Jump to content

Partially Limited VPP Control Cost


Hugh Neilson

Recommended Posts

From


 

Quote

 

Nothing ever reduces the cost of the pool.  Nothing. Ever.

 

A 75 point pool always costs 75 points.

 

Note, however, that a 100 point VPP with a control cost for 100 AP powers would cost 150 points.

 

The cost for the 75 point pool, 50 AP powers + 50 AP OAF Staff is 75 + 25 + 12 = 112 points.

 

That's the same as a 50 point pool with 50 AP powers (75 points) + half that cost again (37 points), so the OAF Staff is effectively halving the cost of the additional 50 point VPP.

 

Without the staff, this character would have a fully-accessible 50 point pool, with powers max'ed out at 50 AP.  He would, however, have access to the additional 25 points in the Pool.  He could have, say, 3-25 point powers in the Pool with no Staff. 

 

 

I think the above is a book-legal VPP, however the OP says he can't figure out how to make that work in Hero Designer.  I'll let him know where this thread is, and hopefully you can help him out.  Since I don't use HD, I'm not much help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to head off any misconceptions, I'm not entirely sure that the construct you're after is legal.  The Control Cost of a VPP can take on Limitations and those Limitations can apply to all Powers bought through the VPP. So far so good.  But I don't believe you can "partially Limit" the Control Cost. Particularly given that if you did so, you'd essentially be looking at two separate VPPs, one with the OAF applied to the Control Cost, and one without...and Powers from two Power Frameworks explicitly cannot modify or apply to each other.

If the GM wanted to allow it anyway, you'd need to purchase two VPPs, each with a 38 point Pool and 50 point Control Cost. One of those VPPs would take the OAF limitation on the Control Cost. All Powers purchased through that VPP would similarly gain the OAF limitation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to parse this through the rules.  My gut feel was that it's legal,but I had not dug through it.

 

I'll put my conclusion up here, and show my work below, as I parsed through the book.

 

I'm none the wiser as to whether a partially limited control cost is OK by RAW, "with special GM permission" or "no way".  I am pretty confident it can be read in any of the three ways, and if you read it as "no way", then the answer "Hero Designer does not allow this" makes perfect sense to me.

 

If I wanted such a construct in HD, nothing stops me writing in a 38 (or 50) point VPP with 50 control cost, a 37 (or 25) point VPP with 50 Control Cost, OAF Limitation, and running the character as being able to create up to 50 real points of 50 AP powers lacking the OAF, or up to 75 real points of powers with any AP over 50 subject to the OAF.  The pricing would be the same as the "partially limited" construct.

 

Well, nothing in HD stops me and the pricing would be unchanged - my GM's ruling could certainly stop me or change the pricing, but that applies to everything.

 

RESEARCH FOLLOWS:

 

From 6eV1p366, on Partially-Limited Powers, "You can also apply this effect to Advantages,Adders, Power Frameworks, and parts of a power."  However, the only example is an advantage, so VPPs are not specifically discussed.

 

From 6eV1p401, "A character can have a partially-Limited power in a Power Framework slot, unless the GM objects for some reason. He cannot partly Limit a  framework’s reserve or base cost, however."

 

Page 406 goes on to note "A character may not partially Limit a Multipower reserve unless the GM permits him to. However, he may have a partially-Limited power
as a slot in a Multipower."  That's not covering the VPP, though. 

 

The term "partially limited" does not appear in the VPP section.

 

We know the pool cost can never be modified (p 409). 

 

I can definitely see a read of P 410 that the control cost cannot be partially limited.  It does not explicitly prohibit, but neither does it explicitly permit, this.

 

Coming back to p 401, the term "base cost" is challenging me.  The glossary defines this as referring to "a Characteristic, Skill, or Power at its lowest or most primary level, without any additional modifiers, bonuses, Adders, Advantages, and so forth. For example, “base DEX Roll” means the DEX Roll calculated as (9 + (DEX/5)), without adding any bonuses from Skill Levels or other sources."  "Cost" is undefined.  Given the MP requires special permission to partially limit the reserve or pool, it seems like this at least impacts the pool, but there are no limitations on the VPP pool anyway.  I could see interpreting this to include the control cost, except that it seems not to apply to the slot cost in a MP.

 

The term "base cost" shows up again as the "no advantages or limitations" cost of a power in the term "real cost", a skill (p 61), a few references in Powers, Advantages (none helpful in this context).

 

P 399 notes that you cannot "Link a power or Power Framework to the reserve or base cost of a Power Framework."  I can read this as there being two separate elements, or as "reserve" being synonymous with "base cost".  The same "reserve or base cost" prohibits a partially-advantaged "reserve or base cost" (p 400), but "If a character applies Autofire to the reserve or base cost of a Power Framework, he cannot make an attack involving shots from two or more slots — he can only use the Autofire for only one slot at a time."

 

p 402 notes that "No power in a Multipower can have an Active Point cost greater than the base cost of the Multipower reserve — the amount of Character Points
spent on the reserve before any Advantages or Limitations are applied."  That's no too helpful as the multipower mechanics differ from the VPP pretty substantially, so whether that "base cost" is the "pool" or "control cost" aspect of the MP is less than clear.

 

The term is not used at all in a VPP.

 

At this point, I stopped and concluded above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Simon said:

If the GM wanted to allow it anyway, you'd need to purchase two VPPs, each with a 38 point Pool and 50 point Control Cost. One of those VPPs would take the OAF limitation on the Control Cost. All Powers purchased through that VPP would similarly gain the OAF limitation.  

 

(I'm the OP from the other forum): but "If the GM wanted to allow it anyway..." but it can't be done in Designer that way, right?
 

And here is how I envision it both from the Books and from a 'comic story' or movie viewpoint:

 

Joe Magus has natural magic talent, like a young and less powerful version of Dr. Strange, expressed in the Hero System through a VPP. He don't need no stinkin' focus, lol. However, his Master gives him a gift of a Staff that increases or boosts his natural talent (in other words increases the VPP itself). Magical storywise, this seems reasonable. I can find nothing in 6E which rules this out.

 

Now let's compare this to just a fully limited VPP. The OAF would be a common modifier, the Lim would apply to the Control Cost and all the powers. 

My version, Partially Limited VPP, is simply a "VPP-only Modifier" to be able to add OAF Limited extra points to the VPP itself. He has to have the staff to have the extra power for the VPP.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is how I created a power within said VPP, for reference. The Staff that adds extra power to the VPP, as Hugh mentioned, does not change the Cost formula for the enhanced VPP. The staff adds directly to the VPP itself as a VPP-Only Modifier and does not require the individual slots to take that limitation. He just needs the OAF Staff to get the extra CP and RP for the VPP. And here is a sample power within that VPP, for clarification (created in Designer).

 

Mind Control - Animals:  (Total: 38 Active Cost, 25 Real Cost) Mind Control 1d6 (Animal class of minds), Telepathic (+1/4), Constant (+1/2), Cumulative (48 points; +1 1/4) (15 Active Points) (Real Cost: 15)

plus

Mind Control 1 point (Animal class of minds), Telepathic (+1/4), Constant (+1/2), Cumulative (64 points; +2) (7 Active Points); OIF (-1/2)

plus
Mind Control 1d6 (Animal class of minds), Telepathic (+1/4), Constant (+1/2), Cumulative (96 points; +1 1/2) (16 Active Points); Lockout (-1/2), Restrainable (-1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4), Gestures (Minimally forms the desired shape; -1/4), Incantations (Charm the  ___; -1/4), Requires A Roll (Skill roll, -1 per 20 Active Points modifier; -1/4)

In other words, without the Staff or the Spell Casting, Magus could cast Mind Control on animals for 1d6 all on his own. If he uses the staff, he gets another Pip. If he also takes the time and effort to commune with his ghods (cast the spell), he gets yet another 1D6. 

I hope that helps with clarification of what I am trying to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VPPs are often/frequently handled differently from other Power Frameworks, and there are multiple statements in the rules on VPPs that can be interpreted to indicate that Partially Limiting the VPP itself is not something that should be done (game balance, yadda yadda). There's a reason VPPs have a stop sign.

 

But it's moot.

 

If you want to allow a Partially Limited VPP you build it in HD the EXACT SAME WAY you would build any other Partially Limited Power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit I found the discussions related to Power Frameworks tough to parse through (as seen above).  There are two, so if they are not treated the same, there's little point having a general discussion.  "You can also apply this effect to Advantages, Adders, Power Frameworks, and parts of a power. " does not answer the question of how it would be applied to a Power Framework.Simply being able to have partially limited powers as slots is applying the effect to a Power Framework.

 

You can get the same point cost (maybe out a bit for rounding) using Simon's "two 38 point VPPs" or my "one  50 and one 25 point VPP" model as you'll get with a single 75 point VPP and a partially limited control cost.  And your GM may allow any of the three, disallow all three or modify the pricing.  Whether book-legal, GM permission legal or only legal by GM override, some GMs will allow it in the specific game and others will not.  If they do, it costs the same and plays the same.

 

I asked whether this can be done in HD, and if so how.  Simon answered that HD does not allow it as I described, because it's at best a questionable interpretation of  some pretty uncertain reading in the rules.  He provided a mechanism for getting the construct in HD at the same point costs.  He answered all the questions.

 

Whether you agree with his rules interpretation (and disallow the construct entirely) or disagree (and put it in HD as he set out), it will work exactly the same way in play.  Many GMs don't allow VPPs at all, period.

 

As I don't use HD, I don't often visit this Board, so maybe I misinterpret its purpose.  However, as I understand it, this Board is not about interpreting RAW, or whether any given GM would allow a "GM permission" or "GM override" build, it's about how to get HD to build what you want it to build.  That question is answered, by the SW designer who is also very savvy with the rules.

 

Thanks for both that answer and your reasoning behind it, Simon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...