GAZZA

Re: A question of balance Here's how I always thought IPE was supposed to work. Let's say I have a character called LaserDude, who can project beams of focussed light throughout the whole electromagnetic spectrum. Assume he has an appropriate Multipower of Energy Blasts (or RKAs, if you think that's a better way to do lasers - it makes no difference for this example). If he blasts you with a normal EB, then a beam of energy emerges from his eyes and strikes you. You can see LaserDude blast you, and so can anyone else who was looking. (At this point I realise I have chosen a spectacularly bad example, since lasers shouldn't really be perceivable unless there's dust around or something, but ... work with me, OK? ). So instead he switches to his X-Ray laser, which has Invisible To Sight (though not to the Radio sense group). If he blasts you now, you don't know he did it, and nor does anyone else. You do know you've been hit with some sort of laser, and from the burns that appear on your chest so do bystanders. And if LaserDude did knockback, you would fly back directly away from him. Taking into account his superhero name, and cross referencing your knockback path, you might be able to figure it out (and so could anyone else). Undaunted, he next switches to his Gamma laser, which has Invisible to Sight at the +1 level. Now, when you get hit, it still hurts (so you know something's happened), but there's no visible scarring. Unless you're a nancy boy and yell out, nobody around will know anything happened (and even if you are a girl's blouse and scream, they won't necessarily conclude that you've been attacked - perhaps they'll think you're just re-enacting the time that you fell off your bike, you wimp! When I were a lad... but I digress). Again, if there's knockback involved, you might conclude that LaserDude was responsible, but a bystander unaware of LaserDude's abilities might think there was a stray gust of wind or something - there's no visible reason why you should suddenly feel the need to leap fifty feet into the air and scatter yourself over a wide area. If you're concluding from this that it's handy to have No Knockback on Invisible Power Effects attacks, then you're on the right page. Anyway, if I'm wrong about how IPE is supposed to work, by all means edumicate me. But the above doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Re: A question of balance I thought that the doubling of it means that there are no indications to anyone other than the target that he was even attacked. For example, if it's a gun then there's no bullet wound. If it's a flame then there are no burns. The target still feels the effect (as an aside, this sort of begs the question as to how you can manage to hurt someone without them knowing about it - but I suppose some sort of Mental Illusions or Mind Control could be pressed into service), but he doesn't necessarily associate it with an attack. Way back in 4th edition days (my goodness I feel old - it's all downhill from 34, I guess - only a few more months until I can no longer say I'm in my early thirties, and will have to start saying "mid thirties"), the back of the BBB had a sample adventure where someone used an IPE Stun Only Energy Blast and it was described that the targets would feel woozy but wouldn't know exactly why. That's the sort of thing I would have thought IPE was for. But for what it's worth, there have been many times when I just didn't bother buying IPE even for powers where it would technically have been appropriate, for much the "utility" reasons you describe. I suppose one advantage of IPE attacks is that they can't be Missile Deflected, they won't activate "Damage Reduction: Must Be Aware of Attack" that some martial artists have, and you probably can't Block them. Whether all that lot is worth +1/2 is a good question, though.

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic And for what it's worth: as a long time player of "holes and scaly lizards" 3rd edition, we found that the global immunities of the aforesaid game were problematic, especially at high levels (where elemental magic becomes virtually useless) - even in "basements and flying reptiles" we were wont to use house rules that changed this to things like "Fire Resistance 100" instead of "Fire Immunity"; "Spell Resistance 50" instead of "Immune to Magic", and so on.

Re: A question of balance I must be missing something. I'm looking at 5ER Invisible Power Effects, page 261-262, and it looks to me that if you use a power that is IPE the target won't know you were the one that did it. It specifically mentions (under Invisible Effects On The Target) that he might be able to figure it out based on the trajectory of the attack, but since your TK is Indirect as well, it doesn't look like that's going to help. But I'm quite prepared to be shown here - where does it say that the attacker will still know who hit him?

Re: Sooo... Immunity to magic There's another solution - you come at it from the other direction. That is, all magic in your world has the limitation "Does not affect golems". This can be a -0 limitation assuming golems are reasonably rare.

Re: Poisons

Re: Strength and Doubling Damage

Re: Poisons

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

Re: Poisons Or an Entangle, or whatever. Yes, that's an approach. The problem is that grabbing someone doesn't necessarily prevent them from moving (reasoning: if you Grab someone with your normal STR, and they have Flight that isn't restrainable, then they can fly and take you with them - I'm not sure that TK prevents that). Even if it does, it doesn't slow them down at all (they will still be "struggling to break the grip of the poison" every one of their phases). And finally it's all or nothing (either you stop them completely, or else they aren't stopped at all). That's why I prefer the Drain - it avoids all of these issues.

Re: That's Easy?? Show me how _you_ did it. Not sure you could go with OIF for the Visor; it's been Grabbed in the past (IIRC - certainly it was in the first X-Men movie, but I suppose you could argue it was "out of combat" at the time). I always got the impression that the visor helped Cyke focus his power, rather than just kept it in check - that is, I thought his beams were more powerful with the visor on than without. But this may just be my idle fancy.

Re: That's Easy?? Show me how _you_ did it. Going back to the original topic, how does one deal with "limitless" powers such as Hulk's enraged STR? There seem to be two main approaches: Assume "limitless" just means "very high limit", and buy an appropriate Aid with a large maximum, some extra STR "only when angry", or even just some STR with x10 END and a big amount of END for pushing. Reasonable, simple, and it works. But we don't want to be reasonable; we assume here that the comic book writer wasn't just using the vernacular when he said "limitless"; we assume that we will be attacked by rabid fanboys if we put any limit on Hulk's STR, even if it's in the millions. So... Create an actually infinite loop. For example: 1d6 Aid (+36 to max = 42), STR and this Aid simultaneously (+1/2) (42 Active Points) After 42 points of Aid, this is now a 2d6 Aid with a max of 84; then it's 3d6 with a max of 126, and so on (no upper limit). But good luck getting any sober GM to let that one through.

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages To some extent Autofire is synergistic with Penetrating, especially when you're talking about low DC attacks. Not sure if that's the sort of thing you're after.

Re: Strength and Doubling Damage Well, STR gives you one heck of a lot already, so allowing someone with 100 STR to only need to buy a 1 pip HKA and end up doing 7d6 killing damage is a bit much. But if you want a "logical" reason, here's one: if the 100 STR guy tried to wield the knife at even a fraction of his true strength, he'd just break the knife in his enthusiasm. It's the same type of rule that limits how much damage you can do with a thrown object - you might be able to hurl a tennis ball with the full force of 100 STR, but you'll shred it in flight if you try. Indeed, were HA not a limited form of STR, then the same limit ought to apply to normal damage weapons (and it does, for heroic campaigns).

Re: Poisons

Re: Poisons I'm using the HSA1 version of Gradual Effect that is completely different from the FH version (which is what made it into 5th edition). I would imagine that there is a copyright on the exact text, but here's a summary of how it works: It is used for Continuous attacks. Most Continuous attacks attack once per phase on the attacker's phases. Gradual Effect can slow the rate of attack by 1 step per -1/4 limitation (thus, once per Turn is -1/4, once per minute is -1/2, and so on). It's a lot more elegant than the FH/5th edition monstrosity that requires you to buy a massive AP power to reflect a power that is not nearly as deadly as the AP would imply, but whether or not you agree with that statement, the above version is what I'm referring to by "Gradual Effect". My apologies if that wasn't clear; I thought I had stated this in my original post.

Re: Poisons Yes to both. He can't put more than 6 charges into a single attack, but he can use less. I pretty much transcribed the original post from HSA1 - I'm not using HSA1 in any fashion that it wasn't intended. HSA1 (and 2) were optional rules, of course. Some of them were incorporated into 5th edition (the new Time Chart, for example); some of them were not - but I think that the choice was not made based on "this was a good idea, this wasn't" but rather "this is universally better, this is a bit complicated and may not be needed for many campaigns". The Spirit rules, for example, were omitted probably for the latter reason. One reason I think the HSA1 poison rules were omitted was because they flat out contradicted the FH rules for the same thing; it is the FH rules (NND Does Body attacks) that made it to 5th edition. The latter only work for lethal poisons, however (and IMHO not as well as the HSA1 rules even then, but that's debatable). In summary: using Uncontrolled END seems a viable alternative; continuing charges is less so. The latter point seems to be misunderstood, so let me create a power that illustrates it better. Take a paralysing venom that will disable you over the course of several minutes rather than several seconds: 2d6 Drain SPD and DEX (+1/2), returns 5pts/5 minutes (+1/2), Continuous (+1) That's the base power without limitations (60 active points). Now, the HSA1 method: 4 clips of 6 charges (-1/4), Gradual Effect (per Minute: -1/2), not vs snake venom immunity (-1/4) for a total of 30 real points. The victim will suffer a total of 6 attacks, but they'll get one recovery, so on average (assuming no Power Defense) they'll lose 37 character points of DEX and SPD over the course of a little over 5 minutes (enough to paralyse virtually any normal human). The Continuing Charges method needs 4 charges that last 6 minutes (-0), Gradual Effect (attacks only once per Minute: -1/2), not vs snake venom immunity (-1/4). Here's the issue: the longer the Gradual Effect (ie the longer the poison takes to paralyse you, and hence the higher the limitation) the lower the limitation has to be for Continuing Charges - or in other words, the weaker you make the poison, the more you have to pay for it. Now, granted you can fiddle with things here. If you assume a SPD 6 character and reason that over a full Turn he'd normally deliver 6 attacks, then you might reason that you just buy the charges to last 1 Turn and fudge some sort of limitation to slow down the rate (but not the number) of attacks - but that sort of hack isn't any more elegant than clips of charges, IMHO.

Re: Poisons Unfortunate choice of terminology. The "apparently official" way of doing "lethal poisons" is with NND Does BODY attacks. "Nonlethal" poisons is basically where the debate is at, since obviously NND Does Body won't work for a poison that saps your STR or paralyses. But if I rephrase your question: "Do I view a single poison attack as delivering a paralysis effect, or as delivering a slow down effect that can add up to paralysis with multiple attacks?" (Forgive me if this doesn't accurately capture what you're asking). I view it as the former, with the obvious corollary that some targets will not be fully paralysed by it (depends on how high their DEX and SPD are). (snip!) My primary guideline would be sort of "none of the above". I think all of those are worth looking at, but primarily my guideline is "Does the cost of this power accurately reflect its utility?" And to be fair here there isn't really a big difference in cost with any of the approaches so far suggested, but there are issues with using Continuing Charges if you slow down the time frame of the poison delivery (you end up with less of a limitation even though it is more limiting); your END approach does not have that problem. (snip!) I'm afraid in my campaign Suppress is not Cumulative. I disagree so strongly with the whole concept of Cumulative Suppress that I cannot adequately express my opinion without resorting to language that would be against the Terms and Conditions of the forum. But otherwise, yes, that works. And if substitute "Drain" for "Cumulative Suppress" you can essentially still use this idea.

Re: Poisons

Re: Poisons That does work. You can buy an END reserve, charge it up with the number of times you want it to "attack", and then buy the power as Uncontrolled. END Reserves tend to be problematic with getting the numbers right, especially REC, though. It's not that it's completely inappropriate (presumably the venomous creature slowly replenishes their store of venom), but more that it's tricky to get the recovery rate right. For example, let's say you want the power as I described it: 2d6 Drain SPD and DEX (+1/2), Continuous (+1), Uncontrolled (+1/2), return 5 pts/5 minutes (+1/2) 70 active points (a little higher, but so far that's OK). My power has 6 "attacks", so that means the END reserve needs enough to attack 6 times. That's 42 END. Alright, we'll fudge it up to 50. Next, my power can be delivered 4 times per day. Now you have a choice: Increase the END reserve to 170 (enough for 4 attacks per day). A quick "back of envelope" calculation suggests that you want about 7 REC, recovers once per hour (-1) for a total of 20 more points. Buy 7 REC, recovers once per hour (-1) for a total of 8 more points. However, the former solution allows a massive 24 phase attack, while the latter requires you to wait 6 hours between attacks. I'm not knocking either of these solutions, you understand - they may well be more realistic - but I am pointing out that it's difficult to use an END Reserve to match the "6 attacks, 4 times per day" as exactly as the clips of charges ala HSA1 does it. Drains lower your maximum BODY or STUN or END (if that's what they're draining), so your REC can't help you. But "just as deadly if not immediate" is not the same as "just as deadly", because Continuing Charges and Uncontrolled powers need a "reasonably common" means to shut the power off (defined here as "treating the poison appropriately", which might mean some sort of Paramedics roll, or perhaps application of Healing, or whatever). The longer the poison/disease takes to kill you, the easier it is to avoid dying from it. The HSA1 had Gradual Effect as moving the attack down the time chart for every -1/4 (so "every phase" is the default, for -0; then "every turn" is -1/4, every minute -1/2, and so forth). Obviously if you move the attack rate down further than the recovery duration you have a very weak poison (ie if your Drain recovers every Turn, then a Gradual Effect of once per minute allows the target 5 recoveries for every attack).

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO Err... yes, that's right. On multiple levels: It is doubtful anyone "really" knows exactly how much they can lift without noticably slowing down. It would vary from day to day, even from hour to hour on the same day. Leaving that aside, though, even if they can get Y kg of lifting ability that doesn't mean that can figure out that it's X points of STR. The latter has no meaning to the characters. At best they could rank themselves based on their ability to lift things or perhaps throw things. So what? It is a stretch to state that from that point they can reason through how much "STUN" or "BODY" they can do. That's a slam dunk. Characters do not directly experience the "X", "Y", or indeed have any idea what "combat flight" means. Here again, realistically nobody runs the 100 metre dash at exactly the same speed every time. It's an abstraction, and as such it's not meaningful to stare too closely at it. But in any case, what do either of those points (even if I agreed with them) have to do with whether or not CV is a linear scale or not? Or do you now agree that this is the case?

Re: Master List of Scales in HERO Well, it depends. If the world in which the characters "live" is actually constrained and described by the rules as laid out in the HERO system, then they might well come to such a deduction (it's certainly theoretically possible). However this is a strange world! It is a world where in a 100 metre dash, you see the runners run a bit, then stop for 3 seconds, then run a bit more, and stop for another 3 seconds... It is a world where two objects moving at the same average velocity do different damage on impact depending on how fast their "reflexes" are (with the "slower reflex" object doing more damage). On the other hand, perhaps the rules are merely an abstraction of the way the game world works for the purposes of play. That implies a significant amount of realism in the game world that we (as the players) abstract away, but the characters cannot. So you have the same situation as in the real world, where there are myriad factors involved in the question "How accurate am I?". I am openly skeptical that results to a 1/216 accuracy could be obtained in a realistic setting (too much "noise" in varying conditions, even in a shooting range or other relatively controlled environment). And that means that even dedicated HERO-gamer-in-secret-ID characters aren't going to be able to work things out to the degree of precision we're using for the abstraction. Which brings us full circle back to the point: since it is only an abstraction, asking what the characters think of it in the world they inhabit is (to some extent) a non-sequitur. Phil isn't describing the reality that they see; he's describing the abstraction that we use to simulate it. Differences between "reality" and the model means that questions about the former don't necessarily have any relevance to the latter.

Re: Poisons Absolutely it's a limit, which is why continuing charges doesn't really work (as it becomes, if not an advantage, at least less of a limitation to spread the poison over a longer period). Of course you could modify continuing charges to work, but if you're making a modification anyway, the "clips of charges" tied to Gradual Effect (with -1/4 for every step down the time chart), as per HSA1, seems at least as simple a mechanism. YMMV.

Re: Poisons Continuing charges works much less well if you move it down the time chart, though. If you want a poison that attacks once per Turn, and does so for 5 Turns, you need a continuing charge that lasts for a minute (with the attendant lesser limitation) even though it's not going to really attack them that often. This is also a limit to using an END Reserve, unless you have some idea for an appropriately gradual advantage for "pay END only once per Turn/Minute" and so on. I quite like the "clips of charges" HSA1 "hack" as it does avoid these issues; it is arguably questionable from a strict rule perspective, but since it looks like most slow acting poisons built this way will need some sort of new advantage anyway, it doesn't really raise my hackles too much (YMMV).

Re: Poisons You could do it that way. The suggestion of HSA1 (implied) is that you essentially have Continuing Charges (for 1 phase each...) which explicitly do not need Uncontrolled. But your way certainly works.