GAZZA

Re: Champions Powers book issues... The Requires a Roll limitation appears to be the source of much confusion in 6e. Moving ahead to Chaos and Entropy Powers, we have Chaotic Blast and Chaotic Destruction both on pp51 (a Blast and an RKA, basically). Both of them have an "Unreliable" option that gives a 13- activation roll for -1/2. Now, I freely admit that I may be misreading something in 6e1pp389. But the only way to make 13- a -1/2, as far as I can see, is as follows: 11- base (-1/2) 13- (1/2 less) Must be made each Phase/use (-1/2) For a total of -1/2. Except that on 6e1pp390-391, we see that Instant powers can't take the "roll each phase" bit, so in the final analysis this is surely only a -1/4 limitation. Since -1/4 is the minimum, you might as well bump that to a 14- activation instead. Alternatively if you want the -1/2, it has to go down to an 11- activation. Is this correct, or are you allowed to take the extra -1/2 on instant powers despite the text on 6e1pp390-391?

Re: Mental CSL's and base cost weirdness (6e) Just illustrating Hugh's idea that the CSLs are a cheaper alternative to buying it as a Multipower. That said, you're right of course, but I'm not sure if you can have a slot that is "partially fixed", which is what I'm trying to illustrate. Assume you have a 17d6 Mind Control in the MP. 60 active points are a fixed slot, the upper 25 are a variable slot. I don't believe this is a standard build, but it's not really unbalanced in any way. Offhand I can't think of anywhere it's really needed though.

Re: Mental CSL's and base cost weirdness (6e) Fireg0lem is correct. With (say) Mental Blast, Mental Illusions, and Telepathy, you could go: Multipower, 90pt reserve [90] Mental Blast 6d6 [6-f] Mental Illusions 12d6[6-f] Mind Control 12d6 [6-f] +2.5d6 Mental Blast [5-v] +5d6 Mental Illusions [5-v] +5d6 Mind Control [5-v] +10 OMCV [6-v] +10 ODCV [6-v] That's 135 points. The basic attack multipower (sans 30 points of reserve and all bar the first three slots) costs 78, so that's 58 points this flexibility costs. Alternately, as per Fireg0lem's suggestion, you buy 10 3 point CSLs for 30 points. Hugh has shown it works for 4+ powers; this shows that it works for 3. In fact, it works even for 1: Mental Blast 6d6 [60] Multipower: "Mental Combat Levels" [30] +2.5d6 Mental Blast [5-v] +10 OMCV [6-v] +10 DMCV [6-v] That still comes in at 17 points "too much". So if you want to have this flexibility, CSLs are definitely the cheap way to get it.

Re: Reflection - Active Points or DC Actually, it doesn't negate an incoming attack. You can only Reflect an attack that you have blocked, so it was already negated by the time you got to see if you could reflect it. In any case you misunderstand - I'm not suggesting we build Reflect with defences and attacks, but rather that instead of specifying the maximum amount of Active Points that can be reflected, specify it as the maximum damage classes instead. Just as an idea. It's not clear to me that a 10d6 Blast with 0 END should be harder to reflect than one without reduced endurance.

Re: Champions Powers book issues...

Re: Champions Powers book issues... Hmm. As a long time Hero player and GM, I do not entirely agree. The point of Hero is that you model "what does it do", not "what is the special effect". That is why there is no "Fire Bolt" power; instead, you ask "What can the fire bolt do? Is it lethal, or non-lethal? Is it tiring to use?" and so on. This is the core philosophy as espoused in numerous places, for example 6e1pp120 under "Special Effects". In this case, the desired effect is "make the target drown". Whether this is done via creating a vacuum or (eg) changing all the oxygen in the environment into an inert gas should cost the same - the same way that an 8d6 Blast costs 40 points whether you define it as fire or lightning. I agree completely. However - most GMs would make you pay the same amount on Monday as they make you pay on Wednesday, to coin an analogy. The Champions Powers book is, effectively, a single "GM" - Steven Long is the credited author, after all. (about the free area effect) "Free" in the sense that the first power is not only a lot cheaper, but that it is AE based as well. See, here's the core of my problem with this. I don't want to be in a situation where someone that defines their powers as "I create vacuums" gets a cost break for the exact same mechanical effect as someone who defines their special effect as "I turn oxygen into an inert gas". Now I grant you, in some cases it might be slightly advantageous for one sfx over the other - but that isn't the sort of thing that costs points. Most GMs don't make players with Fire special effects pay extra for the fact that sometimes their powers might cause small fires if they miss, any more than they require electrical special effects to pay extra for the fact that they might sometimes get a couple of DC extra using their powers in a lightning storm or something. (Indeed, 6e1pp120 pretty much explicitly says that such minor bonuses are free, as of course are minor penalties - call them +0 advantages and -0 limitations). Once you start giving vacuum dude free points over inerter dude, you basically encourage players to define their special effects as vacuum creation instead of inert gas transmutation. And that just makes the game poorer as a result. I submit that Hero is not supposed to work that way. Now, if what we're saying here is that the ability to force the drowning rules is not well defined, such that it is up to individual GMs and players to decide, then fair enough. Except that the APG pretty much does define it, the Suffocation II power recognises this, and the Create Vacuum power apparently does not. Are the APG rules not official then? What are we to make of the inconsistency here? Do you get a free "Change Environment Upgrade" if you link a Darkness to the Hearing sense to the power?

Re: Champions Powers book issues... So wait - you're saying that if I define my special effects as a vacuum, as opposed to just suffocation, I get to safe 15 points and get a free area effect?

Re: Champions Powers book issues... Erm - but which is the Steve Way? That's the point. How much does it cost to make people drown? According to Create Vacuum it's 5 points to do it to a 16m radius area, and according to Suffocation II it's 20 points to do it to a single target. I do not see how both of these can be right.

Champions Powers, pp 16, Create Vacuum power. This describes a "create a vacuum" in a 16m radius that is modelled as a 1 temperature level Change Environment with a linked Darkness to Hearing. The description of the power says that characters in the area are subject to the drowning rules. On the other hand, in the same (Air/Wind) section, on pp 19 we have Suffocation II. This uses the APG rules to implement drowning, on a single character. The problem is that the Create Vacuum (excluding the Darkness effect) is a 5 active point power for a 16m radius, and the Suffocation II is a 20 active point power for a single target (that is arguably not even as good as a vacuum - according to the APG, you can still use powers that require you to speak in such an area, which presumably means it's not necessarily going to count as a vacuum for special effects purposes against sonic attacks and the like). I did ask Steve whether the Create Vacuum power was in error, and received the answer "No". Suffice it to say I disagree... Moving on: In Body Control pp 40 there is the power Contagion, defined as a Drain CON that has NND vs LS (appropriate immunity). Champions Powers lists this as a +1 advantage. If we check 6e1 pp 325, we see that Power Defence is an Uncommon defence, and Life Support is Rare. So it's one step rarer, and because it's an NND it's 1/2 less, so this should be a +0 advantage. There is a linked RKA with the same NND, but even there it should presumably be a +1/2 advantage rather than a +1. I freely confess to not really being 100% on the new Change Environment and No Normal Defence rules in 6e, so it may well be that I'm wrong on both accounts, but I can't see where.

Re: END Reserves in 6e - why bother? Awesome, cheers, sorry should have spotted that.

Here's the thing - in many cases, it would be about the same cost (or even cheaper) to buy personal END/REC than an END reserve. Take Defender for example - Champions6e pp 188 - he has 160 END/30 REC END reserve with an OIF, for 40 points. Instead, he could have bought +160 END/+30 REC, OIF for 41 points. 1 point more. Except his personal END is more flexible. It can recover as often as once per phase. He can burn STUN to power powers that draw upon it. Granted, it can't power any Constant abilities if Defender is stunned the way an END reserve can, but unless Defender frequently finds himself in situations where he's stunned or KOed while flying, this isn't really a big selling point (especially since it's not always going to be a good thing). In previous editions END Reserves were cheaper than personal END - they evidently were of the opinion that personal END was generally better than an END reserve, so an END reserve should be cheaper. What's changed? Why are END reserves, with their "only recover once per turn and can't burn STUN" limits, now considered enough better than normal END that it is now more expensive? I get that REC is still cheaper, but even then - it's not as much cheaper as it used to be. To me, it seems that END Reserves are so similar in cost that I can't really see a compelling reason to keep the power - END/REC bought through a focus would surely cover the cases where you couldn't use such things as fuel charges. What am I missing?

In Champions Powers, pp16, we have the Create Vacuum power defined as a 1 temperature level Change Environment that (according to the description) forces the drowning rules on targets in the area and in addition blocks Does Not Work In A Vacuum powers. Excluding the linked Darkness to Hearing effect, this is a 5 active point power. In the same section, pp19, we have Suffocation II which is defined as using the advanced players guide rule for suffocation (aka the drowning rules). According the APG, this does not block vacuum-averse powers unless the GM rules otherwise. Even if we consider that the GM might well rule this way for the given special effect, this is a 20 active power power that does not even have the area effect advantage. Is the create vacuum power in error?

As written, someone with the power to Reflect 60 Active Point attacks would struggle to reflect a 12d6 Energy Blast with the +1/4 advantage "1/2 END". This is also the case with adjustment powers and Dispel, of course. Is this a good or a bad thing? I would suggest that the concept of damage classes, if we ignore their mundane utility for comparing (eg) Blasts and Killing Attacks, is to separate "advantages that make attacks easier to use" (reduced END, possibly charges, many uses of trigger, and so on) from "advantages that make the attack more dangerous" (armour piercing, continuous, and so on). I think there is a possible case for making "interfere with attack" powers (such as adjustment powers, reflection, dispel, and so on) work on DC rather than active points. Of course the problem then becomes inconsistent effects; if I use a Drain that affects all your fire powers, then it becomes a bit weird to affect your 10d6 Blast 1/2 END differently to your +10 PD/+15 ED Resistant Protection power.

Back in the bad old days of the BBB, any group of idiots could attack at the same time and impose a DCV penalty on their target (aka Multiple Attackers Bonus). But they had to have been trained together and worked together for a while before they got to add their STUN together for the purposes of Stunning. So far enough, that was a bit woolly, and tying the latter part of that to a Teamwork skill makes sense. But I'm not sure it is needed for a multiple attacker bonus, and I think there are some poorly defined outcomes as of 6e: The target of multiple attackers is almost always "able to take it". We're talking master villain versus superheroes, or superhero versus agents. Yes, there are border cases such as teaming up to tag a speedster, but that's the sort of thing defence manoeuvre is for. I'm not sure it should be that hard to reap the DCV penalty. Mostly because, what happens if some succeed and some fail at the roll? Do you get -1 DCV per successful Teamwork roll? Do you count only the successful Teamworkers in working out if the target is Stunned? Probably yes to both, but then again... ... it's two separate bonuses, and an all-or-nothing effect. Teamwork isn't "multiple attackers elite", it's "multiple attackers at all". If you're the only dude in the group with Teamwork, can you get a bonus to hit from coordinating with your useless buddies? Or is it just a useless skill if you're the only one that has it? To put it another way - it is looking to me that Teamwork is both too good and not good enough simultaneously. It is arguably too good if it grants you two abilities (bonus to hit and increased chance of Stunning) at once, and arguably too weak if you need other people to have it in order to benefit. I'm thinking it might be OK to give out the multiple attacker bonus without the need for a successful Teamwork roll. To counter that, though, some manoeuvres such as Fastball Special and so forth look like they could need a Teamwork roll to pull off.

Re: Automaton Vehicles One could in fact argue that automatons (and vehicles ) should get a cost break on Damage Reduction, as they get no utility from the STUN reduction ability. Though I'm not sure I'd make that argument personally. You raise a good point. Apart from anything else this rule is a bit odd. PD and ED are divided by 3, but your base DCV is not, even though further increases to all are tripled. Does this apply to BODY as well? BODY is considered a defence power for the purposes of Adjustment powers, and having lots of BODY definitely is very handy for a STUN immune character. On balance I'm inclined to suggest it probably should affect BODY, but I've never played it that way before (although in fairness I've yet to run an automaton in 6e). Works for me.

Re: Automaton Vehicles Ah, fair enough. My point is that computer controlled vehicles have the same benefit for no cost. Now, presumably the point is that computer controlled vehicles aren't "characters" in the same sense as automatons. That is a defensible position of course. Ah, I see. I should be clearer, my apologies. I am not advocating that automatons be replaced by computer controlled vehicles, though I certainly see how it could be taken that I was. Apart from anything else not all automatons have these features, and some don't lose powers at all. Automatons don't get focus bonuses for being bulky. There are plenty of differences, I certainly acknowledge that. My point is that purely from a defence point of view, 45 point "Takes No STUN" Automatons can be considered equivalent to Vehicles. My proposal of computer controlled vehicles as robots is intended for illustrative purposes - as I believe it would be reasonable that some GMs would do that as vehicles and others as automatons - indeed, that many GMs would consider such creations on a case by case basis. Fair enough? If you disagree - if you think that all robots should be built as automatons - then that's cool, it was only an example. The reason that automatons pay the "defence tax", as you say, is to balance them against similarly pointed characters. An automaton with a 15 rPD is going to pretty much ignore 12 DC attacks; a PC with 15 PD is going to take 25-30 STUN from them. The thing is, this is also true of vehicles. A vehicle with 15 rPD is similarly largely immune to typical 12 DC attacks. Many GMs, myself included, prefer vehicle DEF to be limited to approximately 1/3 of what PCs get. Indeed, vehicles even grant this defence to any passengers, which automatons do not (barring exotic advantages). Mostly this is going to come up, if anywhere, in something like Champions, where it is within genre for PCs to be up against vehicles and expect to be victorious. I expect heroic level games don't try and shoot tanks with hand weapons, but superheroes often will. If vehicle defences are allowed to be approximately equal to PC defences, then PCs need exotic powers to be able to affect the vehicle (Penetrating, Armour Piercing, Indirect, or what have you). That may be fine, you might think that's totally appropriate. But you then lose the comic book staple of superheroes smashing up tanks and airplanes. Now I'm not saying that vehicles should have to pay the defence tax necessarily. I think that limiting the maximum defences is probably good enough. But I think that might well be good enough for Automatons as well. Not a huge deal - most automatons, at least, are probably going to be the "property" of an NPC, which means that a few extra points here or there isn't that important - but an oddity, nonetheless. I compared it to the velocity damage rules for a reason. Way back in 4th edition, the Move Through and Move By rules were pretty much exactly what the core rules are now. But a clever HERO afficionado whose name escapes me noted that as written, these rules didn't reflect internal consistency within the rules - doubling your velocity roughly doubles the number of dice you rolled (assume 0 STR for the sake of simplicity). This is questionable on two accounts: firstly, the proper relationship for kinetic energy should use a square relationship rather than a linear one; secondly, there is a largely accepted convention in HERO that doubling the force of an attack means adding +1d6 (mostly based on the Strength table, and most certainly arguable, but a defensible position nonetheless). This clever individual came up with a way to model this type of damage more consistently, with the resultant effects on throwing and falling as well. Now, the end result was a little more complex, and the original rule was fine for most situations and most players - but it was considered good enough to make it in as optional rules in both 5e and 6e. Another very clever individual who posts here as GamingPhil I believe noted, after Horror Hero in 4e brought us Spirits, that Automatons, Vehicles, Bases, and Spirits had certain features in common and yet were not necessarily consistent in those features; to cut a long story short, he came up with the Incomplete Character rules that unified the concepts and also provided the tools to generate new types of characters. I'm simply suggesting that it would have been nice to see GamingPhil's ideas make it into 6e as optional rules. Perhaps they weren't as easily adapted, or were rejected for balance reasons; I did see a thread about it that apparently predated the release of 6e, and appears to have been abandoned since. I for one would welcome such rules, not because I think they are desperately needed, but simply because I think that they are a useful tool to have in order to build some unusual characters - and as an added bonus, if you choose to use them, then you get more consistency across character "types". Is such consistency needed, or the lack of it problematic? I agree, doubtful. But it would be nice to have regardless.

Re: Automaton Vehicles Pretty much any way you buy automatons you'll get the cost break. Followers, Summon, whatever. I suppose if someone wanted to play an Automaton he'd pay full price, but I can't imagine that as being likely. And according to 6e1 pp107 vehicles (and bases) get the same, so they're equal as far as that is concerned. Can you point to who it is you think is trying to find an end run around the limitations of the system? Hint: I'm not. I'm just pointing out that you have two STUN-less constructs where one has to pay a lot more for defence than the other despite having utility that it as good or better. As I say, I don't think it's that important - just that it is weird. There is no innate reason for this "limitation of the system" to exist. Surely either not taking STUN is a significant enough power that it justifies the increase in defence cost, or else it isn't. It shouldn't be one way for automatons and one way for vehicles - arguably, anyway.

Re: Automaton Vehicles So do Automatons, so there's no saving there (aside from the fact that you're already saving because vehicle zombies are cheaper). It is still not clear to me why there is a difference. I realise historically there always has been, but that's really no excuse. Vehicles are basically the same as automatons in the way they take damage - neither takes STUN, only BODY. Indeed vehicles are superior because for no extra change they get to give those defences to anyone that rides in them. It doesn't really make a lot of sense for automatons to be that much more expensive. But OK, zombies bother you. What about robots then? No reason not to build those as vehicles. Robotic cars, if you really have a problem with it. Nobody agrees with me that these costs should be aligned? I'm not saying it's important, I'm just saying it's weird.

Re: Stacking Damage Reduction? Yes, all good points. Hadn't thought of that. I admit, I discourage players from taking Damage Reduction primarily because it means they have more arithmetic to do when they get hit, and generally speaking you're often better off just buying higher defences. It had seemed to me that Damage Negation was of the same sort of thing, but you're right - my analysis was over simplistic. It seems a bit overpriced against mental powers though. I presume since it knocks off DCs that you only get 1/2 a dice off of Mental Blast for every 5 points, and mental attacks are rarely killing attacks or knockback capable. Of course it will work against AVADs, but generally so will Mental Defence. NNDs are very rare for mental powers. However, for physical and energy defences I am sold on it being a lot better than I'd thought - thank you!

Re: Stacking Damage Reduction? This is a problem right across the board though. Hero has always said that you should treat someone who has bought (say) 50% rPD as if they'd spent 30 points on defences. But that's always been a bit questionable. If you're in a 12d6 game, then you'll take 21 STUN from the average blast if you've got 50% DR, but only 12 or so if you have 30 PD. Against big dudes that have 16d6, you'll take 28 instead of 26 or so. It's a pretty inefficient use of points - if you ignore the fact that it can also affect some NNDs and so on of course. And I'm even less enthused about Damage Negation. To me that seems like spending 5 points to negate (on average) 3.5 points of damage, which is just totally breaking the whole "defences are cheaper". Again, there is the fact that it also affects some NNDs, but it's still clearly not as easy as X points on DN and DR should be considered as X points of defences.

Re: How big is a computer? Yeah, having checked it out a bit - it does work, obviously, but it's a pretty expensive solution. I've decided to ignore the requirement for the "Summon Specific Being" advantage as I can't see how that's an advantage in this case - getting the same vehicle means it is (possibly) still banged up from last time, so I'm making it a +0 although it is feasibly even a limitation. I've also used a somewhat questionable construct in building the Summon with a lockout limitation that locks out his Computer. Still, it doesn't seem expressly forbidden, and I'm the GM, so I can obviously grant the "special GM permission" required.

Re: How big is a computer? Summon Vehicle is indeed a cool idea; I think I may use this.

Re: Automaton Vehicles Or - and this is just a thought - one of two things could be the case: - Automaton Takes No STUN power is overly expensive (considering not just the cost of the power, but the defences cost as well). - Vehicles should be subject to the defence penalty as well. Zombies are an illustrative example only of course, and there's nothing wrong per se with building a zombie as a vehicle instead of an Automaton. Consider an evil necromancer who animates a giant zombie and rides in its stomach, for example. I realise that the rules are designed for simplicity, but since we got the optional velocity rules in both 5e and 6e it would have been nice to get the Incomplete Characters as optional rules as well; they enabled some interesting builds that are a little painful to construct without them. Anyone know if GamingPhil ever intends to finish updating them to 6e?

Re: 6e: Defense Misunderstanding Hrm. A few points: - I find the suggested defences (which are basically unchanged since 5th edition) to be ... interesting. In 4th edition, the recommendation was defences of about 2-2.5x the maximum DC of an attack (so 24-30 in a 12 DC game; a little lower if you have a high DCV). Evidently at some point this was decided to be too high - I presume because it meant fights were taking too long. That's OK I guess - the new campaign I just started is using the new suggestions - but it feels a bit paper thin to me. I guess the idea is to have more STUN now, which is fair enough. - Prior to 5th edition, supers games didn't have any limits on how much of your defences could be resistant. It didn't really matter either; you didn't buy a KA in Champions to do BODY, you bought it for the STUN lotto. (Well, OK, sometimes you bought Penetrating and so on, but you can totally still do that now). This bit of silliness is gone, and I won't miss it; now KAs are what you buy when you want to do BODY. And it's not at all genre-contrary for superheroes to have such attacks bounce off them, so I'm not even sure a limit on resistant defences is appropriate; there are plenty of ways to get BODY through if you absolutely have to, but the average brick being able to ignore 4d6 KAs isn't going to keep me awake at nights.

Re: Automaton Vehicles Hmm. I can't find that, but assume it's true - then it's comparable to a 45 point Takes No STUN. You're right about having to program the computer, but it is unlikely to cost you that many points.