Calculating power cost differently

[Toonol]

I was thinking about the math behind power limitations and advantages, and was toying with a different way of calculating power costs... I was wondering what all of you may think, pro or con?

As it stands, you add all the advantages together and use that number to calculate the active points. For instance, a 30 pt EB with two +1/2 advantages would have 60 active points.

I think it might be more appropriate to apply each advantage seperately, calculating each in turn. A +1/2 advantage would raise the active points to 45; a second +1/2 advantage would raise it to 67 points.

Limitations would behave the same way... two -1/2 limitations would normally add to make a -1 limit, which drops a 67 pt power down to 33 pts. The method I'm thinking of, you would apply the limitations independently, and end up at 30 real points.

This requires a little more math... why do I think it might be better? I'll give a few reasons...

<b>Small powers with lots of advantages.</b>

One of the examples of abusive powers sometimes given is (for example) a 5 pt, 1d6 energy blast, with tons of advantages heaped on it. You can add four +1 advantages to a 5pt power, and the active cost is only 25 pts. If they are instead applied sequentially, the cost would be 80 points...

<b>Cleaner math in some circumstances</b>

Suppose I've created a really cool power, with three advantages and five limitations. Final cost is 30 pts. How much does it cost to make it armor piercing? Currently, you need to go back to the base cost to figure it; this way, you just apply the +1/2 to the final cost of 30 pts, making the cost 45 cpts.

<b>Power Construction</b>

Related to the above... I design a power. Let's say it's a tweaked energy blast that behaves a special way. It ends up costing 8 pts per d6 damage. Maybe I think it's really cool, and want to put it in my campaign's book-o-powers, for other characters to use.

By the rules, if somebody wanted to use that power, but put a +1 advantage on it, the cost would be 13 pts per d6 damage; they would have to reverse engineer the power, and apply the modifier to the 5pt/d6 cost of energy blast. Instead, if the modifiers were applied independently, the +1 would make the power cost 16pt/d6, which is the way you would expect it to work.

Comments? I realize that this would make characters absolutely incompatible with other campaigns, and so it is pretty much purely hypothetical...

Toonol

[Talon]

I think your last paragraph sums it up; it's "better" mathematically, but more complex and too radical for a general change.

[Gary]

In some ways, this is better. For example, adding area effect to a 2D6 AP attack should double the total cost, because it's affecting the whole power including advantages.

However in many cases, it doesn't work as cleanly as this. For example, if an attack already had increased stun multiple, adding a second increased stun multiple on the whole power doesn't make sense. Adding +1 stun multiple on a 4D6 killing attack costs 15 pts, and adds 14 extra stun on average. Adding +1 stun multiple to an existing attack with 1D6+5 stun multiple costs 14 pts, and adds only 3.5 stun on average. In this case, the increased stun multiple affects only the base dice, not the total power.

[Lord Liaden]

Toonol, you are right that sometimes a stacking of Advantages onto a Power can get ridiculous, so your approach could be considered valid in such a case. OTOH, there are cases when the cost of subsequent Advantages is factored into the size of an Advantage.

Let's take Armor Piercing for example. A 15 Damage Class attack is the same Active Points as a 10 DC attack with Armor Piercing. AP can be neutralized by Hardening the appropriate Defense, which would probably cost less to the defender than buying enough Defense to blunt the base 15 DC attack. But any subsequent Advantages added to the AP attack will be less expensive than if they were added to the higher Base Point Power, which balances out their utility.

Changing the way Advantages are calculated would be most appropriate on a case-by-case basis, which would probably be more work than it's worth for most people. It's more efficient in the long run to keep one standardized method and allow the GM to rule on what is or isn't abusive as it comes up.

FWIW, what you're describing was the way in which Reduced END Cost was calculated before the 4th Edition of the HERO System: you added up the cost of all the other Advantages, then applied the RE Cost modifier to that total. Obviously, that approach didn't last.

[Uncle Shecky]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden
... FWIW, what you're describing was the way in which Reduced END Cost was calculated before the 4th Edition of the HERO System: you added up the cost of all the other Advantages, then applied the RE Cost modifier to that total. Obviously, that approach didn't last.

Yeah it was really a pain. Plus, when trying to figure out the cost for reduced END, you only counted those advantages that affected the END cost of the power.

In 2nd edition, some advantages added to the power's END cost and some didn't. This made sense in most cases (e.g. an 8D6 expolsive EB would cost more than a standard 8D6 EB, while and 8D6 BOECV EB had the same END cost as an 8D6 EB), but for some advantages the reasoning wasn't very clear.

Even worse, END costs were double back then: it was 1 END per 5 active points, so that 8D6 EB cost 8 END! And the characters were built on 200 points. You'd either knock yourself out using it or in trying to figure out how much the reduced END advantage cost you.

We just ignored END for years, but the game is so much better with it. I'm not sure when they made the change to 1 END/10 active points, but it's the best HERO system change ever.

[zornwil]

It's an interesting construction. However, I think it exaggerates too much both ways. it's not without merit, because some advantages when combined ARE multiplicative in nature, but to me many others are not. Maybe certain combinations should be done this way - to make it REALLY complex! Just kidding on that account. Anyway, it's food for thought.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Uncle Shecky
We just ignored END for years, but the game is so much better with it. I'm not sure when they made the change to 1 END/10 active points, but it's the best HERO system change ever.

They changed it for 4th edition. Since almost all characters had 1/2 end cost, they figured that it would be better that way.

Of course back then you bought zero end by buying 1/2 end, 1/4 end, 1/8 end etc...

9 end -> 4 end -> 2 end -> 1 end -> 0 end.

Though I kind of liked it in some ways...