reverse vulnerability

[Maethalion]

Re: reverse vulnerability

 

The effect is this: when certain kinds of spells are cast on a target, they are more effective.

 

Examples:

A paladin puts a blessing on his ally that makes all healing spells increased in effect

A warlock puts a curse on a target that increases damage taken by adjustment magic

A wizard puts a spell on himself that increases defensive magic

A priest curses a target so that they suffer damage each time they hit someone else

[/qoute]

 

The Paladin Blessing is simple:

"Aid" for Healing Magic. That way the spells are cast at a higher active point level.

As is the Wizard's Spell:

"Aid" for Defensive Magic (FF, FW, Armor)

 

The Priest's curse could be:

"HKA", continuous (so you only roll to hit once, but it hits lots of times), uncontrolled (END or something to last X amount of time), triggered (by the attack, immediatly resets).

So you're hitting them with an attack that only activates when the other person attacks.

 

The Warlock's curse would really have to be a major transform to a vulnerability. Yes, it's expensive. But so is 2x Body on a Major transform. OUCH. No PC is going to want to go up against that!!!

[runescience]

Re: reverse vulnerability

 

Doing some reading on hero websites. I came across something on

 

surbrook.devermore.net/whitewolf/WODHunter.hmtl

 

If you look at section C) Redemption:

 

He has a power called Insinuate - " with this edge, the hunter can inflict profound sorrow, guilt, etc on a monster, making it harder for him to attack the hunter. Also, above that is Payback/frailty.

 

On the flip side, the boons: above those i just mentioned, you can find Donate... lending physical capacity etc.

[CTaylor]

Re: reverse vulnerability

 

The reason i don't like transformation is because it's so total and while you could give someone a vulnerability with it, that's a pretty huge cost and construction for such a limited concept. Basically you could turn someone into a toad for the same cost as making attacks hit slightly harder, and that seems kind of excessive.

 

As for the costs, I'm just throwing numbers out there, not coming up with a rule. I was hoping people might, you know discuss the concept.

[sbarron]

Re: reverse vulnerability

 

The reason i don't like transformation is because it's so total and while you could give someone a vulnerability with it, that's a pretty huge cost and construction for such a limited concept. Basically you could turn someone into a toad for the same cost as making attacks hit slightly harder, and that seems kind of excessive.

 

As for the costs, I'm just throwing numbers out there, not coming up with a rule. I was hoping people might, you know discuss the concept.

So long as you are only talking about a small effect as a result of the curse, then why not call it a cosmetic transform? Would that still be too many points? How big of an impact do you envision the curse or blessing causing? From my initial reading, I imagined an extra couple of points from an adjustment attack.

 

Turning them into a toad is clearly a major transformation. Giving them a small vulnerability to adjustment attacks (which are generally pretty rare) could easily be considered cosmetic. You could get a 10d6 transform for 10 pts pretty easy...

 

Warlock's Curse: Cosmetic Transform 10d6 (standard effect: 30 points) (Transform person into person with x 1.5 vulnerability to Adjustment Attacks, Remove Curse by kissing toad) (50 Active Points); 1 Recoverable Charge which Recovers every 1 Month (-2 1/4), IAF (-1/2), Spell (-1/2), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4)

[sbarron]

Re: reverse vulnerability

 

And if you are hell bent on not using transform, then just create a power that does what you want, and set a price for it that you think is reasonable. Just because Hero is a toolkit doesn't mean every tool is going to be found within it. If you don't like transform, or Aid, or any of the other book rule options presented, then just make something up. Like this...

 

Warlock's Curse: Character's afflicted with this curse take an extra 3 points of damage/effect from all adjustment attacks for the duration of the curse. The curse generally lasts for 1 month. The Cursing character can only cast this spell on 1 person at a time, and recovers the ability to curse on the full moon following his last cursing. (Real Cost: 5 points)

[Doc Democracy]

Re: reverse vulnerability

 

The reason i don't like transformation is because it's so total and while you could give someone a vulnerability with it, that's a pretty huge cost and construction for such a limited concept. Basically you could turn someone into a toad for the same cost as making attacks hit slightly harder, and that seems kind of excessive.

 

As for the costs, I'm just throwing numbers out there, not coming up with a rule. I was hoping people might, you know discuss the concept.

 

Its always nice when people discuss the concept.

 

However, if you present numbers then there is a sub-section of all Hero gamers brains that drill down into those numbers! It's tradition!

 

If you are suggesting a new power it is usually a good idea to have thoughts on how much you think that power should cost becasue people will comment on cost as they want to make sure that the benefits you propose will not unbalance the system unduly.

 

Will try to post more productively later.

 

 

Doc

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: reverse vulnerability

 

Oh boy! Another chance to plug my idea! I've suggested this same idea below many times on these boards, and here is yet another application for it. I've been using this idea for years, and find it works quite well. It's balanced and reflects the utility better than Transform.

 

The effect is this: when certain kinds of spells are cast on a target, they are more effective.

 

Examples:

A paladin puts a blessing on his ally that makes all healing spells increased in effect

OK, this one doesn't use my idea. You can do it as others have suggested: Healing with a resetting Trigger that goes off when other healing spells are used on the target.

 

Or, you can do it as Aid to Healing, UBO (maybe with a Trigger, or maybe even with Damage Shield) - that is, the Aid comes from the target, and effects the Healing spell of anyone who heals him.

 

A warlock puts a curse on a target that increases damage taken by adjustment magic

OK, this one uses my idea (sorry to keep you in suspence). The basic premise is to thing of Disadvantages as "negative powers". Then treat them as such with regard to Adjustment Powers. In this case, you want to bestow a Disadvantage - Vulnerability to adjustment magic - on the target. Since a Disad is a "negative power," use a Drain! How many points is the Vuln worth? Well that depends on how common "adjustment magic" is. Assuming it's Uncommon, 1.5x effect would be a 5-point Disad, and 2x effect would be a 10-point Disad. So if you achieve 10 pips of effect on the Drain dice, you give the target the Disadvantage: Vulnerability to Adjustment Magic, 2x Effect. It then fades like a normal Drain. And you can buy a slower fade rate.

[CTaylor]

Re: reverse vulnerability

 

That's an interesting concept, would take some tweaking but it could be useful.

 

The more I think about that the more I like it. Getting a character down to a really useful point of disadvantage would be fairly expensive but it would add a mechanic to the game that's lacking (which was partly why I did this post to begin with).

 

You'd have to establish minimums for the disadvantages. With skill levels, you can't buy a combat skill level under 5 points if you put modifiers on it - to keep you from buying 2 point levels and stacking limitations that would break the system. The logic is this: the cost breaks are because they are very limited, specific parts of a power (+1 with my dad's broadsword) but if you build it as a power you can avoid that limitation too easily and thus negate the reason the break exists.

 

Disadvantages established this way would require the same kind of philosophy, since what is "uncommon" normally might be "very common" if you're giving them the disadvantage. Sure, having a vulnerability to fire-based sight flash attacks is a pretty narrow category, but if you have just such an attack and can give everyone that disadvantage it stops being rare.

 

You'd have to consider all disadvantages to have the highest frequency as a base number. Thus Psychological limitations would always be Very Common, Hunted would always be very frequently, and so on. So that minimum cost for the disadvantage would prevent cheap end runs around the power.

 

That way, to give someone vulnerability to all shadow-based magic, you'd have to start at Very Common (-15 points) and add the level of vulnerability to it (x1 1/2). This would require 15 character points of drain; a fair amount at 10 points per D6 or per 3 points; you'd need 5D6 or 50 points at minimum just to get a reliable one-shot effect, and a cumulative effect would take a while to establish. Add the delayed fade and range to that and you've got a fairly expensive power for a fairly potent effect.

 

The more I think about this, the more I like it, and suggest you put it in the Hero System Discussion forum.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: reverse vulnerability

 

There was more, but I was running late and had to leave and cut my last post short. Here's the rest:

 

A wizard puts a spell on himself that increases defensive magic

This would work pretty much like the first example, but could be even simpler: any sort of Defensive Power, "Only When Other Defensive Magic is used on him."

 

A priest curses a target so that they suffer damage each time they hit someone else

This would use the "bestow Disad as a negative power" mechanic that I proposed, but would be a Susceptibility, instead of a Vulnerability. He takes X damage from hitting someone else. And "hitting someone in combat" should probably be considered Very Common (or at the very least Common). So 15 points, +5 per additional d6/10 active points, Instant Effect.

 

And one other very important thing I forgot to mention before:

Vulnerability, Susceptibility, and Dependence are unlike all other Disadvantages in that they are the only ones that deal directly with the character taking damage. Therefore they should be considered "Defensive Disadvantages" or if you will, "negative Defensive Powers". This means that the total on the effect dice is halved, just like with an Adjustment Power affecting any Defensive Power. This is important for balance.

 

Getting a character down to a really useful point of disadvantage would be fairly expensive but it would add a mechanic to the game that's lacking (which was partly why I did this post to begin with).

It is pretty powerful, so it should be expensive.

 

You'd have to establish minimums for the disadvantages. With skill levels, you can't buy a combat skill level under 5 points if you put modifiers on it - to keep you from buying 2 point levels and stacking limitations that would break the system.

Well, the natural minimum is the normal minimum of the Disad. And greater amounts of effect can accumulate for bigger Disadvantages, the same way each pip of Drain INT subtracts 1 point of INT. Of course, Disads generally will only come in 5-point increments.

 

Oh, and it may be necessary to impose a maximum effect, like there is on Aid, when using Drain to bestow a disad. In fact, I like to reverse the Aid/Drain limits when dealing with disads: There is no limit to how much disad you can Aid away (down to 0 = no disad); and the maximum disad you can Drain (cause) is the maximum you can roll on the dice, and you can buy this up further, like you can with other Adjustment Powers.

 

And one more thing: Healing is a special case that obviously has to be monitored for concept- and plot-ruining results. Using this idea, you could buy Healing vs Physical Limitation: Blind, and actually cure people's blindness, but it shouldn't be allowed to ruin the whole shtick of a character like Daredevil, for example.

 

Disadvantages established this way would require the same kind of philosophy, since what is "uncommon" normally might be "very common" if you're giving them the disadvantage. Sure, having a vulnerability to fire-based sight flash attacks is a pretty narrow category, but if you have just such an attack and can give everyone that disadvantage it stops being rare.

Very good point! You're absolutely right. No matter how uncommon an attack type or phenomenon is, if the person granting the disad, posesses it, it should be considered Very Common! And it should probably be considered at least Common (if not Very Common), if one of the disad-granter's allies/cohorts/teammates has it.

 

You'd have to consider all disadvantages to have the highest frequency as a base number. Thus Psychological limitations would always be Very Common, Hunted would always be very frequently, and so on. So that minimum cost for the disadvantage would prevent cheap end runs around the power.

Not necessarily. There's nothing wrong with granting Physical or Psychological Limitation that is only Uncommon. It just means that the disad is less disadvantageous, and therefore it should take fewer points of effect to grant it. Remember that this method can easily be made just as granular as any other Adjustment Power (subject to the granularity of Disadvantages themselves). For example, you could have a Drain that causes PsychLim: Fear of Water. If you score 5 points of effect, that would be an Uncommon/Moderate: he wouldn't want to go swimming and would probably feal uneasy on a boat, but most likely wouldn't care if it was raining. For 10 points of effect, it could be Uncommon/Strong: he'd have to make an EGO roll to keep his nerve on a boat, he might wig out on a submarine. For 15 points of effect, it might be Uncommon/Total: he refuses to even go near a body of water, on a beach he stays well away from the wet sand area, and probably still feels very uncomfortable. At 20 points of effect, it can be a Common/Total: he has to make an EGO roll just to go outside in the rain and feels uneasy indoors when it rains. For 25 points, it's a Very Common/Total: the character will have a hard time just taking a shower or drinking a glass of water. And as I mentioned above, this is subject to the maximum effect rule: If it's a 3d6 Drain: Cause PsychLim: Fear of Water, the maximum effect is 18 pips, so it wouldn't be able to achieve a 20-point fear or more. Assuming average rolls, the first "application" would cause the 10-point disad, and the second would bump it up to the 15-point disad, and that's as high as it could go.

 

That way, to give someone vulnerability to all shadow-based magic, you'd have to start at Very Common (-15 points) and add the level of vulnerability to it (x1 1/2). This would require 15 character points of drain; a fair amount at 10 points per D6 or per 3 points; you'd need 5D6 or 50 points at minimum just to get a reliable one-shot effect, and a cumulative effect would take a while to establish. Add the delayed fade and range to that and you've got a fairly expensive power for a fairly potent effect.

Exactly! And assuming the Drain has a high enough maximum effect and doesn't fade too quickly, you could even accumulate it further, until it reached a x2 Effect.

 

It may be that considering all attacks/conditions as Very Common, removes the need for halving the effect vs. "defensive disads."

 

The more I think about this, the more I like it, and suggest you put it in the Hero System Discussion forum.

Thank you! I'm glad you like it. I've posted about this many times in the forums. You might try searching for the phrase "negative powers" to find more examples. I suppose maybe I should write a Digital Hero article about it.

[CTaylor]

Re: reverse vulnerability

 

There's nothing wrong with granting Physical or Psychological Limitation that is only Uncommon. It just means that the disad is less disadvantageous, and therefore it should take fewer points of effect to grant it.

 

Actually I don't have a problem with giving people that frequency, I'm just suggesting that the cost for doing so has to be at a minimum level in the same manner and reasoning that combat skill levels are when modifiers are applied. You can buy a skill level "only with grandpa's obsidian axe" which is a 2 point level, but if you buy that with modifiers, it costs you 5 points.

 

I haven't thought through completely on the Aid side, it seems like that might be more problems in terms of game balance.

 

I definitely would want to see a maximum effect rather than a cumulative effect if drains were used this way, however. The structure of Aid seems like a good place to start.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: reverse vulnerability

 

I haven't thought through completely on the Aid side' date=' it seems like that might be more problems in terms of game balance.[/quote']

I don't see how there's any more of a problem with using Aid to temporarily aleviate someone's disad, than there is to temporarily increasing their DEX or other characteristics. Yes, it can potentially be unbalanced, but so can any other construct in the system. The main problem I see is not one of balance, but of plot/story. A character's disads are often the seeds of a plotline for a whole campaign, or at least an individual scenario (such as the example of Daredevil's blindness). So you do have to look at it carefully. To continue with superhero examples (which are the most obvious), it's probably OK to give Superman a pill that makes him immune to kryptonite for a few hours, but it's probably not OK to remove, even temporarily, Spiderman's sense of responsibility.

 

which suddenly gives me an idea - treat the "core" disads of a character - those that are truly central in defining the character, his personality, motivation, and raison d'etre - as being Inherent (but probably not for any additional points).

[CTaylor]

Re: reverse vulnerability

 

Well, the reason it becomes problematic is because the mechanic for disadvantages is in place already and well played and tested.

 

A mechanic for reducing disadvantages has not been, which means it may have some aspects that could be problematic. Basically, since it hasn't been tested, we don't know what unforseen effects or unintended consequences this might have.

 

However, I was thinking more of it in this way: what happens when you make someone vulnerable to healing powers? How many points is that worth, since it's clearly not a disadvantage but could be in theory built using the Aid power in this manner. It would be a disadvantage no GM would allow but it would follow the same structure and if you could use Aid to alleviate disads, couldn't you use it to give beneficial "disads"?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: reverse vulnerability

 

As I said before, I've been using this technique for many years. I know I don't have any status as an official HERO System Playtester, but I've done plenty of playtesting. This isn't just something I came up with the other day to answer your question.

 

Yes, it can be abused, just like everything else in the system.

Yes, it needs to be looked at by the GM, just like everything else in the system.

But it works if you let it!

 

However' date=' I was thinking more of it in this way: what happens when you make someone vulnerable to healing powers? How many points is that worth, since it's clearly not a disadvantage but could be in theory built using the Aid power in this manner. It would be a disadvantage no GM would allow but it would follow the same structure and if you could use Aid to alleviate disads, couldn't you use it to give beneficial "disads"?[/quote']

You answered your own question: "no GM would allow it."

"2x Effect from Healing or Aid" is not a Disadvantage, regardless of whether you're using my "negative power" rule. Sure, a sufficiently drug-addled GM might let it slip by, and might be so brain dead as to allow its continued use. But there's a rule right there in the books: "A Disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage isn't worth any points." And this particular disad, not only isn't disadvantageous, it's actually a Power! For which you should pay points!

 

Use one of the methods I or others have suggested in this thread for things like that: such as Healing or Aid Triggered to take effect when one of those powers is already being used on the character. Or perhaps a naked advantage UBO, on beneficial Adjustment Powers, that the character can use to make other's healing/aid/etc., stronger on him. Or any of the other methods suggested.

[CTaylor]

Re: reverse vulnerability

 

OK a GM wouldn't let you take a disadvantage of vulnerability to healing but that's beside the point: I'm looking at using the construction here to make just such a thing. It's along the same lines of hero concepts of the past, and it has the potential to fill gaps in the system. It would be a valuable power: I can make you take increased effect from my magic with this, but it fades over time.