Multipower of Stuff That Affects Character

[g3taso]

I'm drawing up a character, who has several items. Of course I would prefer to put them in a multipower, but I understand in 5E that is not how things are done.  

 

How might I save a few points on "equipment" that is paid for in points but affects the character (desolidification, etc)?

[Ninja-Bear]

As far as I know, it is still acceptable to do it that way in 5th.

[DasBroot]

Or the dreaded and powerful 'Magical Item" elemental control pool.

 

 

[mrinku]

4 hours ago, g3taso said:

I'm drawing up a character, who has several items. Of course I would prefer to put them in a multipower, but I understand in 5E that is not how things are done.  

 

How might I save a few points on "equipment" that is paid for in points but affects the character (desolidification, etc)?

 

This is a bit confusing. I'm not the utter 5e expert, but I wasn't aware the basic multipower rules had ever changed significantly. 4e and 6e seem to be largely in accord.

 

Generally, multipowers have ALWAYS required a common special effect, and needed some justification for the powers to be drawing from a common pool. Batman's utility belt is usually done as a VPP, but there's no reason it couldn't be built as a Multipower. On the other hand, a pistol and a knife and a gas mask are probably better done as individual powers as they are unrelated objects. If the knife were part of the pistol, that would be a good justification for a MP, though.

 

If you had various individual gadgets that all drew their power from a common source, that would IMHO be enough to justify a Multipower.

 

What powers exactly are you looking at?

[Ninja-Bear]

Sorry Mrinku but your wrong about the MP. A knife and a gun do not have to joined in order to be a multipower.

[mrinku]

Read my wording a little more carefully N-B. I did not say you can't do it that way, just that it's probably better done as individual powers. 

 

Gun and knife weren't the best example, though - bundling attacks is a classic multipower build, after all.

 

Let's step back and go with Gas Mask, Steel Helmet and Rifle. In theory you could multipower them, but in practice you'd likely want to be able to use all three at once, so it may not be the best idea. And really you'd need some kind of justification for WHY they couldn't be used at the same time to use a power framework in the first place.

 

"Okay... so your flight ring, your laser pistol and your radar are all in a multipower. Is that some sort of common power pack situation?"

"Nah. I just wanted to save points."

 

On the other hand, multipower Gas Mask and Bugle might make sense, if you can never use them together.

 

In any case g3taso, could you please give us some more detail as to what your idea is?

[massey]

6 hours ago, mrinku said:

 

Generally, multipowers have ALWAYS required a common special effect

 

They've never required it, as far as I'm aware.

[mrinku]

They have (I'm certain it was explicitly stated that way in 3e or 4e), but I now realise that's not the case for CC (and probably 6e). So I apologise for that statement.

 

I will stand by the principle that a multipower needs an explanation as to why you can't use all the powers at once, though. Which can be as simple as "you can only use one attack power at a time".

[DasBroot]

If the MP has a common limitation of 'focus' then they're all functionally the same item (or sharing something common, like the cool power pack idea).  If individual slots have focus, though (boot dagger, longbow, broadsword), then 'I only have two hands' is about as simple as it gets (and if you get Disarmed while using the Broadsword you can switch slots to the trusty rusty boot dagger).

 

Multipower should have a common theme (medieval weaponry!), in my opinion (and how I personally build characters), but that's seperate from special effect - a Weather Manipulation MP with tk (push only), RKA (lighting bolt), change environment, and flight would most likely have a different SFX on several of those powers.

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

My bad Mrinku. Failed my reading roll.  

[Ninja-Bear]

Mrinku I can tell you that that has been the way with multipowers since 4th ed  Though when I get a chance, I can check 3rd.

[mrinku]

I checked both 3e and 4e. You're right - while Elemental Control and VPP/Gadget Pool frameworks did require a common special effect, Multipower never did. I must have always gotten that mixed up.

 

Sorry about that. 

[Ninja-Bear]

4 hours ago, mrinku said:

I checked both 3e and 4e. You're right - while Elemental Control and VPP/Gadget Pool frameworks did require a common special effect, Multipower never did. I must have always gotten that mixed up.

 

Sorry about that. 

Np- and I originally thought that MP did have to have a common special effect.

[mrinku]

I'd still want an explanation as to why a multipower existed. Most times that's obvious or reasonable, though.

[Cantriped]

As a GM, I'm generally okay with using Multipower Reserves for sets of equipment, so long as there is a reasonable justification for the Reserve's limit on the number and combination of "items" the character can use at once. For example, I've got an example "Super-Ninja" that uses a Multipower Reserve for their "Ninja Tools". The reserve is large enough to keep any two ninja-tools equipped at a time because all of their starting ninja tools are one-handed items, and this ninja only has two hands... If they later acquired a two-handed ninja-tool (a deadly sharp Nodachi for example, or one of those giant shuriken), I would try to make sure it used up enough of the reserve that nothing else could be slotted.

[mrinku]

Just spotted a salient point for Multipowers purchased as breakable Foci. CC p.105. When applying damage that has gotten through the focus defences, one power bought through the focus is destroyed:

 

"For this purpose a Power Framework counts as one power"

 

So right there is another possible reason to buy your gear outside of a multipower. And I'm guessing it's a point often overlooked for those with gadget pools.

 

 

[Surrealone]

1 minute ago, mrinku said:

Just spotted a salient point for Multipowers purchased as breakable Foci. CC p.105. When applying damage that has gotten through the focus defences, one power bought through the focus is destroyed:

 

"For this purpose a Power Framework counts as one power"

 

So right there is another possible reason to buy your gear outside of a multipower. And I'm guessing it's a point often overlooked for those with gadget pools.

 

 

Umm, but you can just define your focus as unbreakable -- which severely reduces the likelihood of damage getting through the focus defenses.  (Example: Captain America's shield.)

[mrinku]

2 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Umm, but you can just define your focus as unbreakable -- which severely reduces the likelihood of damage getting through the focus defenses.  (Example: Captain America's shield.)

 

 

You can sometimes define a focus as unbreakable. It's always with GM permission (Breakable is default) - and not appropriate for many settings or character concepts.

 

Punisher's Guns

Spider-Man's web shooters

Green Arrow's bow

Batman's Utility Belt

Sgt Fury's Thompson Gun

Deadshot's Wrist Gun

 

My point being that if you take your pistol and your knife as two options of the one Multipower, they are attacked and destroyed as one power (even if defined as separate foci) because they are part of the one Power Framework. Pretty sure Disarm would apply as well here, and THAT works on Unbreakables.

 

So it may make more sense to buy them separately.

[Surrealone]

1 hour ago, mrinku said:

 

You can sometimes define a focus as unbreakable. It's always with GM permission (Breakable is default) - and not appropriate for many settings or character concepts.

Now I believe you're just making things up to support your stance on this topic.  But in case I'm wrong, care to cite 6e RAW that states 1) breakable is default and 2) players can 'sometimes' define a focus as unbreakable?  Also care to cite where 6e RAW clearly states (explicitly -- i.e. without implication or resort to the over-arching GM fiat/veto that applies game-wide) that GM permission is required to have an unbreakable focus?  (Example: 6e1 p102 states, "Followers cannot themselves have Followers, except with special permission from the GM."  That's an example of something explicitly requiring special GM permission -- with no resort to over-arching GM fiat/veto.  I can find nothing like that for Unbreakable Foci.)

 

I ask for 6e citations supporting your assertions because 6e1 p378 states (red emphasis added by me):
"Fifth, the player decides whether the Focus is Breakable or Unbreakable. Either choice has advantages and Complications, so there’s no cost difference except in extreme circumstances (see below)."

 

I point this out because, per that cited 6e RAW, there's no default ... and GM permission is absolutely not required; the player makes the decision and there's no 'sometimes' about it.  Everything in the rules, of course, is subject to GM veto, but that doesn't imply the player needs to say, "Master, may I, your humble slave, pretty please have an unbreakable focus?" (like s/he would have to for Followers of Followers). Instead, the player defines the character's focus and presents his/her justification; as usual, and the GM holds the usual veto power as s/he does with everything else.  Thus, unless raw clearly states GM permission is explicitly required to choose an unbreakable focus -- it isn't.  (Important: Lack of GM veto is not the same thing as GM permission;  they are subtly different things, as lack of veto doesn't necessarily imply permission.)

 

I figured this was worth clarifying because the player may simply not want to hassle with breakages/malfunctions of his/her focus and, therefore, may select an unbreakable focus to better represent that gaming preference.  This selection results in an item that may occasionally be denied his/her character for dramatic or plot purposes (e.g. taken, lost, etc.) ... but not by way of breakages/malfunctions unless, of course, the item is unmade (since even Unbreakable Foci can be unmade).  In such a case, 6e1 p379, makes it clear that "The GM should be careful with an Unbreakable Focus; if he destroys it, the character should have some way (a quest, perhaps?) to remake it." ... which informs us that that destruction of an Unbreakable Focus is something intended to be a plot device involving temporary denial, nothing more.

Surreal

P.S. Keep in mind that CC has deviations from 6e RAW -- despite certain people on these forums insisting they're the same and interchangeable.  They aren't, which is, in part, why I ultimately quit using CC.  Counter to how it is named, I have found CC to be incomplete and in some cases, incorrect; never mind that Mr. Long never uses it when responding to questions.  This is why I requested 6e RAW citations ... to ensure we're on the same page (that being the one that came first among the two ... and is actively supported by its author.)

[mrinku]

Sorry mate. I can't give 6e references because I only have CC (although I have 3e, 4e and recently got hold of pre-revised 5e).

 

The CC text I have (p 105) says "Durability: By default, a Focus is Breakable". The other Focus qualities stated to be default are Mobility (default is Easily Movable) and Expendability (by default a focus isn't expended when used), although neither of those have -0 options; it's clearer that there is a default when the other options give higher bonuses. Obviousness, Accessibility and Applicability have choices but no default. 

 

So it does appear this is a 6e vs CC difference.

 

Look, I do take your point. Personally I'd not allow an unbreakable combat knife unless it really was made of super-science or magic, but it's the call of every GM one way or another. Interested to see what way of unmaking gets defined in that situation, too - THAT definitely has to pass muster and get GM approval, because it's subjective.

 

And as I think I mentioned, this sort of thing also falls under setting ground rules. Superheroes is one thing, but Espionage or Low Fantasy is another.

[Ninja-Bear]

Unbreakable, you still have to define one way which it can be destroyed as the eluded example of the One Ring.

[Ninja-Bear]

Looked at 6th Basic and it says Focus are usually breakable but sometimes unbreakable such as magical or unique items. Unique I would say implies things like Capt. America’s shield.

[g3taso]

Sorry. For what it's worth the powers I wanted to multipower are all using Star Wars "Force" FX and included some jumping, "seeing into the future" Jedi reflexes and so forth. As I understand it, you don't put stuff that affects you in a multipower in 5e

[Surrealone]

3 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Unbreakable, you still have to define one way which it can be destroyed as the eluded example of the One Ring.

Covered that when I wrote the following and cited 6e1 p379:
"unless, of course, the item is unmade (since even Unbreakable Foci can be unmade).  In such a case, 6e1 p379, makes it clear that "The GM should be careful with an Unbreakable Focus; if he destroys it, the character should have some way (a quest, perhaps?) to remake it." ... which informs us that that destruction of an Unbreakable Focus is something intended to be a plot device involving temporary denial, nothing more.

 

 

2 hours ago, g3taso said:

Sorry. For what it's worth the powers I wanted to multipower are all using Star Wars "Force" FX and included some jumping, "seeing into the future" Jedi reflexes and so forth. As I understand it, you don't put stuff that affects you in a multipower in 5e

You can put any power other than Special Powers and/or Talents into a Multipower ... per both 5e and 6e RAW.  This happens to include Standard Powers such as Aid (for reflexes), Leaping (for jumping), and Clairsentience (for foresight), IIRC ... but not Special Powers (such as Characteristics [which is another way of doing Jedi reflexes], Enhanced Senses [like Force Sensitivity, which is very Jedi-appropriate], or Talents [like, say Danger Sense, which is very Jedi-appropriate]) ... without GM approval.

 

Of course, trying to make this 'equipment' (per your initial post) gets a little weird.  I could see a Killing Attack being justified as a lightsaber, but how are you justifying leaping or foresight ... as equipment?

[mrinku]

7 hours ago, g3taso said:

Sorry. For what it's worth the powers I wanted to multipower are all using Star Wars "Force" FX and included some jumping, "seeing into the future" Jedi reflexes and so forth. As I understand it, you don't put stuff that affects you in a multipower in 5e

 

Thanks for clarifying. Basically, you are mistaken.

 

You can't normally put Special Powers in Power Frameworks, but all of the things you just mentioned are fine.

 

Leaping (Movement power)

Clairsentience (Standard power)

Characteristics (Standard Power)

 

Other Force type powers would be Telekinesis, Blast, RKA (all Standard powers), Telepathy, Mind Control and Mind Scan (all Mental Powers). 

 

Any or all of the above might be modified to be based on EGO and thus become Mental powers, but that affects nothing.