6th Edition Rules for previous editions

[steriaca]

Um, my original statement was in reply to steriaca, not you.

Glad I am so loved. Yes, it can be a special effect, as long as the high defence brick don't start expecting to hurt others with the bouncing bullets.

[zslane]

Glad I am so loved. Yes, it can be a special effect, as long as the high defence brick don't start expecting to hurt others with the bouncing bullets.

 

Agreed.

 

Bear in mind that Superman was the referent used, and Superman isn't known for trying to hurt others with the bullets that bounce of his body, so...

[Tasha]

Glad I am so loved. Yes, it can be a special effect, as long as the high defence brick don't start expecting to hurt others with the bouncing bullets.

 

If it's collateral damage then it's just a Side Effect on the Resistant Defenses. If he's actively reflecting (ie like Hyper Man talked about), then he's got Deflection/Reflection.

[bigdamnhero]

Three things about 6ed that actually simplified things:

• Replacing the entire Elemental Control structure with a simple -1/4 Unified Power Limitation. (Genius!)
• Combining Sweep and Rapid Fire into one Multiple Attack Maneuver (Obvious in hindsight)
• Yes, getting rid of Figured Characteristics. Not just because it simplifies character creation, but because of how it simplifies & balances Adjustment Powers.

If it's collateral damage then it's just a Side Effect on the Resistant Defenses. If he's actively reflecting (ie like Hyper Man talked about), then he's got Deflection/Reflection.

Or, given how rarely he does it, maybe he just has Power Skill: Brick Tricks and a lenient GM.

 

I like the change that Block as a free Maneuver can now apply to Ranged Attacks "where appropriate." I do think they could've provided a little more guidance for GMs on what constitutes "appropriate," but I always feel churlish when I complain that Steve didn't include enough explanation for a thing...

 

And I agree the change left Deflection & Reflection a little clunky as written, but that feels like a minor issue to me.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Elemental Control was just free stuff for a plausibly tight concept, it kind of violated the spirit of the rules.  I know it was in part to offset stat-based characters being easy to build very powerful, but it always just felt like cheating.  Unified power works better, I agree.

[Cantriped]

My wife really misses Elemental Controls, but we're unabashed power-gamers.

[Tasha]

Elemental Control was just free stuff for a plausibly tight concept, it kind of violated the spirit of the rules.  I know it was in part to offset stat-based characters being easy to build very powerful, but it always just felt like cheating.  Unified power works better, I agree.

EC's were there to balance how OP Figured characteristics were to Str/Con Based and Dex/Spd characters (AKA Bricks, Martial Artists and Speedsters). WIthout EC's in 5e and earlier, Melee characters would become way more point efficient than Energy Projectors/Mentalists. Which is why Steve was able to remove the framework in 6e.

[bigdamnhero]

Thing is the cost benefit of the EC wasn't actually that much more than what you save from slapping Unified Power on the same powers. The other thing I like about Unified Power is I can throw it on an MP or VPP or whatever if it fits.

[zslane]

Elemental Controls didn't have the built-in limitation of all slots simultaneously being affected by Adjustment Powers until 5e. Prior to that, the Elemental Control framework wasn't inherently limited, and didn't lend itself to being refactored as a Limitation. I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy that says it is a Bad Thing to have a framework that solely functions as a means to give "free points" for a strong concept. As such, I view the progression of Framework -> Inherently Limited Framework -> Limitation as a rather specious one.

[Surrealone]

zslane,

You're not alone in that perspective; I share it, too.  And I'm not prone to playing characters who would need/want EC's, even ... and almost never play bricks or speedsters.  I saw no balance problem with EC's, at all, in years of game play ... but that could be the result of solid GM's preventing abuses that I never knew were there to exploit, I suppose.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Elemental Controls didn't have the built-in limitation of all slots simultaneously being affected by Adjustment Powers until 5e

 

 

I always ran them as if they did, Multipowers too.  It was a nice check against the power they provided for less cost.  Multipower makes sense; its a reduction in flexibility between various abilities.  Elemental Control was just "hey, here's some points!" and while you might not have felt there was any imbalance, clearly someone getting powers A, B, C, D, and E at a discount and someone else not getting that discount is.... uneven.  Unless everyone has EC's, and they all feel the same.

 

Its a game design key that if you see everyone taking something, chances are its either excessively advantageous, or you've messed up somewhere compelling people to buy that to make up for it.

 

[steriaca]

I believe that Elemental Control exist ro reward players for creating a hero whoes powers fit a tight theam. It existed to reward players by giving them more points. That is it.

 

I can see why Elemental Control was ejected in favor of Unified Power. Since it was a framework, there was no constant savings. In an Elemental Control, the savings was half of the lowest cost power (if I remember it correctly), payed once. As Unified Power, it is a simple limitation instead. Also, as a limitation, you could apply it to slots in a Multipower (which is against the rules if it was still an Elemental Control).

[zslane]

Elemental Control was just "hey, here's some points!" and while you might not have felt there was any imbalance, clearly someone getting powers A, B, C, D, and E at a discount and someone else not getting that discount is.... uneven. 

 

Sure it was "uneven" in the sense that players who grasped the system were rewarded, and those that didn't weren't. I never had a problem with that. I was in favor of anything that encouraged players to get into the spirit of the superhero genre and make characters will tight, well-defined concepts. Sometimes the best way to encourage that is with Character Point incentives.

 

Now, steriaca points out that ECs were mathematically cumbersome, and I can see the point there. But for me, the solution is to look at ways to make ECs more mathematically elegant, not to replace them with something else entirely (i.e., a Limitation).

[Hugh Neilson]

What is a "tight, well-defined concept"? Should a Kryptonian be rewarded or penalized? How many of us would have accepted Danger Sense was a Spider-Power had Stan Lee not given that power to Peter Parker? Would we have allowed one of those tightly-themed powers to have a Focus (like Spidey's web shooters, a power much more clearly spider-themed)?

 

Shouldn't players have a well-defined concept for all of their characters?

 

If we even pay lip service to points having a role in balance, why is a character who has a Fire Blast, Fire Shield and Flaming Flight (so a big EC discount) balanced against a character with Heat Vision, Bulletproof Skin and Flight? The EC rules gave the first character up to 1/3 off the price of those powers. The second? Not unless you're accepting "Alien under a yellow sun" powers as a tight special effect.

[bigdamnhero]

Now, steriaca points out that ECs were mathematically cumbersome, and I can see the point there. But for me, the solution is to look at ways to make ECs more mathematically elegant, not to replace them with something else entirely (i.e., a Limitation).

When that simple Limitation accomplishes the exact same goal - rewarding players for adhering to a central power concept - with a fraction of the complexity, I consider that extremely elegant.

[steriaca]

A lot of people simply don't like change. A lot of people love change.

[bigdamnhero]

Elemental Controls didn't have the built-in limitation of all slots simultaneously being affected by Adjustment Powers until 5e. Prior to that, the Elemental Control framework wasn't inherently limited, and didn't lend itself to being refactored as a Limitation. I don't necessarily agree with the philosophy that says it is a Bad Thing to have a framework that solely functions as a means to give "free points" for a strong concept. As such, I view the progression of Framework -> Inherently Limited Framework -> Limitation as a rather specious one.

I was thinking about this point some more. I think I actually agree with most of your reasoning, but it takes me to a different conclusion. I agree there's nothing wrong with a Framework rewarding a player for a strong concept. But all Frameworks are inherently limited in some way or another. MPs & VPPs limit how many slots you can have active at one time and so forth. It's a trade-off. But prior to 5ed, ECs didn't really have much of a downside mechanically - it was only a way to save points. So I thought the 5ed change to how Adjustment Powers affect ECs was a good and logical change. But then if that's going to be the trade-off, there's no reason you need an elaborate Framework structure for what is, essentially, just a Limitation. Plus, there's no reason that Limitation can't be applied to other Frameworks, or non-Frameworked Powers. So the addition of the Unified Power Limitation was also a good and logical move IMO. And then when you pull that out of ECs, it turns out there's not much point to having them around.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Unified power works better for me in terms of concept.  If you're going to get a cost break for something, in Hero, then it should be limited.  "Tight concept" is not a limitation.  So you shouldn't get points off for it.  Unified power is a limitation, so it gives you a cost break.

[Amorkca]

A lot of people simply don't like change. A lot of people love change.

 

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine...

[zslane]

I agree there's nothing wrong with a Framework rewarding a player for a strong concept. But all Frameworks are inherently limited in some way or another. MPs & VPPs limit how many slots you can have active at one time and so forth. It's a trade-off. But prior to 5ed, ECs didn't really have much of a downside mechanically - it was only a way to save points.

 

Right. Where we differ is in our attitudes towards a framework that has no mechanical downside, and is merely a way to save points. Before you can successfully convince me that ECs should have been replaced by a Limitation, you must first convince me that the purpose of the (pre-5e) EC framework lacks merit. That will be tough given that I like the intrinsic reward architecture of pre-5e ECs.

 

If you're going to get a cost break for something, in Hero, then it should be limited.  "Tight concept" is not a limitation.  So you shouldn't get points off for it. 

 

Well, I think maybe you're looking at the system a little too narrowly. You feel that point breaks should only come with limitations, and that's fine. But I have no problem at all with rewarding well-conceived character builds with "free points" (e.g., in the form of EC point discounts).

 

The problem with 6e is that it removes the option (to reward a tight concept with framework-oriented discounts) all together. The remedy, of course, is to simply reintroduce Elemental Controls, in their pre-5e form, as a House Rule. That's easy enough to do, but it is still annoying that ECs were eliminated simply because the notion of "good concept" point discounts rub some folks (Steve Long in particular) the wrong way.

[Surrealone]

The problem with 6e is that it removes the option (to reward a tight concept with framework-oriented discounts) all together. The remedy, of course, is to simply reintroduce Elemental Controls, in their pre-5e form, as a House Rule. That's easy enough to do, but it is still annoying that ECs were eliminated simply because the notion of "good concept" point discounts rub some folks (Steve Long in particular) the wrong way.

I find it interesting that EC's were apparently eliminated because they ONLY provided a way to save points (with no downside) ... as a reward for a tight concept.  Meanwhile, Skill Enhancers (e.g. Jack of All Trades, Scholar, Scientist, etc.), which also ONLY provide a way to save points (with no downside) ... without requiring a tight concept ... were left in the game.

 

Why the double-standard?

 

i.e. If it was so important to eliminate mechanisms that provided point breaks without any downside, then why were Skill Enhancers left in the game when EC's were removed?  Or, conversely, if it was important to reward/encourage expenditures related to background/concept a la Skill Enhancers, then why were EC's not left in place also to do exactly that??? 

 

Something smells fishy, here... because of the uneven application of the thought process to different parts of the rule base.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Meanwhile, Skill Enhancers were left in the game.

 

Why the double-standard?

 

 

I can't answer for the official rules, but I believe it goes like this:

 

skill-based characters are taking combat effectiveness away for the sake of concept and background.  This is fine, except it tends to put skill characters at a disadvantage in combat, as opposed to combat monster with a PS: fireman.  Plus, skills are expensive if you take very many of them.  20 points in languages can turn you into sir Richard Burton but you just spent 20 points that could have been defenses or skill levels.  Buy Batman and he ends up 750 points just in detective.

 

So the skill enhancers are a way of encouraging people to get skills because they won't be sacrificing their effectiveness elsewhere as much.

[bigdamnhero]

Right. Where we differ is in our attitudes towards a framework that has no mechanical downside, and is merely a way to save points. Before you can successfully convince me that ECs should have been replaced by a Limitation, you must first convince me that the purpose of the (pre-5e) EC framework lacks merit. That will be tough given that I like the intrinsic reward architecture of pre-5e ECs.

Um, not trying to "convince" you of anything - just explaining my opinion. And I feel that giving a significant point discount for something as vague and subjective as "GM Likes Your Concept" but which has no mechanical effect did lack significant merit, especially when compared to MPs & VPPs. If you don't agree, fine. But either way, once the change was made to 5ed EC rules, the subsequent change from there to 6ed Unified Power totally made sense.

 

Meanwhile, Skill Enhancers (e.g. Jack of All Trades, Scholar, Scientist, etc.), which also ONLY provide a way to save points (with no downside) ... without requiring a tight concept ... were left in the game.

Skill Enhancers do have a tight concept: "I'm a Scholar" or "I'm a Scientist." Being a Traveler doesn't give you a discount on PSes or LSes; Scholar doesn't help you with AKs, CKs or CuKs. If they had one "Mad Skillz" Enhancer that gives a discount on anything you wanted, that'd be different. And given how often Background Skills come in as an afterthought for so many Champions player, I'm all for anything that encourages taking them. By contrast I find players rarely need an incentive to take Powers.

 

Edit: Skill Enhancers also have the benefit of actually making sense in the real world: learning a new language is much easier for someone who already knows several vs someone who is an American only knows one. Traveling a lot does make it easier to pick up and retain cultural knowledge and find your way around new places.

[zslane]

Players often need incentives to take powers that go together really well conceptually even if they aren't the most efficient use of points. You see a lot of commiserating over concepts that cost a lot even though they aren't highly combat effective. There are times when giving them a rebate on the high cost of their concepts is in the best interests of the campaign, if not the game system.

 

The Elemental Control framework was one vehicle for offering such incentives.

[Surrealone]

Skill Enhancers do have a tight concept: "I'm a Scholar" or "I'm a Scientist." Being a Traveler doesn't give you a discount on PSes or LSes; Scholar doesn't help you with AKs, CKs or CuKs. If they had one "Mad Skillz" Enhancer that gives a discount on anything you wanted, that'd be different. And given how often Background Skills come in as an afterthought for so many Champions player, I'm all for anything that encourages taking them. By contrast I find players rarely need an incentive to take Powers.

 

Edit: Skill Enhancers also have the benefit of actually making sense in the real world: learning a new language is much easier for someone who already knows several vs someone who is an American only knows one. Traveling a lot does make it easier to pick up and retain cultural knowledge and find your way around new places.

Skill enhancers do NOT necessarily have a tight concept ... and have no requirement for a tight concept.  They are just cost saving structures for specific categories of skills -- that exist specifically to incent the purchase of those skills; nothing more and nothing less.

 

Take Dick Richards (aka Mr. Sensational), whose super powers are 1 Extra Limb (defined as a 'third leg') and Stretching.  He's taken Scientist ... and the science skills he has are: mathematics, statistics, and geology.   Is this a tight concept?  No.  And one isn't needed; he can have whatever science skills he chooses and get his cost break.

 

If there were actually a tight concept requirement for Skill Enhancers (as there was for ECs), then we would expect Dick Richards to have science skills that look more like: urology, pharmacology (with a specialization in vasodilators), and pathology (with a specialization in STDs).  THAT would be a tight concept.  Dick Richards prefers tight concepts, by the way.

 

I think you get the point ... but in case it was missed due to my off-beat humour: just because each Skill Enhancer applies to a specific category of skills ... doesn't in any way imply a tight concept. And without that, Skill Enhancers are just cost-saving measures for specific categories of skills -- with no downside, at all, to justify the cost break. 

 

So why weren't they treated like EC's???  Why the double-standard wherein one set of cost-saving structures to incent purchases was left in place ... but another (which actually had a GM-supervised requirement around 'tight concept' that the aforementioned structures lack) ... was eliminated?