Jump to content

Healing...self only?


unclevlad

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I'd say "no limits" Aid or Absorb would be much more problematic.  I think the healing cap arose when Fantasy Hero was first created (we did not have Aid or Healing in Champions 1e - 3e, only in Fantasy) as a backlash to the D&D tradition that we could heal a character of enough damage to kill an elephant multiple times every day.  D&D, of course, had limited spells per day, which Fantasy Hero avoided.  If you want BOD damage to be a more serious issue than STUN damage, it can't be recoverable in full after every combat. 

 

 

Thanks for the response, Hugh-- 

 

particularly the explanation:

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

I'll take the blame for that one.  I hated the 5e FAQ requiring any advantage on Transfer being purchased twice, once for the Drain part and once for the Aid part.  I doubt Transfer would have been an independent power if we had Aid and Healing from the start - we would have made compound powers instead.  Adjustment powers in general have always had issues.  1e, only characteristics could be drained or transferred,. 2e/3e brought us Power, rather than CHAR, drains and transfers, while Fantasy Hero brought us Aid and Healing.

 

Sure; I totally understood the reasoning behind it; I just felt (and still do) that it was totally unnecessary to codify it.  I mean, we cheer wholeheartedly for the rules system that "lets us do anything!" and each edition fills it with more and more "as long as you do it this way."  And, as I've commented before, the set we have now might as well just put "pay what you feel like" in the cost column.

 

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

6e made Drains ranged (so a STUN drain finally could match an AVLD Blast) and cleaned up the "Transfer advantages/limitations" conundrum.  It also removed 5e's "once you can't gain more points, you can't drain more points" inequity.  It also allows a "healing transfer" by linking Self Only healing instead of self only Aids to a Drain. 

 

The range change on Adjustment powers horrified me.  Probably the same way some of my suggestions are bugging other people, so I'm not going to demonize them or anything: we all want different things out of the game, right?  I won't kid you: I was as excited about 6e as anyone else, but when I started reading it---

 

Nope.  There are lots and lots of changes in there, and-- this is just honesty, not condescension in any way; I beg everyone to understand that--  for all the things that I might view as out of whack or even "broken," every single change in 6e (as far as I made it) focused solely on "fixing" the things that weren't broken.  The things that were broken before (again, in my own opinion) are now more broken than ever.  For example:

 

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

So now we can buy 1d6 Drain (10 AP), joint Link with Aid (-1/4), Unified Power (-1/4) 7 RP + 1d6 Aid, Trigger (+1) 12 AP, Self Only (-1), Linked to Drain (-1/2), Unified Power (-1/4), limited to points drained (-1/4) 3 RP.  That's not the book build - I  think "must use Aid with Drain and vice versa" limits both, especially as you must spend the 1 END for Aid even when your Aid is capped out, and that not getting any Aid when your opponent has power defense mandates a limit there.  2 END and 10 RP per 1d6.  And, if you want a reduced fade rate on one, you put it on that one, or if you want it on both, you put it on both.

 

Why are "Linked" and "Unified Power" allowed together?  It's duplication of the same Limitation (Unless, of course, 6e has redefined "Linked" and I missed it, in which case I withdraw the following objection).  At the risk of starting the Great Debate (and no; let's not start that wild ride again), I stand by the original presentation of "Linked:"  You are not merely joining two powers together; you are using the Linked Limitation to model an entirely new Power that has features of both base Powers.  It is Unified by default: it is one single power with more than one effect.

 

5e was bad about it, but 6e is littered with this kind of nonsense: "Here; say the same thing three times and you can get three times the bonus for it."  I understand the thrust to make everything "mathematically identical," but it's pointless for two reasons: first, when you can pile on the -1/4 Limitations that don't really mean squat, you are going to pay what you want anyway.  This problem is grossly out of scale when it comes to things that add "combat effectiveness."  While we still pay lip service to the idea that defenses should always be cheaper than offenses, the fact is that the newer the rules are, the harder this is to actually make happen.  I have fifteen attack powers.  Oh, goody! The new rules tell me I can use every one of them on every one of my Phases!

That's damned expensive to defend against.  And there just aren't as many appropriate non-limiting limitations for non-attack powers to get that thing down into the rebate territory that "combat effectiveness" seems to get.  While it has always been possible to really work the rules and tighten the screws to get some truly impressive monsters out of a handful of points, the latest editions are all set up to allow pretty much anyone to accidentally make the Harbinger of Bullets, only now it's been a couple of decades, and we all think it's wonderful this time around.

 

Okay, first objection done, mostly because it was getting way off topic. :lol:  My apologies.

 

getting back to the thrust to make everything mathematically equal:

I understand as a hobby it's a fun thing to try, if that's your thing.  But it's gone beyond the point of silly.  I don't say that to be insulting to anyone involved, because I _know_ it was a lot of work, and I have no doubt that-- particularly around my regular life activities, there's no way I would have stuck it out to get it done.  But it's gone beyond any practical point because no matter how tiny everything gets whittled, or how finite or "points balanced" everything becomes, (and honestly, I believe the first sign of this obsession was the introduction of "damage classes"), at the end of the day, there is just no way to say that X dice laser eyes is as functionally useful as Y inches of Flight.  It just can't be done.  Granted, I'm sure the 7th edition will try mightily, and I have no doubt it will be skewed heavily to demonstrate that the all-new "Combat Flight" is far more vital and useful than plain old "get somewhere in a safe hurry" Flight.  Even the skills and such:

You want Luck?  Too unspecific.  Combat Luck (which isn't even Luck anymore) is better.  Pilot?  Combat Pilot is better.  Combat Driving.  Combat Police Sketch Artist-- way better than the regular one.  Put "Combat" in front of all your Skills, then you can use them all at once under the new MPA rules.

 

How many damage classes is Life Support worth?  Depends, I suppose, on if you are in the ring in a to-the-death cage match, or on the stern deck of the Titantic.  But since the newer editions make it pretty clear that only combat matters, then Life Support should just be free, because it has no game relevance whatsoever.  Skills?  Skill levels are good; Analyze Style-- these are great.  Detective Work and Bureaucracy are going to be free in the 7th ed, though, because this game is about combat.  Spandex combat.  Why else would you drop this much money on a set of rules?

 

How can I say that?  Confining it to just one example: I can now Drain at range.  It's much more combat effective now.  Granted, I could do it _before_, if I wanted to take the Advantage "Ranged."  But now I get it for _free_, so for the same points, I can buy _way_ more dice of it!  It has become more "combat effective."  The cost of the defense against it?  Has it been equally de-valued?

 

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Overall, I think it's better (both more appropriately costed and more flexible), but it's certainly not as easy as "15 points per 1d6".

 

I won't disagree there.  It is _effectively_ the same thing, it just takes up 1/5 of my character sheet now, and has lost a lot of it's charm.  And add in that every time someone hands me a sheet with a four-page cobble and sixteen limitations, I've got to spend ten minutes figuring out just what it does.  "Transfer" summed it up rather neatly.

 

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Ditching the cap means 1d6 Healing cures everyone on the team of all afflictions between every combat.  It also means you can clean out the hospitals pretty rapidly.  That Multipower makes "pick self or others" pretty inexpensive to overcome too.

 

The multipower:

 

Yes.  It does.  Since the introduction of Healing, we've never had a character that had both.  Not once.  People play to conception, and they are either looking for Wolverine or -- who was the girl in the dark robes-- empathic healing of other people but not herself?  Ah well; doesn't matter.

 

But this is precisely the sort of extensive and (for me; remember, it's just an opinion) totally pointless "fix" that plagues the newer editions.  There is _nothing_ that can cure gaming the system.  It's like trying to make something idiot-proof: the world will simply present you with a better idiot.   Rather than adding four hundred pages of minutiae, -- well, instead of going and going until the math is flawless (which can't work), stop when the feel is right.  The feel slips away with each glazed eye.  I've been reading some of the stuff I missed while I was gone, and there are a lot of threads wanting a "lite" version of the rules, or wondering why people aren't flocking to what might well be the most perfect system on the market.  Frankly, the obsession with minutiae, the ever-increasing drill-downs of how to do this or that or mandates or "this when x, but only that when y.  If z, then consult book seven"-- the book is now the worst enemy that recruitment ever had.  

 

In the words from a poster on GURPS forum I visited a year or to ago [paraphrased, because my memory isn't _that_ good! :lol: (the subject of HERO system comes up regularly on GURPS boards, it seems) "I used to play HERO a lot, even though the rule book was huge [reference to what we lovingly call BBB] and I tried the black one when it came out, and it was almost too much.  Then there was an improved version with more stuff and I noticed that HERO had gone from the game that let you do anything you wanted to the game that told you how to do anything you wanted, and I've been doing GURPS ever since."

 

I have to agree, to some extent.  My heart is too attached to HERO to ever leave; I have simply chosen to not move forward.  The difference doesn't sound like much, I agree.  But the feel is even more drastically different than night and day.

 

As to the first part, runaway Healing:

 

Again, it's one of those things that doesn't need fixing.  It has never posed a problem.  Clearly it's not much of a problem for anyone outside of HERO, either: HERO and D&D are the only systems I know with metarules limiting the use of Healing powers.  

 

But also remember that the Healer pays END (yes; I charge END for it.  It makes sense to me that I should), and he pays it at 2e rates: 1END per 5 active points, not 10.  He also buys (if he wants) Reduced Endurance at 2e rates.  Given that we've reverse engineered most of the new stuff we liked back into 2e, Adjustment Powers are pretty pricey.  (oddly enough, they are also less combat effective and cost more-- yet another example of that unending trend. But by relation, the defense against them was really, really inexpensive.  As they became more combat effective, it took _more_ of the Defense to gain the same effect)  

 

But I digress.  When a Drain: SPD is 60 pts / d6 (and 12 END), you don't go throwing it around a lot (especially since you have to touch them).  When Heal BOD, self-only, costs 20/pts / d6 (and 4 END), you don't go throwing it around too terribly much either.  Sure; "out of combat," there's likely not much stopping you, if you're willing to exhaust yourself, but they are out of combat, too.  Stabilize them, give them a quick boost, and they are safe to fend for themselves.

 

Is it possible?  Yes.  Has it, in actual game play, happened?  I can think of twice, in all these years since BBB, that it actually happened.  Did it do damage to the game?  None.  It was done more for character flavor than any sort of advantage, as there was no reason to expect an encounter any sooner than they would have been in fighting trim on their own.

 

Does it need fixing?

 

In my own experience, no.  

 

Would fixing it be worth doing?  Again, if that kind of math is your hobby, then sure!  I'm sure it would be lots of fun to play around with it, and eventually you will end up with whatever exactly it is we have today.  Does it add anything to the game?  No; not really.  Just to the rulebook.

 

 

[Hi; I'm the editor.  I was out of state when this thing sailed across my desk, and missed it entirely.  My bad.  I just wanted to take a moment to remind any readers unfortunate enough to have stumbled into this that what you see here are entirely the lunatic delusions of crazy old man, and do not in anyway, shape, or form reflect the opinions of this firm.  In fact, these things are just out of character enough that we have launched a full-scale investigation determined to verify their source.  I apologize profusely for my lapse in my duties.]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Sure; I totally understood the reasoning behind it; I just felt (and still do) that it was totally unnecessary to codify it.  I mean, we cheer wholeheartedly for the rules system that "lets us do anything!" and each edition fills it with more and more "as long as you do it this way."  And, as I've commented before, the set we have now might as well just put "pay what you feel like" in the cost column.

 

Funny...I see multiple means of constructing the same mechanical effect for differing costs to be "pay what you want".  One easy example was the "highly trained normal".  Debate after debate over whether Batman or Captain America could have a 35 DEX, or had to limp along with a 20 (normal humans, remember) and spend huge points on combat skill levels to be remotely competitive with a "superhuman" DEX.  Getting rid of figured helped that a lot.

 

13 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Why are "Linked" and "Unified Power" allowed together?  It's duplication of the same Limitation (Unless, of course, 6e has redefined "Linked" and I missed it, in which case I withdraw the following objection).  At the risk of starting the Great Debate (and no; let's not start that wild ride again), I stand by the original presentation of "Linked:"  You are not merely joining two powers together; you are using the Linked Limitation to model an entirely new Power that has features of both base Powers.  It is Unified by default: it is one single power with more than one effect.

 Linked means "this power can only be used in combination with a second power".  Unified Power means "if one of these powers is reduced by a negative adjustment power, so is the other one".  They are not the same limitation.  I can have a 12d6 Blast (Unified Power) and a 2d6 Flash (Linked, Unified Power).  If either is drained, both lose the Drained points.  I can fire off the Blast with or without the Flash (only the Flash is Linked).  Without Unified Power, the Blast can be Drained to 5d6 and I can fire it off with the 2d6 Flash attached, or without, since Flash was not drained.

 

Unified Power was a replacement for the Elemental Control Freebie, not a variant of Linked.

 

13 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I understand the thrust to make everything "mathematically identical," but it's pointless for two reasons: first, when you can pile on the -1/4 Limitations that don't really mean squat, you are going to pay what you want anyway.  This problem is grossly out of scale when it comes to things that add "combat effectiveness."  While we still pay lip service to the idea that defenses should always be cheaper than offenses, the fact is that the newer the rules are, the harder this is to actually make happen.  I have fifteen attack powers.  Oh, goody! The new rules tell me I can use every one of them on every one of my Phases!

 

Funny how you see that as horrific (when, as I understand from those closer to them, it was the intent of the designers from the outset), but consider END usage a harsh limitation on Healing.  15 attack powers is pretty expensive on the END.

 

How did you pay for those 15 attack powers?  Not in a framework - you can only have the maximum framework points allocated.  15 1 DC attacks are seldom as effective as a single 15 DC attack.  I'd say that, if Player 1 dropped 60 points on a Multipower pool and 90 more on 15 ultra slots to have a choice of 15 attacks, Player 2, who dropped 150 points on 3 10 DC attacks being able to fire them all at once isn't all that unreasonable by comparison.

 

As to "limitations that don't mean squat", a limitation which is not limiting still saves no points.  When a player puts four -1/4 limitations on a power, that means "this should, in tandem, be as inconvenient for me as that guy's OAF and the other guy's 11- activation roll - make it so, GM!"

 

13 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 (and honestly, I believe the first sign of this obsession was the introduction of "damage classes"), at the end of the day, there is just no way to say that X dice laser eyes is as functionally useful as Y inches of Flight.  It just can't be done. 

 

Agreed, to some extent.  If you price an ability beyond its utility, however, either it is a character tax (everyone needs CON to avoid being Stunned, whether it's 1/2 points or 5 points) or no one buys it.  Economics in action.  Damage classes?  I agree with that one - it stemmed from the 60 AP game having 12d6 Blasts, 4d6 RKAs and 20d6 Hand Attacks under the 4e model.

 

Quote

You want Luck?  Too unspecific.  Combat Luck (which isn't even Luck anymore) is better.  Pilot?  Combat Pilot is better.  Combat Driving.  Combat Police Sketch Artist-- way better than the regular one.  Put "Combat" in front of all your Skills, then you can use them all at once under the new MPA rules.

 

 

Combat luck names a defense power.  Might as well call it "roll with the punch", "glancing blow" or "no, you missed".  Luck has never been that popular in games I see because, since 1e, it should always be a surprise when it works.  As a result, lots of other "luck powers" surfaced over the years, and lots of variants on luck to give players more control.

 

"Any character I can imagine" implies "and it will be playable with characters others imagine", not "but only some can be effective in a game".  I can imagine a competent pilot, an ace fighter pilot and a licensed pilot.  All are different.  Not sure what any of that has to do with the MPA rules, though.  Those, to me, follow the "you get what you pay for" rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

How can I say that?  Confining it to just one example: I can now Drain at range.  It's much more combat effective now.  Granted, I could do it _before_, if I wanted to take the Advantage "Ranged."  But now I get it for _free_, so for the same points, I can buy _way_ more dice of it!  It has become more "combat effective."  The cost of the defense against it?  Has it been equally de-valued?

 

The disagreement here is not "has it become less expensive for the same effect?", but "was it balanced before, or is it balanced now?"  Pretty much every other attack power was Ranged by default.  Making a power act vs Power Defense allowed more damage than a Stun Drain.  To me, that was unbalanced before, and I don't find adjustment powers unbalanced now.  Similarly, Armor Piercing was virtually useless at +1/2 - the math meant it was almost never preferable to a non-AP attack at equal DC.  At +1/4 it is actually viable.

 

13 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Yes.  It does.  Since the introduction of Healing, we've never had a character that had both.  Not once.  People play to conception, and they are either looking for Wolverine or -- who was the girl in the dark robes-- empathic healing of other people but not herself?  Ah well; doesn't matter.

 

FWIW, Raven can and has healed herself in the comics.  Why is a character who can heal herself and others not part of "any character you can imagine"?

 

13 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

As to the first part, runaway Healing:

 

Again, it's one of those things that doesn't need fixing.  It has never posed a problem.  Clearly it's not much of a problem for anyone outside of HERO, either: HERO and D&D are the only systems I know with metarules limiting the use of Healing powers. 

Apparently it has never been a problem for you.  I know many gamers for whom it has.  Unlimited Stun healing changes the dynamic - try running a V&V scenario translated to Champions - many have the characters encounter one villain at a time. being gradually worn down.  Doesn't really work in Hero when they get all their stun back between combats.

 

Exhausting myself out of combat for healing, then recovering, seems a lot easier than firing off 15 attack powers a phase, too.

 

I am confused by your references to 2e Adjustment Powers - those were Drain and Transfer, with Healing and Aid added to Fantasy Hero, long before thoughts of balance between games and genres was a focus.  That would have been 4e, and boy did unlimited healing/aid have issues then!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to make a discussion out of it, Hugh, because I recall from past experiences that we are both on opposite sides of the "make it mathematically perfect" fence (and really, I am perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree-- we agree on so many other things, and have, I feel, remained respectful and civil with each other.  I, for one, rather enjoy conversations with you when we are heading toward a productive goal :) ),  but more to explain the "2e Adjustment Powers" thing to clear up that confusion:

 

As you said, 2e had "Power Drain" and "Power Transfer."  -- a quick aside: we sort of missed the implication that "Power" meant specifically those things bought as Powers, and would occasionally build such things as "Transfer STR," etc.  Funny how many traditions start out as simple mistakes that worked. :lol:

 

As I've noted before, we play primar--  let me back up a bit.  We _played_ primarily 2e, even with the introduction of 5e.  Things that we liked from later additions (new powers, skills, what-have-you), we adopted, but modified to fit with perceived conventions behind 2e.  Thus, "Aid," which was essentially the opposite of Drain, was adjusted in cost and use to be identical to Drain-- just in reverse.  That sort of thing.

 

And I say "played," because-- and I think I've mentioned this before-- the last couple of players we picked up had gotten their start on re-5.  A couple of our longer-term players got their start on BB, and one on 3e.  Given that, at the moment, there are only two (and one occasional) who got their start prior to 3e, we've been gradually, gently moving more toward BBB-esque methodology, keeping a bit of 2e-- the workings of Reduced Endurance and range modifiers, possibly switching to the "cheaper" Endurance costing (we're still wavering on that one: a nice side-effect of the more expensive END costs is the strategizing that goes into cinematic moments so as not to exhaust yourself, and even the 5e guys kind of like that).

 

But getting back on course, we have 2e-esque builds for all the Adjustment powers, and they work perfectly fine for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

  x

 

?

 

:lol:

 

 

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Funny...I see multiple means of constructing the same mechanical effect for differing costs to be "pay what you want".  One easy example was the "highly trained normal".  Debate after debate over whether Batman or Captain America could have a 35 DEX, or had to limp along with a 20 (normal humans, remember) and spend huge points on combat skill levels to be remotely competitive with a "superhuman" DEX.  Getting rid of figured helped that a lot.

 

That was right up there with the Great Linked Debate, as I remember. Ugh.  Really, it's one of those things that seriously doesn't have a good answer, and really needs to be left up to the GM, I think, if only to keep it from coming back up.

 

On the subject, though, didn't 5e not-quite-codify "normal" humans being able to get stats up to 25 or 30 or something along those lines?  Don't remember now, but I swear I read that somewhere in the text.

 

Though, non-argumentively; this is genuine curiosity-- how did getting rid of Figureds resolve this?  Now you take whatever you have decided is "normal" DEX and spend points on individual CVs.  How is that more fixed than CSLs?

 

 

Quote

 

 Linked means "this power can only be used in combination with a second power".  Unified Power means "if one of these powers is reduced by a negative adjustment power, so is the other one".  They are not the same limitation.  I can have a 12d6 Blast (Unified Power) and a 2d6 Flash (Linked, Unified Power).  If either is drained, both lose the Drained points.  I can fire off the Blast with or without the Flash (only the Flash is Linked).  Without Unified Power, the Blast can be Drained to 5d6 and I can fire it off with the 2d6 Flash attached, or without, since Flash was not drained.

 

I think, at my next session, I might have to look up the introduction of "Linked."  My original GM may have introduced it wrong, and I've been using it the same way ever since, but it has always been my understanding that Linked defaulted to what you are saying of Unified: if you used one at half power, you used both at half power.  If you were Drained to half power on one-- well, you could only use half power, as it were, and thus used the second one at half power.  Perhaps it was simply inference from the idea that once Linked, they were _not_ two distinct powers any more, but one new power.

 

I don't know if this has any interest to you, but I'll offer it: this was my huge craw-sticker when Dark Champions and then later 5e began using Linked to tie different real-world weapons together into something that was clearly _not_ a new and unique power, but two weapons that went off together: bullets and a flash grenade, that sort of thing.  Personally (and seriously; just stating an opinion, and not looking to re-open the Great Irreconcilable Debate), I could never get over it as a serious violation of the intention of Linked-- the creation of a new and unique power.

 

Again, it's possible I've been using Linked wrong for Decades based on a misunderstanding of the original concept.  But as I currently use Linked, it makes "also Unified" as something akin to "Missing right arm" and "also right hand."

 

 

 

Quote

 

Unified Power was a replacement for the Elemental Control Freebie, not a variant of Linked.

 

So there is no EC in 6e?  I missed that, but I will always freely admit that I couldn't finish 6e, so I'm not shocked.  Disappointed, as I always preferred it to multipower (and I prefer most anything to Pools, but that's a bit more the combination of "deus ex machina" and "why does the most inexperienced person at the table always want to change his pool mid-stream?!" frustrations. ;) )

 

And no; I didn't prefer it for the "freebies" in and of themselves: I liked it because it was a tangible reward for players with really tight conceptions.  I noticed the big changes to it in 5e (with regards to adjustment powers in particular, and didn't care for that: I got the feeling that 5e was considering EC to be what I had always considered Multipower to be: a single power with different aspects or uses).  I also liked that EC really put a focus on SFX; SFX were always important to me, and often critical in decision making in odd situations.  But I could go on the importance of SFX for months and months, and I like you too much to do that to you. ;)

 

Quote

 

 

Funny how you see that as horrific (when, as I understand from those closer to them, it was the intent of the designers from the outset), but consider END usage a harsh limitation on Healing.  15 attack powers is pretty expensive on the END.

 

I have figured out how to break individual paragraphs out of quotes, but not individual lines from within that paragraph (if I want to address more than one of them, anyway), so I would like to take just a moment to apologize for the cumbersome structure of some of my replies.  Mea culpa and all that.

 

I see it as "horrific" not because I don't understand it, and not because I don't know it was the original intention.  I see it as horrific because it will never, ever be finished until we're using neutrinos to buy free quarks, if you will afford me a cumbersome analogy.  It becomes infinite hair splitting, which leads to infinite textbook, which leads infinite "it must," which leads to infinite "the system doesn't _let_ you do a cussed thing; it legislates how you will do it."

 

But mostly, it steals the feel.   It adds complexity without reward.  You never get that "this is a fun idea;" "let's get some friends together and have a good time playing this" feel because that is no longer the focus of the rules.  The focus of the rules is now "find the amount of Enhanced Senses that is exactly identical in value and utility to RKA3d6, which, I will forever maintain, is a Philosopher's Stone.

 

Honestly, I think 2e had a great feel: we've made an effort at balance, but we stopped before it started stepping on the fun."  4e was really awesome: same general spirit-- and yeah; we all saw the flaws, same as we did with the other editions, but we were all savvy enough to work around them.  Honestly, I think it might well be that at some point, even the original designers thought "we should quit before we shift the focus off of actually playing the game."

 

I am not a mathematician; I am not a lawyer.  At some point, I just want to _use_ the cussed thing and have fun with it.

 

When I was a kid, I had a friend whose father wanted to teach himself electronics.  Now I'm not young: we're not talking chips and code; we're talking PCBs, transistors, resistors, etc.  I remember my friend would, now and again, come to school talking about the cool new thing his father had bought-- 8-track player; quadriphonic stereo system-- I think the most depressing was the Mattel Electronic Football (hey, that was the bomb when it was new!) and how his dad said he could have it once he figured out how it worked.

 

If I remember right, that Kenny did eventually end up with a portable radio (eight D-cell batteries for power; way back when) and a cassette dictating device.  But everything else-- including the electronic football game-- never quite got put back together right.  Sometimes not at all, and usually with something fried or shorted.

 

The way Kenny felt-- that's what 5e started for me, and 6e was pretty much going over to Kenny's house and seeing Electronic Football in the trash can next to his dad's workbench with the LED display smoked.  Same sort of feeling.

 

Quote

 

How did you pay for those 15 attack powers?  Not in a framework - you can only have the maximum framework points allocated.  15 1 DC attacks are seldom as effective as a single 15 DC attack.  I'd say that, if Player 1 dropped 60 points on a Multipower pool and 90 more on 15 ultra slots to have a choice of 15 attacks, Player 2, who dropped 150 points on 3 10 DC attacks being able to fire them all at once isn't all that unreasonable by comparison.

 

It's been a few decades since debate class, and thus I don't remember the name for this particular fallacy / flaw / whatever it was classified as, but you're ducking the actual crux of the complaint to nitpick the details.  Make it seven.  Make it three.  Make it 600.  Give him a Galacticus-level villain bonus.  Stick them in an EC or buy them individually.  The point is that it is rules-endorse: I don't have a problem with "Smoke 'em if you've got 'em."  But "smoke all of 'em if you've got 'em, repeatedly and frequently" -- combined with so many other rules changes, new skills and powers-- what's that one called?  The "I hose down the entire coliseum with my multiple-times auto fire but the bullets are smart enough to swerve around the people I don't want to hit" thing?

 

It used to be game.  Now it's a six-hundred-odd page combat simulator.  I can do the same thing with Tekken 2, without having to pause the game to thumb through two core books, two players guides, and a combat-specific book bigger than my last rules book.

 

Eh.  I'm waffling.  You may not even see that last paragraph.  I could change me mind before I post this.

 

Quote

 

As to "limitations that don't mean squat", a limitation which is not limiting still saves no points.  When a player puts four -1/4 limitations on a power, that means "this should, in tandem, be as inconvenient for me as that guy's OAF and the other guy's 11- activation roll - make it so, GM!"

 

Got it.  The GM should absolutely be charged with making sure you get your value / pay your penance for your various advantages and limitations.  I have no issue with that.

 

Why, then, is it so important that we tear the joy out of the game to ensure that we will never have to trust him to keep balance and order in his own universe?

 

 

Quote

 

 

Agreed, to some extent.  If you price an ability beyond its utility, however, either it is a character tax (everyone needs CON to avoid being Stunned, whether it's 1/2 points or 5 points) or no one buys it.  Economics in action.  Damage classes?  I agree with that one - it stemmed from the 60 AP game having 12d6 Blasts, 4d6 RKAs and 20d6 Hand Attacks under the 4e model.

 

Again: "make it so, GM!"  If he can't, or won't, enforce balance in his game, that's on him.  It's his job, after all.  You and I both know that no matter how far down the math hole we go in an attempt to gain perfect equality between oranges and road apples, there will _always_ be a way to game the system, and there will _always_ be a player who finds it--  related random thought: if everything is getting better and more equal, what's up with the points inflation?  Starting characters that go from 250 to 350 to to whatever--- just to be "equal" to what they were before (that is, starting characters)?  Does 125 points even build my great-grandfather's corpse anymore?

 

Perhaps the disparity doesn't bother the GM-- perhaps, as with Advantages and Limitations, he has ways to ensure balance, and equal challenge for each player.  Like they do with Batmunch next to the God-like Superman.

 

Either way, we can either trust the GM, as we have done for decades, or we can regulate down so finitely that HERO starts publishing choose-your-own-adventure books.  Or we drop rule books that bore him right over to Gurps or Strange Worlds or whatever it is the other folks are playing now.  Is Vampire still a thing?  I'm not big on pointless angst, but it was pretty easy to learn.

 

Quote

 

 

Combat luck names a defense power.  Might as well call it "roll with the punch", "glancing blow" or "no, you missed".  Luck has never been that popular in games I see because, since 1e, it should always be a surprise when it works.  As a result, lots of other "luck powers" surfaced over the years, and lots of variants on luck to give players more control.

 

You can't call it "roll with the punch" or "no, you missed" or even Combat Luck, because none of those things apply: You didn't get lucky.  You got cheap armor.  You didn't roll with the punch.  You got cheap armor.  The blow "glanced" off your armor.  And I think you were here (if I recall, you were a well-established personality here when I first came along a few years back) for the "Oh Good God No!  You Can't Call a Hit That Doesn't Do Damage a Miss Because You Have Already Rolled to Hit and Succeeded and That is Horribly Unfair to the Player Who Successfully Hit!" debate some years back.  For what it's worth, I didn't really have a side in that debate.  Some systems, it works fine: D&D: better armor means you miss.  You didn't hit.  But I totally understand the folks saying "you can't say I missed because I already hit" for systems like HERO that -- well, they make you roll to hit.  Then roll for damage.  Then miss.

 

And that last part:  It's "Luck."  It shouldn't be in the player's control to begin with.  I can't control my personal luck anymore than you can control yours.  Leave it to the cosmos to decide, in this case, the cosmos in the GM.  It is the GM's responsibility to ensure the player gets reasonable and adequate benefit from his points expenditures.  See "make it so," above.

 

To go one further,  I preemptively answer the "but the player spent points on it and therefore should have it when he wants it" with the very earthy reply: the player knew what it was when he bought it, and was never forced to chose Luck over another die or two of Energy Blast, a few inches of Running, some CSLs, or anything else that he can control when he wants it.  (I will also completely recant that statement in any situation where the player is somehow _forced_ to buy luck.

 

Call it "magical armor that only appears when I'm in combat."  Seriously, though-- how is that a Limitation?  When are you most likely to need armor?  Sure; it's great in car wrecks or when you fall down the stairs, but honestly....

 

 

 

Quote

 

"Any character I can imagine" implies "and it will be playable with characters others imagine", not "but only some can be effective in a game".  I can imagine a competent pilot, an ace fighter pilot and a licensed pilot.  All are different.  Not sure what any of that has to do with the MPA rules, though.  Those, to me, follow the "you get what you pay for" rules.

 

I'm not quite sure which points you're addressing, Hugh.  I am sorry.  I know it's an excuse, but it's a couple of hours past bedtime, and I'm getting ramble-y again.  Moreover, I am really to runny-eyed at this point to read back through the thread looking for it.  If it is truly important to you, however, give me a hint, and I will try to compose a reply -- well, possibly tomorrow night, but most likely some point Sunday evening.

 

 

As noted above, with the last post, I've really got nothing new to add to an old debate, but I wanted to reply specifically to answer any questions you may have had about the line of thinking that lead to my earlier comments.  I have always enjoyed conversing with you, and could not have happily done so in the future if I had left you hanging here.  It's always a pleasure, Hugh, and sometimes-- like tonight, it's truly cathartic.  Thank you.

 

And good night. :)

 

 

 

[EDITED / NOT EDITED: I forgot to do something and opened EDIT to do it but now that I"m here I don't remember what it was. :( ]

Edited by Duke Bushido
I don't remember so I didn't do it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2018 at 6:43 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Not to make a discussion out of it, Hugh, because I recall from past experiences that we are both on opposite sides of the "make it mathematically perfect" fence (and really, I am perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree-- we agree on so many other things, and have, I feel, remained respectful and civil with each other.  I, for one, rather enjoy conversations with you when we are heading toward a productive goal :) ),  but more to explain the "2e Adjustment Powers" thing to clear up that confusion:

 

As you said, 2e had "Power Drain" and "Power Transfer."  -- a quick aside: we sort of missed the implication that "Power" meant specifically those things bought as Powers, and would occasionally build such things as "Transfer STR," etc.  Funny how many traditions start out as simple mistakes that worked. :lol:

 

2e on, Drain and Transfer could affect both characteristics and powers, so you had it right.  Characteristics were still by far the most common.

 

 

On 9/27/2018 at 7:58 PM, Duke Bushido said:

That was right up there with the Great Linked Debate, as I remember. Ugh.  Really, it's one of those things that seriously doesn't have a good answer, and really needs to be left up to the GM, I think, if only to keep it from coming back up.

 

On the subject, though, didn't 5e not-quite-codify "normal" humans being able to get stats up to 25 or 30 or something along those lines?  Don't remember now, but I swear I read that somewhere in the text.

 

Though, non-argumentively; this is genuine curiosity-- how did getting rid of Figureds resolve this?  Now you take whatever you have decided is "normal" DEX and spend points on individual CVs.  How is that more fixed than CSLs?

 

The "normal human stats limit" was a symptom, not the problem.  The real problem was that DEX was comparatively radically underpriced.  It really cost 2 points, not 3 (the other point went to SPD anyway).  So for 30 points (+15 DEX), you get +3 with all DEX skills and other DEX rolls, +15 to action order, +5 OCV and +5 DCV.  How much will that cost in skill levels?  And you don't get that extra DCV until you assign those skill levels, plus your bonus to DEX skills is only one at a time.  We noticed STR and CON more because everything it gave was priced out, but the real King of the Figured Discount was DEX.

 

On 9/27/2018 at 7:58 PM, Duke Bushido said:

I think, at my next session, I might have to look up the introduction of "Linked."  My original GM may have introduced it wrong, and I've been using it the same way ever since, but it has always been my understanding that Linked defaulted to what you are saying of Unified: if you used one at half power, you used both at half power.  If you were Drained to half power on one-- well, you could only use half power, as it were, and thus used the second one at half power.  Perhaps it was simply inference from the idea that once Linked, they were _not_ two distinct powers any more, but one new power.

 

I'm not sure it has ever been clear exactly how "must use in proportion" interacts with adjustment powers.  Linked is more flexible in some ways, at least.  Generally, it is only one power which is limited (you can limit both).

 

On 9/27/2018 at 7:58 PM, Duke Bushido said:

I don't know if this has any interest to you, but I'll offer it: this was my huge craw-sticker when Dark Champions and then later 5e began using Linked to tie different real-world weapons together into something that was clearly _not_ a new and unique power, but two weapons that went off together: bullets and a flash grenade, that sort of thing.  Personally (and seriously; just stating an opinion, and not looking to re-open the Great Irreconcilable Debate), I could never get over it as a serious violation of the intention of Linked-- the creation of a new and unique power.

 

To me, Linked was a mechanic - this power can be used only in conjunction with this other power,  not separately.  Limit both and we have powers that must be used in tandem.  That may be the SFX for a brand-new power, or it may just be the bullets and flash grenade.

 

On 9/27/2018 at 7:58 PM, Duke Bushido said:

So there is no EC in 6e?  I missed that, but I will always freely admit that I couldn't finish 6e, so I'm not shocked.  Disappointed, as I always preferred it to multipower (and I prefer most anything to Pools, but that's a bit more the combination of "deus ex machina" and "why does the most inexperienced person at the table always want to change his pool mid-stream?!" frustrations. ;) )

 

And no; I didn't prefer it for the "freebies" in and of themselves: I liked it because it was a tangible reward for players with really tight conceptions.  I noticed the big changes to it in 5e (with regards to adjustment powers in particular, and didn't care for that: I got the feeling that 5e was considering EC to be what I had always considered Multipower to be: a single power with different aspects or uses).  I also liked that EC really put a focus on SFX; SFX were always important to me, and often critical in decision making in odd situations.  But I could go on the importance of SFX for months and months, and I like you too much to do that to you. ;)

 

EC was a freebie, until the "drain one, drain all" limitation was added, which became UP.  "Reward for a tight concept" had issues.  EXAMPLES:

 

Shouldn't everyone have a tight concept?  A character is not just points on a sheet. 

 

Why should Iceman get a point break for having ice powers, but Captain America does not get a break for having Super Soldier powers?

 

Who decides what concept is tight enough, or what goes in?  Are Kryptonian Powers a tight concept?  Would they be if no one had published Superman?

 

I can imagine Stan Lee's GM handing back the character sheet saying "BS is Danger Sense a Spider Power, and why would his webs be focused instead of natural if they are part of his own powers?"

 

On 9/27/2018 at 7:58 PM, Duke Bushido said:

I see it as "horrific" not because I don't understand it, and not because I don't know it was the original intention.  I see it as horrific because it will never, ever be finished until we're using neutrinos to buy free quarks, if you will afford me a cumbersome analogy.  It becomes infinite hair splitting, which leads to infinite textbook, which leads infinite "it must," which leads to infinite "the system doesn't _let_ you do a cussed thing; it legislates how you will do it."

 

But mostly, it steals the feel.   It adds complexity without reward.  You never get that "this is a fun idea;" "let's get some friends together and have a good time playing this" feel because that is no longer the focus of the rules.  The focus of the rules is now "find the amount of Enhanced Senses that is exactly identical in value and utility to RKA3d6, which, I will forever maintain, is a Philosopher's Stone.

 

I was talking multiple power attacks and you moved to point costing in general.  If we don;t believe points are useful in balancing one ability against another, there is no reason to have points at all.  I agree that, the more diverse the abilities, the tougher it is to compare.  If we said "Let's make Blast cost 1 point per 1d6, and price STR at 3 CP per +1 STR". would that seem right because we can just rely on the GM to balance it all out?

 

On 9/27/2018 at 7:58 PM, Duke Bushido said:

It's been a few decades since debate class, and thus I don't remember the name for this particular fallacy / flaw / whatever it was classified as, but you're ducking the actual crux of the complaint to nitpick the details.  Make it seven.  Make it three.  Make it 600.  Give him a Galacticus-level villain bonus.  Stick them in an EC or buy them individually.  The point is that it is rules-endorse: I don't have a problem with "Smoke 'em if you've got 'em."  But "smoke all of 'em if you've got 'em, repeatedly and frequently" -- combined with so many other rules changes, new skills and powers-- what's that one called?  The "I hose down the entire coliseum with my multiple-times auto fire but the bullets are smart enough to swerve around the people I don't want to hit" thing?

 

If I pay 75 points for a 15d6 Blast, Chuck pays 75 points for a 12d6 Blast and a 3d6 Flash, and Fred spends 75 points on 3 - 25 point Drains, why should we not all be allowed to use the 15 DC attacks we paid for in a single phase?

 

On 9/27/2018 at 7:58 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Either way, we can either trust the GM, as we have done for decades, or we can regulate down so finitely that HERO starts publishing choose-your-own-adventure books.  Or we drop rule books that bore him right over to Gurps or Strange Worlds or whatever it is the other folks are playing now.  Is Vampire still a thing?  I'm not big on pointless angst, but it was pretty easy to learn.

 

The ultimate extreme of "trust the GM" is "have no rules at all".  Just trust the GM.

 

On 9/27/2018 at 7:58 PM, Duke Bushido said:

 

You can't call it "roll with the punch" or "no, you missed" or even Combat Luck, because none of those things apply: You didn't get lucky.  You got cheap armor.  You didn't roll with the punch.  You got cheap armor.  The blow "glanced" off your armor.  And I think you were here (if I recall, you were a well-established personality here when I first came along a few years back) for the "Oh Good God No!  You Can't Call a Hit That Doesn't Do Damage a Miss Because You Have Already Rolled to Hit and Succeeded and That is Horribly Unfair to the Player Who Successfully Hit!" debate some years back.  For what it's worth, I didn't really have a side in that debate.  Some systems, it works fine: D&D: better armor means you miss.  You didn't hit.  But I totally understand the folks saying "you can't say I missed because I already hit" for systems like HERO that -- well, they make you roll to hit.  Then roll for damage.  Then miss.

 

It's SFX.  A high DCV can mean you miss, or you hit nothing vital.  Fantasy Hero provides the best example in that a shield provides a DCV bonus.  Why, if the attack did not hit the shield and therefore miss the character? 

 

Luck purchased as the Luck ability in the book is purchased with the knowledge it is outside the control of both character and player.  Other luck powers are outside the character's control,  but the player can control them.  Luck in the source material is not random - the author controls it.  In game, there is a division of authorship between players and GM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2018 at 12:22 AM, unclevlad said:

The power set I'm building...the character can convert his body into fibers...including Kevlar and carbon fiber, and even stuff like carbon nanotubes.  Nothing metallic but that still leaves a WHOLE lot to play with.  So I'm tossing in stuff like stretching, armor, and extra limbs with no fine manipulation.  He's also got a major Transform to create stuff.

 

So...an implication of this is he can heal himself.  BODY only, clearly.  But there's 2 limitations:

 

1.  Self only.  

2.  Only wounds, or the byproducts thereof (like bleeding if used).  Doesn't apply to drains, damage from toxins, and the like.  Basically, it's re-knitting ripped tissues, blood vessels, etc.

 

There's a Self Only for Aid...but not on Healing, surprisingly.  I'm figuring -1 for that.  For the wounds only...I'm thinking -1/2 at most, and even only -1/4 might make sense.  It's not that likely to make a big difference;  a -1.25 total limit means the' power costs 44% of active, whereas a -1.5 drops it down to 40%.  So likely only a couple points at most.  

 

I don't know what sort of campaign you're using (1st edition, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc), what kind of house rules you could have, or how much the GM might be willing to bend rules to make a concept work. For myself, I bend the rules or out-and-out ignore them if a good concept comes up that the 'rules' don't allow. As someone said, build it the way you want to and for limitations, take your best guesses. I understand why the rules have the healing cap but that doesn't mean I have to use them; the same thing applies to you if you want to using Healing campaign-permitting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2018 at 12:22 AM, unclevlad said:

Basically, it's re-knitting ripped tissues, blood vessels, etc.

 

Back to the OP: the way you are describing the SFX for your character, it sounds like regeneration to me, with the couple of limitations to make it not-persistent and to have a time increase. Sure, there is a Healing power, but the mechanic is built with some specific limitations against using it on yourself. Regeneration is best understood as "self-healing," whether it's Wolverine persistently and rapidly self-healing any damage that happens to him, or a salamander slowly self-healing his lost tail. 

 

I only say this, not to enflame another argument, but to remember that sometimes we confuse the power mechanic for the SFX we want. "Healing" may say what you want, but "Regeneration" seems to better represent the SFX you are trying to simulate. Respectfully, if they both went by different names this probably wouldn't even be a debate.

 

Just my $.02 on this . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...