Jump to content
IndianaJoe3

Building a Light spell is harder than I thought

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Lucius said:

 

So all I have to do is define my powers with a special effect of Cold, and they can't be dispelled?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says, come to the Dark SIde and become Undispellable!

 

I know your post was in jest....

 

But, My previous statement was about 'natural darkness' and applies to 'natural cold' as well.  However, powers defined with a cold sfx are not natural by definition so are still subject to dispel unless inherent is purchased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hyper-Man said:

 

I know your post was in jest....

 

But, My previous statement was about 'natural darkness' and applies to 'natural cold' as well.  However, powers defined with a cold sfx are not natural by definition so are still subject to dispel unless inherent is purchased.

 

Yes, I'm trying to be funny, but also making a point.

 

3 hours ago, Hyper-Man said:
dark·ness
ˈdärknəs/
noun
  1. 1
    the partial or total absence of light.
     
     

 

3 hours ago, Hyper-Man said:

It's not possible to dispel the absence of something else.

 

My point being, these two posts from you are essentially red herrings. You don't even mean what you're saying. You say "it's not possible to dispel the absence of something else" but you don't actually object to a Dispel vs Darkness - you think that's just fine. What you object to is using Dispel vs "natural" darkness.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Dispel vs Palindromedary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I object to is sfx arguments as a replacement for mechanical ones. I made an exception in this specific case and used the sfx argument for the benefit of the poster advocating the dispel approach to creating a light spell.

 

I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I'm not as good at the irony stuff as you.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the fact that it can lead to a 5 page debate shows that using Images as the RAW way to create light is not a good thing. 

 

I think if there is ever a 7th Edition, changing it to being Change Environment is the way to go. Also, there should be Adders to it to simulate different types of Light. Generic light/glow is the base. If you want it to be Sunlight it could be +3pts. Moonlight +2pts. etc... because not all Light is the same, especially in genre settings. 

 

Another (somewhat crazy) option is maybe to use Flash with an "Only to Create Light (-1)" Limitation, which means it has no blinding effect but the higher you roll the brighter the light is at the source, then a character could add on Area of Effect and Constant/Charges, etc... to make it an on going effect. Because, lets be honest, that has just as much (if not more) relevance to creating light as Images does. 

 

Glowing Hand - Sight Group Flash 4d6, Area Of Effect (16m Radius Explosion; +1/4), Constant (+1/2) (35 Active Points); Only to create light (-1), Costs END To Maintain (Full END Cost; -1/2), No Range (-1/2) (Real Cost: 12)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quickly, it’s not so much building Light is the issue is that according to the spell it has in Hero terms several different applications. In DND terms it can do x,y & z whereas in Hero terms you probably should buy x,y & z. That and the term attach has more of a gradual meaning in Hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the obsession with Change Environment due to its name?  Folks used to have similar issue with the Force Field and Force Wall powers until 6e changed their names to Resistant Defense and Barrier. While HERO's power names have always been pretty good placeholders for finding power descriptions, the names themselves shoud never take the place of the actual description or mechanics. Assigning a sfx based mechanic based on a placeholder's implied sfx is counter to how HERO was designed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hyper-Man said:

Is the obsession with Change Environment due to its name?  Folks used to have similar issue with the Force Field and Force Wall powers until 6e changed their names to Resistant Defense and Barrier. While HERO's power names have always been pretty good placeholders for finding power descriptions, the names themselves shoud never take the place of the actual description or mechanics. Assigning a sfx based mechanic based on a placeholder's implied sfx is counter to how HERO was designed.

 

Do you think that, "Images" or, "Change Environment" should be renamed, then? To what?

 

I also think that light-creation is a bad fit, mechanically, for the Images power. The real costs works out more-or-less appropriately for the utility of the power, but the active cost is much higher than it should be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hyper-Man said:

I also think the utility of the D&D light spell is underappreciated.

 

Light is a useful spell but the AP cost is still too high. The sample flashlight build (6e1 238) is 27 active points, which is equivalent to a 2d6-1 Killing Attack. You might argue that the real cost will be lower, but the AP cost still comes into play when dealing with power frameworks, skill rolls, and END costs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dmjalund said:

but they become relevent when building multipowers and VPPs

 

The AP cost of a Power inside a Multipower cannot exceed the size of the reserve. The Control Cost of the VPP limits the AP cost of Powers in the VPP. Those aren't campaign limits - they make frameworks with high AP Powers more expensive.

 

ETA: That is the point I was trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hyperman I’m not against using CE for however I believe that even in 6th, Images is the only legal way to build light. Also I am in agreement with you that if you want to use the Light spell to be attached against a target (like a monster) then mobile or UAA is the way to go. “I cast my light spell on that ogre so everyone can see (target) him”.  But if we’re only looking at using your staff to cast light, like Gandalf in LotR movies, then No Range is fine plus OIF for staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Hyper-Man said:

What I object to is sfx arguments as a replacement for mechanical ones. I made an exception in this specific case and used the sfx argument for the benefit of the poster advocating the dispel approach to creating a light spell.

 

I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I'm not as good at the irony stuff as you.

 

:)

 

I can respect that.

 

But when it comes down to it, the game has to make sense. At least I want it to make sense. And making sense is going to mean the SFX make sense.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary on the other hand doesn't always have to make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Hyperman I’m not against using CE for however I believe that even in 6th, Images is the only legal way to build light. Also I am in agreement with you that if you want to use the Light spell to be attached against a target (like a monster) then mobile or UAA is the way to go. “I cast my light spell on that ogre so everyone can see (target) him”.  But if we’re only looking at using your staff to cast light, like Gandalf in LotR movies, then No Range is fine plus OIF for staff.

This is a fair point, if you only need to be able to use the light personally (or give it to a friend, or have it stolen by an enemy) OIF is fine. It is mostly just when you want to mimic the actual D&D spell Light (as opposed to a generic light-like spell) that you must use UAA. Because of the fact that per its description that spell can in theory grant Images to unwilling Objects (per RAW Objects and Unconscious/Unaware Characters are only ever willing to be granted Defense Powers, and Images is an Attack Powers regardless of how you use it).

 

CE is explicitly prohibited from being able to create Light (or amplify noises/smells/etc beneficially). An oddity to be sure considering it's status as a "Catch-All Power", but I suppose it was to avoid it being used in place of the less user-friendly Adjustment Powers like Aid/Boost. Regardless, the cost of Modifying PER rolls using Images and CE are almost exactly the same. Images simply adds an additional flat cost based on number of senses affected (I suppose to pay for its Illusion-like mechanics), and then pops a mandatory -1 limitation on it that brings the Total Cost back fairly close to what a CE build would look like if it were legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×