Extra time, only to change multipower slots?

[Narthon]

I want to build a weapon with various attack powers as a multipower with different fixed slots for the different attacks.
Energy blast, cutting beam killing attack, flash to sight.

I want the operator to have to fiddle some controls to switch settings/multipower slots.

Any sugestions on that the lim should cost to take a half phase to switch between slots on a multipower? Is it just not worth points?

Am I being too confusing?

Thanks ahead of time,

Narthon

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Narthon
I want to build a weapon with various attack powers as a multipower with different fixed slots for the different attacks.
Energy blast, cutting beam killing attack, flash to sight.

I want the operator to have to fiddle some controls to switch settings/multipower slots.

Any sugestions on that the lim should cost to take a half phase to switch between slots on a multipower? Is it just not worth points?

I'd say take the Extra Time limitation and halve it on the basis you have to spend the Extra Time each time you activate the slot. Since it applies to every slot, it should also apply to the Multipower as a whole.

The rules say minimum limit is 1/4, so I'd say it's -1/4 for "half phase to change", especially since that's normally a 0 phase action. YMMV (and your GM may impose different limits).

[Dr. Anomaly]

You could go with that reasoning based on the concept of "Only to Start": you only take the time to "start" the Power when you change slots; after that, you can use it at will.

[Farkling]

Ahem. From the FAQ::

"Q: Can a character apply an Advantage or Limitation to just the Multipower reserve, such as Extra Time to switch slots?

A: With the GM’s permission, yes, provided it makes sense to do so. Extra Time only to switch slots is a good example; there’s no reason such a Limitation would apply to each slot (once the character switches to it, he can activate the power in that slot normally). The GM can, if he wishes, alter the value of the Power Modifier if he thinks that’s appropriate for the power construct."

<shrugs> and I have one character using this model as is...the extra time modifier only applies to shifting the multipower...it's in the nature of a gun multipower, all ultra-slots...so I left it at normal value. HE isnn't the one being voted "overpowered" by the game group...

[Narthon]

Thank you.

It's strange, I checked the FAQ before I posted but didn't find that question.

I guess I didn't look hard enough.


Narthon

[Gary]

I would allow the limitation on the slots themselves, not on the actual reserve. That's because you can easily cheese the system and save points compared to buying a power straight.

Example, let's take a 50 pt multipower with 2 slots. If you allow a -1/4 limitation on the reserve, you would pay 40 pts for the reserve and 4 pts on each slot for a total of 48 pts. That's cheaper than buying a single 50 pt power, and you get a more useful power to boot.

[Narthon]

Well, you could buy the base power with a 1/4 lim and it would cost less. I don't really understand what you mean, I guess.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Narthon
Well, you could buy the base power with a 1/4 lim and it would cost less. I don't really understand what you mean, I guess.

Player A buys a straight 10d6 EB for 50 pts.

Player B buys a multipower with EB and flash with the limitation that changing slots takes full phase. If you allow the -1/4 limitation on the reserve, player B pays 48 pts for a more flexible and useful power. In fact, he could decide to choose to never use the flash at all and keep it in EB all the time. He saves 2 pts for having functionally the exact same power.

[Narthon]

Hmm. It seems to me that any lim you have should be backed up by the character concept. If one player comes up with an energy blast, and just says "I can shoot stuff" and another comes up with "My character built a little ray gun that can both shoot stuff with high intensity light, and dazzel someone with it's bright emisions. He hasn't flawlessly worked out all the bugs yet, and takes a little while to switch it between the different modes".

I think it is worth it to reqard the second player for thinking out his character. Multipowers are made to save points anyway.

Narthon

Reward well thought out character concepts.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
Player B buys a multipower with EB and flash with the limitation that changing slots takes full phase. If you allow the -1/4 limitation on the reserve, player B pays 48 pts for a more flexible and useful power. In fact, he could decide to choose to never use the flash at all and keep it in EB all the time. He saves 2 pts for having functionally the exact same power.

Make Player B use the full phase to initially allocate the points. They don't have a default. That's a full phase at the start of each combat.

Voila - limited!

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Make Player B use the full phase to initially allocate the points. They don't have a default. That's a full phase at the start of each combat.

Voila - limited!

That's a legitimate limitation on the reserve. However, extra time to change slots by itself isn't a legitimate limitation on the reserve.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
That's a legitimate limitation on the reserve. However, extra time to change slots by itself isn't a legitimate limitation on the reserve.

I don't know. Your example shows an abuse, but it is clearly designed to be abusive. A limitation is something the power can do normally, but we have removed, and a multipower normally allocates or reallocates points as a zero phase action.

I can't see there being extra time to "change slots" if there isn't extra time to initially allocate the points. Alternatively, your "flash" example would have to roll to see which setting it was last on. "Oh too bad; you were tuning up the flash ray last time you had the gun out".

You can deny the point savings, or you can make the limitation create some problems for the character. I prefer the latter.

[PhilFleischmann]

Yes! What Gary said!

This issue came up a long time ago on the old, old boards. I go with a general guideline of half the value of what the limitation would be on the power itself, if it's only on changing slots. And it's very important that this limitation be placed only on the slot costs themselves.

Here's a more extreme example:

Player A: 12d6 EB gun - 60 pts.
Player B: 60 pt MP gun
"Stun" 12d6 EB - 6 pts.
"Kill" 4d6 RKA - 6 pts.

Suppose the switching slot limitation is so severe that it's a -1 lim. Do you really want to give player B his gun for only 36 points?

There's nothing that says the gun can't be left on a particular setting. It could be just a switch. If it's left in one setting, it stays in that setting until you change it. (otherwise, yes, it would be worth a limitation if you can't use it at all for the first X amount of time of a combat.)

BTW, there are other limitations besides extra time that could be applied to switching slots.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
Here's a more extreme example:

Player A: 12d6 EB gun - 60 pts.
Player B: 60 pt MP gun
"Stun" 12d6 EB - 6 pts.
"Kill" 4d6 RKA - 6 pts.

Suppose the switching slot limitation is so severe that it's a -1 lim. Do you really want to give player B his gun for only 36 points?

ummm...assuming it's an OAF, that's what it costs without the other limitation. :rolleyes:

He'll pay 24 if he gets a further -1 limitation.


Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
There's nothing that says the gun can't be left on a particular setting. It could be just a switch. If it's left in one setting, it stays in that setting until you change it. (otherwise, yes, it would be worth a limitation if you can't use it at all for the first X amount of time of a combat.)

BTW, there are other limitations besides extra time that could be applied to switching slots.

Sure - Concentrate (to focus on changing the settings) comes to mind. Requires a Skill Roll if it's a complex process. Activation if it's finicky.

And there is something that says it can't just be left (welded) on one setting - the GM imposing limits for those points saved by taking a Limitation. "Oh, it's currently set to RKA since you were working the kinks out of that in a maintenance routine." [or for any number of reasons] Is the player going to say "No! The gun has two settings, but I never ever ever swicth to Setting 2!" knowing the reply will be "then sell back the RKA and make it a plain EB"? I suspect not - not in my campaign anyway.

To my mind, the limit "extra time to change slots" is "extra time to activate" on each power in the slot, "only to start power up", so l;imit halved. That -1 means 5 minutes to start up either slot (at least that's what it means in my campaign). This limitation applies to every slot in the multipower so, as stated in FREd, it reduces the cost of the pool and each slot.

Frankly, any player who demands the "just a switch" option is abusing the construct. He'll either take the true extra time limit, or he can find another game.

Some GM's will disallow an ability because it could be abused. Others prefer to allow the ability in general and disallow the abuse in particular. I fall into the latter group.

[Farkling]

I see...

I always pictured a multipower reserve as being unallocated until it is consciously set...I also assume it is an obvious combat action...so if PointsGuy is shucking me for a limitation, then he will be asked by the NPC's (and at least ONE of the Pc's...I have a few great players) "Why are you prepping for combat? What do you know that we don't?"

Additionally, from the FAQ ::
"Q: If a character has allocated the reserve of his Multipower, and is then Knocked Out, does the reserve stay allocated to that slot when he awakens?

A: With most slots, the Multipower reserve won’t be allocated at all when the character awakens. If the character has allocated the reserve to a slot that works while he’s unconscious (such as Regeneration), the reserve remains allocated to that slot while he’s unconscious, and is still allocated to that slot when he awakens."

Which implies to me that the character has to consciously allocate the points, or they are simply unallocated. In combat he has a phase to phase ability to reallocate, or just let it ride. It's a 0-phase combat action in my book. doing it is conspicuous.

Y'alls descrtiption of the gun and the two settings is nice, but I wouldn't carry something that powerful in my pants without a safety set...(reserve unallocated)...any character who has a limitation on allocating the reserve who does so outside of combat is going to hurt himself or a bystander at some point...

I don't like rules abusers. :)

[tesuji]

"Frankly, any player who demands the "just a switch" option is abusing the construct. He'll either take the true extra time limit, or he can find another game. "

Judging from this, he would be better served with the latter.

This sounds to me like a case of making the concept fit the system rather than having the system fit the concept.

Allow me to offer you a sample case which would seem to be something so drastic you would lump it as abuse and toss the player to the curb...

I have a GUN.
The gun has clips.
The clips have different ammo tpyes.
In order to change ammo types i have to change clips, taking a full phase to do so.
Obviously, i can leave a clip in between combats or put one in at the base and enter combat ready to fire, only needing to change the clip when i change ammo.

This is an example of REAL GUNS found every day.

Kick him to the curb? hardly.
Abusive? Hardly.

It is not a problem with an abusive player or an abusive power or anything like that.

The problem is the system or at least the accounting you wish to apply to this player/power, is inaccurately costing the result.

is a gun with clips of differing ammo that do not magically and instantly change on demand really that abusive?

If i buy this as a 60 ap gun oaf it costs 30.

Now, if i build tis as 60 ap multipower with OAF and two 12 round clips of each type straight up I get the final cost to be 36 (30 plus 3 per slot.) In this case the changing of clips from AP to regular is free action but the changing of clips to reload the same type is a full action. That is of course by the system and silly.

If i add in -1/4 for the RESERVE and slots then the cost drops to 27 for the pool plus 3 for the slots or 33 ap. (We have skirted the "its cheaper" but only because the focus lim weighs in heavily.) The same rule would break without the -1 focus lim.

I think many Gms would look at 30 for one ammo, 33 for two ammos and a phase to change, and 36 for two ammos an no phase to change (only to reload) and think to themselves "Self, this looks right." They would probably continue right along and happy until someone pointed out that if you remove the focus the values become...

60 for one ammo
58 for two ammos and a phase to change
72 for two ammos and no phase to change

Now time is not the only issue.

Also consider the sister case "can only change slots in lab" to represent a cache of weapons the hero chooses from when he leaves the base.

Say for instance my powered armor has a shield module which can house either my force field generator, my stealth invisibility screen, or my life support screen for space travel and hostile environments. These are plug and play modules that I select when i suit up for a mission. this would seem an IDEAl case for a multipower with three slots and limited to only changing the slot in my lab.

However, again if this occurs, the net cost may well drop below that of the buying of one single power... if you allow the pool to be reduced in price.

*****************

All this boils down to...

if you want price to reflect utility, remember that you are NOT LIMITING THE USE OF THE POINTS... you can always 24 hours a day have the full pool cost in points available. So there should be NO LIMIT on the pool for "how hard is it to CHANGE slots." Apply whatever "HARD TO CHANGE SLOTS" to the slots cost, thats all it limits... how easy it is to switch to that slot from another.

So my suggestion is... apply the "difficult to change" lims at normal value to the slot costs and leave the pool cost with whatever routine limits it has.

But by all means, dont kick a player out because he wants the system that pruports to be universal to be able to reasonably handle a concept as difficult as "clips loaded with different ammos".

[tesuji]

"Y'alls descrtiption of the gun and the two settings is nice, but I wouldn't carry something that powerful in my pants without a safety set...(reserve unallocated)...any character who has a limitation on allocating the reserve who does so outside of combat is going to hurt himself or a bystander at some point...
I don't like rules abusers. "

If the acocunting system makes rules abusers out of something as mundane as carrying different clips with different ammo, then IMo the rage and dislike should be targetted at the system, not the player.

In this case, IMO, the problem is the desire to construct this in a way that makes the points go skewy, applying the lim to the pool, when it should be simple to apply it to the slots.

As for the default for a multipower, I always ruled it by effect. A gun can be left loaded with a given ammo and changed only when needed.

But again, if you apply the lims at normal value to the slots, to reflect "difficulty to change" things end up pricing out OK... the "difficult to change gun" will always fit in between the cost of "only one option gun" and "many options change instantly gun"... every time barring odd rounding.

Isn't making the system price things appropriately better as a choice than paying back your players with grief for having the audacity to assume they can duplicate common real world effects in this masively wonderful universal can-do-anything game?

isn't it?

[Farkling]

Guns have safeties in the real world, and normalyl you don't stop on the street, take the safety off, and slam a clip in because the GM rolled some dice... :D

Now using the clips analogy...and walking a bit further down the road...
I have a Multipower which consists of 4 guns and two clubs::
It takes a half phase to draaw a weapon right?
So if my Multipower slots are 4 seperate guns, I spend a half phase reallocating my reserve by game rules...EVEN IF I HAVE ONE GUN PER SLOT. I must now find THIS constuct just as abusive if I follow the indications of this discussion...after all, this construct is even MORE cost efficient.

As I stated before...one of the characters in my Supers game HAS the Extra Time limitation (only on the reserve). I haven't got a problem with the Extra Time to change slots..Mr. Long hasn't got a problem with it...
The discussion thread DOES seem to have a problem with it. I was trying to point out other "in game" limitations on it...but I wasn't thinking very clearly when I was writing, was I? :rolleyes:

[tesuji]

I must confess to not be following your logic stream here, or maybe just not telling what you mean vs what you mean as a devils advocate sort of extreme position. So i will try and explain my point a little better and use some of your examples.

On the "each slot is a different focus"... i have seen and agree with myself that if a MP contains a focus limitation on each slot that represents a DIFFERENT focus on each slot, then it is probably not appropriate to have the full normal focus lim applied to the reserve. There are rules mentioned about this in the book (multiple focus rules, halving the focus lim if it represents a group of things) and so forth. So, as an example here, this starts off a little hinky.

*************************

Drawing the weapon... here i get confused.

Whether an item has to be drawn in order to be used is the same case whether the item is multifunctional or single functional. i do not have to draw my gun taking a half action BECAUSE i have clips of more than one ammo. I have to draw the item, taking a half phase, because of the focus limit and the fact that it is a stand alone focus.

FOCUS is a limitation. It carries with it certain problems and among them is that, if the focus is of a certain type, I have to waste a half action drawing it at some point. I might be able to do this well before trouble occurs or not. However, this aspect will be true of a given focus whether it is in a multipower, whether it is an entire multipower, or whether it is a single function weapon.

I think the mistake you are making here is assuming that putting DIFFERENT FOCI in a MP somehow removes the need to draw them. it doesn't.

********************

Safeties? Again i fail to understand your point here. It seems like much more of a distraction than a point. Whether a gun has a safety, whether that safety takes any action or not, and whether i can leave thre gun saftey off or not without concern are all nice points to consider.

However, not a single one of them changes or is affected by whether or not i have one clip of a single ammo type or multiple clips of multiple ammo types in my pocket.

So it does not seem to apply.

***********************

There is what the rules say, what setev long says, and what makes sense. Sometimes these are all in agreement. Sometimes they are not.

To me its really quite simple.

Do "hard to change" multipowers make sense as a power idea? Yes... whether its a gun with multiple clips of different ammo or a modular component changed at the base, it makes sense for there to be multipowers other than "instant change". The notion does not seem abusive nor would i suspect a player of being abusive and desire tio kick him out for suggesting it. I will call these two ICMP and HTCMP to save time. NOTE this is much different an animla than a "HARD TO USE" multipower where the limitation affects each USE of the powers. There is a large difference between 1 phase to switch slots and 1 phase to shoot.

How much should they cost?

It seems obvious on a common sense level that the costs should weigh out, in ascending order with MONO-GUN (has only one fundtion) to be cheaper than MULTI-GUN (several uses in an HTCMP) and that is also cheaper than WUNDA-GUN (multiple options in an ICMP.)

The system sdhould therefore reliably and consistently cost these out the same. Note that while i call the GUNS the same principle should apply to non-focus powers of the same sort.

So how do you do it?

IF you apply the "hard to change" limitations, in whole or in part, to the RESERVE, you run into the olde hero illogic I call "buying a lim" where adding something cheap (multipower slots) allows you to limit points off something big (the pool reserve) and thus you can literally "get something for nothing." This has been seen in such infamous examples as the tail of two tails and the tail of two bases.

So, if you use HTC lims on the reserve, you end up with some cases where your pricing scheme runs like this... HTC multi-gun is cheaper than MONO-GUN and this is cheaper than WUNDA-GUN. Some cases, it works out right, other produce this obviously WRONG result. (This may lead some Gms to treat the symptom and throw out players asking for this type of power or to decide to not allow this power by insisting the power cannot work how they wanted it.) Ugh!

So, i reject the HTC lim applying to the pool as making sense. it is inconsitent and silly. At some point, we do have to stop, well actually we dont and many seem to not, does this make sense?

On the other hand...

If you instead look at this and apply the HTC lim ONLY TO THE SLOTS, then you create the wonderful case where NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS the sensible cost structure of MONO-GUn is cheaper than MULTI-GUN and this in turn is cheaper thsn WUNDA gun. There will not be a case where this proves untrue.

Well, Ok, there might be one... if the slots are very limited already, a minor HTC lim might not make enough of a differene at all and so multi-gun and wunda-gun may be priced the same. Of course, this will only happoen in a few rounding cases and the issue of rounding rules merfing values is already a system issue... so this is no different than how rounding hits anywhere else. But at least it wont make the multi-gun ever move out of the middle position... it might just be tied.

Thats it in a nutshell (Ok a freakin' huge nutshell, but a nutshell.)

It may not agree with Steve Long, but then, when Steve long tells me 2+2=7... i tend to trust my own math knowledge.

So, if you want this to work "right" (defined as keeping monoo-gun, multi-gun and wunda-gun priced in the right order) apply the hard to change lims to the slots, not to the pool.

If you apply it to the pool, the standing of Mono-gun, wunda-gun and multi-gun will be somewhat variable in terms of price while their value in terms of utility is obvious and not variable. You lose cost ~ effect.

[prestidigitator]

I think the whole argument falls apart if the Multipower is used the way a Multipower is meant to be used.


Originally posted by Gary
In fact, he could decide to choose to never use the flash at all and keep it in EB all the time. He saves 2 pts for having functionally the exact same power.

If I saw a player who has a Multipower do this, I would probably think, "Hmm. Has he just not run into enough opportunities to use his powers, or did he take a Limitation which is never actually going to limit him?" If I thought it was the latter, I would probably ask him to remove the Limitation, using his next X experience points to pay for it if he can't find the points somewhere else (another Disadvantage?).

I think you always have to take into consideration what has happened, and what is likely to happen, during gameplay. If my player made a pirate character who is afraid of the water, and the adventure takes a turn which will put them in the desert for a good long time, I would probably suggest he switch Disadvantages (maybe on a temporary basis), even if the original were a perfectly valid thing at the time.

If a character took a Multipower which he only ever wound up using one slot of, I would eventually suggest he drop the Framework and make it a straight Power. If he never wound up switching it in combat, I would ask him to remove a Limitation which only limits its switching during combat.

[tesuji]

" If he never wound up switching it in combat, I would ask him to remove a Limitation which only limits its switching during combat."

OK starting from the top, I would instead make sure the points charged appropriately in the first place, and thus not have to worry as much.

That said...

Whether he needs to change in combat or not is as much a matter of the GM and his choices as it is the players.

Consider the following item:

Super-Cobbat Shotgun OAF
60 pt multipower OAF 30 rp
2 rp slot 1 4d6 RKA 12 charges (drum) "Silver Buck Shot" 1 phase to change slots
2 rp slot 2 2.5 d6 RKA AP 12 charges (drum) "Ap Slug" 1 phase to change slots
2 rp 2d6 RKA AOE Cone Fire "dragonsbreath" 12 charges (drum) 1 phase to change slots.

Here i applied a -1/4 lim to each slot to represent the changing of the drum to move to a new ammo type. This saves me 1 point per slot, from 3 to 2.

Now, whether i even decide to use the dragonsbreath round is frankly going to be circumstantial. Do i find myself against foes who are vulnerable to fire more than they are vulnerable to silver buckshot or large Ap slugs? Do i ever find myself facing groups of mugs where a large AOE cone wont be a problem and will be beneficial? Have i ever run into a combat where 12 rounds was not enough, or maybe 24 and so have i ever NEEDED to change mags in combat at all?

If the answer to all is NO, then its entirely likely i will never change to that slot. Heck if the answer is YES but it is predictable and so I can prepare ahead of time, i may only use it when i go into combat.

So all in all, whether i ever need to change to the dragonsbreath mag in combat is much more a case of the scenarios you provide me, the adversaries you choose and the obviousness ahead of time.

But, if i get this right, if you never provide me with these impetus and after a while you realize you have never seen me change to the Db drum IN COMBAT, you would charge me a point and make me buy off that lim?

So, then since i never did have to change to that one drum in combat, now my character can do so instantly, quicker than i can the others?

is that right?

[Talon]

Tesuji, I see your point, but putting the limitation on the slots doesn't seem appropriate to me. In particular, how is is a slot limitation? Once activated, the slot can be used instantly and repeatedly. The limitation is clearly restricting the reserve rather than the slots.

Also, having played characters with this Limitation, the reduction in utility is (or at least can be) worth more than 1 point per slot. If the GM ruled that it only applied to the slots, I would find a new Limitation.

The fact that this can be abused to make a MP cheaper than a single power points to two things:

1) The Limitation should probably be less than just half the corresponding Extra Time Value -- maybe even a flat -1/4 (especially if the character can leave/prepare the MP in a generally useful slot).

2) The GM has to make a contextual decision whether this is an appropriate Limitation or not; sometimes it will be -0 (for example, if the character always has other options which largely duplicate the MP slots).

For example (forgive the simplicity):

MP, Phase to switch slots
Slot 1: 4d6 RKA, only against inanimate
Slot 2: 12d6 EB, only against normal humans
Slot 3: 6d6 NND, only against paranormals
Slot 4: 4d6 AVLD, only against non-humans

Here you have a MP which is, in one large way, worse than a single power. If the character guesses wrong, he will be unable to respond until he switches to the right slot. If he's faced with multiple threat categories, he risks being unable to attack some of them without wasting more time.

To me this isn't as cut-and-dried as the base or Extra Limbs issues.

[Hugh Neilson]

To me, the bottom line here is that a TRUE multipower (ie one which has been purchased to enable multiple powers to be used) phases a very real limitation if extra time is required to change the slots. As such, if the slot cost alone is limited, the point benefits do not reflect the actual limitation, and the player is getting ripped off. Thus, the limitation should be applied to the multipower pool.

If the power is purchased as a multipower which requires extra time to change slots (perhaps excessively long - that would be the tipoff) solely to reduce the cost of the single slot which will actually be used, the player is trying to rip off the system by taking a limitation which is not actuallt a limitation. You can require him to buy off the limitation, or you can find a way to make the limitation worth the points.

For the guy with clips - he will run out of ammo, and be forced to change the clips. I'm pretty confident he is not just taking the limit for a point savings - he has placed a legitimate limitation on the power. If he wants to say "I always leave a clip of Regular EB charges", I'm inclined to say that's fine. Sometimes, he will regret his choice. Sometimes, he will run out of charges. He will be limited by his limitation.

But a player who buys the "EB/Flash" gun with no intention of ever using the flash, but to point whore beyond reason, and then tries to argue it's always switched to "EB" so he never has to suffer due to his "limitation" can find another game. I'm happy to lose him. How do you tell the difference? When the Flash NEVER gets used.

In practice, I would rather discuss the matter up front when I see the construct. "My view is that your Gun has three switches - "EB", "Flash" and "Off". You need to spend the 1/2 phase to switch it "on" in combat. As a result, each of your slots has "extra time only to activate, -1/4. As all the slots have the limit, so does the pool.

If he doesn't want this limitation to apply at the start of combat (or when he is expecting combat, pulls out the gun and switches it on), then maybe he should live with only having the limitation apply to the slots. He's not taking the full limitation, so he shouldn't get the full point benefit.

Frankly, it will never come down to this in my campaign, since a player who is manipulating the system with the "multipower, only one slot will ever be used" construct will be booted out pretty quick, for that and numerous other abuses, in fairly short order.

[Narthon]

If it helps at all, here is the writeup of the full multipower I'm trying to create:

Flashlight Laser multipower 75 active, oaf (-1) 37
u Heat/Light Energy Blast 0end (+1/2) oaf (-1) 10d6 4
u Flash vs Sight AE cone (+1) 0 end (+1/2) no range (-1/2) 6d6 3
u Images vs sight 0 end AE cone (+1) x4 side length (+1) (48”) to create light only (-1) oaf (-1) no range (-1/2) 1
u Variable Sword: 2d6 HKA 2x Armor piercing (+1) 0end (+1/2) 4d6 HKA with str 4
u Laser 3d6+1 pip RKA 0end (+1/2) 4

I'm thinking about making it run off of an end reserve instead of being 0 end.
I also want it to take time to switch settings.

Please post comments.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Geoff Speare

Tesuji, I see your point, but putting the limitation on the slots doesn't seem appropriate to me. In particular, how is is a slot limitation? Once activated, the slot can be used instantly and repeatedly. The limitation is clearly restricting the reserve rather than the slots.

OK, imagine the power in comparison with the same thing but with only ONE SLOT. Adding the second slot and the phase to change limitation in now way limits the first power, the character can still ALWAYS have a 60 ap power. What is limited, the only thing limited is how he chooses which slot is working. That appears to me to be a limitation affecting how easily he can dial a specific slot, not a limit on how often he can have the RESERVE in a power.

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

Also, having played characters with this Limitation, the reduction in utility is (or at least can be) worth more than 1 point per slot. If the GM ruled that it only applied to the slots, I would find a new Limitation.

I do not think it is worth more than the SLOT costs GIVEN the comparison to a MONO-version. The onyl difference in price between a gun with one feature and a gun with multiple is the SLOTS.

if you allow adding new slots (buy little) to earn you the right to take a limitation on the reserve (save big) you have precisely the same identical problem as the base and tail issues...buying and adding a small cheap thing gives you the ability to buy a limit and save on a big thing. in some specific cases, buy little save big wont produce obviously skewed results, but in other it will.

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

The fact that this can be abused to make a MP cheaper than a single power points to two things:

1) The Limitation should probably be less than just half the corresponding Extra Time Value -- maybe even a flat -1/4 (especially if the character can leave/prepare the MP in a generally useful slot).

I think it shoudl vary with the real impact. I consider change at base only to be at least -1/2 while full phase to change at best -1/4.

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

2) The GM has to make a contextual decision whether this is an appropriate Limitation or not; sometimes it will be -0 (for example, if the character always has other options which largely duplicate the MP slots).

I suppose in some cases the Gm could rule this was just FX but in most cases i would see it as appropriate to have it be worth something. i think almost always the HTC MP should be priced between ICMP and Mono-power.

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

For example (forgive the simplicity):
MP, Phase to switch slots
Slot 1: 4d6 RKA, only against inanimate
Slot 2: 12d6 EB, only against normal humans
Slot 3: 6d6 NND, only against paranormals
Slot 4: 4d6 AVLD, only against non-humans

Here you have a MP which is, in one large way, worse than a single power.

I think you are dead wrong.

Pick any one of those slots, be sure to include the limitations on targets. make a gun with just that one power and show me how this multipower is in anyway worse than that one.

Now, what i think you are thinking is to compare this multipower to one of those powers WITH THE TARGETS LIMITATION REMOVED... which of course shows clearly the impact of those TARGET limitations.

Applying in other limitations, especially if you only consider them on one side, can mask or overwhelm the impact of the HTC limit. That however srill does not make the HTC limit accurate when placed on the pool.

otr do you really think this MP would be worse than a 4d6 RKA only vs inanimate attack power which could never be switched to the other settings?


Originally posted by Geoff Speare


If the character guesses wrong, he will be unable to respond until he switches to the right slot. If he's faced with multiple threat categories, he risks being unable to attack some of them without wasting more time.

And a character with ONE of those attacks would be unable at all to respond to the other threats. Again, if you want to prove something about HTC, you cannot apply a totally different lim to just the one side of the equation.

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

To me this isn't as cut-and-dried as the base or Extra Limbs issues.


To me it is.

A power with only one of the above four attacks would be worse than having the Mp and the limited ability to dial up one of the four. When MP guy met the wrong type, he would lose time. When one power guy met the wrong type, he would have no attack.

[tesuji]

Comments are simple, apply a typical limitation to the slots... for example, full phase to change would be a -1/4 (half the value for constant only to start )

do not apply the lim to the pool.


Originally posted by Narthon
If it helps at all, here is the writeup of the full multipower I'm trying to create:

Flashlight Laser multipower 75 active, oaf (-1) 37
u Heat/Light Energy Blast 0end (+1/2) oaf (-1) 10d6 4
u Flash vs Sight AE cone (+1) 0 end (+1/2) no range (-1/2) 6d6 3
u Images vs sight 0 end AE cone (+1) x4 side length (+1) (48”) to create light only (-1) oaf (-1) no range (-1/2) 1
u Variable Sword: 2d6 HKA 2x Armor piercing (+1) 0end (+1/2) 4d6 HKA with str 4
u Laser 3d6+1 pip RKA 0end (+1/2) 4

I'm thinking about making it run off of an end reserve instead of being 0 end.
I also want it to take time to switch settings.

Please post comments.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
To me, the bottom line here is that a TRUE...

So, hugh, if i get this right, if a character did INTEND to use the flash, but never really got into a case where he thought it was a good idea, then because he did not intend to abuse the rules (and thats probably smart too because you can tell) he would not be booted out and would be allowed to buy his flash and eb attacks for possible even less than just the eb attack?

is that right?

cuz thats what allowing the lim to apply to the pool cost for those players who have enough bluff skill to get past your detect intent 13- does...

me, i find explaining cost ~ effect to be so much easier t explain to my players than cost ~ intent, but sometimes my thinking is limited.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji
OK, imagine the power in comparison with the same thing but with only ONE SLOT. Adding the second slot and the phase to change limitation in now way limits the first power, the character can still ALWAYS have a 60 ap power. What is limited, the only thing limited is how he chooses which slot is working. That appears to me to be a limitation affecting how easily he can dial a specific slot, not a limit on how often he can have the RESERVE in a power.

You can't just compare "one power/two powers in a multipower" to get the full picture. You also have to compare a character with no limitations to one who takes the limitation.

The advantage of a multipower is the ability to apply those active points to any opf the powers included therein. If the character took "takes a full phase to prepare" on his one EB, he would get a -1/4 limitation on the EB, reducing the cost from 30 points to 27 (assuming 12d6 OAF Gun). If it's a natural power, he would pay 48 points.

But if he now has 2 powers in a Multipower, each of which effectively requires a full phase to activate (ie it takes a full phase to allocate or reallocate the MP points), you want him to pay 36 for the gun (not even 1 point off - each slot costs 2.7 which rounds to 3), or 68 for the natural power (20 points more). Why take the limit? He gives up a lot of versatility for that minimal savings.

Sure, he's getting the second attack power for 20 points, but with no limitation at all, he would have paid 12 to add a 60 point Flash to his EB. Under your mechanic, adding the limited Flash to a limited EB costs more than adding an unlimited Flash to an unlimited EB!


Originally posted by tesuji
I do not think it is worth more than the SLOT costs GIVEN the comparison to a MONO-version. The onyl difference in price between a gun with one feature and a gun with multiple is the SLOTS.

Based on the above, the player should say "fine - it switches instantly". You have given him no point break whatsoever for a pretty significant limitation on his Multipower.


Originally posted by tesuji
I think it shoud vary with the real impact. I consider change at base only to be at least -1/2 while full phase to change at best -1/4.

The items you compare are again not comparable. "Change only at base" is a VPP limit at -1/2. The VPP already requires a full phase (-1/2) and a skill roll (-1/2) to change without the limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji
So, hugh, if i get this right, if a character did INTEND to use the flash, but never really got into a case where he thought it was a good idea, then because he did not intend to abuse the rules (and thats probably smart too because you can tell) he would not be booted out and would be allowed to buy his flash and eb attacks for possible even less than just the eb attack?

He has effectively purchased an EB which requires 1 phase to activate. Multipower pools do not sit in a power - they must be allocated. The character in question requires 1 phase to allocate his multipower pool. Based on SFX, I may allow a character who is not abusing the ability to have a "base" slot. That means the first time he uses it, he gets away without the extra phase. Just like the guy with a single energy blast power that takes 1 phase to "warm up" can warm it up before walking into the abandoned warehouse to look for the alien. He doesn't have to wait until he enters combat.
EB: 12d6, 1 phase to prepare (-1/4) 48 points

Multi: EB and Flash, both with 1 phase to prepare, 58 points.

The two cost MORE than the one.

I guess what I should do in your campaign is put 1 phase to prepare on the MP base (48 points), but NOT the slots (add 12) so, for the 60 points (2 points more than the 58 woul wouldn't apply anyway), I get to spend a phase activating my multipower as a whole, and can switch it freely thereafter. That, however, is clearly abusive and I would not allow it. YMMV.


Originally posted by tesuji
cuz thats what allowing the lim to apply to the pool cost for those players who have enough bluff skill to get past your detect intent 13- does...

That comes down to trust for your players. I trust mine not to rape the rules. Apparently, you don't. Not to be derogatory, but my experience is that people project themselves on others, so if you don't trust the player, that doesn't speak well of you.

And "extra time" several campaigns" does wonders for your "sense intent" roll.


Originally posted by tesuji
me, i find explaining cost ~ effect to be so much easier t explain to my players than cost ~ intent, but sometimes my thinking is limited.

Obviously! :rolleyes:

[I'm feling pretty sarcastic tonight, and I think I'm pretty blunt above. No offense is intended.]

[tesuji]

all attempts (obviously serious intents) at not being derogatory aside, i prefer for the math of the system i put forth to not be based in divinging the intent of the players and simply to be based on cost ~ effect.

I do not believe in playing favorites and allow A for the guy i like while disallowing it for the guy i dont when they are both supposed to be playing by the same rules.

So, clearly, our mileage does vary quite a bit.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

You can't just compare "one power/two powers in a multipower" to get the full picture. You also have to compare a character with no limitations to one who takes the limitation.

Actually you can and it works quite nicely.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The advantage of a multipower is the ability to apply those active points to any opf the powers included therein. If the character took "takes a full phase to prepare" on his one EB, he would get a -1/4 limitation on the EB, reducing the cost from 30 points to 27 (assuming 12d6 OAF Gun). If it's a natural power, he would pay 48 points.

right so far.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

But if he now has 2 powers in a Multipower, each of which effectively requires a full phase to activate (ie it takes a full phase to allocate or reallocate the MP points), you want him to pay 36 for the gun (not even 1 point off - each slot costs 2.7 which rounds to 3), or 68 for the natural power (20 points more). Why take the limit? He gives up a lot of versatility for that minimal savings.

Ok as for the no savings point, as i indicated earlier, in HERO by dint of the rounding rules sometimes a small lim added to an already existing limited power will NOT PRODUCE ANY SAVINGS. I can produce easily a dozen cases of this using standard lims and standard powers at cherry picked points.

Does this mean we should change the values of every lim i can cite a case for this? No. All it means is under standard HERo it is accepted that at some times a lim may not produce a small difference in cost.

So the fact that this is true of HTC lims in some combo lim cases is not really worth going into much. if you wish to belabor that point, feel free, but there are dozens of cases in hero so you might want to move that to another thread... it wont do anything for the discussion here. it is just a smoke screen.

Whether you or i or anyone else likes it or not, the system makes multipower slots CHEAP. That means the cost difference between MONOPOWER and INSTANT CHANGE MULTIPOWER is small. It should be obvious that there is a fairly BIG difference between monopower and instantchangemultipower.... but the system points them as small differences because of the "not at the same time" thingy.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that "the difference between free change between two powers and full phase change between two powers is BIG" and thats well and good.

But, stop for just a second and see if you can wrap your cranium around this... the difference between a DIFFICULT change between two powers and a free change between two powers is BY DEFINITION less than the difference between free change between two powers and never ever at all being able to change the powers.

Now, you, like many others seem to be obsessed with, in order to make the system seem plausible, ADDING TO THE DEFINITION "and using the power at all is a problem" and thus you can rationalize the difference.

I am not talking about a power which takes a full phase to start up for each fight. i am simply talking about a power set that takes a full phase to switch. if you have to add , in order to maintain you arhument, that the power MUST ALSO HAVE a startup flaw even when not changing, then you are describing something else. if your system cannot account for something as simple as a gun with differing clips which can be left loaded (or a no focus equivalent) then your system seems very very limited in what it can handle.

If you can wrap your system around a multipower which is set on whatever you want when in "default mode" and which can be changed but not instantly, with some time or circumstance required, then you have to be able to see that...

Applying the limit to the pool results in inconsistent results when comparing the three levels of limitation... sometimes putting the difficult to change cheaper than the no change ever and sometimes mor than it.

Applying the limit to the slots keeps it consistent (barring round offs.)

Sure, i can buy you saying that the difference of, for instance, 60 ap power at 60, 2 slot slow change at 70 and 2 slot instant change at 72... that the 2 point difference between slow change and fast change is not enough... but hey, thats 2 pts out of the 12 points. HERo only charges 12 points for having 2 powers instead of 1 at 60 points...

The answer to this is not to allow the overly cheap second power thing to let you make this thing even cheaper, so that the slow change two power thing becomes cheaper than the ONE POWER CAN NEVER EVER CHANGE IT.

for some, the answer might well be to say "the system wont handle it" and disallow the slow to change power unless you also take the slow to startup part... maki9ng suddenly the notion of "I have different clips of different ammo types" impossible unless they agree to never leave the gun loaded.

thats just too limiting to me.





Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Sure, he's getting the second attack power for 20 points, but with no limitation at all, he would have paid 12 to add a 60 point Flash to his EB. Under your mechanic, adding the limited Flash to a limited EB costs more than adding an unlimited Flash to an unlimited EB!



Based on the above, the player should say "fine - it switches instantly". You have given him no point break whatsoever for a pretty significant limitation on his Multipower.



The items you compare are again not comparable. "Change only at base" is a VPP limit at -1/2. The VPP already requires a full phase (-1/2) and a skill roll (-1/2) to change without the limitation.

[Farkling]

**pours kerosene into the fiery discussion**

Do I have the only game in the world with multipowers that are NOT power-type oriented?

During this whole thread, nobody has considered the effects when defenses or movement are in the multipower...am I a dinosaur who has not converted to the point mongereing ways of new Champions? Is the GM that annoyed me so much one of the new crowd? Where is the comic book Iron Man multipower?

Are the flexible power characters constructed like this now?
. Attack Multipower
. Defense Multipower or Defense Elemental Control
. Movement Multipower

I don't get it. Judging from the thread, the only use for multipowers is to get multiple attack powers. Did I miss something somehwere?

Why is it that the reserve shouldn't get points for the Extra Time limitation for allocation/re-allocation??...it puts a damper on any dive for cover or force field aborts..or any defensive abort for that matter...if a power in the framework is needed.

The character with OAF and OIF gets to apply the limitation to HIS reserve...
concentrate or gestures/incantations would apply to the reserve if on every slot...with no increase in concentration requirements...the only thing I think Steve said NO at was the Increased END on every slot...and applied to the reserve.

Why is it that Extra Time to shift the reserve is such a weak limitation in your books? Mathematics aside...what's the hangup? If I simply took "delayed segment" on every slot in the power...then I could apply it to the reserve, by the book, and I get no additional time requirement, by the book.

This argument appears to be
"extra time only to switch the reserve is NOT limiting"
"extra time to switch the reserve is munchkining"
And the grudge over TWO POINTS for point crunching is a little excessive...I'd let him have it and make sure he experienced difficulties if necessary. But Hugh is already aware of how soft he is compared to a real evil. :)

Consider this construct::
15 (+5/+5) Armor, polymer fabric costume
30 15" Flight, OIF-Fusion Jetpack, 0 END, Personal focus (SFX, runs off of Beamer's internal energy)

SFX - Phased Energy Projection
72 Multipower (90) (delayed phase to shift reserve, -1/4)
18 m 90 12d6 EB, Physical, 0 END
18 m 90 12d6 Flash, Sight, 0 END
18 u 30 (+10/+10 PD/ED) Force Field, 0 END

I certainly don't think the extra time limitation belongs on every slot...once the powers are allocated they work as bought, it's just seting them up that takes the time...Beamer here has, oh, 20 DEX and 4 SPD

On Phase 12, Combat starts, he is attacked by agents...at DEX 20. Beamer, wanting to test their powers sets his fields like this::
(+10/+10 PD/ED) Force Field, 8d6 Energy BLast
At DEX 10 his Force Field is active...a quick agent could have tagged him prior to this...technically he could take a shot, but he actually took a long look around and dodged...

Phase 3, He fires the 8d6 EB at an agent...agent goes down. The rifle fire spangs off his force field
Phase 6, He moves for position and fires again. He spreads for two targets, and grins as more attacks spang off the force field and armor. Two agents in assault armor appear.
Phase 9, he remebers these guys, and knows his 8d6 EB won't do much more than knock them over. He ducks behind a car, and switches his powers, 9d6 EB and 3d6 Flash. At DEX 10, Beamer pops up and fires a multiple power attack. One assault agent is knocked down and blinded for 4 segments.
Phase 12, He fires at 20 DEX, hits the agent...agent takes some STUN and is not knocked down...the rat braced last phase. The agent fires back with an Area Effect attack that demoslishes the car. Lucky it didn't explode.
PF12....Everybody gets a recovery.......
Phase 3, Beamer wants his force field, NOW. He activates the Jetpack (0 Phase) to gain some altitude, and retunes his energy fields...AS Beamer rises into the air, the agent takes a shot at him.. The force field won't be active until DEX 10...the agent hits poor Beamer for 50 STUN and 12 BODY. Beamer goes through a window and some interior drywall...and lands dazed (STUNned) and lightly injured somewhere on the 5th floor. When he gets his next phase, the multipower points need to be reallocated...and the GM has him on the run if there are any agents nearby in the building...

So why shouldn't Beamer get points for the delayed allocation of the Multipower Reserve? Also note, on the Phase he reallocated the reserve, he COULD have aborted to raise the force field, if he did NOT have the delay to allocate, his multipower does not shift as a 0 Phase action, it is a delayed phase action. Thus he cannot abort to that defense unles he already had it allocated. He CAN dive for cover, as his jetpack will allow for that...

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling
**pours kerosene into the fiery discussion**

One of life's little joys!


Originally posted by Farkling
Do I have the only game in the world with multipowers that are NOT power-type oriented?

I see these, but not as commonly as attack-only MP's. No question there is a points efficiency issue here. You don't use a lot of published characters and I haven't read much 5e; maybe someone can tell us how the published characters typically look. I suspect the "multiple attacks MP" is the most common by far.


Originally posted by Farkling
The other strcture I see on occasion is throw a force field, and maybe some bonus flight, it so I can use it if I'm not attacking, but even there the intent is principal use for attacks and huge defensesif I really need them.

Why is it that the reserve shouldn't get points for the Extra Time limitation for allocation/re-allocation??...it puts a damper on any dive for cover or force field aborts..or any defensive abort for that matter...if a power in the framework is needed.

EVEN FARKLING sees that extra time to switch MP points is a limitation. Now I'm sure my belief a limitation applies is well in the bounds of reasonable ;) [Aside: Actually, overall, you're really not THAT unreasonable...although I hate to say it]


Originally posted by Farkling
The character with OAF and OIF gets to apply the limitation to HIS reserve...
concentrate or gestures/incantations would apply to the reserve if on every slot...with no increase in concentration requirements...the only thing I think Steve said NO at was the Increased END on every slot...and applied to the reserve.

Why is it that Extra Time to shift the reserve is such a weak limitation in your books? Mathematics aside...what's the hangup? If I simply took "delayed segment" on every slot in the power...then I could apply it to the reserve, by the book, and I get no additional time requirement, by the book.

I suspect the same argument would apply from Tesuji's perspective. I think he's suffering from one of two hangups on this. First, he doesn't see the limit of extra time on the basis an underhanded player could use it to buy a power using a multipower, get it cheaper than just buying the one power, and always keep the points in that power, so he never suffers a limitation. If you assume he can simply buy a two slop MP (say a 12d6 EB and a 2d6 flash; 67 points), apply the "1/2 ph to change slots" limit (down to 54 points) and have the reserve always default to EB, the player gets 6 points back for nothing. However, if you deny "default allocation of points", the limitation comes back, at least IMO. It's actually even worse (in a real MP) since the character will not be able to turn on his EB, fire it, then use another attack and come back to EB later - he shifts the points, so he has to spend extra time to shift them back. That's fine - he got a point break for the limit and the MP.

The other is that Temujin doesn't like the "+1 advantage" to add four more powes from the same pool (ie 1 60 point power costs 60 points; 5 in a multipower costs 120 points; all in an EC costs 180; all bought individually costs 300). This implies he doesn't see the multipower structure as overly limiting. I do, however - "300 point man" has one impressive multipower attack if those were all attack powers. If they were a mix, he can't have them all at the same time. He has been limited.


Originally posted by Farkling
This argument appears to be
"extra time only to switch the reserve is NOT limiting"
"extra time to switch the reserve is munchkining"
And the grudge over TWO POINTS for point crunching is a little excessive...I'd let him have it and make sure he experienced difficulties if necessary. But Hugh is already aware of how soft he is compared to a real evil. :)

You and I are on the same page here - you've already said your players still think you're a bastard. Maybe I need to check with mine (although I haven't GM'd in a while) :D


Originally posted by Farkling
I certainly don't think the extra time limitation belongs on every slot...once the powers are allocated they work as bought, it's just seting them up that takes the time...Beamer here has, oh, 20 DEX and 4 SPD

That's a tough one. Normally, just setting the power up halves the limitation, but since delayed phase is -1/4 to begin with, that's as low as it goes. If it took a fullphase and then stays available, that would normally be -1/2, down to -1/4 because it stays available.

I like your example, but clipped it for length. Let's add a wrinkle. Take the force field out entirely - we now have the maligned power. Beamer knows his 12d6 EB, which he's been spreading to take down normal agents, likely will stun them, but it will take 2 or 3 hits to down them. While he fights them, the norms will finish their task and escape - that's what armored agents are used for by this agency. If he goes after the norm's, the armored agents will clean his clock. Oh, and he knows the armored agents move on the same phases he does, and have an 18 DEX. And their attacks HURT, so if both attack and hit, he's in trouble.

Does he focus in on the armored agents with his EB, and take a turn or two to take them down? The normal agents will win then - they accomplish their mission. But he'll likely stun one and take less damage since only one can return fire.

Does he focus on the normal agents? If he does, the armored guys will take him down, or threaten civilians. He knows that from experience.

Or does he switch to Flash, knowing he can disable the two agents fairly quickly with his flash long enough to foil the normal agents - but risk two hits first, which may take him down?

Boy , that point savings sure hurts now!


Originally posted by Farkling
So why shouldn't Beamer get points for the delayed allocation of the Multipower Reserve?

I'll leave that question for temujin! I'm :confused: on this one!

Thanks for a good illuminating discussion, Farkling.

[Talon]

Originally posted by tesuji
i prefer for the math of the system i put forth to not be based in divinging the intent of the players and simply to be based on cost ~ effect.

I do not believe in playing favorites and allow A for the guy i like while disallowing it for the guy i dont when they are both supposed to be playing by the same rules.

I think this is what it boils down to. I'd love to GM this way, but my personal experience shows that it's more of a pain in the long run (YMMV, and apparently it does). I definitely give more rules leeway to someone who I know is doing it for roleplay reasons and is not going to abuse it. I guess that counts as "playing favorites", but I have more success with that than with trying to lay down a set of absolute rules that can be twisted just like the game rules.

[Farkling]

*with a shrug*

On the subject of Player A versus Player B...

Half my players are not so knowledgable of the rules and power constructs...they bring ideas and collect build advice.

The other half are good players, and know some limitations are more limiting to one person than the other.

Take a simple (-1/4, cannot block magnetic attacks), a subtle difference from (-1/4, does not work in magnetic fields)...if the character himself generates a magnetic field, option B is a larger limitation for him...approaching a lockout level...

*shrugs* it's a game...I prefer not to overcomplicate it. I'd rather let them have the limit and adjust the environment to make it a limitation. :)

[Gary]

Basically, it boils down to this:

A single 12d6 EB costs 60 pts.

A 60 pt multipower with EB and flash costs 72 pts.

"Extra time to change slots" should never bring the cost structure of the multipower below "Can never change slots" which costs 60 pts.

Would you agree that "Can never change slots" is more limiting than "Extra time to change slots"?

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by tesuji
Whether he needs to change in combat or not is as much a matter of the GM and his choices as it is the players.
...
But, if i get this right, if you never provide me with these impetus and after a while you realize you have never seen me change to the Db drum IN COMBAT, you would charge me a point and make me buy off that lim?

So, then since i never did have to change to that one drum in combat, now my character can do so instantly, quicker than i can the others?

is that right?

LOL. Well, I certainly didn't mean to sound quite so harsh. If I saw a player do something like this and suspected it was just to save points without truely limiting the power, I would make him/her pay for it. No question. I would personally allow the Limitation on the reserve, and thus the player would be limited by it if (s)he had to switch between any of the powers.

If you bought a power which never wound up needing to be used in my game, because of choices I made (or maybe even otherwise), then I would probably find a way to give you an opportunity to use the cool power you built, or apologize to you and let you sell back the power again.

And then again, I might find that sonic attacks are more common then I thought they would be, so I might increase the cost of that Only Works Against Sonics power you have, though I might decide to grandfather you in, or give you a few extra Experience only for upgrading your power. They can be tough calls to make, but if you spare a thought for all of your players, and consider each of their situations and intentions as closely as you have time for, it sure does contribute to forming a great gaming group! :)


Originally posted by Farkling
I don't get it. Judging from the thread, the only use for multipowers is to get multiple attack powers. Did I miss something somehwere?

Why is it that the reserve shouldn't get points for the Extra Time limitation for allocation/re-allocation??...it puts a damper on any dive for cover or force field aborts..or any defensive abort for that matter...if a power in the framework is needed.

Right on, dude!

[PhilFleischmann]

tesuji is quite right. He has explained his point over and over again quite clearly. I don't understand why it's so difficult to understand for some. Try not to get distracted by unrelated subjects such as whether it's an OAF, or has other limitations, or what types of powers are in the slots.

Let me take another crack at it, because I'm sure Tesuji is tired of repeating himself. Here's an example which doesn't include any other limitations, no guns, safety locks, or specific power types:

Magic

Wizard A has one 50 pt spell that costs 50 points. He can use it all day long whenever he wants with no delay, as long as he has the END, and tomorrow when he wakes up in the morning, he can use it some more, and then next week and next year. He doesn't have to wait for it to "warm up."

Wizard B has one 50 pt spell with a -1/2 worth of Extra Time limitation. This costs 33 points. Every time he uses the power it takes the extra time (I don't remember how much extra time, but it really isn't important. I think it was an Extra Phase.)

Wizard C has two 50 point spells in a MP as ultra slots that each use up the whole pool. This costs 50+5+5=60 points. He can use either power, one at a time, whenever he wants, just like Wizard A can, but he has two choices which he can make freely whenever he wants as a zero-phase action.

Wizard D has the same MP as Wizard C, but the powers both have the Extra Time (Extra Phase) limitation on them. This costs 60/(1+1/2)=40 points. Every time he uses one of his powers in the MP, it takes an extra phase for the power to function.

All of the above are regular contructs in FREd.

Wizard E wants the same pool as Wizard C but with a Extra Time to switch slots - not extra time to use the slots - just to change from one to the other. If he's currently using slot 1, he can use it all day long with no delay, just like Wizard A uses his spell, or just like Wizard C uses any one of his slots. However, if Wizard E decides he wants to use slot 2, he must first "waist" a full phase changing the slot. After which, he can use slot two all day long and into next month with no restriction or delay, just like Wizard C could, or just like Wizard A could use his one spell.

The question is:
How much should Wizard E pay for his MP?

Some might say, "You simply can't do that!"
If that's you're answer, then I'd say you don't understand the HERO system. The main idea is that you can do what you want, how you want, as long as you pay the appropriate price for it. That's why I for one don't play d20.

Some might say, "That's abusive!"
To which I would respond, "How can you tell, if the price hasn't been set yet?" Clearly, if the player wanted to only pay 10 points, that's not enough, and he's trying to get more that what he's willing to pay for. But just as clearly 500 point is far more than it's worth. Somewhere between those two extremes is an appropriate (i.e., non-abusive) price for the effect the player wants.

So how much should it cost? Clearly, Wizard E's MP is:
slightly less useful than Wizard C's,
more useful than Wizard A's one spell,
more useful than Wizard D's MP,
much more useful than Wizard B's one spell.

Therefore Wizard E's MP should cost:
slightly less than 60 pts,
more than 50 pts,
more than 40 pts,
more than 33 pts.

If we decide that the "only to switch" should be half of the "every time you use it" limitation, then the basic limitation is -1/4. What should we apply it to?

If we apply it to the pool cost as well as the slot cost the price is 60/1.25=48 points.
If we apply it to the slots only, the cost is 50+10/1.25=58.

Which one of these is slightly less than 60 and more than 50?

Remember: we're not talking about rules-abusing players, we're talking about figuring out the appropriate price for something a player wants. If he's not willing to pay it, that's his problem, but if you're charging him too little, that's yours.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
tesuji is quite right. He has explained his point over and over again quite clearly. I don't understand why it's so difficult to understand for some. Try not to get distracted by unrelated subjects such as whether it's an OAF, or has other limitations, or what types of powers are in the slots.

Or, apparantly, being troubled to read the rules or some similar foolishness. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
Let me take another crack at it, because I'm sure Tesuji is tired of repeating himself.

So am I...


Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
So how much should it cost? Clearly, Wizard E's MP is:
slightly less useful than Wizard C's,
more useful than Wizard A's one spell,
more useful than Wizard D's MP,
much more useful than Wizard B's one spell.

Therefore Wizard E's MP should cost:
slightly less than 60 pts,
more than 50 pts,
more than 40 pts,
more than 33 pts.

If we decide that the "only to switch" should be half of the "every time you use it" limitation, then the basic limitation is -1/4.

This is in the book if you take a moment to wrap your mind around the concept. Pull out the book. Look at "Extra Time". Page 187, second paragraph. If the character spends the extra time once and can then activate the power whenever he wants, halve the limitation value.

So it requires 1 phase to activate the EB, after which he may use it as long as he wants. Switching to Flash shuts it off, and Flash takes a phase to "warm up". Switching back to EB means he has to take a phase again.


Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
What should we apply it to?

Now go to page 207, the Power Modifers...header. If a limitation applies to the whole multipower, it applies to slots and the reserve. Technically, he could take extra time JUST TO START THE MULTIPOWER AS A WHOLE. But he has applied it to each slot, which means it ALSO applies to the reserve. He is taking a GREATER limitation than he is, in fact, required to.


Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
If we apply it to the pool cost as well as the slot cost the price is 60/1.25=48 points. If we apply it to the slots only, the cost is 50+10/1.25=58.

No, if we apply it to the pool and slot costs it costs [60 + 6 + 6]/1.25 = 58 points. If we only apply it to the slots, it costs 60 + [6 + 6]/1.25 = 70 points.


Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
Which one of these is slightly less than 60 and more than 50?

:rolleyes: Yeah, which one? :rolleyes:


Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
Remember: we're not talking about rules-abusing players, we're talking about figuring out the appropriate price for something a player wants. If he's not willing to pay it, that's his problem, but if you're charging him too little, that's yours.

Actually, we're also talking about basic math skills ;)

But thanks for the extensive analysis. It proves my point admirably. The power is worth LESS THAN 60 POINTS, which is what I've been saying all along.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
No, if we apply it to the pool and slot costs it costs [60 + 6 + 6]/1.25 = 58 points. If we only apply it to the slots, it costs 60 + [6 + 6]/1.25 = 70 points.
Where are you getting these numbers? Certainly not from my example.
(50+5+5)/1.25=60/1.25=48
50+(5+5)/1.25=50+10/1.25=50+8=58


Actually, we're also talking about basic math skills ;)
Apparently so.

(:rolleyes: Sheesh! Is this brain surgery?)

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
If we apply it to the pool cost as well as the slot cost the price is 60/1.25=48 points.
If we apply it to the slots only, the cost is 50+10/1.25=58.

Which one of these is slightly less than 60 and more than 50?
In truth, I would probably have allowed him to take it for the reserve, but not for the individual powers (since it doesn't limit how they are used once the MP is switched). This comes to 50/1.25+5+5=50, which is, truthfully, no more expensive than A's spell which is equivalent once the pool has been assigned.

This is the way that best makes sense to me, given the Framework and Limitation. You are right that the Framework should still really cost more than a bare spell. Perhaps that is Wizard E's reward for creatively dealing with the headache that is a Framework. Or maybe not. After all, you are talking to a guy who did like package bonuses back when they were a reward for standard concepts or creative ideas. :)

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Actually, we're also talking about basic math skills
Er, don't get your panties too bunched up, or you could wind up making a mistake which would be just a bit embarrassing ....

[Gary]

I don't get it. A single power is equivalent to buying a multipower with the "Can never change slots" limitation. I can't see how anyone can possibly argue that "full phase to change slots" is worth more points than this.

It should seem apparent to anyone that "Can never change slots" is a far more severe limitation than "Full phase to change slots". :rolleyes:

Use your common sense. ;)

[Narthon]

A single power is equivalent to buying a multipower with the "Can never change slots" limitation. I can't see how anyone can possibly argue that "full phase to change slots" is worth more points than this.

So, every power is a multipower with an 'external' -0.1 lim, so the pool+slot = power?

I will note that that argument instantly bans many powers.
If every solo power is a one-slot multipower, then any special power is banned, as they can't go in a framework.
In fact, that argument is an open paradox.
If every power is actually a framework, then every power is banned. energy blast is a one-slot multipower, but when you go to build it you're trying to put a framework in a framework.
At the very least, that argument bans any true framework, since you're putting a "one slot multipower" in, for example, an EC.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Narthon
So, every power is a multipower with an 'external' -0.1 lim, so the pool+slot = power?

I will note that that argument instantly bans many powers.
If every solo power is a one-slot multipower, then any special power is banned, as they can't go in a framework.
In fact, that argument is an open paradox.
If every power is actually a framework, then every power is banned. energy blast is a one-slot multipower, but when you go to build it you're trying to put a framework in a framework.
At the very least, that argument bans any true framework, since you're putting a "one slot multipower" in, for example, an EC.

I notice you're not denying that "Can never change slots" is a far more severe limitation than "Full phase to change slots". :p

I said that buying a straight EB was equivalent to a multipower that can't change slots. In game terms, they work exactly the same. Your one slot multipower argument is a red herring that obscures the real question:

Should "Can never change slots" cost more points than "Full phase to change slots"?

[prestidigitator]

Fine. Let's talk about Limitations to the reserve in general. Say character A takes an unmodified Power which costs x points. Say character B takes a Multipower with N ultimate slots, each of which has x active points and no Limitations of their own. If the reserve takes Limitations such that the divisor is D=1+L, then the total cost of the Multipower is:

x/D + N x/10

Now, why don't we impose the condition that B's Multipower must be more expensive than A's Power:

x/D + N x/10 > x
1/D + N/10 > 1

Clearly, this is satisfied (for positive D), if N>=10 or:

1/D > 1 - N/10
D < 1/(1 - N/10) = 10/(10 - N)
L < 10/(10 - N) - 1 = N/(10 - N)

and the condition becomes:

N = 1, L < 1/9 (N/A anyway)
N = 2, L < 1/4
N = 3, L < 3/7
N = 4, L < 2/3 (L < 1/2 works)
N = 5, L < 1
N = 6, L < 3/2
N = 7, L < 7/3 (L < 2 works)
N = 8, L < 4
N = 9, L < 9
N >= 10, L has no positive limit

So yes, your trivial and inconsequential example of two equal powers as ultimate slots in a Multipower should not allow a Limitation of -1/4 for this kind of thing. I wouldn't allow such a simplistic Multipower anyway.

Besides, if any individual slots took Limitations, such would not reduce the overall cost nearly so much as if a lone Power took the same value of Limitations (even a stupid -1/4; one-fifth of 50 vs. one-fifth of 5), so imposing a small Limitation on the reserve means nothing on a realistic Multipower. Non-ultimate slots make this even more obvious (5 of those slots would allow any value of Limitations).

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Gary
It should seem apparent to anyone that "Can never change slots" is a far more severe limitation than "Full phase to change slots". :rolleyes:
Oh yeah. And, :rolleyes:

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
Where are you getting these numbers? Certainly not from my example.
(50+5+5)/1.25=60/1.25=48
50+(5+5)/1.25=50+10/1.25=50+8=58

ACK! I'm still on page 3 with the 12d6 Flash and 12d6 EB! Sorry!

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary
I don't get it.

Apparantly, you're not alone. :) But at least you're admitting it.


Originally posted by Gary
A single power is equivalent to buying a multipower with the "Can never change slots" limitation. I can't see how anyone can possibly argue that "full phase to change slots" is worth more points than this.

It should seem apparent to anyone that "Can never change slots" is a far more severe limitation than "Full phase to change slots". :rolleyes:

Use your common sense. ;)

Excuse me? The guy who's going to buy a Multipower that can never change its slots is telling ME to use common sense? :confused: This is a useless comparison - it's like buying an EB "Cannot be used as an attack action". There's no point.

Let's make a couple more comparisons. What does it cost to buy an attack which targets with ECV vs ECV, has a line of sight range with no modifiers, is invisible top all but mental senses and inflicts stun only damage versus Ego Defense. I'm sure you're way ahead of me here and have already concluded it's an Attack vs Limited Defenses (+1 1/2) with "Line of Sight Range" (+1/2), Invisihble Power Effects (+3/4) and "Attacks using ECV" (undefined). Even if switching to ECV costs nothing, that's 22.5 points per die. That's clearly how you buy this, right?

Is Ego Attack too generous?

Hmmm...let's try another construct. I want a 12d6 EB and a 12d6 Flash. That's 60 each. I don't want to violate campaign limits, so let's make them "Can't multipower attack" for -1/4, so that's 48 each, or 96 in total. So if I buy them in a multipower, with ultra slots, I should pay 96 points, right? But I pay 72. AND they can MPA with any attacks outside my multipower, so I actually got more power for less points. I can buy another 4 attack choices for not the 192 points it "should" cost, but another 24 points for four more Ultra slots.

So we shouldn't allow multipowers at all, I guess.

Is the whole system broken?

Let's return to your example (sort of - I still like 60 points). I buy a 12d6 EB for 60 points. I can use it whenever I want. The other guy buys a 12d6 EB/12d6 Flash multipower and defines each slot as requiring 1 phase to activate, after which it can be used as much as he wants (which, effectively, is 1 phase to switch slots). he gets a -1/4 limit, and pays 58 points.

In combat, I can fire my 12d6 EB any time I want. The other guy can fire a flash or an EB (more versatility), but it costs him a phase each time he changes, so he's losing actions. He can't use either one in the first phase (unless he spent a phase earlier allocating the points and guessed correctly). So I get an attack in the first phase and Stun my opponent. He doesn't, and gets stunned by his opponent. Hope he spent those extra 2 points on something that gets him out of this.

His multipower is not better than my EB. He has traded speed for versatility. By this math, he's lost effectiveness marginally (less than 4%) on the deal. That's close enough for me.

If it took him a full turn to allocate the points, he'd get a considerably bigger limitation, and pay way less for his two powers than I paid for my one. And he's more limited than me, despite his versatility possibly giving him an advantage at some point in time, so that's fair.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Excuse me? The guy who's going to buy a Multipower that can never change its slots is telling ME to use common sense? :confused: This is a useless comparison - it's like buying an EB "Cannot be used as an attack action". There's no point.

I notice that you're carefully not answering the question. Is "Can never change slots" more restrictive than "full phase to change slots"? It's a nice simple question that only requires a yes/no answer. Please answer it.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Let's make a couple more comparisons. What does it cost to buy an attack which targets with ECV vs ECV, has a line of sight range with no modifiers and inflicts stun only damage versus Ego Defense. I'm sure you're way ahead of me here and have already concluded it's an Attack vs Limited Defenses (+1 1/2) with "Line of Sight Range" (+1/2) and "Attacks using ECV" (undefined). Even if switching to ECV costs nothing, that's 15 points per die. That's clearly how you buy this, right?

Is Ego Attack too generous?

In some ways it is, but you're forgetting the effect of additional advantages. For example, it's a lot cheaper placing area effect on the first construct rather than ego attack.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Hmmm...let's try another construct. I want a 12d6 EB and a 12d6 Flash. That's 60 each. I don't want to violate campaign limits, so let's make them "Can't multipower attack" for -1/4, so that's 48 each, or 96 in total. So if I buy them in a multipower, with ultra slots, I should pay 96 points, right? But I pay 72. AND they can MPA with any attacks outside my multipower, so I actually got more power for less points. I can buy another 4 attack choices for not the 192 points it "should" cost, but another 24 points for four more Ultra slots. So we shouldn't allow multipowers at all, I guess.


There is a major difference in buying two separate powers rather than a multipower. If you take out the multipower, everything disappears at once. An attack destroying your multigun nukes both the flash and eb at the same time, whereas if you had both a blaster and a flash gun, only one can be taken out at the same time. Multipowers were strictly designed to be a cost savings over multiple powers. However, they were also strictly designed to cost more than a single power.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Is the whole system broken?

Let's return to your example (sort of - I still like 60 points). I buy a 12d6 EB for 60 points. I can use it whenever I want. The other guy buys a 12d6 EB/12d6 Flash multipower and defines each slot as requiring 1 phase to activate, after which it can be used as much as he wants (which, effectively, is 1 phase to switch slots). he gets a -1/4 limit, and pays 58 points.

Wrong. I think you're thinking of your personal house rule that you wouldn't allow a default power in a multipower. Let's take Tesuji's example instead with clips of different bullets where the default is whatever clip is in the gun to begin with. A legitimate real life multipower. Would you really ban that construct? According to your reasoning, since it takes a full phase to change slots, the limitation should apply to the reserve as well. Your house rule is a more severe limitation than the subject of this thread.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

In combat, I can fire my 12d6 EB any time I want. The other guy can fire a flash or an EB (more versatility), but it costs him a phase each time he changes, so he's losing actions. He can't use either one in the first phase (unless he spent a phase earlier allocating the points and guessed correctly). So I get an attack in the first phase and Stun my opponent. He doesn't, and gets stunned by his opponent. Hope he spent those extra 2 points on something that gets him out of this.

His multipower is not better than my EB. He has traded speed for versatility. By this math, he's lost effectiveness marginally (less than 4%) on the deal. That's close enough for me.

If it took him a full turn to allocate the points, he'd get a considerably bigger limitation, and pay way less for his two powers than I paid for my one. And he's more limited than me, despite his versatility possibly giving him an advantage at some point in time, so that's fair.

Red herring. You're comparing a straight EB to your house ruled multipower, not a multipower where it only takes a phase to change, but the default is whatever power was last set.

I feel sorry for your players if you wouldn't allow a pistol with regular, armor piercing, and hollow point bullets. :confused:

[Gary]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
Fine. Let's talk about Limitations to the reserve in general. Say character A takes an unmodified Power which costs x points. Say character B takes a Multipower with N ultimate slots, each of which has x active points and no Limitations of their own. If the reserve takes Limitations such that the divisor is D=1+L, then the total cost of the Multipower is:

x/D + N x/10

Now, why don't we impose the condition that B's Multipower must be more expensive than A's Power:

x/D + N x/10 > x
1/D + N/10 > 1

Clearly, this is satisfied (for positive D), if N>=10 or:

1/D > 1 - N/10
D < 1/(1 - N/10) = 10/(10 - N)
L < 10/(10 - N) - 1 = N/(10 - N)

and the condition becomes:

N = 1, L < 1/9 (N/A anyway)
N = 2, L < 1/4
N = 3, L < 3/7
N = 4, L < 2/3 (L < 1/2 works)
N = 5, L < 1
N = 6, L < 3/2
N = 7, L < 7/3 (L < 2 works)
N = 8, L < 4
N = 9, L < 9
N >= 10, L has no positive limit

So yes, your trivial and inconsequential example of two equal powers as ultimate slots in a Multipower should not allow a Limitation of -1/4 for this kind of thing. I wouldn't allow such a simplistic Multipower anyway.

You wouldn't allow a 2 slot multipower because it's too simplistic? :confused: And your N>=3 analysis doesn't matter because of course a multipower with 3 or more powers should cost more than a single power.


Originally posted by prestidigitator

Besides, if any individual slots took Limitations, such would not reduce the overall cost nearly so much as if a lone Power took the same value of Limitations (even a stupid -1/4; one-fifth of 50 vs. one-fifth of 5), so imposing a small Limitation on the reserve means nothing on a realistic Multipower. Non-ultimate slots make this even more obvious (5 of those slots would allow any value of Limitations).

That's a bogus comparison. A limitation on a single power obviously affects the entire power. A limitation on a single slot only affects that slot. All the rest of the slots wouldn't be affected at all by that limitation. Of course a limitation on an entire power would save more points than a limitation on part of a power.

[tesuji]

of course, hugh keeps coming back to his vison of the power being discussed... applying the flaw to BOTH changing slots and initiating use of the slot... as in you expect the MP guy to have to waste time at the beginning of the combat as opposed to having the power set on a useful default.

The trait being discussed by mean and others is not that one, though it is similar. it is the hard to change Mp where WHATEVER the lim is called the difficulty does not rear its head at the beginning of combats, as the power is set on one of the slots well out of combat, but ONLY when the slots are changed/reallocated.

As long as Hugh's positions and arguments rely on the loss of time or other flaw hitting at the beginning of combats, he is talking about hius own little power construct.

Now, if like me and the others, you are discussing the hard to change MP... and take a look at hugh's example...

One guy has 60 ap 12d6 Eb. The other has 60 ap Mp with an Eb and a flash slot at full and some form of the hard to change lim. (alternately, you can use a shield slot Mp with force field and invisibility)

Both character walk into a bar. MP guy has his default set on EB. If an Eb is needed, npoth characters fire off well. If a flash is needed and an Eb inappropriate, MP guy has the CHOICE to take the time and switch to flash or not. EB guy has NO CHOICE.

Had MP guy instead been walking around with Flash as default, then in flash-philic bars he is good while the other guy is screwed. In Eb-philic settings he is going to have the CHOICE.

So, EB guy is only better off overall IF MP guy is continually making poor choices (at least guessing wrong more often than not.) of course, Mp guy is making his decisions earlier in the day while Eb guy for all intents and purposes made his decision back when he built the character.

Simply put, if MP guy leaves his slot on EB he will never be in a worse situation than EB guy and will have the OPTION of improving his position when flash-philic situations come up.

That seems fairly obvious.

Now, back to Hugh's specific issue... I know that some Gms will simply prefer to refuse to acknowledge or allow the "only on change" limitations and insists that "in order to make it worth the savings" they must inflict it at scenario start too. Thats fine if they want to basically limit the options in their games that way. To me its making the play fit the system... forcing the character to the systems limits. i prefer, especially when using a system that makes such claims about its flexibility, to not mangle the concept to fit the system.

In short, i would like to be able to have a pistol (or non-oaf style power) with clips of different ammos that will require an action to change ammo without also having a Gm such as hugh force me to leave the gun unloaded until the fight starts. I would love to be able to say "this clip is loaded" and have it stay that way... so that i only have to concern myself with changing it when i want a different ammo type or when i want to reload.

However, i also want the system to reliably and consistently value this limited power at somewhere between ONLY ONE AMMO TYPE PERIOD and INSTANT CHANGE BETWEEN AMMO TYPES.

just looking at basic examples, it seems that applying the lim to the POOL does not do this reliably and consistently, while applying it to the slots alone does so much more reliably. Except for the occasional round offs (which may cause the limited power to tie with either extreme) the slot approach will always place the limited change between the free change and the never change in terms of cost.

Those are my preferences.

They clearly do not suit everyone.

I agree with hugh in that if you expand the limitation to also cover "start of scenario" so that the difficulty will be felt every time the power is initiated AND if you then want to compare that to an ***unlimited*** single power, then you can indeed see reasonable results which put the mulitpower limited as cheaper.

However, thqts simply because you have chosen to change the comparison...

EB 12d6 -1/4 "takes a full phase to turn on but afterward holds itself ready to fire" would be worth 48 rp.

The same power in a MP setup with a flash would cpost more.

its when you decide to compare that Mp to the bare Eb without the lim in order to show you are applying the lim right that your argument fails.

but thats fine.

On one other note, for the guy who mentioned he would rather not worry about the points being wonky a little and then balancing it in play, thats fine and, read my sig, in truth balance comes entirely IMO from the Gms challenges.

However, IMo the costs need to make sense when i give them to my players. i refer to this as "my stupid rule" where if a rule i tell my players makes me sound stupid, then i consider it a bad rule.

If i were asked by a player why the multi-ammo gun was cheaper than the single ammo gun, i would feel stupid saying "because i am going to punish the multi-ammo gun more in play for chosing the power that way."

I would much rather have my player look at the prices i give him for the two guns and have him think "more useful, more expensive... makes sense to me" and move on than start worrying if the way he bought one of his powers puts him on my "smack 'em one" list.

YMMV

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Gary
You wouldn't allow a 2 slot multipower because it's too simplistic? :confused:
A two slot Multipower with nothing but a tiny Limitation on switching between the slots? No other Powers or Limitations or anything? No, I probably would not allow this in most circumstances.


And your N>=3 analysis doesn't matter because of course a multipower with 3 or more powers should cost more than a single power.
I believe you are arguing that any Multipower should cost more than a single power. This shows that the Limitation we are talking about does not make a Multipower less expensive than a power if there are at least 3 Powers in the Framework, or...

That's a bogus comparison. A limitation on a single power obviously affects the entire power. A limitation on a single slot only affects that slot. All the rest of the slots wouldn't be affected at all by that limitation. Of course a limitation on an entire power would save more points than a limitation on part of a power.
...if there are more realistic powers in the Framework. Example:

10d6 EB, Not Underwater (-1/4) [50 active/40 real]

Multipower: 50 pt reserve, 1/2 Phase to Switch Powers (-1/4)
u 10d6 EB, Not Underwater (-1/4) [50 active/4 real]
u 3d6+1 RKA, Only on Humanoids (-1/4) [50 active/4 real]
Total cost: 48

The Multipower certainly costs more than the single power. Your original example is an extremely degenerate case. Base things on the majority of cases, and deal with the rare exceptions as they come up. Otherwise you will be pulling your hair out way before you ever touch any dice; there would be far too much to worry about. Anyone could come up with some example to tell you why your justification for a cost is wrong.

[Gary]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
A two slot Multipower with nothing but a tiny Limitation on switching between the slots? No other Powers or Limitations or anything? No, I probably would not allow this in most circumstances.

You wouldn't allow a gun with regular and armor piercing bullets in separate clips? Perhaps a mecha who's arm can change into a gun. A pretty limited campaign if something as basic as clips with different ammo is banned.


Originally posted by prestidigitator

I believe you are arguing that any Multipower should cost more than a single power. This shows that the Limitation we are talking about does not make a Multipower less expensive than a power if there are at least 3 Powers in the Framework, or...

...if there are more realistic powers in the Framework. Example:

10d6 EB, Not Underwater (-1/4) [50 active/40 real]

Multipower: 50 pt reserve, 1/2 Phase to Switch Powers (-1/4)
u 10d6 EB, Not Underwater (-1/4) [50 active/4 real]
u 3d6+1 RKA, Only on Humanoids (-1/4) [50 active/4 real]
Total cost: 48

The Multipower certainly costs more than the single power. Your original example is an extremely degenerate case. Base things on the majority of cases, and deal with the rare exceptions as they come up. Otherwise you will be pulling your hair out way before you ever touch any dice; there would be far too much to worry about. Anyone could come up with some example to tell you why your justification for a cost is wrong.

You're the one only focusing on a tiny subset where the limitation on the reserve is -1/4.

If you had 1 turn to change powers instead of full phase, perhaps a robot with a built-in weapon which has to switch barrels, then you would apply a -1/2 limitation to the reserve by your logic. Thus you get:

1) 50 pts for a straight EB with no limitations.

2) 33 pts for the reserve and 3 pts per slot for a multipower with 1 turn to change slots. This multipower could be set to EB as a default and still have 5 other slots available in emergencies, and still cost less than (1)

Perhaps a power has 5 minutes to change slots. Maybe a robot with some delicate self programming to change built-in weaponry. That would provide a -1 limitation to the reserve by your logic. Then you get:

3) 25 pts for the reserve and 2 pts per slot. The default for this weapon would be EB and you would have 11 additional slots available in emergencies, and still cost less than (1).

[Farkling]

The longer the time delay, the more relucatant yonder superhero is to change the powers around. It balances out in the long run.

Ont he gun/clips/safety issue...it states under extra time that the character can continue with actions while activateing the power...so MECHANICS wise, you shift to the active power as you draw the gun...which is a half phase action. It balances out.

In a heroic level campaign, Fast Draw can shorten this at risk of a jam...in a superheroic game I would prefer RSR to change slots.

YMMV

Now, by the nit picking over the Multpower cost...I think we should move onto variable power pools. Let's take a look at the 60 pt power pool...which gives me access to any power int the book...now we apply -2 in limitations to the control cost...(location, RSR, yadda yadda yadda)

My access to all the powers int he book costs me 60 + (30/3) = 70 points. Chepaer than the Multipower. Even at full price, 60+30 = 90...it is more cost effective than (60) Multipower and 6 U (60) slots, and more flexible. It's more cost effective that (60) Multipower and 3 m (60) slots also. So should we ban the VPP's also?

**shrugs** we are all correct or we all all wrong. I allow extra time only to shift reserves, ...it keeps the players aware of delays and they play more catiously. They also have to call upon straight EB guy with "distract him while I load a different clip' So straight EB guy is going to say "no way...your power was cheaper and cooler than mine" and let his friend get gunned down? I think not.

I have learned two things::
1) Tesuji's players are both more observant and nitpickier than mine
2) I am not going to stop allowing extra time only to shift the reserve.

The players ARE of the opinion that Megascale Change Environment (Weather Manipulation) is an unfair power for the price, and that Mind Scan and Mind Control for computers is waaay underpriced for the effect it can have in the game....they will not be nitpicking over Michael's power framework...

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji
of course, hugh keeps coming back to his vison of the power being discussed... applying the flaw to BOTH changing slots and initiating use of the slot... as in you expect the MP guy to have to waste time at the beginning of the combat as opposed to having the power set on a useful default.

The world does not begin atv the commencement of combat. There is nothing wrong with the player with the two clip gun saying "before I leave on patrol, I will put the Regular Clip in my gun." He has used a phase. Since it wasn't in combat, the time cost is negligible. That's why it's only -1/4.

If, however, he was at a fancy dress ball in secret ID, and has just scrambled into his costume to deal with a robbery, what are the odds the gun, holstered, had a clip in it? It's pretty bad for your secret if the gun goes off in its secreted holster while you're dancing (or when your locked briefcase gets jostled in the cloak room). So there is no clip in it (the reserve is not allocated) and it will take a phase to insert one (allocate the points).


Originally posted by tesuji
The trait being discussed by mean and others is not that one, though it is similar. it is the hard to change Mp where WHATEVER the lim is called the difficulty does not rear its head at the beginning of combats, as the power is set on one of the slots well out of combat, but ONLY when the slots are changed/reallocated.

This does not mean it must be allocated at the beginning of combat - the player has the option to "spend a phase" outside combat. Just as the player with -1/4 "one phase to activate EB" can spend that phase before he enters the warehouse, expecting combat. But if he is going to say "every morning when I wake up, I spend a phase to activate my EB and keep it active the rest of the day" then no - no limitation at all. The player with the multipower has the same issue. If you want to say "it's always in EB unless I spend a phase to change it to flash - always always always - then the Flash slot only should be limited. It requires 1 phase to activate or to deactivate, and the EB requires no time whatsoever (but must wait until Flash is deactivated so the points are freed up). This character would, I believe, pay 6 extra points for the privilege of having other options (cost of the EB slot), plus 5 for each extra option (cost of each limited slot).


Originally posted by tesuji
One guy has 60 ap 12d6 Eb. The other has 60 ap Mp with an Eb and a flash slot at full and some form of the hard to change lim. (alternately, you can use a shield slot Mp with force field and invisibility)

Both character walk into a bar. MP guy has his default set on EB. If an Eb is needed, npoth characters fire off well. If a flash is needed and an Eb inappropriate, MP guy has the CHOICE to take the time and switch to flash or not. EB guy has NO CHOICE.

And if MP Guy decided he should put his slot into Flash, and an EB is needed, EB Guy has it right there, fully available. MP Guy does not. THIS is where the limit comes in. Your assumption is that MP Guy will take one power he wants, and one he expects never to use, just to point whore. I have more faith in my players than that. They are taking two powers they want access to, and limiting that access. And there will be times when the power is not, at the start of combat, in the slot they would prefer.


Originally posted by tesuji
So, EB guy is only better off overall IF MP guy is continually making poor choices (at least guessing wrong more often than not.) of course, Mp guy is making his decisions earlier in the day while Eb guy for all intents and purposes made his decision back when he built the character.

Or if MP Guy wants to make changes. "I'd be way better off with EB here; I'll spend my phase to change." EB Guy fires his EB at the guy and knocks him out. MP Guy wants his flash back for another opponent. Another phase shot.


Originally posted by tesuji
Now, back to Hugh's specific issue... I know that some Gms will simply prefer to refuse to acknowledge or allow the "only on change" limitations and insists that "in order to make it worth the savings" they must inflict it at scenario start too. Thats fine if they want to basically limit the options in their games that way. To me its making the play fit the system... forcing the character to the systems limits. i prefer, especially when using a system that makes such claims about its flexibility, to not mangle the concept to fit the system.

In short, i would like to be able to have a pistol (or non-oaf style power) with clips of different ammos that will require an action to change ammo without also having a Gm such as hugh force me to leave the gun unloaded until the fight starts. I would love to be able to say "this clip is loaded" and have it stay that way... so that i only have to concern myself with changing it when i want a different ammo type or when i want to reload.

No - you unload the gun when it would make sense to do so, or when you decide to do so. If you CHOOSE not to do so, you will face the consequences when and if it is appropriate. Perhaps that means your focus going off at an inopportune moment. For a regular EB, it means walking around sparkling all day because your EB is on - and your EB is visible by three senses, remember?

That's the case whether you took "takes a phase to change" or not. However, if you didn't take "requires a phase to change", you can slap a clip in with no wasted time. Or you can turn on, fire and turn off your EB in a half phase.


Originally posted by tesuji
However, i also want the system to reliably and consistently value this limited power at somewhere between ONLY ONE AMMO TYPE PERIOD and INSTANT CHANGE BETWEEN AMMO TYPES.

Go ahead. But only an idiot is going to tie up future phases for changing those ammo clips if he's not getting any point break. And, frankly, a whopping 2 points on a 72 point multipower is close enough to "no savings" that I'll sell back some STUN, END or COM instead.

Congratulations - you have a power construct which fits your technical sense of how things should work. Well done. No one will ever take the power, because the value of the points saved far outweighs the costs to your character, but that's OK because it's consistent. You have built another 5e damage shield.


Originally posted by tesuji
I agree with hugh in that if you expand the limitation to also cover "start of scenario" so that the difficulty will be felt every time the power is initiated AND if you then want to compare that to an ***unlimited*** single power, then you can indeed see reasonable results which put the mulitpower limited as cheaper.

The difference is that you compare an unlimited single power to a limited multipower. I am also comparing a limited single power to both the unlimited power and the limited multipower. If EB Man takes "costs one phase to power up EB", he ALSO gets a -1/4 limitation, and pays 48 points for his EB. Just like Clip Man, he can choose to use that phase before entering the abandoned warehouse. Just like ClipMan, he can be caught unprepared and lose a phase to activate his powers. ClipMan has the added flexibility that he can select a Flash, and he paid the extra cost (10 points) to do so, just as he would pay more if both had unlimited powers.

EB Man can pay 12 points and get rid of the limitation. MP Man can pay the extra 14 points and get rid of the limitation. Balance is achieved.


Originally posted by tesuji
its when you decide to compare that Mp to the bare Eb without the lim in order to show you are applying the lim right that your argument fails.

No, it's where your logic fails. You are comparing a multipower with two limited powers to a single power with no limits. Fast EB Man paid 60 points for his EB and it's always available. Slow EB Man paid 48 points for his EB and it's available any time once he spends a phase, until he shuts it down. They are about to walk into a bar. Slow EB Man says "Oh, my shoe is undone" and, taking a phase, activates his EB. They walk into the bar and both have an EB ready to go. But Slow EB Man saved 12 points. You have stated that this limitation would save 12 points. You have stated that there should be no difference in points between two characters who both have their two EB's ready. Which is correct?


Originally posted by tesuji
However, IMo the costs need to make sense when i give them to my players. i refer to this as "my stupid rule" where if a rule i tell my players makes me sound stupid, then i consider it a bad rule.

And you don't think the above makes you sound stupid? Well, I'd say "sound like you have not fully considered the issue", because it is a tough concept to wrap the mind around, and I definitely see where you are coming from. If it was easy, we wouldn't have a 4 page thread on it.


Originally posted by tesuji
If i were asked by a player why the multi-ammo gun was cheaper than the single ammo gun, i would feel stupid saying "because i am going to punish the multi-ammo gun more in play for chosing the power that way."

What is your explanation to Quick EB Man for the fact that he paid 12 points more than Slow EB Man for what, in the bar, seems to be exactly the same power? Or is Slow EB Man not permitted to "start up" his power prior to combat? If not, why not?

[tesuji]

"Your assumption is that MP Guy will take one power he wants, and one he expects never to use, just to point whore. "

i have NEVER said that or made it a piece of my argument.

I have repeatedly stated and argued that the INTENT of the player should have NO BEARING on the way the system calculates the cost.

You keep asserting this is my position. You arw wrong and frankly, you are just making that up.

Thats fine.

Just not worth continuing to try and get you to discuss the issues at hand.

please continue to argue as long as you wish with what you wish to pretend that i meant or said in some fantasy world.

[tesuji]

"...now we apply -2 in limitations to the control cost...(location, RSR, yadda yadda yadda)
My access to all the powers int he book costs me 60 + (30/3) = 70 points. Chepaer than the Multipower."

OK, pay attention...

after you apply -2 to the powers in the VPP, including RSR which means you would need to make the skill roll EVERY time in order to use the power (a skill roll to change powers is INHERENT already in the VPP mechanics after all.)

So you are comparing at the very minimum a multipower with no skill roll required against a VPP with skill roll required to use the powers, not just change them.

I can see where this would be a possible case for the VPP being cheaper. The MP guy will neber have his powers fail in combat AND would be able to move between multiple powers freely, whereas the VPP guy would only be able to move between powers IN COMBAT if all those -2 limitations were met AND if he made two skill rolls (one to change and one to activate.)

************

In the One power vs hard to change multipower vs freely change multipower, those issues do not apply to the minimum assertion. The minimum assertions made by me, and those who agree is simple, the limited change multipower (NOT A LIMITED USE MULTIPOWER) should never be cheaper than the NO CHANGE base power.

Some seem to agree. Some seem to view the answer to be to in fact disallow the limited change multipower and only accept either limited USE multipowers or unlimited use multipowers.

For me, in my game, i can allow the limited change multipower and get the math to work out as it should... by applying the limitations to the slots.

"The longer the time delay, the more relucatant yonder superhero is to change the powers around. It balances out in the long run."

As far as i can tell , whatever the time delay, he would never be more reluctant to do so that the guy with only an Eb who cannot ever change it. hence my belief it should not be cheaper.

"The players ARE of the opinion that Megascale Change Environment (Weather Manipulation) is an unfair power for the price,"

Hmmm i would not think so.. the vast majority of my games take place in relatively urban areas and so megascale areas with derogatory effects would be something no hero would be anxious or ever inclined to cut loose on. The after-action reports of accidents and injuries that took place among the civilians when he conjured his gale or superdense fog "out of thin air" (when whatever penalties are applied to the normal civies out there driving at highway speeds or even maybe just walking down steps) would prove amazingly troublesome in the long run. (Then again, i wont go into my overall views on how screwed up the 5e megascale rules are.)

"I have learned two things::
1) Tesuji's players are both more observant and nitpickier than mine"

Actually, while i would expect my players to catch such a silly notion as is being discussed here, it is not them but me. I feel that, as a GM, it is my job to make the values i assign make sense and be reflective. i never view it as "thats what the system says it should cost" but rather "thats what i am saying it costs and will be worth." i would rather give out costs that i can explain and show make sense than not and just say "well sometimes I dont have to make sense. Sometimes i can just let the costs make sense and tell you to deal with it because i am the GM." I don't want to ban such an onvious real world type of power. i dont want the costs to produce erratic results some of which do not make sense. i do not want to nod and wink and tell the players "i will fix him for taking it in play... just you watch." I also do not want one set of rules for the players i like and another for the players i dont.

net result, its a lot easier on me to do the math, see how the results turn out, and chose the model that produces reliable, consistent and explainable results.

In this case, thats making the lims apply to the slots.

I can, however, see and accept the notion that a Gm and players see and have decided to swallow even more egregious errors in the system and have become basically accepting that sometimes the costs wont make sense... and that they will perhaps as you have find this problem to be within their tolerance zone. I really cannot understand it, since this is a problem of your own making... but hey, people have different thresholds and levels of tolerance for errors.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji
"Your assumption is that MP Guy will take one power he wants, and one he expects never to use, just to point whore. "

You keep asserting this is my position. You arw wrong and frankly, you are just making that up.

Um, no. The impression I have from your prior posts is that you believe "straigh EB Man" pays 60 points for his EB, and you can't see the Multi for 58 because MultiMan can just leave it in EB 100% of the time and be EB Man. The only way that happens is if MultiMan's player is point whoring.


Originally posted by tesuji
Just not worth continuing to try and get you to discuss the issues at hand.

You quote two lines from my extensive post and believe it;s the only point discussed. Let's lay it out plainly.

Four characters. Each has natural powers, for simplicity. They walk into a bar and wish to use their EB.

A EB 12d6 60 points. He walks into the bar and fires at will.

B EB 12d6, requires 1 phase to activate 48 point. He spends a phase on the way to the bar, arrives, and fires at will.

C Multi 12d6 EB 12d6 Flash 72 points. He arrives at the bar and fires at will.

D Multi 12d6 EB 12d6 Flash requires a phase to change - I say 58 point; you say 70. He spends a phase on the way to the bar (to load his "EB" clip), arrives, and fires at will.

Oh look - under your example, they all get the exact same results for widely different point costs. Why would Character A be mad that Character D saved 2 points (if we use my model), but not that Character B saved 12 (under both models)? You have said that "EB 12d6 -1/4 "takes a full phase to turn on but afterward holds itself ready to fire" would be worth 48 rp. The same power in a MP setup with a flash would cost more."

Let's change the example. The characters do not expect trouble at the bar, so they have not prepared their weapons. Now we get:

A EB 12d6 60 points. He walks into the bar and fires at will.

B EB 12d6, requires 1 phase to activate 48 point. He is surprised, and must blow a phase before he may use his EB.

C Multi 12d6 EB 12d6 Flash 72 points. He arrives at the bar and fires at will.

D Multi 12d6 EB 12d6 Flash requires a phase to change - I say 58 point; you say 70. He must spend a phase to load his EB clip before he can use his EB.

Here, A and C have the clear advantage. They also paid more points than B or D.

What if we need a flash? Well, C is clearly best off, followed by D. A and B are screwed.

The question, however, is whether the time limit or the lack of a Flash is the greater limitation. My way, the time factor is a slightly greater (2 point) limitation. Your way, the lack of a flash is a considerably greater limitation. However, in virtually all games I've played, while the flash may be nice, you're still able to do something with your EB. Conversely, if I have to wait a phase, I've missed a phase - in any game.

The above results are consistent with the existing limitation rules and get a pretty fair result. In your campiagn, there will be no character D - he loses a phase every time he wants to change his MP, and all he gets is 2 miserly points.

As for your "changes only in a lab" limitation, that sounds an awful lot like it takes at least an hour (-3 limitation). However, because once it's changed, it stays changed forever (even if the character shuts it off, starts it up again, etc), and because VPP's are a very different animal, the limit on a VPP control cost is different.

Would I let a player take an MP whose slots can be changed only after an hour? On the same restrictions noted above - there will likely be times when you have no specific power "loaded up", so you do without or burn an hour. If there is a defualt slot, take the limit "takes one hour to activate or deactivate" on each of the other slots. Your default slot is clearly not limited, since it falls in automatically.

But my guy with two ammo clips CAN have no clip at all in place, and thus require a full phase to start ANY power. The EB clip doesn't slide in when no one's looking because he took out the AP clip.

[tesuji]

I am a glutton for punishment it seems.

Hugh...

Another try... why i dont know but another try...

I have already given that your case of the multipower limited in USE (where he will have to deal with startup issues and not change issues) could very well result in powers that as multpowers SHOULD be cheaper than the unlimited base powers. I will give an easy case...

MP 60 ap
12d6 Eb
12d6 flash

Apply the USE limit of only on feb 29th for at least -2.

When you compare this to a 12d6 eb with no limit or a 12d6 flash with no limit and insist the limit apply to startup as well as change so that entering a combat on anything other than feb 29 basically means NO power, it should be cheaper.

Now, there are plenty of middle grounds and lesser lims, but as long as the presumption is that the limitation will be forced to apply to use/startup during action sequences, your point holds true.

*******************

of course, those were not the cases i have been arguing.

********************

Now i ask you to imagine some insane Gm who believes multipowers COULD POSSIBLY represent powers with limitations on just CHANGING THE SLOTS. That no matter how or when the combat starts one power can be available and that only if you decide to change slots will the problems come into play. I know, maybe you think no sane Gm would allow something like a gun with different ammo clips without insisting that the gun wont stay with a cip inside... but hey just role play as if you were a Gm who could imagine such a thing.

To avoid the hangups some people have on EBs and extra time, i am going to go to my other example.

Mystic Sheields Multipower
30 ap
15/15 force field
invisibility sight no fringe
life support 30 pts worth.

Any one of these powers as a base power costs 30 cp.
the multipower unlimited costs 39 pp.

I am going to apply -1/2 can only change at base (to represent him drawing the magiuc from this sacred temple at his base. to avoid all those forusy results preseum it is an indestructable temple, OK.)

So this guy can leave the bas eiwht any ONE of these three powers set but cannot change it at all until he returns.

Now -1/2 might be cheap since for VPPs it a -1/2 but a VPP has many restrcitions on changing already, so this takes the multipower all the way from instant change to the same level as the vpp which went from skill roll or out of combat only to this level.

But as a conservative approach i will apply it as -1/2 figuring that the only arguement that could be raised is that i am UNDERVALUING the lim.

Now if i take your approach and apply this -1/2 to the pool the MP costs 29 points. Thats one less than the single powers.

So, MP guy can leave his base with EITHER the ff or the invis or the LS depending on what he feels he will need for that day. Single power guy can leave his base with only the one option he bought and nothing else. However, MP guy paid 1 pp less for the ability.

It shoudl; be obvious that having three choices to choose from when you leave the base should be worth MORE than only having the one, and certainly not less.

So this to me shows the apply the lim to the reserve is flawed and will produce incorrect results or at best will produce unreliable results.

If you do it my way and apply the limitation to the slots and not the pool, the multipower will result in a cost of 36, which plants it squarely between the one power guy and the three powers chose at will guy. mathematically, i can see that applying it to the slots will in all cases keep the value of the limited CHANGE powers between the cost of the unlimted change and the no change (wityh only a feew rounding cases edging this to be an INCLUSIVE between but still a between.)

So, the apply to slots produces relaible and "correct" values... at least from the perspective of is it between the two OBVIOUS bound cases of one power and three unlimited change powers.

One method places it erratiucally at points maybe between the bounds and maybe not. The second method places it completely and reliably between the obvious bounds.

i cannot fathom why this could be viewed as a toos up.

But hey, there are more than a few people i cannot fathom.

So for me it boils down to two questions...

Can you acknowledge that the value of the three powers change at base i describe above should be reliably and consistenyl scored at between the value of one of those powers bought singly and the value of the three powers bought in an unlimited multipower... ir between 30 and 39 reliably?

If so, can you also admit that applying the limitation to the pool FAILS to do this while the limitation to the slots succeeds?

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
The only way that happens is if MultiMan's player is point whoring.

Your abilkity to divine the intent of a hypothetical player is frankly amazing. I am not making ANY assumptions on the intent of the player. The intent of the player should be IRRELEVENT to the way the system values powers.

it is that simple.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

You quote two lines from my extensive post and believe it;s the only point discussed. Let's lay it out plainly.

I believed nothing of the sort, its just an example of why i have begun to feel this discussion is pointless.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Four characters.

Snip... you have taken my point out of context. in an attempt to show you the ongoing flaw made by some of continuing to compare a multipower with STARTUP issues to a vase power without startup issues, I used the example of the EB with startup issues.

This was not me stating that the Eb with startup issues was a good example of an applied lim. it was an attmpt to get thru the misdirection that seemed to keep coming up of assuming the change only Mp would have trouble at startup more than an unlimited single power would.

If you want to debate whether -1/4 is an appropriate value of the lim when applied to s single power Eb, then you should probably start a new thread.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Let's change the example. The characters do not expect trouble at the bar, so they have not prepared their weapons. Now we get:

OK, here we go again, why would the CHANGE LIMITED guy need to spend a phase or be unprepared? Get this straight... it is really quite simple. The limitation being discussed is not a lim which would put the powers at a STARTUP problems and thus would never require them to be prepared any more than a single base unlimited power would be.

The ONLY effect being discussed is making CHANGING the pool a problem, changing the powers.

This is why i tried to use the silly EB example earlier... you KEEP adding in under the tent the notion that the limit on changing SHOULD AND MUST ALSO MEAN the power is prepared less often than the base power would be.

You keep gravitating back to that point. I AGREE... IF the power has a USE limit so that he will need to spend time to startup any of the powers then it is possible that startup limit can be so severe as to make the power worth less.

However, if there is no startup limit and just a change limit i cannot see why this would be the case.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Would I let a player take an MP whose slots can be changed only after an hour? On the same restrictions noted above - there will likely be times when you have no specific power "loaded up", so you do without or burn an hour. If there is a defualt slot, take the limit "takes one hour to activate or deactivate" on each of the other slots. Your default slot is clearly not limited, since it falls in automatically.

So it appears you would not be inclined to allow a guy to have change only limitations where any slot can be the default but where you do not see the 'startup problems."

OK, you wont allow the constructs we have been diuscussing. i wish you had said that at the beginning.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

But my guy with two ammo clips CAN have no clip at all in place, and thus require a full phase to start ANY power. The EB clip doesn't slide in when no one's looking because he took out the AP clip.

No but apparently it may slide out unexpectedly in your games? because otherwise, you have NO REASON to expect that power, which took no limit to say it would ever be unprepared, is any worse off than the same power bought individually.

Do you have an answer to the two questions regarding the change at base? Notice i did NOT include any limitation that would force the character to ever have a power unprepared. Also there is no power base ddefault... so he can choose any of the three when he leaves tha base. The only time he would ever be bare of one of those powers would be if for some reason he chooses to voluntarily forfeit the powers, but there is no reason he should expect that to be the case any more than mr 12d6 Eb should.

What do you say to my two questions? i tend to expect the answer to be some form of "i would not alolow that" though more windy and less direct...

either way, i am interested.

[tesuji]

As an aside, a minor rules gripe...

i do not agree with the assessments neing tossed around that the HARD TO CHANGE variety of disads being discussed here are APPROPRIATELY derived from time delay. Time delay is per use or for some powers per startup.

However, even with startup only, if the power is turned off (a wholly different sanimal than reallocating slots) the time delay kicks in again.

A force field with -1.5 for an hour to startup would require the force field delay every time the character shut down the force field.

A MP with a lim of 1 hour to change slots would, once set on force field, allow the FF to be turned on or off at will and only kick in the new delay once the time came to change to a different power.

Just pointing out that whether you use the Hugh approach of limiting the pool or my approach of limiting the slots, do not just drag in the extra time limit.

personally, i think -1/2 for change slots only at base is pretty much close if not dead on. i would not give it more than -1 at most and then only if the campaign would stray far afield enough to make getting to the base unreliable. (if the guy had enough teleport to get back to base poof and poof reliably,,, maybe -1/4.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji
Now i ask you to imagine some insane Gm who believes multipowers COULD POSSIBLY represent powers with limitations on just CHANGING THE SLOTS. That no matter how or when the combat starts one power can be available and that only if you decide to change slots will the problems come into play. I know, maybe you think no sane Gm would allow something like a gun with different ammo clips without insisting that the gun wont stay with a cip inside... but hey just role play as if you were a Gm who could imagine such a thing.

That's the thing. "Allocating the points" and "changing the slots" is the same thing. A character who bought an EB that requires a phase to charge up can charge it up whenever he wants to. He can charge it up at 6 AM, and keep it charged and ready to go ALL DAY LONG. And voila - he can use the power. Yet he still gets the -1/4 limit. BY THE BOOKS. Is his power vastly limited? No - that's why he only gets -1/4. Is it limited? YES - there will be times he hasn't charged the power. Maybe it shuts down when he's knocked out. Maybe he doesn't normally keep live ammo in it at all times.

If he wants to say "I spent the first phase after birth and never have to do it again", I will not allow the limitation. But my players would not be STUPID enough to ask for it. It would sure make mutants cheap, though. "Requires 12
years to charge" for -3 1/4. It didn't kick in until he reached puberty, right? :eek:


Originally posted by tesuji
Mystic Sheields Multipower
30 ap
15/15 force field
invisibility sight no fringe
life support 30 pts worth.

Any one of these powers as a base power costs 30 cp.
the multipower unlimited costs 39 pp.

I am going to apply -1/2 can only change at base (to represent him drawing the magiuc from this sacred temple at his base. to avoid all those forusy results preseum it is an indestructable temple, OK.)

Now -1/2 might be cheap since for VPPs it a -1/2 but a VPP has many restrcitions on changing already, so this takes the multipower all the way from instant change to the same level as the vpp which went from skill roll or out of combat only to this level.

But as a conservative approach i will apply it as -1/2 figuring that the only arguement that could be raised is that i am UNDERVALUING the lim.

Yup...as you are in respect of extra time to change. But carry on.


Originally posted by tesuji
Now if i take your approach and apply this -1/2 to the pool the MP costs 29 points. Thats one less than the single powers.

So, MP guy can leave his base with EITHER the ff or the invis or the LS depending on what he feels he will need for that day. Single power guy can leave his base with only the one option he bought and nothing else. However, MP guy paid 1 pp less for the ability.

From the FAQ:

Q: If a character has allocated the reserve of his Multipower, and is then Knocked Out, does the reserve stay allocated to that slot when he awakens?

A: With most slots, the Multipower reserve won’t be allocated at all when the character awakens. If the character has allocated the reserve to a slot that works while he’s unconscious (such as Regeneration), the reserve remains allocated to that slot while he’s unconscious, and is still allocated to that slot when he awakens.

So, if your Force Field is drained, dispelled, or otherwise forced to shut off, including being knocked out, the points are no longer allocated. Goodbye power (until you get back to your temple). We're out of the country battling the forces of VIPER when ForceField Man and MultiMan are both KO'd by an insidious NND vs Armor. ForceField Man's extra 1 point investment looks pretty good right now - he still has a power! You need to get back to the stated and change your reserve from "nothing" to "something".

Now, I would let ClipMan still have a clip in his gun (how did it get out?) based on special effects. He has other drawbacks. MysticMan? You need to get back to your temple...


Originally posted by tesuji
It shoudl; be obvious that having three choices to choose from when you leave the base should be worth MORE than only having the one, and certainly not less.

And it would be if this were a VPP, since the slots would not close down on KO. But that's why VPP reserves are never limited, isn't it?


Originally posted by tesuji
So this to me shows the apply the lim to the reserve is flawed and will produce incorrect results or at best will produce unreliable results.

No, it indicates I remember the FAQ question and you don't. Absent that ruling (in your game, as it always has been in mine) I would agre with you that MysticMan holds an advantage (though not much of one if the temple is far far away).

This makes the rest of your points moot. MysticMan has taken a far greater limitation than you considered. Now, if he had a 30 point VPP, only changes at base, limited to these three powers, I'd say he pays no more than 35 points (30 base + a control cost with a -1/2 "return to base" limit and a -1 1/2 - at least - "very restricted powers" limit. Pretty much right between MultiPower Man and Single Power Man.:cool:

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji
i do not agree with the assessments neing tossed around that the HARD TO CHANGE variety of disads being discussed here are APPROPRIATELY derived from time delay. Time delay is per use or for some powers per startup.

However, even with startup only, if the power is turned off (a wholly different sanimal than reallocating slots) the time delay kicks in again.

A force field with -1.5 for an hour to startup would require the force field delay every time the character shut down the force field.

A MP with a lim of 1 hour to change slots would, once set on force field, allow the FF to be turned on or off at will and only kick in the new delay once the time came to change to a different power.

One example of the "extra time only to activate" limitation is the creation of a magic item which requires months to create and thereafter never requires Extra Time again. Such an item could legitimately grant a force field which could be turned on and off at will once the extra time has been spent.

[Farkling]

I want to point this out loudly, because I missed it when I posted before...

""...now we apply -2 in limitations to the control cost...(location, RSR, yadda yadda yadda)
My access to all the powers int he book costs me 60 + (30/3) = 70 points. Cheaper than the Multipower.

OK, pay attention... "

YOU pay attention after you get that one into your head.
RSR is my shorthand for the Pool skill needed...let me get the damned book out and make sure I quote it COMLETELY and ACCURATELY.

"So you are comparing at the very minimum a multipower with no skill roll required against a VPP with skill roll required to use the powers, not just change them. "

And you were comparing a limited framework to a straight EB...and in some cases...still are.

"I can see where this would be a possible case for the VPP being cheaper. The MP guy will neber have his powers fail in combat AND would be able to move between multiple powers freely, whereas the VPP guy would only be able to move between powers IN COMBAT if all those -2 limitations were met AND if he made two skill rolls (one to change and one to activate.)"

I also note that you didn't even CONSIDER the comment on the full price version, as you were busy picking apart my theoretical construct...so I will go off and construct an ACTUAL, CONCRETE example for you, just as soon as I finish the essays I have due on Monday...oh, and I have a game Sunday...so maybe someone else will find the time. I was done discussing this. I think I still am. I still refuse to tell you that you are correct and I will change my heretical ways.

And as a final not::
You said. "If you do it my way and apply the limitation to the slots and not the pool, the multipower will result in a cost of 36, which plants it squarely between the one power guy and the three powers chose at will guy. mathematically, i can see that applying it to the slots will in all cases keep the value of the limited CHANGE powers between the cost of the unlimted change and the no change (wityh only a feew rounding cases edging this to be an INCLUSIVE between but still a between.)"

So what about that little rule in the book that says any limitation applied to all the slots is also applied to the reserve cost? Your house rules disallow this? If we are arguing over house rules...you play at your house...and I'll play at mine.

[tesuji]

Hugh...

I hate to break it to you, but i entered this discussion saying that i disagreed with Long's ruling on this situation. If i were to be accepting long's rules without question, there would be no discussion since he has stated you can limit the reserve for difficulty in changing slots.

As i expected, it seems your answer is that you will not allow difficult to change slots as a lim unless it also piggynacks in startup problems that will occur in play.

Thats fine, if thats how limited you want your games to be.

I, and i think some others, would be OK with having multipowers that are hard to change (anything more restrictive than a free action anytime) that are not also saddled with startup or use problems... no matter what Steve long says.

MOREOVER, i will agree that if you add all those long rulings together so that the hard to change thing will hit everytime you are stunned and such, then hey, the limited multipower will be in play a weaker power than the plain old bare power... since it is effectively getting the full use flaw.

of course, even using longs rulings (and yours) it still remains inconsistent. If my example MP was of powers NOT affected by unconsciuos or stun, then i would not be running into these USE issues after Ko and the like. In your own case, if its a gun instead of amjystic spell, you wont enforce the sudden clip withdrawl.

i prefer consistency. As i stated at the beginning... there is what the rules say, what steve long says, and what makes sense and those thre are not al;ways the same thing.

YMMV.

Glad we cleared this up. I now uderstand your position. i disagree with it but i figure you have good reasons for so limiting the options in your games.

Me, i didn't feel that need.

Enjoy your games.

[Farkling]

On a side note,

The FAQ specifically mentions Knocked Out...it does not mention Stunnned...perhaps one of us should ask sTeve's opinion?

I also think that the statements following the points are quite useful...but, as I am noted to say on game nights...what's a few points between friends?

I just have a loose view on it I guess, and am willing to admit I can't see a problem with it as it stands unless my players want it changed. Considering that everyone but the new guy has some kind of framework, I doubt they want it changed. And the new guy simply built a combat monster, who actually seems more efficient that the otehr players...go figure. :)

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Farkling

And as a final not::
You said. "If you do it my way and apply the limitation to the slots and not the pool, the multipower will result in a cost of 36, which plants it squarely between the one power guy and the three powers chose at will guy. mathematically, i can see that applying it to the slots will in all cases keep the value of the limited CHANGE powers between the cost of the unlimted change and the no change (wityh only a feew rounding cases edging this to be an INCLUSIVE between but still a between.)"

So what about that little rule in the book that says any limitation applied to all the slots is also applied to the reserve cost? Your house rules disallow this? If we are arguing over house rules...you play at your house...and I'll play at mine.

Ok since you seem to have missed it...

Way back in the beginning of this thread there was a quote from the FAQ that said you would apply the lim for changing slots to the pool.

When i weighed in i said that i disagreed with that approach and why.

There has been NO QUESTION since that quote as to what the rules ARE. The discussion has been about what they should be.

Did you miss all that? Did you not get it at all that we have been discussing the rules and alternative rules and which is better and why for about three and a half pages now.

If you answer is to see house rules and run for the hills you should have done that long ago.

The OFFIIAL rules produce nonsensical and inconsistent results. The house rule i am pointing out instead produces reliable and sensible results (based on the rather obvious cases.)

The argument is quite simple... i apologize for using mathematical jargon...

A multipower that constains several powers but which is limited in the ability to change between the slots (as opposed to being limited in its ability to allocate the slots or use the powers) should be costed at a point BETWEEN any one of those powers bought soley and the value of the multipower without the limitation on changing slots.

If you disagree with that axion or premise, we can stop now.

if you agree with that premise then you have to admit, as i can show several examples, that sometimes the long ruling and official rules will cause the limited change multipower to be outside the bounds. thus it violates that premise. On the other hand, my method of applying it to the slots and not the pool does result in always fitting in that premise, reliably and consistently.

As such, if you believe in the premise, then my way works better.

******************

As for lims on charges carrying to the reserve, you have it wrong... the rule is not absolute. The exception mentioned in the book is CHARGES. There, of course, can be other exceptions. This would be one such case.

Why would it be an exception? because it produces unreasonable results.

Even in HERo, after doing the math, there is still supposed to be a step which many hero guys ignore. that step is "does this result make sense." its kind of like looking at the weather report and being told that by their very complex models it should be a clear sky and warm and opening the door and seeing rain. Do you grab your umbrealla or do you just walk on out thinking "hey, they ran the models and its not raining?"

Even if i follow all the rules to the letter, and run my math several times, using every FAQ ruling, if the result i see on paper as to the cost is obviously wrong, then something needs to be corrected.

Now, if you go by all the rules precisely, the multipower only to change gun with different ammo clips would not be possible. You would have to accept that when you were Koed the gun unloaded itself and needed a new clip. Alternatively, you could decide the "common sense' rules or guidelines mentioned all thru the book and Gm latitude meant you would not accept that and might allow the gun to keep its clip in.

At that point you have CHANGED the value and the cost needs adjusting.

A gun which empties it own clip when i get KOed might well be worse (even if it has several ammo types) than a gun with only one ammo type but that did not jetison its clip when i got whacked too hard.

See, its easy for me to describe in very normal terms the effect we are discussing, but everytime you guys wiehg in suddenly new effects weigh in.

lets try this as an example.

My character has a gun. it ius, as is allowed in the rules NOT A FOCUS... because i never seem to lose it and it never seems to get broken. it being a gun is just a plot effect. i carry said gun with one magazine of ammo with 16 rounds in it. i have multiple types of ammo, all stored back at the base, but i only carry around one clip not wieghed down with many many rounds. (for sake of argument i will assume the value of only change ammo type at base to be -1/2. Some may argue it should be higher but i will be conservative.)

So the power is
60 ap multipower
6 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c
6 8d6 AP 16c

As written this guy has 32 rounds evenly divided between the two and can switch back and forth for free. this cost him 72 points instead of 60.

Now, another guy has the same gun but only the EB ammo not the Ap stuff. He pays 60 points for this.with the same 16c.

If you use the official method, the two ammo guy pays either 52 or 48 (i forget whether it said slots too) which is cheaper than the guy who only has one ammo type.

If you use my method, the two ammo guy pays 68 which is sitting right between the one ammo guy and the guy carrying both ammos.

The 52 point case is totally nonsensical to me. The 64 case makes more sense.

****************

After all this typing i will let you all in on a secret... what i think the basic disconnect between the two sides is...

look at the above example...

one ammo type period at 16 shots for 60.
two ammo types, 16 shots each and choose between them on the fly for 72 points.

That leaves only 12 points of leeway for every other type of "change" between NO CHANGE AT ALL and CHANGE FREELY AS ZERO PHASE.

So while i see the two cases of NO CHANGE and FREELY CHANGE as bounds which the limited change options should always fall in between, the other guys are looking and saying "well that cannot be right because there is no way any reasonable player will take "change at base" for only 4 points. Its gonna have to get down to 50 points or so before that serious a difference is worth it"

hey, on the surface, that seems logical... i mean you are talking about no choice of ammo after leaving the base AND 16 shots vs 32 shots. Thats clearly worth more to drop from the unlimited multipower to the limited one than 4 points or even 12 points.

I would agree except for one simple thing...

the system values the entire distance from ONE POWER with ONLY 16 shots TO two ammo types choose freely and 16 shots of each... the system has already told me and you what this drastic a change is... its 12 points.

If your player wont buy that the difference between the unlimited Mp and the limited Mp is less than 20 points, why in thw world would they ever buy that the difference beyween ONE POWER and the unlimited multipower is only 12 points?

So, when faced with this dilemma, my answer is to make the lims apply to the slots so as to keep the price break between the ONE POWER and the frely multipower.

The other guys, they seem to want to take a different approach.

They are Ok with the limited power being cheaper than the one power, after all thats where the rules place it. But instead they intend to "fix" it in play. Whether it was defined as different or not, the limited multipower guy is 'going to get his" and be plagued with a variety of additional probalems as payback... to make sure he gets whats coming to him for chosing the intermediate stage and getting it for cheaper.

To me this is a "follow thr rules and if that means screwing the concept so be it" notion that makes little sense.

I think they arr right when they assess THEIR PLAYERS and decide that there would not be any takers on the limited MP if it did not save more than 4 points or even more than 12 points. I also agree that if they do decide to allow the limited Mp as described above to weigh in cheaper than the solo gun they SHOULD as GMs get the guy... make sure he sees in play additional hardships above what the nbormal EB guy does so as to make the 52 gun NOT BE BETTER than the 60 gun in play. After all, they told EVERYONE that 52 gun was worth less... its now their job to make sure they were not just bald faced lieing thru their teeth.

So the rsult will be the 52 gun guy gets more out of his gun in many cases but gets a lot of other problems to help balance
it out.

Some people will like that decision... me i prefer to have the costs model the effect required and not need to piggyback on a heap oif additional nonsense.

HERo tends to short circuit in the in betweens... if you purchase a base thing or a common group, it works fine. However when you go in between... you get problems.

other examples include a character with a weak extra limb costing more than a character with a stronger extra limb in some cases when done by the rules... a base with everything a smaller base has but more room and area added on costing LESS than the smaller base in some cases... and also, now we see, a multipower with restrictions on changing between its powers being cheaper than only having one of those powers in some cases.

They are all actually the same mathematical PROBLEM... in all three cases you create the breakdown by buying something cheap (extra limb, base size, or multipower slots) and because you buy that cheap thing you get to apply a LIMITATION to reduce the cost of a much larger thing (the character's strength score, the base's armor and such, or the mp pool reserve.)

This is a buoilt in mathematical FLAW accepted by the system.

To fix the fundamental problem, you simply need to add the following as a fenberal addition to the mathematical model...

when adding a small cheap element enables a limitation to be taken, you do not apply the limitation to anything bigger than the small cheap element.

Spending 5 pts to save 20, or in the mp case above spending 12 pts to save 20 is a failed model.

All three cases, same issue, same error, same degree of rules supporting them and the obvious results defying common sense.

soapbox over... but any one of you who wants to agree to me giving you 12 bucks and you giving me 20 back as a reasonable deal... drop me an email.

[Hugh Neilson]

Ever notice how much one seemingly minor departure from the "official" rules requires you to change as you go along?

Farkling and I accept that you have to allocate your MP points after being KO'd, so we place a value on the extra time to change slots limitation.

We aren't unhappy it applies to the pool cost (which it does if it's a limitation on all the slots) because this rule, combined with the de-allocation of points on KO, makes sense.

I wonder what other little inconsistencies arise over time from the decision not to apply that one little rule/ruling.

[Farkling]

Okay...I am now officially intrigued by your theory...but I have a question...does it hold true beyond the section of the spectrum to which you are applying it?

ALL mathematical models break down in extreme cases...it is the nature of mathematical models. (even E=mc square...the flaw with that being IF you can exceed light speed, you get energy for free...hello Star Trek)

Your example follows the FAQ ruling for charges::
*"Q: If a character has a Multipower with Charges for the entire Multipower, can he “pre-allocate” those Charges, defining how many can be used for each slot?

A: As a default rule, no; if a character wants Charges for each slot, he should buy them individually for each slot. However, the GM could allow reserve Charge pre-allocation if he wanted to."*

Alright...no hard feelings here...let's look at apples only...sit up Hugh, it's time to shred one of my arguments again. :)

Tsuji;
You consistently quote what I would designate as a maximum deformity example. I am fully willing to admit the model probablt breaks down at the extreme limit you have chosen.
So let's restate your construct here at the beginning::
60 AP Multipower
6 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c
6 slot-2 8d6 AP 16c
72 points to pay and play...

Does the model hold on other setups in the same range? What if Two Power guy has Multi Slots instead of Ultra Slots?

60 (60 AP) Multipower
12 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c
12 slot-1 8d6 AP 16c
This power costs 84 points...and the player would very rarely fire ANY form a Multiple Power attack, as it would cost him two charges.

Now, same construct::
60 (60 AP) Multipower (16 charges)
12 slot-1 12d6 EB
12 slot-1 8d6 AP
is nonsensical...at first glance. But this is NOT the same construct...it's still 84 points...but I lost 16 shots for versatility in multiple power usages...which would cost two shots on the prior one...so it is an even trade.

Again::
75 (60 AP) Multipower (32 charges)
12 slot-1 12d6 EB
12 slot-1 8d6 AP
This is (of course) even more expensive...99 points. But I now have my versatility AND 32 shots.

Back to you:
60 AP Multipower
6 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c
6 slot-2 8d6 AP 16c
Hmmm....72 points. Yours is cheaper, and lacks flexibility for the discount, a fair trade. This is the 32 shot version though. If you need more than 16 EB's today...you're shit out of luck. I paid 27 points extra to be sure I don't have that problem as soon as you.

Now, again to yours::
75 (60 AP) Multipower (32 charges)
7 slot-1 12d6 EB
7 slot-2 8d6 AP
this is 89 points...cheaper, but not much. But this allows for up to 32 uses of either power...and I think it fits quite nicely into the spread (72, 84, 84, 89, 99).

The model seems internally consistent under analysis.

Arguments comparing charges to extra time are spurious you know...it took me a bit to remember that...I'm too used to thinking in multiple soft cost scenarios.
You dislike the extra time limitation on multipower reserves, And I think it's a crock that your charges don't cost END for free, since in a multipower that means cheap powers and lots of free use of the powers. :)
We can dismantle THAT on another thread.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling
Alright...no hard feelings here...let's look at apples only...sit up Hugh, it's time to shred one of my arguments again. :)

It's an interesting case study.


Originally posted by Farkling
So let's restate your construct here at the beginning::
60 AP Multipower
6 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c
6 slot-2 8d6 AP 16c
72 points to pay and play...

OK


Originally posted by Farkling

60 (60 AP) Multipower
12 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c
12 slot-1 8d6 AP 16c
This power costs 84 points...and the player would very rarely fire ANY form a Multiple Power attack, as it would cost him two charges.

I doubt anyone would build this. As you say, the only real advantage is MPA's, and what's the point if it costs two charges. Either you want AP or you don't. Plus, you're splitting your attack against the same defenses twice (halved once, I grant).

Make Slot 2 a flash and we may see some MPA usage.

Assuming MPA is useful, I'd say the extra 12 points is reasonable. The exact construct isn't a system flaw so much as a character design flaw - it's accurate, but the player spends 12 points for no real benefit.


Originally posted by Farkling

Now, same construct::
60 (60 AP) Multipower (16 charges)
12 slot-1 12d6 EB
12 slot-1 8d6 AP
is nonsensical...at first glance. But this is NOT the same construct...it's still 84 points...but I lost 16 shots for versatility in multiple power usages...which would cost two shots on the prior one...so it is an even trade.

I disagree here. You could use up to 16 MPA's with the first construct if you wanted to. And you have the added versatility to decide to use 16 EB's and 16 AP EB's in a day with no MPA's. This structure wastes charges.


Originally posted by Farkling

75 (60 AP) Multipower (32 charges)
12 slot-1 12d6 EB
12 slot-1 8d6 AP
This is (of course) even more expensive...99 points. But I now have my versatility AND 32 shots.

27 points seems a lot to add that versatility. Especially when you could pay 6 more and have 32 shots of each power (or 10 less and have ultras with 32 charges each, but we've already established standard slots are useless in this construct).


Originally posted by Farkling
60 AP Multipower
6 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c
6 slot-2 8d6 AP 16c
Hmmm....72 points. Yours is cheaper, and lacks flexibility for the discount, a fair trade. This is the 32 shot version though. If you need more than 16 EB's today...you're shit out of luck. I paid 27 points extra to be sure I don't have that problem as soon as you.

As I said earlier, I think 27 is a lot to pay.


Originally posted by Farkling
75 (60 AP) Multipower (32 charges)
7 slot-1 12d6 EB
7 slot-2 8d6 AP
this is 89 points...cheaper, but not much. But this allows for up to 32 uses of either power...and I think it fits quite nicely into the spread (72, 84, 84, 89, 99).

Shouldn't that be 32 charges on each slot? For 89 points, I get 32 shots of AP and 32 shots of EB.

OK, I've lost what you were trying to illustrate here, Farkling. What I see is this:

- For 89 points (multi and slots both pay +1/4), I can shoot my EB 32 times, and my AP 32 times.

- For 87 points (multi pays +1/4, 2 ultras do not) I can fire EB or AP, 32 shots per day total.

- For 72 points (no advantages; 16 charges each) I can fire each 16 times.

- For the same 72 points, I can fire EB or AP 16 times.

What that means to me is that you ALWAYS put the Charges limitation or advantage on the individual slots and let the limitation filter up to the pool cost. Otherwise, you;re shorting yourself seriousl on shots. For 2 points, I doubled my total uses per day (87 to 82).

Worse, consider 8 charges:

40 (60 AP) Multipower (8 charges)
6 slot-1 12d6 EB
6 slot-2 8d6 AP

52 points, and I can fire 8 shots total, each one EB or AP at my discretion.

40 (60 AP) Multipower (8 charges per slot)
4 slot-1 12d6 EB (8 charges)
4 slot-2 8d6 AP (8 charges)

48 points, and I can fire 8 shots total, each one EB or AP at my discretion. The system paid me 4 points for doubling available usages.

For a truly awful example, assume 20 different slots are either 1 charge each or 1 charge in aggregate.

BOTTOM LINE: I'm not sure which one is the right answer, but the system should either:

(a) Give the pool a limitation based on the least charges in the slots (ie no overall "multipower uses per day" limit).

or

(b) Add all the slot charges together and that's the number of charges for purposes of the Multipower limitation.

I'm inclined to say (a) on the basis it is consistent with the handling of other limitations on multipowers, and you could either buy 64 charges per slot or make every slot 0 END. But I'll be looking closer at anyone with a charged multipower from now on.

After all, I can buy a Flash and an EB for 120 points, or put them in a multi for 72 points.

I can buy a Flash (8 ch) and an EB (8 ch) for 80 points, so putting these in a multi for 48 points is consistent.

I think a dispute on these values implies a challenge to the multipower framework rather than the charges limitation.

[Farkling]

Option B is how it is supposed to be constructed in the fact.

Trade out the EB for the Flash you mentioned....

Now those straight reserve shifters can MPA, say 4d6 AP and 6d6 Flash as a single shot...

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Farkling

Okay...I am now officially intrigued by your theory...but I have a question...does it hold true beyond the section of the spectrum to which you are applying it?

Well as i went thru several differing aspects, i actually do not know which theory you are referring to. The parent theory is that BUY CHEAP TO SAVE BIG is an organic flaw in the HERo model that produces in more than just this case (hard to change multipowers) nonsensical and inconsistent results. The child theory is that the better way to represent hard to change multipowers is to apply the reduction in price to the slots and not the pool. The overarching theory is that even if you build it right, you should look at the results to see if they make sense.. as in the RESULTS PROVE THE MODEl not vice versa.

Originally posted by Farkling

ALL mathematical models break down in extreme cases...it is the nature of mathematical models. (even E=mc square...the flaw with that being IF you can exceed light speed, you get energy for free...hello Star Trek)

That catch is, i really do not consider something as basic as a multipower that doesn't change as freely as a zero phase action anytime you want it as an extreme case. i do not consider a gun with several different clips which all work like clips (so relaoding to the same ammo works the same as switching clips to a different type.) is extreme. i consider these to be rather normal, obvious and that they should be simple. None of the cases where BUY SMALL TO SAVE BIG are that wacky... whats whacky is that since they don't fit into the predefined breakpoints (one power OR many powers freely switched between, no tail or rail as strong as your arm, etc.) they system seems to choke.

The net result is, as has already been stated, people will either just buy what HERo makes easiest (the breakpoints) or they will concoct a bunch of off the paper ways to force things to work out.

personally, i consider the basic multipower "can freely and instantly choose between the powers" to be the extreme case, the easiest most unlimited version in the comparison of one power vs multiple powers to choose from.

Originally posted by Farkling

Your example follows the FAQ ruling for charges::

Gotta say, i try and avoid the charges thing as an analytical element because in my experience most people have one issue or another with how charges work and HERO5 seems to have just added more fuel to the fire when it comes to "do charges cost out right" for many reasons.

if you want to debate charges, go ahead, but i will decline.

In general, what i was trying to show is the MATH PROCESS being used was flawed. One of the distractions that keeps creeping in is to debate and define and redefine the question of "is this lim costed corrctly for what it does." So i will leave the charges debates tyo you guys.

Originally posted by Farkling

Tsuji;
You consistently quote what I would designate as a maximum deformity example. I am fully willing to admit the model probablt breaks down at the extreme limit you have chosen.
So let's restate your construct here at the beginning::
60 AP Multipower
6 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c
6 slot-2 8d6 AP 16c
72 points to pay and play...

I really do not consider that to be a maximum case at all. It is a rather clean one, with no other toss in lims and such to throw the math into a kilter where you try and see which modifier is causing the trouble. IMX using one elemental change at a time is better to study results than to apply three or four and see what happens.

Also, i find 60 ap multipower, with ultra slots and attacks powers, to be quite common in play. Qhilw i myself often run multpower driven characters (where the bulk of the powers are in a large multipower, i find myself the odd man out in many cases and the attacks multipower with defense/movement EC to be the more common character structure.

So, maybe you see this as an extreme case, i see it as a relevent and simple case for purposes of comparison and analysis.

Originally posted by Farkling

Does the model hold on other setups in the same range? What if Two Power guy has Multi Slots instead of Ultra Slots?

60 (60 AP) Multipower
12 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c
12 slot-1 8d6 AP 16c
This power costs 84 points...and the player would very rarely fire ANY form a Multiple Power attack, as it would cost him two charges.

It has been ages since i saw such a construct. multi slots are rarely used. however, REGARDLESS of whether the slots are multi or ultra, my method would keep the cost of the limited change MP to between the values of the one power and the freely changeable multipower (with multi slots.) The by the book model would simply move the breakpoint of where you see the inconsistency to maybe a -1 limitation instead of a -1/2.

Originally posted by Farkling

Arguments comparing charges to extra time are spurious you know...it took me a bit to remember that...I'm too used to thinking in multiple soft cost scenarios.

Thats why i try to avoid unnecessary differences and trat one change at a time. the relative value of limitations will by needs vary from campaign to campaign. thats why i really try and avoid getting to hung up on complexities.

Originally posted by Farkling

You dislike the extra time limitation on multipower reserves,

Actually, to be specific, i do not like applying any hard to change limit to the reserve... but this is an outgrowth of an even more elemental error... i do not like being allowed to buy some cheap element (multipower slots, extra limbs, extra base size) and then from that cheap purchase be allowed to apply a limitation or cost reduction to some other element with a LARGER cost (multipower reserve, strength and dex, base traits such as armor, body and powers.) The reason i dislike that is it can and will in some cases, even very reasonable cases or even common ones, result in nonsensical results. The correct answer seems to be in EACH case to apply whatever limitation or cost reduction to the small element being bought. This will consistently keep the net result between the tow obvious bounds/extremes.

Originally posted by Farkling

And I think it's a crock that your charges don't cost END for free, since in a multipower that means cheap powers and lots of free use of the powers. :)

Thats definitely another subject for debate but i long ago discarded the notion of "but its broken worse here so i can live with this other thing." Even if charges were egregiously broken and wrecking the system that would not lead me to think i should let Buy SMALL to save BIg go.

indeed the driving elements behind how i prioritize my choices of what to fix is based mostly on significance of problem (includes impact and believability) AND difficulty of repair. Fixing buy small to save big is easy and can be applied consistently.

i imagine fixing charges would make for a much longer thread.

Originally posted by Farkling

We can dismantle THAT on another thread.


i have seen the charges debated online since 3rd... it got IMO worse not better with 5e and the some times more touchy feely "dramatic sense" as well as the wonderful addition of fuel charges.

It wont end soon. heck, i sometimes wax nosyalhic for the 3rd ed star hero charges where you bought charges in terms of clip size and difficulty to "change" clips.

enjoy your games

[Farkling]

the MPA options are NOT so apparent with that construct...I was using Tesuji's Framework...my mistake.

The MPA options aside...
I think it is all fairly well priced internally.

And Steve has stated repeatedly that Charges on the reserve apply to the maount of times the ENTIRE Multipower can be used...

[Farkling]

"i find myself the odd man out in many cases and the attacks multipower with defense/movement EC to be the more common character structure."

I hate those constructed characters. They seem abusive.
As I stated in the threads about EC's and how horrible THEY are.

The extreme case I was referring to was the Multipower with TWO ultra slots...that's an extreme case to me. This is not a maximum case...it is an EXTREME case...it is a minimum case. Multipowers in my games would need to have at least four powers in them to be allowed with reserve limits...

Your primary complaint (as I have seen it all along) is that a reserve limited Multipower is cheaper than an actual power purchase...so you wish to restrict Multipowers from reserve limitations, that is your perogative. My preference is to require more powers in the Multipower...so I can see it's conept, rather than point scrounging.

i am sorry that your players have played HERO so long that all they use is Ultra slot multipowers full of attacks, but 5th edition seems to have encouraged those constructs... we still have multi slots around here...indeed...some characters would have died without them.

[tesuji]

On the EC/Mp combo characters, this has been "commonplace" in hero design for more than a decade. i no longer see it as a problem. its an expected design item.

Originally posted by Farkling

The extreme case I was referring to was the Multipower with TWO ultra slots...that's an extreme case to me. This is not a maximum case...it is an EXTREME case...it is a minimum case. Multipowers in my games would need to have at least four powers in them to be allowed with reserve limits...


i see lots of different numbers of powers. if i had to guess THREE is the most common. the catch is, all having more slots does is move the bar, it may hide the problem a little further out...

with two powers as ultras a -1/2 change lim makes the problem, the error, visible. if i used three powers it might take -3/4 lim or maybe -1, if i used 6 it might be fiurther out. the key point is hiding the evidecne of the model being wrong doesn't mean the ones which are not evident are any more right.


Originally posted by Farkling

Your primary complaint (as I have seen it all along) is that a reserve limited Multipower is cheaper than an actual power purchase...so you wish to restrict Multipowers from reserve limitations, that is your perogative. My preference is to require more powers in the Multipower...so I can see it's conept, rather than point scrounging.

I wish to not apply slot CHANGE limitations to the reserve. i wish to not allow buying slots (cheap) to enable a limit on the larger pool, as the Buy small so you save big model FAILS to produce good results. in general USE limits on the reserve are OK, CHANGE limits wont be.

Think of it this way, any limit that would be applied to the base power as well as the multipower is probably good on the reserve. Any limit that comes about SOLEY by dint or turning a single power into a multipower (buying cheap slots) and so would not appear on the base power when solo, is not going to produce goof results on thepool itself.

Originally posted by Farkling

i am sorry that your players have played HERO so long that all they use is Ultra slot multipowers full of attacks, but 5th edition seems to have encouraged those constructs... we still have multi slots around here...indeed...some characters would have died without them.


i am not sorry that my plauers uderstood and recognized what HERO does well and that they build character appropriately... following the guidelines and examples the game has fostered for ages. Most any system has things it is designed to handle and things that dont... i do not think any less of my players for having the good sense to be able to tell the difference. My last character, Enforcer, was built on no Ec and mostly multipower in order to show that it still works.

if you want to fell sympathy, feel sympathy for HERO the system for these cases where its lacks, even in fairly basic cases, show so distinctly.

Then again, with enough common sense, dramatic sense, and sense of balance, i am sure we will all do just fine.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
...MP Guy will take one power he wants, and one he expects never to use, just to point whore. I have more faith in my players than that.
RIght on man! Keep faith in those players! If you see something questionable, ask them why they did it, and watch how they play it in game. Intention is a major part of the experience. Loosen up your system to the degree that the intentions deserve. If it turns out some player is trying to cheese points, limit them more heavily in how they construct things, or give them a harder time of it in play. Otherwise, don't stress so much! Just do what makes sense.


Origianally posted by tesuji
As i expected, it seems your answer is that you will not allow difficult to change slots as a lim unless it also piggynacks in startup problems that will occur in play.

Thats fine, if thats how limited you want your games to be.
I believe that there are two ways you have go about things: Decide how you would like things to work in game, and apply Powers, Advantages, Limitations, etc. to make it happen. Look at how something is constructed in terms of Powers, Advantages, Limitations, etc., and decide how they work in game. Players have to do the former. GMs have to do both, and their conclusions may not necessarily match the expectations that the players had when creating their characters/powers.

Keeping in mind the faith I have in my players, I tend to give them a lot of leeway in how they create their characters (though this does not mean I will not correct something which really does not go along with the intent of the system--like recreating an existing Power). Let them use their imaginations! That's the fun of the system, not its shortcoming. There may be two equally valid ways of doing something, so explore the ramifications of the one the player chose. If my conclusions do not match the expectations of a player when they create a power, or I think things are imbalanced (in terms of points or otherwise), I will change the way things work in-game. If the player doesn't like how their powers work based on my ruling, I will allow (and help) them to reconstruct their characters in a way that does match their expectations. This may cost more points, or it may cost less. It may be too expensive for the character, so they might have to work up to it through experience (and creative roleplaying if they want to get bonus experience for this purpose). If player A finds a cheap way to do things, and it is just as valid as player B's more expensive way, let player B know (s)he could be doing it cheaper ("You mean that my power isn't limited, so for a slightly limited Multipower, I could also have a Damage Shield for about the same price? Cool. Let's do it!").

Hero may be a beautiful system, have a lot built into it, and take care of a lot of the mechanics for you, but that doesn't change the part that makes it one of the greatest experiences in the world: the element of human judgement and human interaction. We're not playing Warhammer here.

[tesuji]

("You mean that my power isn't limited, so for a slightly limited Multipower, I could also have a Damage Shield for about the same price? Cool. Let's do it!")"

To me, and i may be reading your example wrong, this sounds way too much like taking a limitation for the points and not because it fits the character or power concept. I don't normally try and encourage this in my games. YMMV.

In general i don't disagree with much you said. I do not, howver, like or allow intention to be an element in the ACCOUNTING system. Power A is worth X and that value should stay a constant regardless of what i think or imagine or divine the player's INTENTIOn is. It should remain constant whether the player is doing things i like (IE i have divined his intent and stamped it with a gold star for "I like you!") or whether the player's preferences in gaming differ enough from mine tha i don't want to give him a gold star. i tend to promise fairness to my players and i don't normally view that as including different values for you depening on intent.

i like cost ~ value, not cost ~ intent.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I suspect the same argument would apply from Tesuji's perspective. I think he's suffering from one of two hangups on this. First, he doesn't see the limit of extra time on the basis an underhanded player could use it to buy a power using a multipower, get it cheaper than just buying the one power, and always keep the points in that power, so he never suffers a limitation. If you assume he can simply buy a two slop MP (say a 12d6 EB and a 2d6 flash; 67 points), apply the "1/2 ph to change slots" limit (down to 54 points) and have the reserve always default to EB, the player gets 6 points back for nothing. However, if you deny "default allocation of points", the limitation comes back, at least IMO. It's actually even worse (in a real MP) since the character will not be able to turn on his EB, fire it, then use another attack and come back to EB later - he shifts the points, so he has to spend extra time to shift them back. That's fine - he got a point break for the limit and the MP.
Hugh, in this paragraph you seemed to start to understand what Tesuji (and Gary and I) were saying. We're talking about allowing what you're calling the "default allocation of points." The default being whichever slot was used most recently. You might simply say, "but you can't do that," which you're entitled to do in your games, but it doesn't answer the initial question: Assuming a fair GM *does* allow players to do that, how much should is cost? How does one determine the value of a "difficult to switch" limitation, and what should that limitation be applied to. Because of the "default allocation," tesuji, Gary, and I have all said that the limitation should only apply to the slots and not the reserve points. Otherwise, you could wind up with a more useful construct for fewer points.

If you can't get past the "you can't do that" reflex, then you won't be able to contribute anything useful to this discussion. You've done an excellent job of explaining your point about the fair cost of denying the default allocation, and I agree with you, but that isn't the question tesuji raised.

IMO, "you can't do that" is not appropriate in the HERO System. That's something I would expect from that other system I've heard so much about. HERO is based on the idea that you can do anything if you pay the fair price for it. The only question is what is, or how do you determine, the fair price?

[prestidigitator]

Origianally posted by tesuji
As i expected, it seems your answer is that you will not allow difficult to change slots as a lim unless it also piggynacks in startup problems that will occur in play.

Thats fine, if thats how limited you want your games to be.
Originally posted by prestidigitator
I believe that there are two ways you have go about things: Decide how you would like things to work in game, and apply Powers, Advantages, Limitations, etc. to make it happen. Look at how something is constructed in terms of Powers, Advantages, Limitations, etc., and decide how they work in game.
I just realized that I distracted myself a bit in my post. I meant to make the following point: the GM has to (at times) look at things from the opposite vantage point as players. Players think of what they want to do in-game, and construct powers based upon this. A GM has to look at how a power is constructed, and figure out how it should behave in play. As a GM, why not look at an EC with a -1/4 Limitation on the pool, and think of how to really make that a -1/4 Limitation? If you look at things this way, it doesn't matter if the player bought it in the first place. Let them. Think of what that Limitation merits, based on its value.

Instead of thinking "effect -> what points?", think "points -> what effect?"

I don't see this as limiting the game any. I see it as the opposite.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
Instead of thinking "effect -> what points?", think "points -> what effect?"

I don't see this as limiting the game any. I see it as the opposite.
Uh, I don't know about you, but I like to know what I'm getting when I buy it. First I decide what I want, then I find out how much it costs, and finally I decide if I want to pay that price. The question tesuji originally asked was NOT "How should I limit a power construct bought with X limitation/discount?" but rather "How much of a limit/discount is it worth to have X effect?" If you don't have a good answer, that's fine, but don't tell him he shouldn't ask the question.

If a player comes to you and says, "I want this effect, how much does it cost?" Do you say, "well, how much are you willing to spend?" like a used car salesman? "I'll tell you what: you pay however much you want, and then I'll surprise you with how much it actually winds up limiting you in play."

I don't know too many players who'd respond favorably to that policy.

That's the beauty of the HERO System, IMO: You build exactly the character you want.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
Uh, I don't know about you, but I like to know what I'm getting when I buy it. First I decide what I want, then I find out how much it costs, and finally I decide if I want to pay that price. The question tesuji originally asked was NOT "How should I limit a power construct bought with X limitation/discount?" but rather "How much of a limit/discount is it worth to have X effect?" If you don't have a good answer, that's fine, but don't tell him he shouldn't ask the question.

If a player comes to you and says, "I want this effect, how much does it cost?" Do you say, "well, how much are you willing to spend?" like a used car salesman? "I'll tell you what: you pay however much you want, and then I'll surprise you with how much it actually winds up limiting you in play."

I don't know too many players who'd respond favorably to that policy.

That's the beauty of the HERO System, IMO: You build exactly the character you want.

I think it's generally agood idea to discuss unusual limitations (or disad's) with the player. "Well, based on my understanding which is XYZ this is what I would give you as a limit", or "based on the level you've indicated on your character sheet, this is how I interpret the limit/disad". Get it out in the open up front so the player can say "no, I see it as only this (or more limiting, if that's the case). That way, player and GM are on the same page as to value and what impact the limit/disad will have, rather than having it come up and be debated in game.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann
Hugh, in this paragraph you seemed to start to understand what Tesuji (and Gary and I) were saying. We're talking about allowing what you're calling the "default allocation of points."

That's been the probelm from the outset. I (and some others) are going by the FAQ, which says multipower slots do not default, and the points go "back to base" if the character is KO'd. On that basis, "Extra Time to change" should be worth the limit on the pool, since it's like applying "extra time to activate" to all the powers.

The player can still, in theory, start with an allocation. He spent the extra time before "game time" - for example, while changing into costume, he slapped his EB Clip into the gun. We now get into silliness about the clip falling out if he's KO'd, so one has to invoke SFX - the tradeoff if the player wants the limit on the whole pool is that there will be times when he starts with an unloaded, or the non-desired clip.

If he wants a "default allocation", he should get a limit on the non-default slots, the limit being "extra time to start up or shut down". The default slot should not be limited and, since we lack a common limit on all slots, the pool also gets no limit. This gets around the standard rule that any limit applying to all slots also applies to the pool (although the OIF Weapons multipower example in FREd seems to violate that rule anyway).

I wonder how the original poster actually expected the power to work, and what limit his GM ultimately gave him

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I think it's generally agood idea to discuss unusual limitations (or disad's) with the player. "Well, based on my understanding which is XYZ this is what I would give you as a limit", or "based on the level you've indicated on your character sheet, this is how I interpret the limit/disad". Get it out in the open up front so the player can say "no, I see it as only this (or more limiting, if that's the case). That way, player and GM are on the same page as to value and what impact the limit/disad will have, rather than having it come up and be debated in game.
Yes! And I think it is an iterative process. You can't always, as GM, decide exactly how you want everything to behave or be bought up front. There are literally an infinite number of possibilities, so you can't decide exactly how all of them work or should be done. Additionally, some things have to be playtested; sometimes powergaming players need to show you that you really shouldn't allow some construct, or should make a particular construct work differently (and thus change what is needed to get the effect the player wanted).

If a player creates a character without consulting me, then some perfectly standard construct (s)he has may work a bit differently in my game than it would with another GM. That doesn't necessarily mean that if the player has an EC with a -1/4 Extra Time Limitation on the pool I am going to tell him/her that (s)he needs to change it. I may, however, need to say, "This is the way that construct will work in my game. If you are looking for a different effect, let me know and I can help you build it in another fashion (it may cost more points)."

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
If he wants a "default allocation", he should get a limit on the non-default slots, the limit being "extra time to start up or shut down". The default slot should not be limited and, since we lack a common limit on all slots, the pool also gets no limit. This gets around the standard rule that any limit applying to all slots also applies to the pool (although the OIF Weapons multipower example in FREd seems to violate that rule anyway).
Thank you! I think we're on the home stretch. Now, what if there is no one "default slot"? i.e., what if the default slot is whatever slot was most recently allocated? Each slot requires extra time (or some other limitation) to switch to. And yes, in some cases the lims might not be the same for all slots:

Slot A requires a full phase to switch to.
Slot B requires a full turn to switch to.
Slot C costs END to switch to.
Slot D requires Concentration to switch to.
Slot E has possible Side Effects when switched to!
Slot F has an 11- Activation roll to switch to.
Slot G requires an expendible focus to switch to.
Slot H has no limitation to switch to (but it's not the "default").
Slot I requires a full phase and concentration to switch to.
Slot J can only be switched to a limited number of times per day (charges).

The policy I recommend (and have been this whole time) is that half the normal value of the limitation be applied to each slot cost. For example, Slot F would receive a -1/2 limitation, since 11- Activation is normally -1.