Power Frameworks Issues [Archive] - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Steve Long

Feb 11th, '08, 04:33 AM

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

Feb 17th, '08, 05:32 PM

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

Feb 17th, '08, 05:40 PM

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

Feb 17th, '08, 05:41 PM

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

Feb 17th, '08, 06:47 PM

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

Feb 17th, '08, 06:54 PM

How can VPPs be made more intuitive?

Enforcer84

Feb 18th, '08, 12:10 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 12:24 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 01:37 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 09:17 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 09:36 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 10:27 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 10:55 AM

Edsel

Feb 18th, '08, 11:13 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 11:21 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 11:22 AM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 12:54 PM

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 the 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 fifty 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 for. 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 power within 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

Feb 18th, '08, 02:54 PM

Cardinal

Feb 18th, '08, 05:21 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 05:37 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 05:53 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 06:22 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 08:58 PM

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

:slap:

Eodin

Feb 18th, '08, 10:33 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 11:05 PM

JmOz

Feb 18th, '08, 11:14 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 11:23 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 11:26 PM

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

Feb 18th, '08, 11:46 PM

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

Thank you, JmOz and James. :)

Kdansky

Feb 19th, '08, 02:24 AM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 03:57 AM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 07:38 AM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 08:17 AM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 09:04 AM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 12:52 PM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 03:12 PM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 03:59 PM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 04:26 PM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 09:12 PM

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

Feb 19th, '08, 11:30 PM

Enforcer84

Feb 20th, '08, 12:47 AM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 03:07 AM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 03:31 AM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 06:06 AM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 06:39 AM

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

Feb 20th, '08, 11:17 AM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 01:50 PM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 01:55 PM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 01:58 PM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 02:28 PM

ajackson

Feb 21st, '08, 03:55 PM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 03:56 PM

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

JmOz

Feb 21st, '08, 04:05 PM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 04:58 PM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 10:59 PM

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

Feb 21st, '08, 11:14 PM

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

Feb 22nd, '08, 07:29 AM

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

Feb 22nd, '08, 07:59 AM

Silbeg

Feb 22nd, '08, 08:32 AM

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

Feb 22nd, '08, 09:53 AM

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

Feb 22nd, '08, 11:47 AM

Opal

Feb 22nd, '08, 12:58 PM

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

Feb 22nd, '08, 01:19 PM

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

Feb 22nd, '08, 01:20 PM

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

Feb 22nd, '08, 01:40 PM

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

Feb 22nd, '08, 02:19 PM

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

Feb 22nd, '08, 02:45 PM

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

Feb 22nd, '08, 03:52 PM

(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

Feb 22nd, '08, 06:55 PM

McCoy

Feb 22nd, '08, 08:34 PM

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

Feb 22nd, '08, 08:40 PM

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

Kdansky

Feb 22nd, '08, 09:09 PM

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

Feb 23rd, '08, 12:39 AM

...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

Feb 23rd, '08, 12:46 AM

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

Kdansky

Feb 23rd, '08, 01:04 AM

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

Feb 23rd, '08, 01:10 AM

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

Feb 23rd, '08, 08:30 AM

rjcurrie

Feb 23rd, '08, 08:42 AM

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

Feb 23rd, '08, 08:49 AM

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

Feb 23rd, '08, 08:59 AM

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

Feb 23rd, '08, 09:17 AM

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

Feb 23rd, '08, 10:12 AM

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

Feb 23rd, '08, 10:35 AM

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

Feb 23rd, '08, 01:42 PM

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

Feb 23rd, '08, 07:37 PM

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

Feb 24th, '08, 07:30 PM

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

Feb 24th, '08, 09:33 PM

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

Scott Destroyer

Feb 25th, '08, 12:33 AM

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

Feb 25th, '08, 04:12 AM

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

Feb 25th, '08, 04:46 AM

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

Feb 25th, '08, 04:49 AM

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

Feb 25th, '08, 05:44 AM

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

Feb 25th, '08, 06:06 AM

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 on the slots, which is equivalent to the Variable Limitation limitation. However, if the limitations on the slots are fixed, not variable, they should benefit from the full limitation value. To take your example under this approach, the MP pool would have a -1/4 limitation (half of the least limitation), so with a 60 point MP, it would cost 48 points. Slot 1 would cost 3 points as an Ultra, while Slot 2 would cost 4. As a VPP, the control cost would cost 24 (30/1.25), Slot 1 woud require 30 points from the pool and slot 2 would require 40 (meaning they can't be up at the same time).

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.

I see this as legit now. If it needs to be explicitly made so, why not?

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.

There's an issue here. This should never reduce the overall cost below the cost of a single power. To illustrate, a character with a 12d6 EB pays 60 points. A Multipower of a 12d6 EB and a 12d6 Flash should NEVER cost less than 61 points, no matter how long it takes to switch slots, since the MP character can enjoy all the benefits of a 12d6 EB, and has the option (however limited) of having a 12d6 Flash instead.

This implies the limitation should be placed only on the slots, and not on the reserve. Really, "takes time to change" or "only changes under unusual circumstances" is a slot limitation. The former is effectively "extra time, only to activate" on each slot, wth the assumption the extra time has been spent on one slot if it's already "active".

caris

Feb 25th, '08, 06:41 AM

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.

Ajackson, I have to thank you, while thinking about your example specifically. I clarified what is really my biggest problem.

Your first build is a vastly superior version of Variable Advantage. It is a 12D6 EB with a +1/2 Advantage that lets it take 4 fixed alternate builds that allow it to have any or no Advantage on them, but the total Active Points stay the same.

Lets take a look at an alternate set of builds:

Build 1a: 60 point Multipower. Slots are 8d6 AP, 8d6 AE 1 hex, and 8d6 Autofire. Active Cost for END and Balancing: 60 Cost: 78 points
Build 2a: 8d6 EB Variable Advantage (Up to a +1/2 Advantage, Limited Group of Advantages: AP, AE 1 hex and Autofire) Active Cost for END and Balancing: 70 Cost: 70 points

Now, these two builds are much closer in actual power. Main difference is that the MP costs 6 END at full power, while the Variable Advantage costs 7 END at full power. As I understand the Adjustment Powers rules for Multipowers, the Multipower is much harder to improve or impair. Now, in this case they are pretty equal, but you take your original build, things get a little wackier, because if you vary the value of the Advantage, you can vary the amount of the Damage. In addition, you can change the type of Damage you are doing to Mental Effects, Flash, Entangle, Transform, and/or Adjustment. The real fun, is also get to do this without raising the Active Points for all the fun stuff you are doing, so you are probably paying less END than the power is actually worth. You are also skating in under any Active Point Limitations, because you are probably under stating your active cost.

Interestingly enough, this actually kinds of touches on the more general discussion of unifying certain powers together and just making them one base power with all the differences represented by Modifiers. The all Attack Multipower, certainly does look like it could be a single power: Attack, bought with Variable Advantage. The same could be said for the all Movement Multipowers, and the All Defense Multipower.

Anyways, this does give me a manner to look at how I handle Multipowers in my campaign.

Once again ajackson, thank you, you’ve helped me resolve what has been a rather vexing problem for me.

Kdansky

Feb 25th, '08, 07:22 AM

caris

Feb 25th, '08, 08:36 AM

Actually, Jmoz pretty much summed up what I tried to say about MPs. They give a reasonable discount for stuff that is by design limited. Character A buys Flight, PC B buys Flight and Gliding. B is highly limited, or rather: He spent a huge amont of points on something which will be used very rarely. He does not get a point reduction because Flight + Gliding in a MP is worse than Flight + Gliding outside of a MP. He gets a point reduction because Flight + Gliding (out of MP) is worse than Flight + Something Else For Thirty Points.

I consider it quite well balanced that your first Movement Power costs full points, but the next one only 20% (two slots), and all after that only 10% (one more slot). That's incredible game design right there. (and I fear it was not intended as such ;) )
Of course, valuation is a very subjective matter. You feel the ability to go from X” at 0 END, where you may or may not have to drop 1” every Phase and may or may not be able to gain altitude, to ½X” at X/10 END, where you can gain altitude is only worth about a 20% increase (assuming that both powers were bought to the same Active Cost). I think it is worth more.

Even so, if that is the actual intent of Multipowers (which we agree it probably wasn’t), it is very poor design to have a whole separate mechanic with close to three pages of explanatory text, which never once cover that topic to reach the effect.

So with my ruling, that means, you can expect to put nearly anything into a MP if one can reasonably consider it redundant for your build. Which also means that anything that is not redundant will have to be payed in full. Usually, Desolid is very hard to justify as being redundant, or Skill Levels. Interestingly, all Stop/Warning powers are of that kind, whereas all others are not so much.

Except, either the rules have to have a comprehensive list of what is redundant with what, or it comes down to GM decision. Desolid is not redundant with Attack Powers, but is with Defensive Powers, yes/no?

Now if you use the same ruling for EC, what happens? Well, you can put your whole character into an EC. Because you know what? There's no reason why you should not be able to except for SFX. And SFX is hugely biased. Sonic powers get a Flash, but Fire powers don't? I call GM-favourites right there!
Therefore EC has to go.

What ruling? That you can “anything into a [framework] if one can reasonably consider it redundant for your build”? (Sorry, I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, but that is the only thing that sounds to me like a ruling in your post.) Well, than it sounds like your first slot will cost you 100%, and each slot after that will cost you 50%. Which means no one ever would do that if MPs are available, because the MPs will always provide the bigger savings? Which is unsurprisingly, matches up with my experience, since I usually disallow the MP for attacks and EC for Movement and Defense types of builds.

Using, the how do they compare to other methodologies, doesn’t/can’t really work for my experiences. I and pretty much every GM I know, tend to be extremely fussy about our Elemental Controls. We tend to disallow a lot of the ECs that are obviously attempts to mini-max. For example, we are inclined to force players to put into the EC things that were obviously left out to maximize points savings. (e.g. Your character has an EC: Heat Powers, why is the LS: High Temperature not in it, but your Flight and Force Field are? Oh look, you also have all of your heat blasts over in a MP, why?)

Chris Goodwin

Feb 25th, '08, 11:18 AM

The official position of the Conspiracy to Eliminate All Cost Breaks is I think we should keep frameworks the way they are. I'm ok with changing the EC's name, and maybe some other minor tweaking, but I'm kinda thinking it's best to stay with Active Points for Multipowers. Just my opinion.

ajackson

Feb 25th, '08, 01:44 PM

My take on the 'proper' way to build multipowers is that the ability to solve the same problem (I have a target I would like to beat upon, for example) in more than one way should be relatively inexpensive. The ability to solve two different classes of problem (for example, the multipower of blast and non-combat teleport) should be full cost.

It's the second that's the real balance problem with multipowers. Multi together any number of combat powers is usually pretty balanced. Add non-combat powers and you've suddenly improved your capabilities dramatically.

Alcamtar

Feb 25th, '08, 02:23 PM

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 am very strongly in favor of this change, for several reasons:

The Hero System is balanced by the GM, not by points. Active Points and Real Points and DCs serve as useful metrics, but ultimately it is up to the GM to decide how many points you get, how you can use them, and to veto specific abuses. There is nothing stopping a character from buying a 40d6 RKA except the GM saying "no".

All successful Hero GMs set campaign limits and enforce them. These limits are the rule everywhere except for power frameworks, where the system takes over and sets a fiat limit. Why aren't the GM's own limits and judgement adequate? More to the point, why is the "AP cannot exceed reserve" not a GM determined house rule limit? (Surely it could be suggested as a recommendation instead of a requirement!) It seems to me if a player abuses a framework, it is the GM's fault for permitting it.

The whole point of limitations is to reduce the cost of the power by reducing utility. The MP and VPP leave you stuck with a less useful power, yet do not give you a meaningful cost break. If the player does limit the power, he should get some benefit for that.

Players tend to not put many limitations onto powers in a VPP (unless the GM requires them). If the player does not limit the power, then AP=RP and you still have the same power limit as the current VPP. For "normal" usage there is no difference for a real-point pool.

It is impossible to create a huge epic power in a framework, yet it is easy to just buy it outright.

I feel that as currently implemented, frameworks violate the basic design and spirit of the system. If real-point frameworks are unbalanced, it's a simple matter to increase the cost to bring them into line.

Opal

Feb 25th, '08, 03:13 PM

The Hero System is balanced by the GM, not by points. Then why have points?

There is nothing stopping a character from buying a 40d6 RKA except the GM saying "no".The 600 point cost would slow down most characters in a 200+150 game.

All successful Hero GMs set campaign limits and enforce them. These limits are the rule everywhere except for power frameworks, where the system takes over and sets a fiat limit. I doubt they're often in conflict. If the GM sets an Apt limit, you can buy your framework 'reserve' in compliance with that limit. Similarly, if he sets a DC limit, that maps directly to Apts.

The whole point of limitations is to reduce the cost of the power by reducing utility. The MP and VPP leave you stuck with a less useful power, yet do not give you a meaningful cost break.MP and VPP already give you a huge cost break - compared to that break, yes, the impact of limitations is muted (though still pretty important with the VPP, since it affects how many powers you can have going at once).

When you get to a higher-Apt power, you have to buy some of it outside the framework, and you get a cost break from both the framework, and substantial savings from the limitation, as well.

It is impossible to create a huge epic power in a framework, yet it is easy to just buy it outright.It is entirely possible, you just have to build a chunk of it outside the framework.

SAVeira

Feb 25th, '08, 04:46 PM

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

No. It would make things much more difficult.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

Sure, but just have a cool name for it. BTW, Unified Power is not a cool name, sorry Steve.

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 see game imbalancing being a problem for a number of people. Best to keep way it is.

dsatow

Feb 25th, '08, 06:56 PM

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

No. Why make it harder.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

Though I don't like the name Unified Power, changing the name of an elemental control is find by me. I don't really see a need though.

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

OMG, I could see some many abuses at conventions I would be scared to run games that allowed characters in. Please say no.

Q: EC vs Multipower frameworks
I don't know about others but I see a lot of multipowers and few ECs in relation. One reason is the type of powers that can go in each. Can we ease up on the type of powers which can go into an EC a little? As is, you can't make say a Sensor Lass type of girl with one because senses can't go in. You can't make an Immortal because Life Support can go in. Easing the slot restriction to the same as multipower slot would also make learning the framework easier.

SteveZilla

Feb 25th, '08, 07:04 PM

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

Elemental Control is IMO the functional & costed opposite of Multipowers and VPPs (which share greater similarity with each other than they do with ECs). Because of this, I would say no.

However, if Elemental Control is done away with in favor of a Limitation, then it might be possible to combine MPs and VPPs.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

If we get rid of it, we don't have to worry about what to call it, do we? :D

But if we keep it, I would make a suggestion to rename all three.

Elemental Control, because it uses multiple powers to represent a "bigger power", should be called a MultiPower.

MultiPower, because it lets one select from a few powers, should be called a VariablePower.

Variable Power (Pool), because it give the option of doing just about *any* power (unless limited), should be called an UltraPower.

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. This would actualy give an advantage to powers taking a Limitation.

However, for those who want a really big power to be in such a framework, perhaps we could introduce a way of buying an expansion to the pool that only applies to a single specified slot/power?

Kdansky

Feb 25th, '08, 09:29 PM

Except, either the rules have to have a comprehensive list of what is redundant with what, or it comes down to GM decision. Desolid is not redundant with Attack Powers, but is with Defensive Powers, yes/no?
At this point, where you ask if a certain power is redundant with a certain other power, you have to look at the overall character. It's actually quite the same as the "If you have speed 8 and high ocv/dcv, your defenses should not be maxed out too."-Eyeballing. We do that, because else some builds totally dominate any combat (Brick Speedster with 20 points of MA). The synergy between high speed + high dcv + high def is just too good. You are rarely in harms way, you rarely get hit and it you get hit despite all that, you can just shrug it off. And it's not even really expensive to do.

So in the same spirit, you still have to look at Frameworks. Someone puts lots of movement or attack powers in a MP? No problem, obviously redundant. The tricky powers are those that "last", be it Summon, Mind Control or Defenses. They all have effects that continue when you swap out the slot.

Let me say it like this: Instead of "same SFX", use "Similar Effect" as a guideline. All Attacks. All Movements. The obvious loopholes are (and have always been) powers that have NOTHING in common. Put a megascale teleport into your Attack MP. That is clearly not redundant (and due to that should not get a cost break) and it is neither used at the same time. One if for fighting, the other one is a purely OutOfCombat power. Similar problems arise with Attack MPs with for example Healing in them. Huge gain in utility for only 10% base cost. On the other hand, you cannot really use your attack at the same time as the healing, so there you go with your "why it should be allowed" reason.

Desolid and Attacks is pretty much always abuse, sorry speedsters (yeah, I am effectively disagreeing with UltSpeedster), I just cannot see why you should get 100% desolid effects for 10% costs when everyone else has to pay it fully. My reasoning: If you go desolid, you cannot Attack anyway, so you don't really need your attack right then (clearly someone gets a cost break without any limitations/redundancy coming into play).
The only thing that would work: If you buy Desolid outside of the MP, you can put the "Affects real world" Naked Advantage (or an EB with it) into your MP.

What ruling? That you can “anything into a [framework] if one can reasonably consider it redundant for your build”? (Sorry, I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, but that is the only thing that sounds to me like a ruling in your post.) Well, than it sounds like your first slot will cost you 100%, and each slot after that will cost you 50%. Which means no one ever would do that if MPs are available, because the MPs will always provide the bigger savings? Which is unsurprisingly, matches up with my experience, since I usually disallow the MP for attacks and EC for Movement and Defense types of builds.
Sorry, I was very unclear what I meant. My thought was: Since I allow nearly anything to be put into a MP, no matter the SFX, as long as there is either redundancy or Choice involved (never forget, there's also the "I can either have high shields or high attack, but not both at the same time"- concept which is also done with MPs. Completely different, but same construct). A "clever" gamer might now conclude: "If there is either Choice or Redundancy, that essentially means: Everything!" and that is exactly what happens with EC. With MP, there is no risk. Nobody really *wants* to put all their things into one big MP. But with EC, that's different. Name two powers you would not want to put into an EC (provided EC allowed all AP sizes together and just halved real cost while costing as much as half the biggest power in it). You simply cannot. The "Drained as one" effect is sooooo tiny, if you really care, you just take 20 power defense, hardened and stick that into your EC too. Still cheaper than not gettting 50% off of your whole character.

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.
Small correction: My argument against ECs is: Free points for no reason. With MP, there are either drawbacks, or you get some points back for stuff you bought, but you actually cannot use fully due to other things you can also do instead. To come back to the flight + gliding example: A clever PG would put "2 continuing charges: 1 minute each" onto the gliding. He figures he'll use it so rarely, might as well limit it a bit, and that's not even the best choice, since charges gives you 0END for free, and gliding already comes with 0END.
With EC, there is nothing like that. It's like "Limitation: This Power is Limited (-1/2)". Why exactly should that be cheaper?

SteveZilla

Feb 26th, '08, 11:18 AM

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.

Wouldn't that be a sign that some powers' write-ups are faulty instead of the writeup for EC?

With EC making powers cost about half they would normally, a character can theoretically buy almost twice as much. So cost is effectively removed as a limiter. All the powers in an EC can be used concurrently, so the "pool" is not a limiter. This leave just one thing -- their Endurance Cost -- to limit the Character. Yes, you can buy a power in an EC down to Zero END for 50% more cost, but this eats heavily into the cost break that the EC gives, thereby (IMO) maintaining a semblance of balance.

If we do get rid of EC and replace it with a Limitation, I would propose that the Limitation's base value for each power be dependent upon whether or not the unadvantaged/unlimited power costs END (-1/4 for 0 END powers, -1/2 for powers that cost END).

Without some other limitation upon this Limitation, what's to prevent bricks from going the old route of stacking up lots of defense-improving powers as well as their primary Characteristics:

+30 PD/+30 ED Armor - "EC" Limitation(-1/4)
50% Damage Reduction, Resistant on PD - "EC" Limitation(-1/4)
50% Damage Reduction, Resistant on ED - "EC" Limitation(-1/4)
+30 Constitution - "EC" Limitation(-1/4)
+30 Strength - "EC" Limitation(-1/2)

SteveZilla

Feb 26th, '08, 11:26 AM

Fixed, and Adjustable for the other, perhaps?

IMO this is a good idea. I've had to correct both others and even myself on what term to call what kind of Multipower Slot. Though I would use Variable instead of Adjustable (but know that it's just semantics at that point).

Opal

Feb 26th, '08, 11:41 AM

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.

Say you're tossing 12d N in a 30-def max game. You do 12 STN to an tough 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.

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. That's really not too unreasonable. Paying full price for powers that you can't ever use at the same time is pretty inefficient. Say you buy flight. You can move around in three dimensions. If you also buy running, it really doesn't do much for you, unless your flight is drained or something. If you also buy a comparable amount of swimming, you'll be able to swim just as fast as you fly, instead of the reduced movement for using flight in water. That's a gain in the water, but not really as much of a gain as you would have gotten if you hadn't already had flight. The powers are redundant to an extent.

Adjustable Defense: The most common use of the variable slot, each slot is a Force Field for one of the kind of possibe Defense. Interesting, but the character could easily guess wrong about which defense he needs, and you can only shift your multipower once/phase.

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.There was a lot more impetus to do this when characters were 100+disads points, it was a lot harder to pay for a campaign-max attack and defesnses and movement with only 200 or so points. A multipower character could be pretty dramatic, able to fly, resist attacks, and blast away at the campaign limit - some of the time. With 350, it's pretty easy to touch the basic campaign caps ~60Apts. If you were running, and wanted to see more multipowers of that type, you could go with higher caps, or give a higher cap to that sort of construct (cap is 60, but 75 if you can't hit the cap on more than one power at a time).

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.I agree, that's always been a problem.

The GM just has to make the character break items out of his MP (or VPP, if performs a similar abuse) that he makes a habbit of 'handing out.' The alternative - making the character unable to pull out his lockpicks until he's gotten back his binoculars from someone who stole them is even less attractive, though.

The Main Man

Feb 26th, '08, 11:46 AM

Elemental Control --> Unified Power:thumbup:
That being said, EC/UP should be eliminated in favor of modified VPP/MP rules.

Thusly, Variable Power Pool --> Variable Power for complete consistency:thumbup:

Variable Power should then be a Multi-Power variant or modifier of some kind.

It would take MP, which is basically a more limited VPP, and then make it open-ended as per VPP.

arromdee

Feb 26th, '08, 12:42 PM

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.

I think of EC sort of like, say, Normal Characteristic Maxima. It doesn't specifically limit any particular power, but it limits the overall efficiency of your character. If you build a werewolf, for instance, picking powers that go together in the classical concept of a werewolf is likely to make your character less useful than if you say "Heck, no, those enhanced senses duplicate my night vision goggles and I don't need the strength because we already have a brick on the team" and trading those out for laser beams from your eyes.

That's really much more important to why you get a bonus than having Suppress take them all out at once.

Alcamtar

Feb 26th, '08, 04:17 PM

Then why have points?

Points loosely quantify the effectiveness of a given power; otherwise it would be impossible to objectively compare, say, Aid to Desolidification. The quantification is pretty good but still only approximate; some constructs are still more efficient than others.

The thing is, points really only compare two powers with much accuracy. If you're spreading points among multiple powers, then combinations and ratios become important. Someone who buys four 15-pt attacks may be more (or less) effective than someone who buys a single 60-pt attack, depending on the the campaign.

Points are less useful for comparing overall characters... 200 pt. characters by different players can be wildly different in balance. There will be an average overall effectiveness, but individuals can greatly exceed or fall below that average, and everyone has an Achilles' Heel regardless of points.

In my estimation, points are mainly good for setting limits for individual powers and for providing structure to character creation. It's fun to allocate and min-max points, and the exercise stimulates creativity.

That's my take on it anyway.

The 600 point cost would slow down most characters in a 200+150 game.

"Slowed down" is not even remotely comparable to "impossible".

Opal

Feb 26th, '08, 04:43 PM

Mostly pretty good points, thanks. I particularly the idea of the whole point-balancing exercise as stimulating creativity. It really can act as an impetus to round out and more deeply think about a character. To work, that way, though, you do need some balance, and some sense of points being constrained, I would think.

I do really doubt that 4 sepparate 15 pt attacks will often stack up well to a single 60 pt attack, though. Unless the 60 pt attack is a STN-only EB in a setting where all your adversaries are constructs that don't take STN, or something extreme like that.

SteveZilla

Feb 26th, '08, 05:25 PM

I think of EC sort of like, say, Normal Characteristic Maxima. It doesn't specifically limit any particular power, but it limits the overall efficiency of your character. If you build a werewolf, for instance, picking powers that go together in the classical concept of a werewolf is likely to make your character less useful than if you say "Heck, no, those enhanced senses duplicate my night vision goggles and I don't need the strength because we already have a brick on the team" and trading those out for laser beams from your eyes.

That's really much more important to why you get a bonus than having Suppress take them all out at once.

While I can see and understand that, it ocurrs to me that this methodology relies heavily on preexisting powersets in ficiton. Which, if it's limited to just preexisting powersets from fiction, is like telling the players "Sorry, your creativity doesn't count for squat -- only old & well established powersets are acceptable."

I think the reason for all the powers is key (The Special Effect(s) of the Character), with past works of fiction being only ancillary as sources of inspiration. Of course, as with all constructs, it has to pass the GM's scrutiny for (his) game balance.

Kdansky

Feb 26th, '08, 07:28 PM

I think of EC sort of like, say, Normal Characteristic Maxima. It doesn't specifically limit any particular power, but it limits the overall efficiency of your character. If you build a werewolf, for instance, picking powers that go together in the classical concept of a werewolf is likely to make your character less useful than if you say "Heck, no, those enhanced senses duplicate my night vision goggles and I don't need the strength because we already have a brick on the team" and trading those out for laser beams from your eyes.

That's really much more important to why you get a bonus than having Suppress take them all out at once.

So I understand you would rather have character classes? Because that's what you are proposing, having fixed archetypes and balancing them by giving them inherent drawbacks if they get too good due to multiclassing synergy. That's exactly what I don't want, I've got DnD for that.
Define your werewolf as spitting acid if you really want an RKA? There's nothing preventing you from using a suitable SFX and getting any power you want. Also, if the GM disallows this, make a show of completely doing a 180° in PC concept and then say: "Well, would you rather have me play the interesting concept, or the munchkin character you want me to play?"

Kdansky

Feb 26th, '08, 07:37 PM

Wouldn't that be a sign that some powers' write-ups are faulty instead of the writeup for EC?

With EC making powers cost about half they would normally, a character can theoretically buy almost twice as much. So cost is effectively removed as a limiter. All the powers in an EC can be used concurrently, so the "pool" is not a limiter. This leave just one thing -- their Endurance Cost -- to limit the Character. Yes, you can buy a power in an EC down to Zero END for 50% more cost, but this eats heavily into the cost break that the EC gives, thereby (IMO) maintaining a semblance of balance.

If we do get rid of EC and replace it with a Limitation, I would propose that the Limitation's base value for each power be dependent upon whether or not the unadvantaged/unlimited power costs END (-1/4 for 0 END powers, -1/2 for powers that cost END).

Without some other limitation upon this Limitation, what's to prevent bricks from going the old route of stacking up lots of defense-improving powers as well as their primary Characteristics:

+30 PD/+30 ED Armor - "EC" Limitation(-1/4)
50% Damage Reduction, Resistant on PD - "EC" Limitation(-1/4)
50% Damage Reduction, Resistant on ED - "EC" Limitation(-1/4)
+30 Constitution - "EC" Limitation(-1/4)
+30 Strength - "EC" Limitation(-1/2)
Oh, interesting post. Allow me to pick it apart ;)

Bricks: Well, the exact same thing as now: Campaign limits and GM eyeballing. There's nothing preventing them now from taking 150 strength either...
Why should they not get the -1/4? I think they should. It's only a cheap limitation and if they get hit by a suppress or drain, they are toast. You cannot argue anything else really without breaking consistency. But I agree that this is rather not-so-great.

Now for END: I'm very convinced that powers have END cost or don't have END cost more or less because they do. You can still add it to them or take it away (although interestingly, 0 END + Persistent is +1, whereas 0 END gives nonpersistent for free (which would only be 1/4 by itself) and results in only -1/2). I think end costs should be redesigned and streamlined. Which powers cost end, which dont, why? But you make a valid point that only end-costing powers should go into an EC/Unified Power Limitation.

Brainstorming: It actually makes sense, doesn't it? If some of your powers are the same power, but different manifestations, then that means they should not be inherent character things, but rather "tacked on" magical energy powers. Which are visible and cost end. I can somehow grasp the idea that my EB + my Flight are both Fire, and therefore visible and cost END, but my damage reduction is just me. Nobody will understand this :(

Opal

Feb 26th, '08, 08:06 PM

So I understand you would rather have character classes? Because that's what you are proposing, having fixed archetypesI think you're reading a little too much into it, there. ECs used to require a unifying special effect, now they essentially require that they're all conceptually one power. While they can readily be used to affordably build to familiar blueprints, they can also be used to model something more nearly 'original' (nothing's /really/ that original, but still), as long as it's internally consistent and unified.

Which reminds me: 'Complex Power' might make a good replacement name for EC. A power that requires several powers to model.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 26th, '08, 08:07 PM

Bricks: Well, the exact same thing as now: Campaign limits and GM eyeballing. There's nothing preventing them now from taking 150 strength either...
Why should they not get the -1/4? I think they should. It's only a cheap limitation and if they get hit by a suppress or drain, they are toast. You cannot argue anything else really without breaking consistency. But I agree that this is rather not-so-great.

Agreed. At present, characteristics benefit from Figured, essentially their own type of framework. Pull that, and we probably need to allow characteristic frameworks to restore balance for characteristic-heavy characters.

Now for END: I'm very convinced that powers have END cost or don't have END cost more or less because they do. You can still add it to them or take it away (although interestingly, 0 END + Persistent is +1, whereas 0 END gives nonpersistent for free (which would only be 1/4 by itself) and results in only -1/2).

It's worse than that when you factor in visibility. And the power that sells the arbitrariness of whether a power costs END, at least for me, is Aid. The only adjustment power that's 0 END by default. Why? Because it was too powerful costing END and 5 points per die, but not powerful enough at 10 points per die if it cost END, so we just remove the END cost so it can cost a multiple of 5 per die.

Get rid of the arbitrary "3/5/10" and price the powers at what they're worth. If that means AID costs 7 points per die because that's what Aid that costs END is worth, so be it. Make the END cost default consistent for all the adjustment powers.

Kdansky

Feb 27th, '08, 07:08 AM

I think you're reading a little too much into it, there. ECs used to require a unifying special effect, now they essentially require that they're all conceptually one power. While they can readily be used to affordably build to familiar blueprints, they can also be used to model something more nearly 'original' (nothing's /really/ that original, but still), as long as it's internally consistent and unified.
And who decides what's "consistent and unified"? Riiight, the GM, without any guidelines whatsoever. Pure fiat, and does not make the game any better. "This SFX cannot do that. But this SFX can." That's a steaming pile of maroon coloured, soft and slightly wet things right there!

Which reminds me: 'Complex Power' might make a good replacement name for EC. A power that requires several powers to model.
That's an MP, if you ask me. But oh no! Now you cannot have your FF and your flight active and blast your EB at the same time? Well guess what, you can't have the cake and eat it too. Either you get point savings, or you get full power, but not both.
Completely supports my argument of getting rid of EC completely. (repetition intended)

Why should I be able to put Desolid (+1/2 hard to dispell), Force Field (+1/2 hardened), Flight and EB in an EC and save 90 points? Name a construct which makes sense from a rules-point of view. I can give you MP constructs which are ok (KA + EB + NND or Flight + Running + Gliding or EB + FF) for many reasons, and I can name you some which are pure abuse (Desolid + EB + 60 AP Teleport (mostly noncombat multipliers), with 10" Flight outside of MP for usual movement, but teleport for long ranges and because it's useful.) Note that I don't have to talk about SFX to tell you which MPs are ok and which are abusive.
With EC, there's no rule (except "must cost end") to tell you what should get a cost break. So everything does, ok? Makes 350 cp characters more like 500 cp chars. If you want to give everyone an arbitrary point break, just give them 100 exp first session.

And in reply to Hugh: Absolutely! Aid bothers me to no end! END cost is mostly given to powers for three reasons:
- How Do The Physical Laws Work point of view: attacks cost end, because you exert yourself.
- Visibilty or Not (Force Field). but that should be visibility, not end cost. This connection is way too strong.
- Points balance (Aid)

and fourth comes EC balance, for which I cannot quote any power.

Opal

Feb 27th, '08, 11:23 AM

Why should I be able to put Desolid (+1/2 hard to dispell), Force Field (+1/2 hardened), Flight and EB in an EC and save 90 points?Why shouldn't you be able to? You're spending 150 points, close to half your character's total, on one F/X, parcelled out among 4 similar-Apt powers. If you just put 150 pts into one of those powers, it'd be nuts (75" of flight, for instance, with +15d move-bys). Does your EB do 15d6, does your flight let you do a move-by that takes you out of and back into the -4 range penalty distance? No. You have 4 powers at a strong level instead of one or two at an unreasonable level, that's a good thing.

The sorts of cost breaks you get from frameworks (and figured characteristics, and limitations) enable many - indeed most - concepts to be viable at a point level that doesn't just let players plunk down a huge chunk of points for an 'I win' type of power that always works, at the expense of sucking at everything else.

If you have a unified power concept, you get a point break if you buy a few major powers at about the same level, instead of one rediculous one. If you have a lot of options, but can only use them one at a time, you pay a lot less - but the same points, with no discount, could buy you one very powerful option.

Name a construct which makes sense from a rules-point of view.Any sort of "I can become {insert type of energy}" concept could work for a power set something like that.

I can give you MP constructs which are ok (KA + EB + NND or Flight + Running + Gliding or EB + FF) for many reasons, and I can name you some which are pure abuse (Desolid + EB + 60 AP Teleport (mostly noncombat multipliers), with 10" Flight outside of MP for usual movement, but teleport for long ranges and because it's useful.) How, is that last one particularly abusive? They're powers you likely wouldn't use at the same time, but so are two of the three you consider OK.

With EC, there's no rule (except "must cost end") to tell you what should get a cost break. So everything does, ok? Makes 350 cp characters more like 500 cp chars. If you want to give everyone an arbitrary point break, just give them 100 exp first session.Even a 60 Apt, 4 slot EC with no lims only saves 90 pts, so, no, not like 500 pt characters, more like 440. Frankly, I think 350 pts is already a tad excessive, unless you just outright force every character to take something like 30 skills. But, no, everyone doesnt' get an EC, and everyone doesn't devote the same proportion of his character points to things that grant cost breaks, so, no, you can't simply give everyone more points as a 'fix.' Even if you could, the 'fix' would be meaningless.

SteveZilla

Feb 27th, '08, 12:17 PM

And who decides what's "consistent and unified"? Riiight, the GM, without any guidelines whatsoever. Pure fiat, and does not make the game any better.

It's his game, I don't see how we could stop the GM from exercising his fiat if he wants to. I guess you could protest by not playing, but then... you're not playing, and the GM likely still is. That'll teach him! :rolleyes::)

"This SFX cannot do that. But this SFX can." That's a steaming pile of maroon coloured, soft and slightly wet things right there!

Oh! I see you found my freshly washed burgundy socks. ;)

That's an MP, if you ask me. But oh no! Now you cannot have your FF and your flight active and blast your EB at the same time? Well guess what, you can't have the cake and eat it too. Either you get point savings, or you get full power, but not both.[quote]

I think you are leaving out one entire level of the equation. Both ECs and MPs give a point savings, with the MP giving more because it is more restrictive than an EC in terms of how much can be used simultaneously. But the level you are leaving out is the fact that a character can avoid the restrictions & penalties of both EC and MP by just buying all their powers straight-up without any framework.

And nothing automatically restricts a Multipower from having more than one power operating at full capacity at the same time.

[quote=Kdansky;1552439]Why should I be able to put Desolid (+1/2 hard to dispel), Force Field (+1/2 hardened), Flight and EB in an EC and save 90 points?

You shouldn't, unless they are all "linked" by a common Special Effect in such a way that that one Special Effect, though it's various applications/uses could reasonably be expected to manifest as those individual powers.

Note that nobody is saying that the character can't have those powers (except the GM using his fiat -- oops, there's that word again ;)), just that he can't automatically have them all in the same EC.

Name a construct which makes sense from a rules-point of view.

5er, p 316: Elemental Control: Ice Powers. It's there in the book, and it makes sense from a rules (as written) point of view. Now, that player may also want his character to have Telepathy. Fine, but it can't be put in the Ice Powers EC. At least not without a real darned good explanation on how cold can give rise to Telepathy.

I can give you MP constructs which are ok (KA + EB + NND or Flight + Running + Gliding or EB + FF) for many reasons, and I can name you some which are pure abuse (Desolid + EB + 60 AP Teleport (mostly noncombat multipliers), with 10" Flight outside of MP for usual movement, but teleport for long ranges and because it's useful.)

What is purchased outside of a framework doesn't relate to this discussion about frameworks. And we all know that Multipowers are currently (and IIRC have been for quite a while) less restrictive upon what can be placed in them. I don't find the "pure abuse" MP to be abusive -- min-maxed a bit, yes, but not out-and-out abusive.

Note that I don't have to talk about SFX to tell you which MPs are ok and which are abusive.

Except that ECs are primarily about F/X, which makes it difficult to not talk about F/X when talking about ECs. Also, what is abusive for one game might be non-abusive in some other game. Abuse also is not limited to frameworks (though it does tend to congregate there IMO) -- frameworks (and lax GMs) just make it easier to be abusive.

With EC, there's no rule (except "must cost end") to tell you what should get a cost break.

There is the fact that the powers in an EC must be related by a common special effect.

So everything goes, ok?

Not quite. An EC can contain as many powers as the player can group together with a good rationale. And yes, it's the GM and his fiat that ultimately defines what a good rationale is for his game.

arromdee

Feb 27th, '08, 01:46 PM

While I can see and understand that, it ocurrs to me that this methodology relies heavily on preexisting powersets in ficiton. Which, if it's limited to just preexisting powersets from fiction, is like telling the players "Sorry, your creativity doesn't count for squat -- only old & well established powersets are acceptable."

Not really, I could say the same thing for the version that uses special effects. If I make an EC: Fire Powers, there are a limited number of powers that really make sense in it. I couldn't just throw in, say, teleportation just because we need a teleporter on the team or because it turns out one of my fire powers happens to be really useful when combined with teleportation. Having the EC still limits the kinds of powers I can take and, thus, the efficiency with which I can spend my points.

Kdansky

Feb 27th, '08, 06:29 PM

Well, then don't use Fire, use Shadow Powers or "Power of my Mind" as SFX, these are just way better because there is hardly anything you cannot justify. That's exactly my gripe. SFX are not inherently balanced at all. Some are really neat, some are really bad (eg. Fire). So now we assume powers are balanced because well... we just assume it? That's my gripe with EC, and that's why I asked: "Give me a rules legal and a rules illegal EC, but don't care about SFX."

Let me give you an example which perfectly shows what my problem is:

Mind Over Matter SFX
"Add some sensible stats here"
Desolid (+1/2 hard to dispel), Force Field (+1/2 hardened), Flight and EB in an EC.

Fire SFX
"Add exactly the same stats here"
Desolid (+1/2 hard to dispel), Force Field (+1/2 hardened), Flight and EB in an EC.
So yes, the characters are identical except for SFX.

Don't allow B? But it's completely the same framework/character? From a rules perspective you cannot allow the same thing to one player and disallow it to the other, that's just plain unfair. You also cannot assume that it will be more balanced with A than with B. Chances are exactly 50:50 that the former character will already have a better min-maxed character.
Now, with MP, that's different. Because if you ignore SFX, you can easily say: "But John, you already got a speed of 10, a 16 charges NND in a MP is quite abusive, because you will deal way more dmg than you should in a very short time."

Attack MP with Megascaled Teleport: Well, I'm pretty much against this because it is neither a choice (you either fight or you teleport 1000 km, but rarely both), nor redundant (movement + attack). The only effect: Megascaled 60 AP teleport for 6 points (slap double end on it, 3 points). Why should that cost only 3 points? It's a good ability, therefore it should cost more, EXCEPT if you cannot use it all the time OR if it's highly redundant. In MP with other movement? Fine. With a "lockout x powers for 24h" limitation? Fine.

PhilFleischmann

Feb 27th, '08, 07:46 PM

Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?
Sounds good in theory, but how could this be done in a way that actually simplifies or improves anything? The three types of frameworks are serve different purposes and work in different ways. Pretending that they're really all the same gains us nothing. It would be like saying that the taxonomic classification of animal species is too complicated, so let's combine monkeys, birds, and fish into one species, called the "monkeybirdfish," which would then have three different subspecies: the monkey-type monkeybirdfish, the bird-type monkeybirdfish, and the fish-type monkeybirdfish.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

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.
Not a bad idea. Someone said they didn't like the term "Unified Power," but it seems OK to me. For another possible name, how 'bout "Multi-Purpose Power" or "Multiple Use Power," which both reflect the idea that it's really one power that can be used in different ways. Unfortunately, both of those names sound to close to "Multipower."

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 been doing this with Multipowers for years and have never had any problem with it. Real Points are what's "real" - they are the bottom line, and IMX, the truest reflection of the utility of a power. Yes, this would need to be monitored for abuse, but a paragraph or two explaining how to use the idea responsibly should cover it. In my experience, there are two main uses for exceeding the Active Points this way: 1) the "Nova Blast" as was previously mentioned - a highly resticted power that the player won't want to use very often due to its heavy limitations that will truly make the character think long and hard before using it; and 2) the "Specialized Target Attack" - an attack that only works against a specific type of opponent, but is more powerful against that type of opponent than the "regular" attack slot.

An example of the second type:
60 Multipower
6u 12d6 EB - regular, all-purpose attack
6u 18d6 EB, Only vs Demons (-1/2 - making an arbitrary assumption about how common demons are in the particular game)

If the second slot is limited to the same active points as the first slot, there'd be no reason to have a specialized target attack. Note also that it won't always be obvious which targets are demons and which aren't.

And I am also in favor of the variable base Control Cost to determine the maximum active points of powers in a VPP. Examples:

Standard VPP
50 point Reserve - 50 = Max Real Points in pool
25 Control cost - 25
Max Active Points of any one power in the pool = 25 x 2 = 50
Total cost: 75

VPP with the potential for really big (but limited) powers
50 point Reserve - 50 = Max Real Points in pool
50 Control cost - 50
Max Active Points of any one power in the pool = 50 x 2 = 100
Total cost: 100
With this VPP, you could have any one 100-Active Point power, with -1 worth of limitations on it, to bring the Real Cost down to the maximum of 50. Or you could have two 100-Active Point powers, each with -3 worth of limitations, to bring their real costs down to 25 each. Or you could just have one 50-Active Point power with no limitations.

VPP of a bunch of little powers
50 point Reserve - 50 = Max Real Points in pool
5 Control cost - 5
Max Active Points of any one power in the pool = 5 x 2 = 10
Total cost: 55
With this VPP, you could have five different 10-point powers with no limitations; or ten different 10-Active Point powers, each with -1 in Limitations, etc.

Re: ECs:
Along with the concerns others have expressed, I have concerns about the huge discount given by ECs. I'm OK with them for the most part, and won't be upset if they remain as-is, but I will echo the sentiments that perhaps ECs should be replaced by a -1/4 "Drain One, Drain All" Limitation.

As a general design philosophy, I think that as many reasonable options should be presented as possible, and then allow GMs to remove them for their games if they want.

Hugh Neilson

Feb 27th, '08, 08:01 PM

And in reply to Hugh: Absolutely! Aid bothers me to no end! END cost is mostly given to powers for three reasons:
- How Do The Physical Laws Work point of view: attacks cost end, because you exert yourself.
- Visibilty or Not (Force Field). but that should be visibility, not end cost. This connection is way too strong.
- Points balance (Aid)

and fourth comes EC balance, for which I cannot quote any power.

I suggest there's no example for the fourth because "will it go in an EC" had nothing to do with the decision of whether an ability costs END by default.

Opal

Feb 28th, '08, 11:22 AM

Let me give you an example which perfectly shows what my problem is:

Mind Over Matter SFX
"Add some sensible stats here"
Desolid (+1/2 hard to dispel), Force Field (+1/2 hardened), Flight and EB in an EC.

Fire SFX
"Add exactly the same stats here"
Desolid (+1/2 hard to dispel), Force Field (+1/2 hardened), Flight and EB in an EC.
So yes, the characters are identical except for SFX.

Don't allow B? But it's completely the same framework/character?My reaction would be: how does 'mind over matter' get you an EB? As to B, so the flamey guy can turn his body into 'pure' flame (which is pretty not solid)...

F/X are ultimately pretty campaign- and GM- dependent and subjective. You can't put just anything in an EC, but exactly what you can put in is going to vary form GM to GM. Same goes for the value of a Limitted Power Limitation you make up, or many disadvantages. I'm still not happy about that (and there was a time I objected to it), but I've come to accept it.

What EC does is put all your Power eggs in one F/X basket. That's not as prudent as having a variety of very different F/Xs, even if ECs didn't have thier drain vulnerability.

From a rules perspective you cannot allow the same thing to one player and disallow it to the other, that's just plain unfair. Powers with different F/X aren't the same thing.

Attack MP with Megascaled Teleport: Well, I'm pretty much against this because it is neither a choice (you either fight or you teleport 1000 km, but rarely both), nor redundant (movement + attack).
Yeah, I did eventually flash on that some time after I responded. An exclusively non-combat power and an exclusively combat power in the same multipower do have a questionable element. One might be tempted to consider the teleport as being more like a 'special power,' than a standard power in that case. I don't recall the mega-scale rules too well - if you can half-move teleport and attack, then, at least in theory, you could want to use them both at the same time. Certainly, it would be reasonable with a combat-useable movement power of any kind.

SteveZilla

Feb 28th, '08, 05:36 PM

Doing a half-megascale-move and attacking can be done, but at 0 OCV because Megascaled movement is considered non-combat movement.

ajackson

Feb 28th, '08, 05:43 PM

Almost any non-combat power in a multipower gives you a benefit disproportionate to the cost, because there's almost never a situation where you need to use two non-combat powers at once.

The basic issue with a multipower is that the cost is right if you have several ways of doing more or less the same thing. Non-combat powers are usually not different ways of solving the same problem, they're solutions to different problems, and thus they have disproportionate utility in a multipower.

SteveZilla

Feb 28th, '08, 05:50 PM

By "non-combat power" do you mean non-attack power?

Opal

Feb 28th, '08, 05:53 PM

Off the top of my head, I'd say that most combat powers are standard, and most non-combat powers are special. Even so, several non-combat powers that might be needed at the same time in a multipower could be reasonable.

Of course, the same objection can raised against VPP - is virtually inevitable, really.

Ultimately, all three frameworks exist to let a character have more than one effective power for a reasonable cost. That strikes me as a good option to have in the game (afterall, they're not all available in all genres/campaigns).

To put it another way, Hero uses a vague guideline of 5 points doubling. The more you have, the more 5 pts gets you. While that's mostly F/X popwer, it can also be looked upon as breadth of power getting less expensive at the margins. Levels for instance. An OCV level with one attack (in a MP, say, so we can ignore MPAs), is 2 points. With a few related attacks, it's 3 points. +1 with two sepparate groups of attacks would be 6, points, but an all OCV level is 5. Overall levels are only 10. The more you can do, the less you pay to do more. It really pervades the game. Frameworks are just another example of that. If you already have one power, getting a second one can be less expensive - you just put it in a Multipower or EC. Get a third power, and your cost savings improves further.

ajackson

Feb 28th, '08, 06:50 PM

By "non-combat power" do you mean non-attack power?
No, I mean a power that is substantially used out of combat. Defenses and combat movement powers don't generally cause an issue for multipowers, non-combat movement does. There are a number of edge cases with both combat and non-combat applications (invisibility, desolid, strength/telekinesis, mind control/mental illusions) and a few attack powers that are actually non-combat powers (telepathy).

This all applies to VPPs as well.

Vondy

Feb 29th, '08, 02:21 AM

Just to throw this out there, not all multipowers are specifically combat related, or need to be. Nor should subjective sensibilities, which are valid for individuals, dictate how people use them. Multipowers can be completely unrelated to combat, or have only limited combat applications. Several examples come to mind: utility belts (batman), sensor suites (or characters with scads of senses), movement multipowers. One example (for a superman clone):

Multipower (Reserve)
slot 1: flight (used primarily as combat flight)
slot 2: flight with ncm or variable megascale.
slot 3: FTL.

Tonio

Feb 29th, '08, 04:45 AM

I don't recall the mega-scale rules too well - if you can half-move teleport and attack, then, at least in theory, you could want to use them both at the same time. Certainly, it would be reasonable with a combat-useable movement power of any kind.

Doing a half-megascale-move and attacking can be done, but at 0 OCV because Megascaled movement is considered non-combat movement.

IIRC, NCM Teleport (and hence Megascale Teleport) takes a Full Phase, so you can't half-NCM/Megascale-move with it. Not sure, though.

SteveZilla

Feb 29th, '08, 06:45 AM

You are correct. Non-Combat Teleportation is an exception. "The character remains at his 'starting point' at half DCV, 0 OCV for the Extra Phase, then Teleports to his destination; he can do nothing else during this time."

Chris Goodwin

Feb 29th, '08, 09:16 PM

ajackson

Feb 29th, '08, 10:19 PM

Just to throw this out there, not all multipowers are specifically combat related, or need to be. Nor should subjective sensibilities, which are valid for individuals, dictate how people use them. Multipowers can be completely unrelated to combat, or have only limited combat applications. Several examples come to mind: utility belts (batman), sensor suites (or characters with scads of senses), movement multipowers.
Why exactly should any of these get the multipower discount? Sensor suites I can buy (multiple senses are often redundant), but in many cases utility belts really should just be a set of separate powers.

PhilFleischmann

Mar 1st, '08, 12:00 PM

Steve, I'd like to say something about considering allowing Powers in Frameworks to add to each other. Probably not Powers in the same Framework, but Powers in different Frameworks should be allowed to be used together, and/or with MPAs.
In fact, powers in the same framework (at least for MPs and VPPs) should be allowed to be used together, or as MPAs, provided the pool/reserve has enought points. Example:

100 point Reserve Multipower
5u 10d6 EB (50 points)
5u 10d6 Flash (50 points)
5u 5d6, 5 BODY Entangle (50 Points)
5u 5d6 NND (50 points)
5u 5d6 DEX Drain (50 points)

Any two of these slots should be allowed together as an MPA, since the Reserve is big enough to hold two of these powers simultaneously.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 1st, '08, 08:11 PM

In fact, powers in the same framework (at least for MPs and VPPs) should be allowed to be used together, or as MPAs, provided the pool/reserve has enought points. Example:

100 point Reserve Multipower
5u 10d6 EB (50 points)
5u 10d6 Flash (50 points)
5u 5d6, 5 BODY Entangle (50 Points)
5u 5d6 NND (50 points)
5u 5d6 DEX Drain (50 points)

Any two of these slots should be allowed together as an MPA, since the Reserve is big enough to hold two of these powers simultaneously.

I agree with this 100%. I would like to see the rule changed to allow any powers which could be used at the same time to be used in an MPA. That would also include attacks in an EC. For VPP's, I believe the attacks used in an MPA should have an AP maximum equal to the pool itself.

Chris Goodwin

Mar 1st, '08, 08:59 PM

SteveZilla

Mar 1st, '08, 10:08 PM

I agree with this 100%. I would like to see the rule changed to allow any powers which could be used at the same time to be used in an MPA. That would also include attacks in an EC. For VPP's, I believe the attacks used in an MPA should have an AP maximum equal to the pool itself.

I strongly disagree about attack powers in an EC (or whatever we replace ECs with) being allowed to be used in a MPA. I really don't want to start seeing "Attack ECs" where the player has 4-5 attack powers -- all useable at once, and all purchased at a significant price savings.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 2nd, '08, 06:02 AM

I strongly disagree about attack powers in an EC (or whatever we replace ECs with) being allowed to be used in a MPA. I really don't want to start seeing "Attack ECs" where the player has 4-5 attack powers -- all useable at once, and all purchased at a significant price savings.

This is a perspective issue. Let's use 60 AP powers, and say 5 of them for illustration.

Character A can buy 5 such powers for 300 points and MPA with them. They need have nothing in common, and each must be drained separately.

Character B can buy 5 such powers in an EC for 180 points. They must have common SFX, and are drained together. At present, he cannot MPA. He saves 120 points.

Character C can buy 5 such powers for 90 points (MP 60 and 5 fixed slots). He can't MPA with them. They need have nothing in common, and each must be drained separately.

I see where Character B gets a cost savings over Character A, and he accepts some limitations (of debatable value) for doing so. However, what advantage does Character B enjoy over Character C? He has paid twice as much, restricted his choice of SFX and enhanced his exposure to negative adjustment powers, and pays twice as much as Character C for no enhanced benefit whatsoever.

Change these characters to characters with an attack power, a force field and a movement power. Now Character A pays 180 points, Character B loses some choice in SFX and is exposed to adjustment powers but pays 120 points. Character C pays 78 points, but he can only use one power at a time, or he pays 96 points and can only use one ability at full power or two or three at reduced power. Now it is clear that the higher point choices carry higher utility. Not so with multiple attack powers.

I think that there should be some benefit to placing multiple attacks in an EC, rather than a Multipower. The only possibility I see at present is the ability to MPA with powers in an EC.

GamePhil

Mar 2nd, '08, 06:13 AM

Hugh Neilson

Mar 2nd, '08, 06:18 AM

I have also argued that ECs should have been allowed MPAs. Martial Arts Maneuvers can be used in an MPA, but get a substantially greater cost break.

However, my question is: If you are building a Framework that makes more sense as a Multipower, why not build it as a Multipower? The EC works reasonably well as long as it has a mix of Power types, and even if it has two attacks or less.

Shouldn't the EC be available to the character with light powers who can generate a laser EB, a blinding Flash, a dazzling AVLD and a disorienting DEX drain drain, all at the same time?

incrdbil

Mar 2nd, '08, 06:47 AM

GamePhil

Mar 2nd, '08, 07:52 AM

Shouldn't the EC be available to the character with light powers who can generate a laser EB, a blinding Flash, a dazzling AVLD and a disorienting DEX drain drain, all at the same time?

Why? That's doable for a character, why does a character that wants that have to get the benefit of the EC? Not that I personally disagree, but I've never seen a well-formed argument about why it should be so. Which is particularly annoying to me, since it's my gut feeling that it should.

I'll start having to consider the possibility that my gut feeling is in error pretty soon.

Hugh Neilson

Mar 2nd, '08, 11:22 AM

Why? That's doable for a character, why does a character that wants that have to get the benefit of the EC? Not that I personally disagree, but I've never seen a well-formed argument about why it should be so. Which is particularly annoying to me, since it's my gut feeling that it should.

I'll start having to consider the possibility that my gut feeling is in error pretty soon.

To balance the fact that non-attacks can enjoy that benefit. Essentially, I believe any argument that MPA's with EC attacks should be prohibited effectively argues that EC's themselves should be eliminated. The EC provides a point break on the cost of powers which have a tight special effect and are drained together. Why should the results differ depending on whether the character has three different defensive powers or three different attack powers, if we otherwise accept the EC is valid? Presently, the defensive powers can operate together, but the attacks cannot.

This is a perspective issue. Let's use 60 AP powers, and say 5 of them for illustration.

Character A can buy 5 such powers for 300 points and MPA with them. They need have nothing in common, and each must be drained separately.

Character B can buy 5 such powers in an EC for 180 points. They must have common SFX, and are drained together. At present, he cannot MPA. He saves 120 points.

Character C can buy 5 such powers for 90 points (MP 60 and 5 fixed slots). He can't MPA with them. They need have nothing in common, and each must be drained separately.

I see where Character B gets a cost savings over Character A, and he accepts some limitations (of debatable value) for doing so. However, what advantage does Character B enjoy over Character C? He has paid twice as much, restricted his choice of SFX and enhanced his exposure to negative adjustment powers, and pays twice as much as Character C for no enhanced benefit whatsoever.

Change these characters to characters with an attack power, a force field and a movement power. Now Character A pays 180 points, Character B loses some choice in SFX and is exposed to adjustment powers but pays 120 points. Character C pays 78 points, but he can only use one power at a time, or he pays 96 points and can only use one ability at full power or two or three at reduced power. Now it is clear that the higher point choices carry higher utility. Not so with multiple attack powers.

I think that there should be some benefit to placing multiple attacks in an EC, rather than a Multipower. The only possibility I see at present is the ability to MPA with powers in an EC.

Aeralys

Mar 2nd, '08, 12:25 PM

I feel that unifying the many power frameworks would not work. They each do very different things, and building one that did all three would create more problems then it's worth. When a new player says "here's how I want my powers to interact with eachother", it almost always immediately falls into one of those three. Trying to do the same thing with one framework with many different methods of building it would just confuse the simplest power interactions

ajackson

Mar 2nd, '08, 03:36 PM

It does sort of remove any reason for atrtack powers to be bought in any way but a framework.

I think MPA's might be too powerful at any rate..but thats another thread.
The only balance problem with MPAs is that they don't count against active point limits. If counted against active point limits, an MPA with two powers is almost always less effective than spending the same number of points on one power.

CTaylor

Mar 2nd, '08, 06:29 PM

Tonio

Mar 3rd, '08, 12:10 PM

I'll just throw in my request for a "tree" framework that gives a break for powers that have to be purchased in sequence (must buy x power before you get y power). This is a pretty common construction idea from many games out now (particularly ones Blizzard puts out).

I dislike this idea, for the same reasons I dislike all constructs that give cost breaks for design choices, rather than mechanics. It should not matter why I bought certain skills or powers, the utility I derive from them is inherent.

This sort of concept is best handled as a campaign rule ("All spells must be purchased in order... here's the list and heirarchy of spells.").

On the other hand, similar constructs can be built using NPAs and MPs. Buying Explosion as an NPA could represent buying a Fireball spell that requires you to buy Fire Blast first. Similarly, if you have a MP of fire powers, adding a new one is pretty cheap (i.e. cost break), but you need to have invested a certain amount of points (i.e. base MP cost) before.

CTaylor

Mar 3rd, '08, 03:07 PM

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

No.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

Sure, might make it a bit more clear what it's for and what it does. Or just dump it, sometimes I'm not real sure why it exists other than "here's points for convincing the GM!"

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

This would probably require a pretty big rework of how Multipower worked, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. VPP would be fine without rules changes if you did this.

PhilFleischmann

Mar 3rd, '08, 03:12 PM

And there's also the issue of Multipower Slot-Switching Limitations. We've had some discussions on this before. It could be officially included in the rulebook for 6th. Remember that Hard-to-switch Slot Limitations should always be placed on the Slot costs only! Never on the reserve cost.

And of course, you don't even have to put the same limitation on each slot.

60 Reserve
6u Slot 1, frequently used power, freely accessible, no limitation
5u Slot 2, slightly difficult slot to switch to, -1/4 limitation (Extra Time: Full Phase, halved for only to apply to switching to the slot, not to activating the power)
4u Slot 3, more difficult to use slot, -1/2 limitation, requires OAF to switch to this slot (-1, halved to -1/2 - you don't need the OAF to *use* the slot, only to switch to it)
3u Slot 4, very difficult slot to switch to, -1 Limitation, Costs END, 4x END cost (-1/2 + -1.5 = -2, halved to -1) The character must spend 24 END to switch to this slot
1u Slot 5, extremely difficult to switch to: Only during a Full Moon (-2), Activation 8- (-2), Extra Time: One Hour (-3), Concentration: 0 DCV Throughout (-1), Side Effects: 60-Point effect, Always Occurs (-2), (-10 in limitations, halved to -5) To switch his multipower to this slot, the character must take a full hour at 0 DCV, during a full moon, suffer a 60-point Side Effect, and after all that, it only has an 8- chance to actually work. Once it does, the power may be used freely.

etc.

Opal

Mar 3rd, '08, 05:50 PM

Why? That's doable for a character, why does a character that wants that have to get the benefit of the EC? Not that I personally disagree, but I've never seen a well-formed argument about why it should be so. Assuming the character could unleash an MPA, it would be an impressive one. For the same points he put in that EC, though, he could unleash a simple EB that would shatter the campaign cap and probably one-shot any reasonable foe it could hit (while the MPA wouldn't break campaign caps, and those characters with enough of thier defensive bases covered might well stand up to it). While the EC discount is supposed to be a break for a tight concept, it also serves as a break for redundancy.

I've tried desigining some MPA-based characters, and they are wildly expensive for the utility they get. Having to go against multiple defenses, or, worse, the same defense more than once, really eats into the effectiveness of an MPA. While you can MPA attacks with exotic or all-or-nothing defenses, such attacks are also more expensive to begin with, as well.

Honestly, even if you could MPA with an EC, it wouldn't be a terribly effective choice compared to just taking more dice, or some penalty skill levels and rapid-attacking.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 4th, '08, 09:30 AM

Here's a go at combining EC and MP into a single more flexible framework (let's call it Omnipower for now). The basic structure is similar to a Multipower, but with some important differences:

Omnipower
Omnipower Base Cost = (Active Cost Limit + Real Cost Limit)/2. A limitation that affects all powers within the Omnipower can also be taken on the Active Cost part of the Base Cost, but not on the Real Cost part.
Cost per slot: (Real Cost)/5 for a variable slot, (Real Cost)/10 for a fixed slot ('ultra'). No slot can have a Real Cost higher than the Omnipower's Real Cost Limit or an Active Cost higher than the Omnipower's Active Cost Limit.
Normally, only one slot can be active at a time. To allow several slots to be active at the same time, buy a +½ advantage on the Base Cost per extra slot that can be active. For variable slots, the total assigned Real Cost can't exceed N x (Real Cost Limit), with N being the number of slots that can be active at the same time.

That's it. If this is bought with enough Advantages to allow all slots to be used at once, it is very much like an EC; if only one slot can be active, it is very much like an MP.

One innovation is that there is a maximum for both Active Cost and Real Cost. This means e.g. that you can get a point break even if slots have different Limitations.

Example: Omnipower: Energy Attacks
60 AC Limit, 40 RC Limit: 50 points Base Cost
Fixed slot (4 points): 12d6 EB, no range (-½)
Fixed slot (4 points): 12d6 EB, double END cost (-½)
Fixed slot (4 points): 8d6 EB
Total cost: 62 points

Example: Omnipower: Force Powers
50 AC Limit, 50 RC Limit, three active slots (+1): 100 points Base Cost
Fixed slot (5 points): 10d6 EB
Fixed slot (5 points): 20" Flight, half END cost (+1/4)
Fixed slot (5 points): 20PD/20ED Force Field, half END cost (+1/4)
Total cost: 115 points

Example: Omnipower: Light Powers
60 AC Limit, 60 RC Limit, two active slots (+½): 90 points Base Cost
Fixed slot (6 points): 12d6 EB
Fixed slot (6 points): 6d6 Flash
Variable slot (12 points): 20" Flight, 0 END cost (+½)
Variable slot (12 points): 20PD/20ED Force Field, 0 END cost (+½)
Variable slot (8 points): 4"R Darkness (sight), 0 END cost (+½), No range (-½)
Total cost: 134 points
Note: Since the cost of a slot depends on Real Cost, the additional limitation on the last slot automatically reduces its cost.

Could this framework be expanded to include something like Variable Power Pool? It could. We could add a third kind of slot, a free slot, with a cost = Real Cost. This slot could be any Power, or combination of Powers, with Active Cost and Real Cost within the Omnipower limits (with GM approval). This is not quite as flexible as a VPP, but a bit cheaper.

Example: Omnipower: Magic
60 AC Limit (limitation: all Powers require Gestures and Incantations (-½)), 40 RC Limit: 40 points Base Cost
Free Slot (40 points): Any Power (or combination of Powers) requiring Gestures and Incantations (-½), with a max AC of 60.
Total cost: 80 points
Note: Cost-wise, this corresponds to having an Omnipower with 10 fixed slots.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

GamePhil

Mar 4th, '08, 01:52 PM

Very slick. And you could get another usable slot to use with that Free one for 20 points in the last example, and have a few "standard" spells to use at the same time. I'm not entirely sure about that, but with all the talk of reducing the cost of "redundancies" I'm going to have to think about it. My initial reaction is that it should all work very well, even if it needs some oversight, but Frameworks always do.

If anyone got an automatic notification that said something else, I deleted it. I figured it out.

Opal

Mar 4th, '08, 04:11 PM

Interesting. It makes the equivalent of an EC a little pricier, but you could add a new slot very cheaply, just not use it all the time. It would make the equivalent of having both a multipower and an EC - already a pretty good deal - substantially cheaper, though.

I don't know how often people put advantages on whole frameworks or on reserves, but if there are other advantages-on-reserves in use, then there might be an issue with 'stacking' the 'open slots' advantage with others.

CTaylor

Mar 4th, '08, 08:30 PM

GamePhil

Mar 4th, '08, 10:21 PM

It would make elemental controls significantly pricier, and make multipowers more powerful for the same points, can't say I'm really in favor of that. Already multipowers are an xp nightmare: a few points = an entirely new power.

Could you explain that? The unlimited Multipower looks to be exactly the same cost, while the Limited Multipower is actually more expensive. The EC example is 15 points more than it would otherwise be, and for several Attacks are actually more powerful than the current model (assuming you could use them in an MPA). The only times I see a possible issue are if you mix current Framework types into a single Omnipower.

James Gillen

Mar 4th, '08, 10:28 PM

I just think "OMNIPOWER" sounds more macho. :D

JG

SteveZilla

Mar 4th, '08, 11:25 PM

Normally, only one slot can be active at a time.

No current framework has that restriction. Why make it part of a new framework?

To allow several slots to be active at the same time, buy a +½ advantage on the Base Cost per extra slot that can be active. For variable slots, the total assigned Real Cost can't exceed N x (Real Cost Limit), with N being the number of slots that can be active at the same time.

The difficulty I have with this is that the "Extra Active Slot" Advantage doesn't care what the size of the individual slots are. In a 60 AP/60 RP OmniPower, you want to make a second 60 AP/60 RP slot usable simultaneously? +1/2 Advantage = 30 more points. Want to instead make a 15 AP/15 RP slot usable simultaneously? +1/2 Advantage = 30 more points.

Unless I've misunderstood how it all functions. :think:

IMO one of the big problems in combining Multipowers with Elemental Controls is that they have significantly different rules on what can be placed within one (not to mention the rules on how much can be used simultaneously). ECs are more restrictive than MPs on END Cost and Special Effect, yet are fully permissive in simultaneous use of powers.

It seems to me that any combination framework would likely incorporate both the limited aspects of ECs Powers' F/X but it's full availability of those powers -- and the limited aspects of MPs Powers' availability but it's more permissive power inclusion. Which is difficult, as they are pretty much polar opposites.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 5th, '08, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by Klaus Mogensen http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1556709#post1556709)
Normally, only one slot can be active at a time.
No current framework has that restriction. Why make it part of a new framework?.
I was thinking on the lines of Multipower, but I see I wasn't precise enough. What I meant was that you can't use several slots if the total cost exceeds the limit, same as with Multipower.

The difficulty I have with this is that the "Extra Active Slot" Advantage doesn't care what the size of the individual slots are. In a 60 AP/60 RP OmniPower, you want to make a second 60 AP/60 RP slot usable simultaneously? +1/2 Advantage = 30 more points. Want to instead make a 15 AP/15 RP slot usable simultaneously? +1/2 Advantage = 30 more points.

Again, this is because I didn't explain my idea properly. A "slot" in this advantage actually means "additional active Real Points equal to the Real Cost Limit".

IMO one of the big problems in combining Multipowers with Elemental Controls is that they have significantly different rules on what can be placed within one (not to mention the rules on how much can be used simultaneously). ECs are more restrictive than MPs on END Cost and Special Effect, yet are fully permissive in simultaneous use of powers.

It seems to me that any combination framework would likely incorporate both the limited aspects of ECs Powers' F/X but it's full availability of those powers -- and the limited aspects of MPs Powers' availability but it's more permissive power inclusion. Which is difficult, as they are pretty much polar opposites.

I would require that the Powers in an Omnipower belong to a tight concept, e.g. different uses of the same energy or weapon. However, in the end, it will be a GM call, as always.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 5th, '08, 01:56 AM

I don't know how often people put advantages on whole frameworks or on reserves, but if there are other advantages-on-reserves in use, then there might be an issue with 'stacking' the 'open slots' advantage with others.

I would not allow any other advantages on the Omnipower Base Cost. After all, such would be included in the Active Cost Limit.

Perhaps a better (and simpler) construction may be to simply say that the Omnipower Base Cost is equal to half the Active Cost Limit of any single power in the framework + half the Real Cost that can be active at any one time. Then there would be no talk about advantages on the Base Cost. It would be somewhat similar to a VPP with a "control cost" (the Active Cost Limit) and a "pool" (the total Real Cost limit). I'll try to make a write-up of that when I get home from work.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Hugh Neilson

Mar 5th, '08, 06:26 AM

I just think "OMNIPOWER" sounds more macho. :D

I think it sounds way more SuperHero. But then we just replace "power" with the replacement term and the issue should go away, or at least be reduced.

CTaylor

Mar 5th, '08, 07:51 AM

Another problem I have with this build is that it negates most of the purpose of variable slots. If you have to pay extra to use a power at the same time as another power, then why on earth get a variable slot? For the joy of using a power weaker than normal? How often does that actually come up, except for times when you want to mix several of them together at the same time? The reason you buy a pool in multipower to begin with is so that you can use several powers at once or have one power - both maxing out at the pool. That's your capacity, as it were.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 5th, '08, 09:20 AM

Thanks for the feedback on my Omnipower idea! I have used the feedback to refine the idea, making it simpler and yet more flexible. I describe it in a little more detail than before because there were some misunderstandings from my too-brief description.

Omnipower
This is a framework that combines several Powers into one unified whole. Depending on how the Omnipower is bought, some or all of the Powers in it can be used at once. All the Powers in an Omnipower must be conceptually linked.

The cost of an Omnipower comes in three parts: The Active Limit, the Pool, and the individual Powers.

Active Limit: This determines the maximum Active Cost of any Power in the Omnipower. The Active Limit cost is half the maximum Active Cost. E.g., if the maximum Active Cost is 60 points, the Active Limit costs 30 points. If a Limitation applies to all Powers in the Omnipower, it can also be applied to the Active Limit cost.

Pool: This determines how many total Real Points of Powers that can be active ('turned on') at the same time. Any active Power will 'bind' a number of Pool Points, meaning they are not available for other Powers. The Pool cost is half the total Pool Points. E.g., if the total Real Points can be 100 points, the Pool (of 100 Pool Points) costs 50 points. No limitations can be applied to the Pool cost.

Individual Powers: The individual Powers can be bought in three ways: as Fixed Powers, as Variable Powers, or as Open Powers:

Fixed Power: When a Fixed Power is active, it will bind a number of Pool Points corresponding to its total normal Real Cost, even it it isn't used at full power. It's an all-or-nothing deal. A Fixed Power in an Omnipower costs 1/10th of its normal Real Cost.
Variable Power: When a Variable Power is active, it will only bind a number of Pool Points equal to the Real Cost of the portion of the Power that is used. It is thus possible to scale how much of the Pool a Variable Power binds by turning the Power up and down. A Variable Power in an Omnipower costs 1/5th of its normal Real Cost.
Open Power: An Open Power can be any Power or combination of Powers with a total Real Cost less than or equal to the limit for the Variable Power (the Power or Powers are still restricted by the Active Limit). The number of Pool Points that a Variable Power binds is equal to the Real Cost of the Powers that are used (same as for Variable Power). The cost of an Open Power in an Omnipower equals its Real Cost limit.

Example: Energy Attacks [~a Multipower]
Active Limit: 60 points. Cost: 60/2 = 30 points.
Pool: 40 Pool Points. Cost: 40/2 = 20 points.
Fixed Power: 12d6 EB, No Range (-½). Normal Real Cost: 40 points. Cost in OP: 4 points.
Fixed Power: 12d6 EB, Double END (-½). Normal Real Cost: 40 points. Cost in OP: 4 points.
Fixed Power: 8d6 EB. Normal Real Cost: 40 points. Cost in OP: 4 points.
Total Cost: 30+20+4+4+4 = 62 points

Example: Force Powers [~an Elemental Control]
Active Limit: 50 points. Cost: 50/2 = 25 points.
Pool: 145 Pool Points. Cost: 72 points.
Fixed Power: STR 30 telekinesis. Normal Real Cost: 45 points. Cost in OP: 4 points.
Fixed Power: 20PD/20ED Force Field, Half END (+1/4). Normal Real Cost: 50 points. Cost in OP: 5 points.
Fixed Power: 20" Flight, Half END (+1/4). Normal Real Cost: 50 points. Cost in OP: 5 points.
Total Cost: 25+72+4+5+5 = 111 points

Example: Magic Spells [~a Variable Power Pool]
Active Limit: 40 points. Common Limitations: Gestures, Incantations (-½). Cost: 40/2/1.5 = 13 points.
Pool: 40 Pool Points. Cost: 40/2 = 20 points.
Open Power: Real Cost Limit 40. Normal Real Cost: 40 points. Cost in OP: 60 points. (Note: Powers that make up the Open Power are limited by the 40 point Active Limit and must have the common Limitations).
Total Cost: 13+20+60 = 73 points

Example: Shape Shifting [~a combination]
Active Limit: 45 points. Cost: 45/2 = 22 points.
Pool: 90 Pool Points. Cost: 90/2 = 45 points.
Fixed Power: Shape Shift (any shape), 0 End (+½). Normal Real Cost: 45 points. Cost in OP: 4 points.
Variable Power: Shrinking rank 3, 0 End (+½). Normal Real Cost: 45 points. Cost in OP: 9 points.
Variable Power: Growth rank 6, 0 End (+½). Normal Real Cost: 45 points. Cost in OP: 9 points.
Variable Power: Stretching 6", 0 End (+½). Normal Real Cost: 45 points. Cost in OP: 9 points.
Open Power: Real Cost Limit 15. Normal Real Cost: 15 points. Cost in OP: 15 points. (Note: Powers that derive naturally from a shifted shape, e.g. Flight for a bird shape or Swimming for a fish shape).
Total Cost: 22+45+4+9+9+15 = 104 points
This character can shift to any shape of wide variety of sizes, with minor Powers derived from the shape.

Tonio

Mar 5th, '08, 11:01 AM

I like this. A lot. A whole lot, in fact.

I wouldn't be surprised if it made it into 6th, not in the least!

Open Powers confuse me a bit, tho...

Open Power: An Open Power can be any Power or combination of Powers with a total Real Cost less than or equal to the limit for the Variable Power (the Power or Powers are still restricted by the Active Limit). The number of Pool Points that a Variable Power binds is equal to the Real Cost of the Powers that are used (same as for Variable Power). The cost of an Open Power in an Omnipower equals its Real Cost limit.[snip]

Example: Magic Spells [~a Variable Power Pool]
Active Limit: 40 points. Common Limitations: Gestures, Incantations (-½). Cost: 40/2/1.5 = 13 points.
Pool: 40 Pool Points. Cost: 40/2 = 20 points.
Open Power: Real Cost Limit 40. Normal Real Cost: 40 points. Cost in OP: 60 points. (Note: Powers that make up the Open Power are limited by the 40 point Active Limit and must have the common Limitations).
Total Cost: 13+20+60 = 73 points

So an Open Power is essentially a VPP (or rather, the totality of the slots in a VPP)? If that's the case, you'd only want at most one Open Power in an Omnipower, right? Also, why is the "Cost in OP" here listed at 60, not 40?

Would you mind rephrasing how Open Powers work? =)

James Gillen

Mar 5th, '08, 12:31 PM

Given that Shape Shift is my favorite power, this definitely makes for an easier and cleaner build.

JG

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 5th, '08, 01:36 PM

I like this. A lot. A whole lot, in fact.

I wouldn't be surprised if it made it into 6th, not in the least!

Open Powers confuse me a bit, tho...

So an Open Power is essentially a VPP (or rather, the totality of the slots in a VPP)? If that's the case, you'd only want at most one Open Power in an Omnipower, right? Also, why is the "Cost in OP" here listed at 60, not 40?

Would you mind rephrasing how Open Powers work? =)

Oops, the 60 rather than 40 was because I debated with myself whether to make the Open Power cost 1x or 1½x the Limit. I ended with 1x, but forgot to correct that instance.

Yes, Open Power is an attempt to include the VPP in the Omnipower structure. An Open Power can be any sum of Powers with a total Real Cost not exceeding the Open Power's Real Cost Limit and no single Power exceeding the Omnipower's Active Limit.

Let's look at the Magic Pool example again (only with correct numbers this time):

Example: Magic Spells
Active Limit: 40 points. Common Limitations: Gestures, Incantations (-½). Cost: 40/2/1.5 = 13 points.
Pool: 40 Pool Points. Cost: 40/2 = 20 points.
Open Power: Real Cost Limit 40. Normal Real Cost: 40 points. Cost in OP: 40 points. (Note: Powers that make up the Open Power are limited by the 40 point Active Limit and must have the common Limitations).
Total Cost: 13+20+40 = 73 points

All Powers in the Open Power* have the Gestures and Incantations Limitations.

If you chose a 40 Active Point Power (Real Cost 27), you would have 13 Real Points left, corresponding to a 20 Active Point Power. You could thus e.g. have an 8d6 EB and a 20 PD Force Field running at the same time.

Instead, you could choose three powers each with Active Cost 20 (3 x 13 = 39 Real Points).

You could also take some extra Limitations on the individual Powers (Subpowers?) in order to decrease the Real Costs and thus have more (or more powerful) Powers going: 8d6 EB, No Range (AC40, RC 20) + 20 PD Force Field, 3xEND Cost (AC20, RC8) + 12" Flight, 2xEND Cost (AC24, RC12).

*: Powers within an Open Power within an Omnipower; no wonder it's confusing. Perhaps the terminology needs adjusting...

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

CTaylor

Mar 5th, '08, 03:52 PM

I'm not sure I understand: the build like Elemental Control looks like it doesn't save you any points whatsoever: an open power is just the real point cost you'd pay anyway but you have to buy the pool too? Or do I misunderstand?

GamePhil

Mar 5th, '08, 04:23 PM

I'm not sure I understand: the build like Elemental Control looks like it doesn't save you any points whatsoever:

The EC is 111 points for two 50 point Powers and a 45 point Power, which would cost 145 points without it. A 50 point EC with those three Powers (with the 45 point one bumped to 50) would be 100 points, so it's only 11 points more than the EC and a savings over buying them separately of 34.

This construction has the side benefit that you can have completely different costs for your EC slots without trouble. It does get back to that "free points" "problem" that many don't like ECs for, though.

an open power is just the real point cost you'd pay anyway but you have to buy the pool too? Or do I misunderstand?

I'm not sure I understand the confusion. The Open Power can be used for any Power you want, it's functionally the equivalent of buying the Control Cost for a VPP. The cost is reasonable compared to the VPP.

schir1964

Mar 5th, '08, 06:44 PM

Omni Framework
The Omni Framework allows one to purchase conceptually linked Powers.
Depending on how the framework is bought, some or all of the Powers can be used at once.

Framework Components

Active Power Limit (APL): Maximum Active Cost (MAC) of any Single Power in the framework.
When a Limitation applies to all Powers in the framework, it may be applied to the Active Limit cost.

Cost: (Active Power Limit) / 2
.
Pool: Maximum Active Powers (MAP = Total Real Cost of Powers) that can be active simultaneously.
Active Powers Binds and equal number of Pool Points (not available for other powers).
Limitations may not be applied to the Pool.

Cost: (Pool) / 2 (Pool = 100 Points, Cost = 100 / 2 = 50 Points Real Cost)
.
Individual Powers: Individual Powers are placed in framework slots.

Slot Types

Fixed Slot: A Fixed Slot Binds Pool Points equal to the Power's Real Cost when active regardless of level of use.

Cost: (Power's Real Cost) / 10
.
Variable Slot: A Variable Slot Binds Pool Points equal to the Power's Real Cost that is actively being used.

Cost: (Power's Real Cost) / 5
.
Open Slot: An Open Slot Binds Pool Points equal to the Power(s) Real Cost that is actively being used.
An Open Slot can contain any Power or combination of Powers with a Total Real Cost less than or equal to the points purchased in the Open Slot (the Power or Powers are still restricted by the Active Power Limit).

Cost: Power(s) Total Real Cost

Reformatted and slight terminology change. I tried to do something similar but Klaus succeeded.

Klaus, if you want me to change or add anything just let me know.

- Christopher Mullins

CTaylor

Mar 5th, '08, 08:25 PM

OK so it is actually more expensive than elemental control, not that this is necessarily a bad thing. I didn't understand the open slot, so it's basically a power pool. So you could, in theory, have a power pool and other powers in the same framework? I like that. I really like that - it not only fixes the problem power pools have right now (sometimes the pool really does deserve limitations) but it lets you build a tighter concept, everything in one package instead of several separate ones.

SteveZilla

Mar 5th, '08, 09:30 PM

Individual Powers: The individual Powers can be bought in three ways: as Fixed Powers, as Variable Powers, or as Open Powers:

Fixed Power: When a Fixed Power is active, it will bind a number of Pool Points corresponding to its total normal Real Cost, even it it isn't used at full power. It's an all-or-nothing deal. A Fixed Power in an Omnipower costs 1/10th of its normal Real Cost.
Variable Power: When a Variable Power is active, it will only bind a number of Pool Points equal to the Real Cost of the portion of the Power that is used. It is thus possible to scale how much of the Pool a Variable Power binds by turning the Power up and down. A Variable Power in an Omnipower costs 1/5th of its normal Real Cost.
Open Power: An Open Power can be any Power or combination of Powers with a total Real Cost less than or equal to the limit for the Variable Power (the Power or Powers are still restricted by the Active Limit). The number of Pool Points that a Variable Power binds is equal to the Real Cost of the Powers that are used (same as for Variable Power). The cost of an Open Power in an Omnipower equals its Real Cost limit.

I have a few questions. In VPPs, the default is that it is very difficult and lengthy to change the powers, and IIRC also requires a skill roll of some sort. Is that true of an Open Power Slot?

Also, in VPPs, one can apply advantages to make changing powers quicker and easiser -- all the way up to Zero Phase Action and No Skill Roll. If the Open Power Slot starts in a similar state as an unadvantaged VPP, where/how would one apply advantages to improve the time/ease of changing powers?

Nothing in the writeup forbids buying an Open Power Slot and one or more of the other two kinds of slots. Would there be any benefit to purchasing in this manner? One possibility that comes to mind at the moment is a magic-user in a camapgin setting where there are two categories of spells. One is the everyday, run-of-the-mill spells like fireball, invisibility, etc. -- and the other is "ritual magic" of the kind that requires lots more time to cast, a prepared area/sanctuary, etc. (like a major summoning or item creation).

Or perhaps two differently limited Open Power Slots?

Example: Energy Attacks [~a Multipower]
Active Limit: 60 points. Cost: 60/2 = 30 points.
Pool: 40 Pool Points. Cost: 40/2 = 20 points.
Fixed Power: 12d6 EB, No Range (-½). Normal Real Cost: 40 points. Cost in OP: 4 points.
Fixed Power: 12d6 EB, Double END (-½). Normal Real Cost: 40 points. Cost in OP: 4 points.
Fixed Power: 8d6 EB. Normal Real Cost: 40 points. Cost in OP: 4 points.
Total Cost: 30+20+4+4+4 = 62 points

Example: Force Powers [~an Elemental Control]
Active Limit: 50 points. Cost: 50/2 = 25 points.
Pool: 145 Pool Points. Cost: 72 points.
Fixed Power: STR 30 telekinesis. Normal Real Cost: 45 points. Cost in OP: 4 points.
Fixed Power: 20PD/20ED Force Field, Half END (+1/4). Normal Real Cost: 50 points. Cost in OP: 5 points.
Fixed Power: 20" Flight, Half END (+1/4). Normal Real Cost: 50 points. Cost in OP: 5 points.
Total Cost: 25+72+4+5+5 = 111 points

I like that it is possible to mix the two:

Example: Force Powers [~a Blended Framework]
30 Active Limit: 60 points
80 Pool: 160 Pool Points
6 Fixed Power: 12d6 Energy Blast. Normal Real Cost: 60 points.
6 Fixed Power: STR 40 telekinesis. Normal Real Cost: 60 points.
10 Variable Power: 20 PD/20 ED Force Field, Half END (+1/4). Normal Real Cost: 50 points.
10 Variable Power: 20" Flight, Half END (+1/4). Normal Real Cost: 50 points.
Total Cost: 142 points

The character can have his full Flight ability, have a full-strength Force Field, and use one of the two attack powers. Or he can do *both* attack Powers, but can only have 40 points to power his Force Field and Flight (like a 16 PD/16 ED Force Field and no Flight).

A similar contruct using a seperate Multipower and Elemental Control would have looked like this:

60 Multipower: Force Powers (60)
6u 1) 12d6 Energy Blast
6u 2) STR 40 telekinesis

25 Elemental Control: Force Powers (50 pt powers)
25 1) 20 PD/20 ED Force Field, Half END (+1/4)
25 2) 20" Flight, Half END (+1/4)
Total Cost: 147.

Nearly identical costs for frameworks without advantages or limitations. But the OmniPower has the added benefit of being able to "borrow" points from the EC to use in the MP. A nice feature, and IMO logical with the whole idea behind almost any character's Special Effect-Based abiltiy.

Here's another question: How would the framework be affected when one power within it was Drained/Suppressed?

BobGreenwade

Mar 6th, '08, 06:06 AM

I'm not that crazy about the "Omni Framework," but I have to admit that, in this case, it's mostly "fuddy-duddiness" -- I'm fond of things the way they are, and I'm a bit trepidatious about making a radical change. I haven't looked at it really closely to see how cost-balanced it is... but if my first-blush glance tells me anything right, it'd probably work out okay.

Tonio

Mar 6th, '08, 11:37 AM

Oops, the 60 rather than 40 was because I debated with myself whether to make the Open Power cost 1x or 1½x the Limit. I ended with 1x, but forgot to correct that instance.

Yes, Open Power is an attempt to include the VPP in the Omnipower structure. An Open Power can be any sum of Powers with a total Real Cost not exceeding the Open Power's Real Cost Limit and no single Power exceeding the Omnipower's Active Limit.

Let's look at the Magic Pool example again (only with correct numbers this time):

Example: Magic Spells
Active Limit: 40 points. Common Limitations: Gestures, Incantations (-½). Cost: 40/2/1.5 = 13 points.
Pool: 40 Pool Points. Cost: 40/2 = 20 points.
Open Power: Real Cost Limit 40. Normal Real Cost: 40 points. Cost in OP: 40 points. (Note: Powers that make up the Open Power are limited by the 40 point Active Limit and must have the common Limitations).
Total Cost: 13+20+40 = 73 points

All Powers in the Open Power* have the Gestures and Incantations Limitations.

If you chose a 40 Active Point Power (Real Cost 27), you would have 13 Real Points left, corresponding to a 20 Active Point Power. You could thus e.g. have an 8d6 EB and a 20 PD Force Field running at the same time.

Instead, you could choose three powers each with Active Cost 20 (3 x 13 = 39 Real Points).

You could also take some extra Limitations on the individual Powers (Subpowers?) in order to decrease the Real Costs and thus have more (or more powerful) Powers going: 8d6 EB, No Range (AC40, RC 20) + 20 PD Force Field, 3xEND Cost (AC20, RC8) + 12" Flight, 2xEND Cost (AC24, RC12).

*: Powers within an Open Power within an Omnipower; no wonder it's confusing. Perhaps the terminology needs adjusting...

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Gotcha. That's what I thought it was, cool.

I'd suggest making an Open Power more like a free-form Variable (or mebbe Fixed? Or either?) slot. Right now, as it is, there's no reason to purchase more than one Open Power, and with one Open Power you can slot many Powers.

What about making it so that an Open Power can only be one power (lowercase "p", meaning it has to be one effect, although it could be built using more than one Power), but it's not pre-defined? That way you could have a VPP that could only hold 3 powers. Sure, there's now no way to make an unlimited-number-of-powers VPP, but that shouldn't be a big problem, really, and in addition it goes with HERO's no-absolutes policy better. Cost probably should be adjusted, but I really haven't looked too hard at costs here anyway.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 6th, '08, 02:24 PM

I have a few questions. In VPPs, the default is that it is very difficult and lengthy to change the powers, and IIRC also requires a skill roll of some sort. Is that true of an Open Power Slot?
No. The cost of an Open Power Slot is the same as for ten Fixed Slots; I think that's expensive enough. Skill Roll and Time requirements would be taken on limitations on the Active Limit and on all Powers in the Omnipower.

Nothing in the writeup forbids buying an Open Power Slot and one or more of the other two kinds of slots. Would there be any benefit to purchasing in this manner? One possibility that comes to mind at the moment is a magic-user in a camapgin setting where there are two categories of spells. One is the everyday, run-of-the-mill spells like fireball, invisibility, etc. -- and the other is "ritual magic" of the kind that requires lots more time to cast, a prepared area/sanctuary, etc. (like a major summoning or item creation).
Yes. Also see the Shape Shifting example, which has a small Open Slot to supplement several larger Powers.

Or perhaps two differently limited Open Power Slots?
There would be no point to this. You don't take limitations on the Slots (which are Real Cost-based), only on Powers in the Slots. You only get a cost break if all Powers in the Omnipower must have the same limitation(s).

I suppose you could take Variable Limitations on the Active Limit and then take specific limitations of that magnitude on the Powers in the slots.

Here's another question: How would the framework be affected when one power within it was Drained/Suppressed?

I would say that if you can drain/suppress one power, you can drain the entire Omnipower. The powers are after all supposed to be a conceptual whole. That would help justify the cost save for the EC-like version where all powers can be active at once. Might be a problem if there's an Open Slot: Can any drain/suppres then affect the entire Omnipower? Or only ones that works against the special effect (e.g. Magic)?

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

CTaylor

Mar 6th, '08, 03:27 PM

The advantage of bundling this all together is that you are able to effectively use frameworks to boost other frameworks. I've done this without frameworks, giving someone powers then a multipower that tweaks each one (armor piercing, hex effect, etc) as naked advantages, but this would make it cleaner and more elegant. Plus, it saves space: one power framework means no extra text for EC and Multipower; that's a bonus for writers.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 6th, '08, 03:30 PM

Omni Framework

Reformatted and slight terminology change. I tried to do something similar but Klaus succeeded.

Nice! (and thanks for the compliment):)

I have thought about terminology and simplification myself and have decided on two changes, one minor and one major:
(Minor): Reversing the cost structure so that you multiply the low costs rather than divide the high costs. You avoid having to do divisions and this also prevents speculation in rounding breakpoints.
(Major): Each slot can only have a single power (or several Powers that are linked to always go off together). For the Fixed and Variable Powers, this makes no difference, since there's no cost difference in having two small slots or one bigger with the same total cost. For the Open Power, it will mean that you can't split the slot into several smaller powers. This is somewhat limiting, but it simplifies things a lot. Now, if you e.g. want to have severals magic spells running at the same time, you need to buy several Open Powers.

The write-up is now like this:

OmniPool
An OmniPool is a pool of several powers that are conceptually linked (i.e., are aspects of the same overarching power). Depending on how the OmniPool is constructed, one, some, or all of these powers can be turned on at the same time.

An OmniPool consists of three elements: The Active Limit, the Real Limit, and one or (usually) more individual Omnipowers.

Active Limit: This determines the maximum Active cost of any single power in the OmniPool. The cost of the Active Limit is one character point per two points in the Active Limit. 10 character points will thus get you an Active Limit of 20 points.
Any Limitation that affects all the Omnipowers in the OmniPool can also be taken on the Active Limit cost.

Real Limit: This determines the total Real Cost of Omnipowers that can be turned on at the same time. The cost of the Real Limit is one character point per two points in the Real Limit. 10 character points will thus get you a Real Limit of 20 points.
No Limitations can be taken on the Real Limit cost.

Omnipowers: These are a number of conceptually linked powers. Different powers must be bought as seperate Omnipowers; an Omnipower can only consist of several powers if these are linked and always go off together as a single power.
How many character points you spend on an Omnipower decides how great the Real Cost of the Omnipower can be. Omnipowers are also limited by the OmniPool's Active Limit and Real Limit. There are three different types of Omnipower:

Fixed Omnipower: Whenever a Fixed Omnipower is turned on, its entire Real Cost counts towards the OmniPool's Real Limit. You get 10 points worth of Real Cost in a Fixed Omnipower for every character point you spend on it.
Variable Omnipower: When ever a Variable Omnipower is turned on, only the Real Cost of the portion of the power that is actually used counts towards the OmniPool's Real Limit. Thus, if you use a Variable Omnipower at less than full power, you leave more room for other Omnipowers to be turned on. You get 5 points worth of Real Cost in a Variable Omnipower for every character point you spend on it.
Open Omnipower: An Open Omnipower can be a new power every time it is used. It can be any power within the overarching concept of the OmniPool. As for the Variable Omnipower, only the Real Cost of the portion of the power that is actually used counts towards the OmniPool's Real Limit. You get 1 point worth of Real Cost in an Open Omnipower for every character point you spend on it.

Example: Shape-Shifting
Active Limit: 60. Limit cost: 30 character points
Real Limit: 120. Limit cost: 60 character points
Fixed Omnipower: Shape Shift (any shape); 0 END (+½). Real Cost: 45. Omnipower cost (1 per 10 RC): 5
Variable Omnipower: Growth rank 12. Real Cost: 60. Omnipower Cost (1 per 5 RC): 12
Variable Omnipower: Shrinking rank 6. Real Cost: 60. Omnipower Cost (1 per 5 RC): 12
Variable Omnipower: Stretching 12"; Double END (-½). Real Cost: 40. Omnipower Cost (1 per 5 RC): 8
Open Omnipower: Any one power that derives naturally from a shifted shape (e.g flight for a bird shape). Real Cost: 15. Omnipower Cost (1 per 1 RC): 15
Total Cost: 30+60+5+12+12+8+15 = 142 character points

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

schir1964

Mar 6th, '08, 07:43 PM

Klaus,

I'll reformat your new version when I have some time.

- Christopher Mullins

The Main Man

Mar 6th, '08, 07:53 PM

This OmniPool/Framework/Power idea is pretty well thought out.

Count me in if this is properly tested in game play, particularly against EC's, MP's, and VPP's.

James Gillen

Mar 6th, '08, 08:15 PM

This OmniPool/Framework/Power idea is pretty well thought out.

Count me in if this is properly tested in game play, particularly against EC's, MP's, and VPP's.

It's definitely worth serious consideration (if Steve is reading this).

JG

The Main Man

Mar 6th, '08, 08:16 PM

It's definitely worth serious consideration (if Steve is reading this).

JG

Of whom we are very fond of.

*Looks at camera ;)*

schir1964

Mar 6th, '08, 11:23 PM

OminPool Framework
An OmniPool is a pool of several powers that are conceptually linked (i.e., are aspects of the same overarching power). Depending on how the OmniPool is constructed, one, some, or all of these powers can be turned on at the same time.

An OmniPool consists of three elements: The Active Limit, the Real Limit, and one or (usually) more individual Omnipowers.

Elements
Active Limit: This determines the maximum Active cost of any single power in the OmniPool.

The cost of the Active Limit is one character point per two points in the Active Limit. 10 character points will thus get you an Active Limit of 20 points.

Any Limitation that affects all the Omnipowers in the OmniPool can also be taken on the Active Limit cost.

Cost: 2 Points Active Limit Per 1 Character Point Spent
.
Real Limit: This determines the total Real Cost of Omnipowers that can be turned on at the same time.

The cost of the Real Limit is one character point per two points in the Real Limit. 10 character points will thus get you a Real Limit of 20 points.

No Limitations can be taken on the Real Limit cost.

Cost: 2 Points Real Limit Per 1 Character Point Spent
.
Omnipowers: These are a number of conceptually linked powers.

Different powers must be bought as separate Omnipowers; an Omnipower can only consist of several powers if these are linked and always go off together as a single power.

How many character points you spend on an Omnipower decides how great the Real Cost of the Omnipower can be.
Omnipowers are also limited by the OmniPool's Active Limit and Real Limit.

Omnipowers are placed in Framework Slots. There are three different types of slots: Fixed, Scalable, and Variable.
.
Fixed Slot: Whenever an Omnipower in a Fixed Slot is turned on, its entire Real Cost counts towards the OmniPool's Real Limit.

You get 10 points worth of Real Cost in a Fixed Slot for every character point you spend on it.

Cost: 10 Points of Real Cost Per 1 Character Point Spent
.
Scalable Slot: When ever an Omnipower in a Scalable Slot is turned on, only the Real Cost of the portion of the power that is actually used counts towards the OmniPool's Real Limit. Thus, if you use an Omnipower at less than full power, you leave more room for other Omnipowers to be turned on.

You get 5 points worth of Real Cost in a Scalable Slot for every character point you spend on it.

Cost: 5 Points of Real Cost Per 1 Character Point Spent
.
Variable Slot: A Variable Slot can contain a different Omnipower every time it is used. It can be any Omnipower within the overarching concept of the OmniPool.

Just like the Scalable Slot, only the Real Cost of the portion of the power that is actually used counts towards the OmniPool's Real Limit.

You get 1 point worth of Real Cost in an Variable Slot for every character point you spend on it.

Cost: 1 Point of Real Cost Per 1 Character Point Spent
.

Example: Shape-Shifting
Active Limit (60) / Limit Cost (30 Character Points)
Real Limit (120) / Limit Cost (60 Character Points)
Fixed Slot: Omnipower [Shape Shift (any shape); 0 END (+½)] / Real Cost (45) / Slot Cost (1 Per 10 Real Cost = 5 Character Points)
Scalable Slot: Omnipower [Growth: Rank 12] / Real Cost (60) / Slot Cost (1 Per 5 Real Cost = 12 Character Points)
Scalable Slot: Omnipower [Shrinking: Rank 6] / Real Cost (60) / Slot Cost (1 Per 5 Real Cost = 12 Character Points)
Scalable Slot: Omnipower [Stretching 12"; Double END (-½)] / Real Cost (40) / Slot Cost (1 Per 5 Real Cost = 8 Character Points)
Variable Slot: Any one power that derives naturally from a shifted shape (e.g flight for a bird shape) / Real Cost (15) / Slot Cost (1 per 1 Real Cost = 15 Character Points)

Total Cost: 30+60+5+12+12+8+15 = 142 Character Points

Klaus, how's this?

Doc Democracy

Mar 7th, '08, 02:05 AM

I like the idea of the omnipower or whatever it might be called and Zornwil and I looked at putting something like it together some time ago.

However, my mind is very much focussed towards streamlining the game and frameworks are 'another' mechanic that people have to get their heads around.

I was wondering whether we might be able to simply replace the frameworks with a serious reworking of the Linked limitation? Essentially frameworks are powers that are linked for one reason or another and have a set of limitations depending on which way they are linked - exclusivity, co-draining etc.

Would it be simpler for the game to get rid of frameworks and work with limitations to link things together - for one thing it would make the fact that they are cost saving devices so much more obvious and it would highlight the limitations in constructing things that way.

The only problem I see with this is VPPs. I'm thinking that there would need to be an advantage that allowed a point pool to be used to be any power and that those powers would have to be Linked in some manner....

Dunno - just another idea for consideration.

Doc

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 7th, '08, 02:33 AM

OminPool Framework
Klaus, how's this?

The formatting makes it nice and readable and is very "HERO-like".:)

I'm not sure there's a need to talk about 'Slots' After all, in the new version, every Omnipower must be a single Power. I think the term Slot introduces an extra, unnecessary metalayer.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 7th, '08, 02:40 AM

IWould it be simpler for the game to get rid of frameworks and work with limitations to link things together - for one thing it would make the fact that they are cost saving devices so much more obvious and it would highlight the limitations in constructing things that way.

The only problem I see with this is VPPs. I'm thinking that there would need to be an advantage that allowed a point pool to be used to be any power and that those powers would have to be Linked in some manner...

I'm not sure such a Linked structure would be any simpler than a structure like the OmniPool (or whatever it's going to be called).

However, if Steve was to go that way, I think that a combination of Variable Advantage and Variable Limitations allows something similar to a VPP, if more limited in that the the main Power remains the same.

If this is combined with a new Power called Variable Power, which can be a new (basic) Power every time it is used, we would be rather close to a VPP.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 7th, '08, 02:46 AM

There are three different types of Omnipower:
Fixed Omnipower: Whenever a Fixed Omnipower is turned on, its entire Real Cost counts towards the OmniPool's Real Limit. You get 10 points worth of Real Cost in a Fixed Omnipower for every character point you spend on it.
Variable Omnipower: When ever a Variable Omnipower is turned on, only the Real Cost of the portion of the power that is actually used counts towards the OmniPool's Real Limit. Thus, if you use a Variable Omnipower at less than full power, you leave more room for other Omnipowers to be turned on. You get 5 points worth of Real Cost in a Variable Omnipower for every character point you spend on it.
Open Omnipower: An Open Omnipower can be a new power every time it is used. It can be any power within the overarching concept of the OmniPool. As for the Variable Omnipower, only the Real Cost of the portion of the power that is actually used counts towards the OmniPool's Real Limit. You get 1 point worth of Real Cost in an Open Omnipower for every character point you spend on it.I think perhaps Variable Omnipower should be called Scaleable Omnipower, so that the Open Omnipower can be renamed Variable Omnipower. This seems to better fit what they are about, and the Variable Omnipower would then be like the current Variable Power Pool.

Just a thought.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Doc Democracy

Mar 7th, '08, 03:23 AM

I'm not sure such a Linked structure would be any simpler than a structure like the OmniPool (or whatever it's going to be called).

The simplicity is that you remove a section of rules and integrate frameworks into the advantages and limitations sections of the rules - it is one less thing for new people to keep track of.

Dont get me wrong - I like the omnipool structure on a cursory reading but we are all pretty much Hero geeks and will be blind to how that adds to the !?!!$ reaction by newbies.

Doc

Tonio

Mar 7th, '08, 04:13 AM

The simplicity is that you remove a section of rules and integrate frameworks into the advantages and limitations sections of the rules - it is one less thing for new people to keep track of.

Dont get me wrong - I like the omnipool structure on a cursory reading but we are all pretty much Hero geeks and will be blind to how that adds to the !?!!$ reaction by newbies.

Doc

Bear in mind, though, that this would replace MP, EC, and VPP, so it wouldn't be another extra mechanic to understand. It actually removes three mechanics while adding one that's slightly more complex than any single one of the three it replaces.

But yeah, it might be kind of complex for newbies. I think a couple of examples, though, might fix that.

I think duplicating this with Limitations and Advantages might end up being clunkier and more complex (and harder to understand), too.

CTaylor

Mar 7th, '08, 07:48 AM

I agree, this isn't much more complex than existing power frameworks, and reduces their number to one.

schir1964

Mar 7th, '08, 02:23 PM

I'm not sure there's a need to talk about 'Slots' After all, in the new version, every Omnipower must be a single Power. I think the term Slot introduces an extra, unnecessary metalayer.
Keeping the Slot terminology helps separate where the Slot Cost is different from the Real Cost. Some of your terminology makes it hard to read since you end up with so many "costs" running around. Plus, it has the advantage of getting the idea across with those who are familiar with slots in frameworks.

But if you want me to remove them, I certainly can, but I don't think it will help the presentation of the idea.

Do you want me to replace Variable with Scalable and Open with Variable?

- Christopher Mullins

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 8th, '08, 12:55 AM

Keeping the Slot terminology helps separate where the Slot Cost is different from the Real Cost. Some of your terminology makes it hard to read since you end up with so many "costs" running around. Plus, it has the advantage of getting the idea across with those who are familiar with slots in frameworks.

But if you want me to remove them, I certainly can, but I don't think it will help the presentation of the idea.
Well, you may be right. But then, perhaps the term OmniSlot is better than Slot: Omnipower.

Do you want me to replace Variable with Scalable and Open with Variable?
I think that makes it easier to understand, so yes.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

schir1964

Mar 8th, '08, 07:07 PM

I think that makes it easier to understand, so yes.
Done!

- Christopher Mullins

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 9th, '08, 03:19 AM

OminPool Framework

Klaus, how's this?

I've rewritten it slightly for clarity, removing the word Omnipower entirely:

OmniPool Framework
An OmniPool is a pool of several powers that are conceptually linked (i.e., are aspects of the same overarching power). Depending on how the OmniPool is constructed, one, some, or all of these powers can be turned on at the same time.

An OmniPool consists of three elements: the Active Limit, the Real Limit, and one or (usually) more individual slots of powers.

Elements

Active Limit: This determines the maximum Active cost of any single power in the OmniPool.

The cost of the Active Limit is one character point per two points in the Active Limit. 10 character points will e.g. get you an Active Limit of 20 points.

Any Limitation that affects all the powers in the OmniPool can also be taken on the Active Limit cost.

Cost: 2 Points Active Limit Per 1 Character Point Spent.

Real Limit: This determines the total Real Cost of powers in the OmniPool that can be turned on at the same time.

The cost of the Real Limit is one character point per two points in the Real Limit. 10 character points will e.g. get you a Real Limit of 20 points.

No Limitations can be taken on the Real Limit cost.

Cost: 2 Points Real Limit Per 1 Character Point Spent.

Slots: The powers in an OmniPool are organized in a number of slots. All powers in the OmniPool must be conceptually linked.

Different powers must be bought as separate slots; a slot can only contain several powers if they are linked and always go off together as a single power.

How many character points you spend on a slot determines how great the Real Cost of the power in it can be. Powers are also limited by the OmniPool's Active Limit and Real Limit.

There are three different types of slots: Fixed, Scalable, and Variable.
.
Fixed Slot: Whenever a power in a Fixed Slot is turned on, its entire Real Cost counts towards the OmniPool's Real Limit, whether or not the power is used at full power.

You get 10 points worth of Real Cost in a Fixed Slot for every character point you spend on it.

Cost: 10 Points of Real Cost Per 1 Character Point Spent.

Scalable Slot: When ever a power in a Scalable Slot is turned on, only the Real Cost of the portion of the power that is actually used counts towards the OmniPool's Real Limit. Thus, if you use a Scalable Slot at less than full power, you leave more room for other slots to be turned on.

You get 5 points worth of Real Cost in a Scalable Slot for every character point you spend on it.

Cost: 5 Points of Real Cost Per 1 Character Point Spent.

Variable Slot: A Variable Slot can contain a different power every time it is used. It can be any power within the overarching concept of the OmniPool.

Just like the Scalable Slot, only the Real Cost of the portion of the power that is actually used counts towards the OmniPool's Real Limit.

You get 1 point worth of Real Cost in an Variable Slot for every character point you spend on it.

Cost: 1 Point of Real Cost Per 1 Character Point Spent.

Example: Shape-Shifting
Active Limit (60) / Limit Cost (30 Character Points)
Real Limit (120) / Limit Cost (60 Character Points)
Fixed Slot: Shape Shift (any shape); 0 END (+½) / Real Cost (45) / Slot Cost (1 Per 10 Real Cost = 5 Character Points)
Scalable Slot: Growth: Rank 12 / Real Cost (60) / Slot Cost (1 Per 5 Real Cost = 12 Character Points)
Scalable Slot: Shrinking: Rank 6 / Real Cost (60) / Slot Cost (1 Per 5 Real Cost = 12 Character Points)
Scalable Slot: Stretching 12"; Double END (-½) / Real Cost (40) / Slot Cost (1 Per 5 Real Cost = 8 Character Points)
Variable Slot: Any one power that derives naturally from a shifted shape (e.g flight for a bird shape) / Real Cost (15) / Slot Cost (1 per 1 Real Cost = 15 Character Points)Total Cost: 30+60+5+12+12+8+15 = 142 Character Points

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

schir1964

Mar 9th, '08, 11:39 AM

Looks good!

- Christopher Mullins

JmOz

Mar 9th, '08, 03:18 PM

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 10th, '08, 06:11 AM

real cost needs to be the same as character points spent or less, not more, otherwise you get some serious balance issues. (I buy my real limit of powers to 50 points, for 25 points and get 50 points of power...sign me up)

It's not that easy to abuse. If you only have a single power in the OmniPool, the Active Limit will have to be at least as high as the Real Limit, so you actually get to pay more than if you bought the power outside the Pool.

OmniPool Example:
Active Limit: 50. Cost 25
Real Limit: 50. Cost 25
Fixed slot: 10d6 EB. Real Cost 50, slot cost 5
Total cost: 55
Cost if bought outside Pool: 50

OmniPool Example with limitations:
Active Limit: 100; all powers have limitations No Range (-½) and Double END Cost (-½). Cost 25
Real Limit: 50. Cost 25
Fixed slot: 20d6 EB, No Range, Double END. Real Cost 50, slot cost 5
Total cost: 55
Cost if bought outside Pool: 50

If you buy an OmniPool where all the powers can be used simultaneously, it's comparable to an Elemental Control (at least 4th edition; I don't know if it was changed in 5th, as I don't have that book).

OmniPool Example:
Active Limit: 20. Cost 10
Real Limit: 100. Cost 50
Fixed slot 1: 4d6 EB. Real Cost 20, slot cost 2
Fixed slots 2-5: Other 20-point powers (total slot cost 8)
Total cost: 70

Compare this to an Elemental Control:
Base Cost: 10
Power 1: 4d6 EB. Slot cost 20-10 = 10
Powers 2-5: Other 20-point powers (total slot cost 40)
Total cost: 60

The Elemental Control is actually cheaper than the OmniPool, as you can see.

Try other combinations; I think you will find that the cost is balanced compared to existing power frameworks.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Opal

Mar 10th, '08, 04:45 PM

Try other combinations; I think you will find that the cost is balanced compared to existing power frameworks.

60 Multipower: 60 Apt
6u 12d EB
6u 8d AP EB
6u 8d EB EX

/and/

30 EC: 60 Apt
30 Flight 30"
30 Force Field, 20/20, hardened 1/2 END.

Total cost 168

30 OmniPower 60 Apts
90 OmniPower 180 Rpts
6u 12d EB
6u 8d AP EB
6u 8d EB EX
6u Flight 30"
6u Force Field, 20/20, hardened 1/2 END.

Total cost 150

hmm. Not as bad as I expected.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 11th, '08, 07:18 AM

hmm. Not as bad as I expected.

A bit worse, however, than I expected. You get greater flexibility and pay less.

Perhaps a better cost structure would be to let the Active Limit cost 1 per 3 and the Real Limit cost 2 per 3. Let's redo your example then:

(Multipower + Elemental Control: 168 points)

20 OmniPower 60 Apts
120 OmniPower 180 Rpts
6u 12d EB
6u 8d AP EB
6u 8d EB EX
6u Flight 30"
6u Force Field, 20/20, hardened 1/2 END.

Total cost 170

Certainly a better fit in this situation. OTOH, it may be unbalanced when there's limitations involved, since the Active Limit is a smaller part of the cost. It will also make 'pure' EC-like structures more expensive (the one in your example would cost 112). Those who dislike ECs as getting something for free may not mind this, though.

I think further 'stress testing' of both versions may be in order.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Opal

Mar 11th, '08, 11:57 AM

Perhaps a better cost structure would be to let the Active Limit cost 1 per 3 and the Real Limit cost 2 per 3. That's really just adding cost to the EC aspect, rather than adding cost to the combination of EC & Multipower.

If you don't see combining all frameworks into one resulting in a slight point savings for characters who have more than one framework as a positive, or at least acceptable, then it just might not be a good idea - since having the equivalent of mutliple frameworks is one thing it's certain to make easier and thus more common.

Personally, I'm much more on the fence than I was a little while ago. I was pretty firmly against consolidating frameworks into one. Now I'm thinking it might be OK.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 12th, '08, 03:41 AM

That's really just adding cost to the EC aspect, rather than adding cost to the combination of EC & Multipower.

Personally, I'm much more on the fence than I was a little while ago. I was pretty firmly against consolidating frameworks into one. Now I'm thinking it might be OK.

You may be right that there's no need to panic about combined frameworks becoming a bit cheaper.

Another thing I like about the OmniPool is that it better allows Multipower-like structures where powers have similar real costs, but different active costs. Compare the following:

60 Multipower 60 points
6u 6d6 Flash
4u 6d6 Flash, no range (-½)

15 3d6 Flash, no range (-½), linked to second slot in MP (-½)

Total cost: 85

Omnipool
45 Active Limit 90
30 Active Limit 60
6f 6d6 Flash
6f 9d6 Flash, no range (-½)

Total cost: 87

Almost exactly the same cost, but the OmniPool version is much less clunky.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Vondy

Mar 12th, '08, 08:12 AM

I've rewritten it slightly for clarity, removing the word Omnipower entirely:

Variable Slot: A Variable Slot can contain a different power every time it is used. It can be any power within the overarching concept of the OmniPool.

Just like the Scalable Slot, only the Real Cost of the portion of the power that is actually used counts towards the OmniPool's Real Limit.

You get 1 point worth of Real Cost in an Variable Slot for every character point you spend on it.

Cost: 1 Point of Real Cost Per 1 Character Point Spent.[/LIST]

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

So, I've got an 80 Pt. Variable Power Pool. I want to use omnipool.

I pay 40 points for the active limit.
I pay 40 points for the real limit.
I pay 40 points to activate 1 power at those limits.

120 points. Its significantly less versatile than the current construct at the same cost. For 120 points, currently, I can mix and match my real costs and the numbers of powers, as needed. This allows me to activate a 1 whopping power. It also requires me to know in advance how many powers I'll need active at any given time and what the likely combinations and real costs are when I build it - which renders it less flexible and somewhat defeats the purpose - and then buy several slots at 1:1.

It should be noted that I don't consider VPPs underpriced or dangerous because I have experience managing them as a GM. This is great for MP-EC style construsts, but your cost ratio for replacing VPPs is really problematic in my book - and I wouldn't implement it until that was dealt with.

Or is this a misunderstanding based on the langauge currently being used to explain it?

Tonio

Mar 12th, '08, 08:18 AM

So, I've got an 80 Pt. Variable Power Pool. I want to use omnipool.

I pay 40 points for the active limit.
I pay 40 points for the real limit.
I pay 40 points to activate 1 power at those limits.

120 points. Its significantly less versatile than the current construct at the same cost. For 120 points, currently, I can mix and match my real costs and the numbers of powers, as needed. This allows me to activate a 1 whopping power. It also requires me to know in advance how many powers I'll need active at any given time and what the likely combinations and real costs are when I build it - which renders it less flexible and somewhat defeats the purpose - and then buy several slots at 1:1.

It should be noted that I don't consider VPPs underpriced or dangerous because I have experience managing them as a GM. This is great for MP-EC style construsts, but your cost ratio for replacing VPPs is really problematic in my book.

Note, though, that an 80pt Cosmic VPP (which is how OmniPower works) would not cost 120, but rather 200.

Additionally, the concept is, I believe, sound. Especially considering how it gives you build options you don't currently have with VPPs (without custom-built Limitations), like being able to have a multitude of small powers but be unable to have one big one, or the opposite.

I haven't been taking the costs too seriously, although I find them eerily appropriate for the most part, given how elegant the pricing scheme is. Once the mechanics are down, the costs can be fiddled with to acheive balance.

Vondy

Mar 12th, '08, 08:20 AM

real cost needs to be the same as character points spent or less, not more, otherwise you get some serious balance issues. (I buy my real limit of powers to 50 points, for 25 points and get 50 points of power...sign me up)

You have to buy both!

1) active limit = 25 points.
2) real limit = 25 points.
3) slot = 1+ points.

So you get 50 points of power for 51+ points....

Vondy

Mar 12th, '08, 08:32 AM

Note, though, that an 80pt Cosmic VPP (which is how OmniPower works) would not cost 120, but rather 200.

You mean cosmic as in 0 phase to change actions and no skill roll, or cosmic as in "I can do anything with it"?

200 points is 20 points cheaper than the former (Cosmic+2), but massively too expensive for the basic flexibility the current VPP exists to provide.

Additionally, the concept is, I believe, sound. Especially considering how it gives you build options you don't currently have with VPPs (without custom-built Limitations), like being able to have a multitude of small powers but be unable to have one big one, or the opposite.

What's wrong with custom built limitations? Those are the bread and butter of the VPP - and of many published characters. That's the Hero System norm.

Also, you mention that it adds options, but do not address the flexibility issue and the need to predetermine how many slots and what levels they will need to be at in advance - which completely defeats the purpose of the VPP in the first place.

How do you make it more flexible and kill the selling point all at once?

I haven't been taking the costs too seriously, although I find them eerily appropriate for the most part, given how elegant the pricing scheme is. Once the mechanics are down, the costs can be fiddled with to acheive balance.

There needs to be some sort of advantage that allows that slot to become a free form slot. Otherwise it won't do what a VPP was designed to do without becoming prohibitively expensive (and annoying to build).

Tonio

Mar 12th, '08, 11:17 AM

You mean cosmic as in 0 phase to change actions and no skill roll, or cosmic as in "I can do anything with it"?

200 points is 20 points cheaper than the former (Cosmic+2), but massively too expensive for the basic flexibility the current VPP exists to provide.

I did mean the former (no skill roll, 0 Phase Action, to change):

80 [pool] + 40 [control cost]*(1+2 [Cosmic]) = 80 + 120 = 200.

What's wrong with custom built limitations? Those are the bread and butter of the VPP - and of many published characters. That's the Hero System norm.

Well, there's nothing wrong with them, but I prefer (and I think most people do, as well, but I've got nothing to base that on, besides a general feeling) using standard building blocks (including standard Limitations) rather than custom ones.

Also, you mention that it adds options, but do not address the flexibility issue and the need to predetermine how many slots and what levels they will need to be at in advance - which completely defeats the purpose of the VPP in the first place.

How do you make it more flexible and kill the selling point all at once?

You're right, it does remove some flexibility. I'm not sure it's as big an issue as you're making it out to be, though. I don't think it completely defeats the purpose of the VPP. If you were only allowed one Open slot, then it would be a much bigger limitation, although I'd still hesistate to say it completely defeats the purpose. I guess you could buy one 80pt slot, two 40pt slots, and four 20pt slots and have much more flexibility, but I believe that'd be too expensive, especially if you want finer granularity.

There needs to be some sort of advantage that allows that slot to become a free form slot. Otherwise it won't do what a VPP was designed to do without becoming prohibitively expensive (and annoying to build).

That's what I was thinking... a possible addition to the framework would be an Advantage on Open Slots (+1? +2? probably +2) which would allow you not just one power up to that RP cost, but any combination thereof. Buying one of these slots gives you the flexibility VPPs give you now.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 12th, '08, 11:53 AM

So, I've got an 80 Pt. Variable Power Pool. I want to use omnipool.

I pay 40 points for the active limit.
I pay 40 points for the real limit.
I pay 40 points to activate 1 power at those limits.

Actually, that would be 80 points to activate 1 power at those limits. 160 points total to get any one 80-point power (within a concept) at any time; that's similar to a +1 advantage. If anything, this may be too cheap. However, you could get 10 fixed slots for the same price, so I guess it is okay.

Remember that in an OmniPool, you can change between slots as a 0-phase action without a skill roll, similar to the Cosmic Power Pool example in the rule book. This costs 200 points, but is also more flexible than the OmniPool example. However, look at this OmniPool:

OmniPool: Variable Power Pool
40 Active Limit 80
40 Real Limit 80
80 Variable Slot
40 Variable Slot
27 Variable Slot
Total Cost: 227 points

This allows any combination of one, two or three powers with a total Real Cost not exceeding 80 and individual Active Costs not exceeding 40. It is like a VPP that's limited to no more than three powers. A bit more expensive than the 200 points for a VPP, but not horribly so.

In my earlier write-ups of the OmniPool/OmniPower, I allowed a slot to consist of more than one power, which meant that you could have something exactly like the 80-point Cosmic VPP (cost 200) for 160 points. I made the change because (a) I thought it would be too cheap, and (b) because no other slot type needed the ability to hold more than one power (you could just buy more slots instead).

To make a Variable Slot more like a VPP, we could allow limitations on the slot cost depending on how difficult it is to change the powers:

-1: Takes a full phase to turn on or change power
-1½: Power can only be changed between adventures (takes days)
-½ to-1½: Power changes only in certain circumstances
-½: No choice of how power changes (goes with circumstances)
-1: Changing Power in combat requires a skill roll
-½: Power must belong to a restricted type (e.g., only Drains)

Limitations corresponding to a standard VPP (full phase, skill roll) would total -2. If we apply this to the OmniPool above, the total cost is reduced to 129, compared to 120 for a standard 80-point VPP.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

CTaylor

Mar 12th, '08, 12:21 PM

Vondy

Mar 12th, '08, 12:31 PM

This allows any combination of one, two or three powers with a total Real Cost not exceeding 80 and individual Active Costs not exceeding 40. It is like a VPP that's limited to no more than three powers. A bit more expensive than the 200 points for a VPP, but not horribly so.

Is this correct: I can have real costs not exceeding 80 and active costs not exceeding 40?

If so, how is this "good"? With the current VPP I get 80/80 in terms of potential active and real costs.

Vondy

Mar 12th, '08, 12:33 PM

I agree, I don't think the present build of Omnipower handles variable power pools very well, particularly big, very flexible ones. That might be a bonus to some GMs, and not to others, but it's something that needs to be addressed.

I'm the GM. I'm complaining about it. The costs of several characters I streamlined (for players) into variable power pool users just got significantly more expensive (ridiculously so in a few cases) and less flexible - presuming this replaced all frameworks.

Vondy

Mar 12th, '08, 12:44 PM

I posted a potential tweak here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1562689&postcount=5).

Mini-Nukette

Mar 12th, '08, 03:32 PM

Power Pool
A character can use any or all Powers in these slots at the same time, as long as he can afford to pay all the END cost. The initial Character Point cost is equal to the half the maximum Active Points of a Power that you can have in any of the Power Pool's slots

Each Power Slot placed in a normal Power Pool costs half of the Active Points of the Power placed in it.

All Powers in these slots must use END (though they can have the Reduced Endurance Advantage, or the Costs Endurance Limitation if they otherwise inherently cost no END.)

Variable Power Pool
A character can only use the Power(s) in one of the Slots in a Variable Power Pool at any one time. The Initial Cost of a Variable Power Pool in character points is the maximum amount of Active Points the character can have in any of its Slots.

Each Slot placed in a Restricted Power Pool costs one tenth of the Active Points of the Power(s) placed in it.
No Slot can have more total Active Points in it than the initial Power Pool cost.
A player can place additional Powers in the same Slot, as long as all the Powers in that Slot have also been taken as sole Powers in previous Slots. These Powers must have the same Advantages and Limitations as their sole Slot counterparts. The maximum strength of any of these Powers is an equal fraction each of the initial pool cost, up to the strength of the same Power in its sole Slot.

For example, a normal Power Pool could cost 20 character points, and the player could purchase Powers to go into its slot for up to 20 character points each. Each of those Powers could have an actual Active Point cost of up to 40.

If they took three Powers each at the maximum Active Point value, then it would cost a total of 80 character points, for a saving of 40 points (if each was bought as a separate Power then it would cost 120 points.)

On the other hand, a player could take a Variable Power Pool, spending 40 character points on it initially, and the character can have up to a 40 Active Points cost Power in each slot.

If the player took three slots, each at the maximum of 40 Active Points value, then it would cost 52 character points, a saving of 68 points. However, they can only use or have one Slot active at any time.

They could choose to put a 40 AP worth Flight in the first slot, a 40 AP worth Forcefield in the second slot, and Flight with Force Field in the third Slot whose combined total is worth 40 AP. Effectively they can Fly, or use a Force Field, or use both at weaker strength.

They could have spent more points, and taken first three sole Power slots, say Flight, Forcefield, Energy Blast, then another four multiple Power Slots, Flight plus Forcefield, Flight plus Energy Blast, Force Field plus Energy Blast, and Flight plus Force Field plus Energy Blast.

If all the slots were bought at full strength, then this would cost 68 character points, a saving of 52 points from the three Powers bought individually.

They do have the option of using them together though, at weakened strengths; up to half Active Point strength for each Power when using two of the Powers together, and up to one third Active Point strength in each Power when using all three.

CTaylor

Mar 12th, '08, 05:44 PM

Vondy

Mar 12th, '08, 11:04 PM

What could fix this is to have the Open slot act as a power pool: that is, instead of having to build a slot for each power you can run at the same time, you buy open slots for the number of points you can run at once, no matter how many powers that might be. Have to recost the open slot some but it's a simple solution.

Experiement: I reworked four power pools last night with the current framework, but adding the advantage "Really Variable+1" to the active limit.

Telepathy Guy

For Instance: Telepathy Omnipool (AL80/RL80/VS80), Really Variable +1 Requires Skill Roll In Combat -1, Telepathy -1. Cost: 147.

Against: 80 Pt. VPP, 0 Phase +1, Requires Skill Roll In Combat -1, Telepathy Only -1. Cost: 106.

Water Gal

For Instance: Water Control Omnipool (AL80/RL80/VS80), Really Variable +1 Requires Skill Roll In Combat -1, Water Control Only -1. Cost: 147.

Against: 80 Pt. VPP, 0 Phase +1, Requires Skill Roll In Combat -1, Telepathy Only -1. Cost: 106.

Spooky Dude

For Instance: Dream& Shadow Omnipool (80/80/80), Really Variable +1, Requires Skill Roll in Combat -1, Dream& Shadow Only -½. Cost: 152.

Against: 80 Point VPP, 0 Phase +1, Requires Skill Roll In Combat -1, Dream& Shadow Only -½. Cost: 112

Expensive Chick

Omnipool: Fundamental Forces of Motion (100/100/100), Really Variable +1, Req. Skill Roll in Combat -1, Fundamental Forces of Motion Only -½. Cost: 190.

Against: 100 VPP, 0 Phase +1, Req. Skill Roll in Combat -1, Fundamental Forces of Motion Only -½. Cost: 140.

Postgame: The essential cost increase comes from the real limit, which takes no limitations. This could be lowered, as could the active point limit, but some powers with moderate effects are expensive to model - even though they aren't game breakers when compared to standard attack powers at the same point totals.

For instance, the character with "fundamental forces of motion" seldom exceeds powers of 45 points (not including reduced endurance), but some of their powers - even the heavily limited ones with moderate effects - are insanely expensive to model in hero (see Steve's comments on this in USPD1).

This is true of some powers the telepath and water control character bring into play as well. Modelling them turned out to be extremely expensive - despite moderate returns.

At the same time, I consider this option (Really Variable +1) within the ballpark in terms of acceptability and cost. The characters with these pools have super-long histories and were streamlined from other frameworks (and framework combinations) that had become unweildy and were no longer effecient constructs.

They're "top tier" in terms of the campaign's limits, and sitting down with their "approved powers lists" and considering the potential combinations may allow some downward adjustment to the Real Limit. It won't save much overall, and they'll still be more expensive, but I can already live with it so there is no reason not to "grandfather" them.

All in all I like the overall concept. Snagged.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 13th, '08, 03:00 AM

Is this correct: I can have real costs not exceeding 80 and active costs not exceeding 40?

If so, how is this "good"? With the current VPP I get 80/80 in terms of potential active and real costs.

Actually, active costs not exceeding 80. The 40 points is the cost of the Active Limit, and I got that mixed up in the post you quoted.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Vondy

Mar 13th, '08, 03:21 AM

Actually, active costs not exceeding 80. The 40 points is the cost of the Active Limit, and I got that mixed up in the post you quoted.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

That explains it!

I am happy with the advantage method I came up with and will adopt the omnipool/omnipower framework for future use.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 13th, '08, 03:35 AM

Experiement: I reworked four power pools last night with the current framework, but adding the advantage "Really Variable+1" to the active limit.

Telepathy Guy

For Instance: Telepathy Omnipool (AL80/RL80/VS80), Really Variable +1 Requires Skill Roll In Combat -1, Telepathy -1. Cost: 147.

Against: 80 Pt. VPP, 0 Phase +1, Requires Skill Roll In Combat -1, Telepathy Only -1. Cost: 106.

For one thing, the VPP limitation for limited choice of powers is only -½ (unless this was changed between 4th and 5th edition). That would make the costs of your constellations 152 and 138, respectively.

Secondly, compare your 'really variable' variant with this:

Telepathy OmniPool (AL80/RL80). Base cost 80
32 Variable slot (80 Real). Limitations: Requires skill roll (-1), Telepathy Only (-½)
16 Variable slot (40 Real). Limitations: Requires skill roll (-1), Telepathy Only (-½)
10 Variable slot (27 Real). Limitations: Requires skill roll (-1), Telepathy Only (-½)
Total cost: 138 (exactly the same as your VPP)

This allows any combination of up to three powers with a total Real Cost of 80 and individual Active Costs not exceeding 80. Not quite as flexible as being able to have any number of powers, but the structure allows greater flexibility than a VPP in other respects:

You can save points by having a variable power that can't be split into smaller powers (single Variable Slot).
In a VPP, the limits to Active Points and Real Points are always the same. This is not the case in an OmniPool, where you e.g. can have an Active Limit of 40, a Real Limit of 80 and two Variable Slots of 40 points each.
You can mix the Variable Slots with Fixed and Scaleable Slots (as in my earlier Shape-Shifting example.
However, that is not to say that your "Really Variable" advantage on the slot cost might not be a good idea. I would call it something different for clarity, e.g. "Splitable". See my next post for some ideas.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 13th, '08, 04:02 AM

The Variable Slot for the OmniPool framework could be made more like a VPP by reducing the basic Slot Cost to 1 cp per 3 points Real Cost of the slot, but include the built-in VPP limitations of requiring a skill roll and a full-phase action to change the power. Then the normal VPP advantages and limitations could be applied to the Slot Cost. A "Splittable" advantage of +1½ could also be included. An OmniPool that mimics a Cosmic VPP would then be like this:

Cosmic OmniPool: AL80, RL80 (cost 80)
Variable Slot (80 Real Cost). Advantages: No Skill Roll (+1), 0-Phase to Change (+1), Splittable (+1½). Cost: 27*(1+3½)=121
However, I favor something simpler, even if it means giving up some of the total flexibility of a VPP. Particularly, I dislike having limitations on the Slot Cost, since you can't do that with the other types of slots.

One solution might be this:

Variable Slot
Variable Slots can be Fast or Slow, and they can be Free or Limited. In all cases, they are Scaleable like the Scaleable Slot.

A Fast Slot allows powers to be changed as a 0-phase action. The character can be choose whether this is done consciously or automatically in response to circumstances (e.g. a defense that adapts to the last attack the character was hit by). It can't be both.
A Slow Slot can only be changed between scenes. This may require several hours of meditation and possibly access to a workshop, depending on the concept of the OmniPool.
A Free Slot can be any power that fits within the overarching concept of the OmniPool.
A Limited Slot is limited to a narrow range of powers, e.g. only movement powers, or as determined by the circumstances (e.g. a mimic power).

A Fast, Free Variable Slot costs 1 cp per point of Real Cost in the slot.
A Fast, Limited or Slow, Free Variable Slot costs 1 cp per 2 points of Real Cost in the slot.
A Slow, Limited Variable Slot costs 1 cp per 3 points of Real Cost in the slot.
This better fits the format of the OmniPool and still allows for quite a lot of flexibility in spite of being much simpler than the first option discussed in this post.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Vondy

Mar 13th, '08, 07:42 AM

For one thing, the VPP limitation for limited choice of powers is only -½ (unless this was changed between 4th and 5th edition). That would make the costs of your constellations 152 and 138, respectively.

The value of limited choice of powers is not static. Its value is based on how broad the special effects are, how much rubber science the gamemaster allows in interpreting those special effects, and subjective campaign norms. You will find, even in 4th edition, there were published character who had this disadvantage at various levels. I'm the GM. Its correct where I pegged it.

Vondy

Mar 13th, '08, 07:46 AM

Vondy

Mar 13th, '08, 08:06 AM

Variable Slot
Variable Slots can be Fast or Slow, and they can be Free or Limited. In all cases, they are Scaleable like the Scaleable Slot.

A Fast Slot allows powers to be changed as a 0-phase action. The character can be choose whether this is done consciously or automatically in response to circumstances (e.g. a defense that adapts to the last attack the character was hit by). It can't be both.
A Slow Slot can only be changed between scenes. This may require several hours of meditation and possibly access to a workshop, depending on the concept of the OmniPool.
A Free Slot can be any power that fits within the overarching concept of the OmniPool.
A Limited Slot is limited to a narrow range of powers, e.g. only movement powers, or as determined by the circumstances (e.g. a mimic power).

A Fast, Free Variable Slot costs 1 cp per point of Real Cost in the slot.
A Fast, Limited or Slow, Free Variable Slot costs 1 cp per 2 points of Real Cost in the slot.
A Slow, Limited Variable Slot costs 1 cp per 3 points of Real Cost in the slot.
This better fits the format of the OmniPool and still allows for quite a lot of flexibility in spite of being much simpler than the first option discussed in this post.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

If I understand correctly I would do thus:

Active Limit: 80. Cost: 40.
Real Limit: 80. Cost: 40.
Fast, Free Variable Slot: 80.
Basic Cost: 160.

This renders the cost:

Active Limit 80. Telepathy Only -1, Req. Skill Roll in Combat -1. Cost: 13.
Real Limit 80. Cost: 40.
Fast, Free Variable Slot: 80.
Cost: 133.

Its reasonable, removes the need for a limitation, and does what I want. It also reduces notation:

Telepathy Omnipool (80/80/80), Fast-Free, Telepathy Only -1, Skill Roll -1.

Mini-Nukette

Mar 13th, '08, 08:22 AM

Tidying up and clarifying my previous Variable Power Pool suggestion.

Variable Power Pool
A character can normally only use one Power from the slots in a Variable Power Pool at any time. The Initial Cost of a Variable Power Pool in character points is the maximum amount of Active Points the character can have in any of its Slots functioning at the same time.

When using a Power from the Variable Power Pool, each Power is limited to a maximum of the number of Active Points purchased for its Slot.

When using multiple Powers from the Variable Power Pool, the total Active Points of the Powers must also be equal or under the initial cost of the Variable Power Pool, in addition to the above.

Effectively, the initial cost of this pool can be thought of as a battery, and using multiple Powers from the pool requires the batteries energy to be divided between them.

Each Slot placed in a Variable Power Pool costs one tenth of the Active Points of the Power placed in it.
By increasing the cost of a Slot, the character can use the Power alongside others in this Variable Power Pool. If they double the cost, they can use this Power alongside one other Power in the Variable Power Pool. If they triple the cost, they can use this Power alongside two of the other Powers in this Pool at the same time, and so on. Other Slots in the Variable Power Pool need their points cost increased in a similar way to be reciprocative.
No Slot can have more total Active Points in it than the initial Power Pool cost.

For example, a player could take a Variable Power Pool (40 character points) with Flight (2 character points, 20 active points), Force Field (4 character points, 40 active points), Energy Blast (4 character points, 40 active points), for 52 character points. Their character can only use one of these Powers at any one time.

If they paid triple the cost for Flight (6 cp), they could use it alongside Force Field and Energy Blast, as long as those two Powers are also increased in points to be able to be used alongside Force Field.

If they then paid double the cost on each of Force Field and Energy Blast so they could be used alongside Flight (8 cp each), then it means they can use their Flight and either Force Field or Energy Blast at the same time. (62 character points in total.)

If they tripled the cost of all powers, then the character could use all three of the Powers at the same time, for the cost of 70 character points.

When using two or more of the Powers on their character, the player must reduce the total of those Powers Active Points value to be under or equal to the initial Cost of the Variable Power Pool.

If the player paid a higher initial cost for the Variable Power Pool, then they could use multiple Powers within it at a higher total Active Point cost, likening to an 'increased battery size.'

CTaylor

Mar 13th, '08, 08:53 AM

The point of a power pool is open-ended flexibility, the present Omni framework cuts that back tremendously for the sake of simplicity. That's a mistake, I'd rather have two frameworks than one that cripples power pool. There must be a way to build the old version of power pool or its functional equivalent in this one size fits all framework or it's not worth using.

Vondy

Mar 13th, '08, 09:32 AM

Mini-Nukette

Mar 13th, '08, 01:45 PM

To much free time. Another suggestion ;)

Power Pool
Powers in a Power Pool represent abilities which share a common theme or 'special effect' (SFX). The player must decide how many Character Points to spend on the Power Pool to begin with. This is the Initial cost. The Power Pool also gains a Power Reserve equal to five times the Initial cost.

When purchasing Powers for their character, the player can gain them at a reduced Character Point cost from its actual Active Point value in a Power Pool. Each Power also costs a number of the pools Power Reserve points.

The player can choose from a number of options, listed below, and can mix and match these options per Power as they wish.

Option 1: Normal Power

A Normal Power costs half of its Active Points value in Character Points, and the same amount in Power Reserve points.
A Normal Power can be up to the Power Pools Initial cost in Active Points value.
These Powers can be used alongside any other Normal Powers in the same Power Pool.
A Normal Power can take the Linked limitation to another Normal, Versatile or Unified Power in the same Power Pool

Option 2: Versatile Powerset / Powers

Each Versatile Power belongs to a Versatile Powerset within the Power Pool, and costs half of its Active Points value in Character Points, and an equal number of Power Reserve points.
A Power Pool can contain more than one Versatile Powerset, however the Power Reserve point cost doubles for each previous Versatile Powerset.
Each Versatile Power can have an Active Point value up to twice that of the Initial Power Pool cost.
Only one Versatile Power in the same Versatile Powerset can be used or be active at the same time.
A Versatile Power can take the Linked Limitation to a Normal Power in the same Power Pool.
Versatile Powersets represent Powers being used which share the same source. As such, if a Focus Limitation is taken, it must be taken for all of them and they all must share the same Focus. For example, a laser weapon with different settings.

Option 3: Unified Powerset / Powers

A Unified Power belongs to a Unified Powerset within the Power Pool, costs one tenth its Active Points value in Character Points, twice that in Power Reserve points.
A Power Pool can contain more than one Unified Powerset, however the Character Point cost of the Power and its Power Reserve point cost doubles for each previous Unified Powerset.
A Unified Power can be up to the Initial Power Pool cost in Active Point value.
A character can use any Unified Power in the Power Pool alongside any Normal Powers in the Power Pool as if it to were a Normal Power.
A Unified Power can take the Linked limitation to another Unified Power in the same Unified Powerset, or all the Unified Powers in the same Unified Powerset can take the Linked limitation to a Normal Power in the same Power Pool.
When using more than one of the Unified Powers in the same Power Pool at any one time, their Total Active Point value must be under or equal the Power Pools initial cost.
Unified Powers represent Powers that share the same source, but each Power draws their energy from that source individually. If a Focus Limitation is taken, it must be taken for all of them, and they all must share the same Focus. For example, a mystical ring which enables its wearer to use Telekinesis, which can also divide its lifting strength between a number of separate items (taking several Unified Power: Telekinesis in the same Unified Powerset.)

Example:

Power Pool, 40 Initial cost (200 point Power Reserve)
1) Normal Power, 20 character points (40AP), 20 power reserve points
2) Normal Power, 20cp (40 AP), 20pr points
3) Normal Power, 20cp (40 AP), 20pr points
4) Versatile Powerset
4a) Versatile Power 40cp (80 AP), 40pr points
4b) Versatile Power 30cp (60 AP), 30pr points
4c) Versatile Power 20cp (40 AP), 20pr points
5) Unified Powerset
5a) Unified Power 4cp (40 AP), 8pr points
5b) Unified Power 2cp (20 AP), 4pr points
5c) Unified Power 2cp (20 AP), 4pr points
6) Unified Powerset
6a) Unified Power 8cp (40 AP), 16pr points
6b) Unified Power 8cp (40 AP), 16pr points

Total: 206 Character Points (240-280 out of 380 Active Points worth of Powers usable at same time), 2 Power Reserve left

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 13th, '08, 03:27 PM

If I understand correctly I would do thus:

Active Limit: 80. Cost: 40.
Real Limit: 80. Cost: 40.
Fast, Free Variable Slot: 80.
Basic Cost: 160.

This renders the cost:

Active Limit 80. Telepathy Only -1, Req. Skill Roll in Combat -1. Cost: 13.
Real Limit 80. Cost: 40.
Fast, Free Variable Slot: 80.
Cost: 133.
Not quite. The "Telepathy Only" limitation can't be taken on the Active Limit, since it isn't a limitation shared by all powers (Telepathy isn't limited by being telepathy). It would rather be:

Active Limit: 80. Cost: 40.
Real Limit: 80. Cost: 40.
Fast, Limited Variable Slot (only Telepathy powers): 40.
Total Cost: 120.

In this simplified version I deliberately left out the limitation about requiring skill rolls to change the power in combat. I think such a thing might be better covered by the existing "requires a skill roll" limitation, even if the effect is somewhat different.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

CTaylor

Mar 13th, '08, 04:18 PM

Vondy

Mar 13th, '08, 11:54 PM

OK But with that open slot, with the Fast, Limited Variable slot, could you have more than one power with those points active at once? In other words, could you have a 10 point mind link and a 6D6 point telepathy (both being reasonable telepathic contact powers) running at the same time?

Because that's what power pool lets you do now.

As I interpret it, you could do that with a fast-free slot, which costs 1:1 and is comprable to the current VPP in price.

SteveZilla

Mar 14th, '08, 01:01 AM

You may be right that there's no need to panic about combined frameworks becoming a bit cheaper.

Another thing I like about the OmniPool is that it better allows Multipower-like structures where powers have similar real costs, but different active costs. Compare the following:

60 Multipower 60 points
6u 6d6 Flash
4u 6d6 Flash, no range (-½)

15 3d6 Flash, no range (-½), linked to second slot in MP (-½)

Total cost: 85

Unless that 3d6 Flash is of a different F/X and/or a different Sense Group, you can't take the Linked Limitation on it to work with the second slot. That's just the way the power is defined & purchased. So that 3d6 Flash costs 20 points and the whole construct costs 90.

Omnipool
45 Active Limit 90
30 Active Limit 60
6f 6d6 Flash
6f 9d6 Flash, no range (-½)

Total cost: 87

Almost exactly the same cost, but the OmniPool version is much less clunky.

Even taking the incorrect use of Linked out the two are very close to the same cost. And it is less clunky.

I will reserve my final yea/nay on OmniPools until someone does a workup using them that really strive to break it. I feel that only then can we really see how it will function in a real-world game.

Things like Gadget Pools, Magic Pools, how the rules about combining powers would work, how MPAs would work, how an Absorption/Aid/Succor of a single power in the OmniPool, or of the whole OmniPool would work. How Limitations on what powers can be made with an Omni-Slot (current name?) and Limitations on how long it takes to change the same. Limitations that, for Multipowers, had to be taken on just the reserve or just the slots (like charges, or "half-phase to change slots").

Also things like Advantages on the Reserve (I don't remember if that is allowed with OmniPools). I always felt that Advantages on VPP Control Costs were getting twice the effect paid for.

SteveZilla

Mar 14th, '08, 02:07 AM

SteveZilla

Mar 14th, '08, 02:25 AM

OK But with that open slot, with the Fast, Limited Variable slot, could you have more than one power with those points active at once? In other words, could you have a 10 point mind link and a 6D6 point telepathy (both being reasonable telepathic contact powers) running at the same time?

Because that's what power pool lets you do now.

Also, what about Linked Powers and Compound Powers? Would all powers Linked togetiner count as one "Power", and the same for a Compount Power's individual components?

Vondy

Mar 14th, '08, 02:45 AM

Also, what about Linked Powers and Compound Powers? Would all powers Linked togetiner count as one "Power", and the same for a Compount Power's individual components?

Since we only have a model without significant guidlelines the answer to your question doesn't exist - yet. At the same time: compound powers are conceptually one power (just built from mechanically discret parts). With linked powers we would have to consider what "linked" meant in conceptual terms: is it another way of building one compound effect, or is it really different powers (effects) that rely on one another? In the former case I would argue the "linked" powers are just a compound power expressed with different mechanical notation - and should go in one slot - while the latter case they are discrete powers and should go in separate slots. In this case, I see no issue with applying the "linked" limitation to a slot (i.e., slot A must be active for slot B to work, etc).

I would do this:

1) put compound powers in a normal slot as they are conceptually one power.
2) put linked powers that must work together and form one conceptual power in a normal slot.
3) put linked powers that are conceptually discrete, but interdependent, in separate slots.

Vondy

Mar 14th, '08, 02:48 AM

Or you could redefine the Open Slot as being like the VPP sans Advantages. Want to change powers as a Zero Phase Action in the OmniPower -- that takes an Advantage. Want to eliminate the need for a skill roll to change powers -- another Advantage.

That would work to bring the cost of the OmniPool with an Open Slot up. Possibly close to that of a comparable VPP.

The recosting of the variable slot with the fast-slow, free-limited options fixes the cost issue and the flexibility issue without the need for advantages (IMO).

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 14th, '08, 02:50 AM

As I interpret it, you could do that with a fast-free slot, which costs 1:1 and is comprable to the current VPP in price.
I actually intended every slot to be one-power-only. This is because there's no need ever to have more than one power in the Fixed or Scaleable Slots (buying seperate powers in separate slots costs the same and keeps things simpler).

However, this is not a big point for me, and just saying that Slots (Variable or not) can be made up of several powers certainly does add flexibility. Consider this my official view now. Perhaps some cost adjustments are required; I'll work through some examples over the weekend.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 14th, '08, 02:56 AM

I would do this:

1) put compound powers in a normal slot as they are conceptually one power.
2) put linked powers that must work together and form one conceptual power in a normal slot.
3) put linked powers that are conceptually discrete, but interdependent, in separate slots.
Sounds reasonable. However, I would not allow the Linked limitation on powers in a Variable Slot (except perhaps the Slow version), since you could just change the Slot to non-linked powers to avoid the limitation of "always go off together".

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Vondy

Mar 14th, '08, 03:07 AM

Sounds reasonable. However, I would not allow the Linked limitation on powers in a Variable Slot (except perhaps the Slow version), since you could just change the Slot to non-linked powers to avoid the limitation of "always go off together".

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Agreed. Were it me I would require them to put it in a non-variable slot.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 14th, '08, 03:11 AM

How Limitations on what powers can be made with an Omni-Slot (current name?) and Limitations on how long it takes to change the same. Limitations that, for Multipowers, had to be taken on just the reserve or just the slots (like charges, or "half-phase to change slots").

Also things like Advantages on the Reserve (I don't remember if that is allowed with OmniPools). I always felt that Advantages on VPP Control Costs were getting twice the effect paid for.

In the OmniPool, you can't take limitations on the Slot Cost. Since the Slot Cost is based on the Real Cost of the Power(s) in the Slot, limitations taken on these Powers will be reflected in the Slot Cost. However, if all Powers in an OmniPool share the same limitation, you can take the same limitation on the Active Limit Cost.

You can't take advantages on the OmniPool structure. The various versions of a VPP is handled through different costs for different kinds of slot.

In the current version, it is always a 0-phase action to change slots (just like in a Multipower). It might be worth looking at extending the Slow-Fast structure to all types of slots; I'll look into that. Perhaps a structure where a basic slot costs 1 point per 10 Real Cost (1:10), and you add e.g. 1:10 to add Scaleable, 2:10 to add Limited Variable, 4:10 to add Freely Variable, and so on. I not sure this will work, though.

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen

Mini-Nukette

Mar 15th, '08, 02:13 PM

Power Pool
(Initial Cost = Character Points spent, Power Reserve = 10x Initial Cost)
Powers in a Power Pool represent a number of Powers which share a common theme or 'special effect' (SFX). The player must decide how many Character Points to spend on the Power Pool to begin with. This is the Power Pools Initial cost. The Power Pool also gains a Power Reserve equal to ten times the Initial cost, which limits the number of Powers the player can purchase in the Power Pool.

When purchasing Powers for their character, the player can gain them at a reduced Character Point cost from their Real Cost when placed in a Power Pool. Each Power also costs a number of the pools Power Reserve points.

The player can choose from a number of options, listed below, and can mix and match these options per Power as they wish.

Option 1: Normal Power
(Actual Cost = ¾ Real Cost, Power Reserve Cost = Real Cost)
A Normal Power is just that, a Power which the character can use normally, which shares a common theme or SFX with other Powers in the same Power Pool. The character can have any number of Normal Powers in a Power Pool, within its Power Reserve points limit.

A Normal Power costs ¾ of its Real Cost in Character Points, and its Active Points value in Power Reserve points.
A Normal Power can be up twice the Power Pools Initial cost in Real Cost.
Normal Powers can be used alongside any other Powers.
A Normal Power can take the Linked limitation to another Normal or Adjustable Power in the same Power Pool, but not to a Versatile or Integrated Power in the same Power Pool, or to any Power outside the Power Pool. For any Focus limitation, they cannot share the same Focus with any Power outside the same Power Pool.

Option 2: Adjustable Power
(Actual Cost = Real Cost, Power Reserve cost = Real Cost x 1½)
Similar to a Normal Power, with the added bonus that the player can adjust the Active Point value of the Power when their character uses it. For example, an Energy Blast which the character can use at differing strengths. When purchasing an Adjustable Power, the Active Points value the player takes is the maximum strength of the Adjustable Power. The character can have any number of Adjustable Powers in a Power Pool, within its Power Reserve points limit.

An Adjustable Power costs its normal Real Cost in Character Points, and 1½ times its Real Cost in Power Reserve points.
An Adjustable Power can be up x1½ the Power Pools Initial cost in Real Cost.
Adjustable Powers can be used alongside any other Powers.
An Adjustable Power can take the Linked limitation to another Normal/Adjustable Power in the same Power Pool, but not to a Versatile or Integrated Power in the same Power Pool, or to any Power outside the Power Pool. For any Focus limitation, they cannot share the same Focus with any Power outside the same Power Pool.

Option 3: Versatile Power
(Actual Cost = ⅓Real Cost, Power Reserve cost = Real Cost x 2)
A Versatile Power represents a single Power which can be used in a variety of ways. The character can only use one Power in a Versatile Power at any one time. Each Versatile Power must contain at least two seperate Powers.

A Power assigned to a Versatile Power costs ⅓ of its Real Cost in Character Points, and twice its Real Cost in Power Reserve points.
A Power Pool can contain more than one Versatile Power - however, the Power Reserve cost of Powers placed in a new Versatile Power are multipled each time, x3 Real Cost in Power Reserve points for a Powers placed in a second Versatile Powerset, x4 Real Cost in Power Reserve points for Powers placed in a third Versatile Powerset, and so on.
Each Versatile Power can have an Real Cost up to the Initial cost of the Power Pool x1½.
A Versatile Power can only take the Linked Limitation to a Normal or Adjustable Power in the same Power Pool.
As a Versatile Power represents a single Power usable in different ways, if a Focus Limitation is taken for a Power in the Versatile Power, it must be taken for all of the Powers in the Versatile Power, and they all must share the same Focus. For example, a Laser Rifle weapon with different settings for stun and kill.

Option 4: Integrated Powerset / Powers
(Actual Cost = ⅜ Real Cost, Power Reserve cost = Real Cost x 2½)
An Integrated Powerset represents a group of Powers in the Power Pool which share the same source, and a character can use any number of the Powers in an Integrated Powerset at the same time. The Integrated Powerset must contain at least two Powers.
When doing so however, there is a fundamental limitation: the Active Point value of each Integrated Power must be divided by the number of Integrated Powers in use. For example, when using two Powers from the Integrated Powerset, each works at half its Active Point value, when using three, each works at a third of its Active Points value, and so on. Each Integrated Power effectively takes a portion of the same energy to use, and the more that are used at once, the weaker each of those Powers become.

An Integrated Power costs ⅜ its Real Cost in Character Points, and 2½ times its Real Cost in Power Reserve points. It must be assigned to an Integrated Powerset, which contains two or more Integrated Powers within the same Power Pool.
A Power Pool can contain more than one Integrated Powerset, however the Power Reserve cost of the Power is increased by an extra x1 each time, x3½ Real Cost value in Power Reserve points for Powers placed in a second Integrated Powerset, x4½ Real Cost in Power Reserve points for Powers placed in a third Integrated Powerset, and so on.
An Integrated Power can be up to the Initial Power Pool cost in Real Cost.
An Integrated Power can take the Linked limitation to another Power in the same Integrated Powerset, or to a Normal/Adjustable Power in the same Power Pool. If a player wants to take the Linked limitation to a Normal/Adjustable Power in the same Power Pool then all the Powers in the Integrated Powerset must be linked to the same Normal/Adjustable Power.
As the Integrated Powerset represents a group of Powers that share the same source - if a Power in an Integrated Powerset has the Focus Limitation, then all the Powers in the same Integrated Powerset must have it, to the same Focus. For example, a mystical ring which enables its wearer to use Telekinesis, which can also divide its lifting strength between a number of separate items (taking several Power: Telekinesis in the same Integrated Powerset.)

Option 5: Adaptable Powerset
(Actual Cost = Real Cost x1½, Power Reserve cost = Real Cost x1 +½ per Power)
An Adaptable Powerset represents a Power or Powers which can be changed by the character to suit a particular circumstance, within a defined restraint. As such, an Adaptable Powerset is not selected by a singular ability, but by a variable definition. For example, if a character took Shapeshifting, then being able to pick up Life Support, Travel, and Enhanced Sense Powers as needed as well would help to mimic animals and their natural abilities much easier. The player might record this as Adaptable Powerset: Animal Natural Ability Mimicry (only in suitable Animal form). There can only be one Adaptable Powerset in a Power Pool, and the player must choose how many Powers that the Adaptable Powerset can have at any one time.

An Adaptable Powerset costs x1½ its maximum Real Cost value in Character Points. Its cost in Power Reserve points is its Real Cost Points, plus another ½ its Real Cost again for each of the Adaptable Powers that the Adaptable Powerset can hold. For example, for x2½ times the Real Cost in Power Reserve Points, the character can define up to three Adaptable Powers at any time, with a total Real Cost equal or under that of the Adaptable Powerset.
An Adaptable Powerset can be up to twice the Initial cost of the Power Pool in Real Cost.
An Adaptable Powerset can only take Linked limitation to a Normal Power or Integrated Powerset in the same Power Pool.
As the Adaptable Powerset represents a shifting group of Powers that share the same source, if the Normal Power or Integrated Powerset an Adaptable Powerset is Linked to has the Focus limitation, then the Adaptable Powerset has the same Focus automatically.
Any Advantages and Limitation taken adjust the Real Cost value of the Adaptable Powerset, and any Power that the player defines in the Adaptable Powerset can only have those Advantages and Limitations.

Examples:

Power Pool, 20 Initial cost(200 point Power Reserve) Three quarters CP / Full PR
1) Normal Power 30cp (40 AP) 40pr
2) Normal Power 30cp (40 AP) 40pr
3) Normal Power 30cp (40 AP) 40pr
4) Normal Power 30cp (40 AP) 40pr
5) Normal Power 30cp (40 AP) 40pr
170cp for 200 AP of Powers
(no restrictions in using them together) : 85% cost

Power Pool, 36 Initial cost(360 point Power Reserve) Three quarters CP / x1.5 PR
1) Adjustable Power 40cp (40 AP), 60 PR
2) Adjustable Power 40cp (40 AP), 60 PR
3) Adjustable Power 40cp (40 AP), 60 PR
4) Adjustable Power 40cp (40 AP), 60 PR
5) Adjustable Power 40cp (40 AP), 60 PR
236cp for 200 AP of Powers
(no restrictions in using them together, can vary their Active Point values when in use) : 118% cost

Power Pool, 40 Initial cost (400 point Power Reserve) One third CP / x2 PR
1) Versatile Power
a) Power 13cp (40 AP), 80pr
b) Power 13cp (40 AP), 80pr
c) Power 13cp (40 AP), 80pr
d) Power 13cp (40 AP), 80pr
e) Power 13cp (40 AP), 80pr
Total: 105cp for 200AP of powers
(only one power usable at a time) : 52.5% cost

Power Pool, 50 Initial cost (500 point Power Reserve) x0.5 CP / x2.5 PR
1) Integrated Powers
a) Integrated Power 15cp(40 AP), 100pr
b) Integrated Power 15cp(40 AP), 100pr
c) Integrated Power 15cp(40 AP), 100pr
d) Integrated Power 15cp(40 AP), 100pr
e) Integrated Power 15cp(40 AP), 100pr
Total: 150cp Initial cost for 200 AP of powers
(Up to 40AP usable at the same time from any of the powers) : 75% cost

Power Pool, 100 Initial cost (1000 point Power Reserve)
1) Adaptable Powerset, 300cp (200 AP)
a) \
b) Up to three Adaptable Powers totaling up to 200 AP in use (500pr)
c) /
Total: 400cp cost for up to 200 AP of Adaptable Powers
(Up to 200 AP usable at same time) : 400% cost

I spent a while working on the Character Point to Active Point value of the various options, and think they are pretty well balanced. The above examples are for 200AP worth of a singular option from above, but they each fit together into a single Power Pool quite well to.

NB: Whilst I was mulling through this, I had another thought, could Elemental Powers / Multipowers etc. be changed into forms of Advantages/Limitations?

The Elemental Control character themed/SFX related Powers could each be a Unified Powerset +½ Advantage for cost, but all Unified Powers suffer from Drain.

Multipowers could be a -2 Limitation, "Versatile: Cannot be used with or alongside other Powers with the Versatile Limitation."

Adjustable could be an +½ Advantage, allowing the player to reduce the Active Point strength of the Power as desired.

Integrated could be a +1 Advantage for determining cost, but the total Active Point strength of any Integrated Powerset in use must be equal to or less the most expensive Powers Active Points.

Whilst an Adaptable Power would become just that, a new Power with __ Character Point cost for __ Real Point value worth of Power(s) within a chosen field.

Thereby, Power Frameworks become subsumed into Advantages and Limitations.

ideasmith

Mar 15th, '08, 09:25 PM

I suggest that Special Powers & Skills take up 5 times thier active cost in 'space' in a Power Pool or Multipower pool. Instead of the 1* active cost usual in such cases.

Vondy

Mar 16th, '08, 04:08 AM

I suggest that Special Powers & Skills take up 5 times thier active cost in 'space' in a Power Pool or Multipower pool. Instead of the 1* active cost usual in such cases.

I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree that should be a hard rule. I believe frameworks should have a stop sign on them, and that the final say should rest with the gamemaster. We want to empower gamemasters to use the system and set the correct balance for their games - not dictate to them what that balance should be. Arbitrary rules of this sort, while intended to fix problems, often create other problems. Such powers need to be considered on a case by case (or campaign by campaign) basis.

Klaus Mogensen

Mar 16th, '08, 04:46 AM

I have done some math on the slow/fast, free/limited version of the Variable Slot and have come up with the following cost structure:

Variable Slot
A Variable Slot can be a different Power or combination of Powers every time it is used. A Variable Slot can be Fast or Slow depending on how easy it is to change the Power(s) in the Slot, and it can be Free or Limited depending on the range of Powers available. All Variable Slots are Scalable.

A Fast Slot can be changed instantly. Changing a Fast Slot can be either conscious or automatic (not both). If conscious, you can change the Power(s) as a 0-phase action. If automatic, the Power(s) change to fit the circumstances without conscious character control (and will change even if the character is unconscious). This is e.g. suitable for an adaptive power that changes to fit a certain environment or the last attack the character was hit by.
A Slow Slot can only be changed between scenes. Changing a Slow Slot usually requires several hours of tinkering or meditation and most likely the use of a workshop or collection of magic tomes.
A Free Slot can be changed into any Power(s) that fit within the overarching concept of the OmniPool.
A Limited Slot can only be changed into a narrow range of Power(s), e.g. only Movement Powers, only Drains, or only Powers your current opponent has.

The Cost of a Variable Slot depends on the combination of these aspects:

A Fast, Free Slot costs 3 character points for every 2 points of Real Cost.
A Fast, Limited Slot costs 1 character point for every 1 point of Real Cost.
A Slow, Free Slot costs 1 character point for every 2 points of Real Cost.
A Slow, Limited Slot costs 1 character point for every 3 points of Real Cost.

Let's compare these costs to a VPP.

A 60-point Cosmic VPP (0-phase, no Skill Roll) costs 60+30x(1+2)=150 points.
A similar OmniPool is AL60/RL60 with a Fast, Free Variable Slot of 60 Real Points. Cost: 30+30+90=150 points.

A 60-point VPP with 0-phase, no Skill Roll and Restricted Powers (-½) costs 60+30x(1+2)/1½=120 points.
A similar OmniPool is AL60/RL60 with a Fast, Limited Variable Slot of 60 Real Points. Cost: 30+30+60=120 points.

A standard 60-point VPP (only change out of combat except as a full-phase action with a Skill Roll) costs 60+30=90 points.
A 60-point VPP that can only be changed between adventures (-½) costs 60+30/1½=80 points.
The closest OmniPool to both of these is AL60/RL60 with a Slow, Free Variable Slot of 60 Real Points. Cost: 30+30+30=90 points.

A 60-point VPP with no advantages and Restricted Powers (-½) costs 60+30/1½=80 points.
A similar OmniPool is AL60/RL60 with a Slow, Limited Variable Slot of 60 Real Points. Cost: 30+30+20=80 points.

I think this is a very good fit to a VPP, with a much simpler cost structure. The OmniPool is less flexible in some respects, but much more flexible in other respects: You can combine Variable Slots with Fixed and Scaleable Slots, and you can have different kinds of Variable Slots in the same OmniPool.

Example: Shape-Change OmniPool
68 Active Limit 46, Real Limit 90
05 Fixed Slot: Shape Shift All Shapes, 0 END (+½). Real Cost 45
09 Scaleable Slot: Growth rank 6, 0 END (+½). Real Cost 45
09 Scaleable Slot:Shrinking rank 3, 0 END (+½). Real Cost 45
09 Scaleable Slot: Stretching 6", 0 END (+½). Real Cost 45
30 Variable Slot (Fast, Limited): Any Movement Power that fits shape. Real Cost 30
Total Cost: 130

Example: Elemental Magic OmniPool
30 Active Limit 50, Limitation: All Powers require Gestures (-½), Incantations (-½) and Extra Time (-½); Real Limit 40
15 Variable Slot (Fast, Free): Real Cost 10
10 Variable Slot (Slow, Free): Real Cost 20
10 Variable Slot (Slow, Free): Real Cost 20
10 Variable Slot (Slow, Free): Real Cost 20
Total Cost: 75
The Elementalist must spend hours of preparation to memorize three major spells, but can do all sorts of minor 'cantrips' (Active Cost 25 with the standard limitations) without this preparation. Two major slots or any less-than-full-power combination totalling 40 real points can be active at the same time. Instant spells take a full phase to cast, spells with duration take 1 turn to cast.
The 'cantrip' slot can be used to cast just as powerful spells as the other slots (50 active points) if extra limitations are taken on the power, e.g. Concentration (-½), Focus Spell Book (-1) and additional Extra Time worth -1 (1 minute for instant spells, 5 hours for spells with duration).

________________
Klaus Æ. Mogensen