Tonio

Re: Philosophical: The Meaning Of Active Points And Real Points

The Meaning Of Active Points And Real Points

Given the following:

 

• Active Points: A general measure of the level of maximum impact an ability has on the campaign under ideal circumstances.
  
• Real Points: A general measure of the level of impact an ability has on the campaign on average or under the worst of circumstances.
  

 

Should Advantages and Limitations be further divided into groupings based on the effect they have on these two definitions?

 

Just Thinking

 

- Christopher Mullins

I'd say Real Points are a measure of the level of impact an ability has on the campaign on average, not under the worst of circumstances. For example, a 12d6 EB, Conditional Power (Not at Night; -1) is worth 30 Real Points, but under the worst of circumstances (i.e. at night) has no impact on the campaign.

I think Advantages and Limitations should be further divided as you propose. This is partially accomplished by the Damage Class mechanic, which subdivides Advantages into those which affect the damage done by a power and those that don't.

Re: Is it Flash or is it me?

That's what I was thinking. It doesn't make sense that "Always On" would be a limitation' date=' but the rules as written don't seem to have anything like that as an advantage, which it is in most cases - although - I'll have to see if you can make Regen into a constant power. That might work, if allowed. Thanks for bringing this up - I might otherwise have never looked at it this way.[/quote']

 

"Always On" is always a Limitation, although it's not always limiting (and therefore not always worth more than -0). It is never an advantage. For a Power to be bought Always On, it already has to be 0END and Persistent, which covers all that could be considered advantageous about an Always On Power. "Always On" removes your ability to turn off a power; it doesn't give you the ability to have it on when you normally couldn't (Persistent gives you that).

Re: Adaptive Invisibility

It might be easier to buy multiple classes of minds (including Machine) than all the sense groups. And there's always Area of Effect (shhh' date=' maybe even with MegaScale :-O)...anyway, not really saying I'd WANT to do it, or that it would be cheap by any means, but there IS a way in the system to be reasonably undetectable to all senses. There are still ways to beat it, of course (high Ego, Mental Defense, etc.), but it CAN work on all senses....[/quote']

 

AE Mental Illusions has the odd effect of not working past a certain range, so instead of people up close being able to see you, people far away can.

Re: Is it Flash or is it me?

Actually it wouldn't' date=' because you cannot put Activation Roll on a Power that you have purchased Persistent on. They are mutually exclusive. The only Persistent Powers that the conversion to Constant applies to are Powers that are innately Persistent.[/quote']

 

While that makes sense... I can't find it anywhere in the rulebook... reference?

Re: Is it Flash or is it me?

Unless you buy Continuous on the Instant as well' date=' you do indeed have to make further attack rolls. There is nothing in the text of Persistent that states that it makes Instants Constant. And there is nothing in the text that states that you don't need to make further attack rolls.[/quote']

 

Oohh... I went back and re-read the section on the Persistent Advantage, as well as the text on page 100 of 5ER (relating to Persistent Powers). I had been operating under a misunderstanding. Although it's not explicitly spelled out (and the only reason it would need to is to avoid confusion to us old-timers who are used to Persistent only being applicable to Constant Powers), a Persistent, Instant Power's effects don't apply continuously; it's just that the Power stays on. I guess this would only matter for powers that had Extra Time, Only to Activate.

 

On the other hand... on page 100, under Converting Persistent Powers to Constant Powers, it says that if you take Activation Roll or Costs END (but not RSR?) on a Persistent Power, it becomes Constant instead.

 

Read strictly, this would mean a 6d6 EB, 0END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Activation Roll 15- (-1/4), I end up with a Constant EB which basically gets 0END for free.

Re: Is it Flash or is it me?

Eh' date=' you cannot really put Persistent and Always On on an Instant Power, it would have to be Constant first.[/quote']

 

While this (your statement, that is) is entirely logical and balanced, the 5ER does allow Persistent on Instant powers. They become Constant for free.

 

Persistent

Value: +½

 

An Instant or Constant Power with this +½ Advantage

becomes a Persistent Power — it remains

“turned on” even though the character is unconscious.

Th e power must fi rst cost no END, or be

bought to Reduced Endurance (0 END). A Persistent

Power costs 0 END to maintain, and remains

turned on until the character consciously decides to

turn it off or dies. (See page 100 for more information

on Persistent Powers).

 

That makes no sense to me... a power should be Constant before being allowed to be made Persistent. Makes little sense that Continuous does less and costs twice as much!

Re: Adaptive Invisibility

IMO the Special Effects of Stealth have some bearing on this. For example' date=' I wrote up a character for [i']Digital Hero[/i] with exceptional Stealth that was partly mystical, and as a result affected all the senses. It would be up to an individual GM as to how broad a coverage he's willing to let Stealth have in his game.

I have serious reservations with allowing SFX to affect the character this much, though. Seems unfair to give someone with a "mystical" SFX on his Stealth to be stealthy towards all senses, while someone with a "I can move really quietly" SFX only towards normal hearing, without some sort of Limitation involved. =/

Re: Simulating Drowning with Images

Just wanted to point out that making someone feel like they're drowning isn't very heroic, either. In fact, it's one of the most cruel things you can do to someone. =/

Re: How to write up this power

Tonio, of COURSE you can make a blanket rule:

 

The Blanket Rule

 

When wrapped in your special blanket, you are perfectly safe, and nothing can get you.

BLANKIE!

Re: Help with the Regeneration Power?

All rules in the system exist by fiat. Energy Blast does 1d6 per 5 Points by fiat. You need to roll 11- on 3d6 after modifications to hit your target by fiat. Combat Luck 3pd/3ed Hardened by fiat.

 

In a rules system there is no difference between "by fiat" and "by the rules". The rules are what they are because the person who wrote them decided they should be. That is true both for the rules you like as well as the rules you don't like.

I do think there's a difference between "EB costs 5ps per 1d6" and "Healing works like so, except when it's Regeneration". The former creates a rule where there was none, while the latter modifies an existing rule. From an extreme point of view, they're both "fiat", yes, but there are degrees of fiat (so to speak).

The reason, I think, Regeneration bothers a lot of people is the same reason why some people are bothered by the Armor vs FF deal (the one where you get free IPE from Armor, or no Limitation from Visible for FF, depending on PoV). When you buy Healing with this particular combination of options, you get something "free" (or at a reduced cost) out of it. The reason, I think, why the Regeneration issue comes up more often is that Armor and FF are split as two different Powers, while Regeneration is presented as an optional variant of Healing. I believe if Armor were presented as an optional variant of FF (when you buy 0 END and Persistent for your FF, you get a free IPE), people would bring the issue up more often.

Re: How to write up this power

That's a good way to think about it. Let's see:

 

6d6 EB at 0 END = 30+15 points. END Reserve...3 END, say you are SPD 5, you need 15 END and 15 REC, which costs 16.5 points.

This presumes you will use your EB every single Phase, though. Having a slightly larger reserve with a smaller REC will probably do, most of the time, and be cheaper. Also, this is clearly not a case for END Reserve!

Mind you for limiting how often you can use a power I reckon you will wind up with less of a bill if you simply limti the power:

 

6d6 EB, 0 END = 45 points. Only 1 use per turn (say) -1: 22 points.

Well, yes... but that requires you to fudge a Limitation value. Although it might still be a better idea (to use a Limitation rather than an END Reserve, that is). I guess it's case-by-case thing; can't really make a blanket rule (suprise surprise).

Re: How to write up this power

I probably would not use an END Reserve - you are paying to limit the power.

 

12d6 EB: After use each 3d6 takes 1 turn to 'recharge' (-1)

 

So, you can shoot off a 3d6 fireball every turn, or wait 2 turns and shoot off a 6d6 fireball and so on, up to a 12d6 fireball if you wait 4 or more turns. Adjust the timing (and damage and limitation value) to suit.

Tsk tsk, Sean... you're not paying to limit the power. Your build has the fireballs costing personal END, while the END Reserve build costs no personal END. END Reserve END is cheaper than personal END.

It does feel like you're "paying to limit the power", since you're paying for the END Reserve, but now can't use the power as often... but you have to consider the 0 END-like component. In that vein... an END Reserve should never cost more than buying 0 END for all the Powers it powers, since it would then really be paying to limit the power.

Re: Money Perk

After looking at the Money Perk, I have a question - does it represent having a job or just income of any sort? And if it is for any income would a Disadvantage be appropriate to show the restrictions a character with a job would have on his free time for adventuring, etc.

 

Thanks for any help to clear this up in my own head.

 

Mirgos

As is usual for most things HERO, the Money Perk has no default SFX, meaning it doesn't represent how or why the character has access to that money / spending power.

As for a Disadvantage representing a job... I believe most characters are presumed to have some sort of non-adventuring obligations (not sure on that), but if your character's obligations are a significant problem, then sure, I'd say a Disadvantage would be appropriate. =)

Re: "Stun Target" power -- what am I doing wrong?

ME STUPID

 

Why not

 

20d6 EB stun only,to stun only (-1)

Well, I wouldn't use it for two reasons. First, I'd rather use the built-in Limitations rather than the catch-all "Limited Power" and "Conditional Power" Limitations (that is, the "custom" Limitations). Second, adjudicating how much of a limitation value to assign to "to stun only" can be iffy. On the other hand, the STUN Suppress, Instant, uses only built-in Limitations, so there's no need to eyeball any values.

But that's just me... I'm uncomfortable with eyeball values, and try to avoid them whenever possible. I'm not suggesting you, or anybody else, should.

At the top right of 5ER pg 248 it says:

Characters cannot

use this option if it would result in a power that

aff ects the same area as Area Of Eff ect (Radius) for

a cheaper cost.

Does this refer to using the One Hex Doubled (2") option, or the entire One Hex construct?

Re: Area Effect TK

In fact you cannot use AoE 1 Hex on a power that would get just a 1" radius from AoE Radius. So it can only be used on Powers that would normally get a larger area.

As I read it, what you cannot do is use the +3/4 "One Hex Doubled (2")" option if you'd get the same area as Area Effect (Radius). I'll ask Steve.

Re: Area Effect TK

Not accurate. A 1" radius is a single hex. A 2" radius is the central hex plus all of the hexes adjacent to it. A 3" radius is what you describe. Check out 5ER p248.

Meh! You're right, of course. It's just wrong!

I wouldn't consider 4 people in a 2" circle to be "packed". That is 7 hexes each 2 meters across for them to be in which means each person has more than enough room to lay down stretched out without bumping into another person' date=' heheh.[/quote']

 

I didn't mean "packed" as in "tightly packed", though... just meant they were in the area.

Re: Area Effect TK

It's not horribly overpowered - but it does effectively allow you to buy 7 instances of 20STR TK. Remember: 2" Radius is not "two hexes" it's a 2" Radius Circle, or simply a center Hex the six immediately around it.

 

It gets even more overpowered with larger Areas, quickly moving into "horribly overpowered"

 

I would quickly disallow your suggested method.

Worse even... 2" radius is the area described by a center hex and all hexes not more than 2" away, so it's really 19 total hexes.

On the other hand, while it's really like that many instances of 20STR TK, they all have to be used for the same purpose, in the same way. That is, while you will be able to lift a lot more, total, you can't manipulate individual objects separately. Just like buying AE for your EB; it's not the same as being able to fire an EB into every target in the area, because that would mean you could spread as desired for each target, you could decide whether to target certain targets or not (you can do this with selective, though), you could choose to use less dice for certain targets, etc.

As to being able to lift larger objects easier... isn't it the same thing for damage powers vs. large objects? You'd reduce a building to rubble faster with an 8d6 AE EB than with a straight 8d6 EB, and probably faster than with a 16d6 EB, too.

Re: Area Effect TK

Officially, it's 400kg total, and you can pick up 2" radius worth of objects. That is, you can lift a 400kg statue that occupies 1 hex, or four 100kg people packed into a 2" radius circle, but not two 400kg statues, each occupying 1 hex, in contiguous hexes.

I don't like that rule, though. I'd probably allow 400kg per hex. In the case of large objects, I'd determine the weight per hex, and allow lifting it if that weight is 400kg or less.

Then again, I haven't playtested that... it could end up being horribly overpowered, hehe!

Re: Mixed Movement

I agree.

 

The example situation makes no mention of special effect.

 

How does the character 'tunnel'?

Is it a form of 'wall smashing' Superman style?

How tough is the wall in question?

Assume appropriate SFX.

Have you considered letting the character make a half move Move Through vs. the wall and then adapt the rule for breaking out of Entangles and Grabs?

 

from:

Hero System 5th Edition, Revised ■ Chapter Two

page 423

 

 

 

Call it an attempt at a 'casual move through' or something similar.

I had not considered that. It'd work for Tunnelling, but not as a general rule involving multiple modes of movement. Which might not be a bad thing... the issue could be complicated and infrequent enough not to warrant a general rule, but rather a case-by-case GM adjudication, taking into account he usual suspects (SFX, situation, dramatic sense, etc.).

Re: Mixed Movement

If you feel that it is reasonable to allow in your games' date=' by all means allow it. That is why Steve peppers the rules with "common and dramatic sense" phrases. If you aren't running the game, feel free to try and convince the Ref to allow it. Personally I'm pretty happy with the rules as they are. I dislike the idea of getting into 1/4 moves.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I was thinking quarter-moves could get iffy. It works fine if all the modes of movement involved can move the same length. Then a half-move could involve any number of modes, as long as the total movement wasn't longer than half that length. (For example, if you have 10" each of Running, Flight, Tunnelling, and Leaping, you could do 1" Flying, followed by 1" Running, 1" Tunnelling, then 2" Leaping as a half-move, having moved a total of 5". Which you might have to, if at the beginning of your Phase you're 2m away from a ledge, and 2m from the ledge is a 2m wall with a 3m pit right next to it, hehehe!)

Re: Mixed Movement

If the target is touching or standing on the material that the character is Tunneling through then a Move By or Move Through is actually more appropriate than a Strike. The character half-Runs then dives into the earth and pops out under the target with a Move Through from below. A pretty devastating Suprise maneuver in the right situation.

Well, yeah, given the appropriate situation... but consider a translucent wall (to allow PERceiving both it and the target), 1 meter thick (i.e. half a game inch), 4 meters (i.e. 2 game inches) away from the character, and a target, say, 10 game inches away from the wall, in the other direction. The character wants to Tunnel through the wall and shoot the target with his blaster. Strictly speaking, he can't, since he can't Tunnel through air, and can't Run through the wall, and can't shoot after doing two half-moves. I'd think it logical and balanced that the character could Run 2" to the wall, Tunnel 1" through it, then shoot, given that he has at least 8" Running and 4" Tunnelling.

Re: Mixed Movement

Well I think you may be over-restricting yourself here.

 

 

• My namesake character has 10" of Teleportation and 20" of Flight.
  
• Per standard rules he could make a 5" half move teleport and then a 10" Flight based Move By on a target.
  
• The damage of the Move Through is figured from the FULL velocity of the movement (Flight in this case) which is 20" (at least +4 DC's)
  

If both of the different movements qualify for velocity damage then I would probably average the damage bonus from both. I don't know if the rules deal with that particular situation.

Actually, on the Running+Tunnelling example, I wasn't referring to a velocity-based damage maneuver, but, say, a regular Strike. I can half-Run, then Strike, or I can half-Tunnel, then Strike, but I can't quarter-Run, quarter-Tunnel, then Strike, which would be needed to move 1" or 2" to a 1/2" wall, then Tunnel through it, then Strike at someone on the other side.

Re: Mixed Movement

Yes' date=' in fact you can. You could for instance to a 1/2 move Teleport, wait for the bad guy to show up and then do a flying move through. You would only get to use 1/2 of your flying movement, but you could still do the move through.[/quote']

 

Dayum... it appears you can! I did not know this. Btw, says here that you probably get the full damage for velocity even if only performing a half-move. I was under the impression that Move Throughs (and By's, and Passing Strikes, etc.) used the inches moved, not the actual velocity... it appears I was wrong.

 

Edit: can't rep you, archermoo... must spread, sorry!

Re: Mixed Movement

As far as movement based combat maneuvers like Move By and Move Through I think a common sense approach is all that's required.

 

Teleport is never going to add to damage.

 

I see no reason to limit combinations of the following if there is an appropriate surface available for the last 2:

Flight

Gliding

Running

Leaping

 

Tunneling can be thought of as 'swimming' through earth so both it and Swimming just mean that the character has to start or end in the appropriate environment to use that movement as a half move.

Yeah, I was thinking about house-ruling something along those lines.