Jump to content

Marcus

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Marcus

  • Rank
    Competent Normal

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  1. Split off of the Replacements thread, to avoid stepping on someone else's topic. Short summary: Do you weigh 'reduced endurance' on attack powers, when considering the Active Point Cap? Or are you of the "Damage Classes" subset, who weigh attacks only by the advantages that affect how they do damage? If the second, are there any advantages which, even so, you look at more carefully/weigh differently than others? Propositions: 1.) Active Point Caps/Damage Class Weighings turn many 'Advantages' into things that make powers Not Worth Using. 2.) Specifically, taking reduced endurance into the calculation of how much damage a player may do with an attack unintentionally favors certain SFX. 3.) Our perception of problems with the cost of certain advantages has been dulled by Multipowers, which cause powers to be bought that would not otherwise. 4.) Similarly, the commonality of Active Point Caps and Active-Point-Cap Multipowers has resulted in many Champions players building "effects that match the points" rather than "points that match the effect". Random Junk: The question came up because a given character was over active point cap on one of his attacks, due to take the attack 0 END. Some GMs weighed in, saying that they do think 0 END should count towards AP cap, because of its other effects. It seems to me that if we weigh reduced end/0 END towards active point caps, we are simply telling players that they are to buy END reserves, or attack slots in a multipower with some version of +0 Charges (16 Charges, less charges with clips, etc.). This has the unintended consequence of rewarding certain special effects that lend themselves to end reserves, or especially charges and foci. Now, I will grant that (as a GM) I DO pay attention to END usage, and Mr. Goes-All-Day Energize Bunny will, in my games, all other things being equally, usually end up a DC or two under Mr. Counts-every-end-like candy. Thats only fair. But does anyone have any players that would intentionally choose to be an 8 Dice Energy Blaster in a 12 Dice Game, rather than a 12 dice energy blaster with charges, an end reserve, or just good END/REC/etc? And I mean their 'primary attack' as a 0 END attack... Similarly, we have advantages such as AOE. For +1, you can buy an attack that, essentially, doesn't work on supers. Its a great agent-buster, and thats a good reason to include it in a multipower, etc, but noone will ever take an AOE attack as one of their major attacks... which suggests that whatever you get for that +1, you give up more than you get. Thats an interesting thought.. I wonder if Multipowers have dulled our weighing of advantages, etc. Most multipowers I've seen have a big 'vanilla' attack, because those are ALMOST ALWAYS BETTER for their active points than anything that is disadvantages by having an advantage put on it. Then, they spend a handful of points here and there for 'niche' attacks.. something AOE, something LOS/NRP, something continuous... all useful in the right place and time, but something that your just not likely to ever take as a full-cost power in an active point cap game. I mention AOE, Continuous, and the like, because most GMs WILL weigh those against not just Active Points, but Damage Classes.. and again, being the 6 dice blaster in the 12 dice game is even less appealing than being the 12 dice blaster... and god help you if its a 0 END AOE... 4.5 dice? This has gotten disjointed, and should NOT be interpreted as a criticism of how anyone runs their games! I'm just curious as to peoples thoughts/comments.
  2. Re: Simulating Drowning with Images I really like Undie.. and yeah, thats a very similar drowning attack to the first one discussed above. I agree about being often not worth its points... while terrifying, both IC and OOC, the 'put-down' speed is just not as good as with a straight EB or RKA. Thanks, again!
  3. Re: Simulating Drowning with Images I suppose I was unclear. "Lungs of Water", the does body nnd awful power, is a potential construct out of the pool (barring GM's approval, which is its own problem. *G*) The question is 'what do I do to make someone FEEL like that is happening, without -actually- drowning/ killing them, because killing people is unheroic (IC reason) and continuous uncontrolled does body NNDs make GMs uncomfortable (OOC reason). IE, the player is going "How do I make people THINK Im doing this to them, without actually doing it?" One option is the exact same power, only without doing body... thus, they feel like their drowning, and even pass out. ((This is still a continuous uncontrolled NND, however, though it has a relatively easy and readily ascertainable 'turn off switch')) Another option (positied in the first post) is to use images to duplicate the sensation, without any game effect. This gives the GM alot of control over the outcome, but could still be useful as a mook-buster. I do like the drain and change environment ideas, as well... *hmm* Thanks, all!
  4. Situation is as follows: PC, a finger-wiggling mystic-VPP guy, has among other things a power that drowns people. (some dice, AOE, NND vs. life support, does body, continuous uncontrolled, turned off by appropriate first aid, etc. etc. etc.) Obviously the above is a fairly nasty power, both structurally ((continuous uncontrolled NND does body? Bad PC, bad bad bad)) and heroically ((YOUR DOING WHAT TO THOSE AGENTS!!!!)). This, to me, begs the question... What if you just wanted to make them feel like they were drowning? Mental Illusions seems appropriate, but so does images, and I have a personal long-running distaste for Mental Illusions (and mind control, for that matter). So how would you buy either? And what effect do you see it having? I know we reason from game effect, but the only 'game effect' intended is to create a sensation in the targets. I guess more what I'm asking is what responses would you anticipate to that? I can see agent level guys doing alot of rolling around and gasping, hard-knock guys 'getting off one more shot' before they go under, and the smart guys going "Hmm.. Im not getting dizzy, yet..."
  5. While I certainly accept, and agree with, the points raised here as reguards the mathmatical impact of increased stunX, I disagree that increased stun multiple is, in and of itself, the problem. At least on my own part, the 'point' of the KA is its variability, as opposed to the 'point' of a Normal Attack, which is its reliability. There are times, and opponents, where all one wants is a good likelyhood of getting close to 49 stun and 14 body... and times when your only hope is to roll 5d6-1 and offer up a prayer to the dice gods that they will smite your opponent. Buying up the stun multiple and loosing dice reduces that variablity. The 'problem' if their is one comes in the fact that a 2d6RKA +4 Stun Multiple is (in terms of stun dealt) an 'equivalent' attack to the 4d6RKA (if not superior) but much easier to further advantage. 4d6RKA AP is 90 active points... 2d6RKA +4 Stun Multiple AP is 75 Active Points. Weve enough room left in a hypothetical 75 active point ceiling game to make this sucker 1 Hex Accurate, or Zero End, or the like... and still be at 90 Active Points. 2d6RKA +4 StunX AP AOE 1 Hex Accurate is going to very reliably be more useful than 4d6RKA AP... more stun, more accurate. The efficiency of heavily advantaged powers is an old, and well know issue.. as I see it, the threat of increased Stun X is that it makes a power easier to subsequently advantage.
×
×
  • Create New...