Limitations on VPP Pool

[fbdaury]

Not sure if anyone has asked this before but my question is thus: Would you allow a limitation on the VPP Pool itself? Let me explain the concept behind what I'm suggesting:
Iconic archer character whose arrows are split into three groups- his 30 shot basic quiver with 10 regular arrows, 10 chiselpoint arrows, and 10 blunthead arrows; as well as his 40 shot trick arrow quiver; and his 5 shot "Just in Case" emergency quiver- a VPP with 5 total charges, each charge representing a single-use arrow that he has on him in a sort of "In case of emergency, break glass" mentality.

Would this be a reasonable way to do this or is it too far outside the spirit of the game? Would you allow it?

[ghost-angel]

Those Limitations go on the Slots themselves; not the Pool or Control. There's no common underlying element to them, unless you total them all up and put that many Charges and a Limitation on the Control Cost with a note to how many go to which arrow.

[fbdaury]

Okay, the VPP itself can only be used 5 times, no more- each use is only good for a single attack power effect, the whole VPP is therefore limited and that is the underlying common element.

Perhaps I wasn't clear originally- only the emergency 5 shot quiver would be VPP, the other two sets of powers are seperate Multipower Pools of their own, one for the standard arrows and one for the trick arrows.

[ghost-angel]

Ah, if the 5-Shot Emergency Arrows are the VPP then the Control Cost itself takes the Limitation Charges: 5.

It would likely also take other Limitations (Focus, Limited Abilities, etc... whatever Limitations you use to construct the other arrows themselves in short).

[fbdaury]

Ah, if the 5-Shot Emergency Arrows are the VPP then the Control Cost itself takes the Limitation Charges: 5.

It would likely also take other Limitations (Focus, Limited Abilities, etc... whatever Limitations you use to construct the other arrows themselves in short).

Okay, this is the underlying question: If the limitation limits the Whole VPP pool, then why should the limitation not provide a break to the pool cost- this limits more than the powers that can be used by the pool or those powers themselves, it actually limits the pool, does it not make sense that the pool should therefore be given a price break in return?

[Hyper-Man]

Per RAW (Rules As Written) there is no legal way to directly limit or reduce the cost of the Pool itself of a VPP.

Considering that this is for a bow & arrow sfx, I wonder if you have considered using a Multipower with several Variable Advantaged slots instead?

[The Hawk God]

I believe the "point" is that because a VPP is so versatile that the pool 'never' receives a cost break, but you can reduce the control cost.

[fbdaury]

:think:

Okay, if a limitation that isn't a limitation isn't worth any points, then why isn't the reverse also true? If a VPP can only be used 5 times total, one-shot use each time, how is that NOT a limit on all the points in that pool? Limits that only apply to the Control cost make sense most of the time but it seems strange (foolish) that there is no possible way to limit the pool cost for a VPP when it is entirely possible for certain concepts to create pools that should be restricted and the cost of that pool to therefore also be reduced.

I understand what the rules as written say, what I'm asking is would you as a Gm allow this anyways and if not, why? And give a reason othe than the rules say no, because I already know that and in this case it makes no sense for the rules to say no.

[ghost-angel]

The Pool Cost can never be altered because this is the Balancing Part of having a VPP.

The Pool also represents two things: Active Points Per Power; Real Point Cap on Readied Powers.

Neither of those two aspects are Limited by Charges - in fact Limitations allow MORE Powers to be used in a VPP at once. So Limiting Powers inside a VPP can almost be a form of advantage in that more higher AP Powers are available any given Phase.

So no - I wouldn't allow a Limitation to the Pool in any way, for any reason.

[fbdaury]

I have 5 arrows, I can use each once.
If I use all 5 at one time, I"m still out of arrows.
This means that I've just used up all of my VPP pool.
So I'm still limited.
I understand what the rules say, I can read and have comprehension skills, what I'm saying is that the rules make no sense.

Is it really that hard to understand what I'm saying?

[ghost-angel]

I understand - I don't think you understood what I said.

The Pool represents ACTIVE POINTS and REAL POINTS AVAILABLE.

Unless you feel you are limiting either one of those I see no Limitation on the Pool being applied. RAW or otherwise.

Heck, by applying Charges to the Arrows you could conceivably use more than one at once. That's advantageous.

[Hyper-Man]

:think:

Okay, if a limitation that isn't a limitation isn't worth any points, then why isn't the reverse also true? If a VPP can only be used 5 times total, one-shot use each time, how is that NOT a limit on all the points in that pool? Limits that only apply to the Control cost make sense most of the time but it seems strange (foolish) that there is no possible way to limit the pool cost for a VPP when it is entirely possible for certain concepts to create pools that should be restricted and the cost of that pool to therefore also be reduced.

I understand what the rules as written say, what I'm asking is would you as a Gm allow this anyways and if not, why? And give a reason othe than the rules say no, because I already know that and in this case it makes no sense for the rules to say no.

I'm not sure if you are really grasping the total usefulness of a VPP in this situation.

Here's a comparison to help illustrate:

74 Unstable Molecule Arrows (They have the potential to be almost anything before they are fired): Variable Power Pool, 60 base + 14 control cost, Powers Can Be Changed As A Half-Phase Action (+1/2) (105 Active Points); 5 Charges (-3/4), Limited Class Of Powers Available Gadget/Arrows (-1/2); all slots OAF (Backup Quiver; -1), Requires Multiple Foci or functions at reduced effectiveness (+1/4), Range Based On Strength (-1/4)
[Notes: Ignore END cost on slots as the Charges represent the number of times the pool can be used rather than changed.] - END=
0 1) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points) Real Cost: 30 - END=6

22 Unstable Molecule Arrows (They have the potential to be almost anything before they are fired): Multipower, 60-point reserve, (60 Active Points); 5 Charges (-3/4); all slots OAF (Bow & Arrows; -1), Requires Multiple Foci or functions at reduced effectiveness (+1/4), Range Based On Strength (-1/4)
[Notes: Ignore END cost on slots as the Charges represent the number of times the Reserve can be used rather than changed.]
3u 1) Backup Arrows: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6+1, Variable Advantage (+1 Advantages; +2) (60 Active Points) - END=6
3u 2) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6
3u 3) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6

The VPP version can be used for almost ANY power. To get different powers represented using a Multipower approach you have to purchase at least 1 separate slot for each power you want to be able to use. At a certain point the multipower will actually become more expensive but it would require 17+ slots to do so. The VPP essentially has an infinite # of slots. That's why it's so expensive.

HM

[fbdaury]

I understand - I don't think you understood what I said.

The Pool represents ACTIVE POINTS and REAL POINTS AVAILABLE.

Unless you feel you are limiting either one of those I see no Limitation on the Pool being applied. RAW or otherwise.

Heck, by applying Charges to the Arrows you could conceivably use more than one at once. That's advantageous.

If you have 5 arrows total and each has a 60 active point total (60 point VPP), then you have 300 AP total. If you use all the points at once or one a time, you still only have 300 AP- I could not use one arrow charge to suddenly become 5 arrows with 60 AP each.

If this pool is for emergencies and I shoot off all my arrows at once, then I have no arrows left for the next emergency and am, therefore, limited. Any VPP can be used for multiple effects at one time but the charges on this one insures that if you do that you are still not getting any extra effect for doing so as you are still using up your limited number of effects for each power seperately.

[JmOz]

The reason imo is that because you use the pool to represent how many real points you can use at any one time them to limit that would allow characters to have more points

To give a simple example

You have a 90 point VPP, with a -2 lim...if we allowed you to affect the real cost with the lims the pool would cost you 30 points

then for you razor sharp arrows you would apply the -2 lim to them again, and get it for 30 points, then you would buy your FF belt for another 30 points, and finaly a jet pack for another 30 points

so for 30 REAL points you now have 90 REAL points...

this can be way to abusive

HOWEVER, let me throw something your way, this is what my archer uses

124 Gadget Pool: Variable Power Pool, 75 base + 49 control cost, Cosmic (+2); Max Real Points of Power is 30 (-1/2), Must Predetermine Load (-1/4); all slots OIF (-1/2)

you could easily modify it some. Note this replaces almost all of the equipment the character would carry, including armor, etc...

here is a ful link to the character write up from a couple years ago...been to long sense I got to play him...

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57710&highlight=marksman

[fbdaury]

I'm not sure if you are really grasping the total usefulness of a VPP in this situation.

Here's a comparison to help illustrate:

74 Unstable Molecule Arrows (They have the potential to be almost anything before they are fired): Variable Power Pool, 60 base + 14 control cost, Powers Can Be Changed As A Half-Phase Action (+1/2) (105 Active Points); 5 Charges (-3/4), Limited Class Of Powers Available Gadget/Arrows (-1/2); all slots OAF (Backup Quiver; -1), Requires Multiple Foci or functions at reduced effectiveness (+1/4), Range Based On Strength (-1/4)
[Notes: Ignore END cost on slots as the Charges represent the number of times the pool can be used rather than changed.] - END=
0 1) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points) Real Cost: 30 - END=6

22 Unstable Molecule Arrows (They have the potential to be almost anything before they are fired): Multipower, 60-point reserve, (60 Active Points); 5 Charges (-3/4); all slots OAF (Bow & Arrows; -1), Requires Multiple Foci or functions at reduced effectiveness (+1/4), Range Based On Strength (-1/4)
[Notes: Ignore END cost on slots as the Charges represent the number of times the Reserve can be used rather than changed.]
3u 1) Backup Arrows: Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6+1, Variable Advantage (+1 Advantages; +2) (60 Active Points) - END=6
3u 2) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6
3u 3) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6

The VPP version can be used for almost ANY power. To get different powers represented using a Multipower approach you have to purchase at least 1 separate slot for each power you want to be able to use. At a certain point the multipower will actually become more expensive but it would require 17+ slots to do so. The VPP essentially has an infinite # of slots. That's why it's so expensive.

HM

Hyper Man, I understand what you did there, but that's not what this is...:eg:

The character this concept comes from has his normal arrows and his trick arrows, and has enough of each that he will not be using the emergency quiver for a duplicate of one of those powers- it's for the times when you need something special:
"Oh No Bowman, Mondo Man is under the Dementor's mental control, how do we stop him?"

"Well Quiver, fortunately I suspected that this might happen and brought a Psi-Chaff arrow just in case, to disrupt Dementor's control."

<Psi-Chaff arrow: 12d6 Mind Control, only to break the effect of another Mental Power, -1>

It's the Bat-Shark repellent spray effect- there when you need it, but not always carried. :D

[fbdaury]

The reason imo is that because you use the pool to represent how many real points you can use at any one time them to limit that would allow characters to have more points

To give a simple example

You have a 90 point VPP, with a -2 lim...if we allowed you to affect the real cost with the lims the pool would cost you 30 points

then for you razor sharp arrows you would apply the -2 lim to them again, and get it for 30 points, then you would buy your FF belt for another 30 points, and finaly a jet pack for another 30 points

so for 30 REAL points you now have 90 REAL points...

this can be way to abusive

HOWEVER, let me throw something your way, this is what my archer uses

124 Gadget Pool: Variable Power Pool, 75 base + 49 control cost, Cosmic (+2); Max Real Points of Power is 30 (-1/2), Must Predetermine Load (-1/4); all slots OIF (-1/2)

you could easily modify it some. Note this replaces almost all of the equipment the character would carry, including armor, etc...

here is a ful link to the character write up from a couple years ago...been to long sense I got to play him...

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?=57710&highlight=marksman

Okay, I understand what you`re getting at, but with a 30 point VPP without the limitation I'm proposing you could use that pool for an almost limitless number of points over the course of the day- even if you used all 5 arrows at one time with my build and got 300 AP worth of powers out of the deal, you are now done for the day. The potential abuse is countered, or greatly reduced, by the fact it can only be done once per day. That seems to be a balancing effect to me.

Bottom line, if I want my archer to have a 60 point VPP so that I can use the 60 active point total for an arrow, but only want to be able to use it 5 times per day, why should I have to pay 60+6 (All Powers OAF, 2 handed weapon, Str Min 18/does not add, real weapon, 5 charges)= 66 points for something that I will get very limited use out of?

Instead, why not this:
Emergency Arrow quiver- 60 point VPP, 5 single-use charges (-3/4) plus 30 point control, All powers are OAF (-1), Real Weapon (Bow, -1/4), Str Min 18/does not add (-1 1/2), 2 handed weapon (-1/2)= (34+7)= 41 real points cost.

[The Hawk God]

Hyper Man, I understand what you did there, but that's not what this is...:eg:

The character this concept comes from has his normal arrows and his trick arrows, and has enough of each that he will not be using the emergency quiver for a duplicate of one of those powers- it's for the times when you need something special:
"Oh No Bowman, Mondo Man is under the Dementor's mental control, how do we stop him?"

"Well Quiver, fortunately I suspected that this might happen and brought a Psi-Chaff arrow just in case, to disrupt Dementor's control."

<Psi-Chaff arrow: 12d6 Mind Control, only to break the effect of another Mental Power, -1>

It's the Bat-Shark repellent spray effect- there when you need it, but not always carried. :D

Ah No, we know exactly what the intended purpose is. It is just that the rules actively prevent limiting the VPP pool cost in any way...period.

Jmoz's idea is a very good option, I suggest you look it over.

[The Hawk God]

Instead, why not this:
Emergency Arrow quiver- 60 point VPP, 5 single-use charges (-3/4) plus 30 point control, All powers are OAF (-1), Real Weapon (Bow, -1/4), Str Min 18/does not add (-1 1/2), 2 handed weapon (-1/2)= (34+7)= 41 real points cost.

Umm, because you can't, at least not using the rules.

Also, the limitations you placed on the VPP are down right insane for a superheroic character. It simply isn't done.

[fbdaury]

Ah No, we know exactly what the intended purpose is. It is just that the rules actively prevent limiting the VPP pool cost in any way...period.

Jmoz's idea is a very good option, I suggest you look it over.

So, other than the rules say no, you got nothing?
I may have mentioned I read the rules and know what they say, but in this case, the rules make no sense and I guess I was trying to appeal to the Hero community`s common sense for what they would do in this situation.

Guess nobody else is going to look at this the way that I do so I should probably stop wasting my time right now.

PS: Steve used an illegal (by his own rules) VPP build in the USPD for Photographic Reflexes- why does it make sense to break the rules for that build but not for this build?

[fbdaury]

Umm, because you can't, at least not using the rules.

Also, the limitations you placed on the VPP are down right insane for a superheroic character. It simply isn't done.

Why not? He uses a compound bow with a high str pull on it that requires two hands to use and his str does not add any effect to the powers in the pool, what do you have a problem with in those limitations as they come right from the book for muscle-powered weapons?

[fbdaury]

Okay, I understand what you`re getting at, but with a 30 point VPP without the limitation I'm proposing you could use that pool for an almost limitless number of points over the course of the day- even if you used all 5 arrows at one time with my build and got 300 AP worth of powers out of the deal, you are now done for the day. The potential abuse is countered, or greatly reduced, by the fact it can only be done once per day. That seems to be a balancing effect to me.

Bottom line, if I want my archer to have a 60 point VPP so that I can use the 60 active point total for an arrow, but only want to be able to use it 5 times per day, why should I have to pay 60+6 (All Powers OAF, 2 handed weapon, Str Min 18/does not add, real weapon, 5 charges)= 66 points for something that I will get very limited use out of?

Instead, why not this:
Emergency Arrow quiver- 60 point VPP, 5 single-use charges (-3/4) plus 30 point control, All powers are OAF (-1), Real Weapon (Bow, -1/4), Str Min 18/does not add (-1 1/2), 2 handed weapon (-1/2)= (34+7)= 41 real points cost.

Whoops, forgot somthing there that I realized while actually statting the character:
Emergency Arrow quiver- 60 point VPP, 5 single-use charges (-3/4) plus 30 point control- Requires a Power:Planning Ahead roll at -1/10 active points to change pool as a 1/2 phase action (+1/2), Only for trick arrow effects (-1/4), All powers are OAF (-1), Real Weapon (Bow, -1/4), Str Min 18/does not add (-1 1/2), 2 handed weapon (-1/2)= (34+10)= 44 real points cost.

[fbdaury]

Okay, I understand what you`re getting at, but with a 30 point VPP without the limitation I'm proposing you could use that pool for an almost limitless number of points over the course of the day- even if you used all 5 arrows at one time with my build and got 300 AP worth of powers out of the deal, you are now done for the day. The potential abuse is countered, or greatly reduced, by the fact it can only be done once per day. That seems to be a balancing effect to me.

Bottom line, if I want my archer to have a 60 point VPP so that I can use the 60 active point total for an arrow, but only want to be able to use it 5 times per day, why should I have to pay 60+6 (All Powers OAF, 2 handed weapon, Str Min 18/does not add, real weapon, 5 charges)= 66 points for something that I will get very limited use out of?

Instead, why not this:
Emergency Arrow quiver- 60 point VPP, 5 single-use charges (-3/4) plus 30 point control, All powers are OAF (-1), Real Weapon (Bow, -1/4), Str Min 18/does not add (-1 1/2), 2 handed weapon (-1/2)= (34+7)= 41 real points cost.

Whoops, duplicate post, sorry.

[The Hawk God]

Why not? He uses a compound bow with a high str pull on it that requires two hands to use and his str does not add any effect to the powers in the pool, what do you have a problem with in those limitations as they come right from the book for muscle-powered weapons?

Because they are appropriate only for heroic games, in which accurate modeling of the objects is a goal. Superheroic games skew towards the shoot with feet or heavens teeth if required. Hence, no use of what are considered out of genre limitations.

Back to your main point.

You seek the wisdom of the community, and the community has given you the answer you seek. That you do not like the answer is more than apparent. Do what you want in your game, we (Steve or Darren for that matter) are not going to come to your house and burn your FRed or erase your HD, but it *is* against the rules.

[JmOz]

OK, second option, this is a common house rule that could do what you are looking for with out breaking the system to much, this idea has support on the 6th edition boards, so someone with more time can explain it in more detail for me

You seperate the link between the real points and the control cost of a VPP

Pool cost: The real points of powers you can have running at one time. The cost of 1=1, NO MODIFIERS ALLOWED

Control cost is the maximum number of active points you can have in any one power at a time. Cost 1/2 point per active point of power

[fbdaury]

Because they are appropriate only for heroic games, in which accurate modeling of the objects is a goal. Superheroic games skew towards the shoot with feet or heavens teeth if required. Hence, no use of what are considered out of genre limitations.

Back to your main point.

You seek the wisdom of the community, and the community has given you the answer you seek. That you do not like the answer is more than apparent. Do what you want in your game, we (Steve or Darren for that matter) are not going to come to your house and burn your FRed or erase your HD, but it *is* against the rules.

Just because heroes have been known to make bow and arrow powersets w/o those limitations does not mean it is against the rules to do so...

Actually I was seeking input from the community- for the most part I gave up on wisdom from them long ago :D

I was also looking for an argument against doing it that amounted to more than "Because the book says so" and did not get any reason that felt valid to me, but it was interesting to see how you made arguments if not the arguments themselves.

[Hyper-Man]

Hyper Man, I understand what you did there, but that's not what this is...:eg:

The character this concept comes from has his normal arrows and his trick arrows, and has enough of each that he will not be using the emergency quiver for a duplicate of one of those powers- it's for the times when you need something special:
"Oh No Bowman, Mondo Man is under the Dementor's mental control, how do we stop him?"

"Well Quiver, fortunately I suspected that this might happen and brought a Psi-Chaff arrow just in case, to disrupt Dementor's control."

<Psi-Chaff arrow: 12d6 Mind Control, only to break the effect of another Mental Power, -1>

It's the Bat-Shark repellent spray effect- there when you need it, but not always carried. :D


What you are describing is the usefulness of a VPP for the entire Bow & Arrow SFX.

example:

67 Schrödinger's Bow & Arrows: Variable Power Pool, 60 base + 7 control cost, all slots 16 Charges (No more than 16 arrows of any one type. GM approval required, possibly with an overall # of arrows carried as well [somewhere in the range of 32-128]; +0) (90 Active Points); Limited Class Of Powers Available Gadget Arrows, only 1 type may be fired in a Phase (-1), Restrainable (-1/2), VPP Can Only Be Changed Between Adventures (Represents the maximum variety of arrow types that can be carried [10-15 different slots]; -1/2); all slots Required Hands Two-Handed (-1/2), OIF (Bow & Arrows (Some Arrows can be used at 0-Range even if Bow is unavailable); -1/2), Requires Multiple Foci or functions at reduced effectiveness (+1/4), Range Based On Strength (Reminder: this means the character pays END from using STR when 'firing arrows'; -1/4), Real Weapon (-1/4) [Notes: Reminder, VPP's by default require a skill roll to change powers.]
0 1) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points) Real Cost: 27 - END=0

The only thing limiting the scope and variety of your 'arrows' are the Limitations highlighted in BLUE and RED above. Their inclusion only saves 1-2 real points so they could certainly be 'bought off' as follows:

1 Naked Buyoff of [VPP Can Only Be Changed Between Adventures - Limitation]: Custom Power (1 Active Points)

Re: the use of STR minimums on 'ranged' weapon builds in 5er.

If you are building a ranged killing attack STR does not add to damage by default. If you want STR to add (like for thrown weapons) you actually must start with HKA and add the Ranged Advantage. Then you can take a Limitation stating that STR does not add to damage (this is actually how bows are built in 5er). Range Based on STR is a far simplier approach as it doesn't require adding any advantages to the base power.

Is this...
60 Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 2 1/2d6 (3d6 w/STR), Ranged (+1/2) (60 Active Points) - END=6

better than this?
60 Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 - END=6

Of course the answer really depends on the character's STR (the first option could be increased up to 5d6+1 Killing with enough STR).

[Hyper-Man]

Another way to 'legally' accomplish your described goal is to build the 'Bow & Arrow' power-set as a traditional Multipower with its finite # of slots and use the Power Skill* in combination with 'Banked' Experience Points to build a NEW reusable slot 'on the fly' as you described.

*Note that the Power Skill was derived from the original Gadgeteering skill in the first place.

[Hyper-Man]

I think the problem you are having with accepting the RAW explanation for VPP's is that you have a very specific SFX in mind (which is good) but at the same time you also have a very specific idea of what particular mechanic (VPP) should be used to represent it (which can be bad).

The concept of Reason from effect is your friend.

Since this appears to be an ability that will only occasionally be used I suggest using the Power Skill approach* instead of a VPP as the latter seems like just too broad and powerful of a construct to use for the job.

*see my previous post.

[Hugh Neilson]

Okay, this is the underlying question: If the limitation limits the Whole VPP pool, then why should the limitation not provide a break to the pool cost- this limits more than the powers that can be used by the pool or those powers themselves, it actually limits the pool, does it not make sense that the pool should therefore be given a price break in return?

A Multipower can have the points in the pool limited, but that does not increase the number of powers in the pool at the same time. A VPP cannot limit the points in the pool, but can hacve multiple max AP slots at the same time.

Compare two frameworks, both with the intent of having two slots active at the same time, at 60 AP, and being OAF.

The pool cost of the Multipower would be 120/2 = 60. That gives the pool enough power to have 2 60 AP powers up and running at the same time.

The VPP pool cost would be 60. It could have two 60 AP powers with OAF = 30 real point powers at the same time.

If we allowed the VPP pool cost to be halved, this would significantly skew balance in favour of the VPP.

The potential solution, which I think some posters use, is to sever the VPP pool from the active point limits - it governs real points only. Instead, they set the control cost at 1/2 the maximum AP cost of the pool. You would then, if you wanted a VPP with 5 OAF, 1 charge abilities per day, pay
30 (60 AP max/2) divided by 4.5 (OAF, 1 charge rer) = 7 points for the control cost. Each slot would cost 60/4 = 15 real points, so you need a 15 point pool. You now have a pool that can have an unlimited number of 60 AP 1 charge OAF powers.

You could then, reasonably, place Cosmic on the control cost as a naked advantage (+2 on 30 points = 60), apply the same -3 limitations, and a further -3/4 for 5 charges, so the cost of making the pool cosmic is 13 points (60/4.75). You can now set the pool 5 times per day. After changing it for the fifth time, the pool is useless - it's stuck in a 1 charge slot, and you already used the 1 charge.

But that's purely a house rule solution to solve the problem that you don't benefit from the ability to have 4 15 real point powers in an attacks only type VPP.

[ghost-angel]

If you have 5 arrows total and each has a 60 active point total (60 point VPP), then you have 300 AP total. If you use all the points at once or one a time, you still only have 300 AP- I could not use one arrow charge to suddenly become 5 arrows with 60 AP each.

If this pool is for emergencies and I shoot off all my arrows at once, then I have no arrows left for the next emergency and am, therefore, limited. Any VPP can be used for multiple effects at one time but the charges on this one insures that if you do that you are still not getting any extra effect for doing so as you are still using up your limited number of effects for each power seperately.

OK - lemme get simple: Active Points Per Power.

If you are not Limiting the Active Points Per Individual Power you have not Limited the Pool and I say "no" - there is no Limit being placed there for me to even consider for any reason that the Pool is Limited and should get a price break.

If you can't understand that concept I cannot help you. You smell of bad-munchkinism already.

[fbdaury]

OK - lemme get simple: Active Points Per Power.

If you are not Limiting the Active Points Per Individual Power you have not Limited the Pool and I say "no" - there is no Limit being placed there for me to even consider for any reason that the Pool is Limited and should get a price break.

If you can't understand that concept I cannot help you. You smell of bad-munchkinism already.


Wow, coherent argument there- I have an idea that is in keeping with the genre, that makes sense for the character, and that is tightly restricted and because you cannot come up with a valid reason not to do it the way I would like to do it (the simplest and cleanest way to do it, in fact as well), I'm munchkin? Hot damn, you're a narrow-minded jerk! :thumbdown

[JmOz]

Okay, I understand what you`re getting at, but with a 30 point VPP without the limitation I'm proposing you could use that pool for an almost limitless number of points over the course of the day- even if you used all 5 arrows at one time with my build and got 300 AP worth of powers out of the deal, you are now done for the day. The potential abuse is countered, or greatly reduced, by the fact it can only be done once per day. That seems to be a balancing effect to me.

Bottom line, if I want my archer to have a 60 point VPP so that I can use the 60 active point total for an arrow, but only want to be able to use it 5 times per day, why should I have to pay 60+6 (All Powers OAF, 2 handed weapon, Str Min 18/does not add, real weapon, 5 charges)= 66 points for something that I will get very limited use out of?

Instead, why not this:
Emergency Arrow quiver- 60 point VPP, 5 single-use charges (-3/4) plus 30 point control, All powers are OAF (-1), Real Weapon (Bow, -1/4), Str Min 18/does not add (-1 1/2), 2 handed weapon (-1/2)= (34+7)= 41 real points cost.


Because, and admitingly for a couple phase only, you could have 60 real points of powers active for 41 real points spent...that is broken

[JmOz]

Wow, coherent argument there- I have an idea that is in keeping with the genre, that makes sense for the character, and that is tightly restricted and because you cannot come up with a valid reason not to do it the way I would like to do it (the simplest and cleanest way to do it, in fact as well), I'm munchkin? Hot damn, you're a narrow-minded jerk! :thumbdown

While I agree that he did not need to call you a munchkin, however, returning insult for insult is not the way to resolve issues. Furthermore long experience with G-A tells me that he is not a jerk. He has tried to be helpful to you and has been met with an attitude of "But I'm right".

So, let me ask a few questions to frame this:

How long have you been playing with the Hero System?

Are you the GM for the Game?

Is this for a character you will be playing or someone else, or a design experiment?

How much experience do you have with VPP's in game?

[ghost-angel]

While I agree that he did not need to call you a munchkin, however, returning insult for insult is not the way to resolve issues. Furthermore long experience with G-A tells me that he is not a jerk. He has tried to be helpful to you and has been met with an attitude of "But I'm right".

That last part pretty much sums it up. Everyone here has stated a number of thoughts - yes some have gone "it's not in the rules" - but most have thought about the idea and explained why the request shouldn't be granted.

You (Snapt) can think I'm a jerk, doesn't bother me any. But you, Snapt, really have come off as looking for vindication rather than explanation.

And you aren't going to get any.

I have - in the past, thought of a reason I would allow a discount on a Pool and Control both.

And in the end only one conclusion came to mind:
If the Active Points of any single Power can not exceed a percentage of the Pools available Active Points it's a Limited Pool:

60 Point Pool; No Power may exceed 40 Active Points

This is saying only 2/3s of the Pool is available when building a Power to determine its Active Points; you can't, for whatever reason, get full functionality out of the Pool.

an application that doesn't seem to apply to your construct at all. And even then I'm not really keen on discounting the Pool Cost.

[JmOz]

That last part pretty much sums it up. Everyone here has stated a number of thoughts - yes some have gone "it's not in the rules" - but most have thought about the idea and explained why the request shouldn't be granted.

You can think I'm a jerk, doesn't bother me any. But you, Snapt, really have come off as looking for vindication rather than explanation.

And you aren't going to get any.

I have - in the past, thought of a reason I would allow a discount on a Pool and Control both.

And in the end only one conclusion came to mind:
If the Active Points of any single Power can not exceed a percentage of the Pools available Active Points it's a Limited Pool:

60 Point Pool; No Power may exceed 40 Active Points

This is saying only 2/3s of the Pool is available when building a Power to determine its Active Points; you can't, for whatever reason, get full functionality out of the Pool.

an application that doesn't seem to apply to your construct at all. And even then I'm not really keen on discounting the Pool Cost.


First, I think you are right about the vindication over explanation (Been trying to figure out what was bugging me, and that was it)

Second, and I will admit I'm tired and easily confused right now, but when I have tried to come up with: When would it be appropriate to limit the pool, I have always come up with "When it reduces the amount of real points that can be used simultaniously". It was the core behind my idea of splitting the pool with the control (Which admitigly someone else came up with way before me, but I SWEAR I thought of it on my own as well, or at least only subcontiously remember)

Third, and this I am sure is the tired paranoid me, but you knew I was not calling you a jerk...like I said sure it is the lack of sleep, and paranoia...

[ghost-angel]

Third, and this I am sure is the tired paranoid me, but you knew I was not calling you a jerk...like I said sure it is the lack of sleep, and paranoia...

I clarified, didn't mean you - you can focus that paranoia in other more useful directions. :)

[JmOz]

I clarified, didn't mean you - you can focus that paranoia in other more useful directions. :)

glad to hear, I got lots of places to direct it...

[Ice9]

I see where he's coming from, though. Let's take the limitation "1 Charge". That's a potent limitation - so potent that powers with it only cost 1/3 what they normally would. So:

Energy Blast 12d6, 1 Charge
60 AP for 20 RP, 1/3 the cost

Multipower (60p)
1) Energy Blast 12d6
2) RKA 4d6
3) Flash 12d6
60 AP for 26 RP, 1/3 the cost

VPP (60p)
60 AP for 70 RP, 7/9 the cost?

Sure, VPP is potent. But so are a lot of powers, and all of those are considered 2/3 less potent when they only have one charge. Why is it that a 1 charge VPP costs only slightly less than a normal VPP, when a 1 charge anything else costs massively less?

Personally, I believe the houserule JmOz mentioned is a good solution - pay for what you get. And while it may have potential for abuse, I don't think it has much more than VPP already does. Not to mention, it encourages people to put reasonable limits on their VPPs, rather than making them waste points to do so.

[Ice9]

Double post.

[Vox]

Why is it that a 1 charge VPP costs only slightly less than a normal VPP, when a 1 charge anything else costs massively less?

Because it's one charge of absolutely anything. The power of adaptability is hard to quantify. The tougher your enemy, the greater the difference between his best defense and his weakness. Being able to strike at the BBEG's weakness, no matter what it is, has the potential to be game-breaking. Even if it's just one shot.

I'm new to HERO, but I've seen adaptable characters break entire campaigns in Gamma World, D&D, and other gaming systems. In light of that, I believe allowing limitations on the pool cost on VPPs is a very bad idea.

~Gabriel

[ghost-angel]

Sure, VPP is potent. But so are a lot of powers, and all of those are considered 2/3 less potent when they only have one charge. Why is it that a 1 charge VPP costs only slightly less than a normal VPP, when a 1 charge anything else costs massively less?

Personally, I believe the houserule JmOz mentioned is a good solution - pay for what you get. And while it may have potential for abuse, I don't think it has much more than VPP already does. Not to mention, it encourages people to put reasonable limits on their VPPs, rather than making them waste points to do so.

That part that says "so are a lot of powers" - that VPP is ALL of those potent Powers. Sure, you get it once an adventure/session/however often the GM resets the Charge - but you can build pretty much anything in the book.

You haven't reduced the utility of the VPP itself with 1 Charge, all you've done is reduce availability. And there is a difference between the two.

[Hugh Neilson]

I see where he's coming from, though. Let's take the limitation "1 Charge". That's a potent limitation - so potent that powers with it only cost 1/3 what they normally would. So:

Energy Blast 12d6, 1 Charge
60 AP for 20 RP, 1/3 the cost

Multipower (60p)
1) Energy Blast 12d6
2) RKA 4d6
3) Flash 12d6
60 AP for 26 RP, 1/3 the cost

VPP (60p)
60 AP for 70 RP, 7/9 the cost?

Sure, VPP is potent. But so are a lot of powers, and all of those are considered 2/3 less potent when they only have one charge. Why is it that a 1 charge VPP costs only slightly less than a normal VPP, when a 1 charge anything else costs massively less?

Personally, I believe the houserule JmOz mentioned is a good solution - pay for what you get. And while it may have potential for abuse, I don't think it has much more than VPP already does. Not to mention, it encourages people to put reasonable limits on their VPPs, rather than making them waste points to do so.

Technically, the VPP itself can still be used an unlimited number of times. The limitation on the control cost only means that each power has only one charge. So, after using my 1 charge Flame EB, I change to a Blinding Light Flash, 1 charge, then maybe an Ice EB with 1 charge.
Presumably, one could take 1 charge twice, requiring every power to have one charge and preventing any change to the pool allocation more than once a day. This still only limits the control cost, however.

And I agree the character is not getting full utility. He is paying 60 points (pool) + 18 (30 x 3 for Cosmic /5 for 1 charge twice) = 78 for 1 use of a 1 charge power - basically unlimited choice of a single 60 AP power usable once a day.

We can talk all we want about the power of flexibility, but for 90 points, the character could have had a 60 point pool, taken one charge only once, and had the ability to swap between 60 AP powers to his heart's content all day long, so long as he never reused any, and he could have three of them operational at once, as each only uses 20 real points from the pool.

By comparison, the same character can have a Multipower of 60 AP slots, with 1 charge in total, and the pool costs 20 points. Each Ultra slot will cost 2 points, so he can buy 29 slots for that 58 point extra cost to get up to the VPP cost. 29 slots seems pretty versatile. It's not infinitely flexible, of course.

But a 60 point VPP with Cosmic costs 150 points total. The comparable Multipower would also be 60 points for the pool, leaving 90 for slots - only 15 slots available, so considerably less flexible. And this VPP can have multiple 60 AP slots if they're limited, or mix & match so variable, not fixed, slots are a more comparable cost.

Really, the cost of infinite flexibility on an unlimited basis isn't that high. It's true that the more limitations on the powers, the worse the VPP compares.

So, to me, there are really two questions.

The first is whether I'm comfortable with that level of flexibility in my game, whether or not it's limited. Assuming I am, the second is how to set a fair price for that flexibility, and I should be able to compare the "fair cost" of an unlimited pool with that flexibility, and one that is limited, and be satisfied that the reduction in cost is commensurate with the limitations applied.

The VPP which uses limitations to reduce both the control cost and the real cost of each power within the pool, facilitating use of multiple powers due to the limitations, seems to work out reasonably well in practice. But when the VPP has been further 'limited' to not have all of its real points available at any one time, I am inclined to agree that the VPP costs too much.

One solution, at least in my view, is to have VPP charges reduce the real points available in the VPP after the charges are used. So I could buy a VPP, all slots OAF Bow and Arrow, 1 charge. The VPP could be set to a 60 AP power with 1 charge, OAF Bow and Arrow. That's 15 real points. After firing that arrow, the VPP has 45 real points left - it's good for 3 more 1 charge 60 AP arrows of choice. COST: 60 + 22 [30 x 3 /4] = 82 points. I can now have any four 60 AP powers of my choice, each with one charge. That could be the same power four times ("Luckily, I packed four Tuning Fork arrows today"), or four entirely different powers. Note that he could also, technically, fire off four arrows at a time - he can have all four powers active at once. However, the MPA rules preclude him using multiple attack arrows in that four arrows at once.

The cost could be further reduced, by noting it is a restricted group of powers - if there are some things I define that an arrow can't do. Reasonably, you could also limit it to "only one power at a time".

A character who chooses not to place that 1 charge limitation would pay 60 + 45 [30 x 3/2] = 105 points and could change arrows at will. He could have two arrows available at a time (each one 60 AP and 30 RP), but can't MPA with them. He could further reduce the real cost with charges, but he'd also be out of arrows after four 1 charge shots, as that would use up his 60 point reserve.

[CrosshairCollie]

Yes, there are illegal builds in official products. The thing is, IMNSHO, you should only use an illegal build if there is no legal way to create an effect. The 'variable skills pool' is a good example; there's no rules-legal way to do that, so with special GM permission, you can.

There are legal ways to build what you want to build. I can't see any reason for attempting this construction other than making it less expensive. And I'll be the first to admit, there are several things in HERO I think are pretty overpriced (50 points for full life support?!), but VPPs aren't one of them.

On the other hand, if there IS a legal way to do it, it should be done legally. I'm hidebound enough that I tend to lean towards 'there's no legal way to do it, so we can't, so we won't'. I figure any power the rules can't govern is pretty likely to bend the game in ways I'm not going to find amusing.

[Ice9]

I'm not denying that a VPP is powerful. That's why it costs more than a comparable normal power. However, if a non-limited VPP is balanced at 150% the cost of the powers inside it, then why would a limited VPP need to cost 250% or more? Essentially, how are VPP limits (specifically, limited charges) less limiting than other limits?

And honestly, pricing the VPP this way just encourages people not to limit it. If a "must prepare powers in advance, only 1 charge per day, only fire-based attack powers" VPP only costs 10% less than an unlimited one, most people will be inclined to go for the latter. Or if they do get a limited one for character/sfx reasons, they feel like a sucker for doing so - that's not how HERO is supposed to work.

[Hyper-Man]

I'm not denying that a VPP is powerful. That's why it costs more than a comparable normal power. However, if a non-limited VPP is balanced at 150% the cost of the powers inside it, then why would a limited VPP need to cost 250% or more? Essentially, how are VPP limits (specifically, limited charges) less limiting than other limits?

And honestly, pricing the VPP this way just encourages people not to limit it. If a "must prepare powers in advance, only 1 charge per day, only fire-based attack powers" VPP only costs 10% less than an unlimited one, most people will be inclined to go for the latter. Or if they do get a limited one for character/sfx reasons, they feel like a sucker for doing so - that's not how HERO is supposed to work.

Here's another way to think about.

Take a look at one of my earlier Multipower & VPP comparisons on this thread. Specifically the part illustrating that to replace the functionality of the VPP you must buy "X" number of slots for the Multipower. No matter how many limitations you take on the slots they will ALWAYS have a minimum cost of 1 real point each. The mechanics of a VPP just appears to shift its minimum cost from what looks like the equivalent to the 'slots': the Control Cost. But part if not all of the 'slots' are actually part of the Pool Cost. That's why no Limitations can be taken on that component of a VPP.

[ghost-angel]

Because a VPP, no matter how you Limit it, has an infinite number of slots to work with.

I can build the same Power with 58 different Special Effects, even if only each one had a single Charge that's 58 Powers.

[Multiplex]

A hard example...

10 Multipower, 20-point reserve, all slots OAF(-1)
1U 1) EB, 2d6 (10 active)
1U 2) Entangle, 1d6 1DEF (10 active)

12 Variable Power Pool, 10 base + 2 control cost (15 Active) all slots OAF (-1)
powers..near INFINITE


These 2 pools give similar abilities, the capability to use 2 powers at the same time, and a choice of power. However, the VPP allows for an unending number of powers to be available. This extension to the capability of the MP is the reason for not allowing the limitation to be applied to the base points. Otherwise, you should be using the MP, where each power slots costs at least 1 pt.

Note, you already have an effective 50% reduction on the base pool cost.

[fbdaury]

Because a VPP, no matter how you Limit it, has an infinite number of slots to work with.

I can build the same Power with 58 different Special Effects, even if each one had a single Charge that's 58 Powers.

If you limit the pool with 5 total charges per day, how exactly can you use an infinite number of attacks? 5 does not = infinite, it equals 5.

[ghost-angel]

I didn't say that, now did I?

I said infinite number of Powers. Just because you can only use 5 of them a day doesn't mean you don't have a lot of options open as to which one CAN be used.

I build a VPP, I build 152 Powers inside that VPP. I say "But I can only use 5 of them a day" - I still have 152 Powers to choose from.

[Hyper-Man]

If you limit the pool with 5 total charges per day, how exactly can you use an infinite number of attacks? 5 does not = infinite, it equals 5.

He means that each individual use can be infinitely appropriate to the current circumstance.

Imagine a manager to a large old hotel. He has individual keys for each and every room (slots of a multipower). He also has a 'master' key that can fit any room in the entire hotel and possibly others of the same 'chain' in different cities (a VPP).

[fbdaury]

I didn't say that, now did I?

I said infinite number of Powers. Just because you can only use 5 of them a day doesn't mean you don't have a lot of options open as to which one CAN be used.

I build a VPP, I build 152 Powers inside that VPP. I say "But I can only use 5 of them a day" - I still have 152 Powers to choose from.

Right, and while this ability to free form the powers is useful , I don't personally believe that it should automatically mean that the Pool cost on a VPP should not be able to be limited, if someone can provide a reasonable, genre-appropriate limitation that makes sense for the character. But, as always, tastes vary and YMMV as well.

[ghost-angel]

If you already knew the answer - why did you ask us? Not a single one of us has agreed with you yet on your reasoning.

[fbdaury]

If you already knew the answer - why did you ask us? Not a single one of us has agreed with you yet on your reasoning.

Actually, I was asking how others felt about using a limitation in this way- I was curious about your viewpoints on the subject. I never asked what was right or wrong- I asked if you would allow it or not- you clearly would not, good for you. But, if you go back and re-read the thread, it looks like at least two other people agree with me that it would be a valid idea, to some extent.

[Hugh Neilson]

The reason for the lack of ability to reduce the VPP pool cost, to me, is not the "infinite slot flexibility". That's the control cost.

The reason is that, for a VPP, limitations leverage the real points. If I have a 60 point VPP and all powers have OAF, I can have a 12d6 EB (30 real points), a +16/+16 Force Field, 1/2 END (20 real points) and 10" Flight (10 real points) up and running at the same time. COST: 60 points for the pool and 15 for the infinite slots.

A Multipower able to run those same three slots simultaneously will cost me 60 points for a 120 point pool, limited with OAF. Then I buy my slots, but I need that 120 point pool to run the three powers, because AP, not Real Points, limits them.

VPP pricing becomes excessive if the pool leveraging from limitations is not available. For example, if my VPP can only be used for attacks, having multiple attacks in the VPP isn't all that useful since I can only use one at a time (no MPA with frameworks, remember?).

Multipower pricing sucks if all my powers have limitations, but not all the same limitations, as I get no break on the pool. The VPP at least gets more slots to run, even with no break on the control cost.

I'd like to see these issues addressed in 6e in some way. The "different limitations" issue is, to me, easy. Allow the pool or control cost to take "variable limitation". If the slots also have Var Lim, the pricing is as normal. If their limitations are fixed, they get the full limitation value. So, if my VPP or MP has "-1 Var lims" for -1/2, the powers in it must all take either -1 Var Lim (and get a -1/2 limitation), or -1 in fixed limitations (and get a -1 limitation), or they could take -1/2 Var lim (-1/4 limitation) and -1/2 of fixed limitations for a total -3/4 limitation. But no power can have less than -1 in total limitations, variable or fixed.

Allowing for a reduction in the VPP pool is tougher, but I think the answer is allowing the control cost to be calculated based on maximum AP of any power in the pool, de-linking it from the size of the pool itself.

Could these be abused? Yup. So can pretty much anything.

[Hyper-Man]

...
Allowing for a reduction in the VPP pool is tougher, but I think the answer is allowing the control cost to be calculated based on maximum AP of any power in the pool, de-linking it from the size of the pool itself.
...

But of more relevance to this thread, do you advocate allowing the pool cost to be less than the maximum AP?

[Hugh Neilson]

But of more relevance to this thread, do you advocate allowing the pool cost to be less than the maximum AP?

I believe the option should exist. If the VPP can only hold attacks, they must be OAF, this is the only equitable approach.

That's not to say it shouldn't carry warnings that it could easily cause a problem, but I consider a DC cap and/or an AP cap to be a better fix for that issue.

Hugh

[CrosshairCollie]

Right, and while this ability to free form the powers is useful , I don't personally believe that it should automatically mean that the Pool cost on a VPP should not be able to be limited, if someone can provide a reasonable, genre-appropriate limitation that makes sense for the character. But, as always, tastes vary and YMMV as well.

I think "It's illegal and potentially overpowered for its cost" qualifies as a reasonable cause for denial.

[fbdaury]

I think "It's illegal and potentially overpowered for its cost" qualifies as a reasonable cause for denial.

Which is just another way of saying that you are unwilling to think outside the box of the rules as written. Sure, it could be overpowered but so can a lot of things in the game. As noted previously, illegal power setups have been in official products as well, which indicates that in some circumstances the rules as written are not adequate to reflect the superheroic source material. If the rules cannot reflect the reality of comic books, maybe the rules need to be bent, or ignored. Sound reasonable?

[ghost-angel]

I break rules a lot.

Just not that one. Because it happens to be correct, and I don't see breaking it to simulate source material in any genre, much less Supers, a good thing to do.

[CrosshairCollie]

Which is just another way of saying that you are unwilling to think outside the box of the rules as written. Sure, it could be overpowered but so can a lot of things in the game. As noted previously, illegal power setups have been in official products as well, which indicates that in some circumstances the rules as written are not adequate to reflect the superheroic source material. If the rules cannot reflect the reality of comic books, maybe the rules need to be bent, or ignored. Sound reasonable?


Not even a little bit reasonable.

IF there were no legal way to build what you're wanting, I would agree. However, there are legal ways to build what you want, and one of those should be used. Putting limitations on a VPP has nothing whatsoever to do with game theme or genre simulation.

Rules should only be broken when they must be, not because you feel like it or because you want to pointscum.

[Marcus]

Let us consider the elements of a bog-standard VPP.

You have the pool, and the control.

The pool is points set aside that can be -anything-. Its like building your character, and saying "I don't want to spend these points right now. I want to be able to spend them for what I want, later on. And I get to change my mind."

The control is what you pay for the ability to change your mind. Depending on how easily and how quickly you can change your mind, and what you can change your mind to, that control goes up and down.

But the 'pool' cant be advantaged or limited, for the same reason that unspent character points cannot be advantaged or limited. You cant create a character and, before character creation, say that 'I can only buy magic powers (-1/4), so I should have 20% more points than anyone else, cause they can buy anything, and I can only buy magic powers'

Once you buy actual powers with that pool of points set aside, then those powers may take limitations, reducing the amount of that pool they consume (just as limitations on any normal power reduce the amount of your starting character points they consume). The value of those limitations, like any other, will be based on how limiting they are (and will save you points thereby, just like they would save real points at character creation)

If you think of the pool as 'setting aside initial character points', and juggling one's pool as 'on the fly character re-creation', then the logic behind the unmodifiable (note it can also take no advantages) pool becomes clearer.

The only place the parallel breaks down is that, in character creation, one can spend, say, 30 real points for a 60 Active Point energy blast (with -1 in limitations). The VPP can NEVER create a 60 Active Point power if there are only 30 real points set aside. While limitations taken on powers out of the VPP may allow you to make more than one power that hits the VPP's active point ceiling, they cannot allow you to take powers bigger than said ceiling. Under certain circumstances, this can, admittedly, be frustrating.

This disparity is probably some combination of 1.) An artifact of the initial assumption (pooled points to be spent later), and 2.) A tool of balance. (Ensuring that one can never, ever, ever have the power to buy 'whatever 60 point power I feel like' for less than 60 points).

The disparity is probably, also, a Very Good Thing. If one wants only a few choices for ones VPP, and some heavy limitations that apply to everything, one might consider the Multipower over the VPP. If you don't have heavy limitations that apply to everything, then limiting the pool of the VPP is not an issue. If you want a broader selection of powers than is practicable in a multipower, then the rationale of 2.) above is a strong one.

That said, rules are made to be broken. If the construct was one whereby a small reserve with large effects was appropriate, one might be able to talk the GM into allowing one to treat the VPP reserve as purely real points, without apply an active point limitation. I can think of a few circumstances* where this might be appropriate.

*(as an example, heavily limited ritual magic VPP's, which should be capable of very high AP effects, may in some settings demand a vast degree of flexibility, and are still so hard to use that requiring the player to set aside a massive percentage of his initial character points to fund a huge pool that will never have all of its real points expended, just to get the very, very high active point cap needed for crazy high magic rituals that are more plot devices and less adventuring/superheroing powers doesn't seem quite just. Things should still cost what they are worth, neither more nor less)

It is worth noting that there have been some side discussions about VPPs, and dividing the 'pool' portion of the VPP into 'Maximum Real Points' and 'Maximum Active Points', such that a given (say) 60 character points spent on a pool reserve might buy you a maximum of 30 real points of powers, but of up to 90 active points in a power (or the opposite). While outside the scope of the rules as written, your GM might also see this as an option, and it seems at least somewhat in keeping with the 'I dont want to spend these points right now, I'll create that part of my sheet later' rationale underlying the VPP.

All, of course, IMNSHO, and as always YMMV. TTFN.

[Ice9]

Take a look at one of my earlier Multipower & VPP comparisons on this thread. Specifically the part illustrating that to replace the functionality of the VPP you must buy "X" number of slots for the Multipower. No matter how many limitations you take on the slots they will ALWAYS have a minimum cost of 1 real point each. The mechanics of a VPP just appears to shift its minimum cost from what looks like the equivalent to the 'slots': the Control Cost. But part if not all of the 'slots' are actually part of the Pool Cost. That's why no Limitations can be taken on that component of a VPP.
Actually, that's an interesting thing to bring up. Because it again points out the disparity between limited VPPs and limited anything else.

A 60p VPP with costs as much as a 60p Multipower with 5 slots.
A 1-charge 60p VPP costs as much as a 1-charge 60p Multipower with 25 slots.

Now how exactly does that make sense? If "25 slots" is balanced, then the non-limited version is underpriced. If "5 slots" is balanced, then the limited version is overpriced.


And second, the point still remains that the current costing method screws with any character whose concept merits a limited VPP. A "single last-ditch gadget" VPP is massively less point-efficient than a "tons of gadgets all the time" VPP, and that doesn't seem like good balance.

[Matt the Bruins]

My suggestion is that if not having a cheap, high-powered one use omni-gadget is a dealbreaker for you, put the Hero books down and go pull Mayfair's DC Superheroes out of mothballs. It's easier to just play the game you're set on playing with pre-existing rules that suit it than trying to revamp a different system into doing the same thing.

[Hyper-Man]

...
And second, the point still remains that the current costing method screws with any character whose concept merits a limited VPP. A "single last-ditch gadget" VPP is massively less point-efficient than a "tons of gadgets all the time" VPP, and that doesn't seem like good balance.

Which is why I suggested a Multipower + Power Skill approach back in post 27 (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1794784&postcount=27) of this thread.

[Ice9]

And that's fine for when you're literally talking about a single-shot last ditch power. It might not work so well with limited but still fairly commonly used powers. Take, for example, the following two characters:

Player A takes Summon, to represent building a mech. His summon takes a lot of extra time, requires a workshop and the right components, and multiple skill rolls.

Player B takes Summon, to represent warping in a mech from an extradimensional storage shack. His summon can be done by snapping his fingers.

Now Player B has a more useful summoning power than Player A's, but it does cost considerably more - Player A has more points to use elsewhere. Player A isn't being penalized for having a more limited power. But if we were to do the same thing with VPPs, Player A is giving up significant power for a minimal reduction in cost. Which means, the system is effectively discouraging you from limits on a VPP - "instant cosmic power" is a more viable concept than "building realistic gadgets".

[Hyper-Man]

And that's fine for when you're literally talking about a single-shot last ditch power....

Well, considering that the ability was literally being described as 'last ditch' I think the idea of combining a Power Skill roll plus 'banked' experience to buy the slot(s) on the spot for multiple 'new powers' is still going to be cheaper than any type of VPP approach. That is, until the main Multipower hits the 'magic number of slots' that's equal in cost to just building the entire bow and arrow ability via a single VPP. That's a perfect progression IMO since one of the biggest issues with most VPP's is handling future XP additions with their quirky cost structure (they normally represent the pinacle of a specific powerset; Green Lantern's ring, Zatanna's magic, etc..).

HM

[Ice9]

Sure, for this particular case, Power Skill probably does the job. I just think that the idea of limiting the pool of a VPP has merit, provided that the limits in question have a real effect on the utility of the pool as a whole.

[Zed-F]

I would say if you really want to go that route, use the idea of paying for the real point reserve and the AP reserve separately as has been described as a house rule elsewhere.

Then if you want to buy a single shot VPP to represent one charge powers, you buy a 'real points' reserve of 20 RP, and an 'active points' reserve of 60 AP. I don't recall the house rule costs for that, but I believe in most such house rules you can still apply the '1 charge' limitation to the 60 AP reserve if that is the limitation that must always be taken. Though if it's a total of 4 charges... I would cost the lim on the AP reserve at that level, which I think is -1. Each individual power would still have to take 1 charge to be at the -2 level and thereby fit in the real point reserve.

Assuming the RP reserve is still a 1:1 point cost, that the active reserve is still a 2:1 point cost, and that you don't take any advantages on the active reserve to make it as easy to use as the MP would normally be (remember VPPs are slower to change by default), that would come out to 20 CP for the real reserve and (60/2) / (1+1) = 15 for a total of 35 points. That will get you 4 one-shot trick arrows, but it will take a while to find the right one in the quiver when you need it.

Just remember it requires a house rule.

[Matt the Bruins]

Ice9's mention of Summon made me recall that 5th Edition Revised does mention the possibility of using that power to "create" inanimate objects that are themselves built on character points. I think that may be a better way to model what you're looking for than using a VPP at all, given the limited number of one-shot uses. Going by the approach for that listed on p. 223, let's see how that would look:

8 Omni-Arrows: Summon one 60-point Trick Arrow, Slavishly Loyal (+1), Expanded Class (any type of trick arrow; +1); 5 Charges which Never Recover (-2 3/4), Restrainable (-1/2)

It's awfully cheap, but then again it's a case of using the points you spent a few times and they're gone forever, so a GM might allow it as long as the actual arrows themselves were built according to campaign limits and with appropriate limitations like OAF, etc. Were it me, I'd require you to make up a list of potential arrows beforehand so I could OK them before play began.

[fbdaury]

Ice9's mention of Summon made me recall that 5th Edition Revised does mention the possibility of using that power to "create" inanimate objects that are themselves built on character points. I think that may be a better way to model what you're looking for than using a VPP at all, given the limited number of one-shot uses. Going by the approach for that listed on p. 223, let's see how that would look:

8 Omni-Arrows: Summon one 60-point Trick Arrow, Slavishly Loyal (+1), Expanded Class (any type of trick arrow; +1); 5 Charges which Never Recover (-2 3/4), Restrainable (-1/2)

It's awfully cheap, but then again it's a case of using the points you spent a few times and they're gone forever, so a GM might allow it as long as the actual arrows themselves were built according to campaign limits and with appropriate limitations like OAF, etc. Were it me, I'd require you to make up a list of potential arrows beforehand so I could OK them before play began.

Wow, that's an interesting way of doing it... had not thought of that but wish maybe I had. The 5 shots limit was per day, not forever, so that would actually be a -3/4 limitation, but otherwise I like the idea- thanks!:thumbup:

[CrosshairCollie]

Ice9's mention of Summon made me recall that 5th Edition Revised does mention the possibility of using that power to "create" inanimate objects that are themselves built on character points. I think that may be a better way to model what you're looking for than using a VPP at all, given the limited number of one-shot uses. Going by the approach for that listed on p. 223, let's see how that would look:

8 Omni-Arrows: Summon one 60-point Trick Arrow, Slavishly Loyal (+1), Expanded Class (any type of trick arrow; +1); 5 Charges which Never Recover (-2 3/4), Restrainable (-1/2)

It's awfully cheap, but then again it's a case of using the points you spent a few times and they're gone forever, so a GM might allow it as long as the actual arrows themselves were built according to campaign limits and with appropriate limitations like OAF, etc. Were it me, I'd require you to make up a list of potential arrows beforehand so I could OK them before play began.

Don't you have to 'build' that arrow as a character, not a power?

[ghost-angel]

Don't you have to 'build' that arrow as a character, not a power?

It's a GM Call, but technically probably. Possibly best built as a Vehicle when you get down to it.

I've got a Mystic with a Summon Vehicle, works rather nicely.

[Matt the Bruins]

Wow, that's an interesting way of doing it... had not thought of that but wish maybe I had. The 5 shots limit was per day, not forever, so that would actually be a -3/4 limitation, but otherwise I like the idea- thanks!

Ah, I'd assumed that they would be one-use-and-it's-gone arrows, and you'd have to pay more character points if you wanted to replenish your supply in the future.

Honestly, I don't think that 5 uses per day is restrictive enough that I'd allow the kind of cost savings my Summon build represents. It doesn't seem worth significantly more limitation than, say, a Gadget Pool that has to be changed in a lab. The -1 3/4 you'd get to the Control Cost for the 5 charges plus OAF strikes me as just about right.