Powering a power with stun?

[zslane]

In combat I'd rather be too exhausted to fire up a superpower but still conscious and capable of 0-phase actions (chief among them communicating with teammates), performing PRE attacks, making skill rolls, etc., than have all my END and be unconscious and unable to do anything. So yeah, I'd say STUN is more important than END in 99% of situations that matter to the use/state of either characteristic.

 

As for merging characteristics, I guess that is a matter of modeling your cinematic reality. "Hyper realistic" doesn't much come into it when we're talking about the Hero System, in my vew. Having heroes who are barely able to stand or deliver a punch (so to speak), but still capable of participating in the drama through sheer force of character/personality is certainly something I'd want modelled in my RPG of choice. Having BODY, STUN, and END as separate resources is one way to do that, and it has worked well for me for over 30 years.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I agree, I think its a better game system for fun and game play, even if it doesn't really simulate real life expertly

[zslane]

Let's also keep in mind that as soon as you go unconscious, you're END drops to zero, so losing all your STUN takes all your END down with it. On the other hand, losing all your END does not deplete your STUN, and in fact, you can use your STUN in place of END if you can withstand the burn. There is also no END equivalent to being Stunned; you can't lose a precious Phase just because you used more END than your CON (or whatever) score. END also recovers at twice the rate of STUN, which is a real win in the post-3rd edition game where all endurance costs are half what they used to be to begin with.

 

So I'd definitely say that losing STUN, especially all of it, is far more disastrous than losing END. I know that some folks feel it is a judgment call as to whether it would be an Advantage or a Limitation, but I'm not convinced that there are any compelling examples where using STUN in place of END is an advantage instead of a (substantial) limitation. I mean, to my mind it isn't even close, so the "it all comes out in the wash" +0 Advantage notion doesn't really hold up either.

 

The above analysis is independent of the question of how to model Empathic Healing where you take STUN equal to the damage you heal. For that I think it also depends on how harmful the "empathy" effect is supposed to be. If we take the example of Gem from Star Trek OS, then the healer would have to take the BODY damage, not STUN, from the target. It would be more like a "BODY damage" Transfer than a BODY Aid or Healing. And I see no reason it shouldn't cost END like normal.

[dmjalund]

Well, if I was designing a hyper-realistic role playing game, I would have very few actual stats and no "body" or "stun" stat.  You'd just lose all stats eroding away and all abilities getting worse as you take damage until they all zero out and you die.  Nobody has a Body score that goes down while being fully functional and effective.  As you take damage you get worse and worse.  The problem is, in game terms, that really sucks because you just get more and more likely to lose the more you're hurt.

you mean like Traveller?

[zslane]

I think if it were my campaign, I would just say that empathic healing is BODY and/or STUN Aid with a -1 Limitation Healer takes damage equal to that which is healed. A less harmful version would be -1/2 Healer takes damage equal to half of that which is healed. END costs are normal as per Aid and can be reduced in the usual ways if needed (for concept).

 

It is difficult, I think, to argue in favor of making it any more complicated than that.

[Wardsman]

Well, if I was designing a hyper-realistic role playing game, I would have very few actual stats and no "body" or "stun" stat.  You'd just lose all stats eroding away and all abilities getting worse as you take damage until they all zero out and you die.  Nobody has a Body score that goes down while being fully functional and effective.  As you take damage you get worse and worse.  The problem is, in game terms, that really sucks because you just get more and more likely to lose the more you're hurt.

Somewhere I saw so minuses for when your stats were brought down. But I'd have to disagree. I like Body and Stun.

[Netzilla]

It also makes it awkward to put in power frameworks, and makes it pointlessly difficult to dispel, suppress, and takes longer to drain.  Active cost has more effects than just campaign limits.

 

 

I think the objection some have to using the "First Advantage it then Limit it" solution is EXACTLY THAT it will "run into oddball interactions with other rules' as Christopher Taylor points out: 

 

Just for clarity's sake, when I used the phrase "oddball interactions", I was not referring to situations like the above.  How APs interact with Frameworks and Adjustment Powers is well-defined within the rules.  I was talking about interactions that aren't covered within the rules.

[Lucius]

Just for clarity's sake, when I used the phrase "oddball interactions", I was not referring to situations like the above.  How APs interact with Frameworks and Adjustment Powers is well-defined within the rules.  I was talking about interactions that aren't covered within the rules.

Then I honestly have no idea what you're talking about

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says I have no idea what people are talking about more often than I realize

[Netzilla]

Then I honestly have no idea what you're talking about

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says I have no idea what people are talking about more often than I realize

 

It's basically just an instance of the 'Rule of Unintended Consequences of House Rules'.  Like any other house rule, a custom Advantage/Limitation may end up interacting with official rules in unintended ways.  As a result, if an existing Adv/Lim (i.e. rule) combination exits, you're probably better off using that.  If you can't or don't want to use the existing, then be prepared to have to make spot-rulings or revisions when oddball (unexpected) rules interactions happen (up to and including tossing the house rule out entirely).

 

That's why, when I'm running a campaign, I try to limit house rules (including custom Adv/Lim) to only things not already covered in the official rules.

[zslane]

I get where you're coming from, Netzilla. However, I think the Hero System is designed in such a way that it invites/encourages customization. The Limited Power limitation is a good example in which the sytem provides a "make your own Limitation" as an important and ubiquitous character design element. It is not only meant to be used, it is used by nearly every published character ever created. Players are expected to be capable of defining new advantages and limitations and assigning a reasonable value to them, and GMs are expected to be capable of assessing them and adjusting the values as necessary.

 

I agree that GMing the Hero System, especially supers, is a daunting task. Yet I would not discourage players from customizing the system, especially using mechanisms expressly provided for that purpose (like Limited Power), just out of a fear of unintended consequences. That is part and parcel of running any sufficiently complex RPG, IMO.

[Christopher]

Well, if I was designing a hyper-realistic role playing game, I would have very few actual stats and no "body" or "stun" stat.  You'd just lose all stats eroding away and all abilities getting worse as you take damage until they all zero out and you die.  Nobody has a Body score that goes down while being fully functional and effective.  As you take damage you get worse and worse.  The problem is, in game terms, that really sucks because you just get more and more likely to lose the more you're hurt.

 

Somewhere I saw so minuses for when your stats were brought down. But I'd have to disagree. I like Body and Stun.

Shadowrun 4E+5E.

Direct brother to Hero as far as turn/phase resolution goes.

 

However, SR has the advantage of much more granular roll system.

3 dies out of 15 lost is only a 20% decrese in average result (5 average hits to 4 average hits). Wich can also be offset by gear, situation, Luck and a ton of other small modifiers. It has effect, but not decisive effect on it's own.

 

But as I keep saying for people trying to relearn from D&D: Every +/- 2 in D&D more then equals a +/-1 in Hero. We would have to put so much body room between the penalty tresholds, it would still feel artificial.

 

And yes, I do find the seperation of Stun and End to be more interesting.

 

I get where you're coming from, Netzilla. However, I think the Hero System is designed in such a way that it invites/encourages customization. The Limited Power limitation is a good example in which the sytem provides a "make your own Limitation" as an important and ubiquitous character design element.

it is one thing to define a custom Limitation.

It is a totally different thing to roll a Advantage and Limtiation into the modifier.

The only time this ever happened in RAW was with charges - wich has a 0 End counterweighted by lack of useability. And they had how many editions to balance out any kinks with that one?

[Netzilla]

I get where you're coming from, Netzilla. However, I think the Hero System is designed in such a way that it invites/encourages customization. The Limited Power limitation is a good example in which the sytem provides a "make your own Limitation" as an important and ubiquitous character design element. It is not only meant to be used, it is used by nearly every published character ever created. Players are expected to be capable of defining new advantages and limitations and assigning a reasonable value to them, and GMs are expected to be capable of assessing them and adjusting the values as necessary.

 

I agree that GMing the Hero System, especially supers, is a daunting task. Yet I would not discourage players from customizing the system, especially using mechanisms expressly provided for that purpose (like Limited Power), just out of a fear of unintended consequences. That is part and parcel of running any sufficiently complex RPG, IMO.

 

I'm not saying "never change the rules".  Like I stated, I've got nothing against using a custom solution to things that the rules don't really cover.  Limited Power is an example of a codified rule for 'if you don't see an existing Limitation that covers your situation, make one up'.  The key factor in deciding to use Limited Power, IMO, is that there is not already an existing Limitation to do what you want.

 

Also, I'm willing to entertain house rules for things one wishes Hero did differently (I have my own for stabilizing bleeding characters because I feel the existing rules actually penalize high Body characters in some situations and I've proposed several of my own alternatives to the use of the Speed Chart).  However, I advise doing so with caution and, especially for new players & GMs not familiar with the system, using the RAW first to better understand what it is you're changing.

 

So, again, if an existing Advantage/Limitation combo exists that does what you need (which, in this case, would be Side Effect with the possibility of Reduced END), you're probably better off using that combo than making up a new Advantage/Limitation.  You'll confuse fewer people, it will look less like you're trying to munchkin the system, and you will have an easier time finding official rulings and advice on how that power/ability/rule works.

[eepjr24]

As a point of reference for everyone, there is certainly precedent for offsetting advantage / limitations in Hero 6e. Someone already mentioned the charges example, another example would be the Proportional Limivantage from APG I, 139.

 

- E

[zslane]

The key factor in deciding to use Limited Power, IMO, is that there is not already an existing Limitation to do what you want.

 

I see that as merely one reason among many to use Limited Power. Another, equally valid and compelling case is when a single Limited Power limitation (properly worded/specified) can more succinctly capture the intended effect/mechanic than a litany of standard modifiers chained together for the same purpose.

 

The need for this sort of simplify-by-abstraction has never been greater, IMO, than in the post-4e era where it takes half a page to describe one power on a character sheet because capturing the essence of a complex concept with a simplified representation has become unfashionable (and discouraged by the new standards of "best practices" in 6e).

 

I can remember a time when an object like Mjolnir would have been described as the focus for a physical EB and maybe some Flight. Nowadays people hand in builds for the hammer that don't fit on a single sheet of paper, and think it a major accomplishment to do so. I sort of feel that 6e has betrayed them, in a way.

[eepjr24]

I can remember a time when an object like Mjolnir would have been described as the focus for a physical EB and maybe some Flight. Nowadays people hand in builds for the hammer that don't fit on a single sheet of paper, and think it a major accomplishment to do so. I sort of feel that 6e has betrayed them, in a way.

Whereas I see this as a strength of the system, in that it supports both your more succinct build and the more verbose one.

 

- E

[zslane]

Quite a number of previously "succinct" powers were broken down, eliminated, and replaced by more granular components; they now require a cumbersome reconstruction of out of numerous smaller parts. Succintness fail.

[eepjr24]

Are you entitled to that opinion? Yes, indeed.

 

Is it universal? No, no it's not.

[Netzilla]

I see that as merely one reason among many to use Limited Power. Another, equally valid and compelling case is when a single Limited Power limitation (properly worded/specified) can more succinctly capture the intended effect/mechanic than a litany of standard modifiers chained together for the same purpose.

First, you're replying to a single sentence out of a 3 paragraph post.  Second, you seem to be under the impression that I'm somehow talking in absolutes rather than giving general advice.  Third, a 2 or 3 Advantage and Limitation combo is hardly a "litany".  If you're trying to use Limited Power as short-hand for something longer than that, your explanation of the LP is likely going to end up being just as long or less clear.  Sure, you can use  Limited Power: Gun (-2 1/4) in place of OAF (-1), Charges (8 shots, -1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4) and STR Min (10, -1/2), but you're going to have to explain how "Gun" is limiting somewhere on your character sheet and that's likely just as long as the list of official limitations would be.

 

 

 

The need for this sort of simplify-by-abstraction has never been greater, IMO, than in the post-4e era where it takes half a page to describe one power on a character sheet because capturing the essence of a complex concept with a simplified representation has become unfashionable (and discouraged by the new standards of "best practices" in 6e).

 

I can remember a time when an object like Mjolnir would have been described as the focus for a physical EB and maybe some Flight. Nowadays people hand in builds for the hammer that don't fit on a single sheet of paper, and think it a major accomplishment to do so. I sort of feel that 6e has betrayed them, in a way.

 

 

 

You act like this is new with 5/6e.  I started Hero with 3e and there have always been arguments about the "best" or "correct" way to build something.  I'd seen tons of over-engineered builds back in the 4e days.  I've also seen plenty of vague power write-ups as well; where the only way you can tell how the character was meant to work was to read the full character bio (and maybe not even then).  Personally, I prefer something somewhere in between.

[Hugh Neilson]

As a point of reference for everyone, there is certainly precedent for offsetting advantage / limitations in Hero 6e. Someone already mentioned the charges example, another example would be the Proportional Limivantage from APG I, 139.

A lot of evolution over the past few editions has been about decoupling, making it possible to buy the component parts, and modelling so that it is not markedly different in cost to achieve the same mechanical effect in two different ways. Not there yet, IMO, but closer. I supported removing "charges cost 0 END by default" - make the limitations higher to compensate, and decouple the two. I find the result inequitable if a charged power would not have cost END in the first place.

 

APG is likely not the best source of examples for "official rules". It was created to push the rules, and I know a few of the items were considered for 6e, but left out because there were concerns on how well it would work/how balanced it would be.

 

One issue not in this discussion yet is the structure of side effects. While I think they are the best model for this construct, I dislike the standard "xd6 Blast against the power user" side effect. For a -1 limitation, you can take at least 12d6 STUN and BOD with no defense (so an average of 42 STUN and 12 BOD). That counts as a 60 AP side effect. Yet so does a 6d6 STUN drain which will not inflict BOD damage at all, and will remove only 21 STUN (albeit with a slower recovery time). Or you can have a 4d6 STUN, 2d6 BOD drain - average 14 STUN, 7 CP of BOD, halved as it is defensive IIRC, so3.5 BOD that recovers much more rapidly.

 

Why the imbalance? Because 12d6 STUN and BOD, no defense, is really a 180 AP side effect - it's AVLD or NND that does BOD. I'm not thrilled with the link to the AP of the power used, either. Why should a 45 AP side effect be either -1/4 or -1/2 depending on how big the other power is? It's the same side effect. I think the Drain is quite sufficiently disadvantageous. How many times can a character take 42 STUN and 12 BOD? 2 charges that still cost END is worth a lot more than -1, and doesn't leave a dead character behind.

[Christopher]

As a point of reference for everyone, there is certainly precedent for offsetting advantage / limitations in Hero 6e. Someone already mentioned the charges example, another example would be the Proportional Limivantage from APG I, 139.

 

- E

With APG stuff I always consider a "danger, possibly not well balanced rule. Use at own risk" written all over it.

 

And as I said, with charges: How many editions did it take to work out all the kinks? And are the charge counts truly universal application to begin with? Most limitation values change depending on the Campaign.

 

Quite a number of previously "succinct" powers were broken down, eliminated, and replaced by more granular components; they now require a cumbersome reconstruction of out of numerous smaller parts. Succintness fail.

I did some Martial Arts training once, and the trainer used to say:

"There is only one perfect block against any given attack vector. Any given martial arts - armed or not - is just approaching that perfect block with different precision".

 

The "succinct" builds were the previous, inperfect approximations. Breaking them down to thier Atomic* components is a advancements.

And if you want the previous "succint" builds, just write them down once. Done. Just do not forget those are derived powers. Like Reach is derived from Stretching. Or Growth/Density Increase/Shrinking is derived from other more common concepts. I wrote something about this that should be in the archives, but I have issues finding it again.

 

 

*Atomic literally means indivisible. Granted it does not actually apply to physics Atoms anymore.

[eepjr24]

With APG stuff I always consider a "danger, possibly not well balanced rule. Use at own risk" written all over it.

You are of course entitled to that view. They are still part of the published rule set.

 

- E

[Netzilla]

You are of course entitled to that view. They are still part of the published rule set.

 

- E

Christopher's view is also pretty close to the view expressed in the last paragraph of the intro to APG1.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quite a number of previously "succinct" powers were broken down, eliminated, and replaced by more granular components

 

A couple were, I agree.  I understand why, but while the idea was sound at one level, it actually created more problems than it fixed.  Eliminating gliding?  Fine.  It was just bizarrely too specific, like having "ice slide" as a power.  But getting rid of Suppress and Transfer?  A direction I disagree with.

[zslane]

The engineer in me appreciates the atomizing of the system. The gamer in me recoils at the unnecessary leap in complexity this approach has engendered. I believe it will (continue to) have the unintended effect of driving newcomers away like the Zika virus. And yes, it is unique to 5e/6e, primarily due to the difference in design philosphy between Steve Long and his predecessors. Many folks celebrate the New Verbosity, but I am not among them.

[Hugh Neilson]

You are of course entitled to that view. They are still part of the published rule set.

 

- E

 

Lots of "could be unbalanced; consider with care" abilities exist in the published rule set.  APG is where a lot of them went.