VPPS

[tiger]

I was thinking of allow VPPS to run at double the pool for the Active Points. So a Mage who sets up a pool pf 20 pts would be able to have upto 40 Active points in spells running at one time.

There would different requirements on spells and such to help keep mages in check. I was wondering what other GMS thought of this method.

[TheTemplar]

I have a response of paralytic fear to VPP's in a fantasy setting for the MOST part (I could see it for an EXTREMELY powerful NPC Sorcerer type, though.) But, if used responsibly by a responsible player (IE: Not looking to take advantage of the rules) and was HEAVILY restricted, I could see that as being a pretty quick fix to the "Which Magic System do I use" question.

[Mr. Negative]

One of the most important things to remember about Variable Power Pools is that you (the GM) control how variable a pool is allowed to be.

A spell pool doesn't HAVE to reflect the abilty to perform any magical effect (of a given active point total), it can simply be a game system construct to represent the ability of the wizard to use magic.

For instance, you could take a Limit on the pool of only known spells (which I would vary in value depending on how many spells are known, from the 2-10 of a novice up to dozens of spells, if not more). You could also require the player to have all their known spells written up in advance (less headaches for you and less waiting for the other players). This almost gives the player a multipower without having to pay for each slot (the cost is different of course, but it allows a wizard to have many minor spells without splurging points on each one of them).

Even if you want the player to be able to improvise magic, you could require skill rolls to create new spells, or even require that improvised magic takes substantial time to improvise, so that spells cannot be "written up" in combat, but can be created while imprisoned, trapped, etcetera, so that the player can write up new spells in situations where it won't derail or delay the game too much.

A nice option for "divine" magic is a No Conscious Control limitation on the pool, which would reflect nicely a source of spiritual power that is governed by the god granting it, rather than the cleric using it. In this way, the priest's access to magic would be a way for the GM to use foreshadowing and hints, in that the god would know what powers would be appropriate (for the god's purpose), even when the cleric might be confused.

Allowing VPP pools can be very disruptive, but I really think that if you make sure that it is limited within the rules to reflect the reality you want "within the game"' the VPP can be the best way to run many systems of magic. It does, however, require a mature player who is both conversant with the mechanics of the HERO system, and willing to play within the constraints of the magic system your campaign has. If you have players who are inexperienced or uncomfortable with the game mechanics, it will be a frustrating experience as they thrash out the powers. If you have power gamers who insist on using the pool to be predominantly combat/scenario effective, rather than trying to use it to reflect their character's own personal magical abilities, it will be frustrating for you and the other players as they disrupt the game.

[Thirdbase]

My current working idea is that the character pay for the control cost of the VPP only and 1 pt. per spell known, plus KS's in the various schools of magic.

[Mr. Negative]

Originally posted by Thirdbase
My current working idea is that the character pay for the control cost of the VPP only and 1 pt. per spell known, plus KS's in the various schools of magic.

This may work. However, I would also keep track of how many points characters are spending vs. a "traditional" VPP write-up. Given enough spells and KS, a major wizard might actually be spending more points this way.

I have to admit, I myself have an "irrational" fear of giving away free magic points (though I know all the arguments: balanced by the free points of weapons and armor, balanced by the points spend on KS and spells, etc...). It's just that in every campaign I have ever run, or played in, there was no shortage of people willing to play wizards and pay points for all the spells, and the wizards were just as (if not more) effective than the warriors who got all the "point breaks" on weapons and armor.

I'm not opposed to the "free magic points" systems, but I've just never seen any need to have them, except to model some sort of magic system where wizards CAN use powers far in excess of their points totals, which seems to favor them highly and unfairly over all other character conceptions. After all, within HERO, there's nothing to stop the wizard from using those "free points" in chainmail, shield, sword, and crossbow either. If there is in your game, then that itself should be a disadvantage worth points to the character.

[tiger]

Well actually modified it a bit since I posted it.

1)No spell can be over the Base pool in Active or Real cost.

2)A character can buy a perk:Spell Adept for 3 points. This allows him to have double the Active cost of the pool working at one time.

[The Mad GM]

I've considered it, but except for duplicating a vast number of minor spells and cantrips, it seems open to abuse unless you limit it heavily, and at that point you might as well use a multipower.

Since experience points theoretically make every spell stronger at the same time in a VPP, that makes for a very different progression than a Multipower, where experience must be split between power and variety.

Hmm...must ponder further.

[tiger]

Originally posted by The Mad GM
I've considered it, but except for duplicating a vast number of minor spells and cantrips, it seems open to abuse unless you limit it heavily, and at that point you might as well use a multipower.


I had planned on limiting the number of spells known. It seemed a good answer to the fact the a VPP are extrememly expensive to buy with a descent size pool.

Granted they work great for cantrips a such, but causes problems for a mage needing a offensive & defensive power going at the same time.

[Mr. Negative]

Originally posted by tiger
Granted they work great for cantrips a such, but causes problems for a mage needing a offensive & defensive power going at the same time.

On the introduced sub-topic of having an offensive and a defensive power going at the same time within a VPP, the normal problem seems to be that the Offensive and Defensive powers have Real Point costs that, added together, are greater than that allowed by the pool (otherwise, what would the problem be?).

Has anyone tried this solution (or is it even legal)?

Buy your defense with Costs End and Uncontrolled. Then, the wizard can "cast" the defense, and allot the END that he thinks he will need to keep it up for the combat. After the END is spent, the defense stays up until it is exhausted, even if the points in the VPP are shifted to something else (right?).

This has two nice features for me as a GM. The player isn't POSITIVE that his defenses will last through the entire combat, so an unexpectedly resilient foe can sometimes outlast them. Also, these advantages (plus Usable on Others as Attack, which allows the wizard to cast the defense spell on others and control the duration himself) add substantially to the costs of defenses. Most wizards need a substantial Active Point "reserve" to simulate some of their spells, but this often tempts them into trying to buy huge defenses cheaply. With those three Advantages, common magical defenses are quite expensive, and quite flavorful.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Mr. Negative
On the introduced sub-topic of having an offensive and a defensive power going at the same time within a VPP, the normal problem seems to be that the Offensive and Defensive powers have Real Point costs that, added together, are greater than that allowed by the pool (otherwise, what would the problem be?).
It's a problem? How'd that happen? I mean, honestly - if you've got two powers at the active point limit, and both have -1 limitations, you're using exactly as many real points as the pool will support. Spells are always going to have limitations of some sort, and -1 total is on the low side.
Has anyone tried this solution (or is it even legal)?

Buy your defense with Costs End and Uncontrolled. Then, the wizard can "cast" the defense, and allot the END that he thinks he will need to keep it up for the combat. After the END is spent, the defense stays up until it is exhausted, even if the points in the VPP are shifted to something else (right?).

Well, Uncontrolled is a stop-sign advantage, if that causes any concern. If not, then yes, this is exactly one way to get a defense out of a VPP (or a multipower) that survives reallocation. (Others might be an Aid to assorted defenses, or a personally immune Entangle you use on yourself.) You get into a region of greater GM wariness if it's Uncontrolled and 0 END. You're not going that route, but it does bring up a potential practical problem: having a hard time feeding it enough power to start to keep it running through a reasonable combat. Maybe you can, but if so, you're quite possibly leaving you (or your END reserve) so wasted as to make you a dubious factor for a moderately long fight thereafter.

Me, I think you can get a large variety of cantrips going the Multipower route with slots of modest power and considerable limitation coming in at 1 point a piece, either not used in the very same phase you're using one of your big attack powers, or with a reserve a little larger than that required for one of your big attack powers if you insist. Another way is making generous use of basic powers with broad ranges of effect - Telekinesis and EB, for instance - and Variable Advantage and Variable Special Effect to represent a variety of little spells. Or both - powers like that as little MP slots. VPP's are just too awkward for most use for two basic reasons - one, the player isn't getting any limitation value on the pool cost, and two, the GM has to worry about wizards all looking alike with VPP's all around and/or wizards who can pull any power out of their hat.

[tetsujin28]

ACK! No! Even at the increased cost, nothing gets rid of the main problem of VPPs: they're a pain in the butt to run on the fly. As if having 13 stats for a skeleton for weren't enough for the GM to handle...

[AnotherSkip]

actually with Skeletons and their layered defenses it comes out to significantly _more_ than 13 stats. who the heck needs EGO or PRE or Con running those buggers?

the simplest way to run it is with a max of two and only two powers with -1 in limitations.

yes they are "expensive" points (Ie they never get bought down) BUT on the other hand they are never lying around unless you are basically dead, asleep, or directly countered in some fashion. unlike every other single ability in the game, including Str and it's figured characteristics, Skills and other characteristics and other powers.

Fat lot of good that 2d6RKA Conforming Explosion does you when you are climbing the mountain....

:)

[Markdoc]

Yep, I'd weigh in against giving any breaks on the VPP costs. I have had VPP-using mages in my game, and their flexibility makes them lethal, with a little effort on the player's part.

As for a defensive and offensive power at once, how about invisibility and an ordinary, old, non-magic longbow? In truth, it has never been a problem, since it is pretty easy to crank one or two good spells out of a 20 point VPP. As already pointed out, there is never a shortage of players who want to play mages, unless you craft the magic system to inhibit this.

The idea that fighters and rogues are more cost effective because they get "free stuff" alas, exists entirely in the heads of people who do not GM very much FH.

After 20+ years of doing exactly that, my first thought for a new game is "how do we keep the mages under control?"

cheers, Mark

[tetsujin28]

Originally posted by Markdoc
The idea that fighters and rogues are more cost effective because they get "free stuff" alas, exists entirely in the heads of people who do not GM very much FH.

After 20+ years of doing exactly that, my first thought for a new game is "how do we keep the mages under control?"

cheers, Mark Agreed.