Denisty Increase Pricing (6e)

[Hugh Neilson]

I’m moving this out from another thread, to avoid watering that one down, and also because  some may be interested in this topic rather than that thread.

 

The question  which arose is the price point for Density Increase in 6e, where the price  has declined from 5 points per level to 4 points per level.  Each level provides +5 STR, +1 PD, +1 ED, -2m Knockback and double mass.

 

That’s 9 AP worth of powers, effectively at about half END as the DI itself is costed lower than the total of the abilities it grants, all of which would normally also be Persistent.  Although it’s only half END, let’s assign the full -1/2.  After all, losing Persistence on defenses especially can be pretty painful.

 

That should drop us to 6 points per level.  How do we get down to 4?

 

Well, it’s also Perceptible, since DI costs END, but that comes with Costs END, and we allowed the full -1/2 for that.  No extra limitation there.

 

There is that mass enhancement.  That tends  not to have significant or frequent drawbacks, so it feels like -1/4.  That would equate to a Minor Side Effect (minor effect) that occurs automatically (x2) and only affects the environment (reduce by 1/4) for a -1/4 limitation.

 

The abilities are also all Linked.  STR is the greater power, and they are Jointly Linked.  RAW is hazy on this point, suggesting Jointly Linked is a -0 added limitation, so only the lesser power gets the limitation, but if the lesser power costs a lot of END or is otherwise very inconvenient, maybe tack on an extra -1/4.  Alternatively, give the greater power -1/4 and the lesser the usual -1/2. 

 

The latter feels right to me as a baseline.  They are proportional.  However, where the (Greater) constant power is in use most or all of the time, the limitation is reduced by -1/4.  Arguably, that applies here – how often would a DI using character shut off his DI in combat – but he could be ambushed out of combat, run out of END, etc.  Let’s be charitable and allow the maximum – 1/4 to the STR and -1/2 to the lesser powers.

 

So 6 levels of DI is:

 

+30 STR, costs END (-1/2), Side Effect, always occurs, minor, environment only (-1/4), Linked (-1/4), so 30 AP, 15 RP; plus

 

+6 PD, +6 ED, -12m KB Resistance, costs END (-1/2), Side Effect, always occurs, minor, environment only (-1/4), Linked (-1/2), so 24 AP, 11 RP

 

Total – 26 RP/6 levels is a bit over 4 points per level, even with a generous interpretation for Linked.

 

Thoughts?  Is 4 points a discount?  Maybe it should be 5 points?  DI is a much better deal in 6e since there are no longer Figured Characteristics sacrificed.

 

Maybe the environmental Side Effect should be Major, rather than Minor, and played up more?  Some games make this a bigger deal than others, but I find the source material (mainly Supers) typically does not male too big a deal of this.

[eepjr24]

I don't find "doubled mass" to be very inconvenient for the first level of DI, maybe even the second in urban areas. At the second level of DI you are at about 220 kPa standing still, 440ish walking and 600ish running. Running would maybe crack some tiles or other minor damage. The next doubling starts to get serious. You are well out of safety ratings (not the load rating, the doubled safety rating) for dead or live load on residential and into the safety margin for public meeting spaces, asphalt would dent, concrete would crack. You'd fall through almost any residential second floor or into the basement if you ran, probably a decent chance even if you walked.

 

The fourth doubling you are into the failure rating for concrete. Walking anywhere is going to leave dents and cracked / powdered cement. Second floor and above in office buildings is a no. In commercial buildings (warehouses, factories, etc) you are fine walking, running could get risky in areas with other high mass objects. 

 

At 5 doublings you are into "If this was not built for my weight, routine failures are something I need to get used to". The player would routinely fall into sewers, bust water lines, etc. You MIGHT be able to walk very carefully in a public space designed for large crowds without severely damaging it.

 

At 6 doublings I would not let you into a building that had a basement without falling in or a 2nd floor without collapsing the stairs. Your bases practice room will need to have special steel floors for you.

 

- E

[Grailknight]

I would calculate the cost of the STR added as 2x END if I were justifying the cost but that's more a personal choice of terminology.  Costs END is something that is more applicable to a passive power that normally costs no  END. At any rate the values are the same so choose your preference.

 

The Side effect would definitely be closer to severe as eepjr24 points out  very eloquently above. That would give the total of 9 points of Powers with a total of -1 in Limitations which gives 4 in Hero calculations. 

 

I personally  have a difficult time pricing any power that increases DC's at less than 5 points but YMMV.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I haven't seen Density Increase really used as a power very often except when I was building creatures like hippos, to represent their mass in addition to just size.  If the cost is too low, even min/maxers aren't really taking advantage of it that I've seen.  Not like Combat Luck and Damage Negation, at least.

[unclevlad]

Sometimes you can't use just advantages and limitations because they're not reciprocal.

 

Start with the baseline, which is the characteristics.  To go from DI's benefits to pure STR and defense, you need to add 0 END, Persistent.  +3/4.  So 4 points of DI now becomes 7 points of purchased characteristics.  Trying to evaluate STR, Costs END, gives different numbers because it has a different cost, and because the math is not entirely reciprocal.  

 

So what about the cost of the KB resistance and the increased mass?  My opinion, they're just saying they cancel.  What is a proper price for the KB resistance in the DI?  You're running seriously afoul of the granularity issues because of the small numbers involved.  Hugh's 6 levels computation is coming out at 4.333 points per DI level....well, we can't do fractional points.  

 

So, yeah, it might be a slight break, but not much.

 

To the point about how much it's used.....I have a terrible habit of looking for ways to deny weaknesses, and not leave an avenue to exploit.  In this context, that means DI and Shrinking.  Shrinking doesn't cost movement, it doesn't lower Str.  Arguably it doesn't have to be bought Persistent...but even if you do, you can buy it Linked to the DI...or better still, make them a Unified Power and get 1/4 off both.  Something like 4 levels DI, 1 level Shrinking.  Unified, both Persistent.  30 points for +20 STR, +4 PD/ED, +2 DCV, -2 to opps' PER, -2m KB, for 2x mass.  And if you want to go cheaper...it's quite workable to have them be Always On.  Now you're down to 22.  OK, maybe you can't buy Secret ID...so go Public ID instead.  You're getting a heckuva lot of nice stuff for cheap that can easily be rolled into any melee-focused combatant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RDU Neil]

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

That would give the total of 9 points of Powers with a total of -1 in Limitations which gives 4 in Hero calculations.

 

This is the core of it all... is the power of Density Increase really a -1 Limitation?   That is essentially what this comes down to... a pre-built limitation for a specific set of powers.

 

Is getting your powers from DI as limiting as have them through an OAF? Will you not be able to use your DI limited powers half the time you want to?

 

I'd say most of the time, no... you are getting a price break without really suffering a penalty for it.

[eepjr24]

16 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

To the point about how much it's used.....I have a terrible habit of looking for ways to deny weaknesses, and not leave an avenue to exploit.  In this context, that means DI and Shrinking.  Shrinking doesn't cost movement, it doesn't lower Str.  Arguably it doesn't have to be bought Persistent...but even if you do, you can buy it Linked to the DI...or better still, make them a Unified Power and get 1/4 off both.  Something like 4 levels DI, 1 level Shrinking.  Unified, both Persistent.  30 points for +20 STR, +4 PD/ED, +2 DCV, -2 to opps' PER, -2m KB, for 2x mass.  And if you want to go cheaper...it's quite workable to have them be Always On.  Now you're down to 22.  OK, maybe you can't buy Secret ID...so go Public ID instead.  You're getting a heckuva lot of nice stuff for cheap that can easily be rolled into any melee-focused combatant.

 

FYI, all the kPa calculations I did above are for 36 sq inches of surface in contact (it's a reasonably common area for feet). So ignoring that you are buying persistent on the shrinking and DI (restricted on 6e1 160 and 188) you are down to about 9 square inches of contact surface. Or the rough equivalent of 2 more mass doublings for kPa purposes. So you'd be at residential and office building you have a bad tendency to fall through floors unless you have some method of seeing and carefully walking on the joists. You would leave foot prints in even slightly warm asphalt, crack concrete whenever you ran, etc. Flying would be a good thing to buy.

 

- E

[eepjr24]

16 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

This is the core of it all... is the power of Density Increase really a -1 Limitation?   That is essentially what this comes down to... a pre-built limitation for a specific set of powers.

 

Is getting your powers from DI as limiting as have them through an OAF? Will you not be able to use your DI limited powers half the time you want to?

 

I'd say most of the time, no... you are getting a price break without really suffering a penalty for it.

For one or two levels, sure. More than that I tend to recommend only for villains or others who don't care about property damage.

 

- E

[unclevlad]

How often do people think of the pressure argument, tho?  Also, isn't it true that floors will be designed to distribute the load?  We'd built a significant presentation room...several projectors, several screens, multiple computers to run everything, all switchable.  Lots of cabling.  Ergo:  raised floor.  With those ugly liftable tiles set into steel framing, so pressure on a tile is distributed into the entire framework.  I think the most common issue is the sheer mass.  

 

Consider the oldie from HS physics.  Just how much pressure does a woman wearing high heels exert?  You're into the thousands because the heel area is so small...much higher than your examples.  So it's not just pressure.

[eepjr24]

27 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

Consider the oldie from HS physics.  Just how much pressure does a woman wearing high heels exert?  You're into the thousands because the heel area is so small...much higher than your examples.  So it's not just pressure.

I don't want this to become a physics / math argument, so I simplified things a bit. What we are talking about I think is shear and elasticity of the material, in addition to the load limit for the surface. You can have a surface that easily handles very large weights if they are well distributed (equipment), low to medium weights with poor distribution (heels) but not medium to high weights with poor distribution. And actually raised floors in public presentation rooms are close to warehouse or factory floor levels in some cases. But that room is very much the exception, not the rule, your regular hallway going to that room is going to fail long before you get to the room. Live load code requirements are only 40 psf. In non-city areas even that basic level of code is not enforced and I have seen 16 foot spans run on 2x6 trusses with 1/2" sheathing. 

 

You are welcome to rule as you like in your game. My calcs above are pretty ballpark and when I had doubts I actually skewed away from strict interpretations because this is comic books. So you can go less realistic if that appeals to you or fits your game. But at that point I would probably lean toward making DI cost more as Hugh originally posited. 

[unclevlad]

I think you're pushing realism much further than most.    Mind, I get what you're saying.  I remember quite well, the day when a good-sized CNC milling machine was delivered into the enclosed back lot...with very low grade asphalt paving.  Not only are we talking a heavy machine, but shipped in a steel i-beam cage.  MORE weight.  They tried to move it with a large forklift with LONG front forks.  Yes, well, this put most of the weight onto the front tires, naturally, and drove them a good 18-24" into the concrete.

 

It was a sight, let me tell you.   

 

I doubt many GMs or players give any thought to the pressure aspect;  they never had it brought up, or quite possibly just forgot it.  I get your point, but how many people have a clue as to the load bearing capacity of a residence vs. an office building, of a ground floor vs. an upper floor?  

[unclevlad]

Honestly, I think even the mass issue tends to be strongly downplayed because what is said is so vague.  OK, it can cause problems.  At what point, in what circumstances?  OK, walking out on an icy lake is a Very Bad Idea.  Springboard diving means springboard splintering.  But where are the lines?  And how much detail is now required of the GM?  The front stairs of the building I worked in were long, freestanding stone steps rather than a monolithic construct.  What was their load limit?  I have no clue.  So how much hassle am I creating for myself if I try to inject the realism I'm not competent to inject?

 

I also wonder if DI isn't used much because 

a)  people don't like that kind of brick that much?

b)  people think even more basic...like, sitting down in a chair when you're 900 pounds is risky.  Or leaning against a table.  People may create the expectation of a problem very quickly.

c)  bad associations?  The classic DI examples are probably Hulk and Thing...neither overly positive.

[dsatow]

5 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Thoughts?  Is 4 points a discount?  Maybe it should be 5 points?  DI is a much better deal in 6e since there are no longer Figured Characteristics sacrificed.

 

Maybe the environmental Side Effect should be Major, rather than Minor, and played up more?  Some games make this a bigger deal than others, but I find the source material (mainly Supers) typically does not male too big a deal of this.

 

The are all also bought with the Unified Power Limitation -1/4 (all powers are drained simultaneously).  This lowers the real points to 23/6 or just under 4 points per level.

[eepjr24]

27 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

  But where are the lines?  And how much detail is now required of the GM?  The front stairs of the building I worked in were long, freestanding stone steps rather than a monolithic construct.  What was their load limit?  I have no clue.  So how much hassle am I creating for myself if I try to inject the realism I'm not competent to inject?

 

 

6e1, 189

"Characters with Density Increase may be heavy enough to inflict crushing damage on other characters simply by standing. sitting, or lying on them. See 6E2 125 regarding this. For GMs interested in  “realism,” whenever a character using Density Increase walks on pavement, a floor, the upper story of a building, or anything else that might not fully hold his increased weight, apply the crushing damage he can cause to that surface. If the surface isn’t strong enough to hold him, he breaks through it and falls, or sinks into it."

 

It's really pretty simple, if you just want basic rules to run it by.  Just apply standard effect and compare to 6e2 171. For 6 levels you see that the character dents roads, crushes motorcycles they sit on, is on very iffy ground on concrete, breaks brick walkways and stone paths, etc.

 

59 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

I think you're pushing realism much further than most.    Mind, I get what you're saying.  I remember quite well, the day when a good-sized CNC milling machine was delivered into the enclosed back lot...with very low grade asphalt paving.  Not only are we talking a heavy machine, but shipped in a steel i-beam cage.  MORE weight.  They tried to move it with a large forklift with LONG front forks.  Yes, well, this put most of the weight onto the front tires, naturally, and drove them a good 18-24" into the concrete.

 

It was a sight, let me tell you.   

 

I doubt many GMs or players give any thought to the pressure aspect;  they never had it brought up, or quite possibly just forgot it.  I get your point, but how many people have a clue as to the load bearing capacity of a residence vs. an office building, of a ground floor vs. an upper floor?  

 

Don't need to, just apply from above and use common sense. What is the floor made of? Oh, wood? Let's see, defense 3, your standard effect weight does 5... Bye bye into the floor.

 

45 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

I also wonder if DI isn't used much because 

a)  people don't like that kind of brick that much?

b)  people think even more basic...like, sitting down in a chair when you're 900 pounds is risky.  Or leaning against a table.  People may create the expectation of a problem very quickly.

c)  bad associations?  The classic DI examples are probably Hulk and Thing...neither overly positive.

 

I think all of those are possible?

 

- E

[Hugh Neilson]

54 minutes ago, eepjr24 said:

 

 

6e1, 189

"Characters with Density Increase may be heavy enough to inflict crushing damage on other characters simply by standing. sitting, or lying on them. See 6E2 125 regarding this. For GMs interested in  “realism,” whenever a character using Density Increase walks on pavement, a floor, the upper story of a building, or anything else that might not fully hold his increased weight, apply the crushing damage he can cause to that surface. If the surface isn’t strong enough to hold him, he breaks through it and falls, or sinks into it."

 

It's really pretty simple, if you just want basic rules to run it by.  Just apply standard effect and compare to 6e2 171. For 6 levels you see that the character dents roads, crushes motorcycles they sit on, is on very iffy ground on concrete, breaks brick walkways and stone paths, etc.

 

 

Without doing any research, I suspect the Crushing Damage vs the defense and BOD of a building is likely not enough to have the "realistic" results you describe, because it will not consider the fact that all that weight is pressing down from the small surface area of two feet (one foot when walking, as the other foot will be off the ground).  Just like a fall at terminal velocity is not realistically damaging in Hero - it's cinematic reality.

 

If you want to make the Side Effect more severe, modify the cost accordingly.

 

Or, I guess, my character needs to buy 1" of Flight, 0 END, Always On, Linked to DI, only to prevent collapsing whatever is beneath him.  Wow, that was hard.  Or we could just run the game treating the side effect as the "minor or trivial" effect it should be based on its pricing.  I would up the cost of DI rather than make the character useless half or more of the time as he activates his powers and sinks to the center of the Earth.

[eepjr24]

8 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Without doing any research, I suspect the Crushing Damage vs the defense and BOD of a building is likely not enough to have the "realistic" results you describe, because it will not consider the fact that all that weight is pressing down from the small surface area of two feet (one foot when walking, as the other foot will be off the ground).  Just like a fall at terminal velocity is not realistically damaging in Hero - it's cinematic reality.

 

If you want to make the Side Effect more severe, modify the cost accordingly.

 

Or, I guess, my character needs to buy 1" of Flight, 0 END, Always On, Linked to DI, only to prevent collapsing whatever is beneath him.  Wow, that was hard.  Or we could just run the game treating the side effect as the "minor or trivial" effect it should be based on its pricing.  I would up the cost of DI rather than make the character useless half or more of the time as he activates his powers and sinks to the center of the Earth.

The flight is probably a good idea. At 4 levels of DI your density is around 1000 pounds per cubic foot. Just shy of Tantalum and Uranium, some of the heaviest elements we known. At the next doubling you are about 45% heavier than Osmium, the heaviest terrestrial element. 

 

Just for giggles, I figured out that 43 levels would make you as dense as a collapsing neutron star, about 424510141828214 pounds per cubic foot.

[Hugh Neilson]

Sure - but I have likely spent a point or two to neutralize any Side Effect entirely.  Is that appropriate?

 

As to why we rarely see DI, I see many reasons:

 

 - I saw it a lot in older editions, but just 1 - 2 levels, Always On.  That went away;

 

 - paying END twice on much of your STR is painful, so when used significantly, it tends to be pricy due to 0 END, or at least Costs END only to activate;

 

 - It started out costing 10 per level, and also added CON, which made it pretty pricy to base a character on (plus, if you have base CON and STR of 20, adding 40 CON is not really as useful as adding 40 STR);

 

  - loss of Figured (especially when they came from both CON and STR) was painful pre-6e, and we saw a lot of Linked stat bumps;

 

and, most importantly,

 

 - it is not used a lot in the source material.

[eepjr24]

YMMV, obviously. I would generally not let you buy the Flight in my game to offset the density. Maybe if it cost a lot of END to run it or something like that. Otherwise I would have you buy the stats you want without the density increase if you wanted to get rid of that extra mass.

 

Most of the time when it got bought in my games it was by villains who really could care less about property damage.

 

- E

[unclevlad]

 

2 minutes ago, eepjr24 said:

YMMV, obviously. I would generally not let you buy the Flight in my game to offset the density. Maybe if it cost a lot of END to run it or something like that. Otherwise I would have you buy the stats you want without the density increase if you wanted to get rid of that extra mass.

 

Most of the time when it got bought in my games it was by villains who really could care less about property damage.

 

- E

 

Not meaningful.  I'm not criticizing you, but you're showing an active desire to punish people from buying DI, it reads to me, and you're making the mass increase SEVERELY punitive.  So of course no one's gonna buy it;  your interpretations make the power almost completely unplayable.  

 

Hugh:  I think the basis for calling RAW's price on DI might be flawed, but a similar argument might also show that 5's a bit much.   So which is it?   Hero is so wide open that there are inevitable loopholes even without getting into oddball Limited Powers such as the "only to not crush things" on the Flight, and how you attempt to deconstruct a costing on a compound power like this is a factor in balanced cost estimation.  If things are just a touch off?  No big deal.  There's WAY larger issues.   So if you wanted to charge me 5 instead of 4...fine.

[unclevlad]

Thinking about the original question...

 

If we skip the mass increase, and I'm gonna talk 2 levels of DI because the rounding works a bit more cleanly.  If we define a custom "DI with no mass increase" we have a compound power

 

+10 STR

+2 PD/ED

-4 KB

 

All Unified...because DI is a single power for this purpose.  OK, works to 14 points.  The problem with considering applying Costs END is that the cost reduction of the limitation is lowered because there's another limitation already present.  Without the Unified that's implicitly there, Costs END would drop the cost from 18 to 13.  WIth it, Costs END  would drop the cost from 14 to 10.  To be sure, it's small but we're at very low point totals too.  And as I noted...if you go the other way and consider DI raised to 0 END, persistent...it's 14 points.

 

Some of the problem is when you roll up the limitations like Unified and hide them...you're lowering the AP.  That might be the core problem;  the real cost of DI might well be 4 per level, but the active cost is much higher.  In VPPs and multis, this can clearly be hugely important.  And if I can manage to buy the DI so I can either blow off the END cost altogether, OR buy it for just 1/2 END, I'll grant I've got increased risk but I'm getting a major price break in the process, in terms of both active and real costs.

 

Pricing the mass increase as a standard, RAW side effect fails because of the arbitrary lower bound of 15 Active, if that's also considered the threshold for what a "minor or trivial effect" should equate to.  And RAW, you're going to stay with the 15 point threshold for a very long time...WELL into the point where eepjr's point about mass becomes legitimate unless you execute some form of mitigation, be it flight or shrinking.  Thinking of it this way:  if we treat Mass Increase as a form of side effect, then a power bought as a mitigator must have the same AP as you're saving with the 'side effect.'  And yes, if you're buying advantages on the DI, that's raising the effective AP reduction.  So...2 levels of DI, 0 END persistent, would require a power with at least 7 Active.  (Yes, I'm being a bit punitive and making you pay the full value of a 1/4 limit on the 11 base points per level.)  Your 1" of Flight doesn't cut it.  The "only to avoid crushing things" does not qualify as a Limitation in this context, as that's what the point is in the first place...to cancel the side effect.  You can't have it do both.

 

If you're gonna buy DI as a secondary aspect, then you get it cheap, for sure.  But it's often the case that you *don't* need it 0 END or persistent...if you keep it at 3 levels, for example, you can blow off any Reduced End if you like.  Drop it to recover?  You're recovering so you're not attacking.  The actual loss is 3 defense.  That's not that bad.  If you're stunned, again you're not attacking and your defense is only down a bit for a phase.  If you're knocked out...ok, there's more reason to think it'll hurt just because the lower defense will last longer.  But it's at a major price break which can be invested in a different, cheaper persistent defense.  If you're gonna buy DI as a primary aspect of your character, then the costing probably works out decently, so raising it might make it a bit expensive. 

 

BUT at that point, hell...buy 2 levels DI to 0 END, persistent, THEN buy the components you want (maybe you don't want the KB resistance, say. or you want to go rDef) and tack on a Linked.  Even if you can only wrangle the -1/4 version, since the DI will be active most of the time in combat, you're getting a usable point break and increased customization.

 

So....yes.  DI is too cheap.

[eepjr24]

15 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

 

Not meaningful.  I'm not criticizing you, but you're showing an active desire to punish people from buying DI, it reads to me, and you're making the mass increase SEVERELY punitive.  So of course no one's gonna buy it;  your interpretations make the power almost completely unplayable.  

 

I am not "punishing" anyone. I am enforcing a rule as written in the rule book. As to my "interpreting"... how is following the rules interpreting? If you don't like it, do as you like, but it is there in the rules. Your own conclusion is that it is too cheap without the side effect and that is even with doing things that the rule book explicitly says are not the way things should work (putting persistent on DI).

 

- E

[Hugh Neilson]

16 hours ago, eepjr24 said:

YMMV, obviously. I would generally not let you buy the Flight in my game to offset the density. Maybe if it cost a lot of END to run it or something like that. Otherwise I would have you buy the stats you want without the density increase if you wanted to get rid of that extra mass.

 

 

If we were building DI from its components, I would say the "1 m flight" construct simply removes the Side Effect, so no property damage or other hassles from the increased weight, but also no point savings.  Shrinking has an option to remove its "reduced mass/increased KB" side effect for a +1/4 advantage.  Removal of the "increased mass" side effect from DI for a similar +1/4 seems reasonable.

 

16 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Not meaningful.  I'm not criticizing you, but you're showing an active desire to punish people from buying DI, it reads to me, and you're making the mass increase SEVERELY punitive.  So of course no one's gonna buy it;  your interpretations make the power almost completely unplayable.  

 

Hugh:  I think the basis for calling RAW's price on DI might be flawed, but a similar argument might also show that 5's a bit much.   So which is it?   Hero is so wide open that there are inevitable loopholes even without getting into oddball Limited Powers such as the "only to not crush things" on the Flight, and how you attempt to deconstruct a costing on a compound power like this is a factor in balanced cost estimation.  If things are just a touch off?  No big deal.  There's WAY larger issues.   So if you wanted to charge me 5 instead of 4...fine.

 

Rather than "an active desire to punish the DI character", I would say that eepjr24 is making the Side Effect more than Minor, which should carry a greater limitation, so a lower point cost.  By making the limitation -1/4, the player says to the GM "this is a minor inconvenience on occasion".  If, instead, he took a -1 limitation, he is saying "this makes the power use a meaningful hassle pretty often".  "the character can almost never use the power effectively because he will sink into the ground, crash down to the basement, etc. without specifically reinforced floors" strikes me as a -2 limitation, at least.

 

A minor cost savings for a huge drawback is not "getting what you pay for", the Hero Mantra.

 

14 hours ago, unclevlad said:

All Unified...because DI is a single power for this purpose.  OK, works to 14 points.  The problem with considering applying Costs END is that the cost reduction of the limitation is lowered because there's another limitation already present.  Without the Unified that's implicitly there, Costs END would drop the cost from 18 to 13.  WIth it, Costs END  would drop the cost from 14 to 10.  To be sure, it's small but we're at very low point totals too.  And as I noted...if you go the other way and consider DI raised to 0 END, persistent...it's 14 points.

 

Unified Power - THAT should have been my limitation, rather than Linked!!!  Maybe that puts us back to Linked on the smaller power, and Unified Power on both.

[dsatow]

You could just add +1/4 to running to make it usable as flight.  For base running, that would be about 3 points.

[Hugh Neilson]

Even cheaper if we further limit it so the character cannot gain or lose altitude.  Obviously, it works better for a character who can fly anyway than one whose concept does not include Flight while Density Increase is in use.

[Killer Shrike]

On 8/22/2018 at 1:33 PM, eepjr24 said:

The flight is probably a good idea. At 4 levels of DI your density is around 1000 pounds per cubic foot. Just shy of Tantalum and Uranium, some of the heaviest elements we known. At the next doubling you are about 45% heavier than Osmium, the heaviest terrestrial element. 

 

Just for giggles, I figured out that 43 levels would make you as dense as a collapsing neutron star, about 424510141828214 pounds per cubic foot.

 

One of my players wanted to make a super with shrinking and DI back in 5e, so we worked up White Dwarf, who got denser as he shrank. He'd then superleap around at microsize, colliding with things like a hyperdense bullet. Interesting character, but a pain in the ass to deal with as the GM due to having to make snap judgments regarding the effect of such a small and hyperdense object on everything else in the game.

 

The narrative intent / concept of the character was clear, but in a simulationist model like the HERO System, the overhead just wasn't worth the effort for us and the character was retired after a few sessions.