Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why? [Archive]

Killer Shrike

Dec 29th, '05, 02:06 PM

Active Points are the points that affect things in the game-- thus they are "ACTIVE".

Normally you would set aside some amont of character points for a Power to affect things with, 50 in your example. If you had another Power, you'd set aside some amount of points for it as well, and so on.

That is fine and well, and after you had done so you could then use all such Powers simultaneously.

However, there are some Powers that a character does not want to use together. Perhaps they represent different facets of a conceptual meta power like "Fire Emmission", perhaps they are mutually exclusive, perhaps the character can't pay the END for using all of them at the same time, whatever.

That is were the MP comes into play. It says, basically, you have set aside a reserve of X number of points that can be Active and effect the game at any given moment; what you use it for in a particular segment is largely irrelevant -- X Points is X Points whether that be xd6 of damage or an equivalent amount of points of something else. However to keep you from having an infinite selection of Powers -- a cosmic VPP essentially, you must pay a relatively small surcharge for each Power that can use this reserve.

This is very efficient and effective. However, since the character still only has X number of points Actively affecting play it is still fair to other characters that paid for their Powers straight up.

If a character instead put X points into a Reserve and it applied to the REAL COST of slots rather than the ACTIVE POINTS of slots they would have a gross point advantage controlled only by how many Limitations were placed on individual slots. This would be unbalanced, unfair, and mathematically unsound.

gojira

Dec 29th, '05, 02:29 PM

Yeah, pretty much it's a balance issue. Just keep adding lims to power number three and see how obscene it gets. Gestures, takes extra time, charges (1!!), only at night, activation 14-, etc. etc.

Then add about 10 slots like that. Really abusive. And it's worse if the player adds even more, 20 or 30 slots like that.

IMHO, a multipower is a super power or device that's powered from one source: the character him or herself, a battery, etc. The power can be shifted around (or "reconfigured" and released differently with an all ultra-slot multipower), but it can't exceed the maximum level of the power source itself. Limiting the active points in a slot to the active reserve enforces that idea.

But on the meta-gaming side, it's a play balance issue.

If you *do* want a bunch of cheesey powers, pick an EC like "Ultimate Power" and load it up. For certain types of campaings like world class supers, Dragonball Z wuxia, etc., I'd probably allow such a thing. It's much harder to abuse than the MP though, 'cause you're paying at least 50% cost instead of 10% cost.

Hugh Neilson

Dec 29th, '05, 03:03 PM

Question: Why is the active point cost for a power in a multipower limited to the number of points in the multipiower reserve? Is it a game balance issue? Do I not understand this rule?

Example:

Master Blaster has a multipower with a 50 point reserve. He wants three slots in this multipower:
1. Kiloblast: 10d6 Energy Blast
2. Megablast: 15d6 Energy Blast with 0 DCV Concentration limitation (+1/2)
3. Gigablast: 20d6 Energy Blast with Concentration (+1/2) and 2x Increased Endurance (+1/2)

My understanding is that this is an illegal multipower because slots 2 and 3 have active point costs greate than the 50 point reserve. Slot 2 has 75 active points and slot 3 has 100 active points.

But why is this illegal? Why is this active point limitation in place?

Others have covered the "why" already. Consider the readily available option for the purchase. The player could buy a 10d6 Energy Blast (50 points), with +5d6 Concentrate 0 DCV (+20 points) and +5d6 EB with Concentration 0 DCV and 2x END (+15 points) for 85 points. This is mechanically identical to the proposed multipower.

There is a recent thread entitled "Something I Just Noticed (and dislike) about Multipowers" which discusses this issue in considerable detail. You may want to take a look at that rather than revisit it here.

Lucius

Dec 29th, '05, 10:48 PM

Look at it this way:

The reserve points are so many liters of water.

The reserve slots are jars you can put water in.

If you have a 50 pt reserve, you only have 50 liters of water. You can (if you set the slots up as "multis" or flexible slots) have 10 liters in one jar, 25 in another, and 15 in another. Or you can (if the jar is "big" enough) put all 50 liters in one jar.

If I were running the game, I would let you buy those big "jars" (that is, those huge slots) - but I'd warn you that you're wasting points. It doesn't matter if you have a 100 liter jar if you only have 50 liters of water - the most active points you can have in a slot is equal to the points in your reserve.

Lucius Alexander

Now try explaining "right" and "left" to a palindromedary

BNakagawa

Dec 30th, '05, 12:25 AM

Look at it this way, if 60 points buys you the multipower reserve, then 6 points will buy you an ultra slot, which is for all intents and purposes a 60 point power.

Commonly used for different attack options, 6 points buys you a 60 point attack that you can't use with any of the others.

The problem with letting people use 60 real rather than active point slots is that you quickly find it very profitable to create very limited but very powerful options all of which are mutually exclusive.

Example: 60 RP limited multipower
6u - 24d6 EB - only vs men -1 limitation
6u - 24d6 EB - only vs women -1 limitation

Assuming you can tell the difference (and maybe you need a third option for fighting genderless robots and such) then you've got 120 points of attack that you can pick at will for a measly 72 points.

Bartman

Dec 30th, '05, 07:04 PM

To give another example. When I first started playing... way back in the day. We misunderstood this rule and played it backwards. I had a character who looked something like this:

Pts
30 Weapons: Multipower 30pt Pool
3u 1) Compressive Blaster: Energy Blast (pd) 18d6, 4 charges (-1), OAF (-1)
3u 2) Stunner: Energy Blast (ed) 18d6, 4 charges (-1), OAF (-1)
3u 3) Grenades: Energy Blast (ed) 12d6, explosion (+1/2), 4 charges (-1), OAF (-1)
3u 4) Tranquilizer: Energy Blast 9d6, NND (+1) 4 charges (-1), OAF (-1)
3u 5) Rifle: RKA (pd) 4d6, AP (+1/2), 4 charges (-1), OAF (-1)
3u 6) Nets: Entangle 9d6, 4 charges (-1), OAF (-1)
etc... ad nausium.

Now there was a problem. Most everyone else payed about 60 pts for their single 12d6 Energy Blast. I got much, much, more than they did and I payed far less for it. And the disadvantages weren't really disadvantageous. If you took any single OAF away from the character, he had plenty more to fall back on. And despite charges, he had more than 40 total charges to use. So if he used up a single attack, he could easily move on to the next one. And he was vastly more flexable than any of the other characters.

The character inspired a re-read of the rules, which inspired a re-write of the character pretty quickly. And the game was much better for it.

I would say that it is possible to create a non-abusive MP using real instead of active points, and under certain circumstances a GM might accept it. But it is so easy to abuse the concept I for one would never go for it.

Vondy

Dec 31st, '05, 12:30 PM

But why is this illegal? Why is this active point limitation in place?

Thanks!
The reason is that the multipower is a set number of active points available for the slots to use (depending on what kind of slots you buy). You can't use more active points than you have active points in the pool. Hero isn't a bank: it doesn't do loans. You can, however, have the multipower if you pay the excess active point cost of the slots whose powers exceed the available active points in the multipower on a 1 to 1 basis (IIRC).

prestidigitator

Jan 3rd, '06, 03:19 PM

Lucius

Jan 4th, '06, 12:51 AM

Hmm. For a Flexible Slot I don't really see much wrong with allowing the slot to be bigger than the Reserve. It means you would only have to boost the Reserve with an Adjustment Power to use the slot at higher effectiveness, rather than having to boost both the Reserve and the slot as you technically have to now. That's an interesting idea. :think:

Yes - a very good idea. I was just thinking the extra potential couldn't be tapped until experience was spent to increase the pool, but you're right, you could just Adjust the pool

Lucius Alexander

Pardon me while I adjust my palindromedary

PhilFleischmann

Jan 5th, '06, 03:30 PM

Question: Why is the active point cost for a power in a multipower limited to the number of points in the multipiower reserve? Is it a game balance issue? Do I not understand this rule?
As Hugh Nelson mentioned, we recently had a discussion about this. I recommend you read that thread. Long story short: I agree with you that this shouldn't be the case. We are apparently in a very small minority, however. The reason this is the rule is because, yes, such a MP construct could be abusive. Several people on this thread have posted examples of such cheesy builds. What many fail to recognize, IMO, is that there are plenty of non-cheesy, non-abusive builds for MPs based on real points. I gave examples in the other thread.

Example:
Master Blaster has a multipower with a 50 point reserve. He wants three slots in this multipower:
1. Kiloblast: 10d6 Energy Blast
2. Megablast: 15d6 Energy Blast with 0 DCV Concentration limitation (+1/2)
3. Gigablast: 20d6 Energy Blast with Concentration (+1/2) and 2x Increased Endurance (+1/2)
Note that the construct here (if it were legal) would cost 50+5+5+5=65 points (assuming the slots are all ultras). Some people balk at the idea of getting a 100 ap power for 65 points, but fail to see that you can do this already, and even better, outside of a MP:

20d6 EB, Conc (0 DCV), 2x END = 50 points

and that's perfectly legal. Why are the rules different inside a multipower than they are outside a multipower? Some completely discount the Limitations, as if they never mean anything. Your third slot costs 20 END and leaves you at 0 DCV.

WhammeWhamme

Jan 5th, '06, 07:33 PM

As Hugh Nelson mentioned, we recently had a discussion about this. I recommend you read that thread. Long story short: I agree with you that this shouldn't be the case. We are apparently in a very small minority, however. The reason this is the rule is because, yes, such a MP construct could be abusive. Several people on this thread have posted examples of such cheesy builds. What many fail to recognize, IMO, is that there are plenty of non-cheesy, non-abusive builds for MPs based on real points. I gave examples in the other thread.

Note that the construct here (if it were legal) would cost 50+5+5+5=65 points (assuming the slots are all ultras). Some people balk at the idea of getting a 100 ap power for 65 points, but fail to see that you can do this already, and even better, outside of a MP:

20d6 EB, Conc (0 DCV), 2x END = 50 points

and that's perfectly legal. Why are the rules different inside a multipower than they are outside a multipower? Some completely discount the Limitations, as if they never mean anything. Your third slot costs 20 END and leaves you at 0 DCV.

Because you can then buy

u5 20d6 Energy Blast, OAF (Magic Wand)

And THAT is starting to be a problem...

incrdbil

Jan 5th, '06, 08:43 PM

At least with straight out purchase hijinks, you get les and less return for piling on limitations. The first -1 of limits on a straight purchase 50 point power saves you 25 poiints. Adding another -1 of limits , you go down to 17 points Sure, its cheaper, but that first -1 saved you 25 points--the next level only 8. Going to a total of -3 in limits takes you down to 12 points--in effect, that last level of -1 in limitations saves you 5 more points. Diminishing returns.

But with the above route, each -1 of limitations you add to a slot in effect adds 50 active points of power to that multipower slot--as long as you keep scrounging them up, you get a flat 50 active points of fun as your reward.

Thia Halmades

Jan 6th, '06, 04:27 AM

*tosses his Eagles cap into the ring, considers stomping it, stops.*

What? I like that hat, even with the crappy season.

Good morning. I'm just going to explain this in a way similarly to how the Palindromedary did, but I'll use a little more math.

In answer to your question, yes, this is a balance issue. Primarily because in your example, the character is getting more Active Points in a power than he's ever had to spend on the power itself. You're giving a cat who spent 50 CP on a Multipower Framework a 100 point power, and it'll only cost him 10 points as an Ultra slot. That alone explains it.

Looked at another way, in your example, no one would have to pay more than a single point for a Multipower, because the powers build into it could be nearly anything. No where is the cost of the power measured appropriately against the value (You spent 1 point, but you're buying 200 point powers for 20 points each. Eep!) In order for the system to function properly, everything has to be paid for. In a Multipower, that means that you're spending points straight up to cover the most expensive power in the group; then you purchase the powers individually.

Does that clarify this at all?

In another example, we can do it the way you described, but we'd have to rework it and call it an Elemental Control, which gives you a baseline to work from (say, a 50 point EC) and then all powers purchased within the EC must themselves be 50 or more points, but they can be (and almost always are) more powerful than the EC, because the EC boosts the power of all abilities within it. The rule is, the Active points in the powers within the EC must be equal to or greater than the value of the EC itself, and purchased individually.

Helpful? Yes? No?

Seenar

Jan 6th, '06, 08:53 AM

One can, of course, have a bigger reserve that is partially limited. For instance you can have

50 Real/ 50 Active Reserve
+
25 Real/ 50 Active Reseve, Full Phase (-1/2), OIF (-1/2).

A power using 50 active points or less, has no limitations forced on it.
A power using between 51 and 100 active points must use the OIF and take a full Phase.

Slots could be

5u 10d6 EB
5u 5d6 Drain
7u 20dr EB (OIF, Full Phase)
10m 8d6 EB 1/2 end
15m 10d6 Entangle (OIF, Full Phase)

PhilFleischmann

Jan 6th, '06, 01:26 PM

I failed my EGO roll to avoid this discussion. Here we go again. :rolleyes:

No it doesn't, because you can do that anyway outside of a Multipower. A straight-up puchase of a 100 point power with -1 worth of Lims is giving a cat(?) who spent 50 points a 100 point power.

[QUOTE]Looked at another way, in your example, no one would have to pay more than a single point for a Multipower, because the powers build into it could be nearly anything.
A single point? How? A power cannot be "nearly anything". It must have limitations to bring it down to the appropriate real cost. Do you think Limitations aren't really worth anything? That they're just ways to save points that don't have any real effect in play? If so, then it's the Limitation values that are the problem, not the Multipower points.

No where is the cost of the power measured appropriately against the value (You spent 1 point, but you're buying 200 point powers for 20 points each. Eep!)
Eh? If you can fit a 200 point power into a 1 real point reserve, it means you've got -199 worth of limitations on it (or at least -134 in limitations with the round off). I'd say that even if you could find that many limitations to apply, any power with even -50 in limitations is going to be essentially useless.

In order for the system to function properly, everything has to be paid for. In a Multipower, that means that you're spending points straight up to cover the most expensive power in the group; then you purchase the powers individually.
It is being paid for. That's just the basic MP rule.

Would you be OK with this scenario:

Let's say I build a character with this one attack:

20d6 EB, 0 DCV Conc, 2xEND = 50 points

Let's say you let this into your game, figuring that if I miss, or fail to at least stun my target, or if there are multiple targets, I'm going to be a sitting duck for a full phase, and I'm going to be spending END four times faster than those with non-Limited 50 point powers.

After I've accumulated some experience, I want to spend it. I decide that I don't really need more *power* (after all, 20d6 is a lot already!), what I need is *flexibility*. So I make my one 50-point power into a Multipower with a 50-point reserve:

50 Reserve
5u 20d6 EB, 0 DCV Conc, 2xEND - This is the power I already had
5u 15d6 EB, 0 DCV Conc
5u 10d6 EB

I've spent an additional 15 points to increase my flexibility. I can choose to spend less END for a less powerful attack. And I can choose to spend less END and retain full DCV for an even less powerful attack.

What is wrong/unbalanced/abusive about this construct? Yes, I know it's illegal by the book. And I'm not asking about some other construct using different limitations like Focus or Charges or Only at Night or Not in an Intense Magnetic Field or Only vs. Humans etc. I'm asking about this particular construct.

Thia Halmades

Jan 6th, '06, 01:29 PM

I don't think I understand.

My understanding of a Multipower is that the MP itself must be as high in AP as the most powerful ability within it; said another way, no power in the MP may have more AP than the MP proper.

Am I missing something, because I'm not understanding your post.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 6th, '06, 02:55 PM

Yes. That's the way the rules *are*. But I, Smokeless Joe, and some others have made the argument that that isn't the way they *should be*. If Real Points are what you pay outside a Multipower, then Real Points should apply inside a Multipower.

Seenar's example, for instance, requires a 75 RP reserve to fit a 50 RP slot. This doesn't make sense to me.

gojira

Jan 6th, '06, 03:35 PM

What is wrong/unbalanced/abusive about this construct?

Well, the character isn't really limited by his concetration and END requirements anymore, because he can choose to waive them. It should have taken an additional 50 points to get out of those things, not 15.

So, this seems more fair to me:
100 pt multipower
5u 20d6 EB conc, 2x END
7u 20d6 EB, conc
10u 20d6 EB

Now you can have a more flexible character, but it costs you 73 points more. Which I think is more in line with what the costs should be. 15 points is just to big of a break for me to swallow. Obviously, you don't feel that way, so we may have to just disagree.

Of course, the disadvantages are kinda silly now. A 10d6 ego blast would be a lot more useful in that first slot, and a 10d6 entangle in the second slot, but I'm sticking close to your example for brevity.

stan da ork

Jan 7th, '06, 06:48 AM

I think gojira hit the nail on the head, and I'm going to try and restate what he said in a more general way:

The more slots you put in a Mulitpower, the less any particular slot's Limitations limit you. By basing the number of points you can place in a slot on Active Points, and only applying Limitations to the slot cost, you get a fair discount, considering the less-limiting nature of the Limitations.

To use your example, the character can fire a 10d6 EB with no restrictions, a 15d6 EB while at 0 DCV, or a 20d6 EB for double END while at 0 DCV. Therefore, if the character doesn't think he'll Stun his target, or if there are lots of targets, or if he doesn't want to use END as fast, he can just use the 10d6 EB. However, if there is only one target, or all the targets are engaged with other team members and ignoring the character, or if he knows the target will likely be Stunned by a bigger attack, the character can fire one of his bigger slots, and the Limitations really aren't affecting him in any way. If no one is swinging at you, 0 DCV doesn't mean anything. And if you have enough END to finish the fight, it doesn't matter how much you spend on those last couple attacks, because the fight is over and it all comes back relatively quickly out of combat.

Now, I too have seen what you are complaining about in the system - you can't make a Multipower with a "big, limited, final attack slot." You can't make an energy rifle with a slot that does more damage but uses all the remaining charges, or anything like that, because AP is the cap. However, I would say that after some experience with the system, you can do this, and in a balance, rules-official way. I'll continue with your example, but I'm going to drop the Concentration only slot.

50 Power Blast: Multipower, 50 Point Reserve
5u Standard Blast: EB 10d6
2u Ultra Blast: EB 10d6 (50 AP), Concentration (0 DCV, -1/2), Increased END Cost (x2 END, -1/2)

PLUS

25 EB +10d6 (50 AP), Concentration (0 DCV, -1/2), Increased END Cost (x2 END, -1/2), Can Only be Used with Ultra Blast slot (-0)

You pay 82 points, and can either use a 10d6 EB with no restrictions, or a 20d6 EB at 0 DCV for double END cost. You get the Power construct you want, and you pay the appropriate number of points for it.

Mr. Negative

Jan 7th, '06, 11:12 AM

And, as this discussion is evidently both Persistent and Sticky, I can't avoid chiming in with what I suggested in the other discussion thread.

If you want to allow the Active Points cost of Multipower Slots to exceed the points of the Multipower Pool itself, then consider putting a partial limitation on part of the multipower pool itself:

Only usable to exceed Multipower Slot active points limits.

Then you could have a 50 Real/50 Active multipower, with an additonal 50 points in the multipower--but only for individual slots to exceed the 50 point active point limit (and only up to 100 active points). This multipower construct doesn't allow you to use MORE powers at any given time, and doesn't allow you to create uberpowerful but limited slots, but does allow you to have individual, more specialized slots that don't "break the multipower bank".

If you are of a mind that this is a very, very good thing, then you can consider the value of the above limitation very highly (say, -99), which would allow you to increase your active points limit by 100 points by only spending one real point.

If you are of a mind that this limitation is very questionable, then assign it a smaller limitation (say -0.5), which allows you to spend 20 points to increase your active points limits by 30 points.

I myself would be inclined to cost it at a -2, I think, though I might start it out at a -1 limitation just to see how it worked.

Poof! Suddenly you have a multipower which allows you to exceed the active points cap, and follows all the normal HERO system rules.

incrdbil

Jan 7th, '06, 11:27 AM

If you want to allow the Active Points cost of Multipower Slots to exceed the points of the Multipower Pool itself, then consider putting a partial limitation on part of the multipower pool itself:

Only usable to exceed Multipower Slot active points limits.

This is a limitation?:confused:

Hugh Neilson

Jan 7th, '06, 02:40 PM

To use your example, the character can fire a 10d6 EB with no restrictions, a 15d6 EB while at 0 DCV, or a 20d6 EB for double END while at 0 DCV.

I'll continue with your example, but I'm going to drop the Concentration only slot.

50 Power Blast: Multipower, 50 Point Reserve
5u Standard Blast: EB 10d6
2u Ultra Blast: EB 10d6 (50 AP), Concentration (0 DCV, -1/2), Increased END Cost (x2 END, -1/2)

PLUS

25 EB +10d6 (50 AP), Concentration (0 DCV, -1/2), Increased END Cost (x2 END, -1/2), Can Only be Used with Ultra Blast slot (-0)

You pay 82 points, and can either use a 10d6 EB with no restrictions, or a 20d6 EB at 0 DCV for double END cost. You get the Power construct you want, and you pay the appropriate number of points for it.

Lots of good discussion snipped as I want to focus on the example. You could simply buy:

50 10d6 EB [costs 5 END]

17 +5d6 EB, Concentrate (0 DCV) [costs +2 END = 7]
6 +5d6 EB, Concentrate (0 DCV), x6 END [costs 2 x 6 = 12 END so entire blast costs 19 END]

Cost of 73 points in total. You can use a 10d6 EB normally, up to 15d6 at 0 DCV and up to 20d6 for 19 END (sorry, couldn't get exactly 20).

This is a discount of 27 points from a 20d6 EB, and an increase of 23 points from a 20d6 EB, Conc 0 DCV, 2x END. Seems reasonable to me.

Note that, if you had other powers in your Multipower, the second two +5d6 EB's could simply add to that slot.

stan da ork

Jan 7th, '06, 05:14 PM

A much better build than mine. I bow before your rules-foo, Hugh.

Oh, and repped.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 8th, '06, 09:51 PM

Well, the character isn't really limited by his concetration and END requirements anymore, because he can choose to waive them. It should have taken an additional 50 points to get out of those things, not 15.
By that logic, *no* limitations are really limiting, because you can always choose not to use a limited power! In a very real sense, it *does* take 50 points to get out of those limitations - you give up 10d6 = 50 points. Why should you have to pay 50 points for a multipower slot, when the same 50 points would buy you the full power straight up?

So, this seems more fair to me:
100 pt multipower
5u 20d6 EB conc, 2x END
7u 20d6 EB, conc
10u 20d6 EB
That's a ridiculous example. Who would buy such a thing? Why would you ever use one of the first two slots?

Now you can have a more flexible character, but it costs you 73 points more. Which I think is more in line with what the costs should be. 15 points is just to big of a break for me to swallow. Obviously, you don't feel that way, so we may have to just disagree.
And why would anyone want to pay 73 points to buy off 50 points worth of Limitations?

The more slots you put in a Mulitpower, the less any particular slot's Limitations limit you.
I disagree with this basic premise. I'd say: The more slots you put in a Multipower, the more points you've spent on *flexibility* as opposed to *power*. Limitations are just as limiting as always (if you don't think so, then you should vary the value of the limitations). Remember, Limitations don't limit *you*, they limit a power. Disadvantages are what limit you.

If you buy ten ultra slots for a 50-point multipower, you've spent as much as someone with a single 100-point power, or two different 50-point powers bought separately (which can be used together in a MPA).

By basing the number of points you can place in a slot on Active Points, and only applying Limitations to the slot cost, you get a fair discount, considering the less-limiting nature of the Limitations.
No you don't, as I showed with Seenar's and gojira's examples. Let me illustrate it again:

Two powers:
50 10d6 EB
50 20d6 EB, 2x END, 0 DCV
Total cost: 100 points, and they can be used together as a MPA

Multipower (Book Legal):
100 Reserve
5 10d6 EB
10 20d6 EB, 2x END, 0 DCV
Total Cost: 115 points, and they cannot be used together as an MPA.

15 points more for less utility. (And do you really think the limitations in the MP above are less limiting than they are in the full buy two powers above?)

I say, if you can only use 50 Real points of power at a time, you shouldn't have to pay more than 50 Real points for the Multipower Reserve.

To use your example, the character can fire a 10d6 EB with no restrictions, a 15d6 EB while at 0 DCV, or a 20d6 EB for double END while at 0 DCV. Therefore, if the character doesn't think he'll Stun his target, or if there are lots of targets, or if he doesn't want to use END as fast, he can just use the 10d6 EB. However, if there is only one target, or all the targets are engaged with other team members and ignoring the character, or if he knows the target will likely be Stunned by a bigger attack, the character can fire one of his bigger slots, and the Limitations really aren't affecting him in any way. If no one is swinging at you, 0 DCV doesn't mean anything. And if you have enough END to finish the fight, it doesn't matter how much you spend on those last couple attacks, because the fight is over and it all comes back relatively quickly out of combat.

Now, I too have seen what you are complaining about in the system - you can't make a Multipower with a "big, limited, final attack slot." You can't make an energy rifle with a slot that does more damage but uses all the remaining charges, or anything like that, because AP is the cap.
In my games, you can. I'm glad that you at least seem to understand the problem I'm talking about. As gojira said, we may just have to agree to disagree.

I'll continue with your example, but I'm going to drop the Concentration only slot.

50 Power Blast: Multipower, 50 Point Reserve
5u Standard Blast: EB 10d6
2u Ultra Blast: EB 10d6 (50 AP), Concentration (0 DCV, -1/2), Increased END Cost (x2 END, -1/2)

PLUS

25 EB +10d6 (50 AP), Concentration (0 DCV, -1/2), Increased END Cost (x2 END, -1/2), Can Only be Used with Ultra Blast slot (-0)

You pay 82 points, and can either use a 10d6 EB with no restrictions, or a 20d6 EB at 0 DCV for double END cost. You get the Power construct you want, and you pay the appropriate number of points for it.
In that case, why bother making it a Multipower at all? You could just buy the 25-point add-on, and pay less END. Then you've got a simple, partially-limited power. 100 Active, 75 Real. In my example, you're never using more than 50 Real points of power. Or using Hugh's example, which costs 8 points more than my/Smokeless Joe's original Multipower (and costs 1 END less), not the additional 50 or more points that would be required by the various suggested book-legal builds.

As I said on the previous thread on this topic, it may be a matter of rules philosophy: How tight a hold should the rules have for the sake of protection from abuse/unfairness/imbalance, as opposed to the GM taking responsibility? If a construct could be used fairly or unfairly, abusively or non-abusively, munchinly or for greater roleplaying creativity, should it be forbidden because someone might misuse it, or should it be allowed because someone might use it well?

incrdbil

Jan 8th, '06, 10:12 PM

If a construct could be used fairly or unfairly, abusively or non-abusively, munchinly or for greater roleplaying creativity, should it be forbidden because someone might misuse it, or should it be allowed because someone might use it well?

A construct shouldn't be used if its inherently broken with the rest of the system. Payment starts at the active point max; limiations on a slot are soley limitations on the cost of a slot, not a multiplier of effectiveness of a reserve.

Sure, you can say why nt, because every construct has to be viewed with an eye to game abuse, but using a multipower reserve in this manner gains very little in exchange for being a guaranteed source of abuse. you get a lot of something for virtually nothing. The limitations on a multiple power slot used in a legal way (and thew fair, game balanced way) save onyl a few points because they are only affecting a few points that have been spent. Limitations in your version of a multipower slot are massive enhancements to power. -1 in limitations on a multipower slot you only spend 5 points on saves you three points--a fair savings for what youve spent so little for. Using iot as a real point reserve, it gives you a 50 point boost in active points--points you've not paid for in the reserve of the multipower.

You may never agree Phil, maybe your rule works for your game in particualr. Thats why there are GM's, and no game police. But as a base level, default rule, using a multipower reserve in the fashion you proclaim is broken, and prohibitively unbalanced even if firm DC caps are in place. If active point caps are in place, the real cost method makes little sense, except as a trick to get lots of powers and attacks at a drastically, unfairly reduced cost. Flexibility can be bandied about, but in the end, almost ever player instance of the real cost build I've seen, and the sample builds you've shown comes down to getting huge attacks for little cost, or campaign limited attacks in an incredible variety for little cost, and done in such as way that the individual slot limitations mean nothing.

It may work for you, but it in no way will ever work for the Hero system.

5 Editions of rule, and an overwhelming majority of opinion may not settle the issue for you, but beating a dead horse won't change things either.

Hugh Neilson

Jan 9th, '06, 05:31 AM

No you don't, as I showed with Seenar's and gojira's examples. Let me illustrate it again:

Two powers:
50 10d6 EB
50 20d6 EB, 2x END, 0 DCV
Total cost: 100 points, and they can be used together as a MPA

Multipower (Book Legal):
100 Reserve
5 10d6 EB
10 20d6 EB, 2x END, 0 DCV
Total Cost: 115 points, and they cannot be used together as an MPA.

15 points more for less utility. (And do you really think the limitations in the MP above are less limiting than they are in the full buy two powers above?)

The following is equally book legal:

10d6 EB [50 points]
+10d6 EB, Concentrate (0 DCV; -1/2), 3x END (-1) [20 points]

Total 70 points for the same ability to fire 20d6 at 0 DCV and 20 END, or 10d6 for 5 END at normal DCV. That's a 30% discount from a 20d6 EB, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

In other words, there is no need to change the MP's A/P and RP rules to achieve this result. If the 106d EB were in a Multipower, a the boost can be purchased outside. If the first MP also has several other aqttack powers, a second MP could have a slot to boost each of them (or have 50 reserve unlimited, + 50 limited).

This approach avoids the "mix & match" limitations approach (ie take one slot with 4 charges, 1 with 8 charges that cost END, one that replaces 2x END with OIF, etc.), with a variety of attack powers. It also avoids that 50 point MP having a very limited (starting w/ 1 charge) 33d6 1 hex accurate EB.

What do we need on that? -4 in total. Say 1 charge (-2), Costs END (-1/2), 3x END (-1), Concentrate (0 DCV; -1/2). It only costs 5 points, so why not Multipower your 50 AP attack to have a one shot Major Baddie Buster? Sure, you spend 45 END, but if 33d6 doesn't take him out, your 106d Blast isn't worth much anyway.

Lucius

Jan 9th, '06, 11:55 AM

This is a limitation?:confused:

Yes, because those extra points can't be used to run another slot. They can only apply if a slot is already "maxed out" and only to bring the slot's active point total up to its full potential.

Slot A is 50 active,
Slot B is 75 active,
Slot C is 100 active,
Slot D is 100 active.

Say the basic multipower is at 50 pts and the "add-on" is another 50.

If slot B is at, say, 40 pts, and slot A at 10, you can NOT add the "extra" 50 pts to slot C, or to any other slot for that matter.

If all 50 pts are in slot A, you still can't use the "extra" 50 pts. That slot is already at its maximum value.

If all 50 pts are in slot B, NOW you can use the extra pts - but only up to 75.

And if all 50 pts are in slot C or D, you can add the whole 50 extra and have 100 active pts.

Note that if the extra is coming into play, it means you are using only one slot - you can't have any points in other slots, because if you did, by definition you wouldn't be using all your points on one slot - the precondition of the limitation.

Lucius Alexander

Palindromedary Enterprises

Seenar

Jan 9th, '06, 12:14 PM

Going by the rules means you don't get to use active points you don't pay for.

Your system, Phil basically means I can spend 5 points on an ultra-slot and then spend a Day, X10 End, Incantaions, Gestures, ODCV, and 13- to create a 50d6 EB, Area of Effect, with a 110" Diameter, Personal Immunity.

Meanwhile the poor soul not using a multipower is stuck with 50 points just sitting there doing nothing unless he activates that one power.

The 5 points of the ultra slot do not offset the effect of the power.

(I know this example is exteme, but I am using it to make a point)

PhilFleischmann

Jan 9th, '06, 02:46 PM

A construct shouldn't be used if its inherently broken with the rest of the system. Payment starts at the active point max; limiations on a slot are soley limitations on the cost of a slot, not a multiplier of effectiveness of a reserve.
So, just to make sure I understand you: You think that the real cost version I use for MP reserves can't be used in a balanced way? There there are no creative uses for this? I would refer you to the other thread we had on this. There were many uses I mentioned: the specialty target attack, the sacrifice attack, the heavily limited backup power, the normal-level power with advantages and balancing limitations, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by the statement I bolded. You don't pay Active Points in HERO, you pay Real Points. That's why they're called that. I think Real Points are a much more acurate measure of a power's actual utility than Active Points. That's why Real is the bottom line.

...using a multipower reserve in this manner gains very little in exchange for being a guaranteed source of abuse. you get a lot of something for virtually nothing.
On the contrary, it has gained me quite a bit. I don't see where you get this "guarantee of abuse." I don't let my players abuse it, and they almost never try to.

-1 in limitations on a multipower slot you only spend 5 points on saves you three points--a fair savings for what youve spent so little for. Using it as a real point reserve, it gives you a 50 point boost in active points--points you've not paid for in the reserve of the multipower.
Again, you don't pay for Active Points at all, you pay for real points. I don't know how many other ways I can say this. I gave examples of a limited 100 AP power that only costs 50 RP. Isn't that 50 active points you haven't paid for? My problem is with the inconsistancy between inside a MP and outside.

But as a base level, default rule, using a multipower reserve in the fashion you proclaim is broken, and prohibitively unbalanced even if firm DC caps are in place.
Do you have any reasoning behind this claim? Here's an example (similar to one I've actually used in play) that uses a DC cap:

50 Reserve
5u 10d6 EB
5u 10d6 EB, AE: Radius, 2x END

Is that inherently broken and unbalanced? Don't just say, "yes," give me a reason why.

ghost-angel

Jan 9th, '06, 02:56 PM

Here's how I look at it, and why MPs are fine the way they are.

Buying the MP Pool is buying The Power itself, to it's Active Point Cap. A 60 MP Pool is like buying a 60 Point Power.

What you've not done is define that Power, so it's just Empty.

Each Slot in the MP is Filling The Power, It's what that Power Can Do. Each Slot a cost based on the how variable that Leve Of Power can be. Ultras are rigid definitions of The Power, Variable are less so. It doesn't matter what the Cost is because they're all limited by the Power Level (Pool) itself. 60 AP Pool means the Powers are equal to or lesser than that Level, because that's the Power you bought- a 60 AP Power.

Limitations are applied to the Cost, a common Lim is applied to the Power and to the Slots both, the Cost of the Slots, not the AP Threshhold of the Slot. Lims unique to the Slot are applied only to the slot.

You pay for a 60 Active Point Power - you GET a 60 AP Power. The MP Pool/Slots are just buying a bit of versitality with that Power.

and that's all I gotta say on that.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 9th, '06, 02:58 PM

The following is equally book legal:

10d6 EB [50 points]
+10d6 EB, Concentrate (0 DCV; -1/2), 3x END (-1) [20 points]

Total 70 points for the same ability to fire 20d6 at 0 DCV and 20 END, or 10d6 for 5 END at normal DCV. That's a 30% discount from a 20d6 EB, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Fine. So yours costs 70 and mine costs 60 - a 10 point difference. The version with the 15d6 intermediate slot had an 8 point difference. That's at least in the ballpark, but it doesn't work when the powers are actually different (as they are in most of the instances that I would use. The examples we've been discussing here are from Smokeless Joe's original post). So if you want:

10d6 EB
15d6 Flash
5d6 Drain, AE

By the book, you still have to use a multipower with a 100-point reserve, even though all three of those powers are only 50 points. That would lead to a 35-point difference between the one-at-a-time multipower, and buying them all without a framework and using them at the same time! 35 points to bump the AP & RP of an attack by 100 points!

PhilFleischmann

Jan 9th, '06, 03:16 PM

Going by the rules means you don't get to use active points you don't pay for.
Only in a Multipower. Outside a Multipower, you get to use Active Points whether you paid for them or not.

Your system, Phil basically means I can spend 5 points on an ultra-slot and then spend a Day, X10 End, Incantaions, Gestures, ODCV, and 13- to create a 50d6 EB, Area of Effect, with a 110" Diameter, Personal Immunity.
Not in my game, you couldn't. There's a ! on the Multipower Framework for a reason. The power you describe I would consider abusive. In the other thread, I gave a long list of Limitations that I wouldn't allow with this. I don't remember tham all off hand, but Gestures, Incantations, Charges, Focus, Activation were some of the more obvious ones. Notice that your power still gives the target 24 hours to get out of the area or dispel the power, or interrupt the Gesturing/Incanting, or to kill/stun you (which won't be hard seeing as you're at 0 DCV). A guy with no legs and no wheelchair can pull himself out of the area in time to avoid the blast, and he can stop for lunch on the way. This is just to illustrate that Limitations do mean something. They do make the power less effective.

Meanwhile the poor soul not using a multipower is stuck with 50 points just sitting there doing nothing unless he activates that one power.
1) He get's to do it once per phase for 24 hours.
2) He could buy the exact same power outside of a multipower.

The 5 points of the ultra slot do not offset the effect of the power.
Considering that the power as written is practically useless, it might.

(I know this example is exteme, but I am using it to make a point)
And that point would be what? That my Real Point rule for Multipowers can be abused? I have already agreed with that point. We can stop debating that point now.

stan da ork

Jan 9th, '06, 03:41 PM

Just a note, the powers in your example cost 225 points (50 + 75 + 100), not 150. Perhaps you meant to include some Limitations?

Okay, you keep saying that everyone else is using purposefully abusive examples that you would never allow. Then let's look at the example that started this, since that example is abusive.

50 Multipower, 50 Point Reserve
5u EB 10d6 (50 AP)
5u EB 15d6 (75 AP), Concentration (0 DCV, -1/2)
5u EB 20d6 (100 AP), Concentration (0 DCV, -1/2), Increased END Cost (x2 END, -1/2)

This guy spent 15 more points than one that bought a vanilla EB. And for those 15 points, he gained the following:

In any situation where he doesn't have to fear retaliation (not many foes, foes are otherwise engaged, this shot is likely to Stun or KO the foe) he can fire an EB that is 50% more powerful without any real Limitation (as I said before, 0 DCV doesn't mean anything if no one is swinging at you). Furthermore, in any situation where he doesn't have to fear retaliation and he has some extra END, he can fire an EB that is 100% more powerful. In either case, if the base EB would have hurt the foe, all the extra dice are effectively NND, since the foe's defenses have already been overcome. In every other situation, he can use his 10d6 EB just like anyone else who bought a 10d6 EB.

So, in effect, he paid 15 points to gain up to a 100% increase in firepower whenever the Limitations on that firepower won't hurt him.

And you don't see the problem with this?

As far as I'm concerned, the unbalancing nature of the construct is clear. If you can't see the problem here, no one is going to be able to make you see it, and I'm done trying to convince you.

incrdbil

Jan 9th, '06, 03:47 PM

And that point would be what? That my Real Point rule for Multipowers can be abused? I have already agreed with that point. We can stop debating that point now.

How about we agree they give you active power you never pay for? Multipowers are different from standard straight bout powers--if they weren't, they wouldn't have their own rules. Where they are not different is that you pay for a multipower by starting with the highest active point affect it can acheive. Thsi is the disconnect in your method. The floatign reserve of real points has no defined active point limit--it goes as long as you toss on those limitations that no longer have diminishing returns--limitations who can easily be avoided by the plethora of powers available. the slot costs are not the determiner of how many active points you shou8ld get--anythign divided by 5 or 10 off the bat shouldn't be, thats painfully obvious.

So in review...

The real point method doesn't add any more flexibility because you can achieve its effects many other ways, easily so in campaigns with a DC active point limit.

Limitations on a real point reserve dont behave like limitations on anything else; they have a constant yield of points, no matter how many you tack on.

Just because a GM can squash any power doesn't mean its not abusive. Every other build and framework becomes obsolete in comparison to the real point reserve MP.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 11th, '06, 01:38 PM

This guy spent 15 more points than one that bought a vanilla EB.
He also spent 15 more points than one that bought the third slot only, and for this he gains a *less* powerful attack with fewer limitations in those situations where he wants to avoid them.

In any situation where he doesn't have to fear retaliation (not many foes, foes are otherwise engaged, this shot is likely to Stun or KO the foe) he can fire an EB that is 50% more powerful without any real Limitation... Furthermore, in any situation where he doesn't have to fear retaliation and he has some extra END, he can fire an EB that is 100% more powerful.
True, *IF* the character makes those assumptions. He may not be aware that there's a second wave of enemies coming around the corner. He may not be aware that one of them has a big END Drain. He may not be aware of the invisible/hidden enemy drawing a bead on him. If the GM doesn't make the Limitations limiting, that's the GM's fault, not the construct's.

So, in effect, he paid 15 points to gain up to a 100% increase in firepower whenever the Limitations on that firepower won't hurt him.

And you don't see the problem with this?
No, I don't. I've been making an assumption which I thought was obvious, but I suspect now that it may not have been: that for this particular construct (which wasn't mine, you'll recall), fits in the campaign, i.e., that it would be OK to have a 20d6 attack. I didn't want to make any assumptions about the campaign/genre/game/etc. IOW, assuming a 20d6 EB is fine for the particular game, then no, I do not have any problem with that construct.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 11th, '06, 02:02 PM

How about we agree they give you active power you never pay for?
Repeating myself: You never pay for Active Points, you pay for Real Points.

Multipowers are different from standard straight bout powers--if they weren't, they wouldn't have their own rules. Where they are not different is that you pay for a multipower by starting with the highest active point affect it can acheive.
Repeating myself: I know what the rules *are*. We don't have an argument about that. I'm talking about what they *should be*.

It is a circular argument to say "The rule should be the way it is, because that's the way the rule is."

The floatign reserve of real points has no defined active point limit--it goes as long as you toss on those limitations that no longer have diminishing returns--limitations who can easily be avoided by the plethora of powers available.
Limitations always have diminishing returns. Piling on limitations gives less and less return for each additional one. 100 AP with -1 saves 50 points. Another -1 saves only 17 points. The next -1 after that saves 8 points. etc.

As I mentioned in the last post. I am assuming, with Smokeless Joe's multipower, that a 20d6 EB is OK for the particular game. That doesn't mean that a 40d6 EB (with even more limitations on it, obviously) is automatically also OK.

So in review...

The real point method doesn't add any more flexibility because you can achieve its effects many other ways, easily so in campaigns with a DC active point limit.
Fair enough. But do you get a fair price on those other methods?

Limitations on a real point reserve dont behave like limitations on anything else; they have a constant yield of points, no matter how many you tack on.
I may not be understanding you correctly here, but it seems to me that this is patently false, as I showed above. The 20d6 EB with -1 in lims, costs 50 points outside of a multipower, and (with my method) takes up 50 points of a MP reserve. They seem to me to behave exactly the same way.

Just because a GM can squash any power doesn't mean its not abusive. Every other build and framework becomes obsolete in comparison to the real point reserve MP.
And just because one particular build is abusive, doesn't mean every build is abusive. As to the obsolesence of other frameworks, that certainly hasn't been the case in my experience. Other frameworks are still just as useful in my games. Since this is a new claim you've made on this thread, could you provide some reasoning behind it?

radioKAOS

Jan 11th, '06, 02:26 PM

incrdbil

Jan 11th, '06, 02:49 PM

Limitations always have diminishing returns. Piling on limitations gives less and less return for each additional one. 100 AP with -1 saves 50 points. Another -1 saves only 17 points. The next -1 after that saves 8 points. etc.

But not in your real point reserve.

Slot with no limitations in a 50 point reserve, under your rules points 50 points max active effect
Slot with 1/2 limits 75
-1 limit 100 points
-2 limits 150 in active...

Nice, straight gains with no diminishing effects of stacked limitations.

As I mentioned in the last post. I am assuming, with Smokeless Joe's multipower, that a 20d6 EB is OK for the particular game. That doesn't mean that a 40d6 EB (with even more limitations on it, obviously) is automatically also OK.

And a game where a 10d6 is meaningful, and 20d6 wouldnt be overpowering is so rare, as to be nonexistant. If the 20d6 attack is not overpowering, then the 10d6 attack is meaningless and not used. Your example construct is, effectively, useless as a demonstration point, except shoing how in a 10Dc average game how it could be abused for a 'sure win' attack.

I may not be understanding you correctly here, but it seems to me that this is patently false, as I showed above.
It's not patently false--you're just ignoring any other rationale but your own.

As to the obsolesence of other frameworks, that certainly hasn't been the case in my experience. Other frameworks are still just as useful in my games.

They can be used--but anyone building offenses without the easy to abuse multipower is deliberately handicapping themselves--or if they hold to thge campaign limits, they get a lot of cheap, potent attacks, with plenty of points to save for other abilities, and they never fairly pay for the pure active potential of all of their powers.

Since you've assumed the brick wall debating posture, I'm really losing interest in this display. To sum things up--thats how your game runs, wonderful. Don't believe for a moment that the powers that be would for a moment considering to change the official rules to your method. With that, the potentials for discussion seem to end.

Hugh Neilson

Jan 11th, '06, 05:55 PM

So what about the option of having the AP capped, but allow usage of the pool as 'real points' as in a VPP?

So a 60pt MP could allow for 2 [or more, really, if you had a LOT of lims] 60AP powers to be used at the same time, so long as the real cost is within the 60pts?

I would be OK with this only if it were accompanied by a rule that the cost of the reserve can never be reduced by limitations, just like a VPP.

Allowing a character to pay 60 points for a 60 point reserve, then have 2 60 AP, 30 RP powers active, each with a -1 limitation, at one time is fine. Allowing a character to pay 30 points for a 60 point reserve with a -1 limitation, and have any one 60 AP, 30 RP power operate at a time is also fine.

Allowing the player to pay 30 RP for a 60 pt reserve, then use it to run two 60 AP, 30 RP powers at the same time is not fine.

I do allow a player to take "variable limitation" on the pool if all slots will have that level of limitations (variable or fixed).

radioKAOS

Jan 11th, '06, 06:08 PM

I would be OK with this only if it were accompanied by a rule that the cost of the reserve can never be reduced by limitations, just like a VPP.

Allowing a character to pay 60 points for a 60 point reserve, then have 2 60 AP, 30 RP powers active, each with a -1 limitation, at one time is fine. Allowing a character to pay 30 points for a 60 point reserve with a -1 limitation, and have any one 60 AP, 30 RP power operate at a time is also fine.

Allowing the player to pay 30 RP for a 60 pt reserve, then use it to run two 60 AP, 30 RP powers at the same time is not fine.

I do allow a player to take "variable limitation" on the pool if all slots will have that level of limitations (variable or fixed).

Agreed.

Not positive about the variable lims for the pool cost. Seems good, but sounds like it could be abused somehow. Not that I'm sure how, or anything.

ghost-angel

Jan 12th, '06, 06:21 AM

So what about the option of having the AP capped, but allow usage of the pool as 'real points' as in a VPP?

So a 60pt MP could allow for 2 [or more, really, if you had a LOT of lims] 60AP powers to be used at the same time, so long as the real cost is within the 60pts?
I would take that on a case by case basis.

Part of AP Caps, at least how we use them, is a limit on the power level being thrown around the game. If you're expecting everyone to be around 60 AP I'd ask no Power exceed that.

If a player wants a MP Pool to exceed that to run more multiple Powers I'd check to see if an EC might not serve them better in concept. Or other factors... it would all depend on the Game at hand and the situation.

Seenar

Jan 12th, '06, 09:22 AM

Only in a Multipower. Outside a Multipower, you get to use Active Points whether you paid for them or not.

Not in my game, you couldn't. There's a ! on the Multipower Framework for a reason. The power you describe I would consider abusive. In the other thread, I gave a long list of Limitations that I wouldn't allow with this. I don't remember tham all off hand, but Gestures, Incantations, Charges, Focus, Activation were some of the more obvious ones. Notice that your power still gives the target 24 hours to get out of the area or dispel the power, or interrupt the Gesturing/Incanting, or to kill/stun you (which won't be hard seeing as you're at 0 DCV). A guy with no legs and no wheelchair can pull himself out of the area in time to avoid the blast, and he can stop for lunch on the way. This is just to illustrate that Limitations do mean something. They do make the power less effective.

1) He get's to do it once per phase for 24 hours.
2) He could buy the exact same power outside of a multipower.

Considering that the power as written is practically useless, it might.

And that point would be what? That my Real Point rule for Multipowers can be abused? I have already agreed with that point. We can stop debating that point now.

Talk about missing the point. I was not making a point about limitations "meaning something", nor that multipowers can be abused.

What we are talking about is that you are givng people access to active points for which they did not pay. And you spend real points to pay for active ones.

The rules on multipowers have been this way since day one of the system. You cannot exceed the active point cap of the mulipower with slots in it. If you reduce the cost of the multipower reserve with limitations, then all powers in the slots must have those limitations. This is a built in balance mechanism.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 12th, '06, 01:05 PM

Slot with no limitations in a 50 point reserve, under your rules points 50 points max active effect
Slot with 1/2 limits 75
-1 limit 100 points
-2 limits 150 in active...

Nice, straight gains with no diminishing effects of stacked limitations.
Oh, I guess I didn't understand what you meant. But if this is what you meant, so what? The same exact thing applies outside of a multipower. And each additional limitation you take makes the power less useful. And any campaign AP caps still apply.

And a game where a 10d6 is meaningful, and 20d6 wouldnt be overpowering is so rare, as to be nonexistant. If the 20d6 attack is not overpowering, then the 10d6 attack is meaningless and not used. Your example construct is, effectively, useless as a demonstration point, except shoing how in a 10Dc average game how it could be abused for a 'sure win' attack.
Again repeating myself: This wasn't my example. It was Smokeless Joe's example. And there could easily be games where both 10d6 and 20d6 attacks are appropriate. I don't know the details of Smokeless Joe's campaign. If you prefer, we can change the last slot example to: 10d6 EB, AE Radius, 2x END, 0 DCV Conc, for the same 100 Active, 50 Real. That way, the DCs are the same.

It's not patently false--you're just ignoring any other rationale but your own.
If you actually read what I wrote, you'd notice that I said, "I may not be understanding you correctly here, but it seems to me that this is patently false, as I showed above." If I misunderstood your point, you could rephrase it or explain it, rather than assume I'm ignoring it. If I'm doing something unfair or unbalanced in my campaigns, I want to know so I can fix it. It's hard to seriously consider your argument when you don't give me the reasoning to back it up.

They can be used--but anyone building offenses without the easy to abuse multipower is deliberately handicapping themselves--or if they hold to thge campaign limits, they get a lot of cheap, potent attacks, with plenty of points to save for other abilities, and they never fairly pay for the pure active potential of all of their powers.
I don't see why. Can you give an example?

Since you've assumed the brick wall debating posture, I'm really losing interest in this display. To sum things up--thats how your game runs, wonderful. Don't believe for a moment that the powers that be would for a moment considering to change the official rules to your method. With that, the potentials for discussion seem to end.
I've asked you for clarification. I've responded to your claims. I've provided examples. I've shared the reasoning behind my decision. You've insulted me. You've ignored my questions. You've argued from authority. You've repeatedly brought up points I've already agreed to. You've brought up points that aren't relevant. It may be that the potential for discussion with *you* has come to an end, but it isn't me that's the "brick wall" here.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 12th, '06, 01:21 PM

Talk about missing the point. I was not making a point about limitations "meaning something", nor that multipowers can be abused.

What we are talking about is that you are givng people access to active points for which they did not pay. And you spend real points to pay for active ones.
No, I think you've missed my point. You don't pay for Active Points! If you have a 200 Active Point power, you might pay 200 Real points, or you might pay 100 points, or 67 points, or 50 points, or 40, or 33, etc. If you have -9 in Limitations on the power, you pay 20 Real Points. And if it's an Ultra slot in a Multipower (without limitations), you pay 20 Real Points for the slot. To use your terms, you're getting "180 active points that you didn't pay for." To put it another way, you "pay for active points" with a combination of Real Points and Limitations. And my whole point is that this is true in or out of a MultiPower! With my rule, those limitations do fully affect you when you use the limited slots, just as they normally would.

The rules on multipowers have been this way since day one of the system. You cannot exceed the active point cap of the mulipower with slots in it. If you reduce the cost of the multipower reserve with limitations, then all powers in the slots must have those limitations. This is a built in balance mechanism.
Please stop quoting the rules to me. I fully understand what the official rules are. Saying, "It's always been this way," is not a valid argument for why it's right. Saying my rule is unbalanced doesn't explain why or how.

Vondy

Jan 12th, '06, 02:29 PM

So I looked it up and was wrong. You can't pay 1 to 1 for the active point difference on a slot that exceeds the multipower reserve. I've seen so many character builds that have done it over the years without having a problem (either as GM, or as a player in a game where they existed) that I must have assumed it was legal. Its never been a problem (either as a cost or balance issue). Oh well, live and learn.

Seenar

Jan 12th, '06, 03:40 PM

Seenar

Jan 12th, '06, 03:48 PM

Let me try coming at this from another angle.

I have a 60 active point multipower OAF (-1)

30 Reserve (60 active with OAF)
3u 12d6 EB 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle 60 active
3u 6d6 NND 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA 60 active

OK. Now I lose my OAF and I lose all my powers, right?

OK under your system:

30 Reserve
3u 12d6 EB (OAF) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (OAF) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (OAF) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active

The OAF gets taken away, I still have a 2d6 RKA.

Same cost, but under your system, the player gets to have a different limitation on one of the powers. He could have also reduced the power level and had no limitations.

Your system gives a player access to 30 active points when he should not have it.

I cannot make it any more clear that this.

BTW quoting the long standing rules is a valid form of argument. The rules as written have worked for decades. You are the one making the argument they should be different, so in fact, you need to be convincing us you are right and your way is better.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 12th, '06, 05:01 PM

OK under your system:

30 Reserve
3u 12d6 EB (OAF) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (OAF) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (OAF) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active

The OAF gets taken away, I still have a 2d6 RKA.

Same cost, but under your system, the player gets to have a different limitation on one of the powers. He could have also reduced the power level and had no limitations.

Your system gives a player access to 30 active points when he should not have it.

I cannot make it any more clear that this.
Yes, you've been perfectly clear. What you haven't don't is explained *why* this is unbalanced. Simply asserting that he's getting 30 points that "he should not have," doesn't tell me why. Why shouldn't he have them?

BTW, Focus is one of the limitations I would not allow in such a real-points-MP construct, as I've mentioned before, but that's not really what's important here. We could change it to:

30 Reserve
3u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active

Now, if I'm not facing an undead opponent, I only have the (heavily limited) RKA. What's the problem? Note that the book-legal build would cost 72 Real points, even though I can never use more than 30 Real points of power at a time. If I had the 60-point reserve according to the rules, I could then buy off all the limitations, which *halve* the utility of the powers, for only 12 points. Why would anyone take such heavy limitations for such paltry savings? (And please, let's not get into the role-playing vs. point crunching debate. Even good role-players want a fair price. You shouldn't have to be penalized for role-playing. If it seems better, I could rephrase the question: Why should the person who leaves off the colorful role-playing lims get such superior power over one who does take these lims?)

BTW quoting the long standing rules is a valid form of argument. The rules as written have worked for decades. You are the one making the argument they should be different, so in fact, you need to be convincing us you are right and your way is better.
It depends on what your point is. That the rules are long-standing doesn't mean they can't be improved upon. It only means they're not bad enough for anyone with the authority to have made the effort to change them. I'm not saying that the rules as-is are broken, just that my rule is an improvement in that it allows for genre-reinforcing, drama-generating, character-enriching builds to have a more appropriate price than they would otherwise. As the rules stand, the above construct would cost 72 points. For the same 72 points, you could buy:

60 Reserve
6u 6d6 Entangle 60 active
6u 4d6 RKA 60 active

Lose two slots and eliminate *all* of the limitations! Earn 12 xp, and you can buy the other two slots, with no limitations. Is that comparable to the other (book-legal) build?

I cannot make it any more clear than this.

Seenar

Jan 12th, '06, 05:17 PM

PhilFleischmann

Jan 12th, '06, 05:57 PM

Your system and the legal way might end up with a difference of much more than 12 points.
Just for the sake of clarity, yes, in this particular example, the difference is 30 points. So:

Book-Legal:
60 Reserve
3u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active
Costs 72 points, uses 30 Real Points of power at a time

Book-Legal:
60 Reserve
6u 6d6 Entangle 60 active
6u 4d6 RKA 60 active
Costs 72 points, uses 60 Real Points of power at a time

I think it is unfair and unbalanced that the first construct above costs the same as the second. To me, it seems the first is far less powerful. If they seem equal to you, fine. I'm not trying to convince you here, just trying to be absolutely clear with side-by-side examples. And the last part of my point is that under my rule, the first construct would only cost 42 points, which I think is a much fairer cost. You are certainly free to disagree, which you aparently do.

Hyper-Man

Jan 12th, '06, 06:31 PM

Your system and the legal way might end up with a difference of much more than 12 points. And if you have to spend them, then spend them. Frankly, my builds are always down to the last couple of points. What you propose is extra points to play with. That is unbalanced to me.

If you don't think it is unbalanced, that is fine. You are in a clear minority on this one. I don't think there is anyway to change your mind anymore than you are going to change mine (or Steve's or about 1000 other people).

But, you can run your game the way you want too. My house rules have all sorts of non-5th Ed bits in them.

acceptance is good (and deserves rep!)

This thread (on the same subject):
Something I just noticed and dislike about multipowers (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38621)
is the very reason I posted this thread:
Do we need a Hero-House-Rules forum? (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39448)

Its been beaten to death so much at this point that it almost deserves its own Magic card:
HERO forums Magic cards (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40213) (HERO GAMES Thread)
HERO Forum Magic Cards (http://www.castle-walls.org/hero/magic/index.html) (Link to site with all the cards)

I would point out a particular card but there are several that are good examples of whats been going on in these "multipower" threads.

:eek:
HM

ghost-angel

Jan 12th, '06, 07:53 PM

Just for the sake of clarity, yes, in this particular example, the difference is 30 points. So:

Book-Legal:
60 Reserve
3u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active
Costs 72 points, uses 30 Real Points of power at a time

Book-Legal:
60 Reserve
6u 6d6 Entangle 60 active
6u 4d6 RKA 60 active
Costs 72 points, uses 60 Real Points of power at a time

I think it is unfair and unbalanced that the first construct above costs the same as the second. To me, it seems the first is far less powerful. If they seem equal to you, fine. I'm not trying to convince you here, just trying to be absolutely clear with side-by-side examples. And the last part of my point is that under my rule, the first construct would only cost 42 points, which I think is a much fairer cost. You are certainly free to disagree, which you aparently do.
Ok ... you're losing me .. the first one uses 60 Active Points of Power, the secnd one uses 60 Active Points of Power.

Power Level is determined by Active Points - not Real Points.

Real Points only indicated what you payed for, not what level of Power you are weilding at any given moment.

HERO determines Power Level of a Power on Active Points - not Real Points - and thus that is why MultiPower Pools are limited by Active Points, that's the determinate for what Level Of Power is being utilized.

Real Points is just what you payed for the Power after placing Limitations (restrictions or other limiting factors) on the Power. Adding a Limitation does not reduce the Power Level of the Power in question, just the end cost.

Vondy

Jan 12th, '06, 10:54 PM

What is the difference between the 1:1 and just having a bigger reserve?

Not much. On the other hand, in those places where I've seen it, the slot usually contained a signature power that exceeded the campaing norms, while the rest of the powers in the MP (and the reserve) did not. In cases where the MP has limitations applied it can actually be less expensive to increase the reserve instead of paying 1:1 for the slot. Its generally an exception made for a single "cool factor" power. It has the advantage of avoiding the temptation to slowly increase the other slots (because its so cheap man!) while allowing the player to have their "nova blast" despite an implicit rule of X.

Gary

Jan 13th, '06, 06:53 AM

What is the difference between the 1:1 and just having a bigger reserve?

You can have different limitations on the single power outside the multipower, whereas you couldn't on a larger multipower.

Suppose you have a 50 pt multipower with a EB and several other slots. Your Sunray is especially effective vs Undead, so you purchase +5d6 EB Undead only (-1) for 12 additional points. This limitation would not be applicable on a multipower if you simply had a larger reserve.

Now you have an attack that's 10d6 vs most people, and 15d6 vs Undead.

SuperKlaus

Jan 13th, '06, 08:48 AM

BTW, Focus is one of the limitations I would not allow in such a real-points-MP construct, as I've mentioned before, but that's not really what's important here.

Your idea seems very sensible to me, Phil, and I might just use it myself someday. I'm thinking the major reason that it's not book-legal and hasn't been is that it would require a full page STOP sign plus a full page of special GM advice about abuse and would probably still generate endless confusion / arguments about the rules. Heck, in the hands of groups that can't restrain their powergamers it might even drive people away from HERO. I read a Champions review once that seemed to have an issue with characters like Grond being able to lift the Great Pyramid or whatevertheheck. If some folks can't say no to a single high Characteristic in their game, imagine what'll happen with abusive uses of RP-Multis. What do you think?

PhilFleischmann

Jan 13th, '06, 02:43 PM

Ok ... you're losing me .. the first one uses 60 Active Points of Power, the secnd one uses 60 Active Points of Power.
Power Level is determined by Active Points - not Real Points.
Do you honestly believe that

4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active, 30 Real

is equal to

4d6 RKA 60 active, 60 Real?

Do limitations mean nothing to you? Which one of these powers would you rather have in a fight? Would you just flip a coin, since they're the same "power level"?

Real Points only indicated what you payed for, not what level of Power you are weilding at any given moment.

No, Real points indicate the overall utility of the power. That's why it's the bottom line - the price you actually pay. That's what the entire system is built on: you pay more for greater utility, you pay less for less utility. Character creation - the central rules of the game - are about Real Points. We had this discussion on the other thread as well. Yes, Active points are also important. I'm not denying that.

HERO determines Power Level of a Power on Active Points - not Real Points - ....
No, actually it uses both. "Power Level" (caps yours) is not a special term HERO uses. To describe the level of power, HERO uses both Active Points, and Real Points. It's that other system that uses "levels". :hex: We had this discussion on the previous thread as well. See that one for more on this.

Real Points is just what you payed for the Power after placing Limitations (restrictions or other limiting factors) on the Power. Adding a Limitation does not reduce the Power Level of the Power in question, just the end cost.
Are you trolling, or do you really not understand how limitations work? First of all, they don't reduce END cost. They definitely reduce the utility of a power, otherwise why would they earn a discount?

I can understand that if you think limitations are nothing more than a discount, and that Active Points are the only meaningful measure of a power, that you wouldn't approve of my rule. I wouldn't either, if that's what I believed.

It seems this may be the core of our disagreement. But if you don't think limitations matter, why would you give any discount at all for them? And if you don't think real points matter, then why would you bother arguing whether the real cost of my version (or anyone's construct, official or otherwise) is balanced?

PhilFleischmann

Jan 13th, '06, 02:48 PM

Your idea seems very sensible to me, Phil, and I might just use it myself someday.
Thank you. I appreciate the support.

I'm thinking the major reason that it's not book-legal and hasn't been is that it would require a full page STOP sign plus a full page of special GM advice about abuse and would probably still generate endless confusion / arguments about the rules. .... What do you think?
Technically, it shouldn't be a stop sign, because it doesn't break the GM's plot. It may be used in an unbalanced way, so it should have a ! warning, but Multipower already has a ! warning. Yes, it might take a full page to explain this rule, but one page out of a 500-page rulebook isn't much.

ghost-angel

Jan 14th, '06, 09:37 AM

Let me clarify what I mean by Power Level; Effect.

Do you honestly believe that

4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active, 30 Real

is equal to

4d6 RKA 60 active, 60 Real?
The both do 4D6 worth of Killing Damage. If I'm building a Game around how much damage can be done, or a character around how much damage I expect them to be able to take that's the important aspect... the Active Points are the balancing factor there.

No, Real points indicate the overall utility of the power.
No arguement here. Utility and Power are not equal things in my mind. The first tells me when/where/how the power can be used. Power tells me how much Effect it will have on whatever I use it on.

We reduce the cost of a power by Limiting it's applications and abilities.

A "10D6 EB" and a "10D6 EB: OAF" still have the same Power of 10 DCs of Effect. You can't argue that.

NOTE: If/when responding do not replace the word Effect with Effectiveness. If I meant Effectiveness I would have used that word.

zornwil

Jan 17th, '06, 11:35 AM

Just for the sake of clarity, yes, in this particular example, the difference is 30 points. So:

Book-Legal:
60 Reserve
3u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active
Costs 72 points, uses 30 Real Points of power at a time

Book-Legal:
60 Reserve
6u 6d6 Entangle 60 active
6u 4d6 RKA 60 active
Costs 72 points, uses 60 Real Points of power at a time

I think it is unfair and unbalanced that the first construct above costs the same as the second. To me, it seems the first is far less powerful. If they seem equal to you, fine. I'm not trying to convince you here, just trying to be absolutely clear with side-by-side examples. And the last part of my point is that under my rule, the first construct would only cost 42 points, which I think is a much fairer cost. You are certainly free to disagree, which you aparently do.
Again, I come back to achieving clarity whether your claim is your method would be a superior official rule versus alternatives presented (including as-is) or your claim is that this is a reasonable house rule. With everything under GM purview, it's fine as a house rule, whether it's worth the trouble as a rule becoming a house-by-house issue. I think most objection is that the contruct proposed is open more widely to abuse without even more rules elaboration and even then requires too much in the way of exception management of which Lims apply and how to track.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 17th, '06, 02:12 PM

Let me clarify what I mean by Power Level; Effect.

The both do 4D6 worth of Killing Damage. ... the Active Points are the balancing factor there.
So then they are equal to you? Just trying to understand, that's all. How much do you think the first Multipower should cost in Real Points? That is what we're arguing about isn't it? Should it cost 72 points, just like the second one? If so, you are saying that they have equal utility (or perhaps equal Effectiveness, to use your term). I think the first has less utility (less effectiveness), and therefore should cost less.

We reduce the cost of a power by Limiting it's applications and abilities.
But apparently not if we put it in a Multipower.

A "10D6 EB" and a "10D6 EB: OAF" still have the same Power of 10 DCs of Effect. You can't argue that.
I wouldn't dream of it. Do a "10d6 EB", and a "10d6 EB, AE" also have the same Power of 10 DCs of Effect?

PhilFleischmann

Jan 17th, '06, 02:22 PM

Again, I come back to achieving clarity whether your claim is your method would be a superior official rule versus alternatives presented (including as-is) or your claim is that this is a reasonable house rule. With everything under GM purview, it's fine as a house rule, whether it's worth the trouble as a rule becoming a house-by-house issue. I think most objection is that the contruct proposed is open more widely to abuse without even more rules elaboration and even then requires too much in the way of exception management of which Lims apply and how to track.
Yes, I think my method would make a superior official rule versus the current official method. I don't make any special claim of its superiority over other suggested methods. I also think it is a reasonable house rule, even if it is never an official rule. And I have no expectations tha it will ever actually be an official rule. I'm not campaigning for it to be so. Yes, it is more prone to abuse than the official rule, and rules/guidelines for preventing/reducing such abuse would be needed and should be included if it ever becomes an official rule. Yes, this does make it more complicated than the official rule. Therefore, it might make a good optional (official) rule. I would be quite happy to see it included in an official book as an optional rule. But again, I have no expectation of that happening. I don't think it would be unreasonably complex, as there are many official and optional rules that are equally so. Impairing, disabling, hit locations, etc., are all optional rules that make the game more complicated, but they're still official. VPPs and many other game elements also have to be monitored closely for abuse. This one is no worse.

ghost-angel

Jan 17th, '06, 07:42 PM

So then they are equal to you? Just trying to understand, that's all. How much do you think the first Multipower should cost in Real Points? That is what we're arguing about isn't it? Should it cost 72 points, just like the second one? If so, you are saying that they have equal utility (or perhaps equal Effectiveness, to use your term). I think the first has less utility (less effectiveness), and therefore should cost less.
sigh... not effectiveness. Overall Effect.

did you miss the final statement of my post on purpose?

Same Effect, the second one is less Effective due to limited application.

wouldn't dream of it. Do a "10d6 EB", and a "10d6 EB, AE" also have the same Power of 10 DCs of Effect?
the second one has the potential to apply 10DCs to multiple targets at once, become 10DC vs X-Targets. I would say it has a greater Overall Effect if I can hit to multiple targets unerringly (Hex of DCV3) with the same attack.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 18th, '06, 01:19 PM

sigh... not effectiveness. Overall Effect.
did you miss the final statement of my post on purpose?
I meant effectiveness. If I meant effect, I would have said effect. It seems you believe that we should pay only for effect, not effectiveness. That's a wierd belief IMO, but that's what you seem to be saying since you didn't answer any of my questions.

Same Effect, the second one is less Effective due to limited application.
I'd say the first one is less effective. Are we looking at the same examples? Assuming what you meant the first one is less effective (or even if you didn't) shouldn't it cost less?

the second one has the potential to apply 10DCs to multiple targets at once, become 10DC vs X-Targets. I would say it has a greater Overall Effect if I can hit to multiple targets unerringly (Hex of DCV3) with the same attack.
Fine. I was just seeking clarification.

I'll try asking the questions one last time. Here are the two examples:

---Multipower A---
60 Reserve
3u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active
------

---Multipower B---
60 Reserve
6u 6d6 Entangle 60 active
6u 4d6 RKA 60 active
------

According to the official rules, they both cost 72 points. Any one slot of Multipower A, by itself, would cost 30 points. Any one slot of Multipower B, by itself, would cost 60 points.

Questions:

1)Are they equal to you?
1a)Are they equal in Effect/Power?
1b)Are they equal in Effectiveness?

2) Should they cost the same?
If so, you are saying that they have equal utility/effectiveness.
2a)Am I correctly understanding what you mean by "effectiveness," as opposed to effect? I think you mean the same thing as I meant by "utility."
2b) If not, how much do you think Multipower A should cost (in Real Points)?
I think Multipower A has less utility/effectiveness than Multipower B, and therefore should cost less. Under my house rule, Multipower A would cost 42 points.

3) Are you arguing about something other than what the Real Point cost of a particular type of Multipower should be? Because that's all I'm arguing for.

Greg

Jan 18th, '06, 01:44 PM

---Multipower A---
60 Reserve
3u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active
------

---Multipower B---
60 Reserve
6u 6d6 Entangle 60 active
6u 4d6 RKA 60 active
------

You're just building your multipowers poorly. Give Multipower A (Only vs. Undead) for all of it's slots then you can apply the limitation to the reserve cost.

Hyper-Man

Jan 18th, '06, 01:46 PM

Hugh Neilson

Jan 18th, '06, 05:18 PM

FYI

---Multipower A---
60 Reserve
3u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active

72 Real Points

could also be built as:

40 Multipower with a Reserve of 60 with all slots (and the Reserve) taking: Variable limitation: -1 worth of Limitations (-1/2)
4u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
4u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
4u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
4u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active

56 Real Points

Absolutely. I would go one step further and charge the slots 3 points each, rather than 4, on the basis their limitations are fixed (1 point per slot isn't much, but there should be some savings for giving up the ability to change the limits on the individual slots).

PhilFleischmann

Jan 19th, '06, 01:36 PM

AmadanNaBriona

Jan 19th, '06, 01:47 PM

There you go, Hyper and Hugh!

40 Multipower Reserve of 60, Variable limitation: -1 worth of Limitations (-1/2)
3u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active

52 Real Points

My version was only 42 points. That's a 10 point difference, much better than the 30 point difference, but now we're definitely in the ballpark.

And that right there is pretty much how I've been doing it ever since I converted my brain to 5th ed. For multi's to be properly competitive, there needs to be SOME limitation on the pool if all of the slots are limited... otherwise your arguments have merit.

travisjhall

Jan 19th, '06, 07:18 PM

Absolutely. I would go one step further and charge the slots 3 points each, rather than 4, on the basis their limitations are fixed (1 point per slot isn't much, but there should be some savings for giving up the ability to change the limits on the individual slots).
What about changing the value of the Variable Limitation instead? Say:

34 Multipower Reserve of 60, Limitations Variable By Slot: -1 worth of Limitations (-3/4)

4u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
4u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
4u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
4u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active

50 Real Points

That seems a little more systematic than just knocking off a point from each slot.

travisjhall

Jan 19th, '06, 08:46 PM

Oh, ignore me. I've just realised that the 3/slot suggested is because that's the cost of the slot with the full -1 limitation, so is perfectly in line with the system.

Hugh Neilson

Jan 20th, '06, 05:41 AM

Oh, ignore me. I've just realised that the 3/slot suggested is because that's the cost of the slot with the full -1 limitation, so is perfectly in line with the system.

BINGO - sorry I was less than clear

PhilFleischmann

Jan 20th, '06, 12:37 PM

Hyper-Man

Jan 20th, '06, 12:53 PM

40 Multipower with a Reserve of 60 with all slots (and the Reserve) taking: Variable limitation: -1 worth of Limitations (-1/2)
4u 12d6 EB example limitiation (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
4u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
4u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
4u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active

56 Real Points

plus

22 Custom Naked Advantage (Cancel out the Variable Limitation on the 12d6 EB slot)

78 Total

note:
this ends up costing exactly the same as:

60 Multipower with a Reserve of 60
3u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active

72 Real Points

plus

6u 12d6 EB with no limitations

78 Total

HM

AmadanNaBriona

Jan 20th, '06, 12:55 PM

I don't mean to keep annoying you all if you're done talking about this, but there is one other possibility that the Variable Limitation approach doesn't address. We'll call them:

---Multipower C---
60 Reserve
3u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 2d6 RKA, 30 active
------

Best I can do and stay legal is to Limit part of the reserve...
In the case of C here, it doesn't even need to use Variable Limitation

30 Reserve
15 +30 reserve (Only Vs Undead -1)
the slots would all look and cost the same, as far as I can tell.
Drops the cost to 57
Your basic problem with the examples you keep throwing out is that they all have some element that radically breaks the theme of the MP, and that costs you plenty of extra points

or alternately

---Multipower D---
60 Reserve
3u 6d6 EB, 30 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active
------

Now there is no limitation on one of the slots. The Variable Limitation method won't work. Both of the above MPs would cost 72 points by the book. They would both cost 42 by my method. Does someone have another solution which is fair, and addresses all three of these multipowers, A, C, and D?
The same trick could be used here, but it'll cost even more, as you only get the Variable advantage on the extra +30 points in the reserve, so you only save 10 points

Out of curiosity, have you come to realize just how game breakingly powerful your original MP idea is? There is a reason it dissappeared by the second printing of the 1st edition... much like the old Car Wars days when they introduced APFSDS Ammo for recoilless rifles... and suddenly everyone started loading up on RR's exclusively. They were just TOO efficient for what they cost.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 20th, '06, 02:04 PM

30 Reserve
15 +30 reserve (Only Vs Undead -1)
the slots would all look and cost the same, as far as I can tell.
Drops the cost to 57
Well, that sort-of works, but the only difference between Multipower A and Multipower C is the last slot. Multipower C's last slot is only 30 Active, but your method has the MP cost more points! Not quite fair. (Granted, it's only 5 points difference, but still.) Remember, outside of a Multipower, those last slots would cost the same 30 points.

Your basic problem with the examples you keep throwing out is that they all have some element that radically breaks the theme of the MP, and that costs you plenty of extra points
Why should it? Multipowers don't have to have a "theme." In HERO, you're supposed to pay for utility, not for unusualness of theme.

The same trick could be used here [on Multipower D], but it'll cost even more, as you only get the Variable advantage on the extra +30 points in the reserve, so you only save 10 points
Even less fair. Do you really think Multipower D is 10-points *more useful* or *more powerful* than Multipower A? This just shows the inconsistancy. It's the exact opposite of Ghost-Angel's point: you're saying I have to spend *more* points for a slot with *less* Active Points of power.

And of course, it's more complicated. My method doesn't need a different construct for each of these variations.

Out of curiosity, have you come to realize just how game breakingly powerful your original MP idea is? There is a reason it dissappeared by the second printing of the 1st edition... much like the old Car Wars days when they introduced APFSDS Ammo for recoilless rifles... and suddenly everyone started loading up on RR's exclusively. They were just TOO efficient for what they cost.
I don't know what APFSDS is, so I can't comment on that. But no, I don't think my method is "game breakingly powerful." Many have *asserted* that it is, but no one has given me any supporting argument that it is. I find that it is game improvingly flexible.

AmadanNaBriona

Jan 20th, '06, 02:33 PM

Well, that sort-of works, but the only difference between Multipower A and Multipower C is the last slot. Multipower C's last slot is only 30 Active, but your method has the MP cost more points! Not quite fair. (Granted, it's only 5 points difference, but still.) Remember, outside of a Multipower, those last slots would cost the same 30 points.

Why should it? Multipowers don't have to have a "theme." In HERO, you're supposed to pay for utility, not for unusualness of theme.

Even less fair. Do you really think Multipower D is 10-points *more useful* or *more powerful* than Multipower A? This just shows the inconsistancy. It's the exact opposite of Ghost-Angel's point: you're saying I have to spend *more* points for a slot with *less* Active Points of power.

And of course, it's more complicated. My method doesn't need a different construct for each of these variations.

I don't know what APFSDS is, so I can't comment on that. But no, I don't think my method is "game breakingly powerful." Many have *asserted* that it is, but no one has given me any supporting argument that it is. I find that it is game improvingly flexible.

*Sigh*
OK, like all of the other threads on this topic, I give up.
Do what you will.
Yes, I think having a 4d6 RKA I could use on anyone is worth 10 more points. If you don't nothing I am going to say is gonna change your mind.
The Car Wars example is a fairly simple one, but if you never played I'll give a brief recap.... They introduced something that was far more efficient than comparable constructs, and as it is a competitive game, everyone started buying them. To see the same thing at work with your MP idea, an excellent test group would be to run a game at a con, with a prize, with that rule being the only way you vary from the book rules. Say a winner takes all free for all area fight. You'd have the powergamers coming out of the woodwork at you. For my part, I'd probably do a powersuit with bilateral symmetry and a MP for the weapons suite... then spend the extra +5 points to have one suite for each arm. Then bust out the 1 shot, full phase, costs END extra End Nova blast from each MP as a multiple Power attack. Boom.

But like I said, if you can't see, after all the rational attempts to show you why it is a bad idea, then just do it. You aren't gonna convince ANYONE who's ever tried playing with MP's that way, tho. We've been there, seen how abusive it is, and given up.

I'm not saying the current method is perfect... I prefered most of the 4th edition rules for frameworks... but this particular point is one that you seem fixated on as a "right" way to fix the problem. It's not. It creates the potential for monsterously powerful MP's at very low costs... if thats what you want, then go ahead... but if I were you I'd give up on trying to convince everyone that you have found the one true way.

Hugh Neilson

Jan 20th, '06, 04:40 PM

---Multipower C---
60 Reserve
3u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 2d6 RKA, 30 active
------

or alternately

---Multipower D---
60 Reserve
3u 6d6 EB, 30 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active
------

Do you actually see constructs like this in a typical game? Basically, this character either has undead slaughtering abilities if a 30 AP attack is a credible offensive ability, or his final slot is a waste of points, however many, since it won't be a credible attack in a game where a 60 AP attack is needed to have an impact on a credible opponent.

Even if I agreed that these should cost exactly the same as a MP which has no unlimited slot, and one more limited one (and I don't), the example is impractical due to the significant spread in utility of the slots.

As has been pointed out, you can make the extra 30 reserve Only vs Undead and get the point cost down anyway.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 23rd, '06, 01:56 PM

*Sigh*
OK, like all of the other threads on this topic, I give up.
You're certainly free to do that. I'm not trying to "defeat" you here. I present my arguments for those who wish to seriously think about this subject with an open mind. If you don't want to expend the effort of reason in exploring this topic, that's fine, but my arguments are intended for those who do.

Yes, I think having a 4d6 RKA I could use on anyone is worth 10 more points.
Hmmm. Then I can't help but wonder why the construct you proposed costs 5 *fewer* points.

If you don't nothing I am going to say is gonna change your mind.
Well, contradicting yourself certainly won't.

To see the same thing at work with your MP idea, an excellent test group would be to run a game at a con, with a prize, with that rule being the only way you vary from the book rules. Say a winner takes all free for all area fight. You'd have the powergamers coming out of the woodwork at you. For my part, I'd probably do a powersuit with bilateral symmetry and a MP for the weapons suite... then spend the extra +5 points to have one suite for each arm. Then bust out the 1 shot, full phase, costs END extra End Nova blast from each MP as a multiple Power attack. Boom.
I've used the rule for a long time in my games, and it hasn't resulted in "everyone buying them," as you predict. I can't help but notice that every time someone on these threads provides an abusive counterexample, supposedly using my rule, it always seems to involve the Charges Limitation, one of many that I specifically listed would not be allowed with my rule. And in fact, the official rulebook itself has special rules for Charges in Multipowers to prevent just such an abuse.

But like I said, if you can't see, after all the rational attempts to show you why it is a bad idea, then just do it.
As far as I can tell, there haven't been any rational attempts to show why it's a bad idea. There have only been arguments that it can potentially be abused - a point which I agreed with a long time ago. I don't consider "This rule could be abused" to be the same as "This rule is a bad idea." Many of the official rules can be abused. Does that make them bad ideas?

You aren't gonna convince ANYONE who's ever tried playing with MP's that way, tho.
Who would that be? I don't recall anyone saying that they've tried this at all. I've used it for years, and it's been just fine.

We've been there, seen how abusive it is, and given up.
Really? You've actually used this rule? Did you actually let a character have the Nova Blast you mentioned above? If so, that was an error on the part of the GM, not the rule. I'll say it again: Yes, it can be abused, but a good GM can prevent such abuse. And good, non-munchin players can use it in a non-abusive way. No one has yet presented an argument that even attempts to refute that.

I'm not saying the current method is perfect...
I agree. I'd even go so far as to say flat out that it isn't perfect. I think you would too. The difference is, I'm proposing a way to bring it closer to perfection. I don't claim my rule is perfect either.

... but this particular point is one that you seem fixated on as a "right" way to fix the problem.
Is that a problem? Don't we all think our ideas are right? If I didn't think I was right, I'd think something else. And yes, I think it is a right way to fix the problem, not necessarily the way to fix the problem.

It's not. It creates the potential for monsterously powerful MP's at very low costs... if thats what you want, then go ahead... but if I were you I'd give up on trying to convince everyone that you have found the one true way.
I have never made the claim that my rule can't be abused.
I have never made the claim that my rule obviates the need for GM scrutiny.
I have never implied that my rule requires that all such constructs be allowed by the GM.
I have never made the claim that my rule is the "one true way."

Give up if you want, but don't think that anything you've said actually addresses the merits or deficiencies of my rule.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 23rd, '06, 02:16 PM

Basically, this character either has undead slaughtering abilities if a 30 AP attack is a credible offensive ability, or his final slot is a waste of points, however many, since it won't be a credible attack in a game where a 60 AP attack is needed to have an impact on a credible opponent.

Even if I agreed that these should cost exactly the same as a MP which has no unlimited slot, and one more limited one (and I don't), the example is impractical due to the significant spread in utility of the slots.
You're making an assumption about the nature of the campaign. It is quite possible that a 30 AP attack and a 60 AP attack can both be useful in the same game. Yes, in most superheroic games where characters are built on 350 points, a 30 AP attack probably won't do much, but ieven in that case, it's still possible. A 30 AP NND would do an average of 10.5 STUN per hit - not especially impressive, but it can wear down an opponent after a while. Compare the NND slot to the RKA, for example: an average of 21 STUN, vs 7 BODY: In a heroic game where resistant defenses are fairly low, both attacks are quite viable.

As has been pointed out, you can make the extra 30 reserve Only vs Undead and get the point cost down anyway.
Yes, but that doesn't work for Multipower D, or one where all the limitations are different. I think there is something gained if one rule covers all Multipowers, rather than having completely different builds for multipowers that are almost exactly the same - especially when the final costs vary in an unfair way.

BTW, travisjhall may have inadvertantly inspired another idea: To apply a greater limitation for the Variable Limitation since the lims available are so, uh, limited. I realize that's a rather confusing way to phrase it. How 'bout like this: Since you can take a -1/2 lim for Variable Limitations, requiring -1 worth of lims which can change to anything each time you use the power; would it be fair to take a -3/4 lim if you had only a very restricted choice of which lims to apply?

Hyper-Man

Jan 23rd, '06, 02:48 PM

As far as I can tell, there haven't been any rational attempts to show why it's a bad idea. There have only been arguments that it can potentially be abused - a point which I agreed with a long time ago. I don't consider "This rule could be abused" to be the same as "This rule is a bad idea." Many of the official rules can be abused. Does that make them bad ideas?

More new HERO players logon to these forums all the time searching for advice on how to better understand the system. Frameworks are one of the most frequent topics of discussion. A good deal of the confusion for these new players comes from the 'seeming' lack of 'cookie-cutter' restrictions in the rules. This initial confusion is usually eliminated once they learn the underlying concistency in the rules. What you are suggesting is a fundemental shift in that consistency. This is perfectly fine as a house-rule for an experienced GM who understands what all the implications of using this option are. But to be presented as an additional option within the core rules it would just add more confusion for new players that are already prone to being overwhelmed by the rest of the system. And because of that possibility this rule a bad idea.

HM

PhilFleischmann

Jan 23rd, '06, 03:57 PM

What you are suggesting is a fundemental shift in that consistency.
Yes. I'm actually making the rules more consistent. A 60 AP power with -1 in lims costs 30 points outside a Multipower, but won't fit into a 30 point reserve.

But you do make a good point. The confusion of new players is a valid concern. As is the added factors that a GM must take into consideration to prevent abuse.

But there are already so many things that might confuse a new player in the official rules. There's no way to know in advance what a new player is going to be confused by and what he'll understand clearly. Even though we often play with comic-book superheroes, the rulebook is not a comic book, and you do have to read it carefully to understand it. Yes, the rulebook should explain rules as clearly and simply as possible, for maximum ease of comprehension. But not at the price of the quality of the system (fairness, flexibility, fun, etc.). My rule can be easily explained in one paragraph, one table, and a few examples. And it can be labeled as an optional rule so new players can ignore it if they don't understand it or think it's too complicated. If you want a simpler set of rules that new players are more likely to quickly understand, there's always Sidekick.

Of all the things in the book that a new player is likely to be confused by, I don't think this one is that big of a deal. There are so many that are discussed on the boards all the time: adding damage, the HA limitation, where the Healing maximum goes when you buy Regeneration, why Succor is automatically cumulative, how aborting actions work, how Instant Change can be Instant if it requires a half-phase action, whether ShapeShift actually changes your shape or if it's just an illusion, and tons more. "Multipower Slots use up Real Points of the reserve (with the exception of the following Limitations...)" is pretty easy to understand by comparison, IMHO.

zornwil

Jan 23rd, '06, 07:16 PM

No offense but as all the points have been discussed here - and in the prior thread - ad nauseum, and it's clear that the argument in the end is over an expense that fairly often isn't even an issue and is a matter of degree when it does come into play, on a gut feel level it sounds like a munchkin whine of "I want the system to give me more points and more power and I want it LEGAL!" I have the same whine except the "legal" part; I often want the system to give players more points and/or more power for any number of reasons (a creative build, something that doesn't seem fair, the same sort of reasons you've cited)...but I think it's easier to fix it in the specific game than to systemically address each nuance, and this is quite clearly a nuance, something that is a niche case and doesn't even seem to apply in a large portion of genra/settings.

Hugh Neilson

Jan 23rd, '06, 07:24 PM

Yes, but that doesn't work for Multipower D, or one where all the limitations re different. I think there is something gained if one rule covers all Multipowers, rather than having completely different builds for multipowers that are almost exactly the same - especially when the final costs vary in an unfair way.

That the final costs vary is an objective fact. That they vary unfairly is a subjective opinion. The variable limitations route functions adequately for Multipower D.

I don't see any magic to "one rule for all multipowers". Should we also eliminated Fixed and Flexible slots, perhaps by making Fixed a limitation on the slot rather than a different divisor so that Fixed and Flexible slots are no longer different mechanics? Different frameworks have very different results, points-wise, with somewhat different mechanical effects. Should they be merged into a single OmniFramework - so we don't have completely different builds for frameworks, with costs that cary in a fashion which some certainly find unfair?

The choice of drawing the line at "one cohesive structure to build a Multipower" is an arbitrary place to draw the line - just as any other place to draw the line is arbitrary.

zornwil

Jan 23rd, '06, 07:32 PM

Should they be merged into a single OmniFramework - so we don't have completely different builds for frameworks, with costs that cary in a fashion which some certainly find unfair?

Well, I'd like an OmniFramework, I have to say! Then again, it's so much easier said than done, too... :)

travisjhall

Jan 23rd, '06, 08:51 PM

Unlike Phil I think the standard multipower builds given as examples so far have been fine, cost-wise. I think having every one of a group of powers being limited the same way is a harsher limitation than having access to a range of different limitations, and paying 10 points for one of your powers having different limitations, or 15 points for one power to have no limitations, seems reasonable to me.

However, I see a bit of a problem when it comes to standard slots, rather than ultras. For example, this construct:

30 Reserve
15 +30 reserve, Only vs. Undead (-1)
6m 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
6m 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
6m 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
6m 2d6 RKA 30 active

This would let the character have, say, 6d6 EB and 3d6 Entangle at the same time - half of one power plus half of another. But it is hard to have that last power work the same way. The character would never give up half of the RKA to get half of another power. Instead, he will have the full RKA and half of another power.

Which makes me yearn for something like this:
30 Reserve
15 +30 reserve, Only vs. Undead (-1)
6m 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
6m 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
6m 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
4m 2d6 RKA, Uses limited reserve equal to base reserve used (-1/2) 30 active

67 Real Points

But I don't know if there is a straight-out-of-the-book method to do this. Can any of the experts spot a better way to do that?

Hyper-Man

Jan 24th, '06, 08:45 PM

The use of "m" or "multi-slots" only makes sense when emulating the book example multipowers that include at least 2 of the following:

an attack power
a movement power
a defensive powerHM

Hugh Neilson

Jan 25th, '06, 05:40 AM

The use of "m" or "multi-slots" only makes sense when emulating the book example multipowers that include at least 2 of the following:

an attack power
a movement power
a defensive powerHM

Given the ruling you can't multiple power attack with two powers from the same MP, I agree flexibility is worth nothing if the MP holds only attacks. You could buy a defenses only MP where flexibility would be good. As a simple example, consider:

40 point MP
8 m +40 PD Force Field
8 +40 ED force field

vs a +24/+24 Force Field.

In mixed combat, the standard Field is great. But if Grond is attacking, having +40 PD instead seems a pretty good move.

ghost-angel

Jan 25th, '06, 05:55 AM

If you have a Continuous Attack and a Standard (Instant) Attack in the same MP and both using a Variable Slot you could spend one phase setting up the Continuous Attack with the level you want it, and while that's going off you could be blasting away with yout Standard Attack with the remaining Pool Points.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 25th, '06, 01:18 PM

...on a gut feel level it sounds like a munchkin whine of "I want the system to give me more points and more power and I want it LEGAL!"
A can completely sympathize with this concern. It's something I've mulled over quite a bit. In the end, I have to say that I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable. If two constructs are the same except that one is less flexible, the less flexible one should cost less. If two constructs are the same except that one is less applicable, the less applicable one should cost less. If two constructs are the same except that one is less powerful, the less powerful one should cost less. etc., My rule provides all these results, fairly and consistently. And relatively simply.

...but I think it's easier to fix it in the specific game than to systemically address each nuance, and this is quite clearly a nuance, something that is a niche case and doesn't even seem to apply in a large portion of genra/settings.
It might be that is doesn't apply because it can't - Few players want to limit their incividual MP slots because they don't get commensurate savings for doing so. It may be a nuance, but my rule applies equally to all such nuances. It doesn't need to be readjusted for each case.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 25th, '06, 01:25 PM

That the final costs vary is an objective fact. That they vary unfairly is a subjective opinion. The variable limitations route functions adequately for Multipower D.
No it doesn't, because Multipower D has an unlimited slot.

I don't see any magic to "one rule for all multipowers".
It's not magic. We have one rule for all multipowers now. I'm just refing the rule. The idea is as I said in my last post: If two powers are equally useful, they should cost the same. If one power is less applicable, less flexible, or less powerful, but otherwise the same as another, it should cost less. That's what I mean by fairness. Some of the suggestions made resulted in different costs for the different multipowers (A, C, and D). I think they're all the same in terms of overall utility, so they should cost the same. My rule provides that result. A rule that doesn't provide that result is unfair. That's all I meant.

Hyper-Man

Jan 25th, '06, 02:53 PM

Repeat with updates of an earlier post for Phil in response to
No it doesn't, because Multipower D has an unlimited slot.
in case he missed it the first time around:

40 Multipower with a Reserve of 60 with all slots (and the Reserve) taking: Variable limitation: -1 worth of Limitations (-1/2)
4u 12d6 EB (-1) worth of Limitiations [example: (Only vs. Undead)] 60 active
4u 6d6 Entangle (-1) worth of Limitiations [example: (Only vs. Undead)] 60 active
4u 6d6 NND (-1) worth of Limitiations [example: (Only vs. Undead)] 60 active
4u 4d6 RKA (-1) worth of Limitiations [example: (Full Phase, ODCV)] 60 active

56 Real Points

plus

22 Custom Naked Advantage (Cancel out the Variable Limitation on the 12d6 EB slot)

78 Total

note:
this ends up with exactly the same functionality and cost as:

60 Multipower with a Reserve of 60
3u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active

72 Real Points

plus

6u 12d6 EB with no limitations

78 Total

HM

Hugh Neilson

Jan 25th, '06, 05:48 PM

No it doesn't, because Multipower D has an unlimited slot.

If the slot is unlimited and uses the full pool points, the character has access to the pool without limitations, and should not obtain a cost break for the fact that other slots are limited.

If the unlimited slot uses less than the full reserve, the remaining reserve can be limited, resulting in a point savings.

The idea is as I said in my last post: If two powers are equally useful, they should cost the same. If one power is less applicable, less flexible, or less powerful, but otherwise the same as another, it should cost less. That's what I mean by fairness.

No disagreemnet here.

Some of the suggestions made resulted in different costs for the different multipowers (A, C, and D). I think they're all the same in terms of overall utility, so they should cost the same. My rule provides that result. A rule that doesn't provide that result is unfair. That's all I meant.

Whether they are all equally useful is a subjective determination, not an objective one. Your presumption that four very different powers are of equal value is not necessarily correct.

zornwil

Jan 25th, '06, 07:01 PM

As I think about it, I think the core of this issue is more around how to incent players to take "useless" powers and constructs, to take "flavor" and niche attacks that won't cost out in an attractive way. At its core, the issue is taking that one attack that is a sensible play on your character but doesn't fit neatly into advantageous thematic pricing, and even more, perhaps, about having those powers that clearly aren't "quite as good" but cost the same as other powers.

In one sense, it's weak to resort to GM hand-waving.

In another, it's virtually necessary at SOME level as such activiites occur at a specific gaming level that is difficult to impossible for universal systems to address and fall either inside or outside, period, more niche systems.

But it's a worthwhile pursuit - how to introduce, in cost-based systems, objectivity to constructs that on paper come out at the same costs but are so awkward or skewed or outside what the system normally incents that they don't really work that way.

In some part, I wanted to address this with the universal framework idea.

In another part, I think it requires some game-level soul-searching. What's the priority? What level can we take this to?

The central problem, as this thread demonstrates, is that one man's "reasonable ballpark, let's leave it" is another man's "I'll just custom tweak this" and another's "let's fix the system."

In HERO terms we see this most often expressed (but not even close to always) in the dichotomy between active and real (and even to a lesser extent base) points. I think there's a central theme in the valuation and type of Limitations and how they play out, even outside of frameworks.

Perhaps the answer is as "simple" as a sort of "effective active" points which equal something such as (but I'm not at all specifically suggesting) a halfway mark between active and real, or represents base plus Advantages plus 1/2 of Limitations to a limit of -1. Overloading Limitations is disincented while they are at least somewhat taken into account against equal-points powers that have no Lims.

Anyway, while I'm not fond of Phil's specific approach, it's a good topic, and interesting to me to take a step back and think about addressing it in some broader scale.

zornwil

Jan 25th, '06, 07:02 PM

On a related note, I used to run games based purely on real points - there was no distinction of active. It worked pretty well, actually, but based on common experiences and insights into some issues I don't recommend it. But it CAN work without disrupting a HERO game at all.

Hyper-Man

Jan 25th, '06, 07:16 PM

I'm not aware of any quick fix regarding this for starting characters but once the game is up an running it seems like the use of partially Assigned XP would go a long way towards solving this issue in a far simpler manner. And it would do so without tempting the munchkins.

HM

As I think about it, I think the core of this issue is more around how to incent players to take "useless" powers and constructs, to take "flavor" and niche attacks that won't cost out in an attractive way. At its core, the issue is taking that one attack that is a sensible play on your character but doesn't fit neatly into advantageous thematic pricing, and even more, perhaps, about having those powers that clearly aren't "quite as good" but cost the same as other powers.

In one sense, it's weak to resort to GM hand-waving.

In another, it's virtually necessary at SOME level as such activiites occur at a specific gaming level that is difficult to impossible for universal systems to address and fall either inside or outside, period, more niche systems.

But it's a worthwhile pursuit - how to introduce, in cost-based systems, objectivity to constructs that on paper come out at the same costs but are so awkward or skewed or outside what the system normally incents that they don't really work that way.

In some part, I wanted to address this with the universal framework idea.

In another part, I think it requires some game-level soul-searching. What's the priority? What level can we take this to?

The central problem, as this thread demonstrates, is that one man's "reasonable ballpark, let's leave it" is another man's "I'll just custom tweak this" and another's "let's fix the system."

In HERO terms we see this most often expressed (but not even close to always) in the dichotomy between active and real (and even to a lesser extent base) points. I think there's a central theme in the valuation and type of Limitations and how they play out, even outside of frameworks.

Perhaps the answer is as "simple" as a sort of "effective active" points which equal something such as (but I'm not at all specifically suggesting) a halfway mark between active and real, or represents base plus Advantages plus 1/2 of Limitations to a limit of -1. Overloading Limitations is disincented while they are at least somewhat taken into account against equal-points powers that have no Lims.

Anyway, while I'm not fond of Phil's specific approach, it's a good topic, and interesting to me to take a step back and think about addressing it in some broader scale.

zornwil

Jan 25th, '06, 07:56 PM

PhilFleischmann

Jan 30th, '06, 02:07 PM

Been out of town for a few days. That's why the late reply and thread necromancy. Feel free to let it die if you're done talking about this.

Repeat with updates of an earlier post for Phil in response to in case he missed it the first time around:
Perhaps I missed it the first time around because it didn't construct the examples I was asking about. In case you missed it the first time around, here are the four multipowers I was discussing:

---Multipower A---
Reserve 60 Active
u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active
------

---Multipower B---
60 Reserve 60 Active
6u 6d6 Entangle 60 active
6u 4d6 RKA 60 active
------

---Multipower C---
Reserve 60 Active
u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 2d6 RKA, 30 active
------

---Multipower D---
Reserve 60 Active
u 6d6 EB, 30 active
u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active
------

Multipower B is the standard MP with no limitations. There is no dispute here that it costs 72 points. That is an official baseline I am comparing to. My rule has the other three costing 42 points each. I believe that is a fair price and I especially beleive that the other three all all equally useful, and therefore ought to cost the same.

Using the Variable Limitations method, Multipower A costs 52 points (40 for the reserve and 3 for each slot). This is a by-the-book build. As I said back in post 68, I think that's a bit high, but in the ballpark.

Multipower C could be bought with "Only vs. Undead" on the whole thing, and then add a naked "advantage" to buy it off on the last slot. This would also be a by-the-book build. It would cost 30+3+3+3+1 = 40 points for the MP, plus 15 points to buy off the lim for the fourth slot, fo a total of 55 points.

And finally, a by-the-book build for Multipower D, using the Variable Limitations method, and the buy off the limitation for a single slot method, would cost 40+1+3+3+3 = 50 for the MP, plus 10 to buy off the lim for the first slot, for a total of 60 points.

That gives us costs of 52, 55, and 60. While fairly close, I'd call this unfair because I see these three multipowers as being all equally useful. So they should cost the same. An 8-point difference, while not huge, is significant.

And for a further cost comparison, I submit:

---Multipower E---
30 Reserve 60 Active, Only vs. Undead
3u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
------

This costs 42 points, officially and by my rule. It seems to me to have the same total utility as Multipowers A, C, and D. And that's why I think it ought to cost the same.

And BTW, Hyper-man, your two power constructs don't have exactly the same functionality, as you claim, since the first one can have varying limitations on all the slots. If the lims are fixed on each slot, they only cost 3 points each, for a total of 74 points, rather than 78.

Hugh Neilson

Jan 30th, '06, 05:47 PM

---Multipower A---
Reserve 60 Active
u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active

Reserve gets Variable Limitation, so 40. Each slot gets a -1 limitation, so 3 each. Total cost 52.

---Multipower B---
60 Reserve 60 Active
6u 6d6 Entangle 60 active
6u 4d6 RKA 60 active
------

Total cost 72

---Multipower C---
Reserve 60 Active
u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 2d6 RKA, 30 active
------

1/2 of reserve is only vs Undead, so reserve costs 45
Slots cost 3 each (6/2 for the first 3, flat 3 for the last). Cost totals 57

---Multipower D---
Reserve 60 Active
u 6d6 EB, 30 active
u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active
------

Last half of reserve gets Var limitation, so 30+20=50, and slots cost 3 each = 62

Multipower B is the standard MP with no limitations. There is no dispute here that it costs 72 points. That is an official baseline I am comparing to. My rule has the other three costing 42 points each. I believe that is a fair price and I especially beleive that the other three all all equally useful, and therefore ought to cost the same.

I think D is more useful than C in that it can access a 60 AP attack against targets which are not Undead.

That gives us costs of 52, 55, and 60. While fairly close, I'd call this unfair because I see these three multipowers as being all equally useful. So they should cost the same. An 8-point difference, while not huge, is significant.

My approach gets 52, 57 and 62, a bit different but not hugely so. But I don't agree that powers you can use any time you want are worth the same as powers you can't use without restriction.

---Multipower E---
30 Reserve 60 Active, Only vs. Undead
3u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Only vs. Undead) 60 active
------

Cost 42 as you spell out. And useless unless there's some Undead around, so properly worth less than any of the others - not the same as the others, as your rule would make them.

PhilFleischmann

Jan 31st, '06, 04:30 PM

But I don't agree that powers you can use any time you want are worth the same as powers you can use without restriction.
Uh, I think you might want to rephrase that as "I don't agree that powers you can use any time you want are worth the same as powers you can't use without restriction." I would then ask, how much additional power, i.e., increased active points, would compensate for the restriction? Of course a 30 AP unrestricted power should cost more than a 60 AP restricted power. But 30 AP unrestricted might be worth the same as, say, 60 AP with a significant enough restriction.

Cost 42 as you spell out. And useless unless there's some Undead around, so properly worth less than any of the others - not the same as the others, as your rule would make them.
OK, so then would you say the same thing about:

---Multipower F---
30 Reserve 60 Active, Full Phase, 0 DCV
3u 12d6 EB (Full Phase, 0 DCV) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Full Phase, 0 DCV) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Full Phase, 0 DCV) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, 0 DCV) 60 active
------

AmadanNaBriona

Jan 31st, '06, 04:40 PM

OK, so then would you say the same thing about:

---Multipower F---
30 Reserve 60 Active, Full Phase, 0 DCV
3u 12d6 EB (Full Phase, 0 DCV) 60 active
3u 6d6 Entangle (Full Phase, 0 DCV) 60 active
3u 6d6 NND (Full Phase, 0 DCV) 60 active
3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, 0 DCV) 60 active
------

Sure thing...
Similar situation... you have deep flaws that you can't simply shift slots to aviod. You'll end up spending the extra points you save on defences, or get very used to being scraped off the landscape.... you're basically dropping all defence when you attack.

The utility cost of a MP isn't just about power but flexibility, and as flexibility increases, thus does overall utility, and thusly point cost. IMO. The current system reflects this, more or less (It could be better, but would take a lot deeper breakdown and rebuild of the system than has been comitted, and would break all the old writeups in the prgress, which is probably why it hasn't been attempted). Your preferred approach dosen't. Simple as that.

Hugh Neilson

Jan 31st, '06, 05:50 PM

Sure thing...
Similar situation... you have deep flaws that you can't simply shift slots to avoid.

Exactly! If you want the full limitation point savings on the reserve, the reserve must suffer the full limitation. This character must be at 0 DCV and spend a full phase to use the reserve at all. Half move? Sorry, no multipower. Used the Multipower? Sorry, no DCV.

he can't use the reserve against undead instead, or use a lower powered ability to eliminate the limitations. Every use of the Multipower exposes him to these limitations. So the reserve benefits from the full limitation.

Make it less limiting, and the limitation on the reserve should be less. It should still cost less than an unrestricted reserve. Under the rules (and the builds presented), this happens. Under the Phil System, a greater restriction on the reserve (ie only vs Undead, or always results in 0 DCV and takes a full phase) does not result in a reduced cost.

PhilFleischmann

Feb 1st, '06, 04:26 PM

Interesting. I'm going to have to think about this some more.

In the meantime, I'll annoy you with the original idea that started this whole thing for me: the case of a regular attack at one level, and a specialized attack at a higher level. Something like this:

60 Reserve
6u (standard power 1)
6u (standard power 2)
6u 12d6 EB - "Fire Blast"
3u 12d6 EB, Only vs. Undead (-1) - "Holy Blast"

plus
30 +12d6 EB, Only vs. Undead - Adds to last slot of MP.

Total cost for this completely legal build is 111.

Note that I want the two EBs to be separate from each other. The character has to correctly discern whether the target creature is truly undead. The following is not what I want:

60 Reserve
6u (standard power 1)
6u (standard power 2)
6u 12d6 EB

plus
30 +12d6 EB, Only vs. Undead - Adds to last slot of MP.

Total cost for this completely legal build is 108.

This is actually *more* useful than the first build (because an orc dressed up like a zombie will still take 12d6), but costs *less*. And you could make the entire MP 80 points for 104 total (even less). What would you do about this?

My rule allows for:

60 Reserve
6u (standard power 1)
6u (standard power 2)
6u 12d6 EB - "Fire Blast"
6u 24d6 EB, Only vs. Undead (-1) - "Holy Blast" (60 Real Points)

Total cost: 84.

Granted 24d6 might be a little excessive, but you get the idea. I guess usually you'd use it to spread to get a bunch of the abominations against nature at once.

Do you think 84 points for this is unreasonable? If not, how much should it cost? And remember, it has to be significantly less than 108 in order to be worth taking at all.

And just to save time, here's another example if you object to the 24d6:

60 Reserve
6u (standard power 1)
6u (standard power 2)
6u 12d6 EB - "Fire Blast"
3u 6d6 EB, Armor Piercing, Affects Desolid, Only vs. Undead (-1) - "Holy Blast"

plus
30 +6d6 EB, Armor Piercing, Affects Desolid, Only vs. Undead - Adds to Holy Blast

Total cost for this completely legal build is 111. But to be fair, it should cost less than:

60 Reserve
6u (standard power 1)
6u (standard power 2)
6u 12d6 EB - "Fire Blast"

plus
30 Armor Piercing and Affects Desolid for the Fire Blast, Only vs. Undead - "Holy Fire"

For only 108 points, which still works against the living wizard in the vampire outfit, just not Armor Piercing or Affects Desolid.

Hyper-Man

Feb 1st, '06, 07:24 PM

Just looking at your 1st and 2nd examples it seems like a Detect Undead power would make their differences a moot point.

Are these particular limitations the actual ones that spurred on this idea for you? That is, are they for a Cleric/Paladin type of character?

If not ignore my comments.

The reason I raise this point is that boosted abilities like this seem to make more sense for characters who have earned and spent experience. If the players are demonstrating extraordinary roleplaying of 'holy' characters it just seems a whole lot easier too assign XP as a gift from the gods to accomplish the same savings of points. If the points balance is really that important once a campaign is already up an running that is.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 1st, '06, 07:40 PM

Interesting. I'm going to have to think about this some more.

In the meantime, I'll annoy you with the original idea that started this whole thing for me: the case of a regular attack at one level, and a specialized attack at a higher level. Something like this:

60 Reserve
6u (standard power 1)
6u (standard power 2)
6u 12d6 EB - "Fire Blast"
3u 12d6 EB, Only vs. Undead (-1) - "Holy Blast"

plus
30 +12d6 EB, Only vs. Undead - Adds to last slot of MP.

Total cost for this completely legal build is 111.

Note that I want the two EBs to be separate from each other. The character has to correctly discern whether the target creature is truly undead. The following is not what I want:

60 Reserve
6u (standard power 1)
6u (standard power 2)
6u 12d6 EB

plus
30 +12d6 EB, Only vs. Undead - Adds to last slot of MP.

Total cost for this completely legal build is 108.

This is actually *more* useful than the first build (because an orc dressed up like a zombie will still take 12d6), but costs *less*. And you could make the entire MP 80 points for 104 total (even less). What would you do about this?

60 Reserve
6u (standard power 1)
6u (standard power 2)
6u 12d6 EB

plus
20 +12d6 EB, Only vs. Undead (-1) - Adds to last slot of MP; if target is not Undead, entire attack does no damage (-1)

98 points vs 108

As to increasing the entire framework, most frameworks work more efficiently if the powers in them are of similar size. Consider adding a 20 point power to an Elemental Control of 50 point powers for a similar example. Besides, I wouldn't allow campaign norms to be exceeded dramatically for an unlimited Multipower, but I might for an attack that specially targets Undead (and that goes just as much for a 12d6 AP Affects Desolid attack as for a 24d6 attack).

travisjhall

Feb 2nd, '06, 07:19 PM

60 Reserve
6u (standard power 1)
6u (standard power 2)
6u 12d6 EB

plus
20 +12d6 EB, Only vs. Undead (-1) - Adds to last slot of MP; if target is not Undead, entire attack does no damage (-1)

98 points vs 108

My worry about such a build is this:
10 Reserve
1u (standard power 1)
1u (standard power 2)
1u 2d6 EB

plus
20 +12d6 EB, Only vs. Undead (-1) - Adds to last slot of MP; if target is not Undead, entire attack does no damage (-1)

That follows the same principle, but gives a 10 point saving on the big EB for a limitation affecting a 10 AP power in a 13 point multipower. It doesn't make the idea worthless, of course, but the GM will have to be a bit careful concerning how that limitation is used. The limitation might have to be smaller in my example there.

Now, granted I don't have a lot of experience with the current rules, but what about:

60 Reserve
6u (standard power 1)
6u (standard power 2)
4u 12d6 EB, does no damage again non-Undead when below adder is used (-1/2)

plus
20 +12d6 EB, Only vs. Undead (-1) - Adds to last slot of MP

106 points vs 108.

That means that the limitation is on the power which is actually being limited, and thus scales the cost appropriate to the size of that power. In this case, the cost saving is pretty small, but frankly that may be a good thing.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 2nd, '06, 07:23 PM

My worry about such a build is this:
10 Reserve
1u (standard power 1)
1u (standard power 2)
1u 2d6 EB

plus
20 +12d6 EB, Only vs. Undead (-1) - Adds to last slot of MP; if target is not Undead, entire attack does no damage (-1)

I would vary the value of the "entire attack does no damage" limitation with the comparative size of the two attacks, actually. In your example, it would be at most -1/4, and possibly not limited at all (2d6 being inadequate to be a credible attack against anyone, the power is not really Limited by that extra limitation).

travisjhall

Feb 2nd, '06, 07:31 PM

I would vary the value of the "entire attack does no damage" limitation with the comparative size of the two attacks, actually. In your example, it would be at most -1/4, and possibly not limited at all (2d6 being inadequate to be a credible attack against anyone, the power is not really Limited by that extra limitation).
Yes, precisely - that's how a careful GM would use it. If I had immediate access to a copy of 5ER, I'd have a look to see whether Side Effects could be bludgeoned into an indicator for how big the limitation should be.

Still, I have to admit to being inclined towards putting the limitation on the power that is actually being limited.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 3rd, '06, 05:48 AM

Yes, precisely - that's how a careful GM would use it. If I had immediate access to a copy of 5ER, I'd have a look to see whether Side Effects could be bludgeoned into an indicator for how big the limitation should be.

Still, I have to admit to being inclined towards putting the limitation on the power that is actually being limited.

That would be my immediate bias as well. However, I also agree with Phil that the construct he has presented (the whole attack fails if the target is Undead) should cost more than the alternative construct where half the attack gets through even if the other half fails (where the target is not undead). One character will get 12d6 through if he guesses wrong, the other will waste an attack.

EDIT: Plus, it doesn;t make it immune to abuse. Consider the following:

30 Multipower: 60 point base, entire attack fails if second MP used and target is not Undead

3 u 12d6 EB, entire attack fails if second MP used and target is not Undead
3 u 4s6 RKA, entire attack fails if second MP used and target is not Undead
3 u 12d6 Flash, entire attack fails if second MP used and target is not Undead

2 +1d6 EB, only vs Undead
2 +1 pip RKA, only vs Undead
2 +1d6 Flash, only vs Undead

45 points total. Bet the guy who paid 78 points for the unlimited multipower is ticked off (even if we never see an Undead)

PhilFleischmann

Feb 3rd, '06, 12:38 PM

Just looking at your 1st and 2nd examples it seems like a Detect Undead power would make their differences a moot point.
To a certain extent, yes. But Senses can be fooled and PER rolls can be failed, especially in combat.

Are these particular limitations the actual ones that spurred on this idea for you? That is, are they for a Cleric/Paladin type of character?
Sort of. Not necessarily undead, but any category of opponents (and not necessarily just for fantasy games). And also the "cataclysmic blast of last resort" power slot - a really big attack (say with AE, and possibly other advantages), that is really difficult/dangerous to use (Major Side Effects, 10xEND cost, etc.) - in other words a slot that is almost at the level of a plot device. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for a character to pay the cost of one Ultra slot for his Multipower (6 points in the examples) for a huge power that he's likely to only use once ever in his career.

The reason I raise this point is that boosted abilities like this seem to make more sense for characters who have earned and spent experience. If the players are demonstrating extraordinary roleplaying of 'holy' characters it just seems a whole lot easier too assign XP as a gift from the gods to accomplish the same savings of points. If the points balance is really that important once a campaign is already up an running that is.
I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that a new character shouldn't have a specialized attack? How does assigning XP expeditures change the point costs in any way? Are you suggesting giving extra xp to cleric/paladin types, just so they can blast undead? I'm not arguing, I really think I'm missing your point here.

Hyper-Man

Feb 3rd, '06, 07:33 PM

...

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that a new character shouldn't have a specialized attack? How does assigning XP expeditures change the point costs in any way? Are you suggesting giving extra xp to cleric/paladin types, just so they can blast undead? I'm not arguing, I really think I'm missing your point here.

It seems like you are going to a lot of effort to bend the rules in an effort to give a particular character concept its own special flair. The Paladin reference was due to that particular 'class' of D&D characters was one of the closest things to a 'hero' character since they already had a 'code of conduct' that they had to follow at all times if they wanted to keep their special gifts. It was documented way for a GM to apply his judgement of whether the player was roleplaying the character correctly and reward or punish him accordingly. What you've described so far reminded me of this more than anything else.

My point however, is that if 'GM handwaving' is going to be involved why make more work for yourself by changing the base rules and having to worry about interpreting them wholey by yourself on top of all the other issues? If you think its unfairly costed using a 'by-the-book' method, don't change the method, just assign XP towards whatever special plot device power the player wants with the mutual understanding that it is not to be abused in a power level arms-race.

And regarding your question regarding starting characters instead of XP rewards? Easy, as long as everyone gets a special ability discount of equal value, the points discount itself is balanced.

HM

Hugh Neilson

Feb 4th, '06, 06:54 AM

One could also make this a campaign-specific rule, much like the "Spells cost 1/3 of their real point cost" rule in the Turakian Age.

"Paladins may purchase extra damage, only vs Undead, for X% of the real cost of such powers". Make it available to anyone taking an appropriate Package (which would include devotion to an appropriate deity).

zornwil

Feb 5th, '06, 12:58 AM

Or, much easier IMHO, make it so all undead have Vulnerability versus Holy Men (or similar).

Hugh Neilson

Feb 5th, '06, 06:49 AM

Or, much easier IMHO, make it so all undead have Vulnerability versus Holy Men (or similar).

If you want the ability shared by all Holy Men. The "discount for holy men" ability says this will be more common to such characters, but not shared by all holy men,

zornwil

Feb 5th, '06, 03:32 PM

If you want the ability shared by all Holy Men. The "discount for holy men" ability says this will be more common to such characters, but not shared by all holy men,
Sure, it could be just paladins or the like this was just a for-instance of course. It just sounded like this was supposed to be common to a class of characters, and in that case, to me, it seems easier, especially if replicating a D&D fantasy trope, to make it a Disad for the targets rather than a power for the ones performing it.

PhilFleischmann

Feb 6th, '06, 01:05 PM

It seems like you are going to a lot of effort to bend the rules in an effort to give a particular character concept its own special flair. ....
My point however, is that if 'GM handwaving' is going to be involved why make more work for yourself by changing the base rules and having to worry about interpreting them wholey by yourself on top of all the other issues? If you think its unfairly costed using a 'by-the-book' method, don't change the method, just assign XP towards whatever special plot device power the player wants with the mutual understanding that it is not to be abused in a power level arms-race.

And regarding your question regarding starting characters instead of XP rewards? Easy, as long as everyone gets a special ability discount of equal value, the points discount itself is balanced.
Fair enough. Though from my perspective, it seems like less work (or perhaps it's just work I don't mind so much) to make a simple change or bend in the rules, rather than having to make more complicated builds with extra "plus" powers and naked advantages, etc.

And let me reiterate: it isn't just about Paladins smiting undead, it's about any character of any archetype with a specialized attack. vs Dragons, vs Demons, vs Giants, vs shapechangers, vs reptilian creatures, or even with a special circumstance limitation (such as the concentration mentioned earlier, but more likely something like: Only if there's a significantly large source of fire nearby, Only if the target is wearing a significant mass of metal armor, only if the caster knows the "True Name" of the target, etc.)

My original complaint was that there would be no point to having a specialized attack if it couldn't have higher AP than the normal, usable-against-anyone attack. I appreciate all of the suggestions about how to do this.

It's easy to envision a campaign where each PC had a different specialty (or "Favored Enemy" to put it in B&D terms), or a different set of circumstances under which their spells were most effective. And of course, you could add to this one or more characters whose powers were the plain, off-the-shelf variety. For example, a group of mages that each use a different style of magic, plus one brawny all-purpose fighter.

AmadanNaBriona

Feb 6th, '06, 03:11 PM

Fair enough. Though from my perspective, it seems like less work (or perhaps it's just work I don't mind so much) to make a simple change or bend in the rules, rather than having to make more complicated builds with extra "plus" powers and naked advantages, etc.

And let me reiterate: it isn't just about Paladins smiting undead, it's about any character of any archetype with a specialized attack. vs Dragons, vs Demons, vs Giants, vs shapechangers, vs reptilian creatures, or even with a special circumstance limitation (such as the concentration mentioned earlier, but more likely something like: Only if there's a significantly large source of fire nearby, Only if the target is wearing a significant mass of metal armor, only if the caster knows the "True Name" of the target, etc.)

My original complaint was that there would be no point to having a specialized attack if it couldn't have higher AP than the normal, usable-against-anyone attack. I appreciate all of the suggestions about how to do this.

It's easy to envision a campaign where each PC had a different specialty (or "Favored Enemy" to put it in B&D terms), or a different set of circumstances under which their spells were most effective. And of course, you could add to this one or more characters whose powers were the plain, off-the-shelf variety. For example, a group of mages that each use a different style of magic, plus one brawny all-purpose fighter.

I can totally understand the idea you're working towards, but if you are really looking for target-specific, plot device power level, not likely to ever be used more than once or twice in a campaign effects, why not consider doing them as a form of Favor Based Magic, much the way Valdoran magic works. While it might take a bit of work to figure out, SFX-wise, for a non divine or humanistic based character, for a lot of other character types it'd seem to be tailor made for what you want. A handful of XP dropped into a Favor defined as Divine Intervention give you a one shot that will probably cost as much as your extra slots, but actually retain more flexibility, more plot device options, and removes a lot of the temptation to use the "Uber rare plot device power" far more often than you as a GM want to see it.
Unless you have really good players, the problem you find with stated out "final option" powers is that if the players spent points on them, and have the cold hard numbers down on their sheet, they can think about how to minimize the negative efects while using them as often as practical when the appropriate circumstances arise. Kind of like the old Voltron uber-power sword, or the Wave motion Gun.... Dramatic liscence has the good guys wait till they are on the ropes before busting out their big one shot killer. In an actual game however, if the players know that 95% of the time that one shot will take out a single baddy, no matter how buff, it suddenly becomes very attractive as a first shot in a single badguy fight.

Dropping points into big league Favors is a system that I am glad to see finally ghetting some air time in the mainstream HERO system, as it has the potential to replicate quite a lot of effects seen in fictional sources... Elric's Ring of Kings, for example, works great as a collection of big league Favors, all neatly wrapped up in an Independent Focus. It lets him, through the course of the series, pull some serious rabbits out of his hat, but always as a last resort, because he knows when a particular Favor is used, it's GONE... So he has to carefully ponder if the situation is really worth wasting the power on. the system has many similarities to Runequests Divine Intervention as well.

In any ase, I am one of those GM's who is VERY cautious about frameworks in Heroic level games.... Any framework (with the possible exception of EC's) has the potential to mess up balance if mishandled or misapplied.

travisjhall

Feb 6th, '06, 07:08 PM

However, I also agree with Phil that the construct he has presented (the whole attack fails if the target is Undead) should cost more than the alternative construct where half the attack gets through even if the other half fails (where the target is not undead). One character will get 12d6 through if he guesses wrong, the other will waste an attack.
Errm, you mean "should cost less", yes? Yes, I think we all agree with that. There are several approaches to achieving that, with different savings. The one I suggested saves two points.

EDIT: Plus, it doesn;t make it immune to abuse. Consider the following:

30 Multipower: 60 point base, entire attack fails if second MP used and target is not Undead

3 u 12d6 EB, entire attack fails if second MP used and target is not Undead
3 u 4s6 RKA, entire attack fails if second MP used and target is not Undead
3 u 12d6 Flash, entire attack fails if second MP used and target is not Undead

2 +1d6 EB, only vs Undead
2 +1 pip RKA, only vs Undead
2 +1d6 Flash, only vs Undead

45 points total. Bet the guy who paid 78 points for the unlimited multipower is ticked off (even if we never see an Undead)
Well, I used a -1/2 for "entire attack fails if adder is used and target is not Undead", which makes this cost 59.5 (if the decimals are retained), which is a big jump up in cost. But yes, a scaling of the value of the limitation is probably still required.

I've had thoughts of a completely different approach, too. I've thought about doing away with multipowers as they currently exist, and applying a straight multiplier to the cost of powers based on whether they can be used simultaneously with other powers - say, x0.2 for the first power that cannot be used simultaneously with another power, x0.1 for each power beyond that, with the powers being ordered by real cost. Thus, we would get this set of constructs:

60 60x1 12d6 EB
60 total points

30 30x1 6d6 EB
15 15x1 +6d6 EB Only vs Undead
45 total points

30 30x1 6d6 EB
6 30x0.2 12d6 EB Only vs Undead (-1), not simultaneous with above
36 total points

30 30x1 12d6 Only vs Undead (-1)
30 total points

Which basically means that the character saves 9 points for having the complete-fail-if-wrong-guess version.

But that, of course, is going even further away from standard Hero than the other suggestions in this thread.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 7th, '06, 05:27 AM

Errm, you mean "should cost less", yes?

The hand is quicker than the brain! Thanks.

Yes, I think we all agree with that. There are several approaches to achieving that, with different savings. The one I suggested saves two points.

Which brings it down to magnitude of savings. At least if we can save something, we're getting somewhere.

I've had thoughts of a completely different approach, too. I've thought about doing away with multipowers as they currently exist, and applying a straight multiplier to the cost of powers based on whether they can be used simultaneously with other powers - say, x0.2 for the first power that cannot be used simultaneously with another power, x0.1 for each power beyond that, with the powers being ordered by real cost.

Thus, we would get this set of constructs:

60 60x1 12d6 EB
60 total points

30 30x1 6d6 EB
15 15x1 +6d6 EB Only vs Undead
45 total points

30 30x1 6d6 EB
6 30x0.2 12d6 EB Only vs Undead (-1), not simultaneous with above
36 total points

30 30x1 12d6 Only vs Undead (-1)
30 total points

I don't see any difference between your third approach and Phil's, other than the mechanics. Phil would have a 30 point pool w/ 2 3 point Ultra slots.

Maybe if we based this more on the Elemental Control model, we'd get a decent result. That is, you pay 90% (as opposed to EC's 50%) of the base points. This cost is subtracted from each power, none of which are usable simultaneously. You pay for any extra AP over and above the pool, and get limitations on the 10% + extra AP.

27 EC Base (30 x 90%)
3 6d6 EB (30 - 27)
16 12d6 EB vs Undead only (60 - 27 = 33/2 = 16)

Total cost of 46 means it doesn't work, unfortunately, as it's more expensive than just adding the extra dice. Back to limiting the bonus dice, I guess.

travisjhall

Feb 7th, '06, 04:39 PM

Which brings it down to magnitude of savings. At least if we can save something, we're getting somewhere.
Yes. It is pretty obvious that something should be saved, but judging how much is appropriate is much more difficult.

I don't see any difference between your third approach and Phil's, other than the mechanics. Phil would have a 30 point pool w/ 2 3 point Ultra slots.
I didn't start fooling around with that as a solution to this particular problem. I wanted to get around the way frameworks work much more efficiently with same-sized powers - not just accounting for limitation cost reductions, but also - mostly even - for different-sized powers.

The multipliers I gave, 0.2 and 0.1, are what you would have to use to reproduce some of the standard multipower costs, but frankly, I think those costs are generally too low. Another set of multipliers would be 0.6 to the power of the previous "non-simultaneous powers". That gives higher costs for small sets of powers, and allows a character to have an infinite set of powers for the same cost as a cosmic variable power pool. (Of course, if the cost for a MP-equivalent rises, one might have to fix brick costs, because cheap MPs are what compensates for too-cheap bricks, and the changes roll on...)

But as you imply, some of the same problems will crop up with this approach as with Phil's - specifically limitations which aren't limiting because you just use a different power instead. One way around this approach would be to build up "trees" of powers, with the requirement that a limitation taken at one level of the tree would apply all the way down that branch. For example, something like this:

60 60x1 12d6 EB
36 60x0.6 24d6 EB, Only vs Undead (-1)
11 30x0.36 6d6 Entangle, Only vs Undead (-1)
36 60x0.6 Some Other Power Not Only vs Undead

But there are some examples that produce problems with this, too.

Maybe if we based this more on the Elemental Control model, we'd get a decent result.
No, it winds up producing the same problems with different-sized powers as the standard frameworks.