Duplication Question

[Hugh Neilson]

OK, I've been playing since FIRST edition, and generally can work out the rules for myself. However, this one has sat wrong with me since 5e came out. What am I missing?

A 350 point character spends 150 points on Duplication. He gets Telkekinetic Sidekicks as listed on page 101. These duplicates should have 250 points and be identical to the originating character as they are not altered duplicates. But the base character has 350 points, not 250, so they can't be identical.

More to the point, only the base character pays points for duplication. The duplicates, therefore, should only be 200 point characters - they have all of Base Character's points, less 150 for duplication. What happens to the extra 50 points provided to the duplicates?

Moving right along, if one follows the rules to the letter for Duplication, Summon and Multiform, do they not enable the point limits to be circumvented? Duplicates can have more points than the base if altered, and paid for point for point. A 350 point character could have a 455 point duplicate (70 points for Duplication to 350 + 105 points to add 105, x2 for the 100% altered advantage. Now have the duplicate buy duplication... Of course, the base character(s) in this example are basket cases. Used with some restraint, this can create a fairly weak base character and a reasonable character (eg a 350 point super) who could otherwise be the base character and take his "base character" as a DNPC. This is a concept I'm considering, actually.

Mutiform and Summon are worse in that they don't require one to spend point for point to exceed the base character's point level (the Multiform example even includes a 400 point form of a 350 point character as an example). Say I spend 200 points of my 350 on a 500 point totally loyal Summon (hmmm...why not spend 250 and summon 32 of them?). I guess it's not unprecedented - look at Johnny Thunder and Thunderbolt (call it duplication or call it Summon, the result is the same). But is this the intent?

It's easy to say "GM Override", but I dislike the idea that the rules should generally be overridden.

Thanks
Hugh

[Steve Long]

The "Questions" board is for actual rules question, not rules discussion or design philosophy stuff. So, I've moved this to the "Discussion" board so folx can talk about it if they want.

[Talon]

This is a common issue with 5th Edition. It is entirely possible to do what you say, and "GM permission" is pretty much the only limit. It does make the system more flexible; I just wish they had put more of a warning about it in the text.

[Hugh Neilson]

After posting the question, I vistied the FAQ, which overs off some areas (esp. duplicates with less points than the base character) and opens up others (like why the FAQ suggests the duplicates have points tied up in Duplication they don't actually possess when FRED says only the base character pays for duplication).

As a GM, I would likely not allow a player to use these approaches to effectively buy himself a higher point character. If a GM did, I would expect a bit of hard time with the other players, who stuck to the campaign limits. Especially if you follow the FAQ guidance that the higher point duplicate need not cover the excess with disadvantages since the base character paid for him to be that powerful.