Power Frameworks Issues

[Steve Long]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Power Frameworks that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about Frameworks that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: Every now and then I see this talked about on the boards or wherever — the idea of joining all the Frameworks into one and then restricting how the slots work with Limitations or other ways of altering the cost to reflect the utility. It’s not particularly an idea I favor, since I think it would be harder to learn than the current arrangement, but it would probably cut down on redundancy of text and the like, and there may be some potential here that I haven’t seen because I haven’t yet thought about it much. So I figured I’d toss it on the pile of things to consider.


Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think so. The name itself connotes an earlier, more restricted, view of the Framework as useful for “elemental” power sets (Fire, Air, Darkness, etc.). I think a name that properly conveys the nature and purpose of the Framework would be better. I am currently thinking of using Unified Power, representing the fact that an EC is basically a Framework that uses multiple Powers to represent one overall power.


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

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m a little leery of this idea, but at least willing to consider it. I played in many games that used this as a house rule for years and never had much trouble with it, but there is obvious potential for imbalancing a game. The upside is that currently you can’t build a “nova blast,” or similar really-powerful-but-highly-restricted powers, in a Framework, and with this rules change you could. And if we institute this change, perhaps a similar change could be recommended for campaigns with point ceilings, where again no matter how Limited a power is it can’t exceed a certain Active Point threshold.

[incrdbil]

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

I'd say no. My opinion is that one framework that somehow simulates how all of the current ones would work would in its full description, be little less smaller in rules description, and possibly less flexible than the current framework construction. As a new player, it might even confuse me more. Multipowers are pretty simple and staright out of the box, EC's a little more work, and VPP's are the graduate course level of frameworks. its a sort of progression.

Rename Elemental Controls? Sure. Unified Power sounds good. and its got an easy to remmeber acronym, UP, which is half the battle.

I'd even favor mitigating the affects of adjustment powers versus EC's to just the targeted power. At the least tone it down to the original drain effect applied across the EC, though I feel affecting multiple powers like that should be the function of an advantage for a drain. If the cost reward to an EC is so much, I'd rather see that reward reduced rather than force an unwritten vulnerability to adjustment powers on the character.

I'd also consider removing the restriction on no endurance powers as part of an EC.


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

My gut reaction to this, as a gamemaster, is no. It's a concept that may work with a tight GM control in a certain campaign, but is probably a rough idea to put into standard rules. I'd certainly detail it as an option though--or maybe making such frameworks pay double in limitations to reduce such costs if they exceed the normal AP limitation. But as a standard, my feel is keep the standard rules to a standard of least GM worries as possible in terms of balance, and the suddenly explosive effect of a multipower that can acheive a much higher active point effect than what it paid for the realtively minor cost of one mere ultra slot would be a dealbreaker for many GM's, even experienced ones.

[CourtFool]

Unify the frameworks. I disagree that it would makes things more complex. The consistency would make them easier once you wrap your head around them. The way they are now, you have to figure out three different ways. If they were unified, you would only have to figure out one way...even if it is more difficult than figuring out one Framework.

[Jhaierr]

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

If you decide to allow for this, perhaps by default a VPP's size is an Active Point limit, but for a +2 advantage (or +1 perhaps) on the control cost, it can become a Real Point limit.

[Adventus]

I would recommend you also look at Killer shrike's Threshold Framework for inclusion into the 6th edition. It allows for certain types of characters that are very hard to build under the current frameworks. It would easily allow for a Dragonball Z type of game.:p

[Michael Hopcroft]

How can VPPs be made more intuitive?

[Enforcer84]

I don't like making all the frameworks one. It's simply more verbage to add on.
I have never thought that they were complex in use.

Unified Power :thumbup:

Active vs Real - hmm. I'm leaning towards leaving it where it's at. I liked ability to put more powerful abilities into a Multipower by paying the difference...but since it was changed I've not had any problems with it being gone.

[James Gillen]

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

No.


Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think so. The name itself connotes an earlier, more restricted, view of the Framework as useful for “elemental” power sets (Fire, Air, Darkness, etc.). I think a name that properly conveys the nature and purpose of the Framework would be better. I am currently thinking of using Unified Power, representing the fact that an EC is basically a Framework that uses multiple Powers to represent one overall power.

I like this.




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

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m a little leery of this idea, but at least willing to consider it. I played in many games that used this as a house rule for years and never had much trouble with it, but there is obvious potential for imbalancing a game. The upside is that currently you can’t build a “nova blast,” or similar really-powerful-but-highly-restricted powers, in a Framework, and with this rules change you could. And if we institute this change, perhaps a similar change could be recommended for campaigns with point ceilings, where again no matter how Limited a power is it can’t exceed a certain Active Point threshold.

As you may recall, this is how VPP/Gadget Pool USED to work, and I think it was changed for a good reason. On the other hand, without it you can't simulate Lovecraftian-BUFFY style magic that trades a tremendous Active Point cap for a tremendous number of Limitations on the spell. I'm leaning against the idea, at least as a core rule.

JG

[Xotl]

Edit WAY after the fact -

This post seems an extremely elegant way of handling the basic idea of Elemental Controls while eliminating five pages of rules and getting rid of the "free points if you can con the GM" aspect of the EC:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1547943&postcount=58
Leave the decision of awarding a player with a "good" character concept (whatever that means) to the GM rather than just in this one instance attempting to canonize it with a pile of rules. The EC is the most oddball part of Hero.

If the EC is kept instead of tossed, I would like to see it renamed as you suggest.


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

Well, if EC is tossed as I think it should, that leaves two frameworks. I strongly approve of the idea that there should only be one framework if possible, or that the existing ones be simplified in some way, as long the result can still accomplish everything you can do today in 5th. Even if the one is a bit more complicated, it will still be simpler and shorter than two different ones.

[Sean Waters]

Well noone has yet suggested getting rid of frameworks, or severely restricting their use. Oh well.

Should we have a single unified framework? I'd have to see it before I could answer that. Frameworks are just a way of making points go further and rewarding some concepts.

Should we rename ECs? Don't care, but if we did, should we rename EBs?

Should we make MPs and VPPS (and why not ECs?) work off real points? Once more I'm not that bothered. The abuse will be horrendous, but it isn't going to be affecting me, because I'm a decent enough GM to kick out abusive constructs and a decent enough player not to try them on. Most of the time :whistle:

Personally I can see very few legitimate uses for MPs and VPPs. Different ammo in a gun, alright, but we're talking normal, killing and AP, not flash, drain and UAA flight. I can come up with any number of justifications for pretty much any construct you like, but that doesn't mean it makes any kind of real sense.

Overall though, my philosophy is 'take the safety off'. If people want to play a decent game it will give them the opportunity to realise otherwise difficult concepts, if not, well, they probably deserve all they get :sneaky:

[Balok]

I wonder if it is time to rename Multipower's 'ultra' slot something a little more descriptive. I haven't a clue what, though.

[DavidToomey]

I wonder if it is time to rename Multipower's 'ultra' slot something a little more descriptive. I haven't a clue what, though.
Fixed, and Adjustable for the other, perhaps?

[Chris Goodwin]

The idea I've seen floated a lot on the boards for VPPs is this: the Pool Cost is the maximum total Real Points you can have in the pool. The Control Cost is 1 per 2 Active Points you can have. This divorces the Active and Real costs from one another and gives more flexibility.

[Edsel]

I printed off all of Steve's original posts in all of the 6th Edition threads and spent hours reading them last night and thinking. It is amazing how little I came up with to respond with though. However the opinions in this post are based only on what Steve has posted in message #1 of this thread, I haven't been influenced by what others have posted subsequently since I haven't read them yet. I will try to keep my comments brief since there is a hellava lot to read in these discussions.
Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?
No. I think it is an easier concept to have then separate.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?
I like the Elemental Control but you are right that the name doesn't really capture what it does. Perhaps something like Unified Power Control [UPC] would be a better term.

Q: Should we change Multipower and VPP so that it’s the Real Points that have to fit into the Framework’s reserve/pool?
No. I feel that this would make it harder for the GM to monitor power levels in the game. It opens up too many possible avenues for abuse.

[Thia Halmades]

Fixed, and Adjustable for the other, perhaps?

I was thinking "Set" and "Open" but yeah, same thing. On the EC thing, yes, a rename would be in order because the light went on in my head as soon as he said "This really represents 'one' power that can be used in all these different ways," and I'd never looked at it like that before.

On the VPP/MP argument for Real vs Active; one of my players had once asked, "Thia, can I just raise the limit of the Multipower so that I can use more abilities, instead of having to purchase up the whole of the framework?" And I said "no, you can't do that" but I think that a rule allowing it would make a lot of sense; a limited addition to the Framework that allows you to have multiple powers active at once, even if you don't have the points allocated to it.

And VPPs should certainly include more examples of the IVPP (InVariable Power Pool) model that Killer Shrike created and that I then cribbed and modified to my own use, because it's the best way to represent spell books and the like. I'd like to see the new Fantasy HERO setting material do away with the Real/3 cost structure in favor of a more "by the book" rules friendly mechanic, since the version he (Steve) used felt horrendously kludgey. While I acknowledge Killer Shrike's math saying there's no real difference, I just didn't like it. So I'd like to see it abolished in favor of using a better designed Framework system.

[Vondy]

First the Von Mantra:

Please do not protect me - the GM - from myself; warn me about common pitfalls, but do not hardcode limitations into them that tie my hands.

I'm comfortable with saying "no."




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

I really like killer shrikes threshold system.
At the same time, barring that, I think they should be left alone.


Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

Yes. I don't know what to rename it, but something more accurate would be good.

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

Both work as they are and I think they should be left alone.

[Dr.Device]

I don't think all three frameworks should be combined, but I think Multipowers and Variable Power Pools should be replaced with a more flexible Power Pool concept.
Currently Multipower is a pool of Active points, allocated via slots. VPP is a pool of real points, allocated via control cost. What I am proposing is to allow either (or both) types of allocation to either type of pool.

The following has parts heavily cribbed from various ideas I have seen on these boards. This is a very rough draft. I'm not really happy with the term Pool Control that I use, but it was all I could think of at the moment.

Power Pools
A power pool gives you a pool of points that you can distribute between various powers. A pool can be either an Active Point Pool (APP) or a Real Point Pool (RPP). There are plusses and minuses to each type.
Active Point Pool (APP): An APP has a base cost of 1 character point per 1 Active Point in the pool. The total of Active Points of powers allocated in the pool can never exceed the base pool cost. Limitations may be put on the pool cost to lower its Real Point cost. Only limitations which affect every power in the pool may be taken on pool.
Real Point Pool (RPP): An RPP has a cost of 1 character point per 1 Real Point in the pool. The total Real Points of powers allocated in the pool can never exceed the pool cost. No limitations can be taken on the pool cost.

Allocating Points
For either kind of pool, the points are allocated via slots and/or a pool control.
Slots- A slot is a specific power that can be used from the pool. A slot may be activated as a zero-phase action. To find the cost of a slot, determine what the Real Cost of the power would be if purchased outside the pool. Divide this number by 10 (for a fixed slot) or 5 (for a flexible slot).
Fixed Slots: A fixed slot must be allocated (but not necessarily used) at full power. So a fixed slot with a 10d6 Energy Blast with no modifiers would use up sixty points from the pool, even if only used as an 8d6 Energy Blast.
Flexible Slots: A flexible slot can be allocated with any number of points up to the maximum it was purchased at. So the above 10d6 Energy Blast would only use 40 points of the pool if it was only being used at 8d6.

Pool Control- A pool control allows a character to allocate points toward any power that fits the special effect of the pool. The base time to allocate points to a power with a pool control is one turn. If a character has a Power skill for the pool, he may make a skill roll to allocate points as a full phase action. This skill roll is at -1 per 10 active points in the power.
The base cost of the pool control is one half of the largest number of Active Points the character can allocate to a single power in the pool. In other words, the most Active Points that can be allocated to a single with a pool control is twice the base cost of the Pool Control. GMs may want to limit a Pool Control to half the pool cost, when used with an RPP.
Pool Control Advantages:
For a +1/2 advantage on the Pool Control, points can be allocated as a half-phase action.
For a +1 advantage on the Pool Control, points can be allocated as a zero-phase action.
For a +1 advantage on the Pool Control, no skill roll is necessary to allocate points in combat.
Pool Control Limitations:
Any limitation that will be applied to every power in the pool may also be taken on the Pool Control.
Further, the following limitation may apply.
(See list of VPP limitations from 5ER)

_______________
This has the advantage of being (mostly) backwards compatible. Multipowers are just APPs with slots and no Pool Control, and Variable Power Pools are RPPs with Pool Controls and no slots.

[Blue Jogger]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m a little leery of this idea, but at least willing to consider it. I played in many games that used this as a house rule for years and never had much trouble with it, but there is obvious potential for imbalancing a game. The upside is that currently you can’t build a “nova blast,” or similar really-powerful-but-highly-restricted powers, in a Framework, and with this rules change you could. And if we institute this change, perhaps a similar change could be recommended for campaigns with point ceilings, where again no matter how Limited a power is it can’t exceed a certain Active Point threshold.

Ok, I'm in favor of this idea. Although, I'd place a +1/4 for each doubling of the Active Cost over the reserve/pool limit. That way, as a GM, if I see +3/4 for x8, then I know "Hey, this 60 point reserve is actually a potentially 480 point power with -7 limitation". And I'd probably say, "I'd allow a potentially 120 point power with -1 limitation and that's only a +1/4".

[Cardinal]

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think so. The name itself connotes an earlier, more restricted, view of the Framework as useful for “elemental” power sets (Fire, Air, Darkness, etc.). I think a name that properly conveys the nature and purpose of the Framework would be better. I am currently thinking of using Unified Power, representing the fact that an EC is basically a Framework that uses multiple Powers to represent one overall power.

One problem I have is that ECs are currently a bit of a twitching construct. A true unified power character, such as Iceman, is almost never constructed through a unified framework. Currently, I really only see the typical EC for flight + Def + Generic Powers plus an MP of attack powers. This is because the cost savings of an MP allows huge variety for appreciably less additional investment.

One way to bring the EC/UC into its own would be to allow players to use individual slots as a MPA. I'm not sure this is always consistent with the underlying concept of the EC/UC, but I would welcome it (combined with a big ole warning to GMs to watch out for abuse).


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

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m a little leery of this idea, but at least willing to consider it. I played in many games that used this as a house rule for years and never had much trouble with it, but there is obvious potential for imbalancing a game. The upside is that currently you can’t build a “nova blast,” or similar really-powerful-but-highly-restricted powers, in a Framework, and with this rules change you could. And if we institute this change, perhaps a similar change could be recommended for campaigns with point ceilings, where again no matter how Limited a power is it can’t exceed a certain Active Point threshold.

I'm officially on the fence about this one. I can see the logic, but am a bit suspect about the potential for munchkinism (I am thinking of one player in particular).

My concern stems from the concept of double dipping. So assume for the moment that Defender has a weapons MP on his armor( 60 pt MP - Weapons - OIF). If he buys an 18D6 Attack for 90 AP, it gets the benefit of the 1/2 lim bringing it to 60 RP, fitting in the MP. However, the MP itself is 40 pts. It seems like double dipping on the limitations.

That said, I do agree that I would like the ability to make a NOVA blast that is truly nasty, yet fits with in the framework.

[JmOz]

The idea I've seen floated a lot on the boards for VPPs is this: the Pool Cost is the maximum total Real Points you can have in the pool. The Control Cost is 1 per 2 Active Points you can have. This divorces the Active and Real costs from one another and gives more flexibility.

I was going to mention this, it is a great idea, and permits some great builds that are almost imposible now. Only thing to add is that the pool cost is not allowed to be adjusted in anything

[JmOz]

Something on EC's, the no power not costing endurance being put into an EC should be droped, it makes no to little sense that a power can be bought to 0 endurance and placed in an EC, but a power that does not cost endurance naturaly should not be allowed. I also feel that this would help with no longer having no figured characteristics...

[Andrew Byers]

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

Please don't! They do completely different things and I think it would severely limit some character concepts to not have MPs, ECs, and VPPs all available.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

Unified Power is OK, but a little bland. Of course, having criticized your suggested name, I don't have a very good one to offer in its stead. Maybe "Themed Power"?


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

I've played it both ways and I'm of two minds. On the one hand, it's the easiest way to represent those massively limited one-shot spells or whatever that you could never ordinarily pull off, but on the other hand, I've also seen it hideously abused by power gamers. I'd say leave it as is and suggest it as an optional rule.

[Enforcer84]

perhaps we could call the Framework formerly known as Elemental Control, "Pimped Power"?

:slap:

[Eodin]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: Every now and then I see this talked about on the boards or wherever — the idea of joining all the Frameworks into one and then restricting how the slots work with Limitations or other ways of altering the cost to reflect the utility. It’s not particularly an idea I favor, since I think it would be harder to learn than the current arrangement, but it would probably cut down on redundancy of text and the like, and there may be some potential here that I haven’t seen because I haven’t yet thought about it much. So I figured I’d toss it on the pile of things to consider.

No, although if Multipower and Elemental Control were morphed into one, I would be happy with that. I see the Frameworks as 2 types: Static, aka Slotted (MP and EC) and Variable (VPP). For Static/Slotted you buy the reserve, you buy powers with the slot cost defining what it can do, such as div 10 is full power only, div 5 is variable power, div 3 is usuable simultaneously with any other div 3 slot. VPPs, being Variable/Malleable, would remain the same.


Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

Steve’s Thoughts: I think so. The name itself connotes an earlier, more restricted, view of the Framework as useful for “elemental” power sets (Fire, Air, Darkness, etc.). I think a name that properly conveys the nature and purpose of the Framework would be better. I am currently thinking of using Unified Power, representing the fact that an EC is basically a Framework that uses multiple Powers to represent one overall power.

How about UPC (Unified Power Control or Universal Power Control)?


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

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m a little leery of this idea, but at least willing to consider it. I played in many games that used this as a house rule for years and never had much trouble with it, but there is obvious potential for imbalancing a game. The upside is that currently you can’t build a “nova blast,” or similar really-powerful-but-highly-restricted powers, in a Framework, and with this rules change you could. And if we institute this change, perhaps a similar change could be recommended for campaigns with point ceilings, where again no matter how Limited a power is it can’t exceed a certain Active Point threshold.

I have mixed feelings too. I have played it both ways, and if not munchkined, works well. I would say if you do make the change, the AP of the power cannot exceed 2x the reserve or the AP threshold of the campaign, whichever is lower.

[Lord Liaden]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m a little leery of this idea, but at least willing to consider it. I played in many games that used this as a house rule for years and never had much trouble with it, but there is obvious potential for imbalancing a game. The upside is that currently you can’t build a “nova blast,” or similar really-powerful-but-highly-restricted powers, in a Framework, and with this rules change you could. And if we institute this change, perhaps a similar change could be recommended for campaigns with point ceilings, where again no matter how Limited a power is it can’t exceed a certain Active Point threshold.

Okay, wait a minute. I admit I don't have 5ER, but I've been working off this description for VPP from FREd p. 209 regarding Distributing Power Pool Points: "A character with a Variable Power Pool can have any combination of Powers whose total Real Cost (Active Cost reduced by Limitations) doesn't exceed the Pool of the VPP." [Emphasis added.]

Was this changed for 5ER?

[JmOz]

Okay, wait a minute. I admit I don't have 5ER, but I've been working off this description for VPP from FREd p. 209 regarding Distributing Power Pool Points: "A character with a Variable Power Pool can have any combination of Powers whose total Real Cost (Active Cost reduced by Limitations) doesn't exceed the Pool of the VPP." [Emphasis added.]

Was this changed for 5ER?

This would allow a higher active points power to fit into the pool

A current 50 point pool only allows 50 points of real power in the pool, and each power must be 50 active points

This would allow you to have a 100 active points power (say 20d6 EB) with -1 limitation (Say OAF)

[James Gillen]

First the Von Mantra:

Please do not protect me - the GM - from myself; warn me about common pitfalls, but do not hardcode limitations into them that tie my hands.

This should be made into a bronze plaque and mailed to Steve's office. :D

JG

[James Gillen]

Okay, wait a minute. I admit I don't have 5ER, but I've been working off this description for VPP from FREd p. 209 regarding Distributing Power Pool Points: "A character with a Variable Power Pool can have any combination of Powers whose total Real Cost (Active Cost reduced by Limitations) doesn't exceed the Pool of the VPP." [Emphasis added.]

Was this changed for 5ER?

No, but it's clarified afterward: (p. 324) "No Power bought in the Pool may have an Active Point cost greater than the Pool."

JG

[Lord Liaden]

Ah, I see what I misinterpreted. My mistake, please ignore.

Thank you, JmOz and James. :)

[Kdansky]

Frameworks:
I like MP, I like VPP, they have their reason (cannot use two powers at the same time, but have big utility, pricing structure works great), I don't request any changes, but a few pointers:

Multipower:
I would like it if some limitations had more impact. 2xEND or Activation Roll are really limiting on MP slots, but they net you single digit points at most. On the other hand "does not work in darkness" is worth nearly nothing in a slot, because well, you just use the other slot then. I would like to have some better handling there, but I don't know how to do it.

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. Powers Get Drained as one is priced at -1/4, that seems about fair. Drains are not the most common power (rather: they are rather rare), Suppress is rare because it's too powerful (see Suppress) and generally, you just get free points with an EC. And once and for all: "My powers are all heat-based" is NOT A GOOD CONCEPT. It's just *a* concept. Just because it's a very common fourcolour concept does not mean it's actually interesting. Also "all powers must have the same AP limit" is obviously a meta-rule to prevent abuse, and the only thing it promotes are horrible power builds like "Power x with fixed cost, x32 hard to dispel", just so it fits.
I'd rather see people take more Multipowers with flexible slots. And if you use all your powers at the same time: Hell, pay for them, will you? You get a -1/4 discount for them being drained together, and that seems fair to me. We can easily talk about the value of that (if drain is common in your campaign, that's worth -1/2 or even -1), or if everyone has "ED, only works vs SFX Z", then that might be a disadvantage on your attacks, and I would like a chapter on "strong" or "weak" SFX in the main book (only two or three pages out of 600-1000), similar to UEP, but shorter.

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. That's a -1/2 limitation (with way "better" stacking) which has nearly no play influence. Limitations that don't limit are not worth any points, right?
Replace by Drained as One (-1/4) to (-1/2) depending on how common drain/suppress is.

[JmOz]

Ah, I see what I misinterpreted. My mistake, please ignore.

Thank you, JmOz and James. :)

no problems, you would have figured it out soon enough anyways

[BobGreenwade]

Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?.I'm kind of leery of this, as you are. I could see rolling VPP in as a form of Multipower, since they function in very similar ways, but EC is too different to do this with.Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?Until I saw your alternate suggestion Unified Power I would have said no. But I quite like it, for the reasons you state.Q: Should we change Multipower and VPP so that it’s the Real Points that have to fit into the Framework’s reserve/pool?I'm a bit leery of this, as you are, and for similar reasons. I've long used a "Nova Blast rule" for VPP, allowing a single power to fit the VPP in Real Points if there's nothing else in it, and never seen an abuse, though that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen -- allowing it with an Advantage and a Caution Sign would probably be the way to go.

Backing up to Multipower, there's an issue with that construct that I've brought up before and would like to again now. Every so often I come across a build where the specific Power to be used depends on the target, and the character might not know that particular aspect of the target's nature or for some other reason doesn't (or can't) control which specific slot of the Multipower is in use. For example, suppose my character has a "spirit-sword" that does Penetrating HKA against undead, regular KA against constructs and other inanimate objects, and EB NND against normal organic foes. He swings his sword against an opponent, thinking the opponent is a regular villain whom he'll just knock out, but is surprised when the enemy suddenly spurts black blood and screams in pain, revealing a pair of fangs in his mouth -- he's a vampire! The only way to build that currently is to buy all three attacks separately, Linked, with the "Only Versus Target Type X" Limitation. That strikes me as a bit kludgy, not to mention expensive. If we simply apply an Advantage to Multipower (I personally call it Sensitive Switching for +1/4) I think we can fix that problem.

If you don't like this idea, then please at least address the issue in the text and explain the "correct" (official) way of designing it.

[GloryFox]

Originally Posted by Steve Long
Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?.

NO, as a player and GM I want options not my hands tied.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

It's a flavor issue with me. EC designates a singularity of special effect, fire, water, stretching, darkness, hair growth, disco lights, etc... Calling it something else like unified power could potentially be confusing, as you can justify almost anything as a unified power, this seems to tie my hands as a GM and does not make much sense.

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

I like the options of what I have at the moment. 6e should not be restricting the flavors of someones game but giving more options. The notion of taking something away from the game because "they" don't like it, is just pushing your style of game on someone else's campaign idea.

I like my HERO lego's don't take away blocks just because you don't use or like them.

[Kdansky]

It's a flavor issue with me. EC designates a singularity of special effect, fire, water, stretching, darkness, hair growth, disco lights, etc... Calling it something else like unified power could potentially be confusing, as you can justify almost anything as a unified power, this seems to tie my hands as a GM and does not make much sense.
And if that is the case, it's mispriced. 30%-40% off is just wrong for such a minor thing.

[GloryFox]

And if that is the case, it's mispriced. 30%-40% off is just wrong for such a minor thing.

I strongly disagree I think it promotes good themed based characters. I like the feel of it and promote it to my players to use since it creates a flavor to the system.

That's just an opinion however, I'm quite happy on how it is now, both as a GM and as a player.

[Blue]

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

Tough one! An EC is basically there to simulate a set of powers with unified SFX. MP is there to simulate a fixed set of powers, some of which cannot be fired at once. I'll tell you one thing: I think the cost break has always been to great on MPs. I played for years with ECs but no MPs and the game worked well. It wasn't until new players joined who new how MPs worked that I relented and allowed them.

Using EC is probably sufficient to cover much of the same thing, only not as cheaply.


Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

YES! It was good for a time when it was only fire powers, only ice powers, etc. Now that we've found all sorts of groupings to do under EC it should probably be "Special Effects Grouping" or "Themed Power Control". Yeh, I like that last one!


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

No real opinion here. I've played for years with power pools exlcuded or "only changeable between scenes" because it felt unbalancing and also because a player could mimic other themed characters and steal their thunder (Sort of the old "If Superman can run as fast as the Flash AND do all that other stuff, why do you need the Flash?" argument.)

I think if this proposed change was the law of the land, I'd house rule: Yes a power only costs the REAL point cost but it's active points cant exceed the pool size. So yes, you could have a bunch of options available at once, but no single one would be overpowering. (I don't need the example "character going nova" in my campaign. For that they'd need a "going nova" power. ;))

[Kenn]

Rolling VPP and Multipower together... I suppose it could be done, but most "rolling two similar things into one" I saw in 5e made me think that we'd just be getting more verbage in trying to explain how A can now be turned into B than we do in just explaining A and B separately.

Rolling EC together with the other two: No. it's too different a construct.

Renaming EC: meh! whatever. As long as it still exists as an option for the people who actually like and use them, that's good.

[Opal]

Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?I've seen attempts at that, and it'd likely be more complicated than just having three sepparate Frameworks.

Multipower and VPP could probably be folded together, though.

EC, if you're intent on doing away with Figured characteristics and the like could simply be dumped.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?It's still a cool name. Much like Energy Blast is cooler than Ranged Normal Attack.

For a long time, EC was a reward for building a character with powers that stuck closely to a special effect. I find the current idea of an EC representing 'one power' a little off, and the many restrictions and the punitive drain rule seem like an overreaction.

Then again, if you're getting rid of Figured Characteristics, you might just as well get rid of ECs, as well. Everyone will be getting a bunch more points so the brick can afford enough STN to trade haymakers; the guys with ECs can just use those points to finish paying for the powers they already had.

Q: Should we change Multipower and VPP so that it’s the Real Points that have to fit into the Framework’s reserve/pool?Heavens no! 1st Ed either worked this way - or enough people thought it did that I got to see the results. Horrifying! If someone wants a heavily limmitted slot that excedes the Apts of the Reserve, let them just add extra points to that one slot - if they want two, let them partially limit the reserve for the extra points.

[Kdansky]

I strongly disagree I think it promotes good themed based characters. I like the feel of it and promote it to my players to use since it creates a flavor to the system.

That's just an opinion however, I'm quite happy on how it is now, both as a GM and as a player.

So you say it it promotes good theme based characters . Well yes, for champions. Everywhere else, it's really weird and promotes 2D-Characters. The Fire Guy. The Shadow Guy. The Demon Power Guy. The Tech Guy. Wow! What great concepts! I'm sure we should reward each one with about 100 extra points! That's completely justified! What is a good and what is a bad theme should not be decided by the rules, and especially not like this.
You can still get a discount with the "drained as one/common SFX (-1/4)" limitation, it's just
A: Way less discount, which is nice.
B: Way easier to use, which is great.
C: Not so much GM fiat, which is nice.

Flight 20", x8 noncombat: 60 AP - Fire (how the hell does Fire make you fly anyway? Again, that's a purely 4colour thing)
Energy Field 60 AP, 20/20, hardened and half end - Fire (also questionable, fire usually does not deflect lazer beamz)
EB 60 AP - Fire
EC: 60 AP
total 120

is not a better concept than
Flight 15": 30 AP (rocket boots)
Energy Field 40 AP (shield generator)
EB 60 AP (teh lazer beamz from me eyez TM)
total 130 AP

but it's better and a lot cheaper. Also, we have to use crutches everywhere to make all powers the same size (how that is a good concept eludes me, it only promotes stock-characters), so all ForceFields get at least half end and probably hardened, because else they are either 30/30 (and break campaign limits hard) or don't reach up to 60 AP. Isn't it obvious that this is not good design? We're promoting workarounds for problems that are 1st Edition ones.

MP on the other hand makes a lot of sense here: You've got finite power, but you can use it in different ways. I can agree to nearly (!) any MP as "solid concept", whereas with EC it's more like "Well, this certainly works as a construct, but it only makes tiny sense" 99% of the time (I don't play champions).

MP: 100 points
Flight: variable slot 30 AP: 6points
Force Field: variable slot 40 AP: 8 points
EB: ultra slot 60 AP: 6 points
total 120 (same as EC, btw)

Now that makes sense. And you can add some more things for power tricks if you need to. On this topic, I would like to say that we might possibly think about the slot costs in MPs. I rarely see anyone using flexible slots, because they cost twice as much and that's rarely worth it. Just using two fixed ones and deciding whether to use one fully or not is easier. Could we possibly eliminate fixed slots altogether? (priceing the only remaining varSlot at either 1:10 or 1:5 or anything else)

[Balabanto]

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

Steve’s Thoughts: I’m a little leery of this idea, but at least willing to consider it. I played in many games that used this as a house rule for years and never had much trouble with it, but there is obvious potential for imbalancing a game. The upside is that currently you can’t build a “nova blast,” or similar really-powerful-but-highly-restricted powers, in a Framework, and with this rules change you could. And if we institute this change, perhaps a similar change could be recommended for campaigns with point ceilings, where again no matter how Limited a power is it can’t exceed a certain Active Point threshold.

God, I would rather die than have this rule. Back in First Edition there were characters with multipowers that WERE built this way, and it got stupid, fast. Please, Steve, don't do this. Pretty please with sugar on top.

[Enforcer84]

So you say it it promotes good theme based characters . Well yes, for champions. Everywhere else, it's really weird and promotes 2D-Characters. The Fire Guy. The Shadow Guy. The Demon Power Guy. The Tech Guy. Wow! What great concepts! I'm sure we should reward each one with about 100 extra points! That's completely justified! What is a good and what is a bad theme should not be decided by the rules, and especially not like this.
You can still get a discount with the "drained as one/common SFX (-1/4)" limitation, it's just
A: Way less discount, which is nice.
B: Way easier to use, which is great.
C: Not so much GM fiat, which is nice.

Flight 20", x8 noncombat: 60 AP - Fire (how the hell does Fire make you fly anyway? Again, that's a purely 4colour thing)
Energy Field 60 AP, 20/20, hardened and half end - Fire (also questionable, fire usually does not deflect lazer beamz)
EB 60 AP - Fire
EC: 60 AP
total 120

is not a better concept than
Flight 15": 30 AP (rocket boots)
Energy Field 40 AP (shield generator)
EB 60 AP (teh lazer beamz from me eyez TM)
total 130 AP

but it's better and a lot cheaper. Also, we have to use crutches everywhere to make all powers the same size (how that is a good concept eludes me, it only promotes stock-characters), so all ForceFields get at least half end and probably hardened, because else they are either 30/30 (and break campaign limits hard) or don't reach up to 60 AP. Isn't it obvious that this is not good design? We're promoting workarounds for problems that are 1st Edition ones.

MP on the other hand makes a lot of sense here: You've got finite power, but you can use it in different ways. I can agree to nearly (!) any MP as "solid concept", whereas with EC it's more like "Well, this certainly works as a construct, but it only makes tiny sense" 99% of the time (I don't play champions).

MP: 100 points
Flight: variable slot 30 AP: 6points
Force Field: variable slot 40 AP: 8 points
EB: ultra slot 60 AP: 6 points
total 120 (same as EC, btw)

Now that makes sense. And you can add some more things for power tricks if you need to. On this topic, I would like to say that we might possibly think about the slot costs in MPs. I rarely see anyone using flexible slots, because they cost twice as much and that's rarely worth it. Just using two fixed ones and deciding whether to use one fully or not is easier. Could we possibly eliminate fixed slots altogether? (priceing the only remaining varSlot at either 1:10 or 1:5 or anything else)
Okay, but no one forces you to use it anywhere. My games happen to use it a lot, no complaints from those who don't.

As has been said above, I'd rather have options added than removed.

[rjcurrie]

So you say it it promotes good theme based characters . Well yes, for champions. Everywhere else, it's really weird and promotes 2D-Characters. The Fire Guy. The Shadow Guy. The Demon Power Guy. The Tech Guy. Wow! What great concepts! I'm sure we should reward each one with about 100 extra points! That's completely justified! What is a good and what is a bad theme should not be decided by the rules, and especially not like this.
You can still get a discount with the "drained as one/common SFX (-1/4)" limitation, it's just
A: Way less discount, which is nice.
B: Way easier to use, which is great.
C: Not so much GM fiat, which is nice.

Flight 20", x8 noncombat: 60 AP - Fire (how the hell does Fire make you fly anyway? Again, that's a purely 4colour thing)
Energy Field 60 AP, 20/20, hardened and half end - Fire (also questionable, fire usually does not deflect lazer beamz)
EB 60 AP - Fire
EC: 60 AP
total 120

is not a better concept than
Flight 15": 30 AP (rocket boots)
Energy Field 40 AP (shield generator)
EB 60 AP (teh lazer beamz from me eyez TM)
total 130 AP

but it's better and a lot cheaper. Also, we have to use crutches everywhere to make all powers the same size (how that is a good concept eludes me, it only promotes stock-characters), so all ForceFields get at least half end and probably hardened, because else they are either 30/30 (and break campaign limits hard) or don't reach up to 60 AP. Isn't it obvious that this is not good design? We're promoting workarounds for problems that are 1st Edition ones.

MP on the other hand makes a lot of sense here: You've got finite power, but you can use it in different ways. I can agree to nearly (!) any MP as "solid concept", whereas with EC it's more like "Well, this certainly works as a construct, but it only makes tiny sense" 99% of the time (I don't play champions).

MP: 100 points
Flight: variable slot 30 AP: 6points
Force Field: variable slot 40 AP: 8 points
EB: ultra slot 60 AP: 6 points
total 120 (same as EC, btw)

Now that makes sense. And you can add some more things for power tricks if you need to. On this topic, I would like to say that we might possibly think about the slot costs in MPs. I rarely see anyone using flexible slots, because they cost twice as much and that's rarely worth it. Just using two fixed ones and deciding whether to use one fully or not is easier. Could we possibly eliminate fixed slots altogether? (priceing the only remaining varSlot at either 1:10 or 1:5 or anything else)

Well, the EC and the MP may cost the same number of points, but with the EC, he can be flying at full speed, have his force field on full, and still fire his energy blast. With the MP, he can't.

[rjcurrie]

You can still get a discount with the "drained as one/common SFX (-1/4)" limitation, it's just
A: Way less discount, which is nice.
B: Way easier to use, which is great.
C: Not so much GM fiat, which is nice.



I agree. Although I'd probably call it "Unified power -1/4" and list the precise rules for the Unified Power Limitation in the Limitations section, including the fact that all the powers with that Limitation are affected by negative adjustjment powers against any power in the construct.

A construct like this probably removes the need for the powers to cost END, allows powers of any size to benefit from the discount and could even possibly apply to Fire Guy's multipower of attacks.

[Hugh Neilson]

God, I would rather die than have this rule. Back in First Edition there were characters with multipowers that WERE built this way, and it got stupid, fast. Please, Steve, don't do this. Pretty please with sugar on top.

Agreed. It trends too much to that one slot which has huge AP and a couple of charges and other limitations, to be used against the "big bad" as a one shot kill.

Anyway, the fact that it was this way in 1e means we can't do it, right Steve? You said nothing is going back to the way it was in a previous edition, so this idea should be off the list (and it's far more deserving to fall off than some other "old edition" approaches...).

[rjcurrie]

I agree. Although I'd probably call it "Unified power -1/4" and list the precise rules for the Unified Power Limitation in the Limitations section, including the fact that all the powers with that Limitation are affected by negative adjustjment powers against any power in the construct.

A construct like this probably removes the need for the powers to cost END, allows powers of any size to benefit from the discount and could even possibly apply to Fire Guy's multipower of attacks.

It would also need a whole lot less explanation than the current description of Elemental Control.

[JmOz]

Regarding Nove Blasting w/frameworks, something I have used, and seems to work well is:

60 point MP of Fire Powers (offenceive)
6u 12d6 EB
etc....

OUtside of the framework a +6d6 EB with limitations, however I have found that for representation for new players it is better to include it as part of the slot so


60 point MP of Fire Powers (offenceive)
8u 12d6 EB +6d6 END, x10 END [6/36]
etc....

the 8 being the 6 + 2 for the real cost of the boost

[caris]

And if that is the case, it's mispriced. 30%-40% off is just wrong for such a minor thing.

And not being able to perform a MPA is worth a 50%-90% savings for all attack MPs?

[caris]

Name a sensible reason except "it works ok for champions" why ECs make sense.

I found it worked a heck of a lot better than anything else for spell and divine magic in Fantasy when I wanted the magic to be grouped into different "types".

[ajackson]

The issue with multipowers is that MPAs are really not worth the cost.

In terms of limitations on multipower slots, one halfway option is to halve all limitations inside of multipowers. That still has potential to be stupid for Charges, but Charges in multipowers tend to be stupid anyway.

[JmOz]

The issue with multipowers is that MPAs are really not worth the cost.

In terms of limitations on multipower slots, one halfway option is to halve all limitations inside of multipowers. That still has potential to be stupid for Charges, but Charges in multipowers tend to be stupid anyway.

HEY, I use charges in MP's all the time, it is THE WAY to represent trick ammo type characters.

[ajackson]

HEY, I use charges in MP's all the time, it is THE WAY to represent trick ammo type characters.
It's not the concept of charges in MPs that's broken, it's giving a -2 limitation for one charge that's broken. 8 charges on your main attack power might limit you. 8 charges on a multipower slot will pretty much never limit you.

[Opal]

I thought charges in a multi got a reduced lim and/or didn't aply to the reserve?

[JmOz]

It's not the concept of charges in MPs that's broken, it's giving a -2 limitation for one charge that's broken. 8 charges on your main attack power might limit you. 8 charges on a multipower slot will pretty much never limit you.

45 90 Active Points MP, OAF: Trickgun
4u 6d6 RKA MAgic Bullets
2u 6d6 RKA, A magic bullet, 1 charge (-2)
1u 6d6 RKA, THE MAGIC BULLET, 1 charge never recovers (-4)

The -2 lim is saving you 2 points from the non limited. the -4 is saving you 1 point from the 1 charge version, and 3 points from the non limited, Not a big savings from a non limited, I don't see the break. Now if you are misapplying the -2 lim to the reserve thinking that means each slot can be used once, instead of the MP being usable once, that can be broken (Not saying you are, but it is a common misconception)

[AveryKess]

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

Definitely not. They do too many different things. The explanation text for the 3 subtypes would be just as long.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

I don't think it should be renamed. Elemental doesn't have to mean earth, sonics, etc. but could be more of a synonym of 'Primary.'

Keep the "drains against a single power in a framework affect all the powers"
as a check against the point cost break frameworks offer, but maybe apply it like so: 1/2 the drain affects the slot, 1/2 the drain affects the pool/reserve.

I've never used the "has to cost END" rule for powers in ECs (otherwise sensor suites are way too expensive).

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

I've seen a variation of this work in Fantasy Hero. Essentially you bought a magic power pool like normal. But you could put any size power into it, using limitations to bring the real cost down to the Pool Reserve value. Then, you had to have a skill purchased for using that power. Some campaigns used 1 point skills (perks really) to simulate the perk of knowing that spell, others had specific INT or EGO based skills tied to each spell. There was no building of spells on the fly unless you had extra unspent xp.

I think you might want to approach it from the other end and see if there are popular characters that you just can't build under the current rules and then examine why that is.

[Kdansky]

Well, the EC and the MP may cost the same number of points, but with the EC, he can be flying at full speed, have his force field on full, and still fire his energy blast. With the MP, he can't.
Exactly. So because he can do that, he should also pay full cost for all of these powers. In case of a MP, you get a disadvantage (and not being able to use your defenses and your attack at the same time is quite nasty and definitely worth lots of points), but in case of EC, there's no such thing. You get 100% power for 60% price. As often stated: "It's like figured characteristics." And we get rid of those too, don't we?
(Disclaimer: I don't fully agree to it being the same, but it's similar.)

And not being able to perform a MPA is worth a 50%-90% savings for all attack MPs?
Well, that's the problem of MP if you put lots of attacks in them. On the other hand: You can only use one attack power per turn anyway, so that's quite a huge limitation. If you want to MPA, you lose half your DCV and get lots of other problems. You don't get to roll multiple attacks. MPA is just a "Linked is not an advantage" band-aid.
If I buy two Powers for full price, I want to be able to use them both at no disadvantage all the time, even if they are attacks. The system doesn't allow me to do that (due to sensible balancing reasons, but we could easily discard that too), so I put them into a MP to safe the points I don't get to use. Sounds fair to me. FF and EB work at the same time, and I have to pay full points for both. EB and RKA don't work at the same time, and I pay greatly reduced cost. FF and Flight work at the same time, but if I put them into an EC, I get 30% off. It's just plain utterly nonsensical.

I found it worked a heck of a lot better than anything else for spell and divine magic in Fantasy when I wanted the magic to be grouped into different "types".
Ah. So you give huge discounts for sfx. As I stated at least three times: That's arbitrary and does not help the game in any way whatsoever. How do you justify that some powers do or don't go with certain special effects? I'm sure I can come up with either an SFX to fit all powers I want or an explanation to fit the power and the SFX I want. In any case, I went to lengths to explain stupid things, and that should be good for the game? Just get rid of EC already, it's dated. Take the "unified special effect (-1/4)" disadvantage, and if you want "Can not be used in MPA (-1/4)" if that's really a concern to you. I cannot stress how much cleaner this solution is than EC.

[Kdansky]

Charges in MP slots well, because you always pay some points per slot.

60 base
6 EB fire 16 charges
6 EB ice 16 charges
6 EB air 16 charges
6 EB poop 16 charges
total 84 cost

60 EB fire , 0 END (or 128 charges)
total 90 cost

looks fair. 64 charges vs 0 end (or 128 charges), less than 10% point cost difference. And the second one doesn't even use a MP (but it has higher AP... that is to be noted).

You can construct some problems (usually you pay too much there) if you add very few charges to the slots, a big number of slots and compare to an MP where the base is limited. Suddenly the worse power (only 1 shot per slot) is more expensive than the power that can choose where to use which charge. But that is minor and very hard to fix :(

[Hugh Neilson]

PLEASE get rid of the "All powers in an EC must cost END" restriction. This might work if there was a guiding philosophy behind which powers do and do not cost END by default, but there isn't.

There is no brilliant philosophical or game balance reason why Aid does not cost END (and is invisible) but Healing does cost END. There is no reason an EC should be able to hold a Force Field that costs no END, but not Armor that costs no END. The "only powers which cost END by default or have "costs END as a limitation" rule is, simply, arbitrary.

[rjcurrie]

PLEASE get rid of the "All powers in an EC must cost END" restriction. This might work if there was a guiding philosophy behind which powers do and do not cost END by default, but there isn't.

There is no brilliant philosophical or game balance reason why Aid does not cost END (and is invisible) but Healing does cost END. There is no reason an EC should be able to hold a Force Field that costs no END, but not Armor that costs no END. The "only powers which cost END by default or have "costs END as a limitation" rule is, simply, arbitrary.

This is a reaon that some people in this thread, myself included, proposed replacing ECs with a "Unified Power" Limitation. I'd suggest -1/4 but that's just a guess at this point. All powers with this limitation would be treated as ECs are now when it comes to being affected by negative adjustment powers.

Such a Limitation would mean that you could put any power into your "Unified Power" regardless of its size or whether or not it costs END. It could even be applied to a Multipower or Variable Power Pool if they were affected in the same way. I think it would also take far less space to explain than ECs do.

[Silbeg]

If you want to MPA, you lose half your DCV and get lots of other problems. You don't get to roll multiple attacks. MPA is just a "Linked is not an advantage" band-aid.

Not sure where you are getting the 1/2DCV when performing a Multiple Power Attack. The only place in 5ER that seems to suggest this is the sidebar on p360, which gives suggestions to prevent abuse...

On the other hand, I have never seen a problem with the MPA...

It does have the advantage of allowing powers to interact more intuitively, without requiring the Linked Limitation... Linked should really only be used when the powers cannot be used separately.

[Kdansky]

Oh, you don't get a -1/2 DCV? Well, that's entirely possible, you can see how often MPA is used in my games there, and it would make sense ;) But as I said: Powers and Frameworks are not designed with MPA in mind, but MPA was designed with linked in mind. History lesson: EC exists since first (?) edition, MPA wasn't in the BBB, but is a FRED (5E) addition.
The "costs END" limitation is another arbitrary rule to prevent EC abuse, like "can only sell one figured characteristic". So please get rid of EC competely, it has no place in a modern system anymore. The Unified SFX (-1/4) is a very, very clean solution and works flawlessly. You get a fully defined disadvantage, a appropriate cost reduction (which btw isn't *that* far off in a currently non-limited framework), and if you want your multiple attacks to be not usable with your current EC as MPA, then you take a small MP, slap Unified SFX onto the base cost and slot costs, and get a nicely rounded powerconstruct. Really, really neat. I'm thinking about handling this like that starting from now, but that would break one of my PCs, awww crap. Although that's the most powerful character in the group anyway and he could just make his MP 40-60 points bigger and add all the currently EC slots as additional MP slots, and use two at a time. That would give him defenses + any of his attacks or Mind Scan + any of his attacks. Yes, he's mentalist.
Edit: I just quickly did the math: He would actually get cheaper, since the -1/4 also applies to his Attack MP and safes more points than the loss of the EC actually costs. True, the FF is not hardened anymore, but that's an acceptable loss, since that was only taken to bring it up to 60 AP for the EC. Again, I want to stress: That workaround has to go. If you want hardened, you should have to pay for it. It's cheap enough.

[caris]

Oh, you don't get a -1/2 DCV? Well, that's entirely possible, you can see how often MPA is used in my games there, and it would make sense ;) But as I said: Powers and Frameworks are not designed with MPA in mind, but MPA was designed with linked in mind. History lesson: EC exists since first (?) edition, MPA wasn't in the BBB, but is a FRED (5E) addition.

This came up starting with this post in a different thread. (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1546866&postcount=134) Apparently, the original designers did intend for MPAs to always be part of the game.

Now, if the costing is of Multipower was not based off the existance (inferred or otherwise) of MPAs, how can you justify the cost savings in MPs that are only made up of Attack Powers or other powers that inherrently can't be used at the same time anyways? Back in 4th (and even now), I have never had a player submit a Multipower build that included two powers that could be used at the same time.

[Opal]

PLEASE get rid of the "All powers in an EC must cost END" restriction. This might work if there was a guiding philosophy behind which powers do and do not cost END by default, but there isn't.I think the idea here was to limit the cost break available from EC. EC saves you more - aproaching but never reaching 50% - the more slots you have. Making each slot cost END puts something of a practical limit on that. All the 5th Ed changes to EC were focused on reducing it's utility as a cost break. There were, in the days leading up to FRED, a lot of very vocal complaints about the cost break EC gave 'for nothing.'

[ajackson]

Now, if the costing is of Multipower was not based off the existance (inferred or otherwise) of MPAs, how can you justify the cost savings in MPs that are only made up of Attack Powers or other powers that inherrently can't be used at the same time anyways?
Based on the simple premise of utility. Your second attack power is a whole lot less useful than your first attack power, so it shouldn't cost as much.

[caris]

Based on the simple premise of utility. Your second attack power is a whole lot less useful than your first attack power, so it shouldn't cost as much.


Huh? Please, explain in more detail? In particular, why do we need a power framework to provide this discount as opposed to simply applying it across the board?

[ajackson]

Huh? Please, explain in more detail? In particular, why do we need a power framework to provide this discount as opposed to simply applying it across the board?
Once you have one way of hurting someone, adding a second method of hurting someone doesn't make you substantially better. It does make you slightly better, since you have more options, but it's really not a big increase in power.

As for applying this discount across the board, do you have a method that's simpler than a multipower?

[caris]

Once you have one way of hurting someone, adding a second method of hurting someone doesn't make you substantially better. It does make you slightly better, since you have more options, but it's really not a big increase in power.

As for applying this discount across the board, do you have a method that's simpler than a multipower?

I do not agree with your basic premise. Being more versatile usually is a big increase in power, which is usually an exponetial not a linear kind of increase in power at that. I could see an arguement being made if the Powers were identically built, but they are not often they are designed to trade off weaknesses of the attacks or better exploit weakness of other target (really tough target with hardened Def? switch to NND. really tough target with out hardened? switch to AP. soft target? switch to max dice. High DCB target? switch to AOE.).

Assuming that I agreed with your premise. It would be more logical to apply to a discount to all Attack Powers except the one with the largest Active Cost. Apparantly, that discount should 90% of the Real Cost. Of course, I'd also restrict Attack Powers from being put in any other Frameworks, except VPPs. Under your reasoning, without MPAs the Attack Powers after the first are more limited whether they are in the Multipower or not, so they should be getting the discount independent of even the existance of a Multipower. Is it simpler? No, but it is more logical, and would make all characters more consistent.

[ajackson]

I do not agree with your basic premise. Being more versatile usually is a big increase in power, which is usually an exponetial not a linear kind of increase in power at that. I could see an arguement being made if the Powers were identically built, but they are not often they are designed to trade off weaknesses of the attacks or better exploit weakness of other target (really tough target with hardened Def? switch to NND. really tough target with out hardened? switch to AP. soft target? switch to max dice. High DCB target? switch to AOE.).
Let me give you a concrete example. Compare these two builds:
Build 1: 60 point multipower. Slots are 12d6 EB, 8d6 AP, 6d6 NND, 8d6 AE 1 hex, and 8d6 autofire. Cost: 90 points
Build 2: 18d6 EB. Cost: 90 points

Build 2 always does more damage than slots 1 or 2. It does more damage than slot 3 unless target defense is more than 42. Spread by 10 and you've got 8d6 with +10 OCV, which should deal with most high DCV targets. Against targets with ED > 14, it does more damage than hitting all five times with autofire.

That's with multipowers. Without multipowers, you're comparing those 5 powers to a 60d6 EB.
Under your reasoning, without MPAs the Attack Powers after the first are more limited whether they are in the Multipower or not, so they should be getting the discount independent of even the existance of a Multipower.
Well, yes. However, the easiest way to generate that 90% reduction is multipowers.

[Opal]

(really tough target with hardened Def? switch to NND. really tough target with out hardened? switch to AP. soft target? switch to max dice. High DCB target? switch to AOE.)Say you're tossing 12d N in a 30-def max game. You do 12 STN to an average character. You put a 6d NND (doing 21 STN), in your multi, costing you 12 pts (two 6pt ultra slots), you can do 21 STN to some opponents with it, 9 more than you do with your EB. But, if you'd just bought up the EB by 10 pts, you'd be doing 19 STN to yor toughest targets. Add a third slot, maybe AP, that lets you do 13 STN, on average to a 30 DEF guy who's immune to our NND - more than the 12d Attack, but, if you'd just but those 18 pts you spend on ultra slots into your EB, you'd be throwing 15 1/2d, and doing 24 STN to your toughest targets. Of course, the game is probably 12d max, too, so you can't do that, while you can buy the multi, but, the utility of the mega blast is a little greater, when it comes to putting STN on someone. Of course, you could also put a /lot/ of other things in your MP, like flight or force field or whatever - but then you'd probably want some of those as multi slots, which'd cost more, as well.

Really, MP is probably the hardest framework to find fault with.

[novi]

Let me give you a concrete example. Compare these two builds:
Build 1: 60 point multipower. Slots are 12d6 EB, 8d6 AP, 6d6 NND, 8d6 AE 1 hex, and 8d6 autofire. Cost: 90 points
Build 2: 18d6 EB. Cost: 90 points

Build 2 always does more damage than slots 1 or 2. It does more damage than slot 3 unless target defense is more than 42. Spread by 10 and you've got 8d6 with +10 OCV, which should deal with most high DCV targets. Against targets with ED > 14, it does more damage than hitting all five times with autofire.

That's with multipowers. Without multipowers, you're comparing those 5 powers to a 60d6 EB.

Well, yes. However, the easiest way to generate that 90% reduction is multipowers.

Yes, you have a point. However, you are forgetting that in many games, GMs forbid players from having attack powers in excess of a certain amount of active points. An 18d6 EB can do many of those things, but what happens when the GM says, "12 DC limit on attacks"?

[McCoy]

Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?
No.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?
I would say "no," if I had not run into a GM who, with a straight face, insisted that and elemental control could only be based on fire, water, air or earth.

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.

[McCoy]

I'd also consider removing the restriction on no endurance powers as part of an EC.
Yes.

[Kdansky]

Yes, you have a point. However, you are forgetting that in many games, GMs forbid players from having attack powers in excess of a certain amount of active points. An 18d6 EB can do many of those things, but what happens when the GM says, "12 DC limit on attacks"?

If there are no Attack-MPs and you are not allowed to have more than 12 DC, guess what happens? People buy one, and only one, attack and stick with it. I'm definitely not going to spend 60 points on my EB and then another 60 points on my extremly redundant KA. I'll just drop the EB. Paying additional slot cost for small utility (KA vs EB, which by itself is a bad example since there's rarely any use for EB if you have KA, but that's another thread ;)).
So Blasterboy A gets a 60 AP MP with four attacks, costing him an additional 24 points for greatly increased flexibility when blastering. Skillmonkey B takes 4 more skills (12), an overall skill level (10) and 1" of running, plus only one kind of attack. That looks really fair to me.

MPs make a lot of sense in many ways. They simulate the cost break for redundant powers, they simulate the "cannot fly and FF at the same time" and quite a few other things. ECs? Cost break for twodimensional character. Now that's important...

Also mccoy: steve explicitly asked for answers with more than "yes/no" in them.

Being more versatile usually is a big increase in power, which is usually an exponetial not a linear kind of increase in power at that.
Arg? You're honestly stating the opposite of reality?

PC 0: no attacks
PC 1: KA
PC 2: KA, NND
PC 3: KA, NND, Flash
PC 4: KA, NND, Flash, AE KA
PC 5: KA, NND, Flash, AE KA, Drain
PC 6: KA, NND, Flash, AE KA, Drain, Transform

By far the biggest power gain is from PC0 to PC1. If you add NND to you KA build, you get a slight boost, but you will be able to take most enemies down with your KA, even when NND would be slightly better. Adding a Flash helps a lot, because that does not do redundant damage, but it's not a deal-breaker. And then what do you need a Drain for? Or a Transform? If you can kill them, turning them into a frog isn't so different. Against "I only have defenses against one kind of attack" characters, those help. Against most, it won't make much of a difference.
Getting an additional 6-point Combat Level instead of an additional slot is probably better most of the time.

Compare:
PC6b: KA, NND, Flash, AE KA, Drain, Transform, OCV/DCV 7/7
PC1b: KA, OCV 7/7, 5 combatlevels.

PC1b will win that duel easily due to hitting about 70% of the time and not getting hit 80% of the time (1/4 distribution), but doing nearly the same damage. (or against the AE: taking very low damage, because that one has only half as many dice).



And as an addition to the MPA discussion:
+ 2 OCV, only with Sweeps: 4 points? That's nearly as good...

[jimgettman]

...As for applying this discount across the board, do you have a method that's simpler than a multipower?Have limitations on a power that uses the points of another power. This does a great simulation of learning a new use for a current power.

This is easily built and shows growth -
(60 AP) 12d EB - Flamethrower
(12 AP) 8d EB (AP +1/2, Uses EB -4)

This requires an extensive power redesign to use the same 12 XP -
(60 AP) Multipower - Flamethrower
(u6 AP) 12d EB
(u6 AP) 8d EB (AP +1/2)

With limitations (however they are handled) Steve can always get the cost and game effect of an MP without needing the framework. That way the rules are simpler, the character sheets are cleaner, and all characters can grow at the same rate when they spend XP.

Also, double rounding is eliminated, sparing us munchkinisms like this -

(15 AP) Multipower - Flamethrower - left nozzle (OAF -1)
(u1 AP) 12d EB
(u1 AP) 8d EB (AP +1/2)

(15 AP) Multipower - Flamethrower - right nozzle (adds to left, OAF -1)
(u1 AP) 12d EB
(u1 AP) 8d EB (AP +1/2)

[ajackson]

Have limitations on a power that uses the points of another power.
Which differs from a multipower how, other than more involved math?

[Kdansky]

I can see that it works, but I don't think it's much cleaner than MP in this case. Also, how do you price the Limitations? So yes, we *can* get rid of MP, but I'm not sure we should. Afterall, we can also put all MPs into VPPs (and we cannot get rid of those without losing something).

I'm extremly sure we should get rid of EC completely (and replace with a limitation).
I'm somewhwat of the oppinion we should keep MP, but I can see it getting merged into Limitations and/or VPP.
I'm extremly sure we should keep VPP.

Just because EC should go does not mean MP should go too. Those are two completely unrelated decisions. Also, what you built there in the first Flamethrower example is a Naked Advantage AP on 40 base points (costing 15), I don't see why there should be a -4 limitation.

Rounding cheesyness is easily solved: If people do it, require them to calculate with real numbers. They will quickly go back to not cheating. :) That's not a design flaw.

[jimgettman]

to paraphrase...Active Point Pool (APP): costs 1 point per Active Point. Total AP in pool powers cannot exceed the pool AP. The pool cost can have limitations - they affect all pool powers.
Real Point Pool (RPP): costs 1 point per Real Point. Total RP in pool powers cannot exceed the pool RP. No limitations can be taken on the pool cost.
...

While I would replace both EC and MP frameworks with equivalent limitations, I support even more GM options for Variable Power Pools. These are powerful design tools that could link to power lists outside the main character design. Each would extend the hero system to different genres with pre-made powers: magic spells, weapons, vehicles, followers, etc. Each could have rules about number, size and flexibility of powers, rather like ordering special combos on a restaurant menu.

IMO, what is needed is NOT more advantages and limitations on the one VPP, but a handful of ready-built flavors appropriate to different game types. A wise GM can then simply rule out some or all, while a wise game community can build and share content collaboratively.

[caris]

Let me give you a concrete example. Compare these two builds:
Build 1: 60 point multipower. Slots are 12d6 EB, 8d6 AP, 6d6 NND, 8d6 AE 1 hex, and 8d6 autofire. Cost: 90 points
Build 2: 18d6 EB. Cost: 90 points

Build 2 always does more damage than slots 1 or 2. It does more damage than slot 3 unless target defense is more than 42. Spread by 10 and you've got 8d6 with +10 OCV, which should deal with most high DCV targets. Against targets with ED > 14, it does more damage than hitting all five times with autofire.

That's with multipowers. Without multipowers, you're comparing those 5 powers to a 60d6 EB.

Well, lets see others have already pointed out that this only really works in campaigns where DC limits are set.

Further more you are doing your balancing based off of Real Points, which we both know is only part of the balancing equation. You had to increase the active points by 50% to make the single Attack power “superior” to Multipower. You seem to be ignoring the downsides of the single attack build. It is using 150% of the END of Multipower all but one of the Multipower Slots, and generally would have to use that END to get the same level of effect. A much simpler negative Adjustment Power build is needed to reduce its over all effectiveness, because each slot in a Multipower is treated in relation to negative adjustment powers.

Well, yes. However, the easiest way to generate that 90% reduction is multipowers.

Easiest? Using a caution sign mechanic that uses how many pages to explain itself is easiest? How about which way is more misleading?

That also does not get into the fact that Frameworks are often one of the first things that GMs discard, or the fact that the implications of the way that the rules are currently written 12D6 EB and 6D6 NND EB bought outside of a Framework should be twice as useful as either of them separately.

[rjcurrie]

Have limitations on a power that uses the points of another power. This does a great simulation of learning a new use for a current power.

This is easily built and shows growth -
(60 AP) 12d EB - Flamethrower
(12 AP) 8d EB (AP +1/2, Uses EB -4)

This requires an extensive power redesign to use the same 12 XP -
(60 AP) Multipower - Flamethrower
(u6 AP) 12d EB
(u6 AP) 8d EB (AP +1/2)

With limitations (however they are handled) Steve can always get the cost and game effect of an MP without needing the framework. That way the rules are simpler, the character sheets are cleaner, and all characters can grow at the same rate when they spend XP.

What you've described so far covers one aspect of how Multipowers are used in the game. I've also seen them used with a mix of ultra and multi slots to represent Power Suit characters who need to allocate "power" to different systems. There is also the "utility belt" concept. Is it clear that these limitations would be the way to build such a thing?


Also, double rounding is eliminated, sparing us munchkinisms like this -

(15 AP) Multipower - Flamethrower - left nozzle (OAF -1)
(u1 AP) 12d EB
(u1 AP) 8d EB (AP +1/2)

(15 AP) Multipower - Flamethrower - right nozzle (adds to left, OAF -1)
(u1 AP) 12d EB
(u1 AP) 8d EB (AP +1/2)

First, I'm assuming that you meant to cut the 12d6 and 8d6 in half so that we're dealing with two focused 30 point multipowers.

Second, this is already blatantly illegal. No slot in a Framework can add to another slot in that Framework or any other Framework.

[caris]

Arg? You're honestly stating the opposite of reality?

Before I even directly address this you have to address my original question directly.

Without MPAs, what in game mechanical restrictions does putting all your attack powers in a Multipower apply to those attack powers that they wouldn’t have outside of the Multipower? How is this not “free points”?

Does it certainly encourage certain kinds of builds? Yes, it does. I just thought you weren’t in favor of giving discounts just to encourage one type of concept over another?

[caris]

What you've described so far covers one aspect of how Multipowers are used in the game. I've also seen them used with a mix of ultra and multi slots to represent Power Suit characters who need to allocate "power" to different systems. There is also the "utility belt" concept. Is it clear that these limitations would be the way to build such a thing?

No, I just think that the Limitation would have to be worded a little differently. Given the value of the Limitation shown in that example (-4), that would imply that it is variable rather than a fixed slot.

You see, I always thought of Multipowers as being more representative of a single unified power than an Elemental Control. If they aren't all an expression of the same power than why does how much you are using of one impact how much of the other you can use for anything other than strictly meta-game purposes? So I always have a bit of a disconnect when I see the "utility belt" type MP.

[rjcurrie]

No, I just think that the Limitation would have to be worded a little differently. Given the value of the Limitation shown in that example (-4), that would imply that it is variable rather than a fixed slot.

You see, I always thought of Multipowers as being more representative of a single unified power than an Elemental Control. If they aren't all an expression of the same power than why does how much you are using of one impact how much of the other you can use for anything other than strictly meta-game purposes? So I always have a bit of a disconnect when I see the "utility belt" type MP.

I always look at multipowers as representing concepts where you're selecting what to use from a pool of resources. Now that pool of resources may be a single Superpower or it may be a collection of gadgets that can only be used one at a time or it might be the power of a battle suit that can be allocated to different systems as needed (for example, you might not be able to have both the shields and weapons at full strength at the same time).

But to be honest, while your method may work out to the same costs as MPs, I'm not sure that it's that much easier to understand and it breaks backward compatibility for really no good reason.

[caris]

I always look at multipowers as representing concepts where you're selecting what to use from a pool of resources. Now that pool of resources may be a single Superpower or it may be a collection of gadgets that can only be used one at a time or it might be the power of a battle suit that can be allocated to different systems as needed (for example, you might not be able to have both the shields and weapons at full strength at the same time).

But to be honest, while your method may work out to the same costs as MPs, I'm not sure that it's that much easier to understand and it breaks backward compatibility for really no good reason.

rj that isn't my method. I came in asking the question:

And not being able to perform a MPA is worth a 50%-90% savings for all attack MPs?

in reponse to a complaint about the size of a discount that is given for ECs.

I don't deny MPs are useful tools, but simply put I tend to see them used in ways that are either to get around or at least minimize the biggest restrictions that they provide. The MPs that I tend to see are:

Swiss Army Attackers: Each slot is a different attack, and each slot is a fixed slot. Part of this is because most of the people that I gamed with did not interpret the rules as allowing MPAs. A couple of people did try to make the arguement, but since they were generally percieved as power gamers they failed to convince us. In this situation, this became an extremely attractive build.

All Terrain Movement: Each slot is a movement power often Flight, Flight with Megascale, and FTL. Other variations are possible, but once again the idea is to only have movement powers in the MP that you wouldn't normally be able to use together at the same time anyways. Didn't really see a lot of this until 5th, but did see the occasional one slot Flight one slot Gliding.

Adjustable Defense: The most common use of the variable slot, each slot is a Force Field for one of the kind of possibe Defense. Usually, the Pool Reserve is large enough that the PD and ED can be kept at a little above campaign average at the same time (e.g. average Def for the campaign is 30, the reserve will be 65-70), with the slots up to the highest level the GM will allow for them. This way the character can have the highest defense against whatever attacks are the strongest. A variation on this involves added Defense. The Multipower is smaller, but the base defenses are bought out side the MP as either Armor or PD/ED with Resistent Def.

Honestly, the first one is the one that bothers me the most, but only when I see characters like Rainbow Archer. The last one doesn't bother me at all, but I think it would be better handled with an Advantage on Force Field allowing you to adjust the levels independently the ratios that they were bought at.

I'd like to see characters that made more use of MP, but simply put the restrictions seem to be too great for the people that I game with to seriously put their primary defense in with either their primary attack or their primary movement.

As for the conceptual thing, since the individual items in that pool of gadgets are usually universal foci, I always wonder why my player can't hand the binoculars to someone else while he uses the lock picks. Don't get me wrong, I can handle it. It is just a small disconnect for me, when the individual powers are very clearly different things that could theoretically be used at the same time either by the same person or by multiple people.

[caris]

Really, MP is probably the hardest framework to find fault with.

Obviously, I feel differently. Mainly, as I told in my rjcurrie in my earlier post, because most of the time I see people building MPs to get around the limitations its supposed to impose for using it. Right now, to me it is a discount for building your character a certain way, which is no different than EC conceptually. EC allow GMs to reward taking certain powers together (since there is a lot more explicit rules about how any given EC is up to GM approval, where the rules are not nearly as explicit about the GM being able to approve one MP concept over another), where as MP gives an even bigger reward for putting a bunch of powers together that it wouldn't make sense to use at the same time anyways (or you wouldn't be able to). Neither concept really makes more sense to me than the other, but I don't get why other people feel that it does and that the one should also get an even bigger cost break.

[Netzilla]

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

I fear that this would end up making things more complicated than they are now. I'd need to see some good examples to make a proper comparison.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

I can see the logic for changing the name of Elemental Control to something a bit more generic. However, I'm not a fan of Unified Power. Unfortunately I don't have a better alternative.

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

Hmm... I see the logic behind it, but I'm also very leery of how this would work in practice. Perhaps what is needed is a mechanic for allowing individual slots to exceed the Active Point limit. Something similar to the multiplier for Normal Characteristic Maxima.

While we're on the subject of Frameworks, am I the old only who would like to see the Elemental Control go back to having a cost equal to that of the highest AP power in the EC and then each slot is ½ cost without an AP minimum? As it stands now, it's too hard to do some concepts that should logically be part of an EC.

[novi]

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

Until I see an example of how that would even possibly work, and be simpler than what we have now, no.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

Yes, though I agree that a good replacement is lacking. Power Array?
Also,I could live with the proposal to replace it with a "shared special effect" limitation.

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

Maybe. I don't see a need to do it with multipowers. I think they end up being as balanced as they're likely to get right now. For VPPs, I support it as a result of another change I support, to decouple the pool cost from the control cost. I don't see any terribly compelling reason they are linked other than that's the way it's always been done. And it would open up a bunch of creative space without radically altering the rules or giving people something for free.

[Kdansky]

Well, if does not make sense to use two powers at the same time, putting them into two fixed slots in an MP makes perfect sense!

What also makes perfect sense: If you have two powers which are highly redundant, you get a huge cost break. MP is one of the very few things that assigns point values in regard to character synergy. We've all seen this problem: If you buy one more point of speed, your power goes up tremendeously for only 10 cp. But what happens if you spend 60 points on an NND, assuming you already have an EB? Not so much. You're *a bit* better against *some* opponents, those with high defenses, but not that one thing that blocks your NND.
You could also spend these 6 points (or 12, if you don't have a MP yet) for that slot on two skills or one (two) Combatlevel with all combat (or Overall Level). That will be at least as good for your points.

Running 30 cp
Flight 30 cp
Tunneling 30 cp
Teleport 30 cp
Gliding 30 cp
Swinging 30 cp

That's a 180 cp, of which you will probably never use Running at all, Teleport and Tunneling are extremly redundant, and Swinging + Gliding are variants of Flight. Why would you consider paying 180 cp for that fair? It's just not. it's way too expensive. Even if you do put them into a MP, you'd still be better off saving at least the 9 points for Running, Swinging and Gliding, because they are totally redundant.

MP gives you a very big discount for a very big limitation: "Redundant".

Now I do agree that putting different Defenses into MPs is ugly, because these are not redundant and you usually don't need them at the same time.

10 base
1 mental
1 flash (sight)
1 flash (ears)
1 power
1 10/0 FF
1 0/10 FF

Not so pretty, but I can't see how one fixes that.

MP does two things:
A: If you use variable slots, it simulates the "Divert power to the shields!" concept. I still think 1/5 makes for too expensive slot cost here, if you have limitations on the slots, it is nearly as cheap to buy them as seperate powers.
B: If you have ultraslots, it gives you an appropriate discount for having very redundant powers. Five attacks is just not five times better than one attack.

Multipowers like this are a problem:
60
4 desolid
2 NA: affects real world on 10 str
4 teleport
2 flight
6 KA
6 flash
6 mind control
6 telepathy
1 flash defense
1 mental defense
1 power defense
1 1x Overall skill level
1 1x Overall skill level
1 1x Overall skill level
1 1x Overall skill level
6 Summon
6 Aid
...

To sum up the problems there:
A: Defenses in MP are problematic
B: Utility powers not paid fully. If you cannot attack while Desolid, that's a specific limitation of desolid, and you just circumvented it. Not so good.
C: Skill levels. You don't need any of the MP slots right now? Here's some +4 on your rolls.
D: Powers that last, even though the MP is in another slot. Summon, Mind Control.. That MP is certainly playing the system, not the game. But having 5 Attacks at 60 AP for "only" 90 points? Well, I hope you get use out of these 30 extra over the first attack, I'll just buy 3 Speed (or actually buy 30 points of flash, and link them to my EB. That nicely demonstrates that MPA (or Linked) is rather often not worse than an attack MP, but actually better cost/power ratio).

BTW: this is a Cosmic VPP, disguised as MP. It also costs about the same. So my main gripe with MP is: It's very powerful if you design a Cosmic VPP with it. So yeah, VPPs are powerful... I'm sure that totally surprised everyone.


MP also does not encourage certain CONCEPTS. Although if you want to use multiple attacks, it's encouraged to use a MP for that. Duh. If you want to use an EB, it's encouraged to use EB. I actually allow MPs for any sort of Attack MP, even if the Attacks are different Special Effect. They are still highly redundant.

[SylvanSnake]

Keep frameworks seperate, rename EC to Control Specialization, Multipowers and VPP can stay as they are.

[Scott Destroyer]

Hi there,

Once again, my thoughts on Steve's list:

Unify Power Frameworks - Doesn't seem worth it.
Rename Elemental Control - Sure, why not.
Change Multipower and VPP to make Real Points only Limit - This is kickin' it Old School; IIRC Anklyosaur was built like this in the original Enemies book, and there are those who thought him the most fearsome dude in the book. It's a huge power boost, and would let, for example, ritual mages with tiny VPPs pull off Astral Projections, MegaScale Teleport Gates, and other huge Active Point cost effects with long Extra Time rituals, OAF ritual implements, and so forth. Or allow bowmen to carry 1 charge of "nuclear arrow" in the quiver. My munchkin nature cries out "yes, yes!" for it, but these Frameworks are so point-efficient already that there must have to be some extra cost to such incredible power...


Thoughts on other issues mentioned...


Getting rid of the "All powers in an EC must cost END" restriction - this seems to have been de facto gone for a while; I've seen enough characters with Mind Links and other 0 END powers in EC's in official books that I'd like to see it made explicit.
Elemental Control too big a points break - Too big for what? If characters can get by just fine without one (and most do), it doesn't seem too big to me, but a reasonable enough reward for decent power ideas.


My own ideas:


Let Multipowers take the smallest total Limitation value on any of their slots, even if the actual Limitations are not identical, i. e., if you have two slots, one with OAF (-1) and Extra Time (-1), and one with Activation 14- (-1/2), let the reserve take a -1/2 Limitation.
Let Multipower reserves be limited seperately from the slots; for example, a magic Multipower with a 60-point reserve and a load of spell slots, with +30 points to the reserve on an OAF Wizard's Staff (-1) for 15 points, letting you use more powers at once, but not allowing any of them to be more powerful. Published characters like Tyrannon and the Nagas already do something similar with their VPP's even though it seems to be technically illegal.
Have some means for limiting a Multipower that can only change powers slowly or under limited circumstances, like the array of defined weapons pods an attack helicopter can have, changeable only in the hangar.

[caris]

Well, if does not make sense to use two powers at the same time, putting them into two fixed slots in an MP makes perfect sense!

Why yes, it does. Therefore, it encourages builds that make to contain multiple powers that don’t make sense to be put together, since you know the idea is for people to have concepts that support their builds, it in turn encourages builds that are best represented by those builds.

What also makes perfect sense: If you have two powers which are highly redundant, you get a huge cost break. MP is one of the very few things that assigns point values in regard to character synergy. We've all seen this problem: If you buy one more point of speed, your power goes up tremendeously for only 10 cp. But what happens if you spend 60 points on an NND, assuming you already have an EB? Not so much. You're *a bit* better against *some* opponents, those with high defenses, but not that one thing that blocks your NND.
You could also spend these 6 points (or 12, if you don't have a MP yet) for that slot on two skills or one (two) Combatlevel with all combat (or Overall Level). That will be at least as good for your points.

Running 30 cp
Flight 30 cp
Tunneling 30 cp
Teleport 30 cp
Gliding 30 cp
Swinging 30 cp

That's a 180 cp, of which you will probably never use Running at all, Teleport and Tunneling are extremly redundant, and Swinging + Gliding are variants of Flight. Why would you consider paying 180 cp for that fair? It's just not. it's way too expensive. Even if you do put them into a MP, you'd still be better off saving at least the 9 points for Running, Swinging and Gliding, because they are totally redundant.

MP gives you a very big discount for a very big limitation: "Redundant".


I repeat, if you are only supposed to be getting a price discount for things that impair or limit the character in comparison to what they can do without that mechanic, what can the character who spent those 180 points do that the character that spent 48 points on those same powers in ultra slots in a 30 point MP do?

What is the effective restriction or limitation on those powers? Show me how the 180 pt build and the 48 point build are any different in actual play.

Would you have a problem if your player’s took their base movements and put them in a MP just to get more Swimming and possibly Leaping (depending on STR and your house rules), and still have some exrtra CPs to spend on the rest of the character?
If there is supposed to be a cost break for redundancy, why isn’t it mentioned in the write up of Multipowers, or anywhere else in the books?

Now I do agree that putting different Defenses into MPs is ugly, because these are not redundant and you usually don't need them at the same time.

10 base
1 mental
1 flash (sight)
1 flash (ears)
1 power
1 10/0 FF
1 0/10 FF

Not so pretty, but I can't see how one fixes that.

You see, usually and always is a big difference. While usually, a character might not need all three up at the same time, in most campaigns where buying those powers makes any sense at all (which with PD and ED means a very large number of campaigns, but I can see some where ED is extremely rare), running into combats where on any given one of the characters Phases they can expect a reasonable risk of being targeted by more than one of those attacks. So I tend to look at this construct on a per campaign basis.

MP does two things:
A: If you use variable slots, it simulates the "Divert power to the shields!" concept. I still think 1/5 makes for too expensive slot cost here, if you have limitations on the slots, it is nearly as cheap to buy them as seperate powers.

The better way to phrase that is, if you only have limitations on the slots. If all the slots carry the same Limitation like say Increased END: 2x than it is significantly cheaper than buying all the slots separately. Of course, if you are using variable slots, than you are probably expecting to be limited by the actual restriction placed by the MP.

B: If you have ultraslots, it gives you an appropriate discount for having very redundant powers. Five attacks is just not five times better than one attack.

Assuming, that what you say is true, than there is a problem with the way Attack Powers (and Movement Powers) are priced. Because if this restriction exists, it exists independent of the Multipower, and should therefore exist mechanically independently of any Framework.

Multipowers like this are a problem:
60
4 desolid
2 NA: affects real world on 10 str
4 teleport
2 flight
6 KA
6 flash
6 mind control
6 telepathy
1 flash defense
1 mental defense
1 power defense
1 1x Overall skill level
1 1x Overall skill level
1 1x Overall skill level
1 1x Overall skill level
6 Summon
6 Aid
...

To sum up the problems there:
A: Defenses in MP are problematic
B: Utility powers not paid fully. If you cannot attack while Desolid, that's a specific limitation of desolid, and you just circumvented it. Not so good.
C: Skill levels. You don't need any of the MP slots right now? Here's some +4 on your rolls.
D: Powers that last, even though the MP is in another slot. Summon, Mind Control.. That MP is certainly playing the system, not the game. But having 5 Attacks at 60 AP for "only" 90 points? Well, I hope you get use out of these 30 extra over the first attack, I'll just buy 3 Speed (or actually buy 30 points of flash, and link them to my EB. That nicely demonstrates that MPA (or Linked) is rather often not worse than an attack MP, but actually better cost/power ratio).

BTW: this is a Cosmic VPP, disguised as MP. It also costs about the same. So my main gripe with MP is: It's very powerful if you design a Cosmic VPP with it. So yeah, VPPs are powerful... I'm sure that totally surprised everyone.

Gee, a Framework with 5 separate “needs GM’s permission, and two “stop sign” powers might have a problem? You think?

I’m not concerned with where some one spent the 30 points that they saved by buying one 60 point power over the person that spent 90 points on five 60 point powers in a Multipower. I’m concerned about the 210 points that the person who bought the Multipower saved over the person who bought five 60 point powers outside of the Multipower. I want to know what restrictions the person with the MP are actually facing in play over the person with five powers that they couldn’t use together anyways.

You do not seem to be questioning that the person that bought a single 60 point power is less effective than the person who bought five 60 point powers. You also don’t seem to be questioning that the person with five 60 point powers that can’t be used together is no more restricted if they buy the powers inside or outside of a Multipower. So why should one way of building power sets that are equally effective have such a huge price difference? That seems to be one of your key philosophies Dansky, that two equally powerful builds should cost roughly equal points, yes?

You see, like you, I didn’t use MPAs in 4th, except with some compound power builds that needed GM approval in the first place. That is why I had a problem with Multopowers even back then. It was too easy to play the system, so as to have Multipowers that were not restricted at all. Add in the fact that these MPs with no restrictions get such a huge cost break, I tended to focus much more on them than the Elemental Contols, which gave a comparatively small price break. In addition, EC were even easier for me to control, since it was assumed that even if the GM allows ECs generally that everything in every EC needed specific approval by the GM, unlike MPs where it was assumed that only the things noted as needing GM approval could be denied if the GM allowed MPs at all.

MP also does not encourage certain CONCEPTS. Although if you want to use multiple attacks, it's encouraged to use a MP for that. Duh. If you want to use an EB, it's encouraged to use EB. I actually allow MPs for any sort of Attack MP, even if the Attacks are different Special Effect. They are still highly redundant.

I’m sorry. I should have not mixed up builds and concepts in the use above. More I should have said: MPs favor certain builds, which in turn means it favors concepts that play to those builds.

[JmOz]

Here is the mistake


repeat, if you are only supposed to be getting a price discount for things that impair or limit the character in comparison to what they can do without that mechanic, what can the character who spent those 180 points do that the character that spent 48 points on those same powers in ultra slots in a 3 point MP do?

Who said you are only supposed to be getting a price discount for things that impair or limit the character in comparison to what they can do without that mechanic,

Shouldn't the goal be to make sure the character balances with the other characters. or put another way did the character who bought 5 different attacks at full points get his points worth? I mean is he actualy 5 times as powerful as the guy who bought just 1 attack? You are trying to compare the guy with a multipower to the guy who doesn't but can do everything the guy with the multipower can do. Shouldn't the goal be to make sure "Swiss army knife" is reasonably more expensive

I am starting to think Opal is right...

[JmOz]

ON EC, personaly I think we really need to consider getting rid of it, IF we are getting rid of figured characteristics, I see them being tied together

[caris]

Here is the mistake



Who said you are only supposed to be getting a price discount for things that impair or limit the character in comparison to what they can do without that mechanic,

Shouldn't the goal be to make sure the character balances with the other characters. or put another way did the character who bought 5 different attacks at full points get his points worth? I mean is he actualy 5 times as powerful as the guy who bought just 1 attack? You are trying to compare the guy with a multipower to the guy who doesn't but can do everything the guy with the multipower can do. Shouldn't the goal be to make sure "Swiss army knife" is reasonably more expensive

I am starting to think Opal is right...

JmOz, you miss the key. I'm saying that is one of Kdansky's key points, not necessarily that I think everyone (or I) agrees with him (I'm sorry for being unclear). His entire arguement against Elemental Controls is that they are "free" points. I'm pointing out that certain types of Multipowers, are also "free" points. I'm also implying, though haven't come out and very clearly stated it until now, that if we remove ECs on that ground, than we also have to seriously reexamine what we allow into MPs.

[Hugh Neilson]

Let Multipowers take the smallest total Limitation value on any of their slots, even if the actual Limitations are not identical, i. e., if you have two slots, one with OAF (-1) and Extra Time (-1), and one with Activation 14- (-1/2), let the reserve take a -1/2 Limitation.

I view this marginally differently. I would suggest that, in such cases, the Multipower (or VPP Control Cost) get a limitation equal to half the lowest limitation