Doc Democracy

Re: Advantagous sfx

I think Dr. Anomaly has the right idea here. Appropriate special effects of a power should be able to trump the straight up mechanics of a maneuver.[/Quote]

 

From your later comments I think you mean that appropriate powers would trump the straight up mechanics of a manoeuvre,no?

 

Flight and EB are a tactic for avoiding HtH combat and thus removing HtH manoeuvres from play - they don't trump the manoeuvre - it was never used.

 

If the team brick has Largely Icky Shrinking Person in a solid grip I would probably let that grip continue even when LISP shrinks. I would definitelyallow the team brick to hold LISP if the brick said something like' date=' "I'm going to hold on tight. I know LISP can shrink and I'm ready for it."[/Quote']

 

And what Sean is saying is that when the grabbed person shrinks they should get a new breakout roll - possibly enhanced due to the use of their power rather than simply straight STR vs STR.

 

Your proviso would mean that the bonus for using shrinking would be less or non-existent (in my or Sean's game).

 

There are lots of other powers that by their very nature remove the ability to perform combat maneuvers or limit their effects:

 

Exactly - powers limit or remove the ability to perform cambat manouevres not SFX, powers. Those points you spent on the powers are allowing you to get an advantage the SFX that you didn't spend points on should not be as effective as the powers...

 

 

Doc

Re: What would you use to demo, HERO?

I'd start heroic (Pulp preferably) and move to supers - the change is then a matter of "Wow - so many points" rather than "We only get HOW many?"

Doc

Re: Advantagous sfx

Balance is an illusion.

Zen Zornwil.

Re: Advantagous sfx

But the example is itself the issue' date=' as I think that's not an extraordinary or over-effective thing for the price of Stretching or Shape Shift or any other body-affecting ability (I realize SS is "sense-affecting" but its typical configuration is as a body-changing ability, so I think it falls into this category for this purpose) to be able to escape some Entangles based on SFX. [/quote']

 

I don't think that entangles were the issue - though you made some very iunteresting points - the limitation should be on the entangle rather than an advantage on the body shifting.

 

The issue was grab. A common combat manoeuvre that becomes moot - regardless of the STR or anything else of the grabber.

 

the 'correct' SFX would effectively be removing that as an option for any opponent of a shifter.

 

 

Doc

Re: Advantagous sfx

I was looking at the mechanics for grab, and noticed, that 'depending on sfx you can use streching to escape a grab'.

I thought that I'd quote the part of the original mail that started Sean off (on this topic anyway)

Now to me that reads like an absolute that is granted to some SFX that trumps the grabber and other people with the same power that have different SFX.

As I say - I think Sean has a legitimate grievance. He hasn't announced that all SFX advantages be abolished (alongside their disadvantages). He has also said that he likes the wiggle room that SFX can give to a GM looking to apply a small advantage or penalty to a player.

However, as read, the SFX here completely negate another players advantage - they allow the user of that SFX to escape grabs for free (very useful if you don't have to worry about one of the main combat manouevres.

If it had said that some SFX provide extra dice to escaping a grab then I don't think that Sean would be so concerned - that'd be obvious....

Doc

Re: Advantagous sfx

I'm not with the chorus here. I can see Sean's point. The fundamental point of Hero is that the mechanics are the mechanics and the system used the mechanics to determine game effects. SFX were to be the added extra that overlay those mechanics and gave the game colour. Obviously the game designers said that particular SFX should possibly provide added benefits and drawbacks but these should be effectively +0 and cancel out.

Firestorm might launch his Fire Bolt down the dark tunnel, light the place up and burn anything flammable at the endbut he would also suffer in the rain as it made his fire less fierce.

Evens. And all about negotiation between the GM and the player in the spirit of making the game seem more realistic.

I think what Sean is concerned about is for some of the SFX stuff being hardwired into the system. Fundamentally it is overlaid just now but the example put forward there hardwires it in.

From what I've seen so far people here would like the system to hardwire more SFX into the system. After all - we're here to play powers not numbers right?

Doc

Re: RFC: Sharing the Cost of Powers

The potential though is that if you have four villains sharing a mega-kill device and they would normally have spent 100 points apiece on offensive powers' date=' you potentially now have a 400 point power to contend with: the way Hero works, anything too far off the campaign norm is likely to be near unbeatable.[/quote']

 

But very much in superhero genre and a few other action oriented ones too.

 

I don't think it is something you'd want to use too often but seeing a team of villains that you _know_ you cannot attack head on as their offence and defence are unbeatable means the GM (if he's worth his salt) has left a backdoor somewhere that you have to find.

 

For the GM it provides the early game satisfaction of demonstrating the superiority of your troops over the heroes and then the players get ultimate satisfaction of getting their own back.

 

It does require the right players though (I have to contend with one player who will not allow his character to be taken prisoner. I can't rely on a plot where that happens as his character will die before being captured).

 

 

Doc

Re: Changing speed mid turn tables

Delaying his phase - key words - lightbulb goes on. I now understand how you got the phases.

 

However, under that system, if a SPD 2 character increased his speed in segment 6, his next phase would be in segment 12 (no matter what SPD he changed to). He can increase to SPD 12 and he will still only get two phases that turn (despite spending only half the turn at SPD 2). That doesn't seem like a good result.

 

I'll still stick with either just using the new SPD's phases or giving a half action on the first phase in the new SPD if it doesn't share a phase with the old SPD.

It does seem kinda slow to kick in when you're moving from the extremes of the SPD table! If you were switching from SPD 12 to SPD 2 on phase 6 then it would again take six segments to change which makes even less sense....

...'specially seeing as I've allowed it to happen instantaneously for characters in danger of drowning etc.

Doc

Re: Changing speed mid turn tables

Moving in segment 8 would have the character moving in a phase for SPD 3. He is supposed to be at SPD 7 by then which doesn't have a phase that segment. I'm not sure I follow what your rule is when the two SPDs don't have corresponding phases.

SPD 7 characters are not restricted to moving in the first segment of their phases. If SPD 7 character had acted in segment 4 then the next available segment would be 6 but that gets delayed as SPD 3 does not move til segment 8 and so the segment 6 phase is lost as segment 7 signals a new phase and the character can act in segment 8 of the phase that started in segment 7.

Is that clearer?

Doc

Re: An Overall Evaluation of Fifth Edition

Not an original thought in my head: sorry RDU for for the cheap plastic knock-off!

I'd call it convergent evolution...

Re: An Overall Evaluation of Fifth Edition

What an interesting discussion. Got me thinking. Not necessarily a good thing...

Shame on you Zornwil, getting Sean thinking. He's got enough problems with that as it is!

As for the analogy - it is strikingly similar to RDU Neil's sports car analogy.

I think that there has been a lot of talk about this recently that I have been involved with. I think that my view is that it might be impossible to get a pure toolkit for this kind of thing. It would have the same lure as a C++ developers kit compared with the cool games that the developers make.

Right now Hero is a decent compromise of providing a comprehensive ruleset that can be brought to bear on a campaign premise. GMs can make their games different by changing which rules they will use and which they will change slightly or ignore toget different game feel.

I would subscribe to a developers toolkit but I'm not sure that enough people would to allow it to be economic.

I'm going to write a system for Glorantha Hero and put it on a website - this is how Hero geeks like us can support the development of sports cars.

Doc

Re: Changing speed mid turn tables

In the example given' date=' a character at SPD 3 changes to SPD 5 on segment 4. The character does not get a phase in segment 5 at SPD 5 but has to wait until segment 8 since both SPD 3 and SPD 5 have phases that segment. He then has the remaining phases in segments 10 and 12 as any other SPD 5 character does. Total phases for the turn is four (which makes pretty good sense since it is the average of 3 and 5 and the SPD change occurred near the middle of the turn).[/quote']

 

Hmm. I guess I'll have to go look at the book.

 

In my games I always worked it as follows. The next time the character may act would be in a segment where both the original and the new speed would have been able to act.

 

In the example of SPD 3 changing to SPD 5 on segment 4 that would work out to segment 8. Obviously the next time a SPD 3 character would be able to move would be segment 8 which conveniently happens to be a SPD 5 segment as well.

 

In the case you bring up of SPD 3 changing to SPD 7 my reckoning would be again segment 8. After 4 the first segment a SPD 3 character can move is segment 8 (4, 8, 12), the first segment a SPD 7 character can move after segment 4 is 6. So the character would act on 4,8,9,11,12 (in my reckoning).

 

 

Doc

Re: Target dependent effect

I hadn't thought of using triggered, ghost-angel: that could work well, providing an advantage cost and a reason why the 'appropriate' slot goes off....hmmm....good one!

 

Doc: the problem with a VPP (to my mind) is it has to be set up: I'm not really sure how this would substantially differ from the MP example, but I might just be being thick (as usual)

I was looking at the VPP kind of like a wand of wonder where the user fires it without actually having any control of what comes forth.

In this case the user fires the power and the effects depend on the target (thus the no control over power switch). So the target determines the effects like a random roll determines the effects of a wand of wonder.

Doc

Re: Target dependent effect

I'm shocked you haven't suggested doing it all with a transform' date=' matey [/quote']

 

I thought about it but that would have the same problems as single powers. If transform doesn't do it then go for VPP....

 

 

But do you see a problem with the VPP?

 

 

Doc

Re: Target dependent effect

Sean

I think that Derek had the right idea without realising it.

What you are talking about is a severely limited VPP limited in that there are only three powers available and you have no control over when they change.

Haven't got my book in front of me or time away from my toddler to work out the costs but this would probably be more book legal/satisfying than anything else.

Doc

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

Due to the way the limitations and advantages work, when you start combining them they should occur less frequently if you want to compare them point for point....

Zornwil asked for further comment on this, I'm still not sure whether I can make 'Doc's Theory of Cost Relativity' as Sean called it any more comprehensible.

So what did I mean? I'll take an 12D6 energy blast limited by 'not versus heat based defences' which the GM has given a -1/2 limitation. The accountants view of this would be that the GM has decided that this limitation will come up every third scenario as it saved the hero a third of his points. He spent 40 points rather than 60.

If the hero has also taken another -3/2 limitation due to limited charges or extra time or some other combination then the 'not versus heat based defences' then the hero has spent 20 points rather than 60. The not versus heat based defences is only responsible for 1/4 of those savings (10 points). As such the accountant GM will ensure that the hero encounters such defences one in every sixth scenario.

The same limitation, with the same value causes the accountant GM to ensure that the situation comes up at different intervals.

It is that logic that says to me that the limitations are relative and cannot have any definitive absolute value in game terms otherwise they would all be based on fixed proportions of the base cost. Not versus heat based defences would be 20 points worth for 12D6 man regardless of other disads - but with such a system you could eventually get powers that provided you with points rather than cost you them - four -1/2 limitations would each provide a 20 point cost break resulting in a 12D6 EB that provided you with 20 points to spend on something else!!

It gets silly very quickly....

Doc

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

IMHO' date=' this is a good example of why the arbitrary nature of the EC rules, despite their "balance" intention, are a bad thing.[/quote']

 

But in the circumstances a sympathetic GM wouldn't blanche at allowing a preternatural toughness EC that would allow extra STUN, REC, BODY, REGEN, DAMAGE REDUCTION?

 

 

Doc

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

Can you please expand on what you mean by the last sentence?

Not sure I want to!

Will look and see whether I can put more words together that will make more sense than the ones that are down there....later.

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

This discussion has reminded me of a sonic based character in my current game that the GM allowed to have a -1/4 limitation does not work in vacuum. The result is that we know will be going to into space at some point so that the limitation will prove to be a limitation. So if you want to be cunning when designing a character for a campaign you ask the GM what various limitations are worth to get an idea of what will be happening in the campaign.

...and that's how he ended up in Dr Lights Bulb of Doom, needing to break through the foot thick safety glass before the electricity arced through the vacuum he was standing in....

Re: Teleport catcher

I am concerned about the idea of a triggered dispel/entangle for reason (2.) above - it requires a dodgy 'pre-cognitive' trigger' date=' and, at least, a large area effect: you should not REALLY be able to abort to a dispel of someone else's movement power - which is what using dispel against attacks targetted on you is - as it is not then being used as a defensive power.[/quote']

 

So you think my transform idea would work then? Transform the teleport power? huh? huh?

Re: Limitation Boondoggles?

I think you also have to remember that a -1/2 limitation on its own might (accountant style) be expected to come up 1/3 of the time as it saves you 1/3 of the points. It probably shouldn't come up 1/3 of the time when it is combined with a -3/2 limitation.

The total -2 limitation saves 2/3 of the points and (accountant style) you might expect the power to be limited 2/3 of the time but possibly only 1/6 of the times would be accounted for by the -1/2 limitation.

Due to the way the limitations and advantages work, when you start combining them they should occur less frequently if you want to compare them point for point....

Doc

Re: When sfx become an advantage

Yeah' date=' people went afield from the original request, but I don't think anyone seriously suggested the EB: Continuous Ninjas should be used in an unduly advantageous manner, i.e., the caster should still be evident as the source. Maybe I'm wrong or missed a post.[/quote']

 

From my perspective the caster should be evident as the source unless he has also purchased Invisible Power Effects and then it should possibly be evident that there is someone behind the ninjas just not obvious who it is.

 

 

Doc

Re: Teleport catcher

Ooh, ooh. Can I be the first to mention Transform?

Essentially the power that is being sought will redirect any teleport in the vicinity of the character to somewhere next to the character. Surely this is a classic case of transforming a power.

I'm not sure whether I'd call is minor or major trasform but I'm thinking area effect changing the teleport to be limited to one floating location - 1" in front of the catcher.

Whadda ya think? Cool huh?

Doc

Re: Teleport catcher

I think you're first problem to solve is how the teleporter is targetted.

Doc Anomaly started a thread about detecting a memorised location for a teleporter and this covers the same kind of territory. You might want to go look at this thread.

If you can detect and target the teleporter then I think that you could use a +0 advantage on telekinesis - only to grab someone in mid-teleport. Then it is a simple matter of hitting them and reeling them in....

Doc

Re: Something I just noticed and dislike about multipowers

Thanks for the compliment' date=' and for the record I [i']don't[/i] think it makes you "sound like a goob" to say you were thinking of the same thing. After all, since it suddenly occured to me, that means it made some kind of logical sense to me, and if it made sense to me, it's more than possible it made the same sense -- quite independently -- to someone else.

Isn't he a nice man?