Power Thresholds

[Markdoc]

Re: Power Thresholds

 

I tend to aree that Ego Attack works in practice. However' date=' that seems to imply that the advantages that are needed to create an Ego Attack may be overpriced.[/quote']

 

I've snipped out a chunk since it more or less ,matches my initial musing too. However, I'm not keen on dropping the price of AVLD since that would necessarily drop the price of NND - and I already see enough NND attacks to indicate that NND at least is not overpriced.

 

 

The third advantage (differentiation?) of Ego Attack is to target using ECV instead of DCV. We've seen threads in the past that question how significant this is as an advantage. The rules suggest that powers can be defined as "mental powers" and be based on ECV at no cost. More explicitly defining this rule' date=' and perhaps including the posibility, for appropriate SFX, of OECV versus DEX DCV [mentally directed attack such as hurling knives with your mind'], or DEX OCV vs DECV [alpha waves directed by physical movement], would resolve this issue.

 

It used to bug the hell out of me that we didn't see more mentalists or more EA, given it's apparent advantages - I can't fault your math on the cost. However, in game, mentalists tend to be support characters with useful out of combat abilities. They certainly don't dominate combat, and the best combat mentalists I have seen don't use EA much if at all: the rely on illusions and mind control.

 

Indeed the only mentalist I had almost never used his EA - I ended up putting 2X END cost on it to reduce the cost, since it was there mostly because I felt I "should have it". Oddly enough, though his primary attack was an AVLD HA (vs mental defence).

 

Building that character gave me some insight into why EA perhaps is not as effective as it looks at first glance. In addition to the high base cost, there's also the fact that it requires ECV you need to spend points on ECV - plus OCV/DCV to stay competitive in combat. The much hated mental sniper tries to avoid by hiding away where his DCV isn't relevant, but in-game that's often awkward: being a km away from the other players an be a pain. If that's the case, it suggests that BOECV is no bargain: and that gels with my experience - I rarely see it used.

 

I'm open to other alternatives, but my gut feeling right now is that NND is priced about right compared to EB and EA - just based on the way they play in-game.

 

cheers, Mark

[Tonio]

Re: Power Thresholds

 

More explicitly defining this rule' date=' and perhaps including the posibility, for appropriate SFX, of OECV versus DEX DCV [mentally directed attack such as hurling knives with your mind'], or DEX OCV vs DECV [alpha waves directed by physical movement], would resolve this issue.

 

Not adding much to the discussion, just wanted to point out how cool I think this idea is, the pitting different types of CVs against each other (especially the SFXs involved). I've always been somewhat irked by how someone defined as a Mentalist would always hit, and damage substantially, someone defined as a non-Mentalist (high OECV vs low DECV, damage vs no defenses), and vice versa. For example, it's always bothered me how magic wielders (be they wizards in a fantasy game, or supermages in a superhero one) either had to target your mind, or be good at physical combat in order to hit physical-oriented combatants, either thru high DEX or CSLs. Makes a lot of sense for them to be able to direct their attacks using their mind (i.e. attack using ECV), but have them be dodged, blocked (or deflected), etc. through physical means (i.e. against DCV).

 

Tried to rep, failed... need to spread around. =/

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Power Thresholds

 

My preference would be to got the other way and remove the EGO/5 freebie' date=' which prejudices teh characters who probably need Mental Defence more than anyone - characters with low Ego to start off with.[/quote']

And my idea is essentially a compromise between this and the standard rules. Someone with 20 EGO doesn't get 5 MD for only 1 point spent.

 

I tend to aree that Ego Attack works in practice. However' date=' that seems to imply that the advantages that are needed to create an Ego Attack may be overpriced.[/quote']

Exactly what I said. AVLD in particular is definitely overpriced. I suppose the reason is because of the possibility of Advantage Stacking, which doesn't apply to EGO Attack. I never buy AVLD, unless I stack other Advantages onto it (or if it's for an NPC, where the points aren't strictly limited). For example, 0 END on the 6d6 EGO Attack costs +30 points. On the 6d6 EB with advantages to make it into an "EGO Attack", 0 END only costs 15 points.

 

Compare it to Armor Piercing: Bypass half a target's defenses for +1/2. If you could bypass *all* of a target's defenses, you'd get precisely twice the bang-for-the-buck as the +1/2 AP Advantage gives you. 2 x 1/2 = 1. But a +1 Advantage would be NND, which sort of does this (bypassing all defenses), but with the limitation that the attack has no effect at all in some circumstance, which is usually fairly well-known or easy to figure out (gas attack? Put of a gas mask. Nerve strike? wear rigid armor over the area. etc.). And AVLD costs three times as much for maybe one and a half times the utility of AP. You bypass the usual defense, but you apply some other defense (which usually costs the same) that presumably the target has less of.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Power Thresholds

 

I've snipped out a chunk since it more or less ,matches my initial musing too. However, I'm not keen on dropping the price of AVLD since that would necessarily drop the price of NND - and I already see enough NND attacks to indicate that NND at least is not overpriced.

 

I'm open to other alternatives, but my gut feeling right now is that NND is priced about right compared to EB and EA - just based on the way they play in-game.

 

I agree NND is priced about right. I would consider changing NND to be all or nothing where the defense is a fixed ability (fire powers or some item from life support, for example) and act vs the specified defense where it is, in fact, a defense (mental defense, power defense, force field). This would leave NND at +1, but fold in AVLD to also be +1.

[Ocelot]

Re: Power Thresholds

 

I'm with jtelson - minimum buy ins seems like a great way to resolve this.

 

Without GM permission, a lot of these powers should require a minimum amount of investment. I mean, who really needs just 1" of Flight?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Power Thresholds

 

That's been my own experience as well. The 5 - 6d6 Ego Attacks typical in a campaign will Stun very few characters on one hit.; it's simply too small. Just like with most physical or energy attacks' date=' it will take two or three solid hits to put down an opponent. Given how inexpensive MD is, Ego Attack is probably fairly balanced. I'd still like to see some inherent MD against Ego Blast since EGO provides no defense against it as it does for other Ego powers, but I can live with it as is.[/quote']

 

I appreciate this is a not a solution to the stunning problem directly, but it does work nicely in practice:

 

60 Multipower, 60-point reserve

4u 1) Foreplay: Drain CON 3d6, Ranged (+1/2), Invisible Power Effects, SFX Only (Fully Invisible; +1/2) (60 Active Points); Limited Power: CON total only reduced for purposes of Ego Attack Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (-1/2)

4u 2) Paingasm: Ego Attack 6d6 (60 Active Points); Limited Power: only works on a target affected by CON drain Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (-1/2)

 

As for Ego Atatck not having any 'inherent' defence, well, as you said, it is dangerous but as it will not often stun, not THAT dangerous, and is largely on a par, cost and effictiveness-wise, with NND.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Power Thresholds

 

I agree NND is priced about right. I would consider changing NND to be all or nothing where the defense is a fixed ability (fire powers or some item from life support' date=' for example) and act vs the specified defense where it is, in fact, a defense (mental defense, power defense, force field). This would leave NND at +1, but fold in AVLD to also be +1.[/quote']

 

I think that is a sensible approach. Of course there would never be any point in taking a STUN Drain then, from a cost POV, but I could live with that: there is hardly any point at present.

[Kdansky]

Re: Power Thresholds

 

Paingasm? repped. Even though "I think I just had an Evilgasm." still wins.

 

Your construct has one huge problem: First power uses OCV/DCV, second one ECV. Your mentalist might have quite some troubles hitting with the drain. And you forgot to up the recovery time one step, this will go away in seconds.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Power Thresholds

 

I'm with jtelson - minimum buy ins seems like a great way to resolve this.

 

Without GM permission, a lot of these powers should require a minimum amount of investment. I mean, who really needs just 1" of Flight?

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head there - who needs 1" of flight? Professor Munchkin, that's who.

 

Cost minima were there to prevent abuse, but assuming that the decision to buy a power at a small active cost is justified (as, occasionally, it might be), then we probably shhouldn't be restricting the choice to do so. Pawsplay's comments earlier inthe thread resonated for me. http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1520576&postcount=22

 

Of course not building safeguards into the system demands decent GM oversight, but all Hero GMs are strong, upstanding bastions of balance and justice, expert storytellers, and trained in resisting physical and psychological intimidation techniques, so that's all right then

[Sean Waters]

Re: Power Thresholds

 

Paingasm? repped. Even though "I think I just had an Evilgasm." still wins.

 

Your construct has one huge problem: First power uses OCV/DCV, second one ECV. Your mentalist might have quite some troubles hitting with the drain. And you forgot to up the recovery time one step, this will go away in seconds.

 

The first was an oversight, the second was deliberate - if it takes more than a couple of turns to down them you've probably lost the fight anyway

 

Adding 'Based on ECV' reduces the drain to 2d6 for the same point cost - that ups the average stun through defences +CON drain to 28; still a reasonable total, and there is nothing stopping you hitting them twice, so they'd need 35 CON to resist you. Of course they are probably trying to hit you....

 

I'd never heard Evilgasm before, but you can be sure I'll be using it lots from now on

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Power Thresholds

 

I think that is a sensible approach. Of course there would never be any point in taking a STUN Drain then' date=' from a cost POV, but I could live with that: there is hardly any point at present.[/quote']

 

Reducing a target's recovery of STUN to 5/turn seems a good reason to take a STUN drain instead of an AVLD. You're trading off range for a potentially significant delay in recovery rates. Very useful if the target has a high REC and/or would take recoveries during their turns. Further reducing the fade rate would make this advantage more pronounced, at a cost of less STUN per hit.

 

I appreciate this is a not a solution to the stunning problem directly, but it does work nicely in practice:

 

60 Multipower, 60-point reserve

4u 1) Opening the way to pain: Drain CON 3d6, Ranged (+1/2), Invisible Power Effects, SFX Only (Fully Invisible; +1/2) (60 Active Points); Limited Power: CON total only reduced for purposes of Ego Attack Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (-1/2)

4u 2) Paingasm: Ego Attack 6d6 (60 Active Points); Limited Power: only works on a target affected by CON drain Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (-1/2)

 

As for Ego Atatck not having any 'inherent' defence, well, as you said, it is dangerous but as it will not often stun, not THAT dangerous, and is largely on a par, cost and effictiveness-wise, with NND.

 

I think I'd rather hit him twice (three times) with the Ego Attack than hit him once with CON reduced by 5 (10) for Stunning. There may be occasional exceptions, but I suspect the "Big Bad" who I may really want to STUN has higher CON and/or mental defense and/or power defense, requiring even more attacks for this effect. Maybe if you based the Drain on ECV and bought one or both outside a framework so you could Multiple Power Attack them, but that's a much bigger point investment.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Power Thresholds

 

Reducing a target's recovery of STUN to 5/turn seems a good reason to take a STUN drain instead of an AVLD. You're trading off range for a potentially significant delay in recovery rates. Very useful if the target has a high REC and/or would take recoveries during their turns. Further reducing the fade rate would make this advantage more pronounced' date=' at a cost of less STUN per hit.[/quote']

 

That works if your damage is the ONLY source of STUN damage - otherwise you are INCREASING the recovery by 5/turn

 

If the target is REC 10 and you do 10 STUN drain and your mate does 10 stun damage, the target will get 15 back PS12. Not a good thing.

 

 

 

I think I'd rather hit him twice (three times) with the Ego Attack than hit him once with CON reduced by 5 (10) for Stunning. There may be occasional exceptions' date=' but I suspect the "Big Bad" who I may really want to STUN has higher CON and/or mental defense and/or power defense, requiring even more attacks for this effect. Maybe if you based the Drain on ECV and bought one or both outside a framework so you could Multiple Power Attack them, but that's a much bigger point investment.[/quote']

 

The original MP has been edited to make it funnier. Here, with that addition is the 'Based on ECV' thing:

 

60 Multipower, 60-point reserve

4u 1) Foreplay: Drain CON 2d6, Ranged (+1/2), Invisible Power Effects, SFX Only (Fully Invisible; +1/2), Based On EGO Combat Value (Mental Defense applies; +1) (60 Active Points); Limited Power: CON total only reduced for purposes of Ego Attack Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (-1/2)

4u 2) Paingasm: Ego Attack 6d6 (60 Active Points); Limited Power: only works on a target affected by CON drain Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (-1/2)

 

Building as two seperate powers, linked, it goes like this:

 

40 Foreplay: Drain CON 2d6, Ranged (+1/2), Invisible Power Effects, SFX Only (Fully Invisible; +1/2), Based On EGO Combat Value (Mental Defense applies; +1) (60 Active Points); Limited Power: CON total only reduced for purposes of Ego Attack Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (-1/2)

30 Paingasm: Ego Attack 6d6 (60 Active Points); Limited Power: only works on a target affected by CON drain Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (-1/2), Linked (Foreplay; -1/2)

 

 

That is only 2 points more, and much more effective (although the drain won't affect the FIRST Paingasm, as adjustments take place at the end of the phase). Still, the more you do it the more you feel it, which is appropriate. END hog though. Also appropriate