Naked Power Advantages

[Daltwisney]

Attached is a PDF file with the initial version of a House Rule I'm looking to use in my upcoming 6E Supers game.

 

The basic rationale for the change is that the method of calculating costs for Naked Advantages as stated in the 6E rulebook inflates the costs for Group and Multiple Naked Advantages by basing them on the Active Cost (essentially making the advantage cost multiplicative), while the Single Power version uses the Base Cost of the Power (not explained that way in the text, but the mathematical effect is the same). The formula remains the same, but the value of the initial variable changes. I'd prefer it to be the same across the board, as well as consistent with the rest of the Advantage structure in the game.

 

What I'm looking for are constructive comments or critiques on this method. What problems could it cause? Do you see an inherent issue with calculating things this way? Do you object to the use of the Wand of Naughty Touching as the name of a Magic Item? If you do see a problem, do you see a way to fix it?

 

 

EDIT: Math Error in Quick Shots II write-up. Base is 56 points, not 101.

[torchwolf]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

Hmm interesting.

 

Alternatives could of course be to leave it optionally up to the GM whether the Naked Advantage causes the Power it Advantages to be used at its base level instead; i.e., the AP Blast loses its AP while augmented by the Penetrating Naked Advantage that only covers the basic Blast. Just thinking about that because multiple Advantage combinations could probably be the most unbalancing issue here.

 

As for Group-applicable Naked Advantages, maybe the same modifiers as for Adjustment Powers affecting several abilities at once could be used?

 

I would definitely not object to a Wand of Naughty Touching, but would insist on it being demonstrated before commenting on it.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

Somewhere in the back of my mind is a small, raucus voice saying "The naked power advantage is that you never have to worry if you're wearing the right outfit."

[Daltwisney]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

Alternatives could of course be to leave it optionally up to the GM whether the Naked Advantage causes the Power it Advantages to be used at its base level instead; i.e.' date=' the AP Blast loses its AP while augmented by the Penetrating Naked Advantage that only covers the basic Blast. Just thinking about that because multiple Advantage combinations could probably be the most unbalancing issue here.[/quote']

 

I considered that, however, I think that is best decided by the GM on a per case basis. If the Campaign (Active Point) limits allow a Blast to be purchased as AP and Penetrating, then buying the same Blast with one or more of the Advantages naked adds versatility without going over the AP threshold. For a single Power, the 'selective' (only 1 of the Advantages applying at a time) method is probably better modeled by using a Multipower, or even Variable Advantage as a Naked Advantage (if you want to hurt your brain).

[ghost-angel]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

I believe you're not reading the rules in the book correctly. But that's another issue.

 

In your PDF you show that Blasto's Spell is 40 Base Points (8D6 Blast) and the NA examples use 20 Base Points... Either you're in error or I missed something.

[Daltwisney]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

I believe you're not reading the rules in the book correctly. But that's another issue.

 

In your PDF you show that Blasto's Spell is 40 Base Points (8D6 Blast) and the NA examples use 20 Base Points... Either you're in error or I missed something.

 

I shouldn't have abbreviated. The 20 Base Points in the NA refers to the Base Cost of the Blast (40) * the value of the Advantage (.5). It's same calculation normally used, I just did not fully write it out. In fact the only real change I used was to use the maximum Base Cost in all circumstances, as opposed to the maximum Active Cost, which is what the book states to use for Group and Multiple Naked Advantages. Since the value (in Active points) that any one advantage adds to a power is independent of any other advantages, I did not feel they should increase the cost, or count towards the point limit for effect.

 

HD will calculate everything in there correctly, since the formula is unchanged, all I've done is change the derivation of the initial variable.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

Your problem is terminology.

 

8D6 Blast; Armor Piercing; Gestures

Base Cost: 40 Points (8D6)

Active Cost: 50 Points (40 * 1.25)

Real Cost: 40 Points (50 / 1.25)

 

REAL COST is the term for post-Limitations. Not Base Cost.

[Daltwisney]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

Your problem is terminology.

 

8D6 Blast; Armor Piercing; Gestures

Base Cost: 40 Points (8D6)

Active Cost: 50 Points (40 * 1.25)

Real Cost: 40 Points (50 / 1.25)

 

REAL COST is the term for post-Limitations. Not Base Cost.

 

Could you post an example from the file of what you mean, I can't see any mis-used terminology.

 

If you are referring to the use of Base Cost in the NA descriptions, remember that a Naked Advantage is considered to be a Power in and of itself, and thus has a Base Cost, even if that cost is derived from an outside value. (A Naked Advantage of (+1/2) on 40 points of Blast has a Base Cost of 20 pts).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

'Naked Modifier' is always going to be...problematic. There are two advantages, potentially, to using a Naked Modifier. The first is that you can avoid using advantages that, in some situations, are NOT advantageous (for example it is not always advantageous to have an attack AoE), and second it can be cheaper to buy a naked modifier that applies to several powers than buy it for each power individually.

 

The actual cost of naked modifiers and the costs savings depend to an extent on the overall build. The system doesn't really differentiate between naked modifiers that apply to one power and naked modifiers that apply to several powers. Moreover buying a naked modifier for a single power doesn't necessarily have any disadvantage (cost or otherwise) over buying the power WITH the modifier: an 8d6 Blast with a +1/2 AoE costs the same points if you buy the AoE for the power or as a naked modifier. In fact int hat case it is ALWAYS better (and by that I mean 'more efficient') to buy your AoE 'naked': you donlt have to use it and if you do not, you do not pay END for it.

 

If you are house ruling, I'd suggest a different approach.

 

For single powers, you can buy an adder that allows you to turn off advantages, and use the power without them. You can turn off advantages for a +5 adder. This is self scaling.

 

Example: 8d6 EB with +1/2 AoE (switchable +5 adder) costs 45 base+1/2 = 67 points

 

That way you are paying for the extra utility. If you do not use an advantage, you do not pay END for it, or for the adder.

 

So, for that scenario you've done away with naked modifiers completely (although, in fact, it would cost the same and have the same effect, as the system below for naked modifiers for multiple powers, using a base adder of +5 - single power).

 

Now for a naked modifier that can apply to more than one power or ability, start with the base points of the power you wish to have a NM for, and if it can apply to 2 powers, it gets a +10 adder, if it can apply to up to 4 (or a tight group) it gets a +15 modifier, if it can apply to up to 8 (or a broad group) it gets +20 and if it can apply to any atatck it gets +25 - then apply the advantage tot hat. You can buy several naked modifiers under one 'naked power' in this way, and they are all considered 'switchable'. If the base power or the NM has reduced END that applies to the Naked Modifier too. The base points do not contribute to the cost of the Naked Modifier - they are there for calculation only.

 

Example:

 

You want to buy double AP and +1/2 AoE as a naked advantage that can apply to a tight group of powers of up to 50 active points.

 

That is a total of +1 in advantages. The 'base points' you apply that to are 50 PLUS 15 (for a tight group). Therefore the naked modifier costs 65 points, and you can use any combination of AoE with single or double AP. The END cost is for the advantages you do use PLUS the full cost of the 'powers' adder (if you only used a single level of AP on a 40 point power, using the above example, you would pay END for the 10 points that would normally cost plus the 15 points i.e. a total of 25 points, or +2 END).

 

This is a little more complicated in play as you have to work out END costs on the fly - but if that is a problem assume you have to pay full END for the naked modifier, even if you do not use all of it.

 

That way you are actually paying a bit more for more utility - not a lot necessarily, but enough so there is a cost difference between buying with or without the modifier being 'naked'.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

Could you post an example from the file of what you mean' date=' I can't see any mis-used terminology.[/quote']

 

while the Single Power version uses the Base Cost of the Power

 

No, it uses the Active Cost and Real Cost.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

No' date=' it uses the Active Cost and Real Cost.[/quote']

 

I think he's confusing the use of the phrase base power from the text.

 

from 5er page 245 (essentially the same as 6e1 page 315) :

 

Single-Power Naked Advantages

Characters calculate the cost of a naked Advantage for only one power differently. In that case, recalculate the cost of the base power as if it normally had the naked Advantage. After you have that new cost, subtract the cost of the base power to determine the cost of the naked Advantage. All Advantages and Limitations applicable to the base power automatically apply to and/or function with the naked Advantage, but do not alter its cost. (Reduced Endurance is an exception — as discussed above, a naked Advantage has a normal END cost unless the character buys Reduced Endurance for it separately.)

[Daltwisney]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

I realize that it can be problematic and requires GM monitoring to avoid abuse. All uses of Naked Modifiers fall into that category, although the ones in the book (Group and Multiple) inflate the cost to make that a less attractive proposition.

 

I did look at a couple different scenarios:

 

70 8d6 Blast, Armor-Piercing, Penetrating (70 Active)

Total 70 pts.

 

40 Blast 8d6 (40 Active)

20 Naked Advantage: Penetrating on 8d6 Blast (20 Active)

10 Naked Advantage: Armor-Piercing on 8d6 Blast (10 Active)

Total 70 pts.

 

70 Multipower: Blast

4f) 8d6 Blast (40 Active)

5f) 8d6 Blast, AP (50 Active)

6f) 8d6 Blast, Pen (60 Active)

7f) 8d6 Blast, AP, Pen (70 Active)

Total 92 pts.

 

Of the three, the last 2 have the most versatility, yet the second one costs the same as the base 'fixed advantage power". The Multipower is by far less efficient.

Regarding the multipower, Most players would tweak it to the Active Point Limit, resulting in:

 

70 Multpower: Blast

7f) 14d6 Blast (70 Active)

7f) 11d6 Blast, AP (69 Active)

7f) 9d6 Blast, Pen (67 Active)

7f) 8d6 Blast, AP, Pen (70 Active)

98 Total

 

Same versatility, more damage, slightly higher cost.

To build that with NA, you might get:

 

70 Blast 14d6 (70 Active)

14 Naked Advantage: Armor Piercing on up to 11d6 Blast (14 Active)

22 Naked Advantage: Penetrating on up to 9d6 Blast (22 Active)

106 Total

Same effect, more points. If you want to use them together, it still only allows an 8d6 AP, PEN Blast if there is a hard cap of 70 Active. If it's a soft cap, it would be 9d6 (the max that can be affected by both advantages)

 

All these are built in accordance with the PDF I posted. According the RAW, the second construct would be:

40 Blast 8d6 (40 Active)

15 Naked Advantage: Armor-Piercing for up to 60 Active Points of Blast (15 Active) (8d6 AP. possibly PEN)

25 Naked Advantage: Penetrating for up to 50 points of Blast (25 Active) (8d6 PEN, possibly AP)

Total 80 points.

This would allow them to be used simultaneously, but to do so would exceed a 70 Active Point Cap.

 

As far as Group Advantages go, that can definetaly be problematic, as they are also defined occasionally by SFX: (Example credit goes to Armitage in the Hero System 6E Rules Questions)

 

12 Ring of Wizardry: Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) for up to 60 Active Points of Magic Spells (30 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1), OIF (Magic Ring; -1/2)

This looks perfectly sane to me, however, it is possibly raising (justifiably to some) the Cost of the Advantage based on Active Points, depending on whether the Magic Spell in question is Advantaged already.

 

Under my PDF, this would be:

12 ring of Wizardry: Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) for up to 60 Base Points of Magic Spells (30 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1), OIF (Magic Ring; -1/2)

More versatility, same cost. Since 60 Base points is high for many Fantasy games, I would probably reduce it to 40, changing the overall item cost to 8 Real Points.

 

It's a cool utility item, and probably not too unbalancing in most cases.

 

I do like the Adder Idea for Group Advantages, something like 'Can affect any Power of a chosen SFX", I'll have to see what I can make of that. It does make a certain amount of sense for the NA to cost more based on versatility (as most things in Hero do) without resulting in multiplicative trickery.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

40 Blast 8d6 (40 Active)

20 Naked Advantage: Penetrating on 8d6 Blast (20 Active)

10 Naked Advantage: Armor-Piercing on 8d6 Blast (10 Active)

Total 70 pts.

 

As built, this version can only be used 3 different ways:

with no advantages

with 1st advantage

with 2nd advantage

 

It cannot be used with both advantages at the same time.

(That would require building each separate Naked Advantage to apply to the base power & the other Naked Advantage as if it were part of the base power. 6e1 page 315)

[Daltwisney]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

No' date=' it uses the Active Cost and Real Cost.[/quote']

Though it isn't explictly stated as such, the effect of subtracting the [Real Cost of the Base Power] from the [Real Cost of the Advantaged Power] is mathematically equivalent to [Active Cost added by the Advantage] / [1 + Limitations on the Base Power]. Aptly demonstrated by Simon in the "Hard Math" post in the HD forum.

 

I would maintain that the use of Base Cost for a Naked Advantage is valid, since a Naked Advantage is itself a Power, and the Base Cost of a Power is the cost of the Power before Adders, Advantages and Limitations are applied. Therefore, the Base Cost of a Naked Advantage is equal to the Active Points it adds to Base Power. I'm sorry if this causes confusion, but it is a logical extension of Hero terminology. None of the examples in the book are themselves separately Limited nor Advantaged, so the the Active Cost = Base Cost, but may not equal the Real Cost.

 

Again,you could easily apply Reduced End (0 END; -1/2) to the Naked Advantage: Penetrating on up to 40 pts of Blast (8d6 or 40 Active, immaterial mathematically) (Base Cost 20 pts, Active Cost 30 pts, Real Cost 30 points).

 

The only thing I've suggested changing in my version is the method for determining that initial number, the math from there does not change.

While "I don't like the terminology" is a valid criticism, it doesn't really point out any mechanical issues with the system presented, in contrast with Sean's post regarding increased utility for no increase in cost.

 

Something I haven't addressed yet: If the Base Power has Adders (which none of the examples so far do), they would be considered in the calculations of the initial Points for the NA (40 points of 'Power A', with a +10 Adder would require the NA to be based off 50 pts times the Advantage Value), since Adders and Advantages are normally multiplicative.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

The cost of a Naked Advantage for a Single Power is exactly the same as if the Advantage were on the Power permanently, with the advantage not having to use it all the time.

 

The cost of a Naked Advantage for a group of Powers is exactly the same as if the Advantage were on any one of the group, minus Limitations, with the advantage of not having to use it all the time and having to only pay once for an Advantage that can be used on a range of Powers.

 

There is no inflated cost. You comparisons are from a misunderstanding of the rules, at the very least.

[Daltwisney]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

As built, this version can only be used 3 different ways:

with no advantages

with 1st advantage

with 2nd advantage

 

It cannot be used with both advantages at the same time.

(That would require building each separate Naked Advantage to apply to the base power & the other Naked Advantage as if it were part of the base power. 6e1 page 315)

 

"All these are built in accordance with the PDF I posted."

If you read further down, you'll see that I listed the RAW version of that same construct:

 

40 Blast 8d6 (40 Active)

15 Naked Advantage: Armor-Piercing for up to 60 Active Points of Blast (15 Active) (8d6 AP. possibly PEN)

25 Naked Advantage: Penetrating for up to 50 points of Blast (25 Active) (8d6 PEN, possibly AP)

Total 80 points.

[Daltwisney]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

The cost of a Naked Advantage for a Single Power is exactly the same as if the Advantage were on the Power permanently, with the advantage not having to use it all the time.

 

The cost of a Naked Advantage for a group of Powers is exactly the same as if the Advantage were on any one of the group, minus Limitations, with the advantage of not having to use it all the time and having to only pay once for an Advantage that can be used on a range of Powers.

 

There is no inflated cost. You comparisons are from a misunderstanding of the rules, at the very least.

 

From the book (6E1, p314):

Group Naked Advantages

For the first type of naked Advantage, the character defines the maximum Active Points the Advantage can apply to. This total must account for any Advantages the base power has.

 

The effect is backwards limiting. Although the costing does not change, it restricts the ability to add the Advantage to already Advantaged Powers, although an advantage applied directly to a Power adds the same Active Cost regardless of any other Advantages on the power. I'm not saying the system is wrong, I'm saying I don't like the premise, therefore I'm changing it.

 

For example: I have a "Power" similar to the one shown in the book to fire any non-AF gun rapidly.

Naked Advantage: Autofire 3 (+1/4) on any non-AF RKA up to 30 pts.

By the book, I could use this to fire my gun, Betsy (2d6 RKA) as AF 3.

But, if I replaced Betsy's bullets with AP rounds, I could not fire it with this "Power" (as the Active Point Cost is now 37).

My entire premise is that I should (physically) be able to fire ANY 2d6 RKA (excepting those that add a +1 to the cost of Auto-fire).

It is obviously SFX dependent as to whether a given situation should be allowed, with a generous dose of Common Sense added, but that is the case for all applications of Naked Advantages anyways. (If it were listed in the books as a Standalone Power, as opposed to paragraphs in the Buying Power Advantages section, it would definitely be a Stop Sign Power, IMO)

[ghost-angel]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

Basically... you don't like that you have to buy up to the highest Active Point Cost a campaign might have, so you're changing the rules to avoid that.

 

I think I'll just put you on ignore and pretend I never saw this. It reeks so badly of cheese I'm not wondering if it the sour cream went bad instead.

[Vajah]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

HOWEVER! Now I have a question:

 

Regarding Martial Arts, I want to use a multipower to simulate special moves, amplifications of his prowess.

Now, I'd like to use my Martial Strike (8d6) against everyone in 2 m - do I:

 

1. Use a slot to buy my strength (15) with the +1/4 advantage Area Effect (19 pts)

2. Use a slot to buy the Martial Strike skill boosted to 8d6 with the Area effect (35 pts - 4 for the manuver and +6 DCs to boost the damage, since I didn't buy the strength with the advantage)

3. Use a slot to buy just the advantage cost of a 8d6 attack (10 pts - and yes, I think it's against the rules, but I only have the two basic books and not the full ones yet - not likely to get them before I need to have the character built)

4. Just give up, and buy a straight 8d6 attack (or, I suppose 40 strength) with the area effect, the most expensive option at (50 pts, and now I'm crying)

 

And granted, I could reduce costs with limitations and such, but there's also the cost of the Multipower to consider. I'm trying to develop a series of cheap slot costs (10-15 pt) and seeing what people think. If everyone agrees that I'm not likely to get such an awesome attack that low - likely- then I'll just move on.

[Rapier]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

Take a look at this (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/78158-Single-Power-Naked-Advantages?p=1975673#post1975673).

 

I've broken down the math into basic algebra with variable names. See if this doesn't clear things up.

[Rapier]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

HOWEVER! Now I have a question:

 

Regarding Martial Arts, I want to use a multipower to simulate special moves, amplifications of his prowess.

Now, I'd like to use my Martial Strike (8d6) against everyone in 2 m - do I:

 

1. Use a slot to buy my strength (15) with the +1/4 advantage Area Effect (19 pts)

2. Use a slot to buy the Martial Strike skill boosted to 8d6 with the Area effect (35 pts - 4 for the manuver and +6 DCs to boost the damage, since I didn't buy the strength with the advantage)

3. Use a slot to buy just the advantage cost of a 8d6 attack (10 pts - and yes, I think it's against the rules, but I only have the two basic books and not the full ones yet - not likely to get them before I need to have the character built)

4. Just give up, and buy a straight 8d6 attack (or, I suppose 40 strength) with the area effect, the most expensive option at (50 pts, and now I'm crying)

 

And granted, I could reduce costs with limitations and such, but there's also the cost of the Multipower to consider. I'm trying to develop a series of cheap slot costs (10-15 pt) and seeing what people think. If everyone agrees that I'm not likely to get such an awesome attack that low - likely- then I'll just move on.

 

1) You cannot simply apply a Naked Advantage to your STR and have it apply to your maneuver (UMA, p104).

2) I believe purchasing a Martial Maneuver in a Framework is patently illegal.

3) Almost, see below.

4) Nah, if you want Martial Arts buy Martial Arts.

 

[For reference, UMA p 104 and 105]

You calculate the cost of the NA just like you would any other power. The Base Cost of the maneuver (in this case) is 40 (for Strike maneuvers, the base cost is the same as if the DCs of STR were purchased outright, so in this case 8d6 = 40pts) plus modifiers based upon elements (according to the table on p105), in this case +2 DCV = 10 points. So the total Base Cost for a Martial Strike of 8d6 is (40 + 10) 50 points.

 

You have to purchase the NA for each maneuver (so a Single Power Naked Advantage):

 

(Base Cost * (1 + Advantages) - Base Cost)

Base Cost + (Base Cost * Advantages) - Base Cost

Base Cost * Advantages

50 * .25

12.5 ~ 12 pts.

 

The cost of adding AoE 2m (+.25) to an 8d6 Martial Strike is 12 pts.

[Vajah]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

(Unfortunately, I won't be able to get UMA for at least 2 weeks, if that. )

 

I figured 1 would be just too easy, but I have seen this in prior games in older versions, so... well, nice to know that's fixed.

 

2 is 'almost' legal since you can buy a skill as a power, but with no mods. At least as I read the basic rule book. But, it's also a stretch, and even with having to buy it up to the same DCs as my regular MStrike, it's a horrible way to buy a power. So, yeah, OK.

 

3. surprised me, as I didn't 'actually' see in the basic or advanced rulebook that you could just buy the lone advantage sans power, but thought I'd throw it out there as a potential option. I am gratified and perhaps somewhat emboldened that I can do it this way. I was afraid I'd have to resort to 4, which is expensive given his regular martial arts, skills and whatnot. (and I hadn't factored in the DCV either, which you're right, I missed)

 

This is a one shot character for a con, which maybe I'll get to play. (Knock wood), so I want to make the guy playable out of the gate.

 

You may have created a monster. But thanks for the advice.

[Rapier]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

2 is 'almost' legal since you can buy a skill as a power, but with no mods. At least as I read the basic rule book. But, it's also a stretch, and even with having to buy it up to the same DCs as my regular MStrike, it's a horrible way to buy a power. So, yeah, OK.

 

3. surprised me, as I didn't 'actually' see in the basic or advanced rulebook that you could just buy the lone advantage sans power, but thought I'd throw it out there as a potential option. I am gratified and perhaps somewhat emboldened that I can do it this way. I was afraid I'd have to resort to 4, which is expensive given his regular martial arts, skills and whatnot. (and I hadn't factored in the DCV either, which you're right, I missed)

 

I was not sure about 2. So when all else failed I loaded HD and there didn't appear to be any Martial Arts listed in the Powers tab. Since Martial Arts aren't listed in the Powers tab (although Skills, Perks, Talents and Characteristics are) I am assuming that they would be illegal, since HD is built around the rules as intended.

 

3 is what is called a Naked Advantage. 6E1, p314.

 

Oh, and UMA is the old 5E book, Hero System Martial Arts which if not already will be coming out shortly, is the 6E equivalent.

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

1)

You have to purchase the NA for each maneuver (so a Single Power Naked Advantage):

 

(Base Cost * (1 + Advantages) - Base Cost)

Base Cost + (Base Cost * Advantages) - Base Cost

Base Cost * Advantages

50 * .25

12.5 ~ 12 pts.

 

The cost of adding AoE 2m (+.25) to an 8d6 Martial Strike is 12 pts.

Thank you, this makes Martial Arts masters no longer cost prohibitive. Instead of buying large powers with the SFX of Martial Arts to simulate extensions to my manoeuvres, I can just extend my manoeuvres! And you only need to make three super maneouvres at 12 active points each before they become 5-point manoeuvres.

[Daltwisney]

Re: Naked Power Advantages

 

Thanks for all the input up to this point. I'm evaluating the suggestions and comments made so far, and preparing to update my document sometime soon.

Some of the issues addressed will be:

 

Clarity: Terminology - What I mean when I use a certain term, to lessen potential confusion. Especially for terms that are extensions or variations of "Standard" Hero-speak.

Clarity: Purpose - What I intend the change to accomplish, and why.

Game Balance - The initial document provided no increase in cost for increase in utility, which is a game-balancing staple of Hero.

 

Once I get the revision finished, I will post it for evaluation and comment.