Power Frameworks Issues

[Markdoc]

The issue with the Last Ditch power is no problem if campaign maximae are enforced. If the campaign maximum is 60 active points, there's no way you can put a 40d6 EB into a Multipower, no matter how many limitations you add to the slot.

Sure - in which case, you're still really using active points to limit powers: you've just moved the limit to the campaign cap.

The last versions of my proposed unified Power Framework have used Real Cost as a limiter, and I haven't found ways to abuse that, as long as there is a campaign maximum. If the campaign maximum is 60 active points, I see no problem in a framework that has slots with a 8d6 EB and a 12d6 EB, 2x END, for 48 points. After all, either could be bought alone for 40 points.

Danger, Will Robinson! Campaign caps are an optional rule that I (and many other GMs) think bite. I find them a barrier to creativity and (IMO) a crutch for weak GM'ing. They make some non-abusive constructs difficult to do, don't prevent many abusive constructs and can't substitute for the GM actually examining the characters.

And I see a real problem to making a change to the core rules which is only viable if you also use an optional rule.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Apparently, that was tried at some point, and was found to be unbalancing. *shrug*

Heh. I had a friend who started GM'ing who had misunderstood the rules and thought that frameworks were limited by real and not active points. He came bitching to me that Hero system was useless, because every combat came down to who could hit with their instakill attack first.

It certainly was unbalancing, though I must admit I got a laugh out of one of his PCs who had some gigantic "meteor swarm" power that fired an autofire area effect RKA. He could only use it once a day, and there were a lot of other limitations, but then he rarely needed it more than that: He'd open every combat by essentially laying down an artillery barrage :D

cheers, Mark

[James Gillen]

Danger, Will Robinson! Campaign caps are an optional rule that I (and many other GMs) think bite. I find them a barrier to creativity and (IMO) a crutch for weak GM'ing. They make some non-abusive constructs difficult to do, don't prevent many abusive constructs and can't substitute for the GM actually examining the characters.

They're an optional rule but they're a recommended guideline on pretty much every level of play. Now because not all effects will fit within the cap (especially with Linked powers) you don't want to make it an absolute, but you still need the guideline.

jg

[Grail Quest]

Frameworks:
Elemental Control:
I see EC as a relict, purely. Name a sensible reason except "it works ok for champions" why ECs make sense. It's just a gigantic point discount for no reason. ... In closing: Get rid of EC, or name a decent reason why this construct should make 4x60 (240) powers only cost 5x30 (150), saving abour 35% cost.

I think the *idea* of an EC is good. The implementation which results in things like what you mention are bad.

I would leave the *idea* of an EC in, as it encourages thinking about character concept and the effects of that.
For example, I've long considered a change like this:

(1) When you take an Elemental Control, simply theme all your powers as you do now, etcetera etcetera.
(2) Once you have your EC, take a Disadvantage (above and beyond what you are normally allowed in total Disadvantages) that reflects the fact that when people look at you or the use of your powers, they can easily understand what it's all about.
This would probably translate into guessing correctly what their limitations would be, what their upper limits might be, what your character might be resistant or susceptible to, etcetera.
For example, if you were a Vampire, there's enough folklore out there that people can guess what your powers are all about. If you deviated significantly from that stereotype, you would NOT qualify for the bonus Disadvantage you could take for your EC.

"Savings" obviously come from being able to take an additional Disadvantage, one that simply put into numbers something you'd already suffer by virtue of your powers being tightly themed enough to be an EC.

[Grail Quest]

Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?

The two similar ones are VPP and MP. I think it's worthwhile to look at reconciling the overhead costs of VPP with the slot costs of MP, since a big enough MP could theoretically be better built into a VPP since the slot costs could exceed the control costs of a VPP.
An idea would be to put a cap on MP slot costs since after a while, you're just doing writeups for various things you'd pull out of your VPP.


Q: Should we change Multipower and VPP so that it’s the Real Points that have to fit into the Framework’s reserve/pool?

Yes. For one thing, MP reserves can be reduced by limitations that are common throughout the MP, which means the reserve is often virtually the RP anyway.
Also, advantages do not always translate into grotesque power. Sometimes you will want certain Advantages just to properly detail the power (like the flashlight from your utility belt shouldn't be costing you END to run).
Instead of AP or RP, what about using Base Points?
(Aside: I'd personally like to see way more things based off Base Points, like END costs and Area Effect sizes...)

[Tonio]

Heh. I had a friend who started GM'ing who had misunderstood the rules and thought that frameworks were limited by real and not active points. He came bitching to me that Hero system was useless, because every combat came down to who could hit with their instakill attack first.

It certainly was unbalancing, though I must admit I got a laugh out of one of his PCs who had some gigantic "meteor swarm" power that fired an autofire area effect RKA. He could only use it once a day, and there were a lot of other limitations, but then he rarely needed it more than that: He'd open every combat by essentially laying down an artillery barrage :D

cheers, Mark

I understand that, but you don't need Frameworks to get that. You can always buy: Killing Attack - Ranged 10d6 (150 Active Points); 1 Charge which Recovers every 1 Week (-2 1/2), OAF (-1), Costs Endurance (-1/2), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Concentration (0 DCV; -1/2), Lockout (-1/2), Beam (-1/4), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4), No Knockback (-1/4), Only In Heroic Identity (-1/4)... paying only 19 pts. :D

[Vulcan]

Personally, I think if you make MP's base on real points rather than active, then there becomes no functional difference between MP and VPP, since to balance the new MP rules you can't allow limitations on the reserve. The whole and only difference becomes that a MP's slots are fixed. And at that point, why bother with one? If you have more than two or three slots (characters tend to average 5ish) then the VPP is cheaper AND more flexible.

Keep the MP as-is. It fulfills a unique roll this way, rather than just being a limited VPP.

[Hugh Neilson]

I note that the real point approach would be very nice for characters who have an array of different limitations on their powers (which returns to my discussion of using "Var lim" on the pool in such cases, which seems to be what started the AP/RP discussion rolling).

Assume a character with 2 60 AP slots. One requires an OAF, and the other is 2x END and takes a full phase, so they both have -1 limitations.

Under the rules as written, he must pay 60 points for the pool, plus 3 for each slot, or 66 points.

If we allow a variable limitation on the pool with fixed limitations on the slots, he gets a -1/2 limitation on the pool (40 points) and still pays 3 for each slot, so 46 points.

If we move to the RP measure, then he buys a 30 point reserve and spends 3 points per slot, so 36 points.

Under the RP model, the character pays the same whether all of his slots have different limitations or they all have the same limitation. IMO, the one which has all the same limitations is the more restricted character, and his Multipower should cost more.

[Vulcan]

Ah, but if you're allowing limitations on the pool and allowing slots to work on real points, then the powers are limited twice without any loss in utility.

Not balanced, in my opinion.

[Tonio]

I see no reason not to merge VPPs and MPs, with a framework like Klaus has proposed. They conceptually work the same way (a pool of points that can be divided among several powers), and some of the differences shouldn't actually be differences (why aren't there any standard Limitations to make changing my MP slots take extra time, or require a skill roll, etc?). In fact, conceptually, a VPP is just a MP with a lot of slots.

[Hugh Neilson]

Ah, but if you're allowing limitations on the pool and allowing slots to work on real points, then the powers are limited twice without any loss in utility.

Not balanced, in my opinion.

I agree. Which is why I am not limiting the pool in my third example. To reiterate the examples:

Assume a character with 2 60 AP slots. One requires an OAF, and the other is 2x END and takes a full phase, so they both have -1 limitations.

Under the rules as written, he must pay 60 points for the pool, plus 3 for each slot, or 66 points.

If we allow a variable limitation on the pool with fixed limitations on the slots, he gets a -1/2 limitation on the pool (40 points) and still pays 3 for each slot, so 46 points.

If we move to the RP measure, then he buys a 30 point reserve and spends 3 points per slot, so 36 points.

Under the RP model, the character pays the same whether all of his slots have different limitations or they all have the same limitation. IMO, the one which has all the same limitations is the more restricted character, and his Multipower should cost more.

The RP model would have a 30 point Multipower pool for (obviously) 30 points. It has two slots:

- a 60 AP power with OAF, real cost 30.
- a 60 AP power with 2x END, Concentrate 0 DCV, real cost 30.

Just like the other two examples, he can use either power within the Pool, but only one at a time. But it's cheaper than either of those examples because he only needs a 30 real point pool (with no limitations) instead of a 60 AP pool (which may have limitations).

[Vulcan]

Ah. My mistake, I misunerstood.

[PhilFleischmann]

40 60 point Multipower reserve (OIF Ring)
4 u 12d6 Energy Blast, OIF Ring (60 AP; 40 RP)
2 u +15/+15 Force Field, OIF Ring (30 AP, 20 RP)

Total cost 46 points. Since he has a 60 point reserve, and the total of his EB and Force Field is 60 real points, he can have both active at the same time.
No, he can't. The pool is only 40 Real Points. He doesn't get to use 60 Real Points of power at the same time.

VPP gets around this by applying limitations to the Control Cost only. You get no price break on the pool, but the pool holds more powers if they're limited. To illustrate, Mr. Mystic wants a much more versatile power suite. This suite is only for attacks, and Mr. Mystic not only needs his Mystic Ring, he must also Gesture and Incant for total limitations of -1. He's going to have most of his powers in his Framework, and he wants a total of 120 AP available at any time, which is made up of 60 AP and 30 AP powers (he envisions typically using a 60 AP attack, a 30 AP defense and a 30 AP movement or miscellaneous power).

He builds a Multipower with a 120 point pool, because he needs 120 AP available at any one time. He Limits it so he pays 60 points. Then he buys his slots.

But he's so versatile he really needs a VPP. At first, he drafts it with a 120 AP pool - and he can't afford it because it needs to be Cosmic (+2), even with -1 limits it costs 210 points. [Ignoring whether he gets a limitation for "Magic only" - his GM says if magic can do anything, that's not a limitation.]

But his kindly GM also points out that, with -1 limitation on each power, a 60 AP attack uses 30 points of the pool, not 60. Mr. Mystic only needs a 60 point pool, so it only costs 105 points, not 210, to duplicate his Multi. It costs 45 points to have "unlimited slots" in the Multipower (the MP reserve having previously cost 60), or the equivalent of 15 full power Ultra slots.
I think the GM has reached the wrong conclusion here. Because each 60 AP attack power (with -1 in lims) takes only 30 points of the pool, he can have 4 different ones available at a time. Or 2 such attack powers, 2 defense powers, and 2 movement/misc powers available at one time. And yes, he probably doesn't need all that, so he can get away with a 60 point reserve, since none of the powers will be more than 60 AP, that's a standard VPP. The Control Cost is still 30 (half the max AP) x3 to make it "cosmic", for the same 90 points as before. Total cost: 150.

If we apply real points to the MP, Mr. Mystic can get by with a 60 point pool, limited down to 30, so the VPP option costs 75 points (25 max point slots) to implement.
Eh? Where did you get those numbers? He has powers that are 30 and 15 Real Points. If he wants to use one 30-pointer, and two 15-pointers at the same time, he needs 30+15+15 = 60 Real Points in his pool.

-----

And while we're on the subject (though I may have mentioned this before), I think that there is too big of a cost difference between fixed ("ultra") slots and flexible ("multi") slots. Here's a Mr. Mystic's MP, again:

40 60 point Multipower reserve (OIF Ring)
4 u 12d6 Energy Blast, OIF Ring (60 AP; 40 RP)
2 u +15/+15 Force Field, OIF Ring (30 AP, 20 RP)

He can use only one of these two powers at a time (though if he had another 20 RP slot, he could use that along with the Force Field), but if he spent 8 points for the EB slot, it could be flexible, and he could use a 6d6 EB, while maintaining his FF:

40 60 point Multipower reserve (OIF Ring)
8 m 12d6 Energy Blast, OIF Ring (60 AP; 40 RP)
2 u +15/+15 Force Field, OIF Ring (30 AP, 20 RP)

for 4 more points. But why would he do that, when he could only spend 2 points, and get:

40 60 point Multipower reserve (OIF Ring)
4 u 12d6 Energy Blast, OIF Ring (60 AP; 40 RP)
2 u 6d6 Energy Blast, OIF Ring (30 AP; 20 RP)
2 u +15/+15 Force Field, OIF Ring (30 AP, 20 RP)

It seems to me that a multi-slot is worth only about 1.5 times as much as an ultra slot, not twice as much. One possible way to impliment this is to call all MP slots "ultras" by default, and let them be bought as flexible "multis" for a +1/2 Advantage. Thus in a basic 60-point Reserve MP, and ultra would cost 6, and a multi would cost 9 (instead of 12).

Another way would be to do this in reverse: let MP slots be "multis" by default, and let them be bought as fixed "ultras" for a -1/2 Limitation. Thus, the multi would cost 12, and the ultra would cost 8 (instead of 6).

IMX, the vast majority of MP slots are bought as ultras, which suggests to me that either they're too cheap, or multis are too expensive.

[Vulcan]

IMX, the vast majority of MP slots are bought as ultras, which suggests to me that either they're too cheap, or multis are too expensive.

Or people aren't interested in using more than one power at a time out of their multipower...

[Hugh Neilson]

No, he can't. The pool is only 40 Real Points. He doesn't get to use 60 Real Points of power at the same time.
************************************************** *******
Eh? Where did you get those numbers? He has powers that are 30 and 15 Real Points. If he wants to use one 30-pointer, and two 15-pointers at the same time, he needs 30+15+15 = 60 Real Points in his pool.

And 60/2 for having -1 in limitations on the pool would be 30, hence my suggestion that the pool itself cannot be limited.

And while we're on the subject (though I may have mentioned this before), I think that there is too big of a cost difference between fixed ("ultra") slots and flexible ("multi") slots. Here's a Mr. Mystic's MP, again:

40 60 point Multipower reserve (OIF Ring)
4 u 12d6 Energy Blast, OIF Ring (60 AP; 40 RP)
2 u +15/+15 Force Field, OIF Ring (30 AP, 20 RP)

He can use only one of these two powers at a time (though if he had another 20 RP slot, he could use that along with the Force Field), but if he spent 8 points for the EB slot, it could be flexible, and he could use a 6d6 EB, while maintaining his FF:

Under the PROPOSED use of real points, his MP pool is 60 points, so he should be able to access 60 real points. Wasn't the whole point to limit powers active in the MP by real points, instead of active points?

[Markdoc]

They're an optional rule but they're a recommended guideline on pretty much every level of play. Now because not all effects will fit within the cap (especially with Linked powers) you don't want to make it an absolute, but you still need the guideline.

jg

I don't, and never have.

Actually, I can't recall ever playing in but one game that had AP caps, and they didn't work well there: when my brick hit the AP cap on STR, he just bought lots of SPD and DEX.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

I understand that, but you don't need Frameworks to get that. You can always buy: Killing Attack - Ranged 10d6 (150 Active Points); 1 Charge which Recovers every 1 Week (-2 1/2), OAF (-1), Costs Endurance (-1/2), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), Concentration (0 DCV; -1/2), Lockout (-1/2), Beam (-1/4), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4), No Knockback (-1/4), Only In Heroic Identity (-1/4)... paying only 19 pts. :D

True, but how much better to get that attack as an ultra for 2 points! :D

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

True, but how much better to get that attack as an ultra for 2 points! :D

cheers, Mark


OOOO! OOOO!


17 points better!

More seriously, enough 'better' to buy another 8 different attacks with the same restrictions, as added slots. So instead of just a KA, you also have:

- an Entangle (take him alive)

- some 1 hex area attacks for those hard to hit targets (including a Flash making it easy on your teammates)

- some Mental Attacks (why kill him if I can control him?)

- some AoE attacks to take out groups reliably

- may as well toss in a Megascale Continuous Charge NND to put entire cities to sleep (with PI, of course).

[James Gillen]

I don't, and never have.

Actually, I can't recall ever playing in but one game that had AP caps, and they didn't work well there: when my brick hit the AP cap on STR, he just bought lots of SPD and DEX.

cheers, Mark

Well there is that.

jg

[Klaus Mogensen]

Perhaps lightly off topic, but I would like to see ap caps replaced with something more flexible, like Fuzion's "Rule of X" formulas. (Champions TNM did have some good ideas, though it was woefully unfinished).

E.g., RoX = 2*DC + OCV + DCV + DEF can't exceed a certain value. A RoX cap of 60 could replace an ap cap of 60, allowing DC 10, DEF 20, OCV 10, DCV 10, or variations thereof. You would thus be able to trade toughness for litheness and offense for defense. At one extreme, you could have a character doing 30d6 damage, but having OCV 0, DCV 0 and DEF 0.

Preferably, most standard offensive maneuvers should be RoX neutral; i.e. the bonuses and penalties should cancel out.

- Klaus

[Tonio]

Perhaps lightly off topic, but I would like to see ap caps replaced with something more flexible, like Fuzion's "Rule of X" formulas. (Champions TNM did have some good ideas, though it was woefully unfinished).

E.g., RoX = 2*DC + OCV + DCV + DEF can't exceed a certain value. A RoX cap of 60 could replace an ap cap of 60, allowing DC 10, DEF 20, OCV 10, DCV 10, or variations thereof. You would thus be able to trade toughness for litheness and offense for defense. At one extreme, you could have a character doing 30d6 damage, but having OCV 0, DCV 0 and DEF 0.

Preferably, most standard offensive maneuvers should be RoX neutral; i.e. the bonuses and penalties should cancel out.

- Klaus

A problem with this is a similar one to the STUN Lotto problem. Having a character with, like you say, 30d6 damage and 0 OCV/DCV/DEF would have you either doing nothing and dying, or one-shotting. On average, it might be ok, but in each specific instance, the character is either ineffectual, or overpowered.

[PhilFleischmann]

And 60/2 for having -1 in limitations on the pool would be 30, hence my suggestion that the pool itself cannot be limited.
But you don't get to apply limitations to the pool. Not by the current rules, and not by any new rules that I've suggested (or anyone else, AFAICR). 60 *Real* points is 60 Real Points. You don't get to take the limitations twice. 60 Active, with -1 is 30 Real. 30 Active with -1 is 15 Real. If you want to be able to use one 60 A/30 R and two 30 A/15 R powers at the same time, you need a pool that is 30+15+15 = 60 R. In a Multipower it would be 60+30+30 = 120 Active and 30+15+15 Real. The Limitations have already been figured in. You don't get to figure them in a second time.

Under the PROPOSED use of real points, his MP pool is 60 points, so he should be able to access 60 real points. Wasn't the whole point to limit powers active in the MP by real points, instead of active points?
No. His MP pool is 60 *Active* points, and 40 *Real* points. And sure enough, that's exactly what he's accessing: 60 Active and 40 Real.

[Hugh Neilson]

But you don't get to apply limitations to the pool. Not by the current rules, and not by any new rules that I've suggested (or anyone else, AFAICR). 60 *Real* points is 60 Real Points. You don't get to take the limitations twice. 60 Active, with -1 is 30 Real. 30 Active with -1 is 15 Real. If you want to be able to use one 60 A/30 R and two 30 A/15 R powers at the same time, you need a pool that is 30+15+15 = 60 R. In a Multipower it would be 60+30+30 = 120 Active and 30+15+15 Real. The Limitations have already been figured in. You don't get to figure them in a second time.

No. His MP pool is 60 *Active* points, and 40 *Real* points. And sure enough, that's exactly what he's accessing: 60 Active and 40 Real.

The present system permits a MP with common limitations on all slots to reduce the cost of the pool. Which of the following correctly describes your proposed new system?

(a) If you have common limitations on the slots, they also apply to the cost of the pool. This reduces the real points available to allocate between the slots.

(b) There can be no limitations on the pool - its active and real point costs are always the same. The character can limit only the slots, which reduces both their cost and their real points.

(c) If there are common limitations on all the slots, the player may choose between applying these limitations to the pool as well, reducing both its cost and the real points available to the slots, or not applying the limitations to the pool, such that neither its cost nor its real points decline.

(d) Something else?

By the way, if we are allowing MP slots to exceed the AP of the pool, I assume the same would apply to VPP slots. Is that correct? We have had previous suggestions that AP in a VPP slot be limited to twice the base cost of the control cost (ie a 15 point control cost means VPP powers can have up to 30 AP, and a 60 point control cost allows their AP to be as high as 120, regardless of the real points in the pool). However, if the AP of MP slots can exceed the pool balance at no extra cost, it seems unreasonable to impose a cost on the VPP to enjoy the same advantage.

[SteveZilla]

I had a thought about allowing APs and RPs to be purchased independently for a framework (I may have read something like this elsewhere, so if I lifted the idea, I apologize). Here's the basis:

1. Purchase the AP limit at a cost of 1 per two APs.
2. Purchase the RP Limit at a cost of 1 per two RPs.
3. Advantages for the pool that affect all powers in the framework (if applicable) can be applied to the AP limit purchase.
4. Limitations for the pool that *must* affect all powers in the framework can be applied to the RP limit purchase.

I envision this as being much like a VPP in the time, difficulty, and Skill Roll to change powers at it's base level. And like a VPP this can be improved with Advantages.

Also, you can buy "hard-set" powers in a similar fashion as Fixed and Floating Multipower Slots. Think of them as a "naked Cosmic Advantage" limited to apply to only one power, the amount of limitation depends upon whether they tie up the power's full compliment of APs & RPs, or like a Floating slot you can "throttle" it and use less than max. Obviously, if the whole pool is Cosmic, there's no need to buy "hard-set" powers.

[JmOz]

I had a thought about allowing APs and RPs to be purchased independently for a framework (I may have read something like this elsewhere, so if I lifted the idea, I apologize). Here's the basis:

1. Purchase the AP limit at a cost of 1 per two APs.
2. Purchase the RP Limit at a cost of 1 per two RPs.
3. Advantages for the pool that affect all powers in the framework (if applicable) can be applied to the AP limit purchase.
4. Limitations for the pool that *must* affect all powers in the framework can be applied to the RP limit purchase.

I envision this as being much like a VPP in the time, difficulty, and Skill Roll to change powers at it's base level. And like a VPP this can be improved with Advantages.

Also, you can buy "hard-set" powers in a similar fashion as Fixed and Floating Multipower Slots. Think of them as a "naked Cosmic Advantage" limited to apply to only one power, the amount of limitation depends upon whether they tie up the power's full compliment of APs & RPs, or like a Floating slot you can "throttle" it and use less than max. Obviously, if the whole pool is Cosmic, there's no need to buy "hard-set" powers.

The problem with that idea is that it is permiting a character to get Real Points worth of powers at 1/2 cost,

[PhilFleischmann]

The present system permits a MP with common limitations on all slots to reduce the cost of the pool.
Yes, but not on the pool of a VPP.

Which of the following correctly describes your proposed new system?

(a) If you have common limitations on the slots, they also apply to the cost of the pool. This reduces the real points available to allocate between the slots.
This one. For MPs, not VPPs. This is functionally the same as how MPs work now. I am now proposing a change that way. For example:

60 Standard MP, no common limitations
6u Slot A
6u Slot B
6u Slot C

Here the Active Points and Real Points are the same. so the distinction doesn't really matter. When you distribute points, you're distributing both Active and Real Points.

40 MP 60-point Reserve with -1/2 common limitations
4u Slot A
4u Slot B
4u Slot C

Now, when you distribute the 60 Active points, that's exactly the same as distributing your 40 Real Points.

Here's what I am proposing be allowed (subject to GM approval as is everything else in the game):

60 MP Reserve (we'll assume no limitations for now)
6u Slot A - a normal 60 Active/60 Real slot
6u Slot B - a normal 60 Active/60 Real slot
6u Slot C - a "Special" slot - 120 Active Points with a -1 Limitation bringing it down to 60 Real

Essentially, you're distributing the 60 Real Points, instead of the 60 Active Points.
And here's one with common limitations on the Reserve:

40 MP 60-point Reserve with -1/2 in common limitations
4u Slot A - a normal 60 Active slot with -1/2 limitations = 40 Real
4u Slot B - a normal 60 Active slot with -1/2 limitations = 40 Real
4u Slot C - a "Special" slot - 120 Active Points with the common -1/2 limitations, plus an additional -1.5 in Limitations bringing it down to 40 Real

(b) There can be no limitations on the pool
This would be true for VPPs, as is the current rule.

By the way, if we are allowing MP slots to exceed the AP of the pool, I assume the same would apply to VPP slots. Is that correct?
No, that is not correct. I don't know why you would make that assumption. MPs and VPPs are not the same thing. Different things need to be treated differently.

We have had previous suggestions that AP in a VPP slot be limited to twice the base cost of the control cost (ie a 15 point control cost means VPP powers can have up to 30 AP, and a 60 point control cost allows their AP to be as high as 120, regardless of the real points in the pool).
Yes, I am one of those who suggests it, because I think it's a great idea, though it wasn't originally my idea.

However, if the AP of MP slots can exceed the pool balance at no extra cost, it seems unreasonable to impose a cost on the VPP to enjoy the same advantage.
Why? VPPs aren't the same as MPs. The pool of a VPP is the Real Point total of the powers in the pool, and you don't pay any price at all for the number of slots or different powers you could have in it. The vastly greater flexibility of a VPP (as compared to MP) should bear a cost.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Here's what I am proposing be allowed (subject to GM approval as is everything else in the game):

60 MP Reserve (we'll assume no limitations for now)
6u Slot A - a normal 60 Active/60 Real slot
6u Slot B - a normal 60 Active/60 Real slot
6u Slot C - a "Special" slot - 120 Active Points with a -1 Limitation bringing it down to 60 Real

Essentially, you're distributing the 60 Real Points, instead of the 60 Active Points.
And here's one with common limitations on the Reserve:

40 MP 60-point Reserve with -1/2 in common limitations
4u Slot A - a normal 60 Active slot with -1/2 limitations = 40 Real
4u Slot B - a normal 60 Active slot with -1/2 limitations = 40 Real
4u Slot C - a "Special" slot - 120 Active Points with the common -1/2 limitations, plus an additional -1.5 in Limitations bringing it down to 40 Real
If you base the reserve on real points instead of active points, you get the same result without having to fiddle around with 'common limitations':

60 MP reserve (real points)
6u Slot A - a 60 Active/60 Real slot
6u Slot B - a 60 Active/60 Real slot
6u Slot C - a 120 Active Points slot with a -1 limitation bringing it down to 60 Real

40 MP Reserve (real points)
4u Slot A - a 60 Active slot with -1/2 limitation = 40 Real
4u Slot B - a 60 Active slot with -1/2 limitation = 40 Real
4u Slot C - a 120 Active Points with a -2 limitation bringing it down to 40 Real

This is essentially what I have proposed with my unified Power Framework, which also includes some VPP-like features.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

This one. For MPs, not VPPs. This is functionally the same as how MPs work now. I am now proposing a change that way. For example:

60 Standard MP, no common limitations
6u Slot A
6u Slot B
6u Slot C

Here the Active Points and Real Points are the same. so the distinction doesn't really matter. When you distribute points, you're distributing both Active and Real Points.

40 MP 60-point Reserve with -1/2 common limitations
4u Slot A
4u Slot B
4u Slot C

Now, when you distribute the 60 Active points, that's exactly the same as distributing your 40 Real Points.

Here's what I am proposing be allowed (subject to GM approval as is everything else in the game):

60 MP Reserve (we'll assume no limitations for now)
6u Slot A - a normal 60 Active/60 Real slot
6u Slot B - a normal 60 Active/60 Real slot
6u Slot C - a "Special" slot - 120 Active Points with a -1 Limitation bringing it down to 60 Real

Essentially, you're distributing the 60 Real Points, instead of the 60 Active Points.

And here's one with common limitations on the Reserve:

40 MP 60-point Reserve with -1/2 in common limitations
4u Slot A - a normal 60 Active slot with -1/2 limitations = 40 Real
4u Slot B - a normal 60 Active slot with -1/2 limitations = 40 Real
4u Slot C - a "Special" slot - 120 Active Points with the common -1/2 limitations, plus an additional -1.5 in Limitations bringing it down to 40 Real

OK,let's take that as the approach we will use, and build on those examples to maintain a common baseline for discussion.

This would be true for VPPs, as is the current rule.


No, that is not correct. I don't know why you would make that assumption. MPs and VPPs are not the same thing. Different things need to be treated differently.

They also need to balance. The ability of a player to get 120 AP out of a 60 Real Point multipower reserve, but not out of a 60 Real Point VPP reserve, throws that balance off for me. I see no reason that higher AP, heavily limited power should be available through a Multipower, but not through a VPP.

To some extent, this comes from my own vision of the VPP as very much a Multipower with unlimited slots, such that it is natural for a character growing more versatile over time to shift from a Multipower to a VPP. A VPP is, after all, just a Multipower with unlimited slots. If the character has enough slots that it's cheaper to pay the control cost (with the Cosmic advantages and any relevant limitations) than the MP slot costs, the character's versatility has reached the point that he should have a VPP.

Yes, I am one of those who suggests it, because I think it's a great idea, though it wasn't originally my idea.

Why? VPPs aren't the same as MPs. The pool of a VPP is the Real Point total of the powers in the pool, and you don't pay any price at all for the number of slots or different powers you could have in it. The vastly greater flexibility of a VPP (as compared to MP) should bear a cost.

That cost should not relate to whether the VPP powers do, or do not, stick to powers with AP at or below the pool's real points. That flexibility has value even if the AP of all the slots equal or fall short of the pool.

I like the idea of a VPP having variable AP limits based on the points paid for the control cost, but I like this as compared to the current MP system. Under your proposed system, the Multipower gets the flexibility to exceed the pool for free, but the VP does not.

I don't find the VPP and Multipower out of balance at present. For that reason, I'm not in favour of providing greater flexibility, at no cost, to the Multipower alone.

Your system imposes no point cost on the MP user for exceeding the AP cap. This is extra flexibility provided to the MP. If such flexibility should carry a cost to the VPP user, it should logically also carry a cost to the MP user.

Now, your position may well be that VPP and MP are not appropriately costed, in comparison to one another, at present, but I don't see any such imbalance being corrected by making the rules for slots whose AP exceed the pool value.

Of the choices I listed for applying limitations to MP's under the real point version, I would suggest:

(b) is the choice which makes Multipowers most consistent with VPP's, so it's good from a consistency perspective.
(c) is the choice which provides the player with the most choice on how his character will work, but also adds the most complexity.
(a) seems to bring little to the table. Really, is there any difference between the following two constructs:

UNDER OPTION (a):

40 60 point Pool, -1/2 common limitation
4 60 AP slot, -1/2 common limitation
4 80 AP slot, -1/2 common limitation, -1/2 separate limitation
4 120 AP slot, -1/2 common limitation, -1 1/2 separate limitation

AND, UNDER OPTION (b):

40 40 real point Pool
4 60 AP slot, -1/2 common limitation
4 80 AP slot, -1/2 common limitation, -1/2 separate limitation
4 120 AP slot, -1/2 common limitation, -1 1/2 separate limitation

I don't see any need to preserve the ability to apply limitations to the pool if limitations on the slot can allow the slot's AP (but not RP) to exceed the AP (but not RP) of the pool. The AP of the pool is rendered meaningless by this change, so why track an AP separate from RP at all? With that in mind, allowing limitations on the pool seems to add complexity for no gain in functionality. Is there some gain in functionality that I am missing (as opposed to allowing limitations on MP pools solely because that's the way it has always been)?

[Hugh Neilson]

Further to the above, I would also note that this approach allows much greater point savings for a MP with slot limitations that are not common to all slots. Under the present model, a MP where each slot has -1 in different limitations, at the 60 AP level with 3 fixed slots, costs 60 for the pool and 9 for the slots. Under this model, I need pay only 30 for the pool, and 3 for each slot.

I had previously suggested allowing the -1/2 Variable Limitation on the pool, so pool cost 40 and slot cost 3 each makes 49. Replacing the AP limit with an RP limit would remove the need for allowing variable limitation on the pool.

It would not, however, remove the issue for a VPP. I would suggest that the VPP control cost should be allowed a limitation for "all VPP powers must have -X of limitations" where the control cost limit is 1/2 of X, same as Variable Limitations.

I would go one step further and suggest that, where a VPP is Cosmic (that is, the slots can be changed with neither skill roll nor time cost) the powers within the pool should be allowed only limitations fixed by the pool itself (ie if the control cost has OAF, such that all powers must have OAF) and Variable Limitation. There is no real difference between -1 in Limitations which you can reassign as a 0 phase action, and -1 in limitations on a power that can be changed, limitations and all, as a 0 phase action.

The ability to remove the limitations entirely makes the Cosmic VPP's limitations even less limiting. Limitations like Extra END, Extra Time or Beam Effect, which impact the power every time it is used, at least have some meaning. Limitations like "only vs fire damage" or "does not work at night" are pretty much meaningless when I can change the power's limitations at my discretion.

[Tonio]

Limitations like "only vs fire damage" or "does not work at night" are pretty much meaningless when I can change the power's limitations at my discretion.

Major nitpick... but "only vs. fire damage" is not meaningless. You might be hit by non-fire damage before the next time you can change slots, meaning you'd either take full damage, or need to abort next phase in order to change slots. (Assuming "at my discretion" doesn't include the ability to change slots on any Segment, and before any action, reacting retroactively, so to speak.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Major nitpick... but "only vs. fire damage" is not meaningless. You might be hit by non-fire damage before the next time you can change slots, meaning you'd either take full damage, or need to abort next phase in order to change slots. (Assuming "at my discretion" doesn't include the ability to change slots on any Segment, and before any action, reacting retroactively, so to speak.)

Yeah, I thought about it when I posted, and my intent is that changing the pool is a zero phase action. Still, "only vs. fire damage" when I can change it as soon as I expect to see non-fire damage (even if I have to abort) seems very much less limiting than being stuck with "only vs fire damage" at all time.

[Tonio]

Yeah, I thought about it when I posted, and my intent is that changing the pool is a zero phase action. Still, "only vs. fire damage" when I can change it as soon as I expect to see non-fire damage (even if I have to abort) seems very much less limiting than being stuck with "only vs fire damage" at all time.

It does. Dunno, mebbe Limitations in general should be worth less for VPPs. I'd probably disallow any and all Conditional Power Limitations, to start with. Halving the cost of Limitations for VPPs isn't really that much of a stretch... they already work sorta like Variable Limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

It does. Dunno, mebbe Limitations in general should be worth less for VPPs. I'd probably disallow any and all Conditional Power Limitations, to start with. Halving the cost of Limitations for VPPs isn't really that much of a stretch... they already work sorta like Variable Limitation.

I think it depends a lot on the VPP. That "only vs fire" is much more limiting if you need a period out of combat to change the VPP than if it's Cosmic. Conditional limitations have the same issue, and would be valid if they were mandatory, and also applied to the control cost. "Only at night" when you can change it at will is laughable, but "only at night" on all powers, or fixed until you get back to the lab, is much more limiting.

I might also allow "only at night" as one limitation in a Variable Limitation pool, but the others would need to have other effects (ie you don't get a -1/4 Var lim for "only at night" and "not at night" :eek:, but maybe for Only at Night and other limitations like 2x END, Full Phase, Act 14-, Concentration, etc.).

[PhilFleischmann]

If you base the reserve on real points instead of active points, you get the same result without having to fiddle around with 'common limitations':
That's right.

[PhilFleischmann]

They also need to balance. The ability of a player to get 120 AP out of a 60 Real Point multipower reserve, but not out of a 60 Real Point VPP reserve, throws that balance off for me. I see no reason that higher AP, heavily limited power should be available through a Multipower, but not through a VPP.
By the current rules, you can already get 120 Active Points out of a 60-point VPP. For instance, you could have two 60 AP powers, each with -1 in limitations, and have them both active at once. And with the proposed "Base Control Cost is half the Active Point limit" rule, you could have a single power of 120 Active Points, provided it had at least -1 of limitations.

That cost should not relate to whether the VPP powers do, or do not, stick to powers with AP at or below the pool's real points. That flexibility has value even if the AP of all the slots equal or fall short of the pool.
Under the current rules, you don't have any other choice. With the Control Cost is Half the AP Max rule, this cost is reflected.

I like the idea of a VPP having variable AP limits based on the points paid for the control cost, but I like this as compared to the current MP system. Under your proposed system, the Multipower gets the flexibility to exceed the pool for free, but the VP does not.
Well you still have to pay for the slot, and you have to take enough limitations, making the power less useful. You're still paying for the full real cost of the Reserve. And the more limited the Reserve is to begin with, the more additional limitations you need. You can see this in my examples, where the 60-point (unlimited) Reserve MP needs -1 in lims to fit a 120-AP power in, whereas the 40-Real-Point (60 with -1/2 in limitations) MP needs an additional -1.5 in lims to fit the 120-AP power.

I don't find the VPP and Multipower out of balance at present. For that reason, I'm not in favour of providing greater flexibility, at no cost, to the Multipower alone.
I understand this point, but I find that flexibility has diminishing returns. The proposal makes MPs more parallel to regular powers bought outside a framework. A plain "vanilla" 60-point power, and a 120-AP Power with -1 in lims both cost 60 points. Why should they cost different amounts in a MP when they cost the same outside it?

Your system imposes no point cost on the MP user for exceeding the AP cap. This is extra flexibility provided to the MP. If such flexibility should carry a cost to the VPP user, it should logically also carry a cost to the MP user.
But there are two different types of flexibility here. One is the flexibility at purchase time. The MP would allow greater flexibility in the choice of slots you can *buy*. But in play, the "use" flexibility is the same - you still have a fixed number of slots to choose between. 3 Slots of 60 AP each, one at a time, is no less flexible than 2 slots at 60 AP, and one at 120 AP with more limitations. Either way, you still have the choice of three powers to use. In the latter case, one of them is so highly limited, that you won't be using it so often.

Now, your position may well be that VPP and MP are not appropriately costed, in comparison to one another, at present, but I don't see any such imbalance being corrected by making the rules for slots whose AP exceed the pool value.
Just to be clear, that is not my position. This proposal is not intended to correct an imbalance, just to add to the ways a MP (and hence, a character) can be built.

Of the choices I listed for applying limitations to MP's under the real point version, I would suggest:

(a) seems to bring little to the table. Really, is there any difference between the following two constructs:

UNDER OPTION (a):

40 60 point Pool, -1/2 common limitation
4 60 AP slot, -1/2 common limitation
4 80 AP slot, -1/2 common limitation, -1/2 separate limitation
4 120 AP slot, -1/2 common limitation, -1 1/2 separate limitation

AND, UNDER OPTION (b):

40 40 real point Pool
4 60 AP slot, -1/2 common limitation
4 80 AP slot, -1/2 common limitation, -1/2 separate limitation
4 120 AP slot, -1/2 common limitation, -1 1/2 separate limitation
No. There is no difference between those two constructs. Of course, neither one of them is legal in the current rules.

I don't see any need to preserve the ability to apply limitations to the pool if limitations on the slot can allow the slot's AP (but not RP) to exceed the AP (but not RP) of the pool. The AP of the pool is rendered meaningless by this change, so why track an AP separate from RP at all?
I'd say that the AP of a Reserve or Pool is *already* meaningless. Only the AP of the slots/powers in the framework matter.

With that in mind, allowing limitations on the pool seems to add complexity for no gain in functionality. Is there some gain in functionality that I am missing (as opposed to allowing limitations on MP pools solely because that's the way it has always been)?
It saves space on the character sheet in the case of common limitations. You don't have to write "2x END cost" on each slot, you can just write it once on the top line of the MP, "All slots 2x END cost." Remember that my point was never about limitations on the pool, but about limitations to fit higher-AP powers into the pool. And frankly, MP Reserves are never really "limited" anyway, it's only the powers in the MP that are limited.

[PhilFleischmann]

Further to the above, I would also note that this approach allows much greater point savings for a MP with slot limitations that are not common to all slots. Under the present model, a MP where each slot has -1 in different limitations, at the 60 AP level with 3 fixed slots, costs 60 for the pool and 9 for the slots. Under this model, I need pay only 30 for the pool, and 3 for each slot.
That's correct. If there were only 2 slots, the whole MP would cost 60+6 = 60 under the current rules, whereas you could buy both powers with no MP for 30+30 = 60, and use them both at the same time. Under my proposal (it's not really "mine" I'm just one of the people supporting it), it would cost 30+6 = 36 points, as opposed to buying just one of the two powers for 30 points.

I had previously suggested allowing the -1/2 Variable Limitation on the pool, so pool cost 40 and slot cost 3 each makes 49. Replacing the AP limit with an RP limit would remove the need for allowing variable limitation on the pool.
Any of the three slots, purchased outside a MP would cost 30 points. Your proposal would make a MP with a choice between any one of those three slots at a time cost an additional 19 points. A MP of three unlimited 30-point powers would normally cost only an additional 9 points.

It would not, however, remove the issue for a VPP. I would suggest that the VPP control cost should be allowed a limitation for "all VPP powers must have -X of limitations" where the control cost limit is 1/2 of X, same as Variable Limitations.
Not a bad idea.

[PhilFleischmann]

I think it depends a lot on the VPP. That "only vs fire" is much more limiting if you need a period out of combat to change the VPP than if it's Cosmic. Conditional limitations have the same issue, and would be valid if they were mandatory, and also applied to the control cost. "Only at night" when you can change it at will is laughable, but "only at night" on all powers, or fixed until you get back to the lab, is much more limiting.

I might also allow "only at night" as one limitation in a Variable Limitation pool, but the others would need to have other effects (ie you don't get a -1/4 Var lim for "only at night" and "not at night" :eek:, but maybe for Only at Night and other limitations like 2x END, Full Phase, Act 14-, Concentration, etc.).
This issue comes up easily with VPPs, even without limitations. Suppose you have an NND, not vs. Self-Contained Breathing and you happen to come across someone with Self-Contained Breathing. Can you simply reallocate the points to an NND, not vs. Something Else? The GM always has to watch VPPs for "conditional abuse".

[Hugh Neilson]

By the current rules, you can already get 120 Active Points out of a 60-point VPP. For instance, you could have two 60 AP powers, each with -1 in limitations, and have them both active at once. And with the proposed "Base Control Cost is half the Active Point limit" rule, you could have a single power of 120 Active Points, provided it had at least -1 of limitations.

Your example is suspect. Let me offer a valid comparison. I pay 60 points for a VPP pool of 60. I buy 2 powers, both with an OAF, both 60 AP. I can have both active at the same time.

I buy a 120 point Multipower. It has an OAF. It costs 60 points. I buy 2 slots of 60 active points each. Both can be active at the same time.

Both abilities cost 60 points for the pool, plus their slot costs (individual for MP; control cost for VPP). Both can have 2 60 AP powers with the same -1 limitation active at the same time.

Now, if the -1 limitations differ, the VPP has a material advantage. Leveling the playing field could be accomplished by allowing the MP reserve a limitation equal to the limitations on each MP slot (ie if all slots have -1 in limitations, same or different, the pool gets -1 in limitations). It could be accomplished by allowing both MP and VPP to be based on real cost, and retaining the AP limit for both. Or we could scrap the AP limit for both, and have as level a field. But retaining the AP limit for one, and not the other, just creates a new non-level structure.

Under the base = 1/2 AP approach for a VPP, there is a doubled control cost to be permitted to have a 120 AP power in the VPP. Under your proposal for Multipower, accessing that same 120 AP carries no cost. Why is it worth an extra 30 points in a VPP, but should be granted at no cost to the Multipower?

Either this benefit has a value beyond that of the framework in general (and should increase the cost of both the VP and the multipower) or it does not (and both frameworks should receive this flexibility for free). Applying a cost for this flexibility to one framework, but not to the other, does not make sense to me.

Well you still have to pay for the slot

The control cost in the VPP replaces the individual slot costs in a Multipower. Why should the cost of the VPP control cost double to double the AP potential when the cost of a MP would not change at all to have a power with double AP instead of one with the usual AP and no limitations?

, and you have to take enough limitations, making the power less useful.

This is true of both the VPP and the Multipower.

You're still paying for the full real cost of the Reserve.

For both the Multipower and the VPP.

And the more limited the Reserve is to begin with, the more additional limitations you need. You can see this in my examples, where the 60-point (unlimited) Reserve MP needs -1 in lims to fit a 120-AP power in, whereas the 40-Real-Point (60 with -1/2 in limitations) MP needs an additional -1.5 in lims to fit the 120-AP power.

What I see there is that you need a total of -1 in limitations to fit 120 AP into 60 real points, and a total of -2 to fit 120 AP into 40 real points. That has nothing to do with whether the reserve is limited.

I understand this point, but I find that flexibility has diminishing returns. The proposal makes MPs more parallel to regular powers bought outside a framework. A plain "vanilla" 60-point power, and a 120-AP Power with -1 in lims both cost 60 points. Why should they cost different amounts in a MP when they cost the same outside it?

A 120 AP power with -1 in limitations costs 60 points. Why does a VPP need a 120 point pool to be capable of generating such a power? This question is just as valid for the VPP as for the Multipower.


Just to be clear, that is not my position. This proposal is not intended to correct an imbalance, just to add to the ways a MP (and hence, a character) can be built.

Why should we not add similar choice to VPPs at the same time?

[Markdoc]

By the current rules, you can already get 120 Active Points out of a 60-point VPP. For instance, you could have two 60 AP powers, each with -1 in limitations, and have them both active at once. And with the proposed "Base Control Cost is half the Active Point limit" rule, you could have a single power of 120 Active Points, provided it had at least -1 of limitations.

This is a terrible bug, not a feature. Under almost any situation a single 120 active point power is going to be far more useful than two 60 point powers.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

This is a terrible bug, not a feature. Under almost any situation a single 120 active point power is going to be far more useful than two 60 point powers.

Yup. I keep coming back to that 24d6 EB in my 60 AP multipower. Sure, I need -1 in limitations. Maybe that's 8 charges that Cost END. Maybe it's a Full Phase Beam Effect Act 15- power. There's all sorts of limitations I can choose. The power will have some issues, but it will still be functional.

Now either the opposition is built to stand up to my 24d6 blast, in which case the 60 AP powers that are the assumed norm for the game are pretty much useless, or that extra 12d6 tears through them.

If the target's big and tough, either 12d6 has no effect or 24d6 gets an extra 42 average STUN through. Maybe he's realy fast and agile. Spreading for +12 OCV turns a 5- to hit into a 17-, and I still get 12d6 damage on a guy probably built to be hurt by 6 or 8d6.

Comparing that to two 60 AP powers, they didn't hurt the big tough guy (he applied his defenses separately) or they didn't hit (I can't spread them both for 12DCs!). And that ignores the prohibition against using two attacks from the same framework in an MPA - I can't even use two 60 AP attack powers from my VPP (or multipower) at the same time.

Either I'm the only one who can affect the opponent, or I overpower my opponent (and overshador my teammates), or they all have the same extra DC builds and our regular attacks are useless against our opponents.

And what about the poor sucker with no framework to leverage those huge attacks into?

[Markdoc]

And what about the poor sucker with no framework to leverage those huge attacks into?

Natural selection. He goes extinct.

cheers, Mark

[Klaus Mogensen]

This is a terrible bug, not a feature. Under almost any situation a single 120 active point power is going to be far more useful than two 60 point powers.
I'm pretty sure that the VPP pool limits both the total real points and the active points of the individual powers. So you can't have a 120 active, 60 real power in a 60-point VPP.

- Klaus

[Markdoc]

I'm pretty sure that the VPP pool limits both the total real points and the active points of the individual powers. So you can't have a 120 active, 60 real power in a 60-point VPP.

- Klaus

Under the rules as they are now, you're right. But it was the suggested change to using real points as the limiter that I was referring to.

cheers, Mark

[Talon]

There are power constructs in Hero which break the standard Active Point scale without being abusive. The problem is that there's no way other than GM judgment to decide which constructs these are.

I'd rather see Active Point limits retained, and GMs can choose to ignore them under appropriate circumstances. If Real Points become the limit, there will be a lot of balance issues IMO.

[PhilFleischmann]

Your example is suspect. Let me offer a valid comparison. I pay 60 points for a VPP pool of 60. I buy 2 powers, both with an OAF, both 60 AP. I can have both active at the same time.

I buy a 120 point Multipower. It has an OAF. It costs 60 points. I buy 2 slots of 60 active points each. Both can be active at the same time.

Both abilities cost 60 points for the pool, plus their slot costs (individual for MP; control cost for VPP). Both can have 2 60 AP powers with the same -1 limitation active at the same time.

Now, if the -1 limitations differ, the VPP has a material advantage.
My proposal doesn't change that. The VPP already has that advantage.

Leveling the playing field could be accomplished by allowing the MP reserve a limitation equal to the limitations on each MP slot (ie if all slots have -1 in limitations, same or different, the pool gets -1 in limitations).
Fine. It's the same as buying Real Points for the MP Reserve, as you pointed out earlier, and I agreed. There's no difference between a 60-point reserve with a -1/2 limitation and a 40 Real-Point Reserve.

It could be accomplished by allowing both MP and VPP to be based on real cost, and retaining the AP limit for both. Or we could scrap the AP limit for both, and have as level a field. But retaining the AP limit for one, and not the other, just creates a new non-level structure.

Under the base = 1/2 AP approach for a VPP, there is a doubled control cost to be permitted to have a 120 AP power in the VPP. Under your proposal for Multipower, accessing that same 120 AP carries no cost. Why is it worth an extra 30 points in a VPP, but should be granted at no cost to the Multipower?
VPP is already based on Real Points. The Active Point limit is determined by the Control Cost, whereas the Active Point "limit" on a MP is paid for by fixed limitations, defined when the slot is purchased. One extra slot in a MP is only one power, fixed, determined at character creation time, even if it has a higher AP cost. A higher AP limit on a VPP represents a huge number of possible different powers. As I see it, a MP is more like a single power. Single powers (outside a framework) don't have any AP limit either - but each one is *one* power, defined when purchased. And there's no "cost" to the unlimited AP of a single power, either.

Either this benefit has a value beyond that of the framework in general (and should increase the cost of both the VP and the multipower) or it does not (and both frameworks should receive this flexibility for free).
This assumes that both frameworks work the same way. They don't. One has a specific finite list of pre-defined powers in it, and the other can have anything and can be changed on the fly.

Why should the cost of the VPP control cost double to double the AP potential when the cost of a MP would not change at all to have a power with double AP instead of one with the usual AP and no limitations?
Why should the cost of a MP increase to increase the AP potential when the cost of a single power would not change at all to have double AP instead of one with the usual AP and no limitations?

What I see there is that you need a total of -1 in limitations to fit 120 AP into 60 real points, and a total of -2 to fit 120 AP into 40 real points. That has nothing to do with whether the reserve is limited.
No. It has to do with the cost of the construct. Limitations have gradually diminishing values, just like they do for single powers.

A 120 AP power with -1 in limitations costs 60 points. Why does a VPP need a 120 point pool to be capable of generating such a power? This question is just as valid for the VPP as for the Multipower.
I don't think it is. The two frameworks are different.

Why should we not add similar choice to VPPs at the same time?
We should. That's what the Control Cost = 1/2 the AP limit proposal is for.

[PhilFleischmann]

This is a terrible bug, not a feature. Under almost any situation a single 120 active point power is going to be far more useful than two 60 point powers.
Right. And that's why you have to pay more for it. Under the current proposal (which many here have supported), it costs an additional 30 base points, before advantages are applied (like "cosmic").

If that's not enough, how much do you think it should cost? And don't just say, "You shouldn't be allowed to do it at all." Such a statement has no place in the Ultimate Gamers Toolkit. At some price, it should be fair.

Edit: And it should also be noted that a 120-AP power need not be a 24d6 blast. It could be a 12d6 AoE, which works just fine in a game that expects attacks of 12 DCs.

[Markdoc]

Right. And that's why you have to pay more for it. Under the current proposal (which many here have supported), it costs an additional 30 base points, before advantages are applied (like "cosmic").

If that's not enough, how much do you think it should cost? And don't just say, "You shouldn't be allowed to do it at all." Such a statement has no place in the Ultimate Gamers Toolkit. At some price, it should be fair.

Oh, sure. My rough estimate is that to contain a 120 active point power in a 60 point VPP, a +1 advantage on the VPP should cover it. In general, we could just simplify things by making the VPP 120 points. Actually, now I consider it, that seems like a remarkably sensible and robust solution.

There really isn't a need for "I want to be able to use powers worth more points than I am prepared to pay". One of the core rules of hero system is that limitations make things cheaper, not that they make them more powerful.

Seriously, the words "ultimate gamer's toolkit" should not be taken to mean "you can do anything, no matter how ill-advised". That's what house rules are for.

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

VPP is already based on Real Points.

No, VPP is partially based on Real Points. It still limits the AP of any power in the VPP to the VPP pool. This is a restriction based on active points. The maximum carried in the pool is based on real points, and you cannot limit the pool.

The restriction that no power in a Multipower may have AP greater than the reserve is set by the fact that multipower usage is based on active points instead of real points. It would certainly be possible to base a Multipower on real points, and still require all powers to have an AP cost no greater than the pool itself.

The Active Point limit is determined by the Control Cost

That is your proposal. Under the present rules, the pool determines the AP limit. The control cost is the cost charged for having unlimited slots which can only be changed in combat by using a full phase action and making a skill roll. This creates a breakpoint where it is more point-effective to have a VPP than a Multipower, where slots are paid for individually, rather than the fixed cost for unlimited slots paid in a VPP.

whereas the Active Point "limit" on a MP is paid for by fixed limitations, defined when the slot is purchased. One extra slot in a MP is only one power, fixed, determined at character creation time, even if it has a higher AP cost. A higher AP limit on a VPP represents a huge number of possible different powers. As I see it, a MP is more like a single power. Single powers (outside a framework) don't have any AP limit either - but each one is *one* power, defined when purchased. And there's no "cost" to the unlimited AP of a single power, either.

This assumes that both frameworks work the same way. They don't. One has a specific finite list of pre-defined powers in it, and the other can have anything and can be changed on the fly.

Why should the cost of a MP increase to increase the AP potential when the cost of a single power would not change at all to have double AP instead of one with the usual AP and no limitations?

As I see it, single powers don't benefit from the advantage of being in a framework. A character with a 60 point MP holding 2 slots, a 12d6 EB and a 12d6 Flash, has effectively paid 12 points for the Flash. He can add a 4d6 RKA for 6 more points. That doesn't mean I would let a second character buy a 12d6 Flash for 12 points, or a multipower with a 12d6 Flash and 4d6 RKA, but no EB, for 18 points.

A Multipower and a VPP are limited in AP to the pool. I have no great difficulty with this concept. They are no more different from each other (I would argue less different) than they are from purchasing a single, non-frameworked, power. The argument that non-framework powers don't pay for the ability to increase in AP is just as valid for not applying a cost to VPP's for such an increase as it is for not applying a cost to the Multipower.

I would say that I am opposed, but not strongly opposed, to basing both MP and VPP entirely on real points. I am strongly opposed to changing one and not the other.

I don't think it is. The two frameworks are different.

And a single power is different from both of them. If I buy a 24d6 EB with a total of -1 in limitations, it costs 60 points. And I don't get to use a 12d6 EB with no limitations instead if the limitations become inconvenient for an extra 12 points.

Right. And that's why you have to pay more for it. Under the current proposal (which many here have supported), it costs an additional 30 base points, before advantages are applied (like "cosmic").

Many have supported that proposal without supporting a similar proposal for Multipowers being applied with no cost. I am more supportive of the VPP proposal because it recognizes that a higher AP value has a benefit (and a lower AP max is a drawback). Your MP proposal grants that higher AP value for free. That is a very different proposal.

Edit: And it should also be noted that a 120-AP power need not be a 24d6 blast. It could be a 12d6 AoE, which works just fine in a game that expects attacks of 12 DCs.

A 12d6 AoE attack allows me to attack an entire team of opponents and ignore their DCV's. That's a lot more powerful than a 12d6 EB. And your proposal would allow the 24d6 EB just as easily as the 12d6 AoE.

Oh, sure. My rough estimate is that to contain a 120 active point power in a 60 point VPP, a +1 advantage on the VPP should cover it. In general, we could just simplify things by making the VPP 120 points. Actually, now I consider it, that seems like a remarkably sensible and robust solution.

I think a 120 point VPP is more powerful than a VPP which can have powers up to 120 AP, but only 60 RP of powers at any given time. Somewhere between the cost of 180 (120 pool + 60 control) and 90 points (60 point pool + 30 control), a reasonable price must lie.

[PhilFleischmann]

Oh, sure. My rough estimate is that to contain a 120 active point power in a 60 point VPP, a +1 advantage on the VPP should cover it. In general, we could just simplify things by making the VPP 120 points. Actually, now I consider it, that seems like a remarkably sensible and robust solution.
Assuming you mean that the +1 Advantage applies to the Control Cost, that's pretty much what the proposal is! (The only difference would be the effect of the cost when applying additional Advantages - which your method would actually make cheaper.)

There really isn't a need for "I want to be able to use powers worth more points than I am prepared to pay".
Of course not. No one is proposing that.

One of the core rules of hero system is that limitations make things cheaper, not that they make them more powerful.
Yes. And they actually make things less powerful.

[PhilFleischmann]

That is your proposal. Under the present rules, the pool determines the AP limit.
Well, the control cost determines it just as much, since they're in fixed proportion to each other. Call it the pool cost, or the base Control Cost x2, either way is the same.

As I see it, single powers don't benefit from the advantage of being in a framework.
You mean the DISadvantage of being in a framework. When they aren't in a framework, they can all be used at the same time, independently of each other. Drains and Dispels against one don't affect any others, etc. When you put them in a framework, you place restrictions on how many/much of them can be used at once, hence you get a price break.

That doesn't mean I would let a second character buy a 12d6 Flash for 12 points, or a multipower with a 12d6 Flash and 4d6 RKA, but no EB, for 18 points.
Nor would I, nor any other GM who understands the system.

A Multipower and a VPP are limited in AP to the pool. I have no great difficulty with this concept. They are no more different from each other (I would argue less different) than they are from purchasing a single, non-frameworked, power. The argument that non-framework powers don't pay for the ability to increase in AP is just as valid for not applying a cost to VPP's for such an increase as it is for not applying a cost to the Multipower.
Yeah, I get it. You think that MP and VPP are very similar. I don't.

I would say that I am opposed, but not strongly opposed, to basing both MP and VPP entirely on real points. I am strongly opposed to changing one and not the other.
Well, I'm not. I don't see any reason why these two different frameworks must be treated in the same way; that if a change is made to one, an analogous change must be made to the other. The Reserve of a MP can have limitations applied to it, but the Pool of a VPP cannot. Would you lift this restriction to make them more the same?

Many have supported that proposal without supporting a similar proposal for Multipowers being applied with no cost. I am more supportive of the VPP proposal because it recognizes that a higher AP value has a benefit (and a lower AP max is a drawback). Your MP proposal grants that higher AP value for free. That is a very different proposal.
Yes. They are two different proposals. Some people support the VPP proposal. Some people support the MP proposal. Some people support both. Some people support neither. I happen to support both. I am not claiming that there is any necessary link between the two.

A 12d6 AoE attack allows me to attack an entire team of opponents and ignore their DCV's. That's a lot more powerful than a 12d6 EB. And your proposal would allow the 24d6 EB just as easily as the 12d6 AoE.
The proposal would, but the GM might not.

I think a 120 point VPP is more powerful than a VPP which can have powers up to 120 AP, but only 60 RP of powers at any given time. Somewhere between the cost of 180 (120 pool + 60 control) and 90 points (60 point pool + 30 control), a reasonable price must lie.
Right.

Single 120-point power with no lims = 120
Single 120-point power with -1/2 = 80
Single 120-point power with -1 = 60
Standard VPP of 120 points = 180
Standard VPP of 60 points = 90

Where does the proposed VPP with 60 Real Points in the Pool, but up to 120 Active Point powers are allowed fit in (which would mean that a single 120-AP power in it would have to have -1 in lims)? How much is it worth, relative to the above? The proposal has it at 120.

[Markdoc]

I think a 120 point VPP is more powerful than a VPP which can have powers up to 120 AP, but only 60 RP of powers at any given time. Somewhere between the cost of 180 (120 pool + 60 control) and 90 points (60 point pool + 30 control), a reasonable price must lie.

Sure, I'd agree. In my case I'd say that the difference in the control cost should cover that. Since you can cram a LOT of powers into 60 RP, the difference should not be huge. And since a pool that can generate 120 AP powers is much, much more valuable than one that can only generate 60 AP powers, even with a 60 RP limit, it should also be much, much more expensive.

Given that, I'd set it at 160 RP (120 pool + 40 control: 60 limited by "only 60 RP active at one time, -1/2") though the exact number is obviously open to discussion. The fact that the 60 RP limit makes it significantly less flexible than the unrestricted pool is offset by the fact that you have saved enough points for a +6 CSL with your pool or +2 SPD. The fact that you'll totally trash an opponent with a 60 AP pool is offset by the fact that you spent 3/4 as much again.

Seems pretty balanced to me.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Assuming you mean that the +1 Advantage applies to the Control Cost, that's pretty much what the proposal is! (The only difference would be the effect of the cost when applying additional Advantages - which your method would actually make cheaper.)

Nope - to the pool and control cost. What I am really suggesting is that we stick with current approach. Want a bigger power? Buy a bigger pool. I've seen what happens when VPPs run off real points and "ugly" doesn't even begin to describe it. Nor can I see any upside: VPPs are already highly effective, trading raw power for flexibility. Now you want to add the ability to increase raw power as well? Ummm ... why?

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Single 120-point power with no lims = 120
Single 120-point power with -1/2 = 80
Single 120-point power with -1 = 60
Standard VPP of 120 points = 180
Standard VPP of 60 points = 90

Where does the proposed VPP with 60 Real Points in the Pool, but up to 120 Active Point powers are allowed fit in (which would mean that a single 120-AP power in it would have to have -1 in lims)? How much is it worth, relative to the above? The proposal has it at 120.

To me, that's pretty incontrovertible evidence that the proposal is a really bad idea (TM). If you can buy a pool for the same cost as a single power of the same AP, then the proposal is broken, because the pool is flexible while the single power is not.

cheers, Mark

[tesuji]

To me, that's pretty incontrovertible evidence that the proposal is a really bad idea (TM). If you can buy a pool for the same cost as a single power of the same AP, then the proposal is broken, because the pool is flexible while the single power is not.

cheers, Mark

Well you left out one tiny bit... the fact that to fit in the pool of 60 the 120 ap power has to have -1 limitations. So its not getting "a pool og 120 pt powers for the cost of a single pre-set power" but rather "a pool of heavily limited 120 pt powers" for the cost of a single 120 pt power"


For another comparison -consider the cost of a single 120 pt power - say 24d6 eb as compared to the same power in a multipower with a common -1 lim - say focus... one can have TEN 120 pt powers in that multipower (all at the same -1 focus lim) for the same price as the SINGLE 120 pt 24 d6 unlimited EB.

Thats by current rules.

So, having one 120 pt unlimited power costing the same as having TEN -1 limited 120 pt powers is the standard now.

So, one to ten is okey dokey, right?

So the question might be, how much more powerful is "any 120 pt power, one at a time, requiring non-combat time to change" then "your chosen ten 120 pt powers one at a time a a free action change"?

[Markdoc]

Well you left out one tiny bit... the fact that to fit in the pool of 60 the 120 ap power has to have -1 limitations. So its not getting "a pool og 120 pt powers for the cost of a single pre-set power" but rather "a pool of heavily limited 120 pt powers" for the cost of a single 120 pt power"


Yeah. And that sounds like a "too good to be true" deal - particularly as you get a pool of unlimited 60 point powers thrown in on the side. -1 is not that hard to hit - particularly since you can configure those points to your best advantage to stomp your hapless foe ... plus the ability to reconfigure those points later on. Where it gets really fugly is when you add in a more limitations. Now you are cranking out 180 or 240 points for the price of your opponent's 120 point power - plus you still have points in the pool for other stuff.

In contrast, Mr one-power has, well, his one power.

Regarding the multipower stuff which I snipped, it's important to realise that one of the major advantages of a VPP compared to a MP is that you can often have multiple powers running at full active points at one time, which you cannot with an MP. That's one reason why you can't limit the pool cost in the current system. Likewise, to go on the MP reserve, a limitation has to affect all slots - but the price break you get on all slots is minimal - not so with a VPP, where a limitation can give you a big price break on a single power. And you certainly can't take a -1 lim on a MP slot and blow it's AP up to double the active cost of the reserve.

cheers, Mark

[tesuji]

Yeah. And that sounds like a "too good to be true" deal - particularly as you get a pool of unlimited 60 point powers thrown in on the side. -1 is not that hard to hit - particularly since you can configure those points to your best advantage to stomp your hapless foe ... plus the ability to reconfigure those points later on. Where it gets really fugly is when you add in a more limitations. Now you are cranking out 180 or 240 points for the price of your opponent's 120 point power - plus you still have points in the pool for other stuff.

In contrast, Mr one-power has, well, his one power.


Which he can use anytime with no restrictions.

IMX by the time you start applying those -2 to -4 worth of restrictions you need to get your afore mentioned 240 pt power for a 60 pt pool, you have a wonderful power but that can only rarely be used, ESPECIALLY in light of how strict gms tend to be regarding limitations taken on vpp slots actually having to be limited. Heck, once a day is only -2 after all.

and without paying extra pts we are still only considering a pool that is changed out of combat, iirc so did you have the right powers dialed in before the combat started? of course the skill to change in combat can be bought but then we are not talking 120 vs 120 and the cost for enough levels to reliably dial-in in combat 120 ap is not negligable




Regarding the multipower stuff which I snipped, it's important to realise that one of the major advantages of a VPP compared to a MP is that you can often have multiple powers running at full active points at one time, which you cannot with an MP. That's one reason why you can't limit the pool cost in the current system. Likewise, to go on the MP reserve, a limitation has to affect all slots - but the price break you get on all slots is minimal - not so with a VPP, where a limitation can give you a big price break on a single power. And you certainly can't take a -1 lim on a MP slot and blow it's AP up to double the active cost of the reserve.

cheers, Mark

Except for focusa which seems to get a broad exception, limits on vpp control cost have to affect the pool powers although gm exception can be allowed. (the focus exception seems to be for gadget pools thespecific type of focus isn't universal.)

but to me the big difference between the two in functionality is the time to change - out of combat vs free action in combat - and that goes a long way in my book when comparing vpp vs mp costing. IMX cosmic pools are rare, as their cost "seems high" to many players for their gain.

Aside - to me the difference between vpp and MP is this - mp are TACTICAL pools allowing you a variety of useful options on the fly in combat and when action is immediate - while vpps are strategic - allowing you to dial in specialty powers when you have enough time and information to plan ahead for the necessity. While one can try and make a MP handle strategic issues and vpps handle tactical issues - for the most part they do the other's job fairly poorly in contrast. Obvious campaign differences apply as in if your gm loves villains from the kryptonian design school - incredibly vulnerability to one thing and overly powerful otherwise - then vpps can be especially effective. but for a more typical campaign the mp would be my tactical choice.

In my experience, having ten effective powers to choose from is usually sufficient to have a very effective character. So the difference between "ten powers" and "all the powers your vpp concept allows" is not that big of a deal to me.

So then when it becomes choosing one of "ten powers which you can choose between as a free action" vs choosing one of "all the powers your concept allows for but you must choose them before the combat starts" then thats not that good of a deal at all... give me the former.

that "free action to change" vs "minutes to changes out of combat" is a big 500 lb gorilla and cutting that down to a 14- skill roll takking a full phase for this 120pt power costs about 27 pts for an 11-.

[tesuji]

FWIW as a more direct comment on the general discussion...

I am in favor of keeping the VPP MP current rules as far as the pool cost limiting the AP of slots. I think switching these to be RP limits alone would create a host of balance issues to be addressed for very minimal gain.

Also, i think that if the AP limit were dropped for rp limits, it should apply to both.

finally, i think what is needed for vpps is a "half ap limit" limitation that could be placed on the control cost to say "hey, i cannot have powers more than half the pool size" so that one could by a 60 pt vpp and get a lim on the cc for "only 30 pt or less powers". to allow for the "lot of little powers" vpp. I dont think you need a way to use the cc to raise the ap limit beyond the basic pool cost. This provides TWO WAYS to buy "power size" for a vpp and thats madness. at least from a simplicity or balance standpoint. you just create a whole brand new set of values to be munchkinized.

IMO...

[tesuji]

And one more odd thought i have had from time to time.... for consideration...

How necessary are Mp and VPP for the game IF the power skill were ramped up in capability (with appropriate costing) and flexiblility of powers was thus increased by use of this skill and in essence "power stunting" became a core common-place element of the game?

If one could buy the skill enough to make changes like "my 12d6 eb firebolt becomes an rka or a flash or churns out smoke" (maybe to lesser potency depending on skill roll) and if for a lot of points your "green telekinesis can do a WHOLE LOT OF THINGS then it seems to me you arrive at losing a lot of the need for VPP and MP with one fairly simple fairly universal in application "power skill" system.

a thought.

[Marcus]

See, if anything, I've been uncomfortable with the way the Power Skill treads on the toes of established constructs as it is.

I think the fairly carefully defined (if, betimes, complex and limiting) structure for 'power, its tricks, and everything you can do with it' structures, namely Multipower and VPP, do a pretty good job.

While there is a possibility someone could propose an up-costed, up-effect 'Power Stunt Skill' that could duplicate any of a gun-multipower, spell mutlipower, gadget pool, magic pool, or cosmic pool so well that I would not feel their loss and would find the Power Skill application superior, I cant (for now) think of what it would look like.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, the control cost determines it just as much, since they're in fixed proportion to each other. Call it the pool cost, or the base Control Cost x2, either way is the same.

The pool determines both AP and base control cost.

You mean the DISadvantage of being in a framework. When they aren't in a framework, they can all be used at the same time, independently of each other. Drains and Dispels against one don't affect any others, etc. When you put them in a framework, you place restrictions on how many/much of them can be used at once, hence you get a price break.

I mean the cost ADVANTAGE of being in a framework.


Nor would I, nor any other GM who understands the system.

So you agree that there is a masive difference between a single power and a framework. That's a start.


Well, I'm not. I don't see any reason why these two different frameworks must be treated in the same way; that if a change is made to one, an analogous change must be made to the other. The Reserve of a MP can have limitations applied to it, but the Pool of a VPP cannot. Would you lift this restriction to make them more the same?

Actually, under your proposal, we match the restrictions. Neither the VPP nor the Multipower would be permitted to have limitations on the reserve, and the maximum slots active at one time would be limited based on real points, not active points.

CONSIDER:

Current SystemI want a pool of powers which are all OAF. I want them all to have 60 AP. I want to use two at a time. I can either:

(a) buy a 120 point Multipower pool, and purchase an array of 60 AP slots. The pool costs 60 points, because it is OAF. The slots cost what they cost. I can have 120 AP active at once, which is two 60 AP slots.

(b) buy a 60 point VPP pool, and purchase unlimited slots (the control cost). The pool costs 60 points, because it cannot be limited. The control cost is what it is. I can have 60 RP active at once, which is two 60 AP slots, each with the -1 OAF limitation.

Identical pool cost. Identical results.

Phil's System Note that this does not address having powers of AP greater than 60 - that is not the goal at this time.

(a) buy a 60 point Multipower pool, and purchase an array of 60 AP slots. The pool costs 60 points, because it can no longer be limited. The slots cost what they cost. I can have 120 AP active at once, which is two 60 AP slots, as that totals 30 RP each, 60 in total.

(b) buy a 60 point VPP pool, and purchase unlimited slots (the control cost). The pool costs 60 points, because it cannot be limited. The control cost is what it is. I can have 60 RP active at once, which is two 60 AP slots, each with the -1 OAF limitation.

Identical pool cost. Identical results.

Your proposal, to this point, brings the two frameworks closer together. Neither can limit their pool cost, and both base the total powers active at one time on RP instead of AP. This is not a bad step, in my opinion.

Now, we can either have both pools restricted to powers with AP no greater than the pool (present model), allow both pools to have powers of any AP, as long as they can shoehorn into the real point limit, or give one the ability to enhance AP but not permit that for the other (your proposal).

I find the current system balances the two frameworks AND is balanced in the context of the game as a whole. The second approach leaves the framneworks balanced, but I agree with Markdoc and others that it unbalances both frameworks as compared to other builds. Your approach, frankly, balances nothing. You don't want to hear it, but that's the facts.

The proposal would, but the GM might not.

I suggest, then, that the problem in your examples might be that AoE is overpriced, an issue not fixed by your "leverage in it in a framework" approach.

Single 120-point power with no lims = 120
Single 120-point power with -1/2 = 80
Single 120-point power with -1 = 60
Standard VPP of 120 points = 180
Standard VPP of 60 points = 90

Where does the proposed VPP with 60 Real Points in the Pool, but up to 120 Active Point powers are allowed fit in (which would mean that a single 120-AP power in it would have to have -1 in lims)? How much is it worth, relative to the above? The proposal has it at 120.

Sure, I'd agree. In my case I'd say that the difference in the control cost should cover that. Since you can cram a LOT of powers into 60 RP, the difference should not be huge. And since a pool that can generate 120 AP powers is much, much more valuable than one that can only generate 60 AP powers, even with a 60 RP limit, it should also be much, much more expensive.

Given that, I'd set it at 160 RP (120 pool + 40 control: 60 limited by "only 60 RP active at one time, -1/2") though the exact number is obviously open to discussion. The fact that the 60 RP limit makes it significantly less flexible than the unrestricted pool is offset by the fact that you have saved enough points for a +6 CSL with your pool or +2 SPD. The fact that you'll totally trash an opponent with a 60 AP pool is offset by the fact that you spent 3/4 as much again.

Seems pretty balanced to me.

I think the bottom line to me is that I don't like being able to leverage a 60 point pool, Multipower or VPP, into a 120, 180 or 240 point power. And Phil, you're setting a 30 point premium (120 vs 90) on a 60 point VPP to be permitted to reach 120 AP, but you're proposing a 60 point MP be permitted to reach that level, or much higher, for no extra cost whatsoever. Yes, the slot has to be limited. So does the VPP slot. Yes, the VPP can switch to something else. The MP can switch to anothr slot. That control cost pays for the unlimited number of slots - that's all it does. More on that later.

In my experience, having ten effective powers to choose from is usually sufficient to have a very effective character. So the difference between "ten powers" and "all the powers your vpp concept allows" is not that big of a deal to me.

I don't disagree. Now, make one of those powers have 4x the AP of the other 9, and that one power creates a major balance issue, in my view. I think you agree, tesuji. It's pretty clear Phil does not.


So then when it becomes choosing one of "ten powers which you can choose between as a free action" vs choosing one of "all the powers your concept allows for but you must choose them before the combat starts" then thats not that good of a deal at all... give me the former.

that "free action to change" vs "minutes to changes out of combat" is a big 500 lb gorilla and cutting that down to a 14- skill roll takking a full phase for this 120pt power costs about 27 pts for an 11-.

The cost of moving from "change only OOC" to "change at will" on a 60 point pool is 60 more points, placing the Cosmic advantages on the control cost. You now have a 60 point pool with a 90 point control cost. The comparable Multipower has 15 slots, all fixed. Perhaps 15 fixed slots is not enough. This would imply that the Cosmic advantages are underpriced. I haven't found that to be the case, but I haven't seen a ton of cosmic VPP's either. And limitations on such powers would be pretty restructed - given they can be changed at will anyway, maybe those limitations should be eliminated with only Variable Limitation (half the value of the limitations applied) being permitted.

[PhilFleischmann]

Nope - to the pool and control cost.
Huh? +1 on both? Why would anyone buy that when they could just buy a VPP that's twice as big, and not have to put *any* limitations on it?

VPPs are already highly effective, trading raw power for flexibility. Now you want to add the ability to increase raw power as well? Ummm ... why?
That would not be an accurate characterization. What I want to do is allow trading limitations for raw power. (I assume by "raw power" you mean Active Points.) The Real Cost of powers in the pool would remain the same.

And remember, it wasn't my proposal, several others before me endorsed it.

To me, that's pretty incontrovertible evidence that the proposal is a really bad idea (TM). If you can buy a pool for the same cost as a single power of the same AP, then the proposal is broken, because the pool is flexible while the single power is not.
I'm not following your leap of logic here. I asked you how much it's worth. Yes, it's worth more than 90 points. I hope we can agree that it's worth less than 180 points. Somewhere in between is a fair price.

Let's look at the limits again:

Single 120-point power with no lims = 120
Single 120-point power with -1/2 = 80
Single 120-point power with -1 = 60
Standard VPP of 120 points = 180
Standard VPP of 60 points = 90

To me, this is pretty incontrovertable proof that the fair price is more than 90 and less than 180. In your other post you proposed a cost of 160 (120 for the pool and 40 for the Control 60, with -1/2 limitation).

For that price, you could have a 106-point VPP (106 for the pool and 53 for the control cost, that's 159 points). Is the +14 Active Points limit really worth the -46 Real Point limit?

[SteveZilla]

The problem with that idea is that it is permiting a character to get Real Points worth of powers at 1/2 cost,

The framework I was suggesting follows both Real and Active point limits -- it just allows you to buy them to seperate levels. To me, it seems that any kind of pool that allows for different limits would have this possibly abusable point.

To avoid someone buying a 2 RP/198 AP limit pool in an attempt to abuse "buying PR powers at half-cost", it could easily include a warning like "The GM decides what constitues a valid ratio of RP to AP in this framework because it is possible otherwise to buy RP powers at nearly half-cost."

Not to mention that the GM also gets to approve of each power (and it's Limitations) within the pool. So he may let you have the 2/198 pool, but if you can't get him to rubber stamp the -20 in Limitations... :eg:

[JmOz]

The framework I was suggesting follows both Real and Active point limits -- it just allows you to buy them to seperate levels. To me, it seems that any kind of pool that allows for different limits would have this possibly abusable point.

To avoid someone buying a 2 RP/198 AP limit pool in an attempt to abuse "buying PR powers at half-cost", it could easily include a warning like "The GM decides what constitues a valid ratio of RP to AP in this framework because it is possible otherwise to buy RP powers at nearly half-cost."

Not to mention that the GM also gets to approve of each power (and it's Limitations) within the pool. So he may let you have the 2/198 pool, but if you can't get him to rubber stamp the -20 in Limitations...

My concern is the opposite direction

Using your system

I buy 30 points active for 15
I buy 60 points Real for 30
Total cost 45

I then use the framework to constantly have 15/15 Force Field and 15" Flight, 60 points of powers for 45. No matter how you do it, if the Real cost points are higher than the active points you will wind up getting more points of powers than if you did not, plus the versitility of the framework

Real Points needs to be unmodifiable 1:1 as a minimum to prevent this kind of abuse

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm not following your leap of logic here. I asked you how much it's worth. Yes, it's worth more than 90 points. I hope we can agree that it's worth less than 180 points. Somewhere in between is a fair price.

Let's look at the limits again:

Single 120-point power with no lims = 120
Single 120-point power with -1/2 = 80
Single 120-point power with -1 = 60
Standard VPP of 120 points = 180
Standard VPP of 60 points = 90

To me, this is pretty incontrovertable proof that the fair price is more than 90 and less than 180. In your other post you proposed a cost of 160 (120 for the pool and 40 for the Control 60, with -1/2 limitation).

For that price, you could have a 106-point VPP (106 for the pool and 53 for the control cost, that's 159 points). Is the +14 Active Points limit really worth the -46 Real Point limit?

VPP Proposal Only

On that basis, Phil, let's compare your proposal. Markdoc gets 120 real points available, with a maximum 60 AP, for 160 points. As I understand your proposal, a character wanting that mix would pay 120 for the pool. He wants a maximum 60 AP power, so he pays 60 x 1/2 = 30 for the control cost. That's 150 points, a 10 point difference from Markdoc's suggested cost. How does that compare to:

- a 100 point VPP with up to 100 AP powers (costs 150 at present and under your model)?

- a 60 point pool with up to 180 AP powers (costs 60 + 90 = 150 under your proposal)?

Compare to MP Proposal

Moving to your MP proposal, I would pay 60 + 90x3 = 330 to make that VPP switch slots like a Multipower. As such, your Multipower proposal allows a 60 point pool plus 45 slots (all 180 AP with -2 limitations, all 60 AP with no limitations or mix & match with some 60 AP, some 90 with -1/2; some 120 w/ -1, some 150 w/ -1 1/2 and some 180 w/ -3).

To pick a simplistic series of powers:

- 12d6 EB
- 18d6 EB, 2x END
- 24d6, 2x END, Restrainable, Full Phase
- 30d6 EB, 2x END, Full Phase, Restrainable
- 36d6 EB, 2x END, Full Phase, Restrainable, concentrate 0 DCV

Now add a suite of advantages offset by limitations at various levels to fill and/or more powers of various types within this range. You get 30 more slots. Hmmm... +20 PD Armor, +20 ED Armor, +15 Sight Flash Def, +15 Pow Def, +15 Mental Def, +15 Hear Flash Def, +15 Smell FLash Def, 15 Lack of Weakness, -10" Knockback Resistance Nonpersistent (-1/4), Visible (-1/4) Full Phase (-1/2), Concentrate 0 DCV throughout (-1). Pretty effective Turtle assuming his defenses were competetive when he attacked. And it's only one slot of 45. Make them Flex slots for each defense, with higher maxima, and he's even more effective - we'll use 5x as many available slot points though (doubled for Flexible, so 2.5x the defense max) and "only" have 40 slots available for attacks.

I find this unbalanced, Phil. The more I work through examples, the more unbalanced I find it. And I'm really not trying very hard to work the system.

[Klaus Mogensen]

A slightly simpler version of my proposed unified framework:

Variable Power
You set aside a pool of points that can be used as different Powers, or combinations of Powers, at different times. The selection of Powers can either be limited or unlimited.
Pool: The total Real Cost of the selected Power, or combination of smaller Powers, cannot exceed what you pay for the Pool. Pool Cost: 1 point per point of maximum Real Cost active in the Variable Power.

Limited Selection: You can only select Powers from a prepared list of specific Powers. You can put as many Powers as you wish on the list, at a cost of 1 points per total 10 points Real Cost of the listed Powers. When you select a listed Power to be active, its full Real Cost counts towards the Pool, even if the Power isn't used at full power. Limited Selection Cost: 1 point per 10 points total Real Cost of the listed Powers.

Unlimited Selection:[STOP SIGN] You can select any Power, or combination of smaller Powers, (subject to GM approval) with a total Real Cost not exceeding the Pool. In general, the selection is restricted to a limited class of Powers, e.g. Fire Powers, Powers the Opponent Has, or Magic Spells (with the associated required limitations). If there are no such restrictions, this is a +½ advantage on the Unlimited Selection Cost. If the selection is restricted to a very limited class of Powers (e.g. Drains, Necromantic Magic, or Movement Powers), this is a -½ limitation on the Unlimited Selection Cost. Unlimited Selection Cost: Equal to Pool Cost. No Restrictions on Selection: +½ advantage. Very Limited Selection: -½ limitation.

Using a Variable Power: Normally, you can change the selected Power, or combination of Powers, as a 0-phase action. If it takes longer to change, this is a limitation on the Selection Cost:
-½: Power selection can be changed as a ½-phase action
-1: Power selection can be changed as a full-phase action
-1½: Changing Power selection takes 1d6 turns
-2: Power selection can only change between scenes; this typically takes several hours or even days and may require access to a workshop, spell book library or place of worship
-¼ less: The Variable Power can be changed one step faster if the character makes a successful roll on a suitable Power Skill (e.g. Magic Skill or Gadgeteering).

Limits on the Variable Power:

If the campaign has an Active Cost limit, this applies to the Variable Power as well. Even if there is no general campaign limit, the GM may want to impose an Active Cost limit to Variable Powers, particularly if the selection can be changed in combat.
Powers can't have a Conditional Power limitation unless it is shared by all the Powers in the Variable Power.
Unless shared by all the Powers in a Variable Power, limitations should in general be limited to a maximum of -1.

Option: No Control of Change. If this option is taken, the character has no control of when and how the Variable Power changes; the change is determined by external circumstances. Examples are Powers that change with the time of day or the phase of the moon, or a defense that adapts to the last attack the character was hit by. In general, this is a -½ limitation on the Selection Cost, though if the Powers change in combat even if the character is stunned, unconscious or unaware of the triggering circumstances, it is a +0 advantage.

Option: Multiple Selections. In general, only one Selection is associated with a Variable Power. Optionally, several different Selections may be associated with the same Variable Power, e.g. a Limited Selection and a smaller Unlimited Selection, a Selection of Powers that can be changed rapidly and a Selection of Powers that only can be changed slowly. Selected Powers from all the associated Selections count towards the same Pool of Real Points. When you select a Power from a slow-change Selection, it counts towards the Pool immediately, even though the change doesn't take effect until later. However, a selected Power from a slow-change Selection can be unselected at any time to make a new selection.


Example 1
60 Pool of 60 Real Points
18 Limited Selection (Total Real Cost 180):
. 12d6 EB (60 active, 60 real)
. 20" Flight, 0 END (60 Active, 60 Real)
. 12d6 EB, Full Phase (60 active, 40 real)
. 1" Flight, 0 END (3 Active, 3 Real)
. 7/7 Force Field, ½ END (17 Active, 17 Real)
Total: 78 points
Note: The character can either have one of the first two Powers active or all of the last three.

Example 2
60 Pool of 60 Real Points
7 Limited Selection (Total Real Cost 240; Powers only change between scenes (-2); No Control of Change (-½)):
. 8 levels Growth, 0 END. First quarter of the Moon
. Shape Shift, any shape, sight/touch/smell, 0 END. Second quarter of the Moon
. 4 levels Shrinking, 0 END. Third quarter of the Moon
. Invisibility, sight/sound, no fringe, 0 END. Fourth quarter of the Moon
Total: 67 points
Note: One Power is available at any time, depending on the phase of the moon.

- Klaus

[Doc Democracy]

I have been fascinated reading this thread. So many people with different grasps on the numbers etc. It's something that comes to me only with some deep thought and a pad of paper. :)

I understand however why there is so much thought put into this - the flexibility of powers are central to the effective genre feel of superheroes. Not so important elsewhere.

I've been giving this some thought and there are lots of ways for getting some flexibiility of powers. The problem is that all of them rely on complex constructs (in the eyes of newbies). I was wondering if there was some way to do things less complex that would appear a bit more intuitive.

Multipowers are built the way they are as they often provide a series of similar powers (usually attacks) that are not used at the same time. As such it seems fair to give a cost break to each power.

Elemental Controls refelct a versatile SFX (like fire) and a suite of power effects that can be used simultaneously through the expression of that SFX.

The problem is that if you do not invest in these constructs you have very little flexibility at all.

(This is off the top of my head) but comparing powers with the combat system of manouevres it would seem that we should be able to be more flexible.

If you do not invest in martial arts then you can be more flexible (grab dodge etc) but at greater costs to OCV or DCV or less benefits than if you had the martial art maneouvres. Maneouvres also allow change of effect from normal damage to killing damage for example, or flash.

Could we live with a flexible system that allowed, for example, Joe Blaster to use his energy blast directly at 12D6. If he bought an autofire energy blast at the same active points it would be 8D6 and, under the current system, he couldn't do any autofire. What about allowing him to do 6D6 autofire? (double the advantage cost) What if 0 END did not count if exerting a power in this way? It would allow trying any advantage that SFX suggested possible without providing competitive levels of DCs, just like the regular combat maneouvres...

You could even allow different powers to be swtiched in at double costs (like maneouvres) and again possibly no reduced END allowances.

My last suggestion in this would be that 5 point levels with a power could begin to work against the damage level or endurance restrictions imposed (giving more reasons to take levels as opposed to simple DEX and CV).

Free flexibility at reduced effectiveness limits....? Would make the system less punitive to those people who had not thought about what their powers should allow them to do before they started to play.


Doc

[SteveZilla]

My concern is the opposite direction

Using your system

I buy 30 points active for 15
I buy 60 points Real for 30
Total cost 45

I then use the framework to constantly have 15/15 Force Field and 15" Flight, 60 points of powers for 45. No matter how you do it, if the Real cost points are higher than the active points you will wind up getting more points of powers than if you did not, plus the versitility of the framework

Real Points needs to be unmodifiable 1:1 as a minimum to prevent this kind of abuse

Oh, that's what I failed to mention. :) Each power *occupies* both it's Real and Active costs in the pool. So a 15/15 FF without limitations would occupy all 30 active points, leaving none for other powers despite still having 30 Real Points unassigned.

[Talon]

A slightly simpler version of my proposed unified framework:

Looks interesting, but no Active Point limit is an issue for me.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Looks interesting, but no Active Point limit is an issue for me.
I realize that. In my earlier 'Omnipool', you had to pay points for Active Limit. However, I found that you either end up with a framework that gives Elemental Control-like discounts (which seem to be in disfavor), or one where frameworks with a few, very limited powers become inordinately expensive.

Take the Variable Power framework, for instance. If you pay a reasonable amount for Active Limit (say, 1 per 3 AC), then the framework will cost 20 points extra unless the Pool cost is reduced. If the Pool cost is reduced to compensate (say, to 2/3 of Real Cost), then you can have frameworks with many powers active at once becoming cheaper than buying these powers seperately.

Example:
20 AC limit 60
120 Real Cost Pool 180
. 6 12d6 EB
. 6 30" Flight
. 6 30/30 FF
Total: 158 for three simultaneous Powers that otherwise would cost 180.

You could of course argue that if the Pool is drained when a Power is drained, that is worth a discount. Then this would work: Change Pool cost to 2/3 Real Points in Pool; add an Active Limit costing 1/3 the Active Point limit.

The minimum cost of a simultaneous slot would be 2/3 + 1/10 = .76667; about the same as the -1/4 'drained together' limitation some have suggested to replace ECs.

OTOH, this will make frameworks with many limitations (like magic) much more expensive, unless these limitations also can be applied to the Active Limit cost - which adds a lot of complexity to the framework.

Once again, this depends on how much simplicity we are prepared to sacrifice for added control. As I see it, the simpler solution is to just enforce campaign limits to AC.

- Klaus

[Talon]

Regarding lack of AP limits

In my earlier 'Omnipool', you had to pay points for Active Limit. However, I found that you either end up with a framework that gives Elemental Control-like discounts (which seem to be in disfavor), or one where frameworks with a few, very limited powers become inordinately expensive.

...

Once again, this depends on how much simplicity we are prepared to sacrifice for added control. As I see it, the simpler solution is to just enforce campaign limits to AC.

Fair enough; my preference is enforced Active Point limits, which makes a unified framework harder.

[schir1964]

Could we live with a flexible system that allowed, for example, Joe Blaster to use his energy blast directly at 12D6. If he bought an autofire energy blast at the same active points it would be 8D6 and, under the current system, he couldn't do any autofire. What about allowing him to do 6D6 autofire? (double the advantage cost) What if 0 END did not count if exerting a power in this way? It would allow trying any advantage that SFX suggested possible without providing competitive levels of DCs, just like the regular combat maneouvres...
This is nothing less than genius!

I'd rep you if I could.

Guess I'll have to add this to my list of New Powers Ideas. (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

[SteveZilla]

Kinda steals a lot of thunder from Variable Advantage, though.

Would anybody who had a 12d6 EB be allowed to autofire it for 5 shots if they only used 8d6 (or 6d6) of it?

[schir1964]

Kinda steals a lot of thunder from Variable A