Multiform base form question

[FenrisUlf]

Sorry if this has been covered, but it is permissible to set up a multiform so that the alternate forms are of higher point value than the base, right? I'm just thinking of the classic werewolf or the Hulk, here.

[ghost-angel]

Yes, as long as the base form has the points to pay for the multiform and the GM allows it the alternate forms may be higher point characters that the base form.

There's an example in the book in the sidebar next to multiform for changing into a 500pt T-Rex.

[TheEmerged]

Permissable is a good word, since this requires GM permission.

And for the record, this GM (that is to say, me) requires the cost to change to 1 point per 1 point in form when the new forms' values exceed that of the base form. This keeps it consistent with Followers/Base/Vehicles and Duplication.

[ghost-angel]

I have to say most GMs (including mine) balk when they see the 5E Multiform rules.

I both agree and disagree with them on all points (good thing I count twice )

First, I don't like to limit the rules by simply outlawing them because of "potential" abuse problems. First thing I remind all players is "Just because it's book legal does not mean it can or should be allowed into a campaign." - You don't get characters with Eye Lasers in fantasy campaigns just because the book says you can have an energy blast.... With that idea in mind I alter the rules as little as possible and make sure that the players have a power that won't break the game - if they have a transform into a 500pt character that works in the game so be it, if it doesn't work back to the drawing board for them. I take it case by case instead of shotgun style.

Second, the new multiform rules don't follow the standard of 1for1 after the character point limit total is reached and it is potentially one of the most abusive powers available. With those two points in mind I can see why many GMs enact the 1for1 or enforce the 4E rules of "highest point form pays" for multiform. Which is good, if everyone agrees on it, or at least the majority.

Basically everything comes down to the GM and the Players and what they wish to allow into a game.

[TheEmerged]

I don't like to limit the rules by simply outlawing them because of "potential" abuse problems... With that idea in mind I alter the rules as little as possible and make sure that the players have a power that won't break the game - if they have a transform into a 500pt character that works in the game so be it, if it doesn't work back to the drawing board for them. I take it case by case instead of shotgun style.

Speaking for the only person I really can (myself), this wasn't a *potential* abuse. One of my players has this thing about multiform/duplication -- if there's a legitimate way for her to play such a character in the campaign/genre she will. So I inevitably find myself becoming very thoroughly acquainted with the way any system we play does this

To be honest, I understand why the decision to eliminate the 1-to-1 rule was made -- I just disagree that the reason was strong enough to justify that action. In my opinion it is more important that the rules be internally consistent than that one niggling case be handled perfectly. Keeping the 1-to-1 rule means the niggling case (an item/spell that grants a super-powered form in a low-point campaign) is only 90% well handled (it costs "too much").

[ghost-angel]

Speaking for the only person I really can (myself), this wasn't a *potential* abuse. One of my players has this thing about multiform/duplication -- if there's a legitimate way for her to play such a character in the campaign/genre she will. So I inevitably find myself becoming very thoroughly acquainted with the way any system we play does this

Well, once you get into the actual abuse level you have only two real choices - tell the player no, in which case you can run into problems if another player uses the same rule in a different way and you allow it; "But you let Timmy play a shapeshifter!!" kind of thing. Or you alter the rules so the abuse factor is no longer available to anyone.

The second one is, to me, the harsher of the two. I personally prefer to deal with the first situation, because I believe in my ability to force players to grow up and accept the fact that not everyone is equal. But I'm a jerk sometimes

Most GMs will, sanely, simply do what you do and limit the rules. Nothing wrong with that at all if you really are curbing an abusive tendency instead of trying to prevent an abuse you can simply imagine.

[Bengal]

I allow the rule whole cloth, as is. All it "gives" the player is a weaker form to change in to for free. Plenty of stuff is more munchkinny than that.

[Hugh Neilson]

I allow the rule whole cloth, as is. All it "gives" the player is a weaker form to change in to for free. Plenty of stuff is more munchkinny than that.

While I don't change the rule, I would look twice (or more) at a character who can become more powerful than the campaign baseline (eg. a 350 point Super who spends points on a 1,000 point Second Form).

I also see the potential for abuse - for example, that same 350 point character spends "only" 100 points on a 350 point multiform with 64 total forms (6 doublings). In those 64 forms are forms that step on the toes of every other player in the campaign. eg. "I'll assume my Brick form. He's a lot like John's Brick, except I didn't need the skills and sensory powers, since I have them in another form, so he pumped those extra 50 points back into +10 STR, +5 PD and ED, and +10 DEX. Step aside, Skinny - I'll move the boulder blocking the entrance!"

I still see the need for the rulke as is. It's just a matter of enforcing its appropriate use and not allowing a character such as the above one.

[Solomon]

I allowed such a construct in my current campaign. Our 350 points brick has a werewolf-like 400 points alternate form. The Multiform is severely limited though (No Conscious Control), and I woudn't have allowed it otherwise. It's still the single larger power in my group, in terms of Active Points. Other players in my group are limited to 65 AP powers.

[Col. Orange]

Is there any reason you shouldn't build Hulk/Werewolf as the pure combat main character (in which case you'll save shed loads on skills, perks and such) - then buy wimpy Banner/Villager as the cheap multiform?

[Dr. Anomaly]

Is there any reason you shouldn't build Hulk/Werewolf as the pure combat main character (in which case you'll save shed loads on skills, perks and such) - then buy wimpy Banner/Villager as the cheap multiform?

Because of the problems you run into vs. Suppress, Dispel, Drain, etc. You "turn off" someone's Multiform, and they become the monster? It doesn't usually work that way in fiction; plus the "true" character usually started as a human who got "cursed" with becoming a rampaging "thing". That would make the human the base form, conceptually.

Plus, do you remember having to build a "shrinking ray" that used a Suppress vs. Growth to shrink an elephant or an aircraft carrier? That's why Growth is no longer used to create things that are larger than human-sized normally...same thing here.

[Hugh Neilson]

Plus, do you remember having to build a "shrinking ray" that used a Suppress vs. Growth to shrink an elephant or an aircraft carrier? That's why Growth is no longer used to create things that are larger than human-sized normally...same thing here.

Nice...I hadn't thought about that change in this fashion before. But wouldn't 1 level of Shrinking cut the elephant down to half size anyway (cancelling 3 levels of Growth for size, but not for stats)?

[TheEmerged]

If your campaign has "nova detects" -- which detect people with super powers, or people that lack the Normal Characteristic Maxima disadvantage, or the active use of a super power -- the ability to 'hide' this by 'going dormant' is actually pretty doggone useful. That's what I was referring to.

[tesuji]

Actually, i still advocate the old 4e limit: the most expensive form pays for the multiform and the lesser forms must not exceed the total cp of that form minus his MF rp cost.

To this i add: Choose true form. The true form is ASSUMED to be the biggest point character, the one who paid for the multiform by the cost. The true form is the one which the character will revert to when the MF for any reason is turned off. If the character concept would suggest one of the weaker forms as the true form, the character takes a limitation on his multiform to reflect the involuntary switch is to the weaker form. This lim would be -0 if the weaker form is within 2/3 of the top form, -1/4 if less than 2/3 but at least 1/3, and -1/2 if less than 1/3. This value may vary if counter mukltiform powers are exceptionally common.

So your werewolf built as say a 350 werewolf and a 150 numan would buy the multiform on the werewolf character at 30 pts (for the 150 human) but would apply a -1/4 for "true form is between 2/3 and 1/3 of the top form" giving it a cost of 24 cp. When the MF was dispelled or shut off by any means, the character would revert to the true form.

Because of the problems you run into vs. Suppress, Dispel, Drain, etc. You "turn off" someone's Multiform, and they become the monster? It doesn't usually work that way in fiction; plus the "true" character usually started as a human who got "cursed" with becoming a rampaging "thing". That would make the human the base form, conceptually.

Again, the problem comes from linking two disparate factors... the character who pays for the multiform and the true form. Severe the link between these and things make more sense.

Making the most powerful form pay for the multiform is a simple cost for effectiveness issue. its no more a matter of fx or concept than having Eb cost 4 cp per d6 is.

true form is more a matter of concept and character than of points. Its only impact on COSt is that, since that form can be one the character is involuntarily forced into, if the true for is the weaker form that represents a limitation.

severe the linkage between "true form" and "the form that pays for multiform", require the bigger form to buy the MF and keep the lesser forms limited to his cost minus the MF and the balance problems seem to go away fairly quickly.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Actually, i still advocate the old 4e limit: the most expensive form pays for the multiform and the lesser forms must not exceed the total cp of that form minus his MF rp cost.

To this i add: Choose true form. The true form is ASSUMED to be the biggest point character, the one who paid for the multiform by the cost. The true form is the one which the character will revert to when the MF for any reason is turned off. If the character concept would suggest one of the weaker forms as the true form, the character takes a limitation on his multiform to reflect the involuntary switch is to the weaker form. This lim would be -0 if the weaker form is within 2/3 of the top form, -1/4 if less than 2/3 but at least 1/3, and -1/2 if less than 1/3. This value may vary if counter mukltiform powers are exceptionally common.

Personally, I wouldn't mind this option at all...make choosing the base form a bit like choosing the FX for your Energy Blast; and if it is a weaker form, getting a small limitation on the Multiform cost.

You had some other good points, too.