Hugh Neilson

Let's rewrite Neutron. All his powers are "Only in intense magnetic field (-2 Limitation), except Change Environment with No Range, Self Only to create an intense magnetic field. Note that this is not the same as the proposed "Triggered Teleport". This makes it harder to snag the character, but not impossible. Grab him again, entangle him again, etc. and the Teleport won't happen since it hasn't had its trigger reset. This isn't to say I would necessarily allow it, but it's not a sure fire way to defeat the limnitations on other abilities. I'm also curious why the player feels he needs such an out. Gestures is a -1/4 limitation. How often is he being prevented from using his abilities due to this minor limitation that he feels the need to create this triggered teleport spell? If he instead has "activate 15-" for the same poihnt savings, his powers would work reliably about 95% of the time. If his Gestures are making his powers unworkable with significantly greater frequency, he should get a bigger limitation.

Why not just buy +X to the powers "only if within Y" of electrical power lines". He'll always have the extra power, except when he's out of range of electrical power lines, so why bother rolling dice for Aid? As for the value of the limitation, probably -1/4 in most campaigns, much like "not in intense magnetic field", but this could vary with the campaign. If you spend a lot of time uin rural areas, outer space, etc., a larger limit wuld be reasonable. It also deoends how close you need to be to the power lines. As for whether it's abusive, that will depend on the character as a whole. If he hits campaign max and then wants to add with this ability, I'd disallow it.

Five heroes vs five equal villains. The heroes will pretty much always win. Why? The GM is running five characters with one mind. The players each run one character and bring 5 minds to bear on the overall tactics, and are more familiar with their characters. After a few scenarios, the players know their teammates better than the GM knows his villains.

Grailknight raises an excellent point - why not dovetail Cumulative with adjuistment maximums? Whether this is done by using the +2/ point mechanic and only using Cumulative for powers that are generally all or nothing, or eliminating the +2/point advantage and making 2x Max a +1/4 advantage is a good question. For +1, you get 16x maximum - how often will you hit that anyway?

And elsewhere The first is not illegal, but falls outside the general guidelines for EC's (FREd p 204). Similarly, an EC with a zero END power, or a special power, or even gasp[/b] a zero end special power may fall out of the guidelines, but there is no compelling reason it should be illegal. Any of the above, if appropriate, would certainly be allowed. The second is also outside the guidelines (more than one defensive power), but again not technically illegal. It is, however, practically illegal as no one would allow such a clearly metagamed inappropriate construct. I suppose I might allow it. But wait until you see the Xenebians (the main alien villains of the campaign, which I would decide on the day any player who isn't a complete newbie who shouldn't know better showed up with such a construct, unless I just laughed at him and handed the sheet back with a big red X. Xenebians would have a 1d6 Area Effect, megascale area Force Field Suppress, Always On. To be more pointed, it would be in an EC of Xenebian racial powers. Oh, and there would ALWAYS be a Xenebian within a km range. He who lives by the sword...

I think the recommendations for racial EC's in 5e are excellent. Yes, you can, but you can only include powers that every member of that race possesses. So no more "EC: Android Body", unless the GM accepts that those powers are shared by each and every android. "Alien Body" EC? Still on the fringe - people are supposed to become familiar quickly with the racial archetype. And then there's the ultimate threat. "So, every member of your race has those powers, huh? Hmmm...wait until we meet a Super member of your race, with all that plus 350 points to play with." Steve doesn't discuss game design issues, at least not on the boards. I assume his reasons are sound. After all, he can either say "oh, the game is wrong" or sound defensive. I like the fact he rarely, if ever, rules "this is illegal", instead using "in absence of GM permission". Steve has once noted that "requires GM permission" is equivalent to a stop sign or yield sign, and at that time I noted most of these were small inclusions in other descriptions not readily flagged with a picture. In Champions, I'm generally pretty open to most Yield/Stop signs, and also to things requiring GM permission. Would it differ in other genres? Probably. At the end of the day, that is what Steve has done in virtually all cases. Even the "must cost END" rule is tempered with "unless the GM permits it". I just don't see why a 0 END power is at the same level of caution, across the board, as most other "unless GM permits" constructs.

On the question immediately below. Assume the character has 1d6 END transfer and, as described in the question, transfers 5 points of END (10 END). He then spends 10 END, which eliminates the Transferred END. He hits another target with the Transfer, and rolls a 6. Does he receive 12 END (since he's used up the END transferred before), or 2 END (since he previously transferred 10 and his maximum is 12)?

YES! Someone else sees it! Thank you Javed!!!

Flowing from some discussion in the Absorption thread. We all know adjustment powers caused a lotof concern in 4e, especially in respect of Aid. However, I would suggest that 5th Ed goes too far the other way in some regards, with the result that some power constructs have become impossible to duplicate, and others are more efficiently constructed by building their component parts than using the specific power. Looking at the history of adjustment powers, in 1e, we has Drain and Transfer, and they only worked on characteristics. 2e brought us actual Power drains and Transfers. The costs were much the same as they are now. 3e pretty much held the line on these There were lots of supplements were released under 2e and 3e. Champions II brought us Absorption, but at that time it also reduced damage taken. Genre books tended to introduce new powers needed for the genre. Fantasy Hero brought us Aid, Dispel and (IIRC) Suppress. 4e went for the generic rules, so all the adjustment powers came under one roof. Defenses came out of absorption, and Aid, Dispel and Suppress found their way into the core rules. We didn't need Healing - Aid points only faded if they exceeded the character's normal value. Aid, in particularm, was generally felt to be underpriced / overly effective. That was changed in 5e, and Aid also became 0 END at that time. But 5e brings its own inconsistencies with adjustment powers. Why can't Heal (or any other adjustment power) have an unlimited maximum? Well, actually, they can. Regeneration is a specialized form of healing, and it isn't limited. You can get the same effect for other powers (transfer and absorption) by redirecting half the points gained to enhancing the ability itself to buy bonus max. points. But why not make it easy and intuitive - set an advantage for "no maximum". We can base the cost on Regeneration. 1d6 Healing should heal 1.5 BOD (3 points), but heals 1 BOD in regeneration, so each 8 points only buys 2/3 of a die, effectively. 2 dice should heal 3 BOD if we don't account for the advantage. 3 BOD regen costs 24 points. 20 x 3/2.5 = 24, so "no maximum" must be a +1 advantage. This fits with the rationale of directing half of a Transfer or Absorb to increase the maximum point gain, so it makes intuitive sense. CONCLUSION ONE: "no Maximum" should be a +1 advantage for Absorption, Healing and Transfer. It could also be used for Aid, but I'd be inclined to call that a "stop sign" at least. Mind you, extended fade rates should also be looked at pretty carefully. Do Aid and Healing really need to be separated? They're really variations of each other. Heal has no fade rate up to starting maximum. Aid can raise stats above starting maximum. Aid, only to starting maximums (-1/2), costs END (-1/2) would cost 5 points per die. "No fade on restored points" would logically be a +1 advantage to Aid, if one wanted such a construct. Why shouldn't such a construct be available? This is a lot less cumbersome than using a Linked Aid and Healing. CONCLUSION TWO: "No fade rate on restored points" should be a +1 advantage. It could be taken on Aid, Absroption and Transfer. Again, this one is open for abuse, and should be a "stop sign", but why should it be banned outright? To my mind, the ability that really got shafted in 5e was Transfer. 30 points buys 2d6 of Transfer which, once the owner has boosted himself 12 points, does nothing. Now, I question whether we still need a Transfer power - it's just Drain and Aid together. What if we build the same power that way? 2d6 Drain + 2d6 Aid, Self Only (-1/2), Linked to Drain (-1/2), limited to points drained (-1/2) The last is debateable in value, but there is a definite limit here. The Aid won't work if the Drain misses its target, and will be reduced/eliminated if the opponent has power defense. For the sake of argument, let's say that it combines with the Aid affecting its owner, rather than the target, for a -0. The drain costs 20 points, ands the Aid another 10, for a total of 30, just like 2d6 Transfer. But Transfer costs 3 END, and this costs 2. And this drain will still work even if Aid has been maximized. No more expensive, maybe even cheaper, costs less END and more versatile. Is that reasonable? CONCLUSION 3: Transfer should act as a drain even if the maximum points have been transferred. This one seems very clear - it hardly overbalances the power, at least in my opinion. The above is my opinion, anyway. What does the rest of Herodom think? Have I missed some issues with Adjustment Powers? Would the above fix a concern, or create larger concerns? The first two, to me, are just extrapolations to permit different power constructs not presently achievable, or at least readily achievable, under the rules as written. The third just "unhoses" Transfer.

This, and your prior post, summarizes the problem readily. You had no problem with Aid in an EC when you thought it cost END. Since it diesn't, however, you now object to it being in an EC. How does the arbitrary distinction between powers that, by default, cost END and those that, by default, do not form a valid rationale for which powers are, and are not, allowed in an EC. Note that the rules do not require every power in an EC to cost END - you can buy a Force Field the 0 END advantage. But you can't buy "Aid, Costs END, 0 END" to put that in an EC. If Aid were priced at 7 points per die and cost END, it would be made 0 END and still placed in an EC. The primary reason, in my opinion, that it doesn't cost END was so it would not cost such an odd number. However, if the designer had chosen to give Aid an automatic Fade Rate of 5/5 minutes, rather than giving it an automatic 0 END, to balance it out, it would qualify for inclusion in an EC. The arbitrary distinction between powers that cost END and powers that don't lacks any logic from a game philosophy, or even game balance perspective. Sure, Gary will say "everyone will have armor, a force field, bonus PD and ED, damage reduction and absorbtion in their EC". But don't the rules equally suggest an EC be restricted to one defebsive power. Why isn't that restriction enough to prevent such an abuse? For that matter, why is it OK to have a force field at zero END, but not Armor which costs no END inherently? They have the same point value anyway. If the designers had made armor cost END, suddenly it would fit in an EC. There's no logic that I can see behind this prohibition.

This is not correct. It was only several months after 5e came out that it was pointed out to me that the cost of AID had not really doubled, since it had become 0 END by default (see p 87 FRED). Healing is just Aid, limited to starting points (-1/2), does not fade, costs END (-1/2). Note that this costs 5 points per die, just like healing, if we leave out "no fade rate". This implies "no fade rate unless above starting values" would be a +0 advantage. Adjustment powers a s a whole need another look, but that's another thread.

Now how do we deal with Stun multiples? If all head hits are x5, we still have the called shot to the head issue (it's worse, since we get bonus DC's as well - more Stun, less Bod). If not, we get head hits that just glance off and foot hits that stun the Brick.

I wouldn't allow the player to combine huge arrays of defensive powers without an EC, so whether they can have them in the EC is moot. Besides, I can already put Armor and Force Field in the same EC. Make the Armor cost END, and make the force field 0 END. Both in, one costs END, the other does not. Explain why Healing is a legitimate power in an EC (with no advantages or limitations) and Aid is not, on conceptual grounds, and I might reconsider.

Well, that's your opinion. Mine differs. If a power is overly useful, its cost should be adjusted overall, not just for EC purposes. Simply saying "OK, but not in an EC" is foolishness. Armor can already be purchased in a Multipower - just buy Force Field 0 END, and you have nonpersistent Armor. For that matter, if absorbtion is a concern, why is that concern suddenly eliminated because I make it "cost END"? The "no 0 END powers in an EC" is purely arbitrary. Why would it be OK to have Aid if we were playing 4th Ed, but not in 5th Ed? This isn't to say any or all combinations shuld automatically be allowed, but this "it's zero END so it's overpowered in an EC" theory makes no sense at all to me. No point debating it, Gary - we already know we disagree on this issue.

It's also worth noting that this is not infallible. A Dispel can eliminate the triggered power before it activates, and a Suppress could have a similar effect. And once that Trigger goes off, he'll need to spend an action to reset it before it will work again, so a second Grab/Entangle would do the trick. Then, of course, there is the Ultimate Failsafe. "If you can do this, keep in mind that NPC spellcasters can as well." If the players as a group balk at this, then it shouldn't be allowed for only the PC wizard!

Would they kill him, though. Assuming, say, a 6d6/6 DEF entangle, the victim has an extra 12 points the KA has to get through. Assume a 4d6 KA that rolls 24 BOD. Subtract 12 for the Entangle, and 12 gets past to be halted by the target's resistant defenses. Assuming he's got 10, 2 BOD slips through, doubled is 4. A lot of Super targets will take no BOD. But he's done 120 STUN, less 12 - 108, subtract 40 defenses and 68 still gets through - a powerful hit! Average rolls? 14 BOD, 2 gets through the Entangle, so he takes 4 BOD max, even if the target has no resistant defenses. 70 STUN - 12 = 58. Not a bad hit, and certainly better than average with a 4d6 KA. 18 STUN against a 40 DEF character, whoich is better than the 2 an average 12d6 EB would have inflicted. Guess I'm with Gary on this one. [if Gary and I agree, how can there be opposing viewpoints... ]

I'd generally be inclined to consider waiving the "0 END" rule for an EC. This is one of those examples where it really doesn't make a lot of sense anyway. As for the multipower approach, I suppose you could buy both Absorbtions with Trigger, so you could fire each one up, set them to Trigger when you're hit, and get one phase of effect, but keeping them up constantly wouldn't be viable. The EC is your best bet, assuming your GM is prepared to see reason (biased? me? no, of course not!) on the "no 0 END powers" arbitrariness.

I'd give even odds we'll see 8 PSL's on a magic item in the Magic Items book. The old Magic Items book (from what, 3e?) had this on a Vorpal Sword - it had 8 levels only to counteract targetting the head, so all hits would be considered head hits. Of course, a Vorpal Sword isn't exactly a minor magic item...

I think you've clarified it for me. Where you're saying "PC", I need to read "any character" (ie neither the pC's nor the NPC's would have attacks above your acceptable level).

So the guy with a 2d6 Sidearm can spend, say, 15 points on the sidearm (2d6 KA, OAF Gun) and 12 points on PSL's and always target the head, getting an average of 14 BOD (it is 2x BOD, isn't it?) and 35 Stun. But the guy who spends 30 points on a 4d6 KA (OAF Gun) gets to average 14 BOD and 37 Stun. Nope, still doesn't seem fair to me. To say "you can have hit locations only if your attacks are small" doesn't sit right somehow. Now, restricting hit locations to campaigns where attacks overall are smaller, that makes sense to me. YMMV

If it wouldn't be used where PC's can take advantage of it, I'd say don't use it at all. The CV sporead is cut down in these games. For Fantasy Hero it works fine.

With a lot of slots in the multipower, I generally agree. Of course, that also assumes all slots are equally useful in any given situation. Commonly, an 8 slot multi has a few slots that are only used rarely, but are very useful in the right circumstances. When those circumstances roll around, you may regret only having access to that ability four times. But why should a multipower with a limited number of slots be specially disadvantaged? Mind you, if this is a rifle, or such, instead of having 12 charges, I should probaby take a smaller number, then spend +25 points to have 32 times as many guns. Hmmm...Multi: 60 AP, 8 slots, OAF Rifle, 1 charge. Pool costs 15, each slot costs 3, so that's 39 + 25 = 64. Multi, 60 AP, 32 charges, full phase to use [to equate with the need to draw a new rifle each phase], 8 slots, pool costs 50, slots cost 4, that's 82. Hey - I save 18 points (until the GM sees it! )

As I said, I doubt that one's quite legal. The other two, however, are perfectly legal and result in a more flexible multipower saving, instead of costing, points.

There's a second issue here, for me anyway. OCV's and DCV's vary wildly in superheroic games. Consider a large Brick character/creature. Let's say it has a 4 DCV. He's facing an 8 OCV Brick, a 12 OCV energy projector (with levels) and a 15 OCV martial artist. The EP can target the head and get a hit that does double damage and hits 62.5% of the time. The MA can hit the head on a 14-, which is well over 80% of the time. For that mater, the MA can target the 8 DCV Brick's head (and that's a pretty good DCV for a brick!) and have a 50% chance of hitting every time for double damage. Heck, maybe my Knight character should have a Vorpla ability - 8 PSL to hit the head withhis sword. 5x SM every time!

Yet taking Variable Limitation -1/2 WOULD save -1/4 on the pool cost, and would enable the character to choose between the limits rather than select one for each slot. More flexibility should not lead to a lower cost, should it?