Unified Framework

[zornwil]

I have been musing on the notion of a singular framework with slots representing all the notions of the existing frameworks and solving a few issues along the way such as smaller point values than the reserve in ECs as well as creating a mid-point between an EC and a VPP, something more flexible than a EC but slightly less flexible than a VPP (i.e., a VPP with the same limitations as an EC).

The basic design consideration, aside from unifying frameworks, was to NOT change, as much as possible, the points balance that the current frameworks maintain. This appears largely achieved, though not precisely. Regarding ECs, the cost is within a few points. Regarding MPs, the cost should be exact. Regarding VPPs, the cost is mostly exact, but there is some fudge factor depending on how power modifiers get applied.

This is a thought. I KNOW much of it must have come from various other postings that seeped into my subconscious. Please feel free to speak up if I inadvertantly stole from you. The below is not written to the extent required for an "official" rule, though I tried to approximate the style for consistency's sake. Given it will almost certainly never be a rule, I'm not too worried about polishing it!

I am not intending, at least as of now but likely ever, to use the Unified Framework. First, I don't see a necessity - to the degree that it "unifies" the slots, it's of limited value as to do so the distinctions among the slots remain. Although there are some niceties in doing this (unified effects, better linkage among varied powers, greater flexibility, handling of smaller-than-EC-control-cost slots that link to an EC), it isn't really anything that can't be done otherwise. Related, I don't think EC or other frameworks are "broken". In fact, that was the basis for my carefulness in preserving cost parity with htis new framework. Second, I am thoroughly expecting you all to find fatal flaws and tear it down! Not that I necessarily want that, but given the expertise here, I expect it. And I expect it to be educational for me.

All that being said, I'm exploring this because I think it's "of interest". The faults in it may expose new lines of thought. The notions may prove to not be so far off - you may find other uses/advantages/tweaks. Also, perhaps by recosting or otherwise refiguring the slots, some who feel the EC or other frameworks may be able to extrapolate some sort of ideas out of this.

Unified Framework

Any collection of powers related to each other in some meaningful way, such that they either depend upon each other or some singular element, may belong to a "Unified Framework" (UF). For example, a collection of powers all stemming from a character's ability to control fire qualify for inclusion in a single UF. Similarly, a collection of spells related to the same root magic or the ability of the mage to recall so much spell-power at one time, may qualify for a UF.

The GM has ultimate say over which powers qualify for UF inclusion. It is strongly recommended that powers in a UF be clearly enough related that there is some opportunity for opponents to exploit the relationship or some other disadvantage may occur. For example, a collection of powers which derive from an archer's quiver of arrows intrinsically includes a risk that the quiver may be taken; when this occurs, the entire collection of powers is lost. In another example, a mage may have a collection of powers based on white magic; however unlikely, the possibility should exist that something may affect "all white magic" and therefore cancel all powers in the UF. For more information on such drawbacks, see "Limitations" below.

A UF consists of a "core" and one or more "slots". The core represents the essential cost and characteristics of the UF as a whole. The slots each represent a power or powers usable within the context of the UF.

Cost of a UF Core

The cost of a UF core is equal to the AP desired for the most expensive slot. Most of the time, this represents the most active points which may be simultaneously in use at any one time. However, some slots may be used simultaneously such that they exceed the AP limit; see "Flexi-Slots" below.

Buying Slots

There are several types of slots, each representing the flexibility of the power(s) usable in the slot.

Ultimate Slots

An Ultimate Slot (US) may be used to represent the AP of ANY power or any collection of powers with any special effect(s) that one desires to use in the slot at any given time. As such, it is extremely flexible. Generally, a US is used to represent the widely varying abilities of a particular broad power, such as "Spell Casting" or "Gadget Building".

The cost of a US is equal to the AP desired for that slot divided by two. The AP of that slot may never exceed the UF Core Cost. For example, Armageddon Boy has a "Chaos UF", based on his mental abilities to incite panic and fear. He wants to use up to 75 APs of power at any given time. The Core Cost would be 75. If he wants a slot in which he can put any power reasonably related to this ability, he would buy a US at 37 points (75/2 = 37 rounded).

Any collection of powers which fit the conception may be utilized in a US. For example, Armageddon Boy's US with 75 AP (37 cost) could at one time include only a 75 AP Ego Blast (Punishing Fear). At another time, it may include a 50 AP Ego Blast (Punishing Fear) and a 25 AP Mind Control (one command, "Run Away").

A US may normally be changed only out of combat, requiring between 1 Turn and 1 Phase (GM discretion according to character concept). To be able to change a VPP in combat... (insert VPP rules here). Various limitations and advantages may apply (see below).

Elemental Slot

An Elemental Slot (ES), represents any power which is intrinsically related to the Core UF such that it satisfies a number of conditions:

1 - It is automatically drained when/if any other ES are drained.
2 - (continue with normal EC qualifications - not 0 END, flavor to taste)

ES costs are a bit more complicated to determine. The cost of each slot is equal to the AP of the ES, then subtracting the AP of the ES divided by the number of ES slots in the UF, and finally dividing the entire total by two. For example, Armageddon Boy adds an ES of 60 AP, an ES of 75 AP, and an ES of 30 AP. Note that the Core Cost of his UF must not be less than 75, otherwise he could not have an ES of 75 inside the UF. There are three ESes inthe UF. Thus from the 60 AP ES is substracted 60 (the AP of the ES) divided by 3 (the number of ESes in theUF). That equals 40. The result is divided by 2, for a total of 20. Following this example

UF CC = 75
Slot AP AP-(AP/# ES slots) Divided by 2
1 (ES) 60 40 20
2 (ES) 75 50 25
3 (ES) 30 20 10
Slot Total 55
Grand Total 130

An ES' AP MAY be expanded beyond the limit of the UF by linking a power OUTSIDE the UF with that ES. Note that points outside the UF must be paid for at full normal cost. Thus if Armaggedon Boy desires ES 2 above to have 90 AP, he woudl have to purchase a full cost 15 AP power to combine from outside the UF. GMs should carefully monitor these situations, ensuring the power is not unbalancing; no outside power may be linked to a UF slot without GM permission.

Elemental Ultimate Slot

A variation on the ES slot is the "Elemental Ultimate Slot" (EUS). As implied, the EUS shares characteristics of both the US and the ES. Like the Ultimate Slot, ANY power with ANY SFX may be placed into the EUS. Unlike the US, only a single power may occupy an EUS. An EUS may not be broken out into multiple powers, however, with GM permission, an EUS MAY include a COMBINED power.

An EUS, unlike an ES, has its cost divided by 1.5 in the final step rather than 2. Following the Armaggedon Boy example, if he wanted to convert his ES slots to EUS slots:

UF CC = 75
Slot AP AP-(AP/# ES slots) divided by 1.5
1 (EUS) 60 40 27
2 (EUS) 75 50 33
3 (EUS) 30 20 13
Slot Total 73
Grand Total 148

Fixed Slot

(This functions like a normal MP fixed slot)

Flexible Slot

(This functions like a normal MP flexible slot)

Using Slots Concurently

Generally, the active AP use of all slots may not exceed the AP of the Core Cost. For example, if a character has a 75 AP UF Core with a 50 AP Ultimate Slot, a 25 AP Fixed Slot, and a 25 AP Flexible Slot, he may use the 25 AP Fixed Slot with 25 AP of the Ultimate Slot in use and the full 25 AP of the Flexible Slot. Or he may use the 25 AP Fixed Slot with all 50 AP of the Ultimate Slot active - but the Flexible Slot may not be used at all then as the total AP in use equal and may not exceed the 75 AP of the Core.

However, ES AND EUS slots *may* be used simultaneously with other ES and EUS slots even though they in total exceed the AP of the Core. Of course this assumes the character has enough END and the powers normally may function simultaneously otherwise.

Although any number of ES/EUS slots may be used simultaneously with other types of slots, their AP are REDUCED by the difference of the total AP of the Core minus all other types of slots in use. For example, Armaggedon Boy has the following UF and slots:

UF CC = 175
Slot AP Cost
1 (EUS) 60 30
2 (EUS) 75 37
3 (EUS) 30 15
4 (ES) 60 22
5 (FixS) 60 6
6 (FleS) 60 12
7 (US) 40 20
Slot Total 142
Grand Total 317

According to this, the sum of all AP of all non-ES/EUS slots equals 160. Thus Armaggedon Boy could turn on ALL non-ES/EUS slots at once. The total core cost of 175 minus the total AP of all non-ES/EUS slots equals 15 points. Armaggedon Boy may, while all other slots are turned on, use ALL of his ES/EUS slots up to 15 AP EACH - provided he has the END and there are no other innate prohibitions, either according to other rules or SFX, that would so prevent. Of course Armaggedon Boy could choose to use, for example, only his Fixed Slot at 60 AP and his Ultimate Slot at 40 AP; this leaves 75 points of AP from his Core, and thus he could use any or all of his ES/EUS slots concurrently at up to 75 AP. Given his ES/EUS slots do not exceed 75 AP, they may all be active.

Advantages and Limitations

Generally, advantages and limitations may be taken on the Core Cost IF AND ONLY IF those advantages and limitations apply to ALL slots. Because of the nature of Ultimate Slots and Elemental Ultimate Slots, it is normally inappropriate to take advantages and limitations on these. (essentially same rules as 5th) Other slots may receive power modifiers as normal.

There are situations where advantages or limitations may apply to nearly all the slots. In those situations, GMs may grant permission to take the advantages and limitations on the Core Cost at a reduced rate - typically at 1/4 less than the value of the modifier. However, circumstances will vary according to the size of slots involved and natures of powers.

Ultimate Slots may have special power modifiers applied... (insert here the normal VPP lims/advs applied to the control cost in 5th)

(Right now I'm leaving it this broad, but essentially would want to incorporate most of the text of 5th regarding this)

[zornwil]

That bad, eh? Totally useless? Go ahead and say so. Bumping just to see if there's any feedback. I know it's not good, given the silence...but maybe it'll be interesting.

PS EDIT - at the least, I'm thinking of using the Elemental Slots as the basic method within an Elemental Control. I think this might work well for putting small powers into it without getting them too cheaply (as in the various half price options).

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by zornwil
That bad, eh? Totally useless? Go ahead and say so. Bumping just to see if there's any feedback. I know it's not good, given the silence...but maybe it'll be interesting.Actually, I think the idea has some merit. But since I'm unlikely to allow a new unofficial framework in my campaign, it's of limited utility to me. Perhaps if it appears in 6th Edition HERO around 2008...

And don't be too disappointed by the initial lack of commentary. It's very long and requires serious thought, and you posted on a weekend. Most of the heavies on this board play HERO on the weekends, they don't post about it. I've seen that time and time again. I'd expect more commentary over the next couple of days. :)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Actually, I think the idea has some merit. But since I'm unlikely to allow a new unofficial framework in my campaign, it's of limited utility to me. Perhaps if it appears in 6th Edition HERO around 2008...

And don't be too disappointed by the initial lack of commentary. It's very long and requires serious thought, and you posted on a weekend. Most of the heavies on this board play HERO on the weekends, they don't post about it. I've seen that time and time again. I'd expect more commentary over the next couple of days. :)

Good point, thanks. Our group used to play more on weekends, this summer really knocked things out of kilter for some reason. I'm itching to get back to more playing. I'm sure the reason I fiddled with this so much was a lack of game time.

[Tom McCarthy]

I admire the work that went into it, but it doesn't compel me to drop the existing frameworks. Aside from the odd character who straddles the line between frameworks, it just doesn't add much.

[prestidigitator]

It looks interesting. However, your system for Elemental Control slots need to be re-thought. It works perfectly if all powers are the same cost, or if they have a small spread. Consider the following example, though. I want a Framework which is essentially just an Elemental Control. I want to put 5 powers in it. One of these powers has 50 active points, and four of them have 100 active points.

Using the standard Elemental Control Framework, the pool itself can be a maximum of 25 points (half the active points of the smallest power). This gives a total cost of 25+25+4*75=350 points.

Using your Framework (with only Elemental Slots), I can buy it for 100+10+4*30=230 points. Quite a rebate! That's even less than if I bought only the four big powers in an Elemental Control by themselves (100+4*37=248)! The problem is that your method essentially uses the average cost of the powers, which I can bring down significantly by adding in a small power.

You might, instead, require that each Elemental Slot be at least the size of your Core, and make each slot cost AP-Core/2. This fits the standard Elemental Control Framework more closely.

Now what I do with Elemental Control Frameworks is I forget the minimum size of a power which fits in them, but I only allow the active points in the power to be doubled, at most, by the pool. That means the above example could be built with an Elemental Control of 50 points, but the 50 point power will now still cost 25 points (rather than being free). It would then cost 50+25+4*50=275. This is less than standard, but it is built mostly on the standard rules, and costs more than than an EC with the four big powers (50+4*50=250). Why should large powers get a discount, but not small ones? If you wanted to add this option to your Unified Framework, but use more standard Elemental Control costs (as I suggested above), you could make eash Elemental Slot cost AP-min(AP/2, Core/2).

[zornwil]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
It looks interesting. However, your system for Elemental Control slots need to be re-thought. It works perfectly if all powers are the same cost, or if they have a small spread. Consider the following example, though. I want a Framework which is essentially just an Elemental Control. I want to put 5 powers in it. One of these powers has 50 active points, and four of them have 100 active points.

Using the standard Elemental Control Framework, the pool itself can be a maximum of 25 points (half the active points of the smallest power). This gives a total cost of 25+25+4*75=350 points.

Using your Framework (with only Elemental Slots), I can buy it for 100+10+4*30=230 points. Quite a rebate! That's even less than if I bought only the four big powers in an Elemental Control by themselves (100+4*37=248)! The problem is that your method essentially uses the average cost of the powers, which I can bring down significantly by adding in a small power.

You might, instead, require that each Elemental Slot be at least the size of your Core, and make each slot cost AP-Core/2. This fits the standard Elemental Control Framework more closely.

Now what I do with Elemental Control Frameworks is I forget the minimum size of a power which fits in them, but I only allow the active points in the power to be doubled, at most, by the pool. That means the above example could be built with an Elemental Control of 50 points, but the 50 point power will now still cost 25 points (rather than being free). It would then cost 50+25+4*50=275. This is less than standard, but it is built mostly on the standard rules, and costs more than than an EC with the four big powers (50+4*50=250). Why should large powers get a discount, but not small ones? If but use more standard Elemental Control costs (as I suggested you wanted to add this option to your Unified Framework, above), you could make eash Elemental Slot cost AP-min(AP/2, Core/2).

The core would be 100, the max AP. So that's 100 points. Then you'd pay for the 100 point slots 100-(100/5) = 80, divided by 2 = 40. There's 4 slots, so that's 160, totaling 260 with the core. The 5th power, at 50, is 50-(50/5) = 40, divided by 2 = 20. Total = 280. But yes that's still smaller. Will think about it, it's the effect of the small slot essentially as you said.

If the core is 50, then you have to buy all 5 slots at 50-(50/5) = 40, then divided by 2 = 20 apiece. So that's 150 total. Then you have to buy for the other 4 an additional 50 points each outside the UF, so that's 350 total. I didn't put it down, but you don't get a limitation for a linked power to something linked inside the UF as that's double-dipping in my view.

However, the 280 vs 350 is an issue, I need to review as you suggested. I like what you wrote in how you are controlling it. I'll get back to you after a bit when I have more time, this is a rushed response.

[Black Rose]

In regards to the "cheaper EC", I dunno that it's such a bad thing. I regret that Hero dropped the 3rd edition (I believe) way of doing ECs; largest power at full, all the others at half price. Heck, I'd even mind the "double power drain" thing less if they were done this way. Granted, I'd be throwing Difficult to Dispell on lots of the smaller powers anyway, like I do now; it bulks their size up and makes them, well, harder to dispell, and I feel that the advantage covers all adjustment powers (yes, aid and succor too, that's why it's only +1/4).

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Black Rose
In regards to the "cheaper EC", I dunno that it's such a bad thing. I regret that Hero dropped the 3rd edition (I believe) way of doing ECs; largest power at full, all the others at half price. Heck, I'd even mind the "double power drain" thing less if they were done this way. Granted, I'd be throwing Difficult to Dispell on lots of the smaller powers anyway, like I do now; it bulks their size up and makes them, well, harder to dispell, and I feel that the advantage covers all adjustment powers (yes, aid and succor too, that's why it's only +1/4).

Personally I don't require that if you drain one power in an EC it drains all, it's just SFX to me either way, although if oyu have the right SFX drain you should be able to drain an entire EC. It just shouldn't be automatic if you drain, say, "energy blast" that you drain an entire EC tha tha sone, that doesn't make sense to me and flies in the face of SFX - what if (for example, yes it's cheesy) the drain is based on an SFX of "drains powers that can be morally abused" - the Force Field shouldn't be touched in that case (other than making osme bold logical leaps about how you can use an FF to ram into someone, but as that has no such game mechanic it wouldn't be valid anyway).

Also, I ignore the END>0 rule as well in my game.

Personally, I don't think ECs are underpriced - or overpriced - I just don't like how it doesn't work with smaller powers.

I just wanted the UF to match the current rules, then it's easy after that to tweak to taste.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by zornwil
Personally I don't require that if you drain one power in an EC it drains all, it's just SFX to me either way, although if oyu have the right SFX drain you should be able to drain an entire EC. It just shouldn't be automatic if you drain, say, "energy blast" that you drain an entire EC tha tha sone, that doesn't make sense to me and flies in the face of SFX - what if (for example, yes it's cheesy) the drain is based on an SFX of "drains powers that can be morally abused" - the Force Field shouldn't be touched in that case (other than making osme bold logical leaps about how you can use an FF to ram into someone, but as that has no such game mechanic it wouldn't be valid anyway).

Also, I ignore the END>0 rule as well in my game.
I agree, and use just about exactly the same House Rules. I think that (except where it makes really good sense) powers not in an EC aren't affected if another power is Drained. However, for powers in an EC, I make it depend on the Special Effects of both the powers in the Framework and the attacking Adjustment power. The EC just introduces the possibility that changes to a power might affect others.


Personally, I don't think ECs are underpriced - or overpriced - I just don't like how it doesn't work with smaller powers.
No kidding. That's what never made sense to me. It's why I added the 1/2 price for powers less than double the reserve points.


The core would be 100, the max AP. So that's 100 points. Then you'd pay for the 100 point slots 100-(100/5) = 80, divided by 2 = 40. There's 4 slots, so that's 160, totaling 260 with the core. The 5th power, at 50, is 50-(50/5) = 40, divided by 2 = 20. Total = 280. But yes that's still smaller. Will think about it, it's the effect of the small slot essentially as you said.
True. Sorry about the mistake. I guess it is also kind of weird that adding a slot not only costs points, but changes the cost of the existing slosts.

[Black Rose]

Personally, I think that an Adjustment power that affects the right SFX (say, fire for the Human Torch) should affect the EC base first, then move on to the power it's shooting for. Then again, the idea that someone could have a Drain (game reference) Power is silly to me. You should be able to drain SFX, or even certain powers within a SFX, not the power itself, regardless of it's origin. Why should Glue Guy's Stick-um Blast (Drain Flight) work if my character's flight is really running very fast on the ground? And it really shouldn't work to drain my charged particle strike (EB, SFX: building up the friction to get a charge). I guess I just think that ECs are a good idea, but that they need some work.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by prestidigitator
I agree, and use just about exactly the same House Rules. I think that (except where it makes really good sense) powers not in an EC aren't affected if another power is Drained. However, for powers in an EC, I make it depend on the Special Effects of both the powers in the Framework and the attacking Adjustment power. The EC just introduces the possibility that changes to a power might affect others.


No kidding. That's what never made sense to me. It's why I added the 1/2 price for powers less than double the reserve points.


True. Sorry about the mistake. I guess it is also kind of weird that adding a slot not only costs points, but changes the cost of the existing slosts.

I was thinking about this and I'm not sure the elemental slots in the UF are priced wrong. You see, if I'm buying an EC with 4 100 point powers and I want another 50 point power as well, my better bet, leaving the rules "as is", is to buy the EC with a 50 point control cost, then buy each 100 point power with 50 points apiece. That total is 250 points. Now, my 50 point power doesn't fit; anybody who puts it in there is "violating" the rules (whether half off), although I'd say the most common scenario is a linked of some sort. Regardless, the last 50 point power is essentially a reflection of the "broken" nature of sticking smaller powers into ECs. A solution would be either as you posted, which amounts to 275 (real close to my 280), by the book with no linkage (the tough GM mode) which comes to 300 points (also close to my 280), or a 50 point power at +1/2 (halfway between tough GM and your 1/2 off (essentially +1) which is 33 points, amounting in total to 283 points (again, real close to my 280).

So upon reflection I THINK that I'm hitting the nail "close enough". It won't be dead-on because I'm dealing with the funky EC pricing for less-than-traditional-control-cost powers.

Of course this is all theoretical. I am tempted to play it out though, which will allow for some interesting new variations, such as a UF which encompasses EC and MP, though now both have to fit within the UF AP cap, which, while more complex, may present some interesting game choices. I have this thought that MAYBE this could help unify those disparate ECs, MPs, and VPPs which really are essentially part of a mega-EC, if you'll pardon the term - i.e., they're all linked at their root and there's really an Active Points limit which, while bigger than any one of the pools, still isn't as big as all 3 combined.

Then again, I also tend to think it's needless!

[Dust Raven]

Originally posted by zornwil
Personally I don't require that if you drain one power in an EC it drains all, it's just SFX to me either way, although if oyu have the right SFX drain you should be able to drain an entire EC. It just shouldn't be automatic if you drain, say, "energy blast" that you drain an entire EC tha tha sone, that doesn't make sense to me and flies in the face of SFX - what if (for example, yes it's cheesy) the drain is based on an SFX of "drains powers that can be morally abused" - the Force Field shouldn't be touched in that case (other than making osme bold logical leaps about how you can use an FF to ram into someone, but as that has no such game mechanic it wouldn't be valid anyway).

Also, I ignore the END>0 rule as well in my game.

Personally, I don't think ECs are underpriced - or overpriced - I just don't like how it doesn't work with smaller powers.

I just wanted the UF to match the current rules, then it's easy after that to tweak to taste.
The idea behind an Elemental Control isn't to get Powers at discount prices. It's to simulate a single power/ability that can be best expressed as several Powers in game mechanics. In this way, when the Energy Blast part of the power gets Drained, the other parts get Drained by default because it's all the same ability. Also, you can consider it to be the limiting factor contributing to the recudtion of cost of the Powers.

I also ignore the END restructions, and allow things like Armor into ECs, but I do keep a careful watch to make sure that the Powers in an EC are effectively the same power.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Dust Raven
The idea behind an Elemental Control isn't to get Powers at discount prices. It's to simulate a single power/ability that can be best expressed as several Powers in game mechanics. In this way, when the Energy Blast part of the power gets Drained, the other parts get Drained by default because it's all the same ability. Also, you can consider it to be the limiting factor contributing to the recudtion of cost of the Powers.

I also ignore the END restructions, and allow things like Armor into ECs, but I do keep a careful watch to make sure that the Powers in an EC are effectively the same power.

I understand, but I feel that any supplanting method ought to abide by the same "efficiency" which players routinely engage in. I didn't mean to indicate that the nature of the EC was changing.

[Eodin]

I had worked on a system to replace ECs in my FH at one time, but here's the problem. If the overall cost is more than an the cost of an equivalent EC, no one will use it. If the overall cost is cheaper than the cost of an equivalent EC, everyone will clamor "unfair" or "too efficient" and the minimaxers will choose it every time.

An EC is a wonderful thing - the idea that a group of powers are extensions of a special effect and that all can be theoretically used at the same time is a necessary construct. But the Electrical Engineer and Data Analyst in me find the current costing structure imperfect. That's not from a minimaxing standpoint, but from a realistic formulation standpoint. All costs should be equitable and logical.

What needs to be addressed to alter it:
Base Cost. You shouldn't have to refigure down the base cost when adding a smaller power to the EC. If you have 3 50-AP powers, and then add a 20-AP power, you shouldn't have to refigure the Base cost downward if at all.

Scaling discrepancies. An EC with 3 50-AP Slots costs 100 points. To add a 20-AP power, the EC now costs 140 points.
But to add another 50-AP power makes the EC cost 125 points. It shouldn't cost more to add a small power than a large power.

What should be done? The equitable thing would be a Base cost based on a "contibution" from each power in the pool, say for example 1/3 or 1/2 or 2/3 the cost of each power in the EC. So the base cost might be, as an example, 1/3*(50+50+50) or 1/3*(50+50+50+20). Each slot would cost the fractional remainder, so the 50-AP slots would be 2/3*(50)=33 each. Keep in mind I'm not promoting specifically 1/3 or 1/2 or 2/3 as the base and slots, but some value that makes sense.

I HOPE Steve revisits this in HERO 6 in 5-10 years. Until then, I'll either avoid ECs or come up with a house rule version. Just my 2 cents.

[Dust Raven]

Ultimately, here's my fix to adding a smaller Power to an EC:

Buy the EC with all the larger Powers normally, then buy the smaller Powers and apply the Limitations Linked (-1/2) and Is Affected By Adjustment Powers That Affect The EC (-1/2).

It's simpler, easier to explain, doesn't change the rules and, most importantly, it works.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Eodin
I had worked on a system to replace ECs in my FH at one time, but here's the problem. If the overall cost is more than an the cost of an equivalent EC, no one will use it. If the overall cost is cheaper than the cost of an equivalent EC, everyone will clamor "unfair" or "too efficient" and the minimaxers will choose it every time.

An EC is a wonderful thing - the idea that a group of powers are extensions of a special effect and that all can be theoretically used at the same time is a necessary construct. But the Electrical Engineer and Data Analyst in me find the current costing structure imperfect. That's not from a minimaxing standpoint, but from a realistic formulation standpoint. All costs should be equitable and logical.

What needs to be addressed to alter it:
Base Cost. You shouldn't have to refigure down the base cost when adding a smaller power to the EC. If you have 3 50-AP powers, and then add a 20-AP power, you shouldn't have to refigure the Base cost downward if at all.

Scaling discrepancies. An EC with 3 50-AP Slots costs 100 points. To add a 20-AP power, the EC now costs 140 points.
But to add another 50-AP power makes the EC cost 125 points. It shouldn't cost more to add a small power than a large power.

What should be done? The equitable thing would be a Base cost based on a "contibution" from each power in the pool, say for example 1/3 or 1/2 or 2/3 the cost of each power in the EC. So the base cost might be, as an example, 1/3*(50+50+50) or 1/3*(50+50+50+20). Each slot would cost the fractional remainder, so the 50-AP slots would be 2/3*(50)=33 each. Keep in mind I'm not promoting specifically 1/3 or 1/2 or 2/3 as the base and slots, but some value that makes sense.

I HOPE Steve revisits this in HERO 6 in 5-10 years. Until then, I'll either avoid ECs or come up with a house rule version. Just my 2 cents.

Re the 1/3, 1/2, thing, I tried that out, each one scaled horribly one way or the other.

Actually you're wrong, but you found a different scaling error which is a problem; a pool with ES of 50, 50, 50, and 20 having a control cost of 50 = 50 control cost + ((50/4) = 12) * 3 = 86, plus (20/4) = 5 = 91. Whereas you got the 50, 50, 50 with a control cost of 50 correctly (50 + ((50/3) = 17)*3 = 101, basically right. As you can see, this is a problem, but on the opposite end.

Ah well, I'll keep at it, crap. Thanks much.

As to ECs though, I don't think they're broken per se, I'm just looking at alternatives more from the idea of fusing frameworks.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Dust Raven
Ultimately, here's my fix to adding a smaller Power to an EC:

Buy the EC with all the larger Powers normally, then buy the smaller Powers and apply the Limitations Linked (-1/2) and Is Affected By Adjustment Powers That Affect The EC (-1/2).

It's simpler, easier to explain, doesn't change the rules and, most importantly, it works.

That's fine. I wasn't really doing this because of the smaller power problem, but wanted to tacke that at the same time.

However, FYI, I am down with doing this myself but in actual practce I've found people just compile a bunch of smaller powers into a single power, usually senses. Seems more elegant to me.

[Doc Democracy]

Originally posted by Eodin
Scaling discrepancies. An EC with 3 50-AP Slots costs 100 points. To add a 20-AP power, the EC now costs 140 points.
But to add another 50-AP power makes the EC cost 125 points. It shouldn't cost more to add a small power than a large power.

I've avoided this by essentially allowing smaller powers into the EC but only by paying the base cost. Adding the 20-AP power would cost the same as adding the 50-AP power. That keeps the EC intact - doesn't increase the price and allows the player, if he wants to put it into the EC to do so.

I prefer Dust Raven's suggestion though. I might suggest this in future.

I do like the idea of a unified framework rule though. I might even get round to thinking about it and making some suggestions.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Dust Raven
Ultimately, here's my fix to adding a smaller Power to an EC:

Buy the EC with all the larger Powers normally, then buy the smaller Powers and apply the Limitations Linked (-1/2) and Is Affected By Adjustment Powers That Affect The EC (-1/2).

It's simpler, easier to explain, doesn't change the rules and, most importantly, it works.
Linked to what? This is not like a slot in an EC. Powers that are part of an EC don't have to be used along with another power unless they also have the Linked Limitation.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Doc Democracy
I've avoided this by essentially allowing smaller powers into the EC but only by paying the base cost. Adding the 20-AP power would cost the same as adding the 50-AP power. That keeps the EC intact - doesn't increase the price and allows the player, if he wants to put it into the EC to do so.

I prefer Dust Raven's suggestion though. I might suggest this in future.

I do like the idea of a unified framework rule though. I might even get round to thinking about it and making some suggestions.

You can see how far I've come since I first posted. Oh, well...

still giving it occassional thought

[lemming]

Looks interesting, bounce something off my head after DDC and I'll take another look. :)

[Tom McCarthy]

Unified Frameworks

Let's define Kernel points as the maximum active points of a single power from the framework. It's also the base cost of the framework.
If all powers in the framework have a common limitation, it may be applied to the Kernel. If you apply an advantage to the Kernel (with the exception of charges), it applies to all powers in the framework without affecting their active, real or Kernel points costs.

The character buy fixed predefined powers. To use the fixed predefined power, he must dedicate a number of Kernel points equal to the maximum active points of the power. Each fixed predefined power has a cost equal to 1/10th of the power's real cost (as an ultra in a multipower).

The character buy flexible predefined powers. To use the flexible predefined power, he must dedicate a number of Kernel points equal to the active points of the power he wishes to use. Each flexible predefined power has a cost equal to 1/5th of the power's real cost (as a multi in a multipower).

The character may define a multi-expression power. This is a single power which has effects which must be simulated using a set of Hero System powers. To use the set of powers in the multi-expression power, he must dedicate as many Kernel points as the maximum active points of the largest power in the set. The real cost of the multi-expression power is half the sum of the real cost of all powers in the multi-expression power except the most powerful. Any negative adjustment power used against any power in the multi-expression power will affect all powers in the set with double the usual level of effect. (as an EC)

The character may wish to be able to use some of the Kernel points to create any game effect on the fly, within the SFX of the framework. The base cost to do this is 1 point for every 2 Variable points, and may not buy more Variable points than he has Kernel points. When he wishes to create such a power (or combination of powers), it will use Kernel points equal to the active points of the highest active point power, and Variable points equal to the real costs of all powers created this way. Creating such a power takes a skill roll and a full phase, or no skill roll and several minutes to hours. Advantages can be applied to make it easier to create such powers (+1 for No roll, +1/2 for Half Phase to change, +1 for No Time to Change), and limitations to make it harder (-1/2 for only in lab, or arsenal, or from spell book; similar for mimics, etc.)

[zornwil]

That looked interesting but will have to look at it more later, a little tired and moreover not feeling good right now. Thanks much for posting it.