I wonder how many have stopped using Champions/HERO for similar reasons to this?

[Scott Baker]

I am glad that 6e got rid of Elemental Controls. They were a box stuffer and a PITA for everyone.

 

Unified Power is a nice Limitation that allows for the stuff that EC's did, but also gives powers with it a real limitation(ie you drain one UP power, you drain them all)

 

Multipowers give a list of powers and a pool and say that you can only have that many points of powers active at once. IMHO that's a real limitation.

 

You do realize that powers in an EC in 5E suffered from the same "real limitation" with regards to adjustment powers such as Drain?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Unfortunately I'm seeing it happen.  I have a friend who's been playing Hero since the early 80s and now he's looking for a simpler system (he's trying out Savage Worlds right now).  I think the desire to have a rule for everything that GMs used to guess or hand wave in the past starts to snowball and get out of hand in any game system.

 

The thing is you don't HAVE to use all that stuff in Hero, and building a character is no more complicated now than it ever was.  There are more options, but when I started playing Champions in 1983 there wasn't a handy Hero Designer program, either.

[Tigereye]

Yeah, "hand-wavium" is overrated, and can lead to all sorts of abuse among the players if used to excess. Better to have a in-house reason why something can or cannot be done, than to leave it to GM fiat...and then have some players let the GM regret their decision later.

 

I think the biggest issue is that many people nowadays just don't like math...especially when their PCs are involved. They think it gets in the way of their enjoyment of the character. Show people a multiplication table and they inwardly shudder...they think there will be an exam afterwards.

 

Unfortunately, Chris, this is part of the change of generations, too. Computer RPGs are tremendously popular, in a way Pen-And-Paper RPGs never were or ever will be, partially because there's less paperwork involved. (I could also make the argument that many modern people don't have the imagination to envision things "in the mind's eye".) PNP RPGs are now a "niche" trade, maybe to someday make some sort of ironic comeback or nostalgia run, but never to be the hallmark of geek chic.

 

The reason why is clear - most people forget what was the avant-garde when something becomes mainstream. Computer RPGs are now in their 1960's "Rock is king" phase - but hardly anybody (white or under the age of 30) in the 60's listened to the black R&B artists from the 40's. To call them obscure would be an overstatement. Same thing with games like HERO Games.

 

However, it's not entirely generational - Even some older people get caught up in the change in times. "Hey, this is so much easier! It requires almost no thought whatsoever!", they think, and go to the new system because it's so easy not to think. I don't play a lot of Computer RPGs or the latest generation of PNP RPGs (D&D 4th for instance) for exactly the opposite reason - if I want to get an emotional attachment to my character, I want to get "under the hood" of the system so I can involve myself in their nuances. Alas, I know I'm in the minority.

[Bodkins Odds]

You do realize that powers in an EC in 5E suffered from the same "real limitation" with regards to adjustment powers such as Drain?

 

Yes, but they either got more of a point break (50%) or they weren't put into the EC at all, even if they conceptually fit. Not to mention the numerous powers that weren't allowed in ECs at all.

[Scott Baker]

Yes, but they either got more of a point break (50%) or they weren't put into the EC at all, even if they conceptually fit. Not to mention the numerous powers that weren't allowed in ECs at all.

You're complaining about different things than what Tasha stated. To part of your point, there still isn't a guarantee that people will use the new limitation, "even if [the powers] conceptually fit." As for what is or is not allowed in an EC, clear back to 2nd edition it reiterates multiple times that the GM decides what is and isn't allowed in an EC. That's still true in 5E where every time it says, "you can't do this," it immediately follows up with, "unless the GM allows it." [Not direct quotes, but my paraphrase.]

 

Tasha's statement was that ECs had no "real limitation" as compared to UP and the point total limits of an MP. In 5E, an EC has the same "real limitation" as UP provides in her example. I was merely bringing up an objective fact, not my subjective opinion on ECs.

[Tasha]

You do realize that powers in an EC in 5E suffered from the same "real limitation" with regards to adjustment powers such as Drain?

 

Quite, it's the first edition that added that rule to EC's. They just lowered the discount and allowed any power that shares the same Special effect to use the Limitation. Which makes it much easier

[esampson]

I am glad that 6e got rid of Elemental Controls. They were a box stuffer and a PITA for everyone.

 

Unified Power is a nice Limitation that allows for the stuff that EC's did, but also gives powers with it a real limitation(ie you drain one UP power, you drain them all)

 

Multipowers give a list of powers and a pool and say that you can only have that many points of powers active at once. IMHO that's a real limitation.

I'm actually happy with EC being gone as well.

 

As near as I can tell EC was originally intended to be a sort of 'your powers make sense in relation to one another' bonus. You were a gravity controller and could justify your telekinesis, flight, etc. as being reasonable aspects of your ability to control gravity and so you got a bonus.

 

The only thing is that it always seemed to me that you were simply getting a bonus for doing what you should have already been doing; having a good concept. If someone wanted to bring to me a character who had flight 'because he was an alien' I would usually just say 'no'. Now you want to tell me how your alien physiology gives you flight and it is reasonable (and reasonable in this case is comic-book-reasonable) then it's fine.

 

On the other hand if your abilities are really suppose to be tied together (the same organ that lets me channel energy so I can fly also lets me channel energy to attack) then yes, UP is a nice new way to do it. The only thing I would have probably done with UP is make it so it isn't as much of an 'all or nothing' thing. A UP that unites 2 powers shouldn't be worth as much as one that unites 5 and there wouldn't be nearly the concern of abuse if someone wants to have multiple UPs (my Flight, FTL, Swimming, and Leaping are all UP because they all use my rockets and anything screwing up one of them screws up the others. On the other hand my Blast, Killing Attack, and Flash attach all come from my photonic emitter and while messing up any of them messes up the other powers as well they are completely independent of my rockets).

[Bodkins Odds]

On the other hand if your abilities are really suppose to be tied together (the same organ that lets me channel energy so I can fly also lets me channel energy to attack) then yes, UP is a nice new way to do it. The only thing I would have probably done with UP is make it so it isn't as much of an 'all or nothing' thing. A UP that unites 2 powers shouldn't be worth as much as one that unites 5 and there wouldn't be nearly the concern of abuse if someone wants to have multiple UPs (my Flight, FTL, Swimming, and Leaping are all UP because they all use my rockets and anything screwing up one of them screws up the others. On the other hand my Blast, Killing Attack, and Flash attach all come from my photonic emitter and while messing up any of them messes up the other powers as well they are completely independent of my rockets).

 

isn't this already handled by the fact that it's a limitation? If you apply it to two powers then it's only going to shave one-fifth off the points of two powers, but if you apply it to five powers then (assuming they're worth roughly the same) it's as if one of them was free.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I'm actually happy with EC being gone as well.

 

...

 

The only thing is that it always seemed to me that you were simply getting a bonus for doing what you should have already been doing; 

 

Yeah I agree, Elemental Control was basically a bonus for building a character well, which is kind of a bonus in and of its self.

[Old Man]

I'm probably the only being in the universe with this opinion, but I liked ECs and I hated to see them go.  They certainly were a bonus for having a tight character concept, but I saw plenty of lazy and/or munchkin players who would absolutely have created random/patchwork characters without it.  Either out of sheer laziness or to exploit some feature of the campaign, like having powers of as many different special effects as possible to try and exploit adversaries' disadvantages.

 

ECs were also perfect for spell colleges in FH, giving cost breaks for common SFX and casting limitations without being insanely cheap like MPs.

[Tasha]

I'm actually happy with EC being gone as well.

 

As near as I can tell EC was originally intended to be a sort of 'your powers make sense in relation to one another' bonus. You were a gravity controller and could justify your telekinesis, flight, etc. as being reasonable aspects of your ability to control gravity and so you got a bonus.

 

The only thing is that it always seemed to me that you were simply getting a bonus for doing what you should have already been doing; having a good concept. If someone wanted to bring to me a character who had flight 'because he was an alien' I would usually just say 'no'. Now you want to tell me how your alien physiology gives you flight and it is reasonable (and reasonable in this case is comic-book-reasonable) then it's fine.

 

On the other hand if your abilities are really suppose to be tied together (the same organ that lets me channel energy so I can fly also lets me channel energy to attack) then yes, UP is a nice new way to do it. The only thing I would have probably done with UP is make it so it isn't as much of an 'all or nothing' thing. A UP that unites 2 powers shouldn't be worth as much as one that unites 5 and there wouldn't be nearly the concern of abuse if someone wants to have multiple UPs (my Flight, FTL, Swimming, and Leaping are all UP because they all use my rockets and anything screwing up one of them screws up the others. On the other hand my Blast, Killing Attack, and Flash attach all come from my photonic emitter and while messing up any of them messes up the other powers as well they are completely independent of my rockets).

 

I believe that EC's were there to balance out the HUGE point savings that Strength Based and Dex based Characters got on Characteristic points due to Figured Characteristics. Without them(ECs) it would be hard to build Energy Projectors that could stand up to Bricks and Martial Artists. So when Steve Removed Figured Characteristics, there was no need for a mechanic to balance out the Melee. So EC's died and Unified Power took it's place.

[Tasha]

I'm probably the only being in the universe with this opinion, but I liked ECs and I hated to see them go.  They certainly were a bonus for having a tight character concept, but I saw plenty of lazy and/or munchkin players who would absolutely have created random/patchwork characters without it.  Either out of sheer laziness or to exploit some feature of the campaign, like having powers of as many different special effects as possible to try and exploit adversaries' disadvantages.

 

ECs were also perfect for spell colleges in FH, giving cost breaks for common SFX and casting limitations without being insanely cheap like MPs.

Sorry EC's were broken from the first edition onward. They only became somewhat acceptable with 4th ed. They were a PITA for both Players and GM's (aka "Can I use this non end using power in my EC because it fits, or I used Force field instead of armor because FF bought to 0 end is acceptable in an ex while Armor isn't.) Glad it's gone.

[Zephrosyne]

Elemental Control was basically a point giveaway.  Frankly, I'm not a fan of Unified Power either.  I pretty much don't use it.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I like unified power for tight concept groups and related powers, like "fire elemental powers" so if its drained, the whole thing gets weakened, not just the single power.  It works well for a lot of concepts such as powers that are essentially one power used in different ways (but not in a multipower), or combined powers that should all be weakened proportionally at the same time.

[esampson]

isn't this already handled by the fact that it's a limitation? If you apply it to two powers then it's only going to shave one-fifth off the points of two powers, but if you apply it to five powers then (assuming they're worth roughly the same) it's as if one of them was free.

 

Mmmm. Yes and no. If you've spent more points then yes, the limitation saves more points as well, but that's neccessarily a good indicator that the limitation is functioning properly. Instead, look at it this way:

 

If I spend 100 points on 2 powers and I take the UP limitation I save just as many points as if I spend 100 points on 5 powers. There's no difference in how many points I save (or nearly no difference. There might be a small difference that occurs because of rounding). However I would asset that the first example is much less limited than the second. In the first example if I am hit with a drain I lose 2x the amount of the drain. In the second example I lose 5x the amount of the drain.

 

There's also an issue with the fact that in the first example a drain is less likely to affect a specific power with UP.  Let's assume for a minute that in both examples there is a power that costs 50 points. In the first example that means the second power is also 50 points while in the second example the 50 points is divided up among 4 other powers. In either case the 50 point power saves the exact same amount, however, in the first example there is only 1 other power that can be targetted that will cause it to be drained while in the second example there are 4 separate powers that could be targeted that would cause it to be drained. That, to me, sounds as though the second example deserves more points back than the first power.

[Pattern Ghost]

How does UP interact with the SFX of adjustment powers? Let's say you have a Human Torch style suite of fire powers, including Energy Blast, a Fire Sheath (Force Field and Damage Shield) and Flight. You face someone with a Suppress vs. Flight. Your EB and Fire Sheath are also Suppressed. If the SFX of the Suppress is strong winds from an air controller . . . OK, maybe they deprive your fire powers of enough oxygen to function properly. But what if the SFX is increasing gravity? Or a Green Lantern-eque power construct of a summoned giant ball and chain? How does 6E UP handle these kinds of interactions? Is there any kind of rule or at least a statement of GM fiat?

[Christopher R Taylor]

By the way I really like the concept that Bhelliom Rhal brought up of having templates for characteristics sets, skills, complications etc to help build characters.  A form of that is going into my Fantasy Hero player's handbook.  It would really help people who seem to just get overwhelmed by the flexibility and openness of the Hero system.  

 

It seems to genuinely frighten or paralyze some players: do I roll dice to force me into a predetermined roll somehow?  Please?

[Scott Baker]

Cassandra has been posting characteristic templates for supers archetypes for quite some time now.

 

(my search-fu is failing)

[esampson]

How does UP interact with the SFX of adjustment powers? Let's say you have a Human Torch style suite of fire powers, including Energy Blast, a Fire Sheath (Force Field and Damage Shield) and Flight. You face someone with a Suppress vs. Flight. Your EB and Fire Sheath are also Suppressed. If the SFX of the Suppress is strong winds from an air controller . . . OK, maybe they deprive your fire powers of enough oxygen to function properly. But what if the SFX is increasing gravity? Or a Green Lantern-eque power construct of a summoned giant ball and chain? How does 6E UP handle these kinds of interactions? Is there any kind of rule or at least a statement of GM fiat?

 

Well, there's always the GM fiat where the GM recognizes that an unusual combination has occured and so waves the UP, but ideally that should be fairly minimal. Strictly according to the rules the SFX don't matter. If Flight and Blast have a UP then anything draining flight should drain the Blast as well.

 

Personally looking at that problem what I would probably do is use it as an argument that Drain Flight is probably not the right power for the effect since it isn't actually draining a character's ability to fly. Instead it is providing a counter-force to flight so I might look at Telekinesis or something like that.

[Beast]

or that character's flight is tied to his blast

when YOU take the UP limitation YOU have tied those powers together and it should be up to YOU to reconcile the special effect of why

Well, there's always the GM fiat where the GM recognizes that an unusual combination has occured and so waves the UP, but ideally that should be fairly minimal. Strictly according to the rules the SFX don't matter. If Flight and Blast have a UP then anything draining flight should drain the Blast as well.

 

Personally looking at that problem what I would probably do is use it as an argument that Drain Flight is probably not the right power for the effect since it isn't actually draining a character's ability to fly. Instead it is providing a counter-force to flight so I might look at Telekinesis or something like that.

[Balabanto]

I like unified power for tight concept groups and related powers, like "fire elemental powers" so if its drained, the whole thing gets weakened, not just the single power.  It works well for a lot of concepts such as powers that are essentially one power used in different ways (but not in a multipower), or combined powers that should all be weakened proportionally at the same time.

 

I hate "Unified Power." People abuse this limitation until it screams. "Powered Armor" is not a unified power. That's a focus. Period. You have to regulate unified power as much, if not more than elemental controls.

[Greywind]

I hate "Unified Power." People abuse this limitation until it screams. "Powered Armor" is not a unified power. That's a focus. Period. You have to regulate unified power as much, if not more than elemental controls.

 

That's an argument of expectations. Powered Armor can just as easily be OIHID.

 

The whole damned system is opened to abuse. Which is why there is a GM.

[Scott Baker]

I hate "Unified Power." People abuse this limitation until it screams. "Powered Armor" is not a unified power. That's a focus. Period. You have to regulate unified power as much, if not more than elemental controls.

Or OIHID.

[Ninja-Bear]

That's an argument of expectations. Powered Armor can just as easily be OIHID.

 

The whole damned system is opened to abuse. Which is why there is a GM.

In Super Agents, all of the agents armor is bought OAF. The reason is that agent armor is quick to put on in an emergency.

[Greywind]

SHIELD agents putting on a Kevlar vest is not the same as Tony Stark putting on Iron Man.