The Big Arguments

[JeffreyWKramer]

Originally posted by Kristopher

I'd rather rely on the GM's discretion for these issues.

 

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with placing all that in an EC, since a character with all that relies on it as much as a a character with END-based powers relies on his END-based powers.

 

Of course, if you start out with the belief that characteristics are under-priced, then it might not seem fair to have them in frameworks. But I don't, so I don't.

 

I personally don't have a problem with it either. I'm just stating the rationale that I have long assumed was there. That rule about "no Powers that don't cost END" was around during the Big Blue Book era, too. I also ignored it back then, *if* DR was appropriate for a given character concept. Regeneration used to be another example (now it's legal in an EC, even though it is bought down to 0 END), but I used to allow both Powers in ECs from time to time. If someone wanted to have an EC-Lycanthrope Powers, both were reasonable, and allowed. Similarly, if someone wanted to have a super-resilient body along with his Stretching and such, I allowed DR to physical attacks to be purchased in Malleable Body ECs. And I still would.

 

I do think Damage Reduction is under-priced in large-point campaigns, but that's going to happen with some effects. Things that have an absolute cost (Damage Reduction, Desolidification, Clairsentience) are going to have variable value depending on how much one can spend. It's probably overpriced for lower-point campaigns.

 

And yes, you cannot put "Costs END" and "0 END on the same Power to get it into an EC, per the FAQ.

[Fedifensor]

Originally posted by Monolith

Actually that is illegal, at least that is what it states in the FAQ.

Which only points out how illogical the restrictions are. You can't put Armor in an EC, but you can put a 0 END Force Field in one. You can even make that Force Field Persistant with the GM's permission, making it just as good as Armor with no END cost. Better, since several NND's don't work against Force Fields.

 

You could also just buy an Endurance Reserve with enough END and Recovery to make it effectively a 0 END power. For that matter, you can buy enough END and REC on your character so it isn't an issue. I don't see a restriction on powers with Costs END, as long as you don't add the Reduced Endurance advantage to them.

 

In short, Steve has gone through a lot of convoluted steps that still won't stop munchkins, but does leech out any flavor that EC's once had.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Fedifensor

In short, Steve has gone through a lot of convoluted steps that still won't stop munchkins, but does leech out any flavor that EC's once had.

Personally I am of the opinion that ECs have much more flavor now than they ever did in the past. I used ECs for 15 years as nothing but a point-crushing tool. Now I use them as a single power with multiple SFXs and it makes sense and works for me. I do not agree with the no 0 END rule and will allow 0 END powers in an EC if they make sense to me. But having said all that I do understand that there is a big difference between myself, who has playing the HERO System for 16 years, and someone picking up the book for the very first time.

 

Some things in the HERO System the book can teach you and some things you need to learn from experience. Whether or not to allow non-END using powers in an EC is something better left for more experience players to decide on. That way rules inbalances and power-crunching newbie gamers do not gain too much of an advantage over a less experienced GM. And as FREd does state, a GM should feel free to change any rule he or she wishes for his own game. So while it is not official to put 0 END powers into an EC, and GM has the right to do so if they are so inclined.

 

I am always amazed at how gamers are always considering the HERO System rules to be absolutes, when even within the confines of HERO produced products there are rules violations and adjustments. After all, allowing a 3 to 1 cost break on Fantasy Hero spells is quite obviously a step outside of the concept of "balance" everyone is so quick to bring up about the HERO System. The HERO System is designed to be flexible, not rigid. I just wish more gamers would realize that.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Originally posted by Fedifensor

In short, Steve has gone through a lot of convoluted steps that still won't stop munchkins, but does leech out any flavor that EC's once had.

 

Just to remind.. in 4th Edition, the EC rules also didn't allow you to normally put Powers that normally cost no END into ECs either... and Steve didn't write the Big Blue Book.

[Fedifensor]

Originally posted by JeffreyWKramer

Just to remind.. in 4th Edition, the EC rules also didn't allow you to normally put Powers that normally cost no END into ECs either... and Steve didn't write the Big Blue Book.

That's incorrect. I have the BBB right here, and there's nothing restricting no-END powers. In fact, the sample character of Howler has two slots that wouldn't be allowed in 5E - a 4d6 Absorption to all EC Powers (sonic attacks only), and 75% Resistant Damage Reduction (only version sound attacks).

[Fedifensor]

Originally posted by Monolith

But having said all that I do understand that there is a big difference between myself, who has playing the HERO System for 16 years, and someone picking up the book for the very first time.

 

Some things in the HERO System the book can teach you and some things you need to learn from experience. Whether or not to allow non-END using powers in an EC is something better left for more experience players to decide on.

Perhaps that's part of the problem. When I bought 5E, I expected a rules system for the experienced gamer, not the newbie. The latter should be targeted by something like the forthcoming Sidekick rules. When you *need* a computer program to churn out a character in a reasonable amount of time, it's not a beginner's system.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Fedifensor

Which only points out how illogical the restrictions are. You can't put Armor in an EC, but you can put a 0 END Force Field in one. You can even make that Force Field Persistant with the GM's permission, making it just as good as Armor with no END cost. Better, since several NND's don't work against Force Fields.

 

Force field 0 end isn't as good as armor because it's visible and nonpersistent. To make it persistent costs 2 for 1, more expensive than armor at 3 for 2.

 

Originally posted by Fedifensor

You could also just buy an Endurance Reserve with enough END and Recovery to make it effectively a 0 END power. For that matter, you can buy enough END and REC on your character so it isn't an issue. I don't see a restriction on powers with Costs END, as long as you don't add the Reduced Endurance advantage to them.

 

End reserves for large ECs become very expensive in a hurry unless you do the highly cheesy charges of end reserve trick. This expense is a restrictive element on the EC to keep it from being too abusive.

 

Originally posted by Fedifensor

In short, Steve has gone through a lot of convoluted steps that still won't stop munchkins, but does leech out any flavor that EC's once had.

 

It doesn't stop munchkins, but it makes their job much tougher.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Originally posted by Fedifensor

That's incorrect. I have the BBB right here, and there's nothing restricting no-END powers. In fact, the sample character of Howler has two slots that wouldn't be allowed in 5E - a 4d6 Absorption to all EC Powers (sonic attacks only), and 75% Resistant Damage Reduction (only version sound attacks).

 

I pulled out my well-battered copy of the BBB and it turns out you are right. I stand corrected.

 

Strange, though. For some reason, I thought that rule was in place in 4E also.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Fedifensor

Perhaps that's part of the problem. When I bought 5E, I expected a rules system for the experienced gamer, not the newbie. The latter should be targeted by something like the forthcoming Sidekick rules. When you *need* a computer program to churn out a character in a reasonable amount of time, it's not a beginner's system.

Well, FREd is not for experienced gamers. It's for anyone who wishes to pick it and and start playing. Sometimes I think the biggest problem with the HERO System is all of its old fans, who always seem unwill or unable to understand the differences.

 

I do not think you "need" a computer program to do anything. Both Steve and Darren have regularly stated that they still produce characters without a computer program. Perhaps it is the newbies that need the program more than the veterans?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't *own* the program. I make characters all the time. I'm sure the program would be helpful, and I do plan to get the new version when its out, assuming the reviews are positive, but I've been playing Champions for a long, long time now and have never needed a program to make a character.

[JmOz]

On 0 End in EC: Actualy 5th says not to do it with out GM permision, not quite the same thing, it then even describes in part some times to make an exception.

 

I have always, and continue to look at EC's as a reward for a good concept, A good concept will be one that has an internal logic (So a EC: shape changer works for me, a EC: Martian Powers does not unless I am sleeping with the player) to it. SOme powers might not fit the internal logic, fine they cna be outside the EC.

 

Example

 

EC: Shapeshifting

Shape Shift

Stretching

Invisibility

Growth

Shinking

Damage reduction

Density Increase

 

Sorry your Martian Vision Blast will have to be outside of the EC, same with your Enhanced senses

[JmOz]

Originally posted by JeffreyWKramer

I pulled out my well-battered copy of the BBB and it turns out you are right. I stand corrected.

 

Strange, though. For some reason, I thought that rule was in place in 4E also.

 

I beleive it dates to third, was droped in 4th, and returned in 5th, but could be wrong

[JeffreyWKramer]

That could be, I suppose, which would explain why I though it was in 4. I started Champs with the original book.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by JmOz

On 0 End in EC: Actualy 5th says not to do it with out GM permision, not quite the same thing, it then even describes in part some times to make an exception.

 

Good point, one too often ignored by people, including myself.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by JmOz

I beleive it dates to third, was droped in 4th, and returned in 5th, but could be wrong

 

You are correct in terms of 3rd (I can't speak to earlier editions), it says that "generally" 0 END powers should not be in ECs but that GMs can allow it. The wording is both briefer and "sounds" more lenient than in 5th, but, regardless, there it is.

 

I admit, I never remembered that, even though I played quite some time before 4th.

 

I would appreciate it if anyone is watching this thread and has access to 1st or 2nd if they could comment on the rules in those editions. Hmmm, maybe I'll drop lemming an e-mail if no one can assist...

[Fedifensor]

Originally posted by zornwil

You are correct in terms of 3rd (I can't speak to earlier editions), it says that "generally" 0 END powers should not be in ECs but that GMs can allow it. The wording is both briefer and "sounds" more lenient than in 5th, but, regardless, there it is.

Also remember that END was a much bigger deal in 3rd, when powers costs 1 END per 5 active points.

[Snarf]

Originally posted by pinecone

I don't know that I know THE answer but a medium to hefty dose of absorbsion is one way to model Invulnrability...and that should be fairly expensive.....it can also make hay of active/point limit campains which are fairly common....

Absorbtion doesn't give any defense against an attack, so I don't think it has anything to with invulnerability.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Originally posted by zornwil

I would appreciate it if anyone is watching this thread and has access to 1st or 2nd if they could comment on the rules in those editions. Hmmm, maybe I'll drop lemming an e-mail if no one can assist...

 

I'll dig out my 1st ed book later and check, but I'm not sure it was covered. I know many of the powers this ruling was meant to affect didn't even *exist* then - Damage Reduction was introduced in the CHAMPIONS III rules supplement.

[pinecone]

Snarf...one way to build a Invulnrable effect is Absorb:PD into stun and body +1/2....repeat for ED this was covered in a thread on invulnrability a while back....add in defenses linked to aborb and you have a damage sponge of fearsome capability...putting it into a EC makes it exactly twice as effective.......

[TheFool1972]

About kryptonite man:

 

I think any time a character wants his very PRESENCE to effect a character's vulnerabilies, and that vulnerability is not something that is normally a part of the character's makeup, that they should pay the point cost for how common it is. (5, 10, or 15 as per the disadvantage).

 

Now if the vulnerable character says he is vulnerable to humans, cats, or dogs; all bets are off...

 

The Fool.

"So... FatMan... You're vulnerable to... Pizza?"

"So... DeliveryMan... You want to effect people vulnerable to... Pizza?"

"You're both nuts! Get outta here!"

[zornwil]

lemming checked his 2nd ed and it does say 0 END should not be in an EC, he couldn't put his hands on the 1st

[Rene]

Elemental Controls are the worst bit of 5th edition. They are way too complicated.

 

OTOH, I'm very fond of the changes in Shape Shift. The way it was underpriced in 4th is a sign of how much HERO was (and still is) too centered on combat and the superhero genre. People complain that Shape Shift is overpriced just because it isn't combat-effective and the superhero genre is very combat-centered.

 

Now let's think in terms of a horror or SF game. What is more dangerous? An invading alien race with Shape Shift (a paltry 20 pts in 4th) or an alien race gifted with 8d6 EBs (40 pts!)? The blasters could be easily repelled. Any well-equiped soldier or policeman could engage them with weapons of similar destructive power. Now, the shape shifters are way more insidious and dangerous.

 

Except in a combat-crazy supers game, where the shape shifter hero seems to be good only to distract enemies in superbattles.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Rene

Elemental Controls are the worst bit of 5th edition. They are way too complicated.

 

(snip)

 

What did you think of EC prior to 5th, and/or, what made ECs "too" complicated in 5th compared to prior editions?

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by zornwil

lemming checked his 2nd ed and it does say 0 END should not be in an EC, he couldn't put his hands on the 1st

 

It's the difference between "should not" and "can not", then. I'm fine with a little note in the EC rules warning GMs to watch out for min-maxing constructions using ECs. What bugs me is the new text that makes it a hard-and-fast rule against putting most powers in an EC.

[Rene]

Originally posted by zornwil

What did you think of EC prior to 5th, and/or, what made ECs "too" complicated in 5th compared to prior editions?

 

I have to say that I already disliked them somewhat in 4th. Not the basic idea, that I think has merit and lots of examples in fiction, but the execution. The Control + Slot thing makes them a bit messy, kind of forcing you to have all EC powers at a similar Active Point level, even if your concept tells you some of them should have a far lower level of power, while still fitting in the EC's concept.

 

An example would be Reed Richards's Running, that isn't so big as his Stretching, comparing Active Point Costs. I think I prefer how it was handled in former editions, with you paying full price for the most expensive power, and half price for all the other powers, and they can have whatever "size" it fits.

 

Still the mathematics of the whole thing, while very simple, don't seem to have any other correspondences in how powers are dealt with in HERO. I dunno, I could even see some alternative like Elemental Control as a Limitation (-1/4 perhaps?) instead of a Power Framework.

 

Said Limitation being that all those Powers are drained in proportion. Much simpler than how the present system treats Adjustment Powers used on ECs.

 

Perhaps the Limitation also would include something like "powers are easily messed up with". That would make Fire and Electricity acceptable EC themes (easy to defend against), Silver Age Kryptonian Powers would be acceptable ECs too, since there was a million kinds of kryptonites and magic to affect them and it was a common thing, Vampire Powers also are widely known and easier to fight against, same as Psionics and Magic in some settings, etc. Now, "Radiation Epsilon" powers wouldn't be an acceptable EC, unless the setting had a lot of study about said Radiation and ways to negate it.

 

That would perhaps alleviate the other problem, that of somewhat arbitrary limits on what is acceptable in a EC and what is not (such as the Costs END stuff). As long as it fits your concept, you could put the -1/4 Lim. And expect your powers to be messed/defended against frequently.