CptPatriot Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 As I was writing my conversions for Champions Online powers to the Hero System, I realized that an aspect of my power build had me wondering if I was interpreting it improperly. I'd ask Steve, but since I'm not sure if this is the sort of question he would answer in the rule question thread, I've posted it here. This is the power reduced to its simplest: Chain Lightning: Blast 12d6, Area Of Effect (4m Radius; +1/4); Extra Time (Delayed Phase, -1/4) Now, the advantage AoE has the Extra Time limitation, not the entire power. It was my intent that the user of the power to take advantage of the AoE must declare using the AoE then waits until 1/2 the Dex of the initial declaration time to fire the attack, otherwise they can only attack a single target. The idea behind it was that if I wanted to attack multiple targets, I'd need to "charge up" my attack. Now, am I interpreting this properly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Hiemforth Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage Yes. (6E1, pages 314-315) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage What you want to make is propably a Naked Advantage: An advantage that does not has to be used, but whose use can have extra limitations. it woudl be written up this way: 12d6 Blast; 60 AP; 60 Real Cost Naked Advantage, Area Of Effect (4m raduis; +1/4) for up to 60 Ap of Blast; 15 AP (for the naked advantage), Extra Time (Delayed Phase; -1/4); 12 Real Cost. Using that Advantage cost 1 END (in addition to the END cost of the blast) In all other chases of writing up an advantage, the advantage is mandatory so applying an limitation only to it has no prupose (after all you have to use it and thus the limitation always affects the power). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sougen Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage Yeah, Chris seems to be right. The only way you can normally apply a limitation to only an advantage is for the advantage to be the 'power' itself - otherwise known as a "naked advantage". Thus, you can build the 12d6 blast. Then build the naked advantage AoE on 60pts of Blast w/ the "extra time" limitation. 12d6 Blast = 60pts Naked Advantage = 12pts (15active, 12 real). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasha Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage Yeah, Chris seems to be right. The only way you can normally apply a limitation to only an advantage is for the advantage to be the 'power' itself - otherwise known as a "naked advantage". Thus, you can build the 12d6 blast. Then build the naked advantage AoE on 60pts of Blast w/ the "extra time" limitation. 12d6 Blast = 60pts Naked Advantage = 12pts (15active, 12 real). You may want to look at putting your attack powers in a Multipower framework. ie: [TABLE=width: 100%] [TR] [TD=align: center]75 [/TD] [TD=align: left] Multipower, 75-point reserve [/TD] [TD=align: center] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center] 6f [/TD] [TD=align: left] 1) Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points) [/TD] [TD=align: center] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center] 7f [/TD] [TD=align: left] 2) Blast 12d6, Area Of Effect (4m Radius; +1/4) (75 Active Points) [/TD] [TD=align: center] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center] 88 [/TD] [TD=colspan: 2, align: left] Total Powers Cost[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] you can put any +1/4 advantage on the first slot ie Reduced Endurance 1/2 end is a good one for a power that is used often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Democracy Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage What you want to make is propably a Naked Advantage: An advantage that does not has to be used, but whose use can have extra limitations. it woudl be written up this way: 12d6 Blast; 60 AP; 60 Real Cost Naked Advantage, Area Of Effect (4m raduis; +1/4) for up to 60 Ap of Blast; 15 AP (for the naked advantage), Extra Time (Delayed Phase; -1/4); 12 Real Cost. Using that Advantage cost 1 END (in addition to the END cost of the blast) In all other chases of writing up an advantage, the advantage is mandatory so applying an limitation only to it has no prupose (after all you have to use it and thus the limitation always affects the power). Hmmm. While this has all the characteristics of a technically correct answer, I prefer Derek's. :-) Does anyone else think that it is this level of detail that makes people think that HERO is complicated?? I think that one of the problems is that instead of a simple answer we, by the rules, have to give Christopher's response. [rant] I reckon we put too much emphasis on the mechanics and not enough on the power description. I like to have a one or two sentence description of the power on the playing sheet with only the relevant numbers and as few game terms as possible. That way any GM looking at the power knows what the player has been attempting to do and can rule based on that rather than on the game terms as written. [/rant] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sougen Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage You may want to look at putting your attack powers in a Multipower framework. ie: [TABLE=width: 100%] [TR] [TD=align: center]75[/TD] [TD=align: left] Multipower, 75-point reserve[/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center] 6f[/TD] [TD=align: left] 1) Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points) [/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center] 7f[/TD] [TD=align: left] 2) Blast 12d6, Area Of Effect (4m Radius; +1/4) (75 Active Points) [/TD] [TD=align: center][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: center] 88[/TD] [TD=colspan: 2, align: left] Total Powers Cost[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] you can put any +1/4 advantage on the first slot ie Reduced Endurance 1/2 end is a good one for a power that is used often. Well, putting it into a power framework is only useful if he intends to add more powers to it. As it stands, your build costs about 16pts more. Now, the moment he creates another power equal to or greater than 17pts and thinks that the versatility loss of MP is acceptable, then he should use the MP All in all, though, I'd probably build an MP because it is rare that I have character builds with only a single power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Hiemforth Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage Hmmm. While this has all the characteristics of a technically correct answer, I prefer Derek's. :-) Does anyone else think that it is this level of detail that makes people think that HERO is complicated?? I think that one of the problems is that instead of a simple answer we, by the rules, have to give Christopher's response. Weird thing is, though... my response basically is Christopher's response. I just didn't think it was necessary to build the power in my reply. "Yes, conceptually you have the right idea; here's where you can find more details" seemed like an adequate response to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage I agree that parsing it out to the nth degree isn't essential. Why can't the "limited AoE advantage" be described under the heading of "partially limited power". I suppose the issue that you must use the advantage every time you use the power comes into play, but that could simply be noted as an exception due to the limitation on a portion of the power. The Multipower is another option, but a more expensive one for the desired effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage Weird thing is' date=' though... my response basically [b']is[/b] Christopher's response. I just didn't think it was necessary to build the power in my reply. "Yes, conceptually you have the right idea; here's where you can find more details" seemed like an adequate response to me. Yes, that confused me as well.... I agree that parsing it out to the nth degree isn't essential. Why can't the "limited AoE advantage" be described under the heading of "partially limited power". I suppose the issue that you must use the advantage every time you use the power comes into play' date=' but that could simply be noted as an exception due to the limitation on a portion of the power.[/quote'] Would that still be a naked advantagge, with all it's drawbacks? Or somethign totally new, that doesn't costs end and can be put into the same framework for drastically reduced pricing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasha Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage Well, putting it into a power framework is only useful if he intends to add more powers to it. As it stands, your build costs about 16pts more. Now, the moment he creates another power equal to or greater than 17pts and thinks that the versatility loss of MP is acceptable, then he should use the MP All in all, though, I'd probably build an MP because it is rare that I have character builds with only a single power. Sometimes it's worth spending a few points more to avoid a build that some might think is cheesy or that needs to be explained to the GM for clarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage Hmmm. While this has all the characteristics of a technically correct answer, I prefer Derek's. :-) Does anyone else think that it is this level of detail that makes people think that HERO is complicated?? I think that one of the problems is that instead of a simple answer we, by the rules, have to give Christopher's response. [rant] I reckon we put too much emphasis on the mechanics and not enough on the power description. I like to have a one or two sentence description of the power on the playing sheet with only the relevant numbers and as few game terms as possible. That way any GM looking at the power knows what the player has been attempting to do and can rule based on that rather than on the game terms as written. [/rant] Can't believe I am saying this to you, but it is all in the presentation. The people building the character and the people using the character are nto necessarily the same, and we need to emphasise what the power does and what is cool about it, provide a mechanical summary and keep the build as a footnote that, frankly, is irrelevant most of the time. OK, I could have used colour to make it even more exciting, but my screen has run out. [TABLE=class: MsoTableGrid] [TR] [TD]POWERS!!! [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 695, bgcolor: transparent]Lightning Bolt – Shoots a bolt of lightning at an enemy Mechanics: 12d6 300 metre range 12 END Build: 12d6 Blast 60 active and real points [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 695, bgcolor: transparent]Lightning Blast – Shoots a bolt of lightning at an enemy that explodes on impact but takes longer to use Mechanics: modifies Lightning Bolt to add 4 metre blast radius but requires a delayed phase and +3 END Build: Naked Advantage 4m Radius (+1/4), Delayed Phase (-1/4) 15 Active points, 12 real [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage [TABLE=class: MsoTableGrid] [TR] [TD]POWERS!!! [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 695, bgcolor: transparent]Lightning Bolt – Shoots a bolt of lightning at an enemy Mechanics: 12d6 300 metre range 12 END Build: 12d6 Blast 60 active and real points [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 695, bgcolor: transparent]Lightning Blast – Shoots a bolt of lightning at an enemy that explodes on impact but takes longer to use Mechanics: modifies Lightning Bolt to add 4 metre blast radius but requires a delayed phase and +3 END Build: Naked Advantage 4m Radius (+1/4), Delayed Phase (-1/4) 15 Active points, 12 real [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Sorry to nitpick, but: Lightnig Bolt: Endurance cost is 6. Range is 600m; Lightning Blast: Endurance cost is 1, not 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage Sorry to nitpick, but: Lightnig Bolt: Endurance cost is 6. Range is 600m; Lightning Blast: Endurance cost is 1, not 3. True. I was having a second edition flashback Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbywolfe Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage I agree that parsing it out to the nth degree isn't essential. Why can't the "limited AoE advantage" be described under the heading of "partially limited power". I suppose the issue that you must use the advantage every time you use the power comes into play' date=' but that could simply be noted as an exception due to the limitation on a portion of the power.[/quote']Maybe I am mis-reading this, but you seem to suggest that limiting the Advantage would make it more versatile than just having an Advantaged attack. That seems more confusing to me than Naked Advantages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice9 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage Actually, why are advantages requires to be used all the time anyway? It's supposedly a trade-off to use Naked Advantage, but I'm not actually seeing it as such - you would have to pay END for the advantage anyway, because it would raise the AP. At most, the Naked Advantage version would cost an extra 1 END due to rounding. Given that you can already voluntarily lower the strength of the powers you use, why not the advantages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage Actually' date=' why [i']are[/i] advantages requires to be used all the time anyway? It's supposedly a trade-off to use Naked Advantage, but I'm not actually seeing it as such - you would have to pay END for the advantage anyway, because it would raise the AP. At most, the Naked Advantage version would cost an extra 1 END due to rounding. Given that you can already voluntarily lower the strength of the powers you use, why not the advantages? Some ideas/things that would have to be cleared first: - You have to recalculate to AP/End cost on the fly. (this is propably the main reason, considering the reluctance of many regarding even Damage negation...) - Why can't you do that with guns and AP ammunition - What about +/- 0 modifier. Are they +0 advantages (ignorable), or -0 limitations? - what would be the advantage? You would have a power with a lot less power and no advantage: A 60 AP blast without it's +1/2 Advantage is only a 40 AP Blast. So it's better to go the Naked Advantage anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Goodwin Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage In 4th edition and 5th (FREd, non-revised) you could apply Limitations directly to Advantages, rather than having to go Naked. I think that went away in 5ER, and I could find no sign of it in 6E. (Edit: Unless it's in one of the Aypeegee's.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage Would that still be a naked advantagge' date=' with all it's drawbacks? Or somethign totally new, that doesn't costs end and can be put into the same framework for drastically reduced pricing?[/quote'] I think the comments above already established that a Multipower for the AoE and standard attack would actually increase the cost. Now, if you already have the Multipower, it would be quite a bit cheaper to add an AoE slot than to buy a Naked Advantage for a single power in the Mulitpower. Maybe I am mis-reading this' date=' but you seem to suggest that limiting the Advantage would make it more versatile than just having an Advantaged attack. That seems more confusing to me than Naked Advantages.[/quote'] If the Advantage is not Limited, it must always be used. The character with an EB that also has the Advantage of AoE, only if he takes extra time, uses extra END, etc. has the option of not meeting the terms of the limitation, and therefore using the power without the advantage. I don't see how that is any more confusing than a Naked Advantage costing exactly the same, and having the exact same result. Actually' date=' why [i']are[/i] advantages requires to be used all the time anyway? It's supposedly a trade-off to use Naked Advantage, but I'm not actually seeing it as such - you would have to pay END for the advantage anyway, because it would raise the AP. At most, the Naked Advantage version would cost an extra 1 END due to rounding. Given that you can already voluntarily lower the strength of the powers you use, why not the advantages? On the one hand, conceptually, if your attack is a Fireball, does it make sense that you can choose to focus it down to a FireBeam? Well, probably not. On the other hand, why should it cost 75 points, say, for a 12d6 Blast, +1/4 AoE Fireball, and 60 points for a 12d6 Blast Firebeam, and a 15 point Naked Advantage (+1/4 AoE on Firebeam to make it a Fireball)? The naked advantage costs the same, but allows two options. Either the first build should get a discount (can't use Blast without AoE) or the second should carry a premium cost (since you can now choose between the one target Blast and the AoE), from a pure points balancing perspective. Of course, a third character might have a Multipower of 60 AP attacks. He can buy a Naked Advantage (+1/4 AoE) for the whole Multipower for the same 15 points. Shouldn't Naked Advantage cost more if it can be applied to more than one power/ability? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmjalund Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage I always thought Naked Advantages should cost more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Waters Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage There seems to be a potential problem: if you buy a power with an advantage then you HAVE to use the advantage. If you buy a power and a Naked Advantage then it costs and works the same (usually) and you do not have to use the advantage every time. PLUS Naked Advantages can (with GM permission) potentially apply to more than one power. Probably the easiest way to do this is to require any 'Naked' modifier to be built with an additional +1/4 modifier, if it applies to one power, +1/2 if it applies to 2 powers (one at a time), +3/4 if it applies to 4 powers (one at a time) and so on. The only problem with that is it is a bit expensive. It might be that you could use an adder to make it more reasonable: a 5 point adder for 'applies to one power, 10 for 2, 15 for 4 etc. I agree that there should be some cost differentiation between 'must be used every time' and 'optional', but defining it is awkward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zane_Marlowe Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage I always thought it made sense that advantages had to be used with the powers because they were part of the powers as such. A naked modifier is an option to use the power in a certain way. Should it cost more? Depends on what limitations you put on the use-option. I require players to have a good reason why they didn't just build the power that way in the first place, and most of the time it makes more sense to build what they want as part of a multipower. I've used naked advantages most often when the powers in question are things like gear, so, buying autofire for up to 60 active points of small arms, or buying armor piercing for up to 40 active points of melee weapons, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sougen Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage I don't see the need to make the naked advantage cost more. I think the fact that it is a STOP SIGN power to begin with is good enough. GMs need to show caution when they allow such things to make sure they aren't unbalancing. I think just tacking on an additional cost abdicates that oversight. As to when I most often use naked advantages, it is when I am building things that already apply to build in stats. For example, "AoE on X Str". This way I can just build up strength like normal and then let the Character have a 'quake' style attack by just making use of the naked advantage that is elsewhere. Or things like "Combat acceleration / deceleration" on Running. Again, for much the same reason. I have build Naked advantages that apply to traditional powers, too, but it is normally for ease and satisfying my inner munchkin. But in those moments, I have to check myself and make sure that the whole isn't disproportionate to the individual parts and thus unbalancing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage I see some overlap in each of the three things: Multipowers Naked Advantages "Useable as additional form of Movement" (+1/4). All three can be used to do a multipurpose movement ability (Fliying + Swimming or Flying + Gliding). When comparing the Naked Advantage to a Multipower, please don't forget two things: The naked Advantage is always Instant, so it's pretty useless for Constant or Persistent powers (unless it is made one of those with an advantage). The naked Advantage always Costs Endurance (minmum of 1), wich means it's even more difficulty to make it Persistent and is bad when made Constant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyper-Man Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage .... The naked Advantage is always Instant, so it's pretty useless for Constant or Persistent powers (unless it is made one of those with an advantage). They are not always Instant, just typically. from 6e1 page 314: A naked Advantage typically only has a duration of Instant, even if the base Power is Constant, A perfect example of an exception to this is the Resistant Advantage from 6e1 page 147. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.