Hugh Neilson

The problem here is that the perks are largely priced with combat effectiveness in mind. Wealthy and Head of State are pretty cheap if you think about the real life benefits, but they don't takle down Firewing in open combat! Then the most abusive thing "Specific Being" that I can think of would be to allow the player the ability to summon another player to assist him on the battlefield. Granted this is a pretty powerful, and could be considered a form of teleport. But the player must specify which player ahead of time and must buy the power with enough points to summon a character with points probably comparable to his own. However to simply summon a superbeing of a generic type but as powerful would also be equally useful. The only difference is the generic case would then require some advantage to make the summoned superbeing as easy to deal with as your friend. Ahhhh and here comes the +1 "Slavishly Loyal" modifier. I guess that would depend how well you get along with the other players in your group I'd rather have the generic guy - my teammate is normally there anyway! Would you need slavish loyalty? He's a superhero, isn't he? Surely he won't stand idly by while the villains trample the champions of Good and Righteousness! I'd say at least Friendly - you want him to know which spandex-clad crazies are the villains! For this specific case it seems to me that using the "summon" power for this SFX makes sense from the stand point of buying teleport with a bunch of advantages would be more cumbersome. Yup. What's Summon for if not to bring you some help? Can someone give me a clearly abussive summon of a specifc being. (Please dont use campaign significance as the abuse since, like I started the post, I dont believe the Perks come free.) How bout "it's his DNPC". That was a good example earlier - my DNPC is never in danger since, with a mere snap of my fingers, she returns to me.". This is especially ugly since more valuable DNPC's have less points and are therefore cheaper to summon. Feeble old grandma DNPC 14-; 25 point. Summon Feeble old grandma - 1 point x 2 = 2 points. What shall I spend the remaing 23 points on? And just in case my players are reading, let me state now NO WFAY! I think if you want to Summon specific individuals, you buy a VPP, Summon only, changes automatically. WAY more effective than paying to just summon that one guy.

It's also in the FAQ, which is where I found it. Some level of amicable clearly makes sense. I'd suggest either assuming the character builds in failsafes so only he can control the vehicle or going for a +1/2 or +3/4 Amicable on the basis that it will follow your orders, but can be stolen fairly readily (equivalent to loyal) or stolen with difficulty (eg. hotwiring; anyone w/ Mechanic skill; equivalent to Devoted). Which way to go depends in part on whether your GM is prepared to allow the reduced advantage. Hmmm...I suppose another option is Transform (air, or spare parts, into vehicle). You only need enough effect to get the vehicle's BOD (11 to 19 range on the table on p 325 FREd), so a cumulative transform would do it, or a fairly large all or nothing Transform. Improved Target Group to get all technological devices, maybe? Needing parts or other machines should qualify as a limited target (gut feel says -1/2 as -1 seems excessive, -1/4 if you can increase the BOD of parts and make a 15 BOD truck out of a 1 BOD flashlight)

I agree that a separate slot for each separate doubling seemjs excessive in this case. Depending on the number of slots that creates, a VPP may well be more cost-efficient (perhaps for all your Multipower powers together). An easy "fix" outside the usual rules would be to allow the Summon to be purchased as one standard slot, and doublings as another standard slot. To access doublings, you'd have to reduce the points allocated to the base Summon. That's a dicy one since you essentially have two slots making up one power, however I have seen it allowed with movement and noncombat multiples before megascale came along to make life easier. Aletrantively, you could take the doublings outside the multipower as a power that adds to the slot. This is another dicy one, as you are effectively buying naked adders, but the higher cost over a second MP slot may persuade a GM to allow it. The Duplication approach is an elegant and legal solution, however. I wish I'd thought of it! I'd be inclined to try that one out and see if it has the effects you're looking for. If you had a 30 point Summon (150 point creature), you culd build a 75 point creature, plus spend 75 points on Duplication, getting one 75 point duplicate (15 points) and a total of over 4,000 duplicates for the remaining 60 points (12 x 5 points) [WOW! Go with the duplication!], cannot recombine. If you set your creature at 125 points, you can get one duplicate for 25 points. This is exactly the same as Summon one 125 point creatiure, and one doubling. You may want to put a cap on the maximum number of duplicates. Summoning locusts may be better done by defining the creature summoned as a swarm of locusts. There was an Adventurer's Club (ahhh...I miss that magazine) article on swarms IIRC. One locust likely isn't worth the hassle, and I suspect your fellow players may kill you before watching you roll attacks for several thousand individual locusts... Maybe limit it to the number you would get from using Summon at the same AP cost. That wopuld be 2 125 point creatures, 4 100 pt, 8 75 pt, 16 50 pt, 32 25 pt or about 64 base humans (1 point)

Seems to me I recall an old interview with the dreators that dated the system design back to a less than inspiring college lecture. Point based wargames (army design, etc.) have been around forever, so this might have been the initial inspiration for either or both.

Given it's a force wall like effect, perhaps you could give it "Feedback" on its defenses, so the vehicle defense will act like a force field instead of blocking all damage unless it takes BOD. The suit could also enhance the driver's defenses if you want the Vehicle to be a bit more fragile.

Mine's a role playing moment. We have a longstanding fairly small group of players. In my campaign, we had Stonewall, a brick with the traditional Code vs Killing at a high level/Supereman Boy Scout personality. For several sessions, they had an NPC, Justice, who was (shall we say) less scrupulous about the well-being of criminals. Not a murderous vigalante (despite an undeserved reputation), but not up to Stonewall's high standards. He had been working with the group for a few sessions by this time. He was even dating another of the player characters. Stonewall had recently had a rather ugly experience striking a seemingly powerful opponent when his defenses were down and hospitalizing him (the scenario pretty much was a setup for this). The player was role playing Stonewall's guilt extremely well. After several days of this, Stonewall was taken aside by Justice for a discussion about the situation (handled by blue booking). Justice was telling him the usual "you could not have known" story. Stonewall's player later noted he was pretty much about to come around anyway, but the rest of the players just saw him open the book, and watched his jaw drop. Justice had resumed his normal human form, that of Stonewall's low-value DNPC brother (He knew who Stonewall was, but the sharing of secrets was not mutual). He didn't spill the beans, but the rest of the group (other than Justice's GF) were surprised with how supportive of Justice Stonewall suddenly became! hmmm...either that or the blue booking with the GF, which went along the lines of: Describe romantic date with Justice... Describe Justice talking about revealing some secrets... Return book with "Turning around, you see Doctor Apocalypse" at the bottom of a page And "You wake up screaming, covered in a cold sweat" at the top of the next one. Ganibg SHOULD be fun!

Re: How would you do this? I'm not certain how I would ultimately end up building it, but my first thought is to build the armor as a vehicle, rather than a focus/OIHID power. This would mean fixing the armor's DEX, SPD, etc. rather than using it as a bonus, and the "base character" may need some driving skills. You indicate it's pretty easy to control, so maybe no special skills are required - the fact others can use it potentially hurts you more than paying a few points on a skill, so it's not unreasonable. An AI which takes control as a robot, or when you're KO'd would seem to make these work, and has precedent in vehicles. [Make its DEX/SPD a bit lower than the vehicle and it will even seem sluggish without a human driver!] I suppose you could build an AI even if you don't treat the suit as a vehicle - I'd probably allow it. Other GM's may disagree - apparantly I'm pretty liberal based on board discussions, but my players don't always see it that way!

Steve, this probably departs somewhat from a strict rules interpretation, but when is it intended that +1 "Specific Being" be applied. Clearly, if I want to Summon the chief of police, or the King of the Realm, I need "specific being" (and maybe a lot of points spent on Favors from the GM...). But i've seen a lot of concepts where the "summon" cleaqrly summons the same thing every time (ie it is a "specific being") to no real game advantage. As an example, consider the Paladin's warhorse. It's always the same horse, but the power would vary only marginally if it were a different horse every time (assuming we don't have a tribe of Orcs that share "Dread fear of Pinto's" , and he's not making bar bets as to the color of the next horse that shows up). Similarly, the ability to Summon a car seems not to benefit iof the car is always a red stingray with fuzzy dice. As a GM, I'm disinclined to charge the character double points to get the same effect he would get from a normal "summon trained warhorse", as he's not getting any benefits (much less creating an abusive ability). He is adding some flavour to the campaign (especially if he makes the horse recognizable), but enhancing the game, rathere than enhancing the character's effectiveness, seems a poor thing to charge points for. I'd also be inclined to let the horse be replaced if, for example, it were killed (not that I'm above using that for an in-game reason for a quest of some form...). Sorry if the question makes no sense, but I'm really getting at the corrolary to the Meta Rule of Limitations - if the Advantage provides no advantage, what should it cost? I'll also take this opportunity to thank you for your Summoned answers to date. [note for house rules: Summon Steve can only be purchased with the Amicable advantage]

I think Champions came first (at least when the concept was created; never played GURPS so the publication history's a bit vague, but I think GURPS followed Champions, but not much later). Speaking of cribbing, anyone here read Mutants and Masterminds? A lot of passages seemed to have been quotes from the Hero rulebooks over the years.

Any limitation comes down to how common the GM believes it to be. I don't know about your campaign, but in mine, people who can drive and possess the cognitive skill to recognioze car keys are way more common than people who can Mind Control a Summoned being away. If you as GM feel the character's vehicle will seldom if ever be stolen (ie about the same frequency with which a summoned character would be mind controlled away), then the limitation should be disallowed. However, to my mind, a player who says "it can be stolen" assumes it WILL be stolen at some point, much like the OAF rules. The frequency with which it will be stolen, and the inconvenience, should be compared with existing limits to get the appropriate results. A -1 limit, to me, seems excessive if the character can just resummon the vehicle next phase. I might allow this if the stolen vehicle is not re-summonable for a period of time similar to the time to replace a stolen OAF (maybe a day or so - short, but Archer-Man has another bow back at HQ and can generally get it in under a day). I would be inclined to allow -1/2 (similar to Restrainable) as the character must blow a phase if he wants to bring it back. This means, however, that it is as easy to steal as an OAF - no security devices, no skill rolls required, etc. The reduction reflects the ease of recovery. For -1/4 (like OIHID or IIF), the vehicle could require some effort to steal, meaning security needing a skill roll and blow a phase to get a replacement. To me, this would be the norm for such a limit. Unless one is in the habit of leaving the keys in the ignition, at least a Mechanics roll is required to steal the vehicle. If Mechanics (or any character with a desire to steal the car) is so rare this could almost never happen logically, no limitation is appropriate. Similarly, if the player expects the vehicle will never be stolen, a limitation (or reduced advantage - the -1/4 could reduce the advantage just as easily as provide a limitation, and likely should) is not appropriate - the hoods just decide not to steal that particular vehicle, or it has protection of some form - the car only starts for its summoner, for example. As I said many times in this thread and the other. I also think that this is a case where the situation is best handled with house rules; For what it was actually meant to do from the description in the text, summon isn't broken. Depends what you think Summon was actually intended to do. It's still vbery much geared around "call up a faceless nobody to provide combat support", which is unsurprising - the game focuses around combat, of course, and the genesis of the power was Fantasy Hero duplicating the Summons found in various other fantasy RPG's. However, there are many other uses, and we haven't really scratched the surface. It's moving forward, of course. Champions 3rd Ed didn't even have Summon. It was in Fantasy Hero. Based on the changes from 4ed to 5ed, the power remains one in some flux. [changes include the drop of 30 points in base cost for a standard character; changing the "wider class" from either +1/4 or +2 to a range from +1/4 to +1; permitting summoning of specific beings, albeit at a +1 advantage; the ego roll construct to allow control without negotiation and many new modifiers resulting from same] Not like Energy Blast (unchanged since 2nd Ed, and that was adding an item omitted from 1st Ed). Extensive playtesting of all of these, to assess where holes exist, what holes exist, what may be overpriced or underpriced, and what constructs may need looked at again (or at all - summoning vehicles or bases, for example, comes up in the FAQ). So I would agree that Summon currently has not been designed to accomplish many of these tasks. House rules are therefore needed to fill the gaps (or you deny the power wholesale, or force cumbersome other constructs to mimic it). But a need for house rules is indicative of a weakness in the game system. Hero claims the ability to duplicate pretty much any power in any genre, and there are bound to be holes in meeting such a broad statement. This is not a shot at Hero - I've never seen any system that comes close to meeting that claim to the extent Hero does. As well, the metarules provide insights to help individual gamers find stopgaps to fill the holes. But house rules are stopgaps, rules we make up to cover the absence of appropriate "official" rules. They are not the best solution. That's why the game has evolved through 5 editions - bugs in the system get identified and fixed. Many house rules commonly needed in 5th Ed will likely see "official" rules in 6th Ed (when and if enough accumulate to merit 6th Ed). Then we'll stop arguing about the best house rule to do it, and start arguing over whether the costsa are right, how precisely the new rules work, whether they appropriately simulate the power, whether some other construct is, or would be, superior, etc. etc. etc. Que Sera! OddHat Wrote: Honestly I'd say so as well. OTOH damn if I'm giving point breaks on such an easilly abused power. If the PC wants a point break for his motorcycle, let him buy a multipower slot with extra running and the Visable Manifestation limit from USPD. [Discussion of why we wouldn''t use the mechanic built to accomplish the effect...] Hugh, I'd rather not get personal with another adult in a debate over game rules. Now apparently you feel that I already have, which was not my intention. The passage you quoted was not any kind of attack on you. Getting personal is not my intent either. I have a pretty thick skin, so if you're thinking I may have been offended, set your mind at ease. I hope I have not offended you, and if I have, I apologize. However, it is frustrating for players to be told "Sorry, your concept doesn't work in my game", whether disallowed outright or priced out of the value of its benefits. And as a GM, I'm sure I have frustrated more than my fair share of players in the same way. This is especially problematic in a game that enables you "to create any spell, technology, power, weapon, ability or other effect you can imagine", or so claims the intro. When a player brings a reasonable construct ("When I snap my fingers, a corvette appears for me to drive" seems not unreasonable to me), I believe the GM should be looking for a way to facilitate this reasonable ability at a reasonable cost, not deny it on the basis someone else may later try to create an abusive ability using the same mechanic ("When I snap my fingers, a Star Destroyer, fully crewed, appears to serve my every whim"). These will have to be denied ("That's really not appropriate for our Wild West game, Powergamin' Phil"). That said, Visable Manifestation is a perfectly valid way of representing many types of summons, from Green Lantern's Lions that you referenced earlier, to Johnny Blaze's Fire Cycle, to many of Doctor Fate's creations and on down the line. Buying extra running to represent a vehicle has been around forever in Champions. If you'd like a "summon" for a realistic vehicle that doesn't use the summon power, one example might be a car with an AI that responds to a radio signal; the AI then drives the car to the Summoner. Other types of construct could certainly work as well. If the Player wants to use Summon, generally he'd best be prepared to pay the points the rules demand, unless his GM's house rules say differently. Note that the rules don't demand any specific point cost for a summoned vehicle. They do not even consider a summoned vehicle. The FAQ suggests a summoned vehicle would be slavishly loyal, but I don't think the FAQ gets playtested. The player who opened this discussion (long departed for quieter pastures, I imagine ) had pointed out a gap in this logic - a realistic vehicle is not slavishly loyal to the summoner - and was looking for ways to reflect that, and pay the points his power is actually worth. Whether some other construct works depends on the effect the player is looking for. If "summon lions" is really just "Here's an attack power that hits the target, then the lions fade away", some combination of EB, Entangle, RKA or what have you works just fine. If the power is "The Ring creates a pseudo-lion which acts of its own accord, attacks on its own speed of 3 and moves at 8" per phase full move", it's no longer an EB with a flashy special effect. A car with an AI which responds to its Summoner by remote radio control sounds a lot like Summon (vehicle); OAF (or reduced focus) Radio Control; Slavishly Loyal (let's say the radio control is required to get in to drive); Arrives under own power; perhaps some variation of "must inhabit locale, and (you will say yes, I will say no based on other thread) possibly +1 for Specific Being (my vehicle). Maybe some Concentrate while it gets there if you have to "drive" its remote. Mind you, it's probably a lot cheaper to buy High Range Radio Perception through a focus for the character, and through the vehicle for the AI, and buy a "come when called", and "navigate with no driver" program. MINOR PET PEEVE: A car that drives itself through busy city streets to come get the owner is "realistic"? Note that the rules don't demand any specific point cost for a summoned vehicle. They do not even consider a summoned vehicle. The FAQ suggests a summoned vehicle would be slavishly loyal, but I don't think the FAQ gets playtested. The player who opened this discussion (long departed for quieter pastures, I imagine ) had pointed out a gap in this logic - a realistic vehicle is not slavishly loyal to the summoner - and was looking for ways to reflect that, and pay the points his power is actually worth. As for the fire cycle, it can't be stolen, takes a phase to resummon if missing or destroyed, and acts like a vehicle, albeit one with strange abilities. Summon Vehicle seems to work. And it is slavishly loyal - no one else can drive it away. My position is that I agree with the rules as published Am I missing an official published rule on summoning vehicles? Maybe this is in Ultimate Vehicle, which I haven't read?

This still has he problem that a high stat overrides the benefits of spending points to have the skill. For example, using your example: So to take the Lockpicking example, with a DEX of 8, 18 and 33: 3 points: 11-; 13-; 16- 2 points: 9-; 11-; 14- 1 point: 7-; 9-; 12- 0 points: 5-; 7-; 10- Of course, this issue exists regardless once characters have purchased the skill. It takes 10 points of "bonus to skill:" to offset the impact of an extra 25 points in the stat, and it's a lot cheaper to buy up a stat rather than buy up several skill rolls based on that stat. If you're willing to increase that stat dependency (and live with the consequences that paying for high stats beats paying for skills), this may be the solution. The game as written provides familiarity and full skill. It also provides some everyman skills in which one is deemed to have familiarity. If this were a real issue in my campaign, I'd be inclined to disallow "unskilled rolls" - either it's an everyman skill, or you have no clue where to begin withoput shelling out 1 point. The answer to "but anyone can try this" becomes either an addition to the everyman skills, or noting that one can effectively select any other skill as an everyman skill by selling back (say) driving for 1 point and using it to buy familiarity with a different skill. Alternatively, if you feel the added house rule is worth it, set a middle ground of "untrained skills" where everyone has a base roll of 5 or less. Easy tasks can still be accomplished (a task with +5 or+6 on the roll provides a decent chance, and they can take Extra Time in many circumstances). There would always be some risk of failure - no "easy task by default" rule, but they can try. The guy who spent a point will always have better odds, though. The choice depends on whether you want to focus characters more on their stats or their skills.

Since we can voluntarily reduce SPD to 1, and bases have no SPD, why not just use 1?

Well, since I no longer have to provide any explanation in terms of game mechanics, he's either "vastly more strong-willed and mentally tough than a normal person" or he's "over 20 times as strong-willed and mentally tough than a normal person" I'd use the former, as we have no measure for strength of will in the real world anyway. The "+5 doubles" measure is convenient shorthand to allow characters to be significantly "better" in abstract terms without 4 digit stats.

Wouldn't the "generic mage spirit" be just as pleased to leave limbo as the "specific mage spirit"? I suspect the "generic" would be as good or better, in that the "specific spirit" gets used to the privilege. Bottom line: like anything else, you can generally worsen the relationship through role playing, but if you want the benefits of a better relationship consistently, you'll have to pay the points to buy up the loyalty. Nice logic there... First you say "Summon Specific Being will heal the being up, so no disadvantage if he's injured/killed". Then you say "Well of course Steve will rule that doesn't happen, but that's irrelevant". You were provided with an example where Summon Specific was, in fact, a drawback. That was what you requested. We have now established that your convoluted rulkes interpretation which makes it not a drawback was incorrect. Do you now accept that the potential injury of the "specific being" creates a case where "summon generic" is more advantageous? In any case, the whole point of this discussion is an analysis of when one would deviate from the general rule, not whyether the book says "Specific person is a +1 advantage". It does. The question is whether that cost should always be applied, or whether the GM should run his game and revise costs where the benefits are there, not hide behind the Big Book and say "This is the Rule!". The single best thing about the Hero system is its versatility. When a reasonable power construct is inefficient due to point costs put in place to prevent abuses, the system effectively bans a reasonable character ability. Thus, the rules should be interpreted (in my vision of the world) in such a fashion that the cost a character pays for an ability is commensurate with the benefits of THAT ability, not the abusive ability someone else may try to use the same mechanic to obtain. How many character examples in Hero's myriad of products explicitly state they are not in strict accordance with the rules? Why are they in "official products, if not because the rules must be applied with common sense, not simply adhered to blindly? Note that the book includes tons of "should not's", (for example, "Special powers should not be used in power frameworks"). Numerous examples also exist, in FREd and in other products (and I understand Steve is heavily involved in editing and approving products) where these rules are waived. (Flash defense in a gadget pool, for example.) If I were Steve, I would not make any stronger ruling outside a formal revision to the rule books. That would, in my eyes, contitute a specific change to the rules best addressed in an actual rules book. Will some costs change if there is a 6th edition? Probably. Will Summon be among them? Who knows. But it is one of the newer abilities, so it has less history, and thus less experience, behind it. It's also one of the ones that generates significant discussion and controversy. So I suspect it would be looked at more closely than, say, "Should we change Force Field or Energy Blast?" The GM did not create the situation. The player did, when he designed his character as he did. Now the question becomes whether, in fact, the +1 advantage is appropriate in all cases. And that is the discussion at hand. If a Limitation is not limiting, it isn't worth any points. If an Advantage carries no advantage, why should it be worth points? There is no overall advantage of Summoning Officer Stumpy over Summoning a generic policeman with these stats. There may be some benefits (familiarity being key), but drawbacks also exist (he gets hurt, he quits the force, he doesn't like you any more) whice pretty much net out (if not create net drawbacks). No advantage, so no Advantage. There is an overall advantage to Summoning Tony Blair over summoning a generic individual having the same stats and skills, but holding no special position of power or fame. There's an advantage, so you buy an Advantage. In my campaign, I invoke the "common sense"ule and say "you're not getting an advantage from summoning Stumpy over a generic police officer, so you need not pay extra points. But, he will not become more friendly over time unless you pay for the Amicable advantages over time." In yours, the player chooses between paying double points for no increase in efficiency or puts the idea back on the shelf and summons bland, generic policemen instead (or not summoning at all and saving this interesting, but unusual, contruct for a more reasonable GM). We remove a reasonable ability from the game, and the game is weakened (just a bit, but if we disallowed every power which could be subject to abuse, what's left?) And you talk about me assuming things ito the powers? One could just as easily assume "generic" summoned creatures return from whence they came, unchanged and with no memory of what happened to them, or that Summon creates a facsimile being instead of a real one. It all depends on special effects. In any case, I suspect your players will quickly learn not to use Summon in your campaign, as you seem to have a bias against the ability in general. It is a Summon with a special effect that the guy who shows up always has the same name, personality and wardrobe. Should Aladdin's Genie be a Follower or a Summon (we'll ignore Contact and Favour for now)? He is a Summon with a bit of flavour. Convince me that Summon of a generic being is in any material way different from summoning a specific being which has stats identical to the generic being. How is "Generic Collie" any different from "Laddie, the Generic Collie"? It was that the mechanical differences between "summon one specific being only" and "summon a generic being each time" were generally not sufficient to support a +1 advantage for the former over the latter. If the "generic being" or "specific being" always has the same stats, always shows up fully healed, always has the same personality and always arrives with the same amicability towards the summoner, what mechanical difference is there between "Summon Uncle Louie the Art Critic" and "Summon Generic Art Critic"? There is none. Consequently, it is a special effect, neither an advantage nor a limitation. If, however, injury of Uncle Louie is not healed by the next Summon, and the death of Uncle Louie means the character points are now wasted (unless you find a use for summoning a dead body, I suppose), then this power is less useful than Summon Generic Art Critic. Whether that should manifest in the form of a -1/2 limit, a -1/4 limit or no limit (and, given the likelihood of Louie being used in combat, I'd say the last - a combatant would be different), it should not manifest in a doubling of the cost solely because the player thought through the summon and wants an effect that brings no mechanical advantage whatsoever. Addressed to Steve; good points Again, sounds like you just don't like Summon. How is it that Steve did such a great job measuring the benefits and limits of summoning a specific being, and missed the boat on the power as whole, I wonder. Maybe the better answer would be to scrap "Follower" and make it a modified form of Summon. OO REVELATION OO Your examples all include characters who are important to the campaign outside their existence as a being the character Summons. Mine (eg. Uncle Louie) assume the character has no importance to the campaign outside his existence as a Summoned being. That may be a summary of the difference in a nutshell. If the character has campaign importance outside existence as a summoned being (Betty the Barmaid, the King's Daughter, your DNPC), then they are a "specific being" subject to the +1 advantage. These are the potentially abusive situations. If, on the other hand, they have no real campaign existence outside being a summoned creature (ie a generic art critic vs Uncle Louie), they are not really "specific beings" and no advantage should be required. Note that this precludes taking your summoned being as a DNPC, for example. They automatically show up fully healed, just like a generic summon, and their amicability never changes (or changes as an it would for a generic summon) unless you take a limitation (or advantage) of some form in this regard. "Potential for abuse" is the real problem. This is the crux of the matter. Adding a +1 advantage to all uses of a power, abusive or not, subjects reasonable players to unreasonable extra point costs while permitting abuse to occur provided the cost is paid. The advantage should determine the Advantage - if it's not getting any difference over generic "summon", there should be no difference in cost. If the power is twice as useful, a +1 advantage is appropriate. And if it's three times as useful (or what have you), the advantage should increase accordingly. But the points should be based on the actual benefits of this specific power, not the potential for abuse inherent in the mechanic as a whole.

Can we have a "Ultimate Summoners" sourcebook? Your answers have written a fair chunk of it already [by the way, the immediate responses are very much appreciated] On the subject of when a summoned being departs: You forgot to cover in your question, and Steve did not address the issue if the Summoned being is forced to “departâ€. If it is killed has it departed? If it is grabbed and carried away, has it departed? Can you comment on these? Obviously, it can't just be distance that "departs" the Summon, otherwise I can't set a task of "Go forth an bring the stolen Chalice back from the Plane of Elemental Fire", which seems a legitimate task (if needing a very potent Summon). ( What if it's mind controlled and retained by the controller? At some point, would he have to buy the summoned being as a follower if he wants to keep it (similar to buying the OAF he took from Gun Man)? That would seem a reasonable point at which the being would have "departed".

The catch is that you're trying to measure something pretty intangible through indirect methods. I approach this from the other aspect. I know 5 STR makes you twice as strong because the "dead lift" doubles. Similarly, based on "5 points doubles", I would rule that +5 DEX halves reaction time. The game rules tell us how much impact that has on ability to perform certain skills, and on combat. The "+5 CHAR doubles" is simply convenient for the types of comparisons you want to make - "when is someone twice, 10 times, 100 times as good as someone else". This was the official measure in prior editions; I'm not sure it's still in place officially in FREd.

Absolutely. And your later comments indicate you and I are on pretty much the same page - it's a limitation, and it's up to the GM to ensure the effects of the limitation are felt. May I suggest that the above quote could be refined to "Preventing abuse while maintaining the game as playable and fun is the GM's job." The easiest way to prevent abuse, after all, is to just ban virtually everything. If you can't have it, you certainly can't abuse it! From the FAQ: Q: How many tasks does a Summoned creature with the Amicable Advantage perform before leaving? A: The GM is, of course, free to have an Amicable Summoned being stick around as long as he wants, but apply the following as a default rule: Friendly EGO/4 tasks Loyal EGO/3 tasks Devoted EGO/2 tasks Slavish EGO/1 tasks As always, it’s up to the GM to decide what constitutes a “task.†For combat, perhaps each Phase of fighting equals a task; for ordinary household chores, perhaps it’s each day of service. Keep common sense, dramatic sense, and considerations of game balance in mind, and you should be fine. Q: Can a character make an Amicable Summoned creature “go away†automatically, or must he buy a Dispel to accomplish this effect? A: It’s up to the GM, based on how friendly/loyal the Amicable being is, but generally a character can make an Amicable being “go away†automatically, without the need for a Dispel. Not a full answer, obviously. On the rules board, I posted a similar question which Steve graciously answered: (a) If I can Summon one being, when is it considered to have departed? Specifically, if it is taken over by another character (say by mind control) is it still my Summoned being, preventing its replacement? The paragraph about forcing a return seems directed at both the Summoner and other characters, so I believe I have to Dispel my own Summon if I want it to leave. (a) It “departs†when it actually leaves; losing control of it does not count as departure. As for having to Dispel it, that depends on the circumstances; for example, the Rules FAQ has a question re: being able to automatically “banish†Amicable Summonees. [steve's answer ends here] "When it actually leaves" still leaves things open to some debate. I would suggest the "stolen" summon hasn't left until either it leaves the controller or the controller is required to pay points to keep the "follower" (same logic as paying the points to keep the villain's focus).

True. The villain needs to buy Mind Control to steal the Summoned being. What % of adversaries have Mind Control? He only needs to have the 8- Everyman skill to steal your vehicle, since it "obeys" whoever sticks the key in the ignition. Absent a physical limitation, he has Driving 8-. And the need for a key is a lot cheaper to get around (Mechanics skill) than enough Mind Control to co-opt a Summoned being. To some extent, this is more a Vehicle (or Automoton) question than a Summon question. Yes, the problem doesn't exist if the vehicle is "inherently loyal", but the original question was "how do I build a realistic vehicle that is not inherently loyal?" The player is willing to make his power less useful in the interests of better simulating the character's ability. Isn't that what limitations are all about? Honestly I'd say so as well. OTOH damn if I'm giving point breaks on such an easilly abused power. If the PC wants a point break for his motorcycle, let him buy a multipower slot with extra running and the Visable Manifestation limit from USPD. [Found it, by the way - it's in the FAQ] Yeah, let's not let using the most obvious and appropriate mechanic get in the way. Let him buy extra running - clearly there's no reason at all to have the Vehicle construct, so let's just ditch it. Hey, let the paladin buy bonus running the same way - summoning a horse is just ripe for abuse! The bottom line here seems to be that my approach is "Let's charge the character points for the benefits he actually gets." Yours seems to be "This is open to abuse, so let anyone who wantsit, regardless of whether they exploit the potential for abuse, pay extra." In my structure, the guy who doesn't abuse the ability doesn't pay extra, and the guy who has a hugely effective use may have to pay even more than +1 (always assuming the power is allowed at all). Under your structure, it sounds like everyone pays +1 and if you chose not to min/max your abilities, too bad - no point break, you're just an inefficient character designer. Perhaps the character should take his summon power "OAF - Keys" (or OIF Keys) and define the Summon as "personal", the control as Universal? Now it costs half as much - there's a reasonable result. And define it as summoning a "generic" vehicle, of course. No sense taking an extra +1 just so the vehicle is always blue! Oh, and put it in a Multipower so you only pay the "ultra" points for it. Once it's summoned, it stays even if the points are shifted. That's in the FAQ, right near the "vehicle must have slavishly loyal" suggestion. The real answer may be to consider the vehicle "Loyal" (+1/2) on the basis that the fact it will obey others means it's hardly "devoted" or "slavishly loyal". The questions are always "How much of a game effect will it have?" and "What is the in game effect?" If you want a steal-able and thus cheaper cycle, maybe you'd be better off building it using a different construct. Letting you build it with summon and giving you point breaks for doing so invites serious abuse down the road. What construct would you suggest is reasonable for building a construct which summons a vehicle? Energy Blast, perhaps, or maybe an Elemental Control? Summon is the power one uses to Summon something. It's one of the very few powers in the game which cannot be duplicated through other mechanics.

Using chance of success, your results will depend first on how hard the task is and also on whether you believe "improvement" is reflected by better success chances or lower failure risk. For an easy task (DEX roll +5), 8 DEX succeeds 95.37% and 23 succeeds 99.54%. 23 makes success marginally more likely. Failure, however, is 87 times more likely at 8 DEX, so arguiably the 15 point spread is an 87x improvement. Is it a slight .05x better, or 87 times? Make it -5, and success chances change radically, but failure chances do not. This comes down to the law of diminishing returns. Success or failure at any given task involves more than "how much better is the stat". Once you have a certain reaction time, being faster no longer improves your chance of success at any given task, or improves it only marginally. Other factors are always relevant, right down to blind luck (no luck factor? Get rid of rolls!). The doubling per 5 CHAR points is a nice elegant feature for a system where some characters are hundreds, or even thousands, of times better than the norm. No "8,000 STR" required! [it was quite interesting when Mayfair introduced a log scale for their DC Heroes game some years ago and the discussion read like they had discovered fire or nuclear power. Champions had been using the same thing for years, with finer gradations since Mayfair used +1 stat = twice as good.]

Um...20 is 4x better. And you're right - it doesn't work for figured char.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to quantify a super's superiority over normals? Not ACTIVE points, DEX points. It costs more to be twice as fast than it does to be twice as strong. It costs less to be twice as good looking.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to quantify a super's superiority over normals? Exactly 128 times better (2 to the 7th power; 43 = 8 + (7x5)). But 16 times better than a 23 DEX character. Absent levels, etc. your DCV is 14, and the 23 DEX character has an 8. That means they need a 3 to hit you. If they are able to hit the character with 16 times greater reaction speed with any consistency, they must have an edge offsetting the diference in reaction time (such as skill levels which can be seen as either anticipating your use of superior reaction time or as improving their reaction time with that attack when they work at it (ie place levels in OCV)

I'd allow this structure (it's actually quite elegant), but can't resist playing devil's advocate... Presumably, the character starts with no END in his battery (can't do anything until he absorbs), so why does he need 400 base END in the battery? Wouldn't he need 200 points of absorbtion to get the battery fully charged? Technically, he should be able to get by with 1 END (for 1 point - I suppose he could buy 10) Technically, as the absorbed points fade, the battery will fall into "negative END". Won't that make it harder and harder to absorb enough to get to "positive END"? I'd get around this (were I worred about it) with a +1/2 advantage to Absorb to consider the resultant points Healing to the extent the stat is down. Alternatively, buy some REC, only to restore battery to 0. 10 REC will recover 5 character points of END at the same time as the absorption fades in post segment 12. It used to be possible to use Absorption as the recovery mechanism for a battery. Depending on the actual strucure desired, a multipower may also be appropriate for the actual powers. EC works too.

Besides making a follower that comes when you call, automatically and instantaneously, what does Summon do? Sure, your Summon may not like you very much if you don't pay for amicable, so it's a way to have a less loyal follower. You've made a lot of cmments about "Steve says" - why do you think Steve includes the power rather than requiring you to buy teleport and EDM for a follower? Better buy Amicable then. Otherwise, the dead mage is neutral, and may even resent being pulled away from his eternal reward in the afterlife. You have to overwhelm him to get any answers, so clearly he's not overjoyed about being here. I'm hoping to get Steve's input on that...we'll see what he thinks. But you're right - it's not in the rules, so anything either of us believes is an assumption. But "Summon specific being also includes unlimited healing" seems the less likely interpretation. AP has a game effect of halving most defenses. Besides "he gets to like you over time", you have yet to provide a single game effect benefit of summoning Louie the Art Critic rather than a generic Art Critic. The possibility he becomes amicable ovewr time contradicts your "he always arrives in the same state" argument regarding an injured "specific being". Steve's comment on the rules board on loss of amicability [That’s up to the GM, but in general a character who abuses an Amicable Summonee is going to lose the benefits of that Advantage until he makes amends. It’s a matter of common sense.] implies these things can and will change over time. Oddly, this makes amicability more valuable for a generic summon - so I abuse this one - the next one will be amicable again! Because Louie is the character's uncle. Because he's trying to build some personality and background rather than have a generic summon that's bland and unmemorable. Because he's trying to create a character, not just a series of abilities nailed together by flimsy justification. Given the paucity of "benefits", it seems unlikely the player is "exploiting" them. I agree "Summon Specific Being" can be unbalanced if abused. The solution, however, is not "Pay +1 whether you get no benefits or whether you create the "unbeatable power". It is to set the Advantage cost commensurate with the advantage it provides. If (for whatever reason) there is no desolidification permitted in your campaign, do you still let characters pay a +1/2 advantage for attacks that affect the desolid? A "special effect" has no, or minimal, actual impact on the mechanics of game play - they are flavour. Two otherwise identical powers with different special effects impact the game in exactly the same way. Summon Generic Art Cirtic and Summon Uncle Louie have the same game benefits, but different flavour. KA's and normal damage have completely different game mechanics, even if they share the same special effects. To me, that's the difference. From the FAQ, Q: Can a character make an Amicable Summoned creature “go away†automatically, or must he buy a Dispel to accomplish this effect? A: It’s up to the GM, based on how friendly/loyal the Amicable being is, but generally a character can make an Amicable being “go away†automatically, without the need for a Dispel. From my question on the Rules Board: It “departs†when it actually leaves; losing control of it does not count as departure. As for having to Dispel it, that depends on the circumstances; for example, the Rules FAQ has a question re: being able to automatically “banish†Amicable Summonees. Apparantly, when it is used in the usual parameters of the Summon power (ie you define what you summon, it always comes to you in the nearest open space, and you stick to the Summon rules). Using it to Teleport Betty the Barmaid away from her kidnappers would, in my view, be using it as a cheap teleport. Of course. Wouldn't he also have noticed it's always a cheap form of teleport and EDM, and therefore banned the whole power outright? :confused: Get rid of Summon and instead require the power to be modelled by Teleport, EDM and Mind Control, then. Why does this differ depending on whether its a specific character?

Well, the obvious one's up twice. How about additional KA with a gradual effect timed to reduce/eliminate recovery (and limit damage to amounts healed/recovered)? How about [CHEESE ALERT!!] Uncontrolled Continuous no END KA that only offsets healing (natural or by powers)? Maybe a Transform to permanently reduce stat points?