Doc Democracy

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?

Re: Something I just noticed and dislike about multipowers

I don't get it. As I read this' date=' my 30 reserve Multipower can have a 12d6 EB slot (with -1 in limitations), but I can't actually activate more than 6d6 since I can only activate 30 AP.[/quote']

 

I think the problem with using real points is that it would be a fundamental re-write of multipower rules - not just a simple switch to using real points.

 

I like the fundamental idea of switching things as Sean suggested but the implicit result is as you indicated. This all comes down to how the reserve relates to the real cost and active costs of powers and how you pay for a point in the reserve.

 

So your 30 point reserve might allow as many powers with real costs below 30 points to be inserted in the multipower. You might multiply the reserve by 1 plus the highest limitation (or advantage) total to get the total number of active points that can be used within the multipower at any one time.

 

I think that would mean that your 12D6 blast could be used but not in conjnction with any other powers at the same time...

 

An idea that might need kicked around a bit and I have a feeling could be manipulated the way that END Battery stuff could be manipulated prior to the BBB.

 

 

Doc

Re: Something I just noticed and dislike about multipowers

Glad to see a lot of new and interesting ideas coming out. Keep 'em coming

The question is whether they are addressing your problem.

What do you think of the potential solutions proivded. I was taken with the thought that a 12D6 EB couldn't be in the same MP as 12D6 EB with similar advantages and limitations.

Hugh asked whether that same MP should be able to accomodate a 24D6 EB with similar limitations to the 12D6 EB. Same real points. My ersponse to this would have been no and my instinct would have been to base things on base cost.

What about you - same response or different?

Doc

Re: When sfx become an advantage

A long time ago' date=' back when [i']Champions II[/i] came out, the GM I was playing with introduced a villain called "Chain Lightning". He would turn into a lightning bolt, hit several characters, and rematerialize somewhere else.

 

It turned out that the GM was playing with the new "multiple Move By" rules, and the character had a bunch of movement and a GM-allowed conversion of the Move By damage to energy rather than a physical attack. However, the way the attack was described, I never would have thought to try a Martial Throw on Chain Lightning; how do you Martial Throw a lightning bolt? I'd say that that attack needed some sort of advantage --- probably a +1/4 like Derek suggested.

This is why any GM would have to think very carefully about the whole thing. The misleading efffects advantage is a good one and might put players off but a good player would realise the GM was providing them with the liberty to use the SFX liberally.

Without the advantage the GM has the obligation to the players of ensuring that they are aware of the options open to them as well as the ones that are not. With this kind of power all of that becomes more difficult and, as Sean points out, is more commonly fatal to games where immersion is important.

Doc

Re: When sfx become an advantage

I had to go back to the original thread!

You are right - that was a question about ninjas that would stick around and fight for you and if this was done as continuing charges then they should have the physical manifestation to allow them to be targetted or be obviously beyond damaging by direct attack. Slightly different from the slip from the shadows and attack one off that I've been talking about.

However I can still go with the EB if there is the obvious connection with the old man - ninjas appear from the mists that emanate from his hands but not outside the mists. Something that indicates to the player that he is being attacked by the old man rather than the ninja.

Anyway - it's always a pleasure arguing with you Sean - you know your onions as well as your ninjas.

Doc

Re: Something I just noticed and dislike about multipowers

Right. Not saying I think this is how it should be done' date=' just how it COULD be done....[/quote']

 

God, you guys are prolific. I just can't keep up with the quantity or quality of stuff....

 

Maybe not perfect but what do you think? It does' date=' at least, give a consistent mechanic and an easily quantified way of costing the utility.[/quote']

 

Too much good stuff for me to take in. Obviously lots of material to think about. Like you indicate - I think that there is some need to consider the costing of the framework if the basis is changed.

 

How do you get the time in your head to do all this. I often don't even have the time to read it...

 

 

Doc

Re: When sfx become an advantage

1. Hero really doesn't like you losing time. None of the combat manouvres you can use prevent an opponent from acting' date=' and powers to reduce the number of actions an opponent can take are darned expensive.[/quote']

 

And this does not prevent actions, even in the event the ninja is presented as real, just encourages alternative ones. As I said, I wouldn't force anyone to accept it - GM call but I (if and when I GM again) wouldn't have any problems with it. Possibly due to the gaming style of my group but there you go.

 

2. Personally' date=' whilst the idea of a Ninja Blast is amusing (I'm laughing on the inside) it is amusing to me because it is silly. I can see what is clearly an energy blast looking vaguely ninjaesque or dragonlike or whatever as 'colour', but I see an EB described to an opponent as 'from the shadows a ninja appears and cuts at your arm with a gleaming sword, vanishing again into the shadows almost instantly'....as a bit of a piss take. You can, of course, add the words 'but it is obviously only the special effects of a ranged attack' at which point you break the cardinal rule of GMing: don't burst the bubble.[/Quote']

 

Or you could describe the attack as "The Ancient Mystic waves his hand bringing forth a ninja from the shadows who leaps out and strikes at you before vanishing back into the eldritch mists emanating from the old man's hands".

 

This indicates that while the damage was done by a ninja's sword the attack comes from the old man and the ninja is no longer a strategic consideration. No burst bubble.

 

3. There is a fine line between creativity and idiocy.[/Quote]

And I'll guarantee you that I've crossed that line more than once, sometimes without knowing it...

 

4. If someone has gone to the trouble of defining their sfx like that you can be double damn sure they will want to make use of the sfx' date=' and frankly, if you let them define it that way, you'd be bursting the bubble not to - see above - by not being consistent in game.[/Quote']

 

Well, we disagree about that - our games would be different. hey ho.

 

5. You' date=' my friend, are not putting yourself in the game: the sfx are apparently, and really real to the characters: to them the sfx are all, the fact that two utterly different EBs are built mechanically the same way means nothing to the characters, and unless we want to encourage a metagaming attitude, and I far prefer immersion play, we have to look at what is real from the POV of the character not the game system or even the players. Given what the CHARACTER knows and perceives, what makes sense to the character?[/quote']

 

But I am! Really. As far as I am concerned if a power is bought without the relevant mechanics then the character would know implicitly that the SFX were just that - an attack by an ephemeral ninja. If it was a comic the hero would know immediately that the ninja was simply a distraction from the main opponent and not waste his time trying to defend against that particular foe but focus on preventing the old man from bring more ninja to bear.

 

I think the problem would arise from the player hesitating despite what the CHARACTER knows...

 

Obviously I'm coming from a different game experience from you - we aren't immersionist - but even so it just requires a bit more thought - or for the GM to disallow it with the understanding that the SFX were not something that would fit the game unless the effects that the GM believed inseperable from the power as presented were bought and paid for.

 

Doc

Re: When sfx become an advantage

I think we've been playing this game too long. The fact that the sfx do not give a concrete benefit in terms of OCV or dice is neither here nor there to me: there is a very clear benefit if the target believes the ninja are real that he wouldn't have for a lot of other sfx. If the indirect was a column of fire from above then he would never waste time attacking that - he ight well try wasting time to destroy a 'remote flamethrower in a wall' so I'd put that in the same category as the ninja - it gives a benefit a long way above and beyond that which a more straightforward sfx would.

 

Think on this: to make another character do nothing useful for a phase is going to cost 30 to 40 points doing it as a speed drain and maybe 60 doing it as an entangle. Sounds like a benefit to me.[/Quote]

 

There are lots of SFX that give minor advantages and distraction for a phase _is_ just a distraction. As I said - the GM would be under an obligation to make it clear that the ninjas were nothing to consider. He could do that by descriptive language or simply by stating they were just brought into existence by the opponent and ceased to be after the attack.

 

In your game though - you are the man who decides what is cool.

 

It is not just wasting time either - it might involve fighting defensively becasue he thinks thre are multiple opponents or any one of a number of other things AND it very much treads on the feet of the Images power - it is creating something that a character ight believe is real that distracts or misleads him. [/Quote]

 

As far as the game is concerned the character will not believe there are real ninjas - the game dictates that they are not and the character will not see them as real ninjas. The player might need some help though...

 

Moreover if you did this as a seperate images power then you would need to pay the extra END, make some sort of roll to see if the image is seen through, etc - just baldly building it as sfx makes it in some ways a superior construct in game terms to Images, which is ridiculous.

 

I do not think that sfx : something apparently real that deals the attack for you is a valid sfx unless you pay the points for the added utility.

 

I think that the problem words are 'apparently real'. As far as the rules are concerned the ninjas are not apparently real - they are SFX just like the flames coming down from an orbiting satellite or friendly deity. They are colour.

 

We are always quoting 'if it doesn't limit' date=' it isn't a limitation', well, equally, 'if it gives a more than minor advantage, it is an advantage - or a seperate power!'[/quote']

 

If the player wants those benefits guaranteed then I'm with you. If he wants to use Power Skill to get them every now and again then I'm not. If all he wants to do is damage people with the SFX of Ninjas leaping from nowhere and ceasing to be on the instant, then I'd be cool with that but I wouldn't allow other players of NPCs to work on the basis that the ninjas might be real.

 

 

Doc

Re: Something I just noticed and dislike about multipowers

Ok, not commenting on anything here but your math (being something of a math geek myself):

 

A = L = 1/2

 

L is functionally 0 2/3 of the time, and functionally infinite 1/3 of the time.

 

P*X*(A+1)/(L+1)

 

2/3*P*X*(A+1)/(0+1) + 1/3*P*X*(A+1)/(∞+1)

 

= 2/3*P*X*(A+1)/1 + 1/3*P*X*0 (x/y approaches 0 as y approaches infinity)

 

= 2/3*P*X*(A+1)

 

= 2/3*P*X*(1 1/2)

 

= P*X

 

-Nate

If I ever had time to follow this discussion between you guys it was when I was in university and had scad loads of free time. I'm finding it difficult to focus my baby-disturbed sleep-deprived fogged brain round it.

Could you let me know what you decide in English. Consider both of you repped for effort (though Hyper-Mantra will have to wait til I've repped enough other people!)

Doc

Re: Something I just noticed and dislike about multipowers

12d6 beside 12d6 AE, 8 charges, costs END?

 

The question here becomes where to draw the line. If 12d6 AE with -1 in limitations is OK in a 60 point pool, why not 24d6 non-AE with the same -1 in limitations?

Good point. Perhaps I should be looking at base cost of the power rather than active or real. Then doing something funky with the slot costs based on advantages and limitations...

Sean?? I think I've found your triangle!

Doc

Re: Something I just noticed and dislike about multipowers

The proposal at the start of this thread would have allowed a 40 point MP pool to hold a slot like' date=' say, 32d6 Energy Blast, 4 charges, OAF, Concentrate (0 DCV), Gestures, Incantations. [/Quote']

 

Conceded. I wouldn't be happy with an example this extreme. However the example of the 12D6 slot next to the slot with x1 in advantages and -1 in limitations begs the question why not. Real points are the obvious marker of equality here (as far as the game goes) and I was wondering if we could think of a way to allow one and provide reasonable additional cost for the other....

 

 

The second is whether the multipower might be just as workable if it allocated "real points" rather than "active points". I suppose it could. However, for balance, I believe we would also have to adopt the VPP rule that you never get a cost break on the cost of the pool itself.

 

In other words, if you want to have 5 attacks in your Multipower (say a 12d6 EB, 8d6 AP EB, 4d6 RKA, 6d6 6 DEF entangle and a 12d6 Flash), they will be OAF, and you want two of them to act at the same time, I could see this done as:

 

60 120 Multi Pool, OAF

3 u 12d6 EB, OAF

3 u 8d6 AP EB, OAF

3 u 4d6 RKA, OAF

3 u 6d6 6 DEF entangle

3 u 12d6 Flash, OAF

 

[each attack requiring 60 AP of the multipower pool]

 

or

 

60 60 point Multipower pool, OAF

3 u 12d6 EB, OAF

3 u 8d6 AP EB, OAF

3 u 4d6 RKA, OAF

3 u 6d6 6 DEF entangle

3 u 12d6 Flash, OAF

 

[each attack requiring 30 real points from the pool]

 

With either Multi costing 75 points. However, the character should not get the benefit of being able to use two 60 point powers at once and also get the benefit of cutting the cost of the multipower pool in half.

 

Rep to you Hugh Neilson for coming up with numbers - I'm useless at that. [EDIT: I woulda if I coulda - you'll have to go on the list...] So - it is possible we could have a system that would utilise real points rather than active points.

 

I guess this would have to be kicked around a bit to knock the edges off and find the breaks but its a start. I can leave now, satisfied that the creative edge of the forums remains finely honed and ready to tackle any challenge.

 

 

 

Doc

Re: When sfx become an advantage

If a ninja appears to attack someone' date=' it HAS to be a Summon effect.[/quote']

 

I don't think that statement accurately reflects the ethos of the system. Summon might be the most obvious game effect to buy and may provide the most consistent results but it by no means HAS to be the one true way.

 

 

Doc

Re: Something I just noticed and dislike about multipowers

Well you could just say that you can base the number of active slots in a MP on the real not the active cost' date=' but that makes MPs enormously more powerful and pretty hard to distinguish from a limited VPP.[/quote']

 

That might not be a bad thing - I would like to see a unified framework theory as quested for by Zornwil. I don't like the three different frameworks it adds unecessary complexity and gives advantages to experienced players.

 

Stolid and boring as it may be I stick with my position: the rules are right*, but there is nothing wrong with the GM allowing more latitude.

 

 

* in THIS case

 

Pleased you qualified yourself there - it would have gotten tedious throwing this quote back in your face so many times!

 

Doc

Re: Something I just noticed and dislike about multipowers

Mind you I do think that the active points cap is a good thing' date=' and not just because it is dogma: I think taking it away will make abusing MPs far more straightforward. What is next? Applying the same logic to VPPs? That would be truly disastrous, IMO.[/quote']

 

I think its already been pointed out that the number of powers available at the same time in a VPP is based on the real cost of the powers rather than the active cost. That is accepted as part of the system. I was wondering whether there could be a bit of harmonisation to either limit the VPP or to free up the multipower.

 

In many cases the VPP should be the vehicle of choice and the player is moved gently away from it by a GM fearing huge delays while the player gets just the right power for the occasion.

 

 

Doc

Re: Something I just noticed and dislike about multipowers

I do see your point: dissimilar savings' date=' but I would say it is all a question of balance, and some constructs just being better/mire appropriate than others.[/quote']

 

This is what stuck me. I was with the active points are the way to go camp until I read this point somewhere in page 2 - and it took til page 4 before it was brought out again.

 

Seeing as this is the rules discussion forum isn't it possible that we could chew over the proposal and see if it could work rather than simply fire back our mantra of 'that's not the way it's done'. I think he's got that message by now.

 

I think that a multipower framework should be able to accomodate the advantaged/limited power alongside the bare 12D6.

 

Isn't it possible that the slot cost could be modified according to the limits placed on the power while the real cost of the power was compared to the reserve? Of course I think that would require the reserve cost to be increased to meet some of the abuse potential.

 

I have a faint glimmer in my head of how it might work but I'm not a detail man - not like you guys. Anyone got any thoughts on how to make it work rather than repeating that it doesn't?

 

 

Doc

Re: When sfx become an advantage

Actually I'm an appalling GM with a talent for bluffing....

 

I agree that the villains can ignore the apparent ninja and the player has no recourse to complaint, although such logical inconsistency can, IMO, lead to a pricking of the bubble of willing disbelief. It is more of a problem if the sfx belong to a villain (you are the GM: just don't do it - problem is, what if you are NOT the GM) or if, for whatever reason, the players are having a go at each other.

Well, it would be unusual for the players not to 'know' each others powers but I think that I would be throwing clues about the uselessness of their actions to players - giving them rolls on virtually wnything that would indicate the ninjas were not worth attacking - though I wouldn't be averse to providing a free phase for the clever SFX.

It becomes more of a problem if another player has a power like 'images' that could create an image of a ninja that WOULD fool opponents...

Ah, now you're just talking about good mixing of powers and keeping the enemy on their toes. If there is a player using Images then I give the advantage to the players and allow both imaegs and EB SFX to draw enemy fire. After all, the rules say that the enemy is fooled so play that way.

It is not that I can not think of ways around it' date=' it is that I am wondering if there is a way of quantifying these 'useful sfx' and maybe charging for them: Derek's 'misleading sfx' idea sounds favourite.... [/quote']

 

You didn't think that I would assume that you couldn't think your way around it. I mean the man that can't look at a situation without being in danger of overthinking it....

 

I liked Derek's idea as well - he got repped. Charging for it, of course, then allows the player to benefit by SFX of his EB drawing fire from his enemies.

 

It's a wonderfully simple system at heart...

 

Doc

 

 

Doc

Re: When sfx become an advantage

It just strikes me that the sfx in themselves are' date=' whilst technically mechanics-neutral very much game-biased in terms of the response to them: apparently having two targets rather then one is going to cause someone to waste as much time as if the other party had bought that ninja as an image (and spent quite a lot of points on it). I like the point about physical manifestation (a limit I am very much getting into!) but I still think having a fully fledged ninja appear is stretching sfx a bit far, and, more to the point, intruding on the demesne of other powers)[/quote']

 

But surely, Sean, this is where your ability as a damn fine GM has to come into play (if you are one! )

 

In HERO you get what you pay for. If you bought the attack as EB continuous (whether you bought it with or without physical manifestation) then the villains do not waste time with the ninjas. They decide to attack the summoner and ignore his summonings (unless there would be more advantage in removing a continuous attack with physical manifestation)

 

The GM should metagame - he is a metagame entity in any event and if the player complains then you should be able to point to the conversation during creation where you told him that bought that way it would provide the benefits of Images or Mental Illusions.

 

No?

 

 

Doc

Re: Force Wall vs. Transform

I'd have thought Entangle used to form a barrier...

Doc

Re: Stacking force walls

My biggest problem with this is not the stacking aspect pre se but the fact that you suggest that putting one 10 DEF Force wall next to a second one and achieve a 20 DEF force wall. How does increasing the number of force walls increase the DEF of the wall? I'd have thought that the stacking might add some BODY to the wall. So rather than the wall go down on the DEF being overcome it simply loses some BODY.

What if the stacking added 2 BODY to the Force wall per stacked wall? That way you could begin building up your force wall.

My question would be how much END would you spend for each wall and would you have to continue paying that as the layers were blown away?

Doc

Re: Changing speed mid turn tables

That is a very scary amount of work there' date=' EverKnight. I am deeply impressed [/quote']

 

Yeah, but what I want now is an Excel freak to tke the tables and make a nice application that I can simply enter numbers and get an answer!

 

 

Would save all that scanning for the right table....