Limitations Issues

[ajackson]

Hm. I feel like it would simplify the game by a lot if we could somehow do away with power limitations. Suddenly, no more confusions about active points vs real points. No more division by fractional values, which many people find frustrating. No more quarter limitations from hell. The trick is how to actually implement this in a way that doesn't lose us too much functionality.

It seems to me that limitations fall into a few broad categories:

1. Power Loss -- the power doesn't work under specified conditions. This includes Foci, OIHID, doesn't work under condition (X), etc. This can be replaced with a Complication.
2. Partial Effect -- the power only accomplishes one of several effects of the basic power (e.g. Strength, Only for Damage). If powers are sliced up so they don't have so many different effects, this becomes unnecessary.
3. Limited Use -- includes Charges, End Reserves, increased END cost, etc. This is, arguably, just Power Loss (out of ammo).
4. Limited Target/Limited Defense -- only works vs a certain category of problem. This doesn't work terribly well under the current rules anyway (saving a couple points on a multipower slot that isn't any more active points than any other multipower slot is rarely worthwhile, and limited defenses are almost always too expensive for what they get you). Limited Target is tricky; a Bane type ability (bonuses vs one type of foe) works if the power is something that should work on anyone, just better vs one foe type, but if it's a power that should only work on one class of foe (e.g. banish vs demons) I don't see a clever implementation. Limited Defense is easier -- rather than dividing cost, just multiply Def.
5. Activation Requirements -- the power only works under special conditions, or takes a lot of time to use, or takes special materials, or some such. I would actually be tempted to reverse this whole thing and just add some rules for boosting powers by taking extra time, etc.
6. Mechanical Limitation -- things like No Range, Visible, Costs Endurance, Self Only, Not Persistent. Can be removed by simply setting the default for powers as the most limited form.

[Opal]

It's official: there really is an 'eliminate all cost breaks' conspiracy out there.

[JmOz]

It's official: there really is an 'eliminate all cost breaks' conspiracy out there.

tell me about it

[Chris Goodwin]

It's official: there really is an 'eliminate all cost breaks' conspiracy out there.

tell me about it

Come on, now. It's only a conspiracy if we they are working together.

[Opal]

Come on, now. It's only a conspiracy if we they are working together.

I'm getting a tinfoil hat.

Steve Jackson has launched Mind Control Satelites to sabotage Hero. It's the only possible explanation. Follow the money. (Hmm... not much money, must be another reason...)

[Vondy]

Come on, now. It's only a conspiracy if we they are working together.

I hereby agree to work with you to advocate balancing point costs.

There, now its a conspiracy.

[gojira]

I think Linked needs to go away.

With MPA and similar constructions, we don't really need Linked anymore. And it was never terribly balanced to begin with, even though it's in the earliest edition I have. Just drop in a hole somewhere and forget about it.

[Chris Goodwin]

I don't have a problem with Linked. Two powers that only go off together and never separately... Linked is perfect.

[ajackson]

Linked is a response to the basic observation that hitting someone with 2 6d6 energy blasts is less effective than hitting them with a 12d6 energy blast; aside from blowing past active point caps in a way the GM might not notice, linked (or MPA) is really not very useful. In terms of effectiveness for the points spent, linked should probably be closer to a -1 limitation.

[Tonio]

I have issues with Linked. Not of the "I think it should go" type, but of the "I'm not sure I get how it currently works" type. First off, if I want to build a power that's an EB and a Flash, do I apply Linked to both powers? Seems logical, but I can't find a single example of it. Second, why is Linked worth less when it's on a power more expensive than the one it's linked to? It's being subject to the same limitation, it should get the same cost break.

Dunno, I'd state clearly that Linked means that the power with it can only be used when the other power is used, and that the reverse isn't true, and have it cost the same for each direction.

[Opal]

Second, why is Linked worth less when it's on a power more expensive than the one it's linked to? It's being subject to the same limitation, it should get the same cost break.

It's presumably because you could add a low Apt power and link a high active point power to it, just to save points, for one thing. It's also because employing a high Apt power is a more significant undertaking - more END, more of your MP or VPP pool, a larger penalty if it's RSR, greater risk of collateral damage if it's an attack, etc.

[Supreme Serpent]

Second, why is Linked worth less when it's on a power more expensive than the one it's linked to? It's being subject to the same limitation, it should get the same cost break.

Dunno, I'd state clearly that Linked means that the power with it can only be used when the other power is used, and that the reverse isn't true, and have it cost the same for each direction.

"Ok, so I'll link my 30d6 Energy Blast to my 5pt IR vision..."

[McCoy]

Doesn't look like anyone has mentioned this, either I missed it or everyone thouth it was too obvious to mention, but:

IF a change is made to advantages, if they go decimal or become adders rather than multipliers, limitations need to follow suit.

[Gideon]

I have a problem with Gestures, Incantations and Restrainable.

Gestures and Incantations both say that if properly restrained (hands tied, gagged) you can't use the power. They also say you can be interrupted using the power because you need to declare at the top of the DEX order for the segment that you are Gesturing or Incanting and someone who goes on the same dex, or is holding can prevent you from using the power. Both limitations are worth -1/4

EX:

Magestrix the wizard goes on SPD 5 DEX 23. Warhead also goes on SPD 5 DEX 23. As soon as segment 3, DEX 23 goes, before any other actions take place, Magestrix's player anounces that the character is Incanting a spell. Before the spell actually goes off, Warhead (and anyone who might have a held action) can attempt to stop Magestrix from finishing his spell. And if I remember correctly (don't have my book on me) simply dealing Magestrix damage is enough to interrupt the spell, as well as darkness to sound, entangling his head or anything else that will prevent him from talking.

Gestures works the same way.

Restrainable says that if properly restrained (hands tied, gagged) you can't use the power, but otherwise you are unrestricted. This limitation is worth -1/2.

If instead of having Incantations on his spells, Magestrix had restrainable (must be able to speak), the ways to stop him from using his powers would be the same, but since he doesn't start the power at the top of the dex order, he can't be interrupted as easily.

I think that Restrainable is a good limitation for what it represents and in all aspects other than cost it makes sense. I simply think that it should be equal to or lower in cost than Incantations and Gestures.

[Gideon]

I have issues with Linked. Not of the "I think it should go" type, but of the "I'm not sure I get how it currently works" type. First off, if I want to build a power that's an EB and a Flash, do I apply Linked to both powers? Seems logical, but I can't find a single example of it. Second, why is Linked worth less when it's on a power more expensive than the one it's linked to? It's being subject to the same limitation, it should get the same cost break.

Dunno, I'd state clearly that Linked means that the power with it can only be used when the other power is used, and that the reverse isn't true, and have it cost the same for each direction.

OK, I have characters with liked so I think maybe I can help.

Lest say you have a 50 AP Energy Blast and a 50 AP Flash.

If the Flash can only be used in combination with the EB, then Flash gets the limitation. This means you can blast people without using the flash, but not the other way around.

If the EB can only be used in combination with the Flash, then the EB gets the limitation. This means you can flash people without using the EB, but not the other way around.

With the above example the limitation is the same cost regardless.

The way Linked works is that usually you link a small power to a bigger one.

EX: A small energy blast linked to an entangle.

The smaller power gets the linked limitation because it can only be used if the bigger power is also being used.

So, we'll say the main power costs 50 AP (with no limitations and no framework), and the linked smaller power is 20 AP (with only the linked limitation). If the linked is worth -1/2 then you pay a total of 63 points for the two powers. 50+(20/1.5)

If on the other hand the main power cost 20 and the linked power cost 50, if the limitation was worth the same amount the total cost would be only 53 points. 20+(50/1.5)

So to keep the costs relatively closer, the value of linked is reduced if the linked power is of higher cost. 20+(50/1.25)= 60 (A three point difference as opposed to a 10 point one.)