Power Frameworks Issues

[caris]

Oh, you don't get a -1/2 DCV? Well, that's entirely possible, you can see how often MPA is used in my games there, and it would make sense But as I said: Powers and Frameworks are not designed with MPA in mind, but MPA was designed with linked in mind. History lesson: EC exists since first (?) edition, MPA wasn't in the BBB, but is a FRED (5E) addition.

This came up starting with this post in a different thread. Apparently, the original designers did intend for MPAs to always be part of the game.

Now, if the costing is of Multipower was not based off the existance (inferred or otherwise) of MPAs, how can you justify the cost savings in MPs that are only made up of Attack Powers or other powers that inherrently can't be used at the same time anyways? Back in 4th (and even now), I have never had a player submit a Multipower build that included two powers that could be used at the same time.

[Opal]

PLEASE get rid of the "All powers in an EC must cost END" restriction. This might work if there was a guiding philosophy behind which powers do and do not cost END by default, but there isn't.

I think the idea here was to limit the cost break available from EC. EC saves you more - aproaching but never reaching 50% - the more slots you have. Making each slot cost END puts something of a practical limit on that. All the 5th Ed changes to EC were focused on reducing it's utility as a cost break. There were, in the days leading up to FRED, a lot of very vocal complaints about the cost break EC gave 'for nothing.'

[ajackson]

Now, if the costing is of Multipower was not based off the existance (inferred or otherwise) of MPAs, how can you justify the cost savings in MPs that are only made up of Attack Powers or other powers that inherrently can't be used at the same time anyways?

Based on the simple premise of utility. Your second attack power is a whole lot less useful than your first attack power, so it shouldn't cost as much.

[caris]

Based on the simple premise of utility. Your second attack power is a whole lot less useful than your first attack power, so it shouldn't cost as much.

Huh? Please, explain in more detail? In particular, why do we need a power framework to provide this discount as opposed to simply applying it across the board?

[ajackson]

Huh? Please, explain in more detail? In particular, why do we need a power framework to provide this discount as opposed to simply applying it across the board?

Once you have one way of hurting someone, adding a second method of hurting someone doesn't make you substantially better. It does make you slightly better, since you have more options, but it's really not a big increase in power.

As for applying this discount across the board, do you have a method that's simpler than a multipower?

[caris]

Once you have one way of hurting someone, adding a second method of hurting someone doesn't make you substantially better. It does make you slightly better, since you have more options, but it's really not a big increase in power.

As for applying this discount across the board, do you have a method that's simpler than a multipower?

I do not agree with your basic premise. Being more versatile usually is a big increase in power, which is usually an exponetial not a linear kind of increase in power at that. I could see an arguement being made if the Powers were identically built, but they are not often they are designed to trade off weaknesses of the attacks or better exploit weakness of other target (really tough target with hardened Def? switch to NND. really tough target with out hardened? switch to AP. soft target? switch to max dice. High DCB target? switch to AOE.).

Assuming that I agreed with your premise. It would be more logical to apply to a discount to all Attack Powers except the one with the largest Active Cost. Apparantly, that discount should 90% of the Real Cost. Of course, I'd also restrict Attack Powers from being put in any other Frameworks, except VPPs. Under your reasoning, without MPAs the Attack Powers after the first are more limited whether they are in the Multipower or not, so they should be getting the discount independent of even the existance of a Multipower. Is it simpler? No, but it is more logical, and would make all characters more consistent.

[ajackson]

I do not agree with your basic premise. Being more versatile usually is a big increase in power, which is usually an exponetial not a linear kind of increase in power at that. I could see an arguement being made if the Powers were identically built, but they are not often they are designed to trade off weaknesses of the attacks or better exploit weakness of other target (really tough target with hardened Def? switch to NND. really tough target with out hardened? switch to AP. soft target? switch to max dice. High DCB target? switch to AOE.).

Let me give you a concrete example. Compare these two builds:
Build 1: 60 point multipower. Slots are 12d6 EB, 8d6 AP, 6d6 NND, 8d6 AE 1 hex, and 8d6 autofire. Cost: 90 points
Build 2: 18d6 EB. Cost: 90 points

Build 2 always does more damage than slots 1 or 2. It does more damage than slot 3 unless target defense is more than 42. Spread by 10 and you've got 8d6 with +10 OCV, which should deal with most high DCV targets. Against targets with ED > 14, it does more damage than hitting all five times with autofire.

That's with multipowers. Without multipowers, you're comparing those 5 powers to a 60d6 EB.

Under your reasoning, without MPAs the Attack Powers after the first are more limited whether they are in the Multipower or not, so they should be getting the discount independent of even the existance of a Multipower.

Well, yes. However, the easiest way to generate that 90% reduction is multipowers.

[Opal]

(really tough target with hardened Def? switch to NND. really tough target with out hardened? switch to AP. soft target? switch to max dice. High DCB target? switch to AOE.)

Say you're tossing 12d N in a 30-def max game. You do 12 STN to an average character. You put a 6d NND (doing 21 STN), in your multi, costing you 12 pts (two 6pt ultra slots), you can do 21 STN to some opponents with it, 9 more than you do with your EB. But, if you'd just bought up the EB by 10 pts, you'd be doing 19 STN to yor toughest targets. Add a third slot, maybe AP, that lets you do 13 STN, on average to a 30 DEF guy who's immune to our NND - more than the 12d Attack, but, if you'd just but those 18 pts you spend on ultra slots into your EB, you'd be throwing 15 1/2d, and doing 24 STN to your toughest targets. Of course, the game is probably 12d max, too, so you can't do that, while you can buy the multi, but, the utility of the mega blast is a little greater, when it comes to putting STN on someone. Of course, you could also put a /lot/ of other things in your MP, like flight or force field or whatever - but then you'd probably want some of those as multi slots, which'd cost more, as well.

Really, MP is probably the hardest framework to find fault with.

[novi]

Let me give you a concrete example. Compare these two builds:
Build 1: 60 point multipower. Slots are 12d6 EB, 8d6 AP, 6d6 NND, 8d6 AE 1 hex, and 8d6 autofire. Cost: 90 points
Build 2: 18d6 EB. Cost: 90 points

Build 2 always does more damage than slots 1 or 2. It does more damage than slot 3 unless target defense is more than 42. Spread by 10 and you've got 8d6 with +10 OCV, which should deal with most high DCV targets. Against targets with ED > 14, it does more damage than hitting all five times with autofire.

That's with multipowers. Without multipowers, you're comparing those 5 powers to a 60d6 EB.

Well, yes. However, the easiest way to generate that 90% reduction is multipowers.

Yes, you have a point. However, you are forgetting that in many games, GMs forbid players from having attack powers in excess of a certain amount of active points. An 18d6 EB can do many of those things, but what happens when the GM says, "12 DC limit on attacks"?

[McCoy]

Q: Should all the Frameworks somehow be “unified” into one type?

No.

Q: Should we rename Elemental Control?

I would say "no," if I had not run into a GM who, with a straight face, insisted that and elemental control could only be based on fire, water, air or earth.

Q: Should we change Multipower and VPP so that it’s the Real Points that have to fit into the Framework’s reserve/pool?

Yes.

[McCoy]

I'd also consider removing the restriction on no endurance powers as part of an EC.

Yes.

[Kdansky]

Yes, you have a point. However, you are forgetting that in many games, GMs forbid players from having attack powers in excess of a certain amount of active points. An 18d6 EB can do many of those things, but what happens when the GM says, "12 DC limit on attacks"?

If there are no Attack-MPs and you are not allowed to have more than 12 DC, guess what happens? People buy one, and only one, attack and stick with it. I'm definitely not going to spend 60 points on my EB and then another 60 points on my extremly redundant KA. I'll just drop the EB. Paying additional slot cost for small utility (KA vs EB, which by itself is a bad example since there's rarely any use for EB if you have KA, but that's another thread ).
So Blasterboy A gets a 60 AP MP with four attacks, costing him an additional 24 points for greatly increased flexibility when blastering. Skillmonkey B takes 4 more skills (12), an overall skill level (10) and 1" of running, plus only one kind of attack. That looks really fair to me.

MPs make a lot of sense in many ways. They simulate the cost break for redundant powers, they simulate the "cannot fly and FF at the same time" and quite a few other things. ECs? Cost break for twodimensional character. Now that's important...

Also mccoy: steve explicitly asked for answers with more than "yes/no" in them.

Being more versatile usually is a big increase in power, which is usually an exponetial not a linear kind of increase in power at that.

Arg? You're honestly stating the opposite of reality?

PC 0: no attacks
PC 1: KA
PC 2: KA, NND
PC 3: KA, NND, Flash
PC 4: KA, NND, Flash, AE KA
PC 5: KA, NND, Flash, AE KA, Drain
PC 6: KA, NND, Flash, AE KA, Drain, Transform

By far the biggest power gain is from PC0 to PC1. If you add NND to you KA build, you get a slight boost, but you will be able to take most enemies down with your KA, even when NND would be slightly better. Adding a Flash helps a lot, because that does not do redundant damage, but it's not a deal-breaker. And then what do you need a Drain for? Or a Transform? If you can kill them, turning them into a frog isn't so different. Against "I only have defenses against one kind of attack" characters, those help. Against most, it won't make much of a difference.
Getting an additional 6-point Combat Level instead of an additional slot is probably better most of the time.

Compare:
PC6b: KA, NND, Flash, AE KA, Drain, Transform, OCV/DCV 7/7
PC1b: KA, OCV 7/7, 5 combatlevels.

PC1b will win that duel easily due to hitting about 70% of the time and not getting hit 80% of the time (1/4 distribution), but doing nearly the same damage. (or against the AE: taking very low damage, because that one has only half as many dice).



And as an addition to the MPA discussion:
+ 2 OCV, only with Sweeps: 4 points? That's nearly as good...

[jimgettman]

...As for applying this discount across the board, do you have a method that's simpler than a multipower?

Have limitations on a power that uses the points of another power. This does a great simulation of learning a new use for a current power.

This is easily built and shows growth -
(60 AP) 12d EB - Flamethrower
(12 AP) 8d EB (AP +1/2, Uses EB -4)

This requires an extensive power redesign to use the same 12 XP -
(60 AP) Multipower - Flamethrower
(u6 AP) 12d EB
(u6 AP) 8d EB (AP +1/2)

With limitations (however they are handled) Steve can always get the cost and game effect of an MP without needing the framework. That way the rules are simpler, the character sheets are cleaner, and all characters can grow at the same rate when they spend XP.

Also, double rounding is eliminated, sparing us munchkinisms like this -

(15 AP) Multipower - Flamethrower - left nozzle (OAF -1)
(u1 AP) 12d EB
(u1 AP) 8d EB (AP +1/2)

(15 AP) Multipower - Flamethrower - right nozzle (adds to left, OAF -1)
(u1 AP) 12d EB
(u1 AP) 8d EB (AP +1/2)

[ajackson]

Have limitations on a power that uses the points of another power.

Which differs from a multipower how, other than more involved math?

[Kdansky]

I can see that it works, but I don't think it's much cleaner than MP in this case. Also, how do you price the Limitations? So yes, we *can* get rid of MP, but I'm not sure we should. Afterall, we can also put all MPs into VPPs (and we cannot get rid of those without losing something).

I'm extremly sure we should get rid of EC completely (and replace with a limitation).
I'm somewhwat of the oppinion we should keep MP, but I can see it getting merged into Limitations and/or VPP.
I'm extremly sure we should keep VPP.

Just because EC should go does not mean MP should go too. Those are two completely unrelated decisions. Also, what you built there in the first Flamethrower example is a Naked Advantage AP on 40 base points (costing 15), I don't see why there should be a -4 limitation.

Rounding cheesyness is easily solved: If people do it, require them to calculate with real numbers. They will quickly go back to not cheating. That's not a design flaw.