Naked Advantage Confusion

[Armory]

One of my players is updating a character he hasn't played in awhile and he had a question or two about Naked Advantages that I couldn't easily answer. 

 

He originally had purchased three different EBs (this is 5th Ed Rev):  one unmodified 15d6 EB (75 Active Points); one 9d6 EB w/Indirect (79 Active Points); one 8d6 EB w/Double Knockback (70 Active Points).  I suggested he buy just the one unmodified EB, and then two Naked Modifiers, one Indirect and one 2x KB.  However...

 

If the Indirect Naked Advantage is bought for up to 75 AP of the EB, that alone is 56 Active Points.  That means when he's using the EB with Indirect, he's throwing a 131 Active Point Power, right?  Since the EB that's being modified is already at the campaign limit (75 Active Points, although I did grant an exception for the Indirect one), then there's no way for him to use Naked Advantages with this power that doesn't exceed the limit, is that correct?  Even if we purchase the Naked Advantage to apply to less than the full amount of the EB, the total for the base Power and the NA will still exceed 75 Active Points.

 

Or, since Naked Advantages are considered separate, unique powers, are we only supposed to consider the points of the NA and not the base power when it comes to Active Points limits?

 

I've been playing this game a long time and I still get confused sometimes...

 

[Cantriped]

Which edition is your player updating too; is he updating from 5eR to 5eR, or 5eR to 6e1&2/CC/FHC?

What value/level of Indirect is the player taking? (the values listed above suggest a total Advantage Value of +3/4 on the Indirect Blast).

 

If the character is purchasing both Naked Advantages in the "For this one power specifically" form: It would cost 37 APs for Double Knockback, and 56 APs for Indirect. The character would be able to apply either or both modifiers to the blast simply by paying the appropriate amount of END, and he'd effectively have a 75-168* APs power.

 

Personally I would consider Naked Advantages/Independent Modifiers (same thing different edition) when I determine whether or not the character's abilities exceeded the Active Point Cap of the campaign. So in the above example, the character wouldn't be allowed a potential 168 APs Power if I set a cap of 75. If he's going to (or you plan to make him) purchase them such that they only apply to enough APs of Blast to fit within 75 APs... I'd have to do some maths to double check, but I'm pretty sure the character will be better off just purchasing the variations 'normally' as three Multipower Slots: 15d6 Blast (75 APs), 10d6 Double Knockback Blast (75 APs), and 8d6 Indirect Blast (70 APs) because accounting for the possible +1 1/4 in Advantages with a pool of 75 APs would reduce the maximum Blast he could purchase to 6d6 (30 APs w/o modifiers, 67 APs w/ modifiers).

[Surrealone]

If the Indirect Naked Advantage is bought for up to 75 AP of the EB, that alone is 56 Active Points.  That means when he's using the EB with Indirect, he's throwing a 131 Active Point Power, right?  Since the EB that's being modified is already at the campaign limit (75 Active Points, although I did grant an exception for the Indirect one), then there's no way for him to use Naked Advantages with this power that doesn't exceed the limit, is that correct?  Even if we purchase the Naked Advantage to apply to less than the full amount of the EB, the total for the base Power and the NA will still exceed 75 Active Points.

 

Or, since Naked Advantages are considered separate, unique powers, are we only supposed to consider the points of the NA and not the base power when it comes to Active Points limits?

 

I've been playing this game a long time and I still get confused sometimes...

No, it means he's throwing two distinct, separate powers, one of which is 75 Active Points (the EB power) and one of which is 56 Active Points (the Indirect Naked Advantage, which is, itself, a power).  Also worth noting is that the EB isn't technically modified ... since application of an Advantage as a modifier to it would increase its active point cost, END cost, and resulting effect of the EB all of the time -- since Advantages must ALWAYS be used with the powers they modify.

 

That's not what's been done, here.  Instead, someone purchased a Naked Advantage as a special power (key words: special power -- i.e. not able to be put into a Framework without GM permission) in its own right ... allowing him/her to use the Naked Advantage only when s/he chooses.  The fact that the Naked Advantage need not always be applied to the EB (in the way an Advantage must always be used with a power ) ... should be sufficient evidence that the Naked Advantage does not actually modify the EB ... and is, instead, a separate special power ... to be treated/considered separately.

 

While you mentioned you're using 5e, Multiple Attack capability in 6e allows the throwing of one or more attack powers (i.e. an EB twice; an EB, a Martial Strike, and another EB; etc.) in the same Phase.  Doing so is NOT considered an Active Point cap violation ... so there's good precedent in 6e to suggest that using two distinctly separate powers (i.e. an EB and a Naked Advantage) in the same Phase is also not an Active Point cap violation.

 

How you handle whether things violate your Active Point cap is, of course, your call.  Per literal RAW -- I do not believe there's an AP cap violation ... and what I just cited regarding Multiple Attack would tend to support that thinking since use of a Naked Advantage with another attack power is quite similar in nature.  However, also per RAW, GM fiat always prevails.  Most GMs I've personally encountered would likely permit Indirect ... but consider Armor Piercing to be a violation.  The basis of such a ruling would be that Armor Piercing has the potential to substantially increase damage after defenses are considered .... while Indirect does not, and tends to only misdirect, confuse, or (occasionally -- likely the first shot) surprise.

 

 

Personally I would consider Naked Advantages/Independent Modifiers (same thing different edition) when I determine whether or not the character's abilities exceeded the Active Point Cap of the campaign.

Worth noting is that, very technically, Naked Advantages are distinct, separate special powers for which END must be paid (unless bought with the Charges limitation or bought with a Reduced Endurance: 0 END advantage).  i.e. Because Naked Advantages are special powers in their own right ... they should (very technically) be compared to the AP cap, by themselves ... and not as Advantages to other powers.

 

​It is, of course, a GM's prerogative to apply House Rules around this -- as you have done.  But I wanted to note very specifically that this is, indeed, a House Rule of yours.

[Armory]

It's a character he drew up under 5e, but it hasn't been played in about 10 years, so we're upgrading it to 5eR.  The Indirect is bought as "Any Origin, Any Direction".

 

Multiple attacks was one of the points he brought up when we were discussing this, that if he used Naked Advantages he wouldn't be able to fire two blasts simultaneously, whereas with his original build, he could.  If we look at it like Surrealone suggests, adding a Naked Advantage to an EB is the same thing as using two distinct EBs:  the APs are considered separately.  So there's no reason he couldn't use the base EB and both the Indirect and 2x Knockback all at once, it's the same as firing three EBs at a time, which he could do if he bought them separately (unless they're ultra-slots in a Multipower).

 

I have to get it through my head that the NA isn't modifying the base power, it's creating a brand-new one.  

[Hugh Neilson]

First off, Steve Long commented during the 6e leadup (maybe it was only in a SETAC discussion) that AP caps are not part of the default Hero system. He's also a big fan of the statement that it's a game, not a tax return, so the rules need to be applied in a manner that make the gam most enjoyable, rather than hard and fast rules we squeeze every last benefit from.

 

I'd certainly consider the full advantaged power in assessing any campaign DC caps.

 

He could buy the naked advantages to cover less than the full AP of the base Blast, if desired. I don't see why he would, rather than slap a 15d6 Blast, 8d6 Double Knockback blast and 9d6 Indirect blast as Ultra slots in a Multipower.

[Cantriped]

Worth noting is that, very technically, Naked Advantages are distinct, separate special powers for which END must be paid (unless bought with the Charges limitation or bought with a Reduced Endurance: 0 END advantage).  i.e. Because Naked Advantages are special powers in their own right ... they should (very technically) be compared to the AP cap, by themselves ... and not as Advantages to other powers.

​It is, of course, a GM's prerogative to apply House Rules around this -- as you have done.  But I wanted to note very specifically that this is, indeed, a House Rule of yours.

Indeed they are separate powers, more or less so dependent upon how you price them. Which is why I cited a personal opinion/preference instead of actual rules text. Honestly though... I've never used a hard Active Point cap in any of my campaigns (they are really more like guidelines, or suggestions). So I was really just citing a hypothetical preference.

 

All in all, if the opponents in your campaign can already handle 15d6 Normal Damage, adding either Indirect (Source & Path Vary From Use To Use; +1?) or Double Knockback (+1/2) isn't gonna change much in terms of lethality. So I would allow either without much concern if I've already allowed a 15d6 Normal Damage attack. The only concern I would have is the character using the combination of the two to create synergistic bonus damage by Double Knockback'ing the target into whatever surface they are closest too or standing upon. As long as my big bad-guys can still withstand that trick being used at least once, while still being fairly vulnerable to other character's best tricks, than I'd allow it. Otherwise I would very carefully consider prohibiting it. Nobody wants an Effective DC Arms Race (only the GM can win those, and our goal is more or less to lose... just barely).

[indy523]

No, it means he's throwing two distinct, separate powers, one of which is 75 Active Points (the EB power) and one of which is 56 Active Points (the Indirect Naked Advantage, which is, itself, a power).  Also worth noting is that the EB isn't technically modified ... since application of an Advantage as a modifier to it would increase its active point cost, END cost, and resulting effect of the EB all of the time -- since Advantages must ALWAYS be used with the powers they modify.

Technically it is two different powers however the rule for power limits is to keep someone from munchkining a character by applying an unbalancing level of points to an attack at the expense of realism6c

[massey]

I'm going to disagree with some of the other posts, in regards to whether it's a separate power or not.

 

While technically, a Naked Advantage counts as a "power" (in that it is built like a power, separately from the base power and with its own limitations not necessarily shared by the base power), it really functions as a normal Advantage.  So yeah, if he's gonna be throwing a 15D6 attack with Indirect, it's basically a 131 Active Point power.

 

Now, does that mean you shouldn't allow it?  I don't really see that much of a problem with it.  Some powers are just really expensive.  I once played a character who could throw 11D6 attacks with variable special effect and fully indirect.  It was pretty darn expensive, but at the end of the day I was only throwing 11D6 attacks at people.  I could get surprise bonuses to hit, but I could have bought +5 OCV for 10 points instead, so I really wasn't getting that much bang for my buck.  (The special effect of the power was that the environment itself protected him, so power lines would fall on his enemies, they'd get hit by a bus out of nowhere, a piano might fall on them from overhead, a fire hydrant could break open and hose them down with water, etc).  It was a fun ability, but the guy who could punch for 16D6 was still a lot more effective.

 

Active Points are a nice thing to look at to make sure somebody isn't sneaking something past you (that double knockback attack is more powerful than you think -- first thing I'd do is try to aim somebody at something very very durable, and get two attacks out of one).  But they don't tell the whole story.  Just because something is high active points doesn't mean that it should be outlawed from your game.

[Surrealone]

Technically it is two different powers however the rule for power limits is to keep someone from munchkining a character by applying an unbalancing level of points to an attack at the expense of realism6c

When quoting me you seem to have left out the fourth paragraph of the same post.  I mention this because I believe said paragraph that you neglected to quote makes it pretty clear that I understand the purpose of active point caps.  However, as massey has rightly pointed out, active point comparisons are simply a tool ... and it's just not a black/white thing when it comes to certain Naked Advantages.  That's what GMs are for...

[Hyper-Man]

I'm going to disagree with some of the other posts, in regards to whether it's a separate power or not.

 

While technically, a Naked Advantage counts as a "power" (in that it is built like a power, separately from the base power and with its own limitations not necessarily shared by the base power), it really functions as a normal Advantage.  So yeah, if he's gonna be throwing a 15D6 attack with Indirect, it's basically a 131 Active Point power.

 

Now, does that mean you shouldn't allow it?  I don't really see that much of a problem with it.  Some powers are just really expensive.  I once played a character who could throw 11D6 attacks with variable special effect and fully indirect.  It was pretty darn expensive, but at the end of the day I was only throwing 11D6 attacks at people.  I could get surprise bonuses to hit, but I could have bought +5 OCV for 10 points instead, so I really wasn't getting that much bang for my buck.  (The special effect of the power was that the environment itself protected him, so power lines would fall on his enemies, they'd get hit by a bus out of nowhere, a piano might fall on them from overhead, a fire hydrant could break open and hose them down with water, etc).  It was a fun ability, but the guy who could punch for 16D6 was still a lot more effective.

 

Active Points are a nice thing to look at to make sure somebody isn't sneaking something past you (that double knockback attack is more powerful than you think -- first thing I'd do is try to aim somebody at something very very durable, and get two attacks out of one).  But they don't tell the whole story.  Just because something is high active points doesn't mean that it should be outlawed from your game.

 

The Active Point issue is similar and related to the issue of determining which Advantages “directly affect how the victim takes damage.” as noted on pages 96-100 of 6e2.  In particular the following paragraph.

 

From 6e2 page 98:

Advantages That Directly Affect Damage

As noted above, for purposes of calculating the DCs of an Advantaged attack, the GM determines which Advantages “directly affect how the victim takes damage.” Typically the following Advantages qualify, though the final decision is up to the GM: Area Of Effect, Armor Piercing, AVAD, Autofire, Boostable Charges, Constant, Cumulative, Damage Over Time, Does BODY, Does Knockback, Double Knockback, Increased STUN Multiplier, MegaScale in some instances, Penetrating, Sticky, Time Limit, Transdimensional, Trigger, Uncontrolled, Usable As Attack, Variable Advantage, and Variable Special Effects.

 

HM

[Armory]

I'm going to disagree with some of the other posts, in regards to whether it's a separate power or not.

 

While technically, a Naked Advantage counts as a "power" (in that it is built like a power, separately from the base power and with its own limitations not necessarily shared by the base power), it really functions as a normal Advantage.  So yeah, if he's gonna be throwing a 15D6 attack with Indirect, it's basically a 131 Active Point power.

 

 

This is the way I was originally viewing it, that calling a Naked Advantage a distinct power was just for bookkeeping purposes, and that functionally it was modifying the base power.  I thought one of the purposes of a Naked Advantage applied to a single power was so you didn't have to use it every time, like you would a normal Advantage.  And maybe that's where my logic problem is entering the picture, I have to stop thinking that an NA modifies the base power.

 

I haven't decided what we'll do with the build yet, I was leaning toward Multipower slots instead of Naked Advantages but after this discussion part of me wants to give it a try and see how it goes.  I've been planning to run the team against a version of themselves from an evil alternate universe (yes, they will all have goatees, even the females), so maybe I'll build the evil version of this character with whatever method he doesn't use, as a sort of comparison.  

 

Thanks for all the replies, I'm glad I asked the question.

[Christopher R Taylor]

While technically, a Naked Advantage counts as a "power" (in that it is built like a power, separately from the base power and with its own limitations not necessarily shared by the base power), it really functions as a normal Advantage.  So yeah, if he's gonna be throwing a 15D6 attack with Indirect, it's basically a 131 Active Point power.

 

 

For the purposes of GM sanity and controlling campaign power levels, you have to think of it that way, no matter what the rules may assert or what is technically according to Hoyle.

[DasBroot]

For the purposes of GM sanity and controlling campaign power levels, you have to think of it that way, no matter what the rules may assert or what is technically according to Hoyle.

 

 

Indeed. Lest you end up with a 60 point blast. With an autofire 5 naked advantage. With a seperate 0 end naked advantage. With an  AoE 1 meter naked advantage.  With an armor piercing naked advantage.

[Surrealone]

As HM noted, above, 6e2 p98 should inform/guide as to whether or not Naked Advantages tend to be counted for active point limits associated with damage caps.  This is congruent with my experience with -many- GMs, as well: if the advantage adds to or increases damage (like Armor Piercing), then GMs tend to count it, but if it doesn't (like Indirect, Reduced END, etc.) then they don't.

 

For those GMs who swing a hammer at all advantages just because they are perceived as nails, I remind you that there are different types of fastners and each should be considered and treated accordingly.  (There just isn't a golden hammer in this case...)

 

And regardless of whether a GM does or does not consider a particular Naked Advantage when it comes to AP caps, Naked Advantages are, per RAW, special powers in their own right, not modifications to an existing power.  6e1 p314 says, "Naked Power Advantages are considered Special Powers (and therefore may not be bought
in Power Frameworks without the GM’s permission)."

[mrinku]

I have to admit that as a returning 4e person the independant advantage concept is a bit wild, though there was precedent (in particular advantages bought on STR, but those were treated as inherent to STR).

 

As I understand the writeup (caveat: in CC, not 6e) it's meant to represent things that are inherent to the character that make sense to combine with their other powers or situations (the example was superspeed shooting bought as Autofire).

 

As far as campaign caps go, it pretty much has to be taken into account for the active point cap if available routinely. Wouldn't this be the same as an add-on power from a VPP?

 

If it's limited in some way, you might be able to work it in over the cap, just as you may allow a boosted attack that is going to take everything out of the character, or that they can't rely on.

 

i.e. campaign has 60 AP cap, character has a 12d6 Blast. You wouldn't allow them to make that AP as well, so you shouldn't allow an independant advantage to add to it normally... but if that advantage itself had one charge and triggered the character's Berserk complication there shouldn't be much of an issue. Context is important.

 

I dare not unleash the Hellfire... or the Beast will consume me! But... Jeremy will die if I do not!!!

[Christopher R Taylor]

There aren't very many advantages that shouldn't be considered for active point cap.  I mean you got two heroes here

 

Hero A has a 10d6 blast

Hero B has a 10d6 Indirect blast

 

one of these is more powerful than the other even if it doesn't increase damage.

[mrinku]

Well... indirect is more of a finesse advantage (avoiding obstacles, directing knockback). Active point and DC limits are there for keeping brute power in check. Or at least in the hands of the NPCs

 

If a GM doesn't see it causing a problem in their campaign, they should be fine to allow it. Just as they should disallow specific independent advantages (or any power, really) that they have a problem with.

 

You can always buy an independent advantage for something like Armour Piercing so that it stays within the limits. If 60 points active is the cap, buy it for up to 45 points, and the character's normal 12d6 EB drops to 9d6 when Armour Piercing. Maybe the special effect is focussing the blast on a weak spot?

[DasBroot]

If that's the intent why not put the Blast in a multipower and have a second slot with AP on Blast? A lot cheaper and doesn't cost extra endurance, etc.

 

I really only like  Naked Advantage for heroic level games with 'found' gear (independent foci).  ie: AP on up to 45 active points of RKA - any gun of up to 45 AP that Shootguy gets his hands on (through disarm, looting the drug cartel armory as he invades the compound, etc) is armor piercing for him... he's just that good and always nails a target in their weakest points.

 

If Shootguy only ever uses his trusty .50 cal hand cannons, though, he's better off building a pool around them.

[Surrealone]

There aren't very many advantages that shouldn't be considered for active point cap.  I mean you got two heroes here

 

Hero A has a 10d6 blast

Hero B has a 10d6 Indirect blast

 

one of these is more powerful than the other even if it doesn't increase damage.

Hero A may also have lots of Flight that's usable while the Blast is in use ... while Hero B does not, and, instead uses Indirect to represent working around obstacles instead of having to maneuver around them with Flight like Hero A.  At that point, the mechanic is mostly about flavor/SFX ... and one really isn't more powerful than the other.

[indy523]

When quoting me you seem to have left out the fourth paragraph of the same post.  I mention this because I believe said paragraph that you neglected to quote makes it pretty clear that I understand the purpose of active point caps.  However, as massey has rightly pointed out, active point comparisons are simply a tool ... and it's just not a black/white thing when it comes to certain Naked Advantages.  That's what GMs are for...

 

I quoted the portion of your text that was relevant.  Yes you do later discuss active cap rules but only to the extent you feel necessary to justify your premise which is that it is not a violation of the active capacity rules.  That in one point of view.

 

This in no way diminishes my point which is that while technically correct it still allows for players to create unbalanced characters.  I apologize for not understanding that your tertiary acknowledgment of the AP rules negated any need to point this out.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Hero A may also have lots of Flight that's usable while the Blast is in use ... while Hero B does not

 

 

Whilte true, that's about as relevant as whether the player playing them has more luck with dice.  It says nothing whatsoever to the bald fact that the character with the advantage on their power is more powerful than the one without it.  That's why they're called "advantages"