GAZZA

Re: Peter Petrelli - How can it be done? I would have thought a VPP would pretty much handle it, with a restriction on how often he can change powers, and only to change to a power he's encountered before. He doesn't seem to have any limits as far as how many powers he can use at once, and arguably he doesn't need to have the same limitations as the original user (eg he was able to paint the future without heroin before Isaac could).

Re: This Seems Busted That must be a Revised thing; the 5th edition book just says that all powers in an EC must cost END. But fair enough. It does mean that you can't put Armour in an EC, and Force Field 0 END is not the same (it isn't Persistent), but that's a completely different issue that has existed longer than 4th edition.

Re: This Seems Busted I have another couple of issues. Damage Shield Must Be Continuous I find this to be a very bad change. IF Damage Shield was thought to be too efficient at +1/2 - and it's a big if - then raise the cost. Raise it all the way to +1 1/2 if you feel that's what it should cost. What's the difference? Well, there's a few problems: Power modifiers should be self contained. This isn't always possible (Persistent requires 0 END, for example), but when you make an exception there should be a very good reason for it. Previously, if you bought Continuous on a Damage Shield, you were actually creating a power that continued to harm the victim after they weren't touching you anymore (eg a poison, or setting them alight, or whatever). Now this can't be done unless you creatively apply Usable Against Others. At +1 1/2, you're going to encourage "Advantage Stacking" to try and squeeze some sort of utility from the power. A 10DC power comes out to a feeble 4d6 with +1 1/2 on it, something that even many agent level villains will laugh at. Do we really want to encourage adding Penetrating and 1/2 END, lowering it to only 3d6 (or more likely a 1d6 HKA, since you're still allowed to add STR apparently)? It would take an exceedingly well reasoned argument to convince me to adopt this over the straight +1/2 from the BBB. Elemental Controls and No END Powers If this was an attempt at a more generalised "No Special Powers in Frameworks" rule, it's a bad one. Powers that do not cost END are not inherently more powerful than those that do. I just see no real point in this restriction at all - of all the things to pick on, END cost is just such so trivial. Powergamers will still buy everything in an EC; they'll just grab a big END Reserve outside it (indeed buying every power with "costs END" or sometimes even "2x END" and using some of the saved points to get a big END Reserve is a tried and tested powergamer mechanism for squeezing more point efficiency). This also cuts out powers with charges from an EC (unless you buy them as costs END as well, I suppose).

Re: This Seems Busted Big Blue Book; showing my age there a bit. That's what we used to call the 4th edition Champions book. It's one way, yes. My "change into wolf" was a bad example, clearly. I don't disagree that it's a cool power to have, but I don't really think that "all" (for certain values of "all") sense Shapeshift is worth the price. I suppose, upon thinking more carefully, there is some justification for what was done. In 4th edition, it was up in the air as to whether Discriminatory Scent could spot a shapeshifter (there's certainly a precedent for that in the comics; check out the X-Men movie for Wolvie-vs-Mystique). So in that "sense" (pun intended) I suppose breaking it out to be more generic is reasonable. I guess the sort of Shapeshift I'm after is basically light (Sight, Radar), Touch, and Sonar (which works out to - hmm, about 28 active points? I suppose that's not too bad).

Finally about to start a new Champions campaign after a 2 year hiatus in the wilderness of d20; I bought the 5th edition rules way long ago but haven't really used them before. It looks to me that there are some things here that just seem broken. Now, don't take this the wrong way - 5th edition has lots of cool stuff in it - but I'm definitely not seeing the logic behind some of the decisions. Oh, you want specifics? Permanent Size Alteration. Now, this is a complex issue. There were problems with buying Always On Growth, Shrinking, or Density Increase: It costs too much. Because of the high utility of STR, it is generally more cost efficient for strong characters to be of normal size and weight, which given the disadvantages of the weight is counter intuitive and arguably a "bug". Of course, Growth and Density Increase don't need special GM permission to go into an EC, which ameliorates this issue to some extent. It can be Adjusted/Suppressed/Dispelled. OK, this is a tricky one, but in many cases this isn't as terrible as it sounds. A Dispel Growth power quite possibly has a special effect of a "Shrinking Spell", which means that it isn't necessarily inappropriate for it to work against permanent effects. Of course you could just apply Inherent, but the issues with that are as above - it costs even more. In short - while definitely a theoretical issue I'm not really sure it was much of a practical one; I'd have been prepared to hand wave Always On Growth/DI/Shrinking as immune to inappropriate Adjustments, and I doubt I'd have lost any sleep over it. Difficult to codify into a rule, though, admittedly. So anyway, a couple of problems with the old way. But the new way really strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bath water. It works OK for permanently heavy characters, but permanently small characters have to hand wave their lesser Knockback Resistance with a Physical Limitation that is always going to be subjective. And permanently large characters get pounded - the maximum value of a Physical Limitation is 25 points, which doesn't come close to compensating for the loss of DCV that comes with it. I would expect to see virtually no permanently large PCs in the new rules, since it just screws you over with no benefit. Shapeshift I guess I just don't understand what all the Sense Group nonsense is all about. In the BBB, Shapeshift was basically a physical alteration of your body into something else. It didn't necessarily allow you to mimic specific things (Disguise, possibly with Acting and Mimicry, were needed for that), but it was a "real" change, affecting all senses. If you wanted to change what you looked like but not what (eg) your radar profile was, you'd do it with a 1-hex Image. What was so unbalanced about this? Fooling one sense and not another seems like it means that Shapeshift is NOT a "real" alteration - it's some sort of illusion. We already have Images for that. I'm just not seeing why most Shapeshifters would choose "sight only" when their special effect is "I turn into a wolf" (or similar) - that would affect virtually all senses, and if you buy this accordingly then Shapeshift becomes prohibitively expensive for a power that is not by any means game breaking. Regeneration/Healing/Adjustment Powers Way back in the day there was an extended discussion on the mailing list about when "healing" type powers reset. For example, I'm down 10 BODY. You have a 1d6 Aid BODY, "only to starting value (-1/2)". The maximum you could roll is 6 character points, or 3 BODY. So you can't heal more than 3 BODY... per what? Per day? Per hour? Per roll? If it's the latter, then out of combat healing powers need never be more than 1d6, which seems disproportionately powerful. It's nice to see that this issue has been (as far as I can see) completely ignored in 5th edition. I generally bailed on the whole quagmire and bought healing as Regeneration Usable By/Against Others. Can't do that anymore, though, since Regeneration is no longer a power - instead, you apparently buy Aid with a weird set of modifiers and suddenly it becomes a completely different power. This is just broken; you could not possibly argue that applying those modifiers to the power would have that result unless you point to the example - examples should illustrate rules, not invent them. What other issues have people found that I need to tread carefully around?

Re: Physical and Energy Defense And such people could be represented with appropriate limitations on extra DEF. Player characters? Almost always nearly identical. Bases, Vehicles, etc? They've already merged the two stats. If it hadn't "always been that way", I doubt there would be anyone yelling that we should separate it.

Re: Infinite Loops We'll have to agree to differ. It has been enlightening, certainly, but my basic opinion tha Succor and Suppress are hopelessly broken has not been changed by this. "Reasonable caps" are what I am implementing; I just consider "reasonable = 0". Aid and Drain can do what Succor and Suppress do, and I can do without the headaches.

(My bad; double submit. Can't figure out how to delete, sorry).

Re: Area effect weirdness It's a fair point, though. Increasing the area of effect of "normal" powers uses a doubling mechanic; for +1/4 advantage, you go twice as far. For "innately" area of effect powers - which you could be forgiven for assuming would be better at area of effects than bastardised versions of other powers - it is a linear mechanic; to go twice as far, you pay twice the points. It's not so much a question of uniformity as balance. If I have a 4d6 Energy Blast, AE:Radius (+1) [active points 40], I can affect a 2 hex radius. For every +1/4 advantage - every +5 active points, in this case - I can double that. Yet if I have a Darkness field against the Sight group for 40 points, that's a 4 hex radius. It costs me 40 points to double this - even though Darkness should be "better" at this area effect lark than Energy Blast. Mind you, this sort of thing affects movement, throwing, and so forth as well.

OK, here's a question: why are they different? Certainly the way the body resists being punched is different to the way it resists being burned. But it's also different to the way it resists being shot, stabbed, electrocuted, frozen, or sliced up with "frickin' laser beams". We don't have a Bullet Defense, Flame Defense, and so forth... ... well, actually, sometimes we do. I mean, certainly you can buy +ED, "only for fire" and the like. That's point 1. Most characters have a PD and ED that are very close to one another. That's point 2. While being strong no doubt helps you shrug off being punched as hard, and being healthy probably means that you are less likely to have a heart attack from an electric shock, most characters don't leave their PD and ED at whatever the figured value is anyway. That's point 3. And in passing it is far less clear that your physical strength helps you resist bullets and yet does nothing against fire, for example. So when you consider these points together (1 - it is possible to simulate specific special effect defenses already; 2 - PD and ED are often identical or close; 3 - they are generally bought up from their figured values in one way or another), I reach this conclusion: do we really need to separate them? You can find references to DEF all over the Hero rules. It's like even the creators couldn't be bothered separating the two most of the time. Can't we just have a DEF characteristic that has, as its figured base, "(STR + CON)/10" and costs 2 per point? Would this be worthwhile?

Re: Infinite Loops OK, here's the reason I think infinite loops should be removed. Basically, I think they are essentially an artefact of the points system and a curious way the algebra works out. I'm not really believing that anyone created the Aid power with a thought in the back of their head, "Hmm, I must make sure that it's possible to make an infinite loop with this." They are unnecessary. Hulk gets stronger and stronger with no upper limit? Nonsense - good PR, that's all. I doubt he could get strong enough to punch out Death or even Galactus. Stronger than Thor or the Thing, sure. Even the old MSH game stopped short of letting him do this. Wherever there is infinity in Hero, you can replace it with something fairly big and never notice the difference. In a game where Thor and the Thing have a 90 STR, say, you can start out Hulk at 90 STR and let him get as high as 150 or so. And frankly I'm in agreement with Zed here to some extent - it would be easier to buy this as a straight addition to STR with appropriate limitations rather than muck about with Adjustment Powers. About the only time you ever have a conceivable "need" for infinity would be if you're dealing with some sort of plot device like Destiny or the Beyonder. And really, why stat that out? Just let it do whatever it needs to do. I'm probably more points conscious than most GMs - I stat out virtually all my villains and pay as much attention to getting efficiency from those points as I do when I'm a player - but I don't bother to lose too much sleep that the Thanatic Rod doesn't technically work the way Mystic Masters wanted it to, and if I decided to destroy the world with a "frickin' laser beam" I wouldn't bother to work out how big an area effect RKA I'd need. That's my take, anyway. How does this translate into mechanical changes? Buggered if I know. I do know that as a result of this discussion Succor and Suppress will not be appearing in my games with anything resembling the "core" rules. I'm not sure how to ban infinite Aid loops without fundamentally changing the power, but of course I know what to look for (and in my experience, Aids have never been particularly popular PC powers anyway - but that doesn't mean it can be ignored, because Absorption can do the same thing, and it's a lot more common).

Re: Infinite Loops Well, the munchkin in me seems that this is not too horrible. I mean, I can use: 60 Multipower (60 point reserve) "4th Ed Aid" 6-u 2d6 Aid, all characteristics (+2) [or whatever] 6-u 4d6 Healing , all Characteristics (+2) [or whatever] Basically for 20% increase in cost you can get Healing and Aid again. I can live with that.

Re: Infinite Loops Succor is a variation of Aid. The choice of "gold standard" is hardly arbitrary. My 5th edition book even marks the entire Succor power as optional. But we will go with your idea for the sake of discussion. I'm going to have to snip fairly harshly here to keep this down to a reasonable length; this is not intended to misquote you, Zed, and I apologise in advance if I inadvertedly do so. Okey dokey. The above power, I agree, is not abusive. It is not, however, the Succor that the 5th edition Revised contains. If Succor has a cap the same way Aid does, then all objections are immediately withdrawn. No issue whatsoever. The problem is that it doesn't. You have, in effect, done what the d20 crowd call "Rule 0"ed the power. Which is great! I totally support that. Use house rules myself. There are essentially two reasons to use house rules. One is that a particular rule while fine in most cases won't work for a given setting. An example of this might be the old "Mystic Masters" setting where all mental powers were doubled in effectiveness. The other reason is that the rule itself is (in the opinion of the GM, at least) broken or illogical, and the house rule is intended to "patch" the system as a whole. You can't have a system that will be free of the first kind of house rules - at least not if the system is in any way generic. It may not be possible to eliminate the second class of house rules in practice, either - but at least that is possible in theory. The second class of house rules point to problems with the original system - again, at least in the opinion of the GM. No no, that's not the point of my argument exactly. I do see how it can be read that way. The point of my argument is that Continuous Succor (and incidentally Continuous Suppress) is, IMHO, a broken construct. There are several reasons why. Firstly, it's illogical in the first place to apply Continuous to what is already a constant power. I understand what they were trying to achieve here. Presumably the intent was to create an advantage that would remove the requirement to spend a half phase attack action each phase to keep the power running, but without the complete divorce of the power from the character implied by Uncontrolled. That's fine - I can see a use for that - but it's not what Continuous implies. I don't know a good word for the advantage, though, off hand (it is too bad that Uncontrolled already means something different). Secondly, in the specific case of Suppress and Succor, adjustment powers without upper limits are very dangerous. Of all the "normal" adjustment powers, only Drain has no upper limit, and that is because you always recover from Drain. It is true that you can move the recovery period down to the point where it is effectively "destroyed", but this gets very expensive, Healing can repair the damage, and in any case that's always been something more likely to be abused by NPCs than PCs (as is the case with all long term effects) - and presumably the GM won't abuse things. Why bring up Aid at all then? Because it is the "grandfather" power of which Succor is only a variant. You say yourself that by comparison Aid sucks. This is a clear indication that something is wrong. You're pointing the finger at Aid being out of whack here - but the unlimited nature of Succor leads me to draw the opposite conclusion. Ah, but the Continuous Suppress doesn't require you to keep hitting your target. In a typical game, you can expect to miss (especially with a ranged power) at least 1/3 of the time against reasonable opposition. OK, fair enough, let's apply No Range Penalty (+1/2) and AE: One Hex (+1/2) to minimise that chance. Now the 2d6 version is only 30 Active Points and the 4d6 version is 40 Active Points. To put it another way: the 2d6 version has "room" to shove in another +1 worth of advantages (eg suppressing 4 powers at once) and it will still catch up to the 4d6 version in 3 phases. Assuming it is one target. You can quite easily make the three attacks above at different targets without changing any of your conclusions. You might well have reduced a single target to ineffectiveness in 3 phases; it is unlikely (given decent opposition) that you will do so to 3 different targets. By my calculations, by the end of Phase 3 in this case you are looking at target A having lost 6d6, target B 4d6, and target C 2d6 (obviously for the continuous version; the 4d6 Suppress has applied 4d6 to each of them). Well, sure. But you are quoting a 20 active point power; in a campaign where the DC limits are that low, I doubt you're going to see any power defense. And Suppress special effects are often the sort that can easily justify Continuing Charges. Perhaps I can put it another way. Forget what I'm saying about it being abusive and let's accept your initial proposition that you can get the same effect just by attacking again with Suppress. If that is really true, then why do we need Continuous Suppress? One further note: there seems to be a problem here with a disconnect between Constant powers and Instant-Made-Constant powers. If I create a Continuous Energy Blast, for example, I have to spend a half phase attack action each phase to keep it on target. (Continuous basically just means I don't have to make the attack roll more than once). I am assuming you're right here in your implication that this isn't the case with attack powers that are naturally Constant such as Suppress. However, since the way Succor is described in FRED and from the apparent "official" answer that it is an "inverted Suppress", then this would mean that Succor is also a Constant power that needs no further attention other than END. If true, then there is no need for Continuous on it to immediately become abusive. I Succor myself for 4d6 Str in my first phase, Succor myself again in the second phase and pay the END to keep the first one going, and so forth... this is basically exactly what you are doing with Suppress above. I have a suspicion that Constant powers are subject to the same "must spend a half phase attack action" rule that Continuous powers are. If that's true, then your above 4d6 Suppress can't attack twice without releasing the first attack (but the Continuous version can...) But I don't have to use common sense for Aid. The rules prohibit it. You cannot have a +1 or greater advantage on Aid and still get a workable infinite loop. As I point out above - the fact that I can disallow abusive constructs cannot be used to demonstrate that they are not abusive. If anything, it is evidence in favour of their abusive nature. Why bother having rules, then? Of course you can (and should!) change them to suit yourself. But that doesn't mean that it's excusable to have bad rules - it's still a fault, no matter how easy it is to ignore. How, exactly? I'm not denying that you can abuse Aid, but it is far trickier to do so, and cannot be done "just as easily". And in any case - two wrongs do not make a right. Infinite loops should be excised from the game for all powers. Succor only gets special attention because it is so trivially easy to construct such loops with them - if it were "just as easy" with Aid, then Succor would never have even been mentioned on the thread.

Re: Poisons and Diseases Outside of super powered disease attacks? Never. Life Support immunities are overpriced in superheroic games, IMHO - 3 points (from the BBB) was already pushing it.

Re: Poisons and Diseases Ah, so I do. Tell me - is there anything I don't know that I agree with?

Re: Poisons and Diseases No fair giving up when you're asking me questions that need replies! I agree with the first part of that sentence, but not the last. In other words - I'm agreeing that you could be a carrier in such a case, since to me I don't see that question has any bearing on whether or not you are immune to it. I disagree that Life Support Immune to Disease is "there for" carriers. Some carriers might have it, as might some non-carriers (ie those who simply aren't even touched by the disease). Some carriers might not have it (being a carrier of a disease does not necessarily mean you don't suffer its effects - you might suffer the effects, but have such a good REC that it doesn't really bother you). Certainly. I was not saying that Power Defense was better because normal humans could buy it. I was saying that using a "normal humans" argument was invalid because normal humans can't buy either. As I pointed out, though, this is not a strong objection since you could supply a limited (or even unlimited) version of either as a talent. Both, sort of. Here's my position stated more plainly: If all the immunity buys you is immunity to "environmental" poisons and diseases, similar to the way "LS: Immune to radiation" does nothing against "Rad-Man's" radiation based energy blasts, then I'm fine with it. In a sufficiently high powered game (supers, for example) I'm not even against including the venoms of all normal animals and plants, or diseases such as those caused by the Ebola virus in such a category. To put it another way: if the guy whacking you with the poison or disease didn't pay points for it, I have no objection to your "flavour" based immunity stopping the effect. Once we're talking about attacks that have actually cost points, I'm against Life Support giving immunity. Now, I don't dispute that I can buy my Disease powers with NND: Not vs Life Support (immune to disease). But I can also buy my flame based RKA as NND: Not vs Life Support (immune to intense heat). I wouldn't do that, though. I would expect, if you want to be able to shrug off my RKA, that you had best invest in some resistant ED. Likewise, I would expect that if you want to be able to shrug off my Disease powers, you should buy some Power Defense (because I'm going to be building them with Drain STR and BODY simultaneously, for example). As a corollary to the above, though - if you're buying Power Defense anyway to represent your resistance to my disease based powers, and since it is likely that these powers generate more dice of effect than "environmental" effects, you might as well save the points on the Life Support immunity and just rely on the fact that your Power Defense will protect you from environmental conditions as well. I hope that's plainer. Now, I am well aware that you could use similar reasoning to remove many of the "safe environment" conditions on Life Support. If vacuum based powers and environments are important to your game, then perhaps it is worth doing this. The same for intense heat/flame, and so forth. It so happens that poisons and diseases are among the most common Drain special effects in my (FH) games, so I feel that it is indeed worth going beyond the Life Support "all or nothing" approach. As always, your method may vary.

Re: Infinite Loops Except that this is a points based system, so that question isn't hard to answer. "Relative to similar powers". Specifically - Succor is far more points effective than Aid. Suppress is far more points effective than Drain. There is no subjectivity here. Just compare the costs of the powers. Mathematics is not subjective. Sure. But it's more elegant in exactly the way that a new 10 point power "Target dies" is way more elegant than a 10d6 NND RKA Does Body. There's no question that the former is easier to write down, and doesn't require any clunky math to work out what the active points are. But elegance should not take precedence over balance. I would argue that Succor (or Suppress) working in the way you suggest is completely unbalanced, and I point to Aid and Drain to prove my point. To achieve the same result with an Infinite Aid as you can with an Infinite Succor requires far more points. OK, it's an infinity loop, so the points don't matter. But it's also going to take far less time. You're getting way more bang for your buck - so much more than there's really no point to having an Aid power at all. Just set up a Continuous Succor with an appropriate limitation that maxes out at wherever a normal Aid power would. That's the real problem - I don't really care what happens at the infinity level, but how it scales back down to things I would actually use on a character. The simplest of which appears to be (from my perspective), "No, you can't do that." So in other words, if you don't buy 0 END for it, then it's OK? Buying 0 END makes the problem show up more easily, that's all. Get the +2 version that boosts all your powers at once, and make one of the powers an END reserve. The problem is that it's virtually impossible for me to think of a way to use this that isn't abusive. At which point you've just bought Aid - only cheaper. A GM can control anything so that it does not become abusive. But that does not mean the power is not abusive, it just means that the GM is going to apply whatever house rules or common sense he feels is necessary to control it. That's fine. And I've already indicated what my approach is going to be here (simply ban Continuous on Succor and Suppress). But a good construct doesn't need a GM to nerf it or control it.

Let's say I have EB man (who has a 10d6 Energy Blast) and Suppress Man (who has a 5d6 Suppress EB, Non random output, Continuous). For the purposes of discussion, assume Suppress Man has SPD 12. Phase 1: SM hits EBM with his Suppress. EBM now has a 7d6 EB. Phase 2: SM hits EBM again with his Suppress. Does EBM now have a 4d6 EB, or a 7d6 EB? If the former, then Suppress quickly gets much more cost effective than Drain (even if 0 END is not allowed, an END Reserve or continuing charges could be applied). If the latter, then what happens if SM's twin brother hits EBM with the same power - 4d6 EB left, or 7d6 EB left?

Re: Infinite Loops Unfortunately I suspect I am wrong as far as the official position is concerned. I'll try asking the big dude, I guess - but I have a horrible feeling that I'm officially incorrect in this stance. (And I'm avoiding work too.

Re: Infinite Loops Certainly. "Too cost effective for the points". I would argue that it doesn't, in fact. Certainly some games tolerate some abuses and do not tolerate others. That's not the same as saying that the abuse potential isn't there. For example, a Continuous Uncontrolled 0 END Persistent attack is potentially a very abusive construct. Some GMs will allow it for certain powers, in certain games, for certain players, for certain affects. But no matter how many do so, it's still a potentially abusive construct. Not all potentially abusive constructs are abused, of course. Infinite looping Aids (or Transfers, or Absorption) are potentially abusive. You can argue that the potential is restricted because of the time it takes to build up to a really high level of power, but the potential is definitely there. It's something to keep an eye on. Continuous Succor blows Aid loops out of the water. Not only is it not the same ballpark, it isn't even the same sport. Continuous Succor actually gets more efficient the more advantages you stick on it (since that extra +1 costs - comparatively - less and less), meaning that you can cheaply and easily achieve even +2 "affects all powers of a special effect" level infinity loops - something that you can't do (directly, at any rate) with the Aid version. Continuous Succor may be a book-legal way to do this - I say "may be" because despite all the well meaning intentions of those demonstrating the official position supports them, I'm still having trouble believing anything so utterly awful is actually correct - but it's nobody's friend.

Re: Infinite Loops In another thread, it has recently been clarified that if you have Shrinking (1 level) and hence +3" Knockback, then you get knocked back 3" minimum. It's not simply +3 added to the BODY before subtracting 2d6 (or whatever). If you get hit with a 1d6 Punch, you get blasted back 3". This is apparently a clarification from Steve. (It's in the Permanent Size Alterations thread, I think, or maybe Stun from Growth). So I guess I'm talking about "negative Knockback Resistance" here; my bad for not being clearer. And incidentally: options are not always good. I agree with the use for a construct that can make attack powers "fire and forget but not uncontrolled", but I don't agree with the way it was done. I also have issues with Succor and Suppress not having upper limits, but that's a murkier area; since the construct allows you to fire off the Suppress over and over, the same way you could fire off (say) a NND EB choking gas attack, we're now functionally into the "if I Suppress you for 15 points and he Suppresses you for 15 points, how many points are Suppressed?" The answer there should be 15, I think, but I am perfectly prepared to believe that the official answer is 30. There's precedent for arguing it that way. Drains, for example, are certainly cumulative, and Suppresses have several features in common with Drains. My reason for arguing otherwise is fundamentally that Suppress will quickly become far more cost effective than Drain if this is allowed, largely making Drain a useless power. But hey, I'm just GAZZA, not Steve Long. No doubt there are reasons that it works the way it does.

Re: Poisons and Diseases That's absolutely brilliant. I never thought of that. You are of course completely correct. Since damage of any kind is simply a special effect, you most certainly could define a poison as something like: 1d6 RKA, no range (-1/2) [15 Active, 10 Real] "Stinger" +6d6 RKA, gradual effect (if you like), only if first 1d6 does BODY, etc. I've never seen anyone suggest that before. I still prefer my Drain method - I really like the idea of being able to simulate weakness rather than just death - but I'd say that this method is still superior to mucking about with NND.

Re: Infinite Loops Fair enough. That's one more thing to throw in the "5th edition stuffed this up" basket, then, along with Regeneration, Knockback Resistance, and inability to combine framework slots in Multiple Power Attacks... Why there was ever a need to define what happens when you make a Constant power "more Constant" baffles me. I can see why you would want something "in between" a normal Continuous attack (where you have to spend a half phase attack action each phase to keep it going) and a Continuous Uncontrolled attack (where you don't even have to be conscious to keep it going), but I don't see why that was the chosen "solution", since I'm having no trouble at all finding ways to abuse that and quite a bit of trouble thinking of constructs using this modifier that are not abusive.

Re: Poisons and Diseases And most of us limit the amount of defense you can have as well, so that hardly seems relevant. There are two answers. The trite one is "you build them somewhere other than Hero". However, if you want to say that "no disease in this campaign will exceed more than 10 dice of Drain", you simply buy 60 points of Power Defense with appropriate limitations. Expensive? Yes, but that is buying you complete immunity to some poor saps 100 Active Point power, so I think that's fair. You can simulate that with a limitation on the power, if you wish. Considering that Life Support: Immune to disease doesn't give you that power, this question is seems a bit misdirected. However, I'll take a stab at it: basically, you buy your defense (Life Support if you must, Power Defense if you will) with a limitation such that it doesn't make you able to avoid "Sticky" effects, though it does protect you from the damage. So you're still contagious, but not harmed. "Only vs diseases" should be at least a -1 1/2 limitation on Power Defense. You can get 60 Active Points for 24 real points that way. I have no problem with charging someone 24 points to negate a 100 active point Drain. Let me put it another way. Consider the Life Support: Immune to intense heat ability. Nobody would say that this gave you any defense at all against a flame based Energy Blast. You need ED for that. Right? As a "flavour" ability, I don't see an issue with LS: Immune to diseases (though I think it is overpriced). If all it does is mean that you never catch a cold, or even herpes, then fine. But I draw the line when you want to use that to negate a super powered disease that I'm paying points for. It's too cheap for that. I'd have the same problem with a 10 point Life Support option "immune to electricity"; if you want it to mean that you can work with high voltages and not risk getting shocked, fine, but you're not going to convince me that it helps you against my Energy Blast defined as a lightning bolt. Now, granted you can argue that a character should probably buy ED (perhaps with an appropriate limitation) to protect against even "powered" versions of these abilities: and I would agree with that. I'd even go a step further and say that if you do, and since most powered attacks are going to exceed the damage that most environmental conditions are going to impose, you could do away with the need for Life Support immunities in this way. I'm not necessarily advocating going that far. Radiation, for example, or vacuum, are not really problematic to me. They might be to someone else, and if they want to build those with Drains (for Radiation) or some sort of RKA (for vacuum), more power to them. (forgive the edit; this is already getting quite long). Power Defense with a special effect of "high constitution"? We are arguing about how to represent something in game terms. There's no right answer here. In real terms, some people get sicker than others - we agree on that. Of course you can argue that this is a difference of REC. And I'd even go so far as to say that if you want to go that route, you could buy extra REC "only to recover from diseases/poisons". However, a similar argument could be used to jettison PD and ED from the game. Just buy a lot of STUN and BODY, and appropriate Regeneration and REC. This is not done, though - the current system allows some attacks to bounce, and other attacks to get through in a weakened form. I don't see why poisons or diseases cannot be more or less virulent in the same way that bullets can have more or less kinetic energy and lightning can have more or fewer volts. To put it another way: creating the NND approach and the corresponding Life Support defense is, to all intents and purposes, creating a new mechanic to handle poisons and diseases. In my opinion, Drains and Power Defense already handle poisons and diseases just fine. So why create the new mechanic? And of course the central dispute is that this opinion - that drains do the job adequately - is not unanimous. I'm fine with that, too. I have what I consider to be logical reasons as to why I think Drains are better (the most cogent being that I can have a poison that makes you weak, instead of or in addition to making you dead) - but reasonable minds can certain disagree on this. OK, let's look at this in detail. Firstly, note that no normal human in the Hero System will have this immunity. Why? Because normal humans can't buy Powers. A GM might, however, create an appropriate talent, so that's OK. Secondly, while certainly some humans have immunity to certain poisons or diseases, other humans are merely resistant to certain poisons or diseases. There are people that still catch colds, but have only mild symptoms. You can certainly argue that REC accounts for this, but in my opinion it is at least equally valid to suggest that Power Defense can also do so (and a sufficient amount of Power Defense will give the immunity to any given Drain based poison or disease). Thirdly, while I wouldn't be prepared to bet millions of dollars on it, I doubt there are any normal humans that have complete immunity to all terrestrial diseases and poisons. In my opinion, virtually all poisons and diseases can be constructed with Drain (possibly multiple things need to be Drained, but that's not a problem). While you might be able to come up with a corner case of such an affliction that didn't, in all probability such a disease or poison would be sufficiently unusual to require another defense. About the only category of diseases or poisons that I would suggest might not be best simulated with Drains would be something along the lines of a disease that destroyed your fertility, or a poison that left you crippled, or something. You would be better simulating these with Transform... which of course Power Defense works against.

Re: Infinite Loops OK, something doesn't smell right here. Let us assume for the moment that Succor does indeed include a "works just like Suppress" phrase (don't have the book on me; it may well do). Firstly: Suppress is a Constant power. Making it Continuous is meaningless. Secondly: Suppress does indeed have an upper limit. You activate the power, roll your dice, and that amount is suppressed. You continue to keep it activated, and that amount of power is still suppressed; once you stop paying END (or get Stunned, or whatever), the target instantly gets his points back. If you have a 5d6 Suppress with the "non-random output" modifier, and you point it at my 10d6 Energy Blast, then I have a 7d6 Energy Blast. I don't have a 7d6 Energy Blast on the first phase, a 4d6 on the second, and so forth. The waters are murkier when you ask questions such as "what if I hit you with 2 Suppresses/Succors", but for the standard case, I'm going to stick to my guns here and say that Succor cannot do this. If Steve Long has said that it can, then Steve Long (AFAIC) is wrong.