=' anyone?)[/quote']

 

Seriously? Subtracting a number from active points is hard? Hero system is not for you, then. May I suggest D&D 4E?

 

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.

 

Shrug. The only absolute in Hero is that there are no absolutes in Hero. I have already noted that there are some build that would evade the construct I outlined, and also noted that I see that as a feature, not a bug.

 

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

 

Ummmm ... yes. As one does in any discussion of SFX. Your point?

 

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.

 

Of course if the character wanted personal resistance to his area affect power, he'd need to buy personal resistance. The same applie if he had bough an area affect atomic fireball.

I really don't see where all your comments lead: they mostly seem to be asking "Does this standard build play like a standard build?"

The answer is "Yes: it's a Hero system standard build. It plays exactly like a Hero system standard build and yes, Hero system rules apply."

 

cheers, Mark

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

No handwaving required: yes, the power you describe above is rules legal, but it wouldn't work as you describe, since the "only powers affecting the character" means that most powers would be entirely unaffected - until they were used on the character in question. As for reasonably common way to shut off the drain, the build I mentioned shuts off automatically as soon as it no longer affects the character - can't get more common than that.

Maybe I'm being dense, can you run that by me again? The "reasonably common way" to turn the power off (and thus have it stop affecting the character) is to have the power stop affecting thecharacter? That sounds...circular. Could you maybe re-word that cause I'm missing something?

 

 

Seriously? Subtracting a number from active points is hard? Hero system is not for you' date=' then. May I suggest D&D 4E?[/quote']

Well, that was just rude.

 

Ummmm ... yes. As one does in any discussion of SFX. Your point?

Agreed on this point

 

 

 

Of course if the character wanted personal resistance to his area affect power' date=' he'd need to buy personal resistance. The same applie if he had bough an area affect atomic fireball.[/quote']

Well, the discussion was about a certain type of defense and you submit a build that would cripple the user as well. So while we all know that AoE powers need Personal Immunity to not affect the user, pointing out the obvious seemed to be needed since you didn't include it in the build that's supposed to be a defense.

[Markdoc]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Maybe I'm being dense' date=' can you run that by me again? The "reasonably common way" to turn the power off (and thus have it stop affecting the character) is [i']to have the power stop affecting thecharacter[/i]? That sounds...circular. Could you maybe re-word that cause I'm missing something?

 

Continuous powers need a common way to turn them off, for obvious reasons. In this particular build, the power turns off instantly after use, since its primary use is intended to be as a defence, not as an actual drain. So the power does not continually affect the target. You're right though, I could have worded it better, since the use of the word "character" could have meant attacker.

 

Here's an example to make it plain (I hope).

Mentalist uses mind control on the character, who has the "suppression" defence.

Standard suppress (using standard effect) - mindcontrol loses loses 3 active points per d6 of defence. The power remains reduced, until the "turn off" condition is met (which means that if the mentalist attacks again before the turn off condition is met, his mindcontrol is now reduced by 6 points/d6).

The build I indicated (using standard effect) - mindcontrol loses loses 3 active points per d6 of defence. The defence (unlike a standard drain) turns off immediately post attack, even though it is continuous (which means that if the mentalist attacks again, his mindcontrol gets reduced by just 3 points). You could define a "way to turn the power off" - but since it turns off immediately by itself, but in this case, it's a pretty pointless exercise.

 

There might be some instances where defining "how to turn the power off" might somehow be important, but I have to admit, I can't think of any.

 

Well' date=' that was just rude.[/quote']

 

Yeah, it was, but this is the 4th time that it was suggested that a perfectly ordinary use of adjustment powers is somehow "too hard". I've already pointed out 3 times that this is simply standard hero system rules. If standard hero system rules are too hard - well, there are games with less crunch.

That approach - repeating the same question and ignoring the answer, over and over, is an odious discussion tactic one encounters too often on the internet. It's apparently designed to "win" a discussion by simply driving the other party(ies) off in disgust or boredom and .... well, I'm not a patient man. Three strikes, and yer out!

 

Well' date=' the discussion was about a certain type of defense and you submit a build that would cripple the user as well. So while we all know that AoE powers need Personal Immunity to not affect the user, pointing out the obvious seemed to be needed since you didn't include it in the build that's supposed to be a defense.[/quote']

 

It had not, at any point, previously been suggested that the user himself had mental powers.

So, I guess you kind of have a point, but to me to say: "I want a defence that reduces all mental powers" is somewhat different to saying "I want a defence that reduces all mental powers, except my own". If the latter had been suggested, that's what I would have built So yes, to me it was kind of obvious that if you wanted the defence I had suggested, and also wanted to have mental powers, then you'd need to add personal immunity - although it is true that I didn't add that wrinkle ahead of time. If the user wanted desolidification and the power to be active while desolid, he'd need to add "affects physical world" as well. We could, I am sure, come up with a host of different requirements that could be added - but as it's a standard heros system build, it's easy to do that: one of the reasons I much prefer this approach to just saying "Let's make up a new power that sometimes acts as a suppress, sometimes as a defence, sometimes as extra strength, sometimes as a movement power and other times as things we can't predict yet, and then give it a flat cost"

 

Now, I should point out that if a GM wanted to do that, he's be entirely in his rights. Certainly as a player, I wouldn't cry if the GM did that, because "hero system purity" had been compromised. But as this thread makes clear, that's a pretty complex approach, which fundamentally changes the way the rest of the rules work: it's not just a defence, it's a whole new mechanism.

 

The build I suggested indicates that 3 or 4 points/1 point would maybe be a reasonable cost for such a defence: but as a GM, I certainly wouldn't make such a fundamental change in the rules unless I could find a better reason than "It's expensive to buy defences against every possible attack and you will always have the fear that you missed something".

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

There might be some instances where defining "how to turn the power off" might somehow be important' date=' but I have to admit, I can't think of any.[/quote']

 

OK. What about in a fight where his opponent has realised that there is some kind of dampening field in play and wants to see if he can avoid it so that his attacks will actgually have an effect. If the only way to switch it off is to stop attacking, then it is kind of unfair on the attacker. No??

 

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

OK. What about in a fight where his opponent has realised that there is some kind of dampening field in play and wants to see if he can avoid it so that his attacks will actgually have an effect. If the only way to switch it off is to stop attacking' date=' then it is kind of unfair on the attacker. No??[/quote']

How is that different from encoutering an enemy with 100 % DR vs all your Enegry Powers (or at least your SFX)? Your shtick powers are useless in either chase.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

How is that different from encoutering an enemy with 100 % DR vs all your Enegry Powers (or at least your SFX)? Your shtick powers are useless in either chase.

 

The difference is that we were talking about a power that, by the rules, should have a reasonably common way to turn it off. Though, I suspect that this is in the rubric of 100% DR...

 

Doc

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

The difference is that we were talking about a power that' date=' by the rules, should have a reasonably common way to turn it off. Though, I suspect that this is in the rubric of 100% DR...[/quote']

Funny, as far as I remember you want to add a rule to the book that does not exists. Yet you block any other idea with "it goes against the book".

 

I have a information for you: Your ideas go even more agaisnt the book

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Ummmmm ... no. You asked how much protection 9 AP offers. The answer by the rules is "none". Surprise' date=' surprise - a 9 point power doesn't cancel a 20 point one. However the construct itself will in fact cancel invisibility if you buy sufficient to cancel invisibility. Seriously, how hard was that to work out?[/quote']

 

You expressed the concern some time ago that the character whose "immunity from all mental powers" would not make him immune to psionic invisibilty was grounds for a complaint. You then built a construct that only affects offensive powers used against the target. Let's assume the Suppress is large enough to shut down the psionic invisibility. When is that invisibility "used against the character"? If he is in line of sight? If he is looking at the invisible character? If he is looking and succeeds in a PER roll that would detect the target were he not invisible?

 

By the rules (your seeming primary concern) the psionic invisibility is then Suppressed to zero. It shuts off. Everyone, not just the resistant character, can see the psionic target until he can reactivate his invisibility - which he can't unless he somehow removes the resistant target from its area of effect.

 

If being in line of sight of an invisible character means that invisibility affects the target, does that not also mean a defense power that blocks the character's attacks is also affecting that character, such that it will also be suppressed? "Well, you can't see the psionically invisible character, since he has 35 AP of invisibility and you only suppress 30, but his 12/12 rDEF Psionic Shield fades away to 2/2 against your FlameBolt.

 

I'm not seeing the problem here. Have you never had adjustment powers in your games?

 

There's a big difference to having adjustment powers and having them constantly on the fly.

 

No handwaving required: yes' date=' the power you describe above is rules legal, but it wouldn't work as you describe, since the "only powers affecting the character" means that most powers would be entirely unaffected - until they were used on the character in question. As for reasonably common way to shut off the drain, the build I mentioned shuts off automatically as soon as it no longer affects the character - can't get more common than that.[/quote']

 

OK, let's see...

 

I copied your construct and removed a limitation or two, so it should be about as rules legal and effective as yours. Second, if the fact that "only powers affecting the character" are affected, so the power doesn't start until the target power starts affecting the character, then he gets hit at full power before his Suppress kicks in. If we're using the Suppression Field approach, then as long as the target is within the field, the suppression should be working - even if it only applies to reduce the ability's power when it is used against the person who is actually resistant. Of course, this all depends which version of handwavium we use for "GM option only" suppression fields in the first place.

 

Of course if someone tried the unlimited version, as GM, I'd just say no. I don't allow uncontrollable, continuous killing attacks vs hardened flash defence (smell) either

Yes, it is possible to build abusive powers. This is not news.

 

It's also possible to vastly overcomplicate what could be reasonably simple builds.

 

Drain has no maximum limit. (see p 195 6E1). How high is the limit? The sky's limit' date=' baby![/quote']

 

Yet you said above that you will only allow it within a specific limit. Do we follow the rule that there is no maximum limit, or Markdoc's rule that imposes a maximum limit. If you want to base the Field on Drain, rather than Suppress, I'm OK with that - for 20 points, no one on the planet has a mental power that I haven't completely drained away, unless they have enough Power Defense to get around that. And adding Penetrating (multiple times if need be) would be pretty inexpensive.

 

Yes, it's an abusive structure - because you based your "simple construct to achieve the desired effect" on an abusive concept with some handwavium limitations, generating a result which is not as simple as you seem to believe, and debatable in its actual ability to achieve the desired effect.

 

So yeah' date=' limiting a Drain to doing no more than standard effect is a very substantial limitation, indeed. I'd drop that limitation by half for each doubling (-1, -1/2, -1/4) for 6, 9 and 12 active points, since draining 15 or more means 5 successful attacks without recovery - which is usually a pretty good run: that doesn't sound like it'd be a significant limitation. Other GM's might be a bit more gentle.[/quote']

 

I think it's pretty easy to get in five or more successful attacks with a planetwide AoE, but removal of the limitation in its entirety still leaves the 1d6 standard effect (and why not 1/2d6? Power defense screws me entirely in any case) pretty inexpensive compared to buying, say, 15 points worth under your model.

 

Seriously? Subtracting a number from active points is hard? Hero system is not for you' date=' then. May I suggest D&D 4E?[/quote']

 

Math it out on the fly for a group of mentalists and see how fast your game plays. As I said earlier, it's likely workable provided you have the ability to math it out for each character in advance.

 

Shrug. The only absolute in Hero is that there are no absolutes in Hero. I have already noted that there are some build that would evade the construct I outlined' date=' and also noted that I see that as a feature, not a bug.[/quote']

 

"It's a feature not a bug" is more commonly an excuse than a fact. If the player envisions his character being naturally resistant to a specific special effect, the fact that his resistance goes away when an opponent has a specific defense power is a bug, not a feature. The idea was to create an ability that can, in fact, meet the vision of a character with resistance to a specific SFX overall. The "Power Defense makes it go away" result does not achieve that vision.

 

Ummmm ... yes. As one does in any discussion of SFX. Your point?

 

That you complained this is a subjective issue, then presented a convoluted power construct that you claim does the trick without the issues you perceive with some other build, which does not in fact, resolve your complaint about that subjectivity. The idea of "+1 defense against all powers of SFX Alpha" was also based on a kludge of by the book defenses with a series of limitations and a bit of GM Option application, so I don't find your structure, which seems much more complex to apply in play, to be in any way superior.

 

Of course if the character wanted personal resistance to his area affect power, he'd need to buy personal resistance. The same applie if he had bough an area affect atomic fireball.

I really don't see where all your comments lead: they mostly seem to be asking "Does this standard build play like a standard build?"

The answer is "Yes: it's a Hero system standard build. It plays exactly like a Hero system standard build and yes, Hero system rules apply."

 

Except where you decide to handwave them away, of course. I suspect that most players find it more intuitive that shooting themselves in the foot will hurt than that their defenses reduce the effectiveness of their attacks and other abilities. And I would suggest resistance to a specific special effect would commonly be perceived as a power of that special effect. In any case, as I said, maybe adding PI (for +1/4 - big deal when we have that level of advantages already) might help the rounding. It's an easy fix. For some reason, you choose to take it as a personal affront.

 

Here's an example to make it plain (I hope).

Mentalist uses mind control on the character, who has the "suppression" defence.

Standard suppress (using standard effect) - mindcontrol loses loses 3 active points per d6 of defence. The power remains reduced, until the "turn off" condition is met (which means that if the mentalist attacks again before the turn off condition is met, his mindcontrol is now reduced by 6 points/d6).

The build I indicated (using standard effect) - mindcontrol loses loses 3 active points per d6 of defence. The defence (unlike a standard drain) turns off immediately post attack, even though it is continuous (which means that if the mentalist attacks again, his mindcontrol gets reduced by just 3 points). You could define a "way to turn the power off" - but since it turns off immediately by itself, but in this case, it's a pretty pointless exercise.

 

Except that the usual "way to turn off the power" shuts it down entirely - ie the mind control is no longer reduced by 3 points until the field itself is reactivated. As well, we are stacking a limitation for "only when power used against target" and then calling that the shutdown condition. In any event, I would agree the specific structure of this ability would justify waiving the "reasonably common shutdown condition" requirement, except for the fact that you have consistently insisted the structure should follow the rules as written with no handwaves.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Funny' date=' as far as I remember you want to add a rule to the book that does not exists. Yet you block any other idea with "it goes against the book".[/quote']

 

Not sure you are getting the point of the thread here. I think that the game lacks something that would allow the genre be better represented by the game mechanics. Markdoc reckons there is no need as the system as is could cover the idea with the rules as written. What I, and a few others, are doing is presenting challenge to that. So, if the rules as written can cover it, there is no need for something new. If the rules as written have to be broken, then surely it is worth customising something new (and simpler) than having something that requires complex builds and a breaking of the rules used to make the build?

[Christopher]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Not sure you are getting the point of the thread here. I think that the game lacks something that would allow the genre be better represented by the game mechanics. Markdoc reckons there is no need as the system as is could cover the idea with the rules as written. What I' date=' and a few others, are doing is presenting challenge to that. So, if the rules as written can cover it, there is no need for something new. If the rules as written have to be broken, then surely it is worth customising something new (and simpler) than having something that requires complex builds and a breaking of the rules used to make the build?[/quote']

So breaking the rules by introducing something new is not as bad as bending the rules and make something existing work?

 

That a pretty practical double standart you created there. That way you can just counter any idea you don't like on the ground that it "does not fullfills the rules" or "it is not new enough".

[Markdoc]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

OK. What about in a fight where his opponent has realised that there is some kind of dampening field in play and wants to see if he can avoid it so that his attacks will actgually have an effect. If the only way to switch it off is to stop attacking' date=' then it is kind of unfair on the attacker. No??[/quote']

 

In a word, no. No, not even a little bit. God's titties, am I the only person in this thread who has actually read the rules?

 

The "turn off the power" effect refers to a way to prevent a continuous power from continuing to have effect on you, after you have been hit. It does nothing to the actual power itself, and never has. If you are hit with a power with the continuous modifier and you perform the "turn off the power" action, all is does is stop the continuous affect from continuing: the user still has the power and can zap you again on his next action with no penalty.

 

How can we discuss rules builds, if simple, basic rules are either "too hard" or simply ignored in the discussion?

If I sound a wee bit testy, well, I am. I apologise for that, but I'm getting the feeling that I'm beating my head on a brick wall here - that the real objection is that I suggested a simple, rules-legal construct and that's really not what was wanted.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

You expressed the concern some time ago that the character whose "immunity from all mental powers" would not make him immune to psionic invisibilty was grounds for a complaint. You then built a construct that only affects offensive powers used against the target.

 

No, I did not. I specifically said "affects the target" so that non combat uses could be covered.

 

 

Let's assume the Suppress is large enough to shut down the psionic invisibility. When is that invisibility "used against the character"? If he is in line of sight? If he is looking at the invisible character? If he is looking and succeeds in a PER roll that would detect the target were he not invisible?

 

Obviously, if the character couldn't normally see the psionically-invisible character, he's not affected

 

By the rules (your seeming primary concern) the psionic invisibility is then Suppressed to zero. It shuts off. Everyone' date=' not just the resistant character, can see the psionic target until he can reactivate his invisibility - which he can't unless he somehow removes the resistant target from its area of effect.[/quote']

 

Uh nope, I've already discussed this one too: the drain is limited so that the effect is specific to the character: he can see the invisible person, but nobody else can.

 

If being in line of sight of an invisible character means that invisibility affects the target' date=' does that not also mean a defense power that blocks the character's attacks is also affecting that character, such that it will also be suppressed? "Well, you can't see the psionically invisible character, since he has 35 AP of invisibility and you only suppress 30, but his 12/12 rDEF Psionic Shield fades away to 2/2 against your FlameBolt.[/quote']

 

Yes, that would be logical. The psionic shield would still be 12/12 against anybody else, but against "resistant to mental powers guy" it would be weaker. Again the beauty of using the rules is that it's actually easy to rule on effects, if you take an instant to think about it.

 

 

There's a big difference to having adjustment powers and having them constantly on the fly.

 

Sure, the continuous Advantage, to be specific.

 

It's also possible to vastly overcomplicate what could be reasonably simple builds.

 

Ah ... this is a simple build.

 

Yet you said above that you will only allow it within a specific limit. Do we follow the rule that there is no maximum limit' date=' or Markdoc's rule that imposes a maximum limit. If you want to base the Field on Drain, rather than Suppress, I'm OK with that - for 20 points, no one on the planet has a mental power that I haven't completely drained away, unless they have enough Power Defense to get around that. And adding Penetrating (multiple times if need be) would be pretty inexpensive.[/quote']

 

Sigh. Really, Hugh, this is tiresome. It's not "my rule" - as I have already pointed out. It's a simple custom limit, something that's been with Hero system from the beginning.

 

And really - why are you so hot for a rules argument, when you obviously haven't even read the rules? I used Drain, because in 6E, suppress no longer exists as a seperate power: it's a variant of Drain (see p. 196, 6E1).

 

 

Yes' date=' it's an abusive structure - because you based your "simple construct to achieve the desired effect" on an abusive concept with some handwavium limitations, generating a result which is not as simple as you seem to believe, and debatable in its actual ability to achieve the desired effect.[/quote']

 

Umm ... no.

 

 

 

Math it out on the fly for a group of mentalists and see how fast your game plays. As I said earlier' date=' it's likely workable provided you have the ability to math it out for each character in advance.[/quote']

 

Unnecessary - only a few sessions ago we had the part in my FH game facing undead, throwing multiple drains of different sorts, and the PCs responding with adjustment powers, at the same time that regular attacks were being thrown. I honestly don't recall it being any sort of trial at all. Seriously, is simple math that hard?

 

 

 

"It's a feature not a bug" is more commonly an excuse than a fact. If the player envisions his character being naturally resistant to a specific special effect' date=' the fact that his resistance goes away when an opponent has a specific defense power is a bug, not a feature. The idea was to create an ability that can, in fact, meet the vision of a character with resistance to a specific SFX overall. The "Power Defense makes it go away" result does not achieve that vision.[/quote']

 

Shrug. You are of course, welcome to your opinion. But there'll always (and should always, IMO) be a way to get around any specific defence in Hero system.

 

That you complained this is a subjective issue' date=' then presented a convoluted power construct that you claim does the trick without the issues you perceive with some other build, which does not in fact, resolve your complaint about that subjectivity. The idea of "+1 defense against all powers of SFX Alpha" was also based on a kludge of by the book defenses with a series of limitations and a bit of GM Option application, so I don't find your structure, which seems much more complex to apply in play, to be in any way superior.[/quote']

 

You are, as noted, welcome to your opinion ... though I can't see any kludges: the power is straight out of Heromaker.

 

Except where you decide to handwave them away' date=' of course. I suspect that most players find it more intuitive that shooting themselves in the foot will hurt than that their defenses reduce the effectiveness of their attacks and other abilities. And I would suggest resistance to a specific special effect would commonly be perceived as a power of that special effect. In any case, as I said, maybe adding PI (for +1/4 - big deal when we have that level of advantages already) might help the rounding. It's an easy fix. For some reason, you choose to take it as a personal affront.[/quote']

 

I didn't take it as a personal affront - just pointing out it wasn't a weakness of the build that extra advantages can be added to it: it's what I'd expect of Hero system.

 

Except that the usual "way to turn off the power" shuts it down entirely - ie the mind control is no longer reduced by 3 points until the field itself is reactivated. As well' date=' we are stacking a limitation for "only when power used against target" and then calling that the shutdown condition. In any event, I would agree the specific structure of this ability would justify waiving the "reasonably common shutdown condition" requirement, except for the fact that you have consistently insisted the structure should follow the rules as written with no handwaves.[/quote']

 

Uhhh ... no. Read the rules: if you get zapped with a constant power, the turning off of the power does not magically reverse its effects. If you get zapped with a fire blast you can turn off the continuing effect, by smothering the flames. You don't get the STUN and BOD inflicted back. Likewise, if your mind control was reduced in its effect, you can certainly use it again - but you won't suddenly get a stronger effect from the power that was reduced.

 

As to the handwaves, you desperately seek, there are none. You can put in any common effect to turnoff the continuing effect you like: the sky must be blue, target must say "Fie" ... whatever. It will have no germane effect, since the continuing effect shuts off automatically anyway. If it makes you happy, add such an effect. Personally, unless I can think of a reason, I couldn't be bothered.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Not sure you are getting the point of the thread here. I think that the game lacks something that would allow the genre be better represented by the game mechanics. Markdoc reckons there is no need as the system as is could cover the idea with the rules as written. What I' date=' and a few others, are doing is presenting challenge to that. So, if the rules as written can cover it, there is no need for something new. If the rules as written have to be broken, then surely it is worth customising something new (and simpler) than having something that requires complex builds and a breaking of the rules used to make the build?[/quote']

 

Right. I agree completely with this.

 

But for me, it's not about "breaking the rules": I've made plenty of suggestions on other threads that break the rules and some of them ended up in my house rules, others in 6E. What I objected to was the suggestion of a "universal SFX defence" which was (at least so far) poorly defined and near-unworkable without constant GM kludging - how does a defence affect non-attack powers - and by how much? I'm open to conversion, if a more nuanced suggestion can be provided.

 

But the challenge cuts both ways. So far, I haven't seen any suggestions that the build I presented has broken any rules (and given that I just copied and pasted from Heromaker, I doubt we'll see that), and to be honest I can't take the "complex" arguments seriously when it's a build that took a couple of minutes to create and which works exactly the same way as a standard group of powers have worked for many years. I've been using "suppression fields" of various sorts for decades, and they've never taxed either the system or my brain.

 

In play, the suppression field power simply means "When you use a power with this special effect against me, reduce active points by X" - X being how many points of effect you bought. That's really not very different in play from reducing the effect of an attack by a defence: except that as built it also applies to non-attacks. The math may be slightly different - since it's active points, not output, but it certainly shouldn't be hard. In play, in fact, it's downright simple.

 

Now, I understand that some people like making new rules. Fair enough: everyone enjoys gaming slightly differently. My position has always been that new rules need a justification and the greater the changes they wreak, the stronger the justification needs to be. And so far, I'm just not seeing that justification - shucks, I haven't even seen a suggestion as to how such a power would interact with most other powers, or the rest of the system.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

Right. I agree completely with this.

 

But for me, it's not about "breaking the rules": I've made plenty of suggestions on other threads that break the rules and some of them ended up in my house rules, others in 6E. What I objected to was the suggestion of a "universal SFX defence" which was (at least so far) poorly defined and near-unworkable without constant GM kludging - how does a defence affect non-attack powers - and by how much? I'm open to conversion, if a more nuanced suggestion can be provided.

 

Well, I would say that the conversations so far have not been conducive to a more nuanced solution. I am still not convinced by your build - you say that there should be a way around any defence (except the one that you have built here - it stops working when it stops affecting you. )

 

Anyway = not interested in that, I was interested in your question of how a defence works against a non-attack power. Should it? That is a good question, but given that it should we need to have somewhere to begin but the current argument stems from trying to agree on a cost. The point was made that the current SFX defences go point for point but the quorum here seems to hang for about 3 point per point.

 

In the interests of looking for better nuance, let me accept 3 point per as a starting point...

 

If I have 10 points of mental SFX defence then I get 10 points of mental defence as normal. That seems fine, so what do I get for my triple cost?

 

I would say that there needs to be some flexible interpretation by the GM. Mental invisibility? Well, it does not break the invisibility but I think that I would be providing a perception roll of 8 or less plus mental defence/5 possibly? That reflects the fact that the defence allows some disturbance and a chance to see stuff that people might not normally notice.

 

Essentially I mooted an SFX styled defence. It would provide a 1 for 1 defence against attacks with a particular SFX, it would provide some insight into PER twisting powers that use the relevant SFX, it would provide defences against unusual attacks with the relevant defence - difficult to determine exactly what as the game allows so much variety but the idea would be 1 for 1 defences and either a boost of points/5 or points/3 to PER rolls against sensory distortions with the right SFX,

depending on how generous you wanted to be with the cost of 3 points per point.

 

Should a defence have an effect on other kinds of powers - personally I do not think so.

 

 

Doc

[torchwolf]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

There is a Power in the 6E rules we haven't considered to any great extent yet, though Hugh brought it up way upthread: Damage Negation.

 

At 5 pts per DC which can be applied vs a specific sfx, it is very cheap - essentially, it provides:

*3.5 PD

*3.5 ED

*-2m KB

*3.5 Power Defense (vs Drain BODY and Drain STUN Only)

 

Adding in a similarly discounted Flash Def and expanded Power Defense, the result would be an expanded DN, and the whole thing would be something based on the RAW.

 

However...

Should a defence have an effect on other kinds of powers - personally I do not think so.

In some cases, it probably should. I'll get to that.

 

I think I agree with Markdoc in that the construct should be purchased by the character who is supposed to alter the way a power that would affect him applies.

(apologies if I misread the point)

Would-be attackers should not have to purchase their powers specifically to affect a type of target in a way that exploits classic weaknesses.

There are several precedents for this philosophy: demons should have the appropriate Complications to be affected by the classic holy ground/true names/whatnots; vampires should have the same vs holy symbols/holy water/etc...

 

Getting back to the "non-attack" powers issue: This affects attack powers used in unusual ways as well.

 

Classic sfx example:

A character is immune to fire damage. He has purchased "sfx defense" to a ridiculous level (it's a high-powered campaign), but is attacked in an unusual way by a fire-user:

Change Environment (-4 DEX Rolls), defined as "I make the ground so hot, that people can't stand still on it". (yes, I know my example is silly, but there are easily many other reasonable variants that can be expected to be used)

An "SFX Defense", even if including all common defenses as well as LS, cannot counteract a CE. Markdoc's build can.

So, the only way to achieve across-the-board resistance to an sfx, is to use a construct that reduces Active Points affecting the character

 

 

The question is: Should "SFX defense" only protect against directly damaging effects?

 

If yes, it can be built by either

a) arriving at a reasonable number (though if that number is too small, it will likely unbalance a lot of other game mechanics unless kept under tight control), or

using DN as a basis and add other defensive powers to it, using a similar cost scheme, or

c) adding together all applicable defenses and applying the appropriate Limitation, or

d) a method not yet considered.

 

If no, Adjustment Powers is probably the most consistent way to go, since all Powers use Active Points.

 

EDIT: Deleted an issue that was already answered upthread. That'll teach me to post when tired, sorry.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

In a word' date=' no. No, not even a little bit. God's titties, am I the only person in this thread who has actually [i']read[/i] the rules?

 

Perhaps those reading the rules interpret them differently than you do. You seem to start from the baseline that anyone who disagrees with you is 100% wrong by definition.

 

The "turn off the power" effect refers to a way to prevent a continuous power from continuing to have effect on you' date=' after you have been hit. It does nothing to the actual power itself, and never has. If you are hit with a power with the continuous modifier and you perform the "turn off the power" action, all is does is stop the continuous affect from continuing: the user still has the power and can zap you again on his next action with no penalty.[/quote']

 

So Mr. Mentalist is 3 AP (or 30 AP) down on all his Mental Powers when used against Resistant Man. What does he do between Resistant Man's phases to end the continuing effect of that reduction to his abilities which allows them to be used at full power until Resistant Man's next phase (when they will again be reduced because Resistant Man's continuous power will trigger again)? I see nothing in your writeup which addresses that shut down condition. Given only Resistant Man is protected, I'd be OK with waiving the requirement for a reasonably common shutdown condition, but your stated objective is to avoid any such handwaves.

 

Why not make the attack "NND vs Not Having Mental Powers" - it's every bit as legal, just overriding the recommendation that "not having" something not be a defense. That seems more or less equal to a shutdown condition of "your invisibility works just fine if I can't see you anyway".

 

How can we discuss rules builds, if simple, basic rules are either "too hard" or simply ignored in the discussion?

If I sound a wee bit testy, well, I am. I apologise for that, but I'm getting the feeling that I'm beating my head on a brick wall here - that the real objection is that I suggested a simple, rules-legal construct and that's really not what was wanted.

 

Well, quid pro quo. If I sound a wee bit testy, well, I am. I apologise for that, but I'm getting the feeling that I'm beating my head on a brick wall here - that the real objection is that any suggestion that your construct may not be as simple and/or rules-legal as you believe, or that anyone remotely reasonable might find your approach not consistent with their vision of the ability, is unacceptable to you. Rather, we should have looked at your construct and praised its, and your, brilliance without question.

 

No' date=' I did not. I specifically said "affects the target" so that non combat uses could be covered.[/quote']

 

Which means needing to assess what constitutes "affecting the target".

 

Obviously' date=' if the character couldn't normally see the psionically-invisible character, he's not affected[/quote']

 

This works fine if we assume the usual rule that a power drained or suppressed to zero AP shuts off entirely is waived for this construct. But there's that need to handwave a rule again.

 

Uh nope' date=' I've already discussed this one too: the drain is limited so that the effect is specific to the character: he can see the invisible person, but nobody else can.[/quote']

 

But, again, that's not how suppress or drain work, by the book. By the book, once it hits 0 AP, it shuts down. To me, that's an acceptable handwave, but it remains a departure from the rules, and you have indicated you don't want ANY handwaves. What I'm sensing, however, is that you are OK with your handwaves, and they should be taken to be equal to the rules as written.

 

Yes' date=' that would be logical. The psionic shield would still be 12/12 against anybody else, but against "resistant to mental powers guy" it would be weaker. Again the beauty of using the rules is that it's actually easy to rule on effects, if you take an instant to think about it.[/quote']

 

If I take a second minute and think about whether this is consistent with the desire to have a character who is resistant to others' mental powers, but is not more effective in attacking such characters, I discover the construct fails to achieve the desired end. So, how much less expensive should it be if we add yet another custom limitation "does not reduce the opponent's defenses against the character's attacks"?

 

Ah ... this is a simple build.

 

I'd be interested in seeing a complex one, then, by way of contrast. Given the amount of discussion as to how this would work in practice, it does not seem to be as simple to others (who do not share your accepted and ignored handwaves) than it seems to you. Often the case with abilities which take three lines to describe and apply numerous custom modifiers, which is why I classify such builds as "not simple".

 

Sigh. Really' date=' Hugh, this is tiresome. It's not "my rule" - as I have already pointed out. It's a simple custom limit, something that's been with Hero system from the beginning.[/quote']

 

The operations and the limitation value applied to a custom limitation is not a "by the book" rule. It is the rule you set. Nowhere in the rules (to my knowledge - cite if I am in error) is there a Hero-approved by the book general value for "otherwise cumulative power is limited to one Standard Effect that continues in effect for an indefinite period". Nor have I ever seen a rule that says "This is an acceptable construct if capped at 1x Standard Effect, but not if capped at some other level".

 

And really - why are you so hot for a rules argument' date=' when you obviously haven't even [i']read[/i] the rules? I used Drain, because in 6E, suppress no longer exists as a seperate power: it's a variant of Drain (see p. 196, 6E1).

 

So are we discussing nomenclature or game play?

 

Umm ... no.

 

How else can I possibly respond but:

 

Well, yes

 

Unnecessary - only a few sessions ago we had the part in my FH game facing undead' date=' throwing multiple drains of different sorts, and the PCs responding with adjustment powers, at the same time that regular attacks were being thrown. I honestly don't recall it being any sort of trial at all. Seriously, is simple math that hard?[/quote']

 

It depends largely on the nature and extent of the adjustment powers themselves and the abilities they target. In my experience, adjustment powers typically target a characteristic (AP then becomes less complex) or an array of SFX powers (in which case it is common for the GM to pre-calculate the level of effect at various breakpoints).

 

Is it that hard? Well, I have seen a few comments, even one by you IIRC, that this construct suggests that a cost of 3 points for 1 SFX defense might be reasonable. However, that cost is based on 10 points being spent for a 3 AP reduction to the underlying offensive power (ie 10/3 = close enough to 3). However, some pretty simplistic math says that reducing an attack power by 1 AP requires a reduction of 5 points, not 3 points. A 15 AP reduction under your model would cost 50 points and erode a Blast or a Mind Control by 3d6, or an average roll of 10.5. That seems to imply 5 points, not 3 points, for SFX defense.

 

Now, your construct affects a lot more than I think any of us were envisioning SFX defense applying against, so it should reasonably cost more than SFX defense would. That said, I find powers targeting specific SFX are often vastly overpriced, as the structure seems to envision extremely common, nearly omnipresent SFX. Seriously,are all of the following Drains or Suppresses equally valuable across a cross section of games:

 

- all powers of a Psionic special effect

- all powers of a Magic special effect

- all powers of a Sonic special effect

- all powers of a Fire special effect

- all powers of a Dark Magic special effect

- all powers of a Cobalt Radiation special effect

- STR, CON, STUN and END simultaneously (pretty sure I can get more than four characteristics for the same price as "all powers of a specific SFX, so feel free to add more)

 

I doubt it. That's why I tend to see these powers in one of three configurations. First, they are targeted against characteristics, something that will affect pretty much any target. Second, they target a very common SFX in the milieu, such as Magic in a high fantasy game or Psionics in a Psychic Wars game. Third, they are a pure niche power huddled away in a framework where they don't cost much, since they aren't worth much.

 

Shrug. You are of course' date=' welcome to your opinion. But there'll always (and should always, IMO) be a way to get around any specific defence in Hero system.[/quote']

 

One "gets around" most defenses by attacking with an attack that defense does not target. SFX Defense is no different. If I want to get around PD, I don't throw a punch. I use a different attack that does not target PD. If I want to get around a hypothetical Mental SFX Defense, I use an attack that does not have Mental SFX.

 

You are' date=' as noted, welcome to your opinion ... though I can't see any kludges: the power is straight out of Heromaker.[/quote']

 

Yeah, right.

 

I will suggest that Heromaker does not reflect:

 

- absence of a shutdown condition for this continuous power

- modification of the usual rule that a power reduced to 0 AP stops functioning until reactivated

- the specific values you have placed on various custom limitations

- the specific interpretations you take of how those custom limitations function in play (for example, whether a force field affects the attacker, or only protects the defender), which also impacts their value, as more restrictive should lead to a higher limitation

 

IOW, the fact that I can make HeroMaker print it does not mean that it lacks kludges.

 

But the challenge cuts both ways. So far' date=' I haven't seen any suggestions that the build I presented has broken any rules (and given that I just copied and pasted from Heromaker, I doubt we'll see that), and to be honest I can't take the "complex" arguments seriously when it's a build that took a couple of minutes to create and which works exactly the same way as a standard group of powers have worked for many years. I've been using "suppression fields" of various sorts for decades, and they've never taxed either the system or my brain.[/quote']

 

I believe the Suppression Field rules you routinely cite (in addition to containing a lot of "If the GM wants" statements) suggests that the powers of any target in the field are reduced, not that they are reduced for some people and not for others. The "only for some" aspect added on requires we waive, for example, the "suppressed to zero shuts it off" rule. So there are issues that would need to be addressed - issues which, perhaps, are not fully considered when making a 2 minute build. They work fine in your game, where everyone accepts these standard rules interpretations/variations.

 

Now, I agree the interaction with other aspects of the rules needs to be addressed. Either SFX defense does not work against powers like Invisibility, or being Teleported, Aided or even lifted by your teammate with powers of the SFX in question, or we need to assess how they will be affected. I think the starting position was "a defense that, rather than working against all attacks that affect, say, ED, Power Defense or what have you, works against all attacks of the specific SFX", in which case they would not function against Psionic Invisibility. Such invisibility being less effective, or even ineffective, against a character highly resistant to mental attack would seem to be a function of the SFX of Psionic Invisibility, and might justify a limitation to that power. As has been stated repeatedly, there are going to be subjective issues when we deal with SFX based modifiers.

 

Getting back to the "non-attack" powers issue: This affects attack powers used in unusual ways as well.

 

Classic sfx example:

A character is immune to fire damage. He has purchased "sfx defense" to a ridiculous level (it's a high-powered campaign), but is attacked in an unusual way by a fire-user:

Change Environment (-4 DEX Rolls), defined as "I make the ground so hot, that people can't stand still on it". (yes, I know my example is silly, but there are easily many other reasonable variants that can be expected to be used)

An "SFX Defense", even if including all common defenses as well as LS, cannot counteract a CE. Markdoc's build can.

So, the only way to achieve across-the-board resistance to an sfx, is to use a construct that reduces Active Points affecting the character

 

Most powers not affected by one of the standard defenses are required to have a "reasonably common defense". Having introduced SFX defense to the system, I would suggest that SFX defense is subsumed as part of a "reasonably common defense" for such abilities. Part of the fine tuning is to assess whether that counts as a shutdown defense, as the "reasonably common defense" typically does, or will reduce the effects of the attack, rather than eliminate them. That is, whether 10 points of Fire SFX Defense prevents all effects of a fire NND, or the Change Environment, or whether it reduces damage from the NND by 10, and the CE effects in some means we still need to determine (perhaps 1 AP of the combat effect per point of SFX defense, or one penalty stage per point of SFX defense, or some other mechanism).

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

to be honest I can't take the "complex" arguments seriously when it's a build that took a couple of minutes to create and which works exactly the same way as a standard group of powers have worked for many years. I've been using "suppression fields" of various sorts for decades' date=' and they've never taxed either the system or my brain.[/quote']

 

You obviously play with very different people to me. None of the past three gaming groups I have been with over the past 20 years would look at that build and think anything except "OMG! What is THAT!!?!"

 

My very first group, where we played HERO non-stop during summer holidays from university, if they were all still up to date with the rules may have responded more positively. However, the fact that you are talking here with people who have played the game for a long time, and we are still talking about it tends to suggest that it is more complex that you might feel it should be...

 

It is a trap of HERO. When you are comfortable with parts of the rules, it all looks clear to you and you cannot understand why anyone else might have an issue. With non-HERO gamers that can be anything that has more than one adjustment to a core power....

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

 

It is a trap of HERO. When you are comfortable with parts of the rules' date=' it all looks clear to you and you cannot understand why anyone else might have an issue. With non-HERO gamers that can be anything that has more than one adjustment to a core power....[/quote']

 

This is an issue in a lot of games. I see it a lot in rules with multiple interpretations as well - often, people read it one way, the group has played that way for years, and no one in the group can fathom an alternative interpretation, resulting in great surprise when another interpretation, equally entrenched, is encountered. Within Hero, the Great Linked Debate was a great example of two opposing interpretations colliding.

 

Setting values on limitations and complications is another area where opinion tends to vary widely, and interpreting the impact of custom limitations and various complications is also very subjective.

 

The bigger the rule set, the more areas that typically arise for interpretation. Add to that the fact that Hero by its design isn't a "FAQ - Here's how the designers rule it works and thus it is so" mentality game, but provides for a lot of GM intervention, adjustment and modification, and it should come as no surprise that there are lots of areas for disagreement. Even where a ruling is stated clearly, we still see lots of debate - how many of us still disagree with the idea that 1 point Penetrating KA always gets that penetrating point of BOD?