Based on ECV and inanimate objects

[Fearghus]

First the game I am running is still in 5th Ed revised... I know 6th edition has changed some of this, but for this game the group I play with has decided to stick with 6th.

 

A character in my group has built a mentalist and he found that not having a killing attack was limiting so he built an RKA BoECV & Does Body...

 

Last game session he wanted to use this power to blast down a barrier. I told him he couldn't do it. the barrier doesn't have an ego, therefore can not be effected by mental powers.

 

His argument was that a Ranged Killing attack is not a mental power.

 

My argument was that once he applied the advantage Based on Ego Combat Value to it the target needs a mind to be attacked by it. While it is not specifically a mental power you still need an ego to target.

 

In the end I didn't allow him to do it but I told him I would ask you guys what you think. I have read and re-read the description of the advantage and it seems to me that I am correct. even id he could affect a wall with a mental power a wall certainly would have a different class of mind than human.

 

What would the ECV of a wall be anyway? 3?

 

Thanks for any help in advance.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

Hmmm. This is a difficult one, you never want to stop a character being heroic and so, if the context of why he wanted to blow down the wall was right for the story I always try to say "yes, but...."

 

In this case, if I was content that it would be heroic to blast down the barrier rather than target someone inside it, then I might provide some difficulty - the strain of focussing on something without an EGO is tiring (added END cost) or there is likely to be some feedback due to the interference of inanimate materials with your powers (damage feeds back depending on roll or something). You might also indicate that the base difficulty is much higher than the bog standard 3 CV - night be 6 or 7 to represent the difficulties and then be only half as effective or something...

 

However, as far as interpreting the rules go, I think that I would have interpreted the same as you but then looked for an out I could give an heroic player.

 

 

Doc

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

If he bought it as BoECV, then it doesn't work against inanimate objects. If he wants to be able to destroy stuff, then buy a regular RKA and define it as telekinetic blades or something.

 

It seems to me that a BoECV RKA is not a very heroic sort of power since it is really only good for killing people. Is that really what he wanted, or was he looking for something to battle robots and such? If he just didn't understand what power he was building, I'd let him switch it out with a regular RKA. He might want to build a few levels into it though if he is primarily a mentalist and doesn't have a very high OCV.

[Fearghus]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

Yeah he built it for battling automatons and robots... this is the first time he has ever tried to blast something that can't blast back.

 

Basically there is a villain I created that creates barriers to defend himself as well as split up the party block lines of sight and give cover to his companions... Part of this shtick was specifically so he could block line of site for the mentalist in the group (the group is fairly famous and the villains were intending on encountering the players so they were prepared) The player was getting rightfully annoyed that his line of sight was being blocked. His normal mode of combat is to hide a good distance from the combat and use mental powers from a safe distance. he can fly but uses it more as a quick way to get to his hiding spot because he has min-maxed the crap out of his character so have low DCV, low defenses, and basically can't stand toe to toe with a well rounded villain built on equal points... Basically one hit and he is down, and he is easy to hit. So if he is visible then he is vulnerable. The drawback is that when villains have cover... he can't effect them.

 

I have problems with this player (he is a hard core D&D player). and keeps trying to find the optimum way to spend his character points. So he tends to build one trick ponies and then whines when in the very flexible Hero system there are a hundred ways to beat his trick. It is one of the advantages of HERO that the system mechanics reward you for playing a well rounded character. Where as in some other games playing the guy that has the unbeatable trick is possible. In HERO there is no such think as an unbeatable trick.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

Part of me wants to say, if he's that much of a minmaxer, he should have known what he was getting into, and tough cookies.

 

I had a bit more sympathy for the guy until I got the part where he plays the sniper mentalist. You're under no obligation to run the game for this guy's benefit at the expense of everyone else's. The solution isn't "fix his character," it isn't "let him fine tune his character yet again so he can be even more munchkiny," it's "talk seriously with the player and find out what his expectations for the game are and why he wants to play this way." The problem is not with the character he plays, it's with the player, and that's the part you need to solve. Essentially: the mechanics will let him tune his character to the point where he can rule in one situation and suck everywhere else, and he's trying to manipulate you and the other players to make the game be about the former. It's possible that when you bring this to his attention he'll push back, and probably not in a nice way ("I built my character so I could hide and snipe the villains, and you're not giving me anywhere to hide!"), and it may be that eventually you'll need to ask him not to come back to your game.

 

If you want, feel free to point him at my response. If he wants to get mad about it, he can get mad at me.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

I would rule the same way you did.

 

Does a BOECV Entangle affect Desolidified characters without the need for the Affects Desolidified Advantage?

 

Yes, because it’s based on an ECV Attack Roll.

 

Not spot on, but this illustrates that applying BOECV essentially converts the power to a mental power. Such powers affect minds, not matter, and the barrier has no mind.

 

I note that, while we have the mechanic, we don't know the actual power. As indicated above, perhaps the mechanical construction is inappropriate for the power as envisioned. Maybe it is a normal killing attack with a mental SFX, and should be purchased as an RKA with Line of Sight range, or some similar build. Maybe such a power should also be the subject of enough 2 point skill levels to set OCV equal to the character's mOCV, and some Lightning Reflexes so it acts at his Ego rather than Dex, such that it targets physical DCV at the same levels of OCV as his mental attacks.

 

How has the player defined this power? If it's purely a mechanical construct with no actual ability it's trying to simulate, I start to see Chris Goodwin's approach as the more likely one.

[Christopher]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

First the game I am running is still in 5th Ed revised... I know 6th edition has changed some of this, but for this game the group I play with has decided to stick with 6th.

[...]RKA BoECV & Does Body...

Okay, now I am confused. Is this game 5E or 6E?

 

Because there is no ECV in 6E and also no Advantage like "Based on OMCV" that would work anyway like Based on ECV is described.

 

And yes, overall Chris Goodwin nailed it with his post. This is most likely the most important part here, not the game rules.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

No, you can't use a Based On ECV power against an object or automaton with no EGO score.

 

I also agree with Chris Goodwin's post.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

I would rule the same way you did.

 

 

 

Not spot on, but this illustrates that applying BOECV essentially converts the power to a mental power. Such powers affect minds, not matter, and the barrier has no mind.

 

I note that, while we have the mechanic, we don't know the actual power. As indicated above, perhaps the mechanical construction is inappropriate for the power as envisioned. Maybe it is a normal killing attack with a mental SFX, and should be purchased as an RKA with Line of Sight range, or some similar build. Maybe such a power should also be the subject of enough 2 point skill levels to set OCV equal to the character's mOCV, and some Lightning Reflexes so it acts at his Ego rather than Dex, such that it targets physical DCV at the same levels of OCV as his mental attacks.

 

How has the player defined this power? If it's purely a mechanical construct with no actual ability it's trying to simulate, I start to see Chris Goodwin's approach as the more likely one.

 

This was kind of my thought; we don't know enough about the SFX to really say whether BOECV was the "right way" for this character to build this power, etc.

 

In 5e, BOECV means you target the power using your ECV vs. the target's ECV and by RAW means the power is a "mental power"; As such, it is assumed you are making a "mental attack" since you are rolling against the target's own ECV, which a barrier would not have. Not much has changed in 6e beyond the acronym used and a few more options for variations of this power (read next paragraph.)

 

6e adds a bit more granularity to this, and depending on how the power is defined, there might be a way to make this power work for the player as he is seeking. In 6e, you could build a power that is "Based on Alternate Combat Value" but not "Attack vs. Alternate Defence" or whatever. You could thus build a power that uses "ECV" (MOCV in 6e) but is still "vs. DCV" - such a power would use your "mind" to target, but still fire a beam or bolt or whatever that the target could avoid as normal. Conversely, one could build something like Psylocke's Psychic Knives or whatever; she targets it with a punch (OCV), DCV applies, but the damage is only reduced by mental defenses. So you could certainly adopt those options into 5e if you wanted.

 

But yes, I would definitely tell this player that "min-maxing" really can backfire on you in HERO. A really good HERO build should certainly fit into one "schtick" or another - ie. brick, speedster, mentalist - but should also be at least capable if that schtick is rendered useless by a particular enemy or situation.

 

And it isn't your player's fault. His poor mind has been warped by D20 "optimized builds" - I have similar problems with my players sometimes, but they are getting better.

 

PS: Not trying to bash D20

[Lucius]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

Not spot on, but this illustrates that applying BOECV essentially converts the power to a mental power. Such powers affect minds, not matter, and the barrier has no mind.

 

On the other hand, is it not the case that Telekinesis can be bought as "Psychokinesis" targetting EGO/Mental Combat value, but is still able to move ordinary objects? That would establish a precedent for Powers with Based on EGO Combat Value to effect inanimate objects.

 

Possibly Mr. Long should be asked his opinion.

 

In any case, if

 

Yeah he built it for battling automatons and robots... this is the first time he has ever tried to blast something that can't blast back.

 

Then I think it's inconsistent to let him buy a power specifically against automatons, approve it and let him use it that way, and then NOT permit its use against walls. Unless you made him buy it with a specific limitation, "only against things that can blast back."

 

 

I'll echo the calls for sharper definition of this Power. What exactly is it simulating, that can't blast an inanimate object unless that object can "blast back?" Would it effect an automaton that didn't have any Attack Powers? How about an automaton without any Movement?

 

I understand the desire to rein in a munchkin using the unpopular "sniper mentalist" strategy, and I understand the reasoning that "A Power Based on EGO targets minds, so shouldn't work on something without a mind" but if it can't effect a mindless wall, it shouldn't effect a mindless robot either.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

When it comes to minds, the palindromedary is in a Class by itself

[Christopher]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

On the other hand, is it not the case that Telekinesis can be bought as "Psychokinesis" targetting EGO/Mental Combat value, but is still able to move ordinary objects? That would establish a precedent for Powers with Based on EGO Combat Value to effect inanimate objects.

 

Possibly Mr. Long should be asked his opinion.

He will say: Thats 5E, I don't answer 5E anymore.

 

In 6E you just apply a +0 AVAD (OMCV vs DCV) on your Killing Attack and you are done.

[Fearghus]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

The original concept was that it was essentially an ego attack that worked on machines. The only reason it was built on RKA was so that it could do body damage to automatons that do not take stun. Basically he would attack the computer in a robot which would eventually be able to shut it down. Later in the game he faced a villain that could animate things that I built as summons, and I allowed him to change the disadvantage from "machines only" to "Non living targets" because I would not let him use it at that point against an animated dumpster (not a machine).

 

Regardless my argument is still the same... Robots and automatons still have intelligence which means they have minds. It might not be a mind like you or I think of but the book says to use Int rather than Ego for things like computers and Robots which do not have Ego. So a Robot has intelligence therefore it has a mind... A wall has no intelligence therefore it has no mind. I have no problem extending that logic to all automatons. Even an animated piece of furniture is built with intelligence and skills therefore it has some sort of mind.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

The original concept was that it was essentially an ego attack that worked on machines. The only reason it was built on RKA was so that it could do body damage to automatons that do not take stun.

 

Normal attacks also do BOD, and a normal or Killing attack BOECV each require the extra +1 advantage to do BOD.

 

As to your reasoning (it must have a mind of some sort to be affected), that seems reasonable giving the effect of the power. If he now comes back wanting an attack that affects pretty much anything, I suggest asking him to define this power, and write it up from that definition - a standard RKA may be more appropriate, or perhaps one which is NND or AVAD, Does BOD, even if you have to allow a custom advantage to use mOCV rather than normal OCV (and target the opponent's DCV).

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

The original concept was that it was essentially an ego attack that worked on machines. The only reason it was built on RKA was so that it could do body damage to automatons that do not take stun. Basically he would attack the computer in a robot which would eventually be able to shut it down. Later in the game he faced a villain that could animate things that I built as summons, and I allowed him to change the disadvantage from "machines only" to "Non living targets" because I would not let him use it at that point against an animated dumpster (not a machine).

 

Regardless my argument is still the same... Robots and automatons still have intelligence which means they have minds. It might not be a mind like you or I think of but the book says to use Int rather than Ego for things like computers and Robots which do not have Ego. So a Robot has intelligence therefore it has a mind... A wall has no intelligence therefore it has no mind. I have no problem extending that logic to all automatons. Even an animated piece of furniture is built with intelligence and skills therefore it has some sort of mind.

 

If it were defined as a "bolt of kinetic force I fire using my brain" I'd be all for it damaging inanimate objects. But this is clearly a power designed to affect the "mind" of computers and robots; thus any object without a "mind" should be unaffected. That would be my ruling on the power as described, at least.

[Christopher]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

You still haven't clarified if you use 5E or 6E, would be nice to know that. Until then I give you the respective values for 6E.

In 6E you would make an Attack that only affects a certain Mindclass "Psionics" Limitation (APG II). How many Mind Classes it affects and wich one by default is the GM-question (Machine Mind only should be worth something). It does not imparts any other change than that the target needs to have a Mind, or maybe even a specific Mind Class.

 

Automatons, no matter the source, are totally unaffected by mental powers in 6E unless they take a "Affected as Mind Class X" Limitation (what you usually do with Robots or D&D-Style Zombies).

[Fearghus]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

You still haven't clarified if you use 5E or 6E' date=' would be nice to know that.[/quote']

 

As I said in the original post I am using 5E. I would prefer to be using 6E but the group I play with did not want to switch gears mid game. Next game will be 6E. I know 6th Ed fixes some of the problems I am describing here, but the question is about 5E

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

I don't know that 6e would fix the problem. It certainly provides more options for making an attack use, say, mOCV to target DCV while and be defended by normal defenses, but it seems like your player wants whatever attack would be most effective against the target he is currently facing. It seems he wants to bypass normal defenses to target mental defenses. An attack that works against mental defenses will not affect something lacking any sort of mind. So now, since he wants to damage something that has no mind, he wants a power that does not rely on the target having a mind.

 

Maybe he should just buy a Cosmic VPP to hold any one attack at a time so he can have the best attack for any given target. That seems to be the objective, if my read of the facts (ie that every time the player comes up against a situation where his attack type is not effective, he needs to either add an attack or amend the existing one) is correct.

 

To the rules question, Steve's answer should end the issue, presumably. To me, if I do the math and come up with "something for nothing" (either you get a benefit for free, or you shell out points and gain no benefit), then I revisit the rules since that's not the objective. Normally, the rules come through. If they don't, it's GM Override Time.

[Christopher]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

As I said in the original post I am using 5E. I would prefer to be using 6E but the group I play with did not want to switch gears mid game. Next game will be 6E. I know 6th Ed fixes some of the problems I am describing here' date=' but the question is about 5E[/quote']

Thanks. I could not certainly tell from the OP.

 

When the issues are around "we want an RKA that is targeted by OECV/OMCV" then 6E might be the better solution (don't know the 5E suplements so I can't tell if they don't have something usefull in that reagard).

You can of course "reverse engineer" some of the advantages/limitations of 6E.

 

But like others pointed out this looks a lot like a "powergamer problem", not a rules problem.

[Greywind]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

I'd let the player know that within a game, whatever they do can, and most likely at some point in time will, be used against them.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

It might be worth noting that if a barrier (whether Barrier or Force Wall or Entangle, and regardless of edition) is built with Mental Defense, then presumably a mental attack can affect it. I think its effective MCV/ECV is 0 in that case.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

I'd tell him he could have a choice. He can use it on any object, but then it will always target DCV, even when targeting characters. No more sure hits on those EDCV 3 (or less) robots and zombies. Or, he can have it target EDCV and not effect things that lack a mind. Give him the choice and let him know that's how it will be from then on. Period. I'd let him keep using his ECV to hit either way (as long as he payed for the advantage), just let him define which kind of CV it targets.

[Lucius]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

The original concept was that it was essentially an ego attack that worked on machines. The only reason it was built on RKA was so that it could do body damage to automatons that do not take stun. Basically he would attack the computer in a robot which would eventually be able to shut it down. Later in the game he faced a villain that could animate things that I built as summons, and I allowed him to change the disadvantage from "machines only" to "Non living targets" because I would not let him use it at that point against an animated dumpster (not a machine).

 

Regardless my argument is still the same... Robots and automatons still have intelligence which means they have minds. It might not be a mind like you or I think of but the book says to use Int rather than Ego for things like computers and Robots which do not have Ego. So a Robot has intelligence therefore it has a mind... A wall has no intelligence therefore it has no mind. I have no problem extending that logic to all automatons. Even an animated piece of furniture is built with intelligence and skills therefore it has some sort of mind.

 

So, it wouldn't effect a vehicle?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks it sounds like a case of matter over mind

[Christopher]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

It might be worth noting that if a barrier (whether Barrier or Force Wall or Entangle' date=' and regardless of edition) is built with Mental Defense, then presumably a mental attack can affect it. I think its effective MCV/ECV is 0 in that case.[/quote']

Don't know. In 6E barriers/entangls are unaffected by mental attacks but there Mental Defense affects any attack passing through them. So you can make a "psi barrier" that's effective at blocking mental attacks or a Psionics Block Entangle that prevents your target from affects their targets mental powers.

[Christopher]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

So, it wouldn't effect a vehicle?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks it sounds like a case of matter over mind

When it targets machines mind it could affect the on-board computer. Otherwise: No.

 

Note: But modern cars could have a complication "Affected as Machine Class of Mind" to simulate that they have so many computers, including a motor controll system.

[Lucius]

Re: Based on ECV and inanimate objects

 

When it targets machines mind it could affect the on-board computer. Otherwise: No.

 

Note: But modern cars could have a complication "Affected as Machine Class of Mind" to simulate that they have so many computers, including a motor controll system.

 

I was going to suggest introducing him to a powered armor character who bought the armor as a vehicle (can't effect the vehicle, can't get line of sight on the "pilot") but then it struck me, such a character would probably have an on-board computer.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Installing an on board computer on a backandforthtrian - balancing a laptop on a hump