tesuji

Is there actually a category for "Best Rehash of 1980's rules" at Origins?

I never liked combat luck or any of the other excuses for buying armor. It always boiled down to this for me... Armor/PD/ED etc defenses are cheaper and more efficient opurchases than the other forms of defense, like DRed and DCV. They provide the most typical "block to a point" defenses which means you don't suffer from the thousand paper cuts and all in all these are more preferable to most players. (also lets remember the no defense stun killing thingy.) Some character concepts don't lend themselves to these defenses mechanics. So, we invent combat luck and pretend like the actual way the mechanics works... the brick-o-protection making more powerful attacks more likely to get lucky?? A 22 caliber is useless but a 45 is better even if fired by the same joe or even if the larger is fired by a worse shot? I prefer much more using DRed or DCV to actually make these "traits" behave in practice differently than the "i have tough skin" thingy. Lucky and tough skinn are two different FX and should not reasonably have the same effects mechanically. The fact that one is typically cheaper and better long term is not a reason to hand wave the FX/mechs differences in favor of "playing the system"... its at best a reason to check the cost-2-effectiveness properties of the defenses. But thats probably just me...

[/b] I tend to agree here, however, there is one huge glaring omission. One mans flaw is another man's correction. There have been seen on these very boards more than a pittance of people for whom the current DS rule on continuous is "correct" in their eyes. its a correction of earlier problems. They seem to find it proper from their view of how the HERo math-model is supposed to work. For the record, i disagree with them. Snipping the off topic, but apparently obligatory, DND bashing (as if there isn't enough in HERO5 to use it as an example, like ohh sayyy DAMAGE SHIELD which has more house rules posted to this board than i can count)... House rules staying within their house is not a bad thing. After all, the purpose of house rules is to make the rule set manufactured for "mass market" work more to the particular tastes and preferences os a given GM and his specific campaign and specific players. So, what are you saying? That rules should be written to make discussion boards topics stay on topic? I really could care less whether any discussion board's rules discussion stay on topic when it comes to what i want my rules to be. I would rather HERO rules work for their genre, which of course gets ugly when genre is not something the hero rules acknowledge. For the record i would have rather seen a DS that works for supers, and by "works" i mean not that it blindly follows a mathematical process but that the final results pass the "am i getting what i pay for" test. As it stands, it seems we have a DS that will only work out to "worth what you pay for" when it is heroified by using oddball advantages and attacks (or even non-attacks with clever spins) so that the "abusive" problems from 4th are now the norm... and simple notions for simple folks who want to play "like the comics" as in "my human torch is surrounded by fire" should NOT use damage shield as their component for building this effect cuz they will pay "more than its worth." This would have entailed making DS a relatively low cost multiplier or even a no-point choice for normal attacks and give it plenty of penalty value adders for the oddball attacks along the lines of autofire. Its an easy house rule... But they did not write a DS for me and my preferences. The math nodel guys seem happy with it. Maybe they wrote it for them? They did not write damage shield for supers? Maybe they wrote it for westerns or cyber or ninja or fantasy or a lot of those other genres i don't use hero for. Maybe it works for them. Since i only need a ds for supers and i know how much its worth in my games... i can house rule it.

Re: Re: Cost of Armor Can i play? 15/15 armour = 45 ap. -1/2 costs end real cost 30 rp end cost per phase 4. amount of multipower reserve needed to run: 45 15/15 force field = 30 ap real cost 30 rp end cost 3 per phase amount of multipower reserve needed to run 30. Even HERO 5 rules themselves do not go for the oversimplistic view that as long as RP cost evens out then the powers are balanced against each other. HERO 5 has this hidden secret thing which only those with the proper decoder rings can know about, but at risk of having large men come and stuff me into my trunk, i will reveal it to you guys. Just don't tell anyone it was me. Its called active points. [looks over shoulder nervously before continuing.] See the errr... non-inactive points affect a great many myriad and diverse properties within the game, including endurance, difficulty with skill checks, and how well or poorly the power goes into frameworks. Even the hero 5 rules dismiss using real points as a good measure of a power's effectiveness. They have never, as i recall, advised "its an ok power if its real cost is lower then x." On occasion active point limits have been discussed. (though they admit that doesn't work either.)

First, for the most part the "but enough PD/ED" does not cut it. Any number of NNDs such as "meson burst stopped by force fields" would go thru it. Desolid works fine, right up until a affects desolid comes along. Finally... ABSOLUTE does not mean UNBALANCING and certainly does not equate to unplayable or uninteresting or unsuitable for a PC. A character that always hits with a thrown dart (maybe 1d6K) would be not very unbalancing in a full blown supers game (one without the heroic level hit locations in play) because the damage caused would be insignificant to most supers. That absolute would allow some cute trick shots for effect now and again and, under a good GM, on occasion make for clever uses to solve problems, but not be worht infinite points, at least, if you think points matter. A character immune to magic would also not be imbalancing in a campaign of full blown supers where magic is but one of many FX particularly if he has some problem which prevents him from just romping all over mages... like say his superpowers dont work near magic so it boils down to a sort of powerless exhcnage when he and they fight. From my experience, a notion that all absolutes are bad for the game is as unimaginative as it is self-contradictory. Some absolutes are bad. They would be no matter whether they cost 10 points or 50 points or 120 points. The key to balancing an absolute power in a PC or NPC is in the overall aspects of the character which provide other hooks on which he is hung and balance his 500 lb gorilla. just my 2 cents.

Our recent game had four players and speeds from 5-7 for pcs and 4-8 for npcs in play. The long delayes were not there even with these greater differences. They key is teh GM. he needs to move things along and if someone is hemming and hawing step in and just start counting "10...9...8... etc" or something els to say "use it or lose it." In my dnd game, where everyone gets the same actions one after another, there is one guy who is slow as all get out and i have to step up and say "what are you doing" every now and again to keep it moving. This gets more important with more players. I once had a game under a less than skilled gm where not only did i sit for 2.5 hours before my first chance at action came up (actually my second as my first was switching powers in my pool) and just as my action was up the game ended. That actually was my last session withn that gm.

Re: How is it a disadvantage... I think by definition, if they aren't limiting the NPC, they are not being played. Many limitations are not "things that rely on my adversaries to take advanateg of" but rather, "things that limit MY CHOICES." The latter disadvantages require the PLAYER, whether its an NPC ran by the GM or a PC ran by a player, to limit his decisions to less than "the most reasonable." A guy with megalomania should repeatedly be biting off more than he can chew and finding his masterfully constructed plans falling apart because he overextended himself since taking the world a little at the time is just not good enough. A guy with overconfidence would likewise be making errors based on underestimating his enemies, figuring "they would not dare attack the deathstar with little fighters" or some other issue which enables the heroes to foil his plans. Overconfidence should not be interpreted by the Gm as thinking "i am more powerful with my 30d6 bad self than a single hero with 12d6 blasts" or "i can ignore those 12d6 blasts because i have 50 defenses" as those are ACCURATE assessments showing reasonable analysis. Overconfidence should reflect itself in other ways such as allowing the special key element to be exposed to attack because" well, obviously they would not dare to attack me there and if they did ny robot defense troops should handle them easily" when in fact thats a good choice for the PCs and the robot defense forces leave a little to be desired. Psyche lims are disadvantages WHEN they lead you to make bad choices... and regardless of power level bad choices can be made.

This thread highlights the problems with metarule 6... 1. The meat in the rule is "valid" not "most expensive" and without an objectively defined "valid", the rule has no meaning of consequence. Some will read valid as meaning legal in the rules, while others, as seen here, will add to it many other qualities like elegane, reasonable, and so on. 2. Most expensive goes directly contrary to the hero basic principle number one... points matter and you should pay for what you get and no more. If i can get several different prices for "the same power" then ONE of them is correct... one of them is reflective of how much i will get out of the power in play. (Ugly truth, this is highly variable by campaign to campaign.) A better writing of metarule 6 for me would be... When faced with different constructs of the same power which produce equivalent results but differing costs, the Gm should permit the one most reasonable by cost-effect comparison with other SIMPLER powers and characteristics, with the nod going to the simpler power construct. "Simpler" would be defined as involving the fewest advantages/lims and the least in terms of size, as well as probably eliminating "custom lims" where possible. However, i would replace metarule 6 entirely, with something even simpler... "the GM is tasked with making sure that approved powers are worth what was paid for them, so the cheaper "construct gets less benefit in play than the more expensive one. Whether this is due to actual organic differences intrinsic to the powers as built or due to scripting of scenarios, adversaries and challenges is IRRELEVENT." Example... Cheeser managed to buy his 10d6 firebolt for 25 points while NEWBIE bought his 10d6 firebolt for 50. The GM approves both but amazingly IN PLAY Newbie has more guys with fire vulnerability in his sights than CHEESER does and Cheeser tends to get more guys with fire drains and tossed into "sprimkler situations" than NEWBIE does. BALANCE is created when a GM makes sure you get what you pay for and no more once he has approved the cost. Balance is much more wrapped up in the challenges you face than they are wrapped up in whether your firebolt is 50 or 25. Admittedly, this does make the entire hero-esque obsession on points microfocusing down to every single aspect of character creation including "i get more dice for my firebolt if i have hayfever" look rather much an institutionalized, formalized and codified policy of deliberately missing the forest for the trees, but then again, its gotta be that way for those who believe "experience and skill in working the character creation system" is properly rewarded with more capable PCs IN PLAY.

Reduce the size of limitations and advantages so as to remove 1/4s and 3/4 stages. Make the steps between each limitation level broad and distinct. Allow the lesser differences that are currently seen as the 1/4 stages to become FX and give better guidelines o using FX in GMing. Expand the principle of "synergy price bonuses" beyond autofire nnd/aoe etc to also address the various other cases where an advantage or limitation should price differently depending on the type of defense it works against and so forth. (A subtle one... full phase action on no range powers as opposed to full phase action on ranged powers) Expand into practice the notion of campaign specific costs and how to assess them, such as water breathing's value in an atlantean campaign. Expand the guidelines for the final step in power creation... the "did this turn out right? Does it make sense?" assessment stage that would for instance stand up and scream to the highest yardarm that a result such as "and this fighting array that can get you up to +6 dex (no figs) but only in limited circumstance and taking actions costs 24 cp" IS DONE WRONG when in the same game +6 dex always all the time no action is only costing 18 and thats with figureds to boot. Right now it seems the default is "did i do the math right?" and not "does the result make sense?" if the above are done, then by default damage shield should already be fixed. Finally, and this will never happen, reassess the entire way advantages and limitations are handled. It really breaks down way too much. The difference betweem a 12d6 Eb and a 12d6 EB full phase is +4 ranged combat levels (20 cp) unless they are guns (OAF) in which case its +1 ranged combat level and a familiarity (6 cp) yet all the problems of full phase vs half phase still exist to plague the guy with the slow high recoil (FX for full phase) gun toter just like they were for the slowfire Eb guy. if the same problems exist, why should the "balance" in cost be less than 1/3 of the original?

"According to the FRED, you cannot EAT through a force field (check under always on). So my question was "where do you draw the line for what you CAN or CANT do?"" Thats easy... Whereever game balance, maturity, common sense, and dramatic sense tell you to.

More of a metarules interpretation... So in a FH game, they had worked their way to the hidden room where the death ward they had read about which promised to syck the life from anyone entering was present. After some experimentation they realized it had been weakened and was a slow death effect now and was "effectively" a body destruction. So the other got ready to start translating the runes and figure out another way in to bypass the wards when the paladin-esque player suggested he go in, he was willing to sacrifice himself to get the trniket they needed. After some disagreements and arguments, he proceeded in. I was impressed with his "roleplaying" and so forth. By the time he was out, he had lost 4 body from the destruction effect. The player seemed unfazed and ready to proceed and even roleplayed the character as a little tired. The next day he handed me the new character sheet where he had reallocated those 8 points from the lost 4 body into skill bonuses and a new minor magical trick (some aid thingy iirc.) Dumbfounded, i told him "you lost those points, that body is gone, think of it like a long long term drain." "Yeah, I know they are gone, but in hero gone means you get the points back. So here you go." Still surprised but now understanding the reason behind his willingness to step in and such... he saw it as "freeing up points" not losing health.. I said "No. Losing stats due to hostile force is just that, losing." He began to rail and rant... "I was on the original playtest for this damn game. I know what I am talking about, In champions you never lose points, that would throw off all the balance. I get those points back now here is my sheet." "Can you show me a rule?" "I dont need a rule the whole book says so. I was on the poriginal playtest team, my name is in the book for chrissakes. I know thats understood, everybody knows it but you." "Your name is in the book? Where?" "It was, though, of course not my real name. look, do i get my points or not?" "No, i am sorry although you should understand that I did plan on future storylines restoring..." "Thats it! I am outta here. i will find a GM who knows the first thing about champions." He never played with us again.

Use a custom lim "goes down after X hits and cannot be reactivated until..." with the value of the lim determined by the humber of hits and the until clause severity. However, please note that the value of this lim will be HIGHLY subjective by campaign and nothing like a "standard" value. In a game where lots of agent skirmishes "VIPER thugs with grenades" are in play and are probably frequtnly used as "warm ups" for the main badguy, this can be very severe. In games where "one big bad" is opposed by a swarm of heroes commonly, this wont be that severe at all, unless given very few hits. heck, the significance would even be sujective based on other defenses... for example a character with 20 defenses and this force field was only for "+10 more" raising it to 30 would not use this force field against the "VIPER thugs with grenades" and thus probably walk in full against the big bad.

Actually a minor quibble... According to FRED baseline normal average joe guy is 8, not 10. 10 is just the starting baseline for PCs. See their normals writeups.

Ok, stepping another level back, when you question adders vs multipliers, you have to ask does the multiplier work at all? For example... Ralphus has 12d6 EB for 60 points and Rufus has 12d6 EB full phase for 40 points. The defined system of balance says that half-phase vs full phase for this 12d6 electric blast is worth 20 points. But, if ralphus has a 12d6 electrib blaster rifle and rufus has a 12d6 electric blaster rilfe with full phase, the system says the difference is inly 6 points. 6 points for the diffeerence between full and half phase for the 12d6 rifles but 20 points for the same difference, full vs half phase, between the 12d6 blasts-from-fingertips? (heck, for a lark, consider whether the following is true... full phase for a 4d6 HKA is a 20 point savings as well... but is the difference between full phase RKA and a normal half phase RKA actually as severe as the difference between the same type of HKAs? For example, how many shots are going to be lost to the RKA due to having to move to setup the shot as opposed to how many lost HKA shots due to having to move to get in range? ) *************************** As for things like does kb and double KB the example given is precisely on point. DOES KB and DOUBLE KB are valued well for things like heaing flash and dispel trick powers. They do not however value out right for more normal uses, like you would expect to see novices designing. Damage shield is another such example. Area effect is wonderful for NNDs and drains but sux for producing good results for normal attacks... the fireball is a waste while the area drain necromantic endurance sapping gas is a good buy. *************************** In short, the problem is not just a stray value here or an adder vs multiplier there, but a more systemic failing. In some cases, like say autofire, HERo starts the beginning of making the static advantage costs adjust for the specific power combos and thus tries to make things

In regards to the last two posts... I would have to agree that in liue of GM oversight, the best way to handle MTA (move thru abuse) is probably not using the rules presented for them and making up your own. The house ruled entangle-kbr thing also fits in that category.

Actually the problem is your math... NORMALLY side effects are based on the AP of the power (or the minimums given in the lim.) 180 in an end reserve is only 18 ap, not 180. However, in some cases they tell you to treat it just like end for other effects, in which case, 180 end reserve could be considered as 180 end which costs 90 ap. Going with this logic... 90 ap converts to a 4d6 RKA explosion. Now, here is the bad news. The main character gets no defenses. Everyone else should. That still wont be lethal but it will probably knock him loopy. Things that would set my alarms off would be a high body scroe for this character, over 15, so that on average he could still be up after a 14 body blast; some form of regeneration/healing to enable him to recover quickly and so forth. ********************** That said... I would strongly consider requiring this power to be built as a power in itself, as an RKA explosion of whatever you want, and then apply limits to that power. No conscious control would represent he could not normally trigger the bang. no range would habdle the bang starts at him. Finally, a character disadvantage to cover the triggering of the power involuntarily... phys lim or accidental change seems right.

Ok from my perspective... I have GMed HERo for ages, starting with Champions3 in the earlier 80s and thru 4 and into 5. its the system i have GMed more than any other, with Vampire coming in second and various iterations of DND (1st and 3rd only), traveller, and others filling the gaps. Were are abandoning our current HERO5 champions game for MnM. After some playtests, MnM showed both a smoothness of flow and design and a style that was preferred over hero and this is from a gang of hero experienced players. During our early playtests and such as well as in actual character generation, i heard the phrase "just like in the comics" multiple times stated aloud by various members. I never, in decades, heard that during any hero character generation. Just to touch on a few points... Support... There are about four Supers products on schedule for MnM in 2003. While HERo has many more products on the schedule, I am uncertain as to how many of them are "supers" as opposed to Fantasy HERO and Star HERo and Elmer Fudd HERo and so on. Frankly, I found little use in say STAR HERO for my supers games. balance... like all games, balance is a thing for the GM. Can you build a PL11 character that is immune to a PL10 character... yup. In MNM you can. Then again, in HER a 300 pt character can be immune to a 350 point character. In both cases, it takes a specific type of rock-paper-scissors designing. In MnM, attacks other than "bash em with eb" are effective enough to be common and that makes immunity actually rather hard unless you are dealing with specific and narrow counter designs. )The characters i have designed and seen designed for play typically dont just have their EB and their AP Eb but also have several other types of attacks. Whether the character have secondary powers and such is a matter of taste not system. My characters have seemed to have enough points to have more than just the basics covered in MNM much better than in HERO even at 350. One other thing to remember about the powers in MnM... you don't have everything as a separate power. A character with only FireBolt (EC+10: Fire) can spend HERO POINTS to also throw a FIREBALL Explosion, a Conflagration (lasting burn such as in hero terms a continuous fire), and even for short periods for things like fly and engulf himself in fiery sheath. (Oh yeah, damage shield works in MnM and you dont even have to make it a clinging NND autofire damage shield to be effective!) So sure, the HERo character probably had three or four more powers printed and pointed and squeezed into his multipower and ec frameworks... while the MnM character buys only the powers he wants all the time and can do "stunts" and the like on occasion to use his powrs for other things than the ones he did the math on. MnM's drawback is that it has first edition errors in writing and such, but, i have a stinking suspicion that the erratta and FAQ will be a lot smaller than the seasoned veteran HERO5 has right now. Its also a lot simpler a system to manage. But all the above are just back-n-forth quibbles... if you want supers play to be quick and dynamic, and less about accounting and more about FX... MnM is the better choice for you.

Book not in front of me... but from my recollection Nowhere in ENTANGLE rules does it state that it provides any sort of KBRes. Nowhere in entangles does it state that it IN ANY WAY reduces the KB distance done. To rule that it does for some SFX of entangle and not for others is a HOUSE RULE. Regardless of whether you want to hide behind "its an interpretation, yeah, not a house rule" or whathave you, the fact is its almost irrelevent. There is practically NO 12dc entangle that is not going to be taken out by the 22d6 attack. So, unless the GM house rules in that not only does the entangle have to be killed but that it ALSO reduces the attack's KB... then it aint gonna affect the result much at all. Then again, maybe a mental paralysis entangle would also reduce KB? :-) ******************* The reasona entangles are brought in is the post after post which decry how much the -6 OCv balances the 22d6. There are a lot of powers and causable conditionsincluding but not limited to entangle, flash, being prone or off balance, mental illusions, and the like which can drastically reduce an opponent's DCV in 5e. Those all go a long way towards making the -6 OCV a less than balancing factor. Entangle is just the most easily accessible power, needing only about 40-50ap to be just right for the job. Net result, IMO and by the normal rules, if a GM dismisses his concerns over the move thru 22d6 in a 12dc game BECAUSE the OCV penalty is severe, he is setting himself up for trouble because with many of these abilities and power that ocv penalty can be rendered trivial due to the enemy DCv penalties caused by the PCs. In short, like you see MANY MANY times in hero, you have to consider BOTH severity (how many dice) and frequency (chance of hitting) BOTH independently and together. just like the rules advise you to consider "fellow PC powers" when considering frequency... "only near magnetic fields but my partner generates high magnetic fields as a SFX"... you need to consider it here as well. ************** Would you approve a 22d6 EB in a 12d6 game with a 1/day charges because "i cannot use it that often"? if not, think twice or even three times before approving a 22d6 move thru character for that same game because "circumstances where it will be used will not occur that often."

Goodly Doctor.... Certainly, a Gm can add in house rules to make move thru's less viable. He can add free KB resistance to entangles and thus make the players choose certain FX over others. The balance issues of these house rules are his to deal with. Heck, he can just as easily rule that you take full damage MINUS 1d6 per inch of KB, so that only if you knock him back a long way do you even get down to half dice. But, this isn't about "is move thru balanced with these house rules." its about move thrus and their abuse in the normal rules. I do agree that, if move thrus are abusive, your entangle house rule might well be one potential solution. As a house rule intended to fix the issue, I think it lacks scope, since it only fits some FX of entangle and it adds a new ability to entangles that affects things way outside of the problem at hand. So, as an intriguing house rule for some entangles in general, it is OK. As a house rule to correct abusing move thrus, it doesn't do much for me. but thats fine because its your house rule and i presume it works well in your game. BTW assuming a 22 body KB chance... assuming a standard 12dc entangle stopping 12 body plus def. the 2d6 roll would need to be 10+ to cause full damage (maybe 11+) which means we are looking at a solution which only works 1 time in 6 at best... barring again specific defenses such as KBRes. If the entangler is room temperature IQ, he uses 4d6 4def (enough to easily handle casual strength) and now the roll needs to be a 14 on 2d6? of course, you did that math already, right, before touting your house rule out? A room temperature IQ can do this math and use the 22d6 move thru with entangles intelligently. All your house rule does is choose which SFX they will prefer AND urge them to choose lower levels of entangle for this purpose. if they entangler decided to use fewer dice, it works just fine.

Unless the move thru is the bulk of the damage, the half-damage is not going to hurt much. I would gladly take 7 stun in order to wallop him for 22d6 in a 12d6 game. As for "if you get full damage" one of two things are true... 1. you did not KB because you rolled really really low... in which case neither of you is too hurt. 2. you made a stupid move thru decision... like trying to move thru godzilla. With just room temperatur IQ, a player can figure out who to move thru and who not to fairly quickly. Suggestion for GMs worried about balance, dont count on STUPID players when you make decisions. If you assume they will be balanced by this 22 dice attack because sometimes they will take 22 dice themselves, dont be surprised when they start waiting to see someone take KB and then tag-teaming them instead of godzilla. Balance for reasonable or even smart play, not numskulls.

The GM needs to consider several things in character design vs campaign limits phase. Haymakers, pushing and move thrus are among them. A Gm who approves 30 move and 12dc on a character who doesn't do the math about the move thru has made an error. Sure, the OCV is low but there are tactics that can make the difference. Does a teammate have an entangle that doesn't block attacks for +1/4? If so then it is simple for the entangle followed by the move thru to run against DCV 0. If the NPC is not defended against a 22d6 attack... WHAM... downed NPC. Heck the same thing can occur with say rapid fire. What if i have a 12dc attack which is say "meson blast" 6d6 NND not vs force fields. My teammate with the entangle throws it on a bad guy and with a full phase half-dcv rapid fire i shoot three times, for 6d6 NND each, and while i am at -4 OCv he is 0 DCV. Thats 18d6 worht of stun... averaging about 49 stun. Unless the Bg was a brick, he is probably KOed. OCV and DCV in 5e vary a lot in combat with entangles and maneuvers. With move thru, rapid fire, sweep, and the like the basic old fashioned "D^s vs PD/ED" straight up comparison is too simple for the new 5e combat rules.

Some large dice of HA Damage shield continuous 0 end IPE (because it is not visible that you have this defenses up) with disadvantages for requires a to-hit roll -1/2 limited to no more damage than the attack would do -1/4 probably you do not get anything for not when stun/ko since a non-persistent ds would not work then by default

My view on Ecs and FX/source... When you look at VPPS and their "limited FX" things you see different levels of limitation... extremely broad ones like MAGIC or MUTANT is only a -1/4 (and this reflects the basic sense the "one drain works vs any" while not really limiting the power selection atall. You are hosed in an antimagic field, not being able to dial up a techno-ray-gun.) These i tend to describe as SOURCE restrictions. Narrower ones like fire powers or ice powers are a bigger limit because they tend to not only limit source but also power selection. These are at -1/2 or somesuch. (Admittedly, if your Gm considers FIRE HANDS as some sort of solid fire can act like real hands TK thingy, then these can be diluted enough to be as broad as the above and should get that much of a lim as well. ME? I don't allow fire force fields for -1/2.) The problem is that with the Ec while there is a general restriction on common FX it does not specify at what level the limitation should be. This means that at some point the limitation is either being underplayed or overplayed without the points reflecting the capability. EC Helpful withceries is a really broad category, or so it seems by the examples, while EC ice powers seems a lot closer to limiting powers as well as FX. An Ec with a basic "source" limit such as magic is not as limited as one with a source and power selection limiting FX defined. However, since the vauge definition is the one we have, i doubt anyone would permit: EC: Magic powers (-1/4 limited to ice powers only) If instead they had given some basic level of restriction akin to "Ecs must have a FX limit at least as strong as that of the -1/4 level fpr VPPs" then we would have had a common reference to go on. Better yet, if they had realized that "LIMITED FX" had meaning in more than one place... both in EC and in VPP, they cold have had an independent chart "Limited by FX" with a number of good examples showing us everything from "magic" and "mutant" to "ice power" and "shrinking power" and for both frameworks we could have a good point of reference. (Add in a paragraph about making these change based on campaign desires.) Another possibility would be to say something like" reference the SFX frequency chart for the campaign (as seen in the Champions universe book IIRC) and to specify what level of frequency ECs have to meet. Define a benchmark and then allow for advantages or limitations to reflect narrower ones. then, everyone gets their monies worth and no more. of course, we already have gaps in the Ec drain thing where things like DRAIN FLIGHT may or may not double drain based on Gm ruling as to whether he wants the double drain to happen if its not SFX based... using common sense, dramatic sense and maturity.

But its not magic... it "helpful witcheries"... :-)

DND did not teach them that combat is the only thing worth paying attention to... their DM did. he did it everytime he made combat the answer to the challenge and every time he made those in between the dungeon events not all that important FOR THE STORY HE RAN. That lesson wont be unlearned until theur Dm taches them otherwise. If your Gm shares your view and intended to "show them" the other side of things, i would advise a plan from the bginning to overhaul characters after a short time. I find that with any radical change in system, after a short time allowing the now experienced players to do substatial character overhaul is a good practice. let them get their feet wet and then build a character they like better for the new system.