Multipower Build - Normal or a Little Fishy?

[Ndreare]

If a player builds a character and wants to place his powers together in a multipower. But he has a giant 150 pool of darkness, then buys a large collection of 50 point powers knowing he may select any 3 as a time. 

Would that bother you as a fellow player in the game?

 

As a GM this does not bother me at all, and playing with the numbers he could actually get a VPP for about 20 more points. But I am curious if this is generally socially considered bad.

[Steve]

Large Multipowers with lots of slots can invite decision paralysis during combat.

 

Having three powers active at 50 points each does not sound abusive to me.

[SCUBA Hero]

Assuming AP limits of 50 or more, it doesn't bother me.  The character is more versatile than another character that's bought, say, 50 point Flight, Armor, and Blast Powers, but they've paid for it with the extra points in each slot.

[Ndreare]

Cool,
Thank you both for the feedback. 

[Tom Cowan]

One more thing, for 5 EXP the player can get a new power by buying a new slot.  Growing the powers to something like 55 points (165 pool of darkness) is going to take time if the player keeps the any three at any time.  The player may need to have a blast at 50 and a blast at 55 (or a 55 flex slot) till the hero can 'scrap' the 'old 50 point blast' or what ever power the player wishes the hero had more of as the hero moves from 150/155/160 pool of darkness.

Other players could add one more DC to this and two points to PD as they grow.

Well, that is the cost of the ez of pick any three at any time.

[LoneWolf]

Do you have any AP limitations in your campaign?   Personally I would count the pool (not including the slots) as a single power.   So, If the cost of the pool is higher than the campaign limit it would not be allowed.  This has nothing to do with any rule in the book and is a house rule.  

[unclevlad]

59 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

Do you have any AP limitations in your campaign?   Personally I would count the pool (not including the slots) as a single power.   So, If the cost of the pool is higher than the campaign limit it would not be allowed.  This has nothing to do with any rule in the book and is a house rule.  

 

We've had that debate, and this is one of MANY reasons why counting the overall framework as a single "power" subject to the same arbitrary limit as any single slot, is blatantly NOT the intent, even if the GM uses them otherwise.  Leave that debate where it was;  if you must, then drop a link to it.  

[Ndreare]

1 hour ago, LoneWolf said:

Do you have any AP limitations in your campaign?   Personally I would count the pool (not including the slots) as a single power.   So, If the cost of the pool is higher than the campaign limit it would not be allowed.  This has nothing to do with any rule in the book and is a house rule.  

 

Yes, 

I am using a 60 AP limit. So anything over 60 costs double for the portion over 60. But I do not place that restraint on the pool, (or on VPP pools) only on the powers in it/them.

[Hey I Can Chan]

It's only fishy if the GM doesn't tell the players that this is the expectation for PCs. If some PCs have an outsized Multipower and others don't, there will likely be some dissatisfaction among players as the power level of those with the outsized Multipower will be higher than the power level of those without. In the abstract, the character's outsized Multipower raises the following issues: 

• The player mitigates your house rule that sees a character's Power cost double beyond 60 Active Points by paying 1/5 or 1/10 for that higher-than-normal Active Point Power. For example, even with the house rule that doubles the price of a Power after 60 Active Points, a player can buy a slot in his character's 150-point reserve Multipower that's a Blast 21d6 (maybe with a number of Limitations on it to reduce the slot cost). Using that Power may render the character vulnerable, but if activating the Power wins the fight, then that's less of a problem. Players whose characters lack a huge Multipower don't have the same option to buy bigger-than-normal Powers on the cheap. You may find yourself having to say, "No, you can't buy that Power."
• The player whose character possesses that huge Multipower can spend a comparatively small number of Points to gain new Powers that solve problems encountered during the campaign. For example, if all the villains can bamf away, it's relatively inexpensive to buy a Multipower slot that's an Area Of Effect Change Environment that penalizes Teleportation. The Power may frequently go unused, but when it's useful the character can still do other things because of the character's outsized Multipower, and with enough such Powers the character will consistently overcome troublesome campaign obstacles that other character's can't while being relatively effective at the same time. Players whose characters lack a huge Multipower either must pay full price for similar niche Powers or allocate their non-outsized Multipower reserves to such niche Powers (therefore likely limiting those characters' efficacy while the Power is activated). You may find yourself having to say, "No, you can't spend your experience points on that Power."
• The player can allocate the character's Multipower reserve to different Attacks simultaneously then use the Combined Attack rules (6E2 74). This, too, may render the character vulnerable, but the possibility of making one Attack with three different Powers at once, for example, may make that vulnerability worthwhile, especially if the character can consistently start combat with a Combined Attack from surprise. (Expect Lightning Reflexes!) Similar to the above, players whose characters lack huge Multipowers usually pay full price for Powers that can be used with the Combined Attack rules. Further, characters with non-outsized Multipower reserves may just not have the option to make a Combined Attack with different Attack Powers in their Multipowers, their reserves being too small. You may find yourself having to say, "No, this campaign doesn't use the Multiple Attack rules."

These may not be your concerns, and you may have tricks that allay these concerns, but these would be my concerns were I the GM. Likewise, were I player in a campaign whose PC was built in the traditional fashion—buying Movement Powers and Defense Powers separately and a Multipower just for my main Attack Powers, for instance—, once the other player revealed that his character had an outsized Multipower, I'd ask the GM if all the players could (re)design their characters so that all PCs had outsized Multipowers, too. This way each PC could contribute in the same way as the original PC who had the outsized Multipower. Assuming the GM agreed, the risk becomes that all of the campaign's characters have outsized Multipowers (or even VPPs) because they're really efficient.

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Hey I Can Chan
Misused they're for their, as is my wont.

[SCUBA Hero]

Good points.

 

The first one could be handled by forbidding Powers >60 AP.

The second one could be handled, as you noted, by forbidding specialized Powers designed to solve uncommon problems.  The MP was listed as "pool of darkness", so just forbidding Powers that don't fit that concept might work.

The third one could be handled by making an attack with 2 or more Powers in the Multipower a Multiple Attack instead of a Combined Attack.  Good catch there - I completely missed it.

 

Like many things, it comes down to "Is the player looking to have more flexibility (at the cost of the CP spent on the MP Slots), or looking to sneak this in and then abuse it?"

[Grailknight]

2 hours ago, Hey I Can Chan said:

It's only fishy if the GM doesn't tell the players that this is the expectation for PCs. If some PCs have an outsized Multipower and others don't, there will likely be some dissatisfaction among players as the power level of those with the outsized Multipower will be higher than the power level of those without. In the abstract, the character's outsized Multipower raises the following issues: 

• The player mitigates your house rule that sees a character's Power cost double beyond 60 Active Points by paying 1/5 or 1/10 for that higher-than-normal Active Point Power. For example, even with the house rule that doubles the price of a Power after 60 Active Points, a player can buy a slot in his character's 150-point reserve Multipower that's a Blast 21d6 (maybe with a number of Limitations on it to reduce the slot cost). Using that Power may render the character vulnerable, but if activating the Power wins the fight, then that's less of a problem. Players whose characters lack a huge Multipower don't have the same option to buy bigger-than-normal Powers on the cheap. You may find yourself having to say, "No, you can't buy that Power."
• The player whose character possesses that huge Multipower can spend a comparatively small number of Points to gain new Powers that solve problems encountered during the campaign. For example, if all the villains can bamf away, it's relatively inexpensive to buy a Multipower slot that's an Area Of Effect Change Environment that penalizes Teleportation. The Power may frequently go unused, but when it's useful the character can still do other things because of the character's outsized Multipower, and with enough such Powers the character will consistently overcome troublesome campaign obstacles that other character's can't while being relatively effective at the same time. Players whose characters lack a huge Multipower either must pay full price for similar niche Powers or allocate their non-outsized Multipower reserves to such niche Powers (therefore likely limiting those characters' efficacy while the Power is activated). You may find yourself having to say, "No, you can't spend your experience points on that Power."
• The player can allocate the character's Multipower reserve to different Attacks simultaneously then use the Combined Attack rules (6E2 74). This, too, may render the character vulnerable, but the possibility of making one Attack with three different Powers at once, for example, may make that vulnerability worthwhile, especially if the character can consistently start combat with a Combined Attack from surprise. (Expect Lightning Reflexes!) Similar to the above, players whose characters lack huge Multipowers usually pay full price for Powers that can be used with the Combined Attack rules. Further, characters with non-outsized Multipower reserves may just not have the option to make a Combined Attack with different Attack Powers in their Multipowers, their reserves being too small. You may find yourself having to say, "No, this campaign doesn't use the Multiple Attack rules."

These may not be your concerns, and you may have tricks that allay these concerns, but these would be my concerns were I the GM. Likewise, were I player in a campaign whose PC was built in the traditional fashion—buying Movement Powers and Defense Powers separately and a Multipower just for my main Attack Powers, for instance—, once the other player revealed that his character had an outsized Multipower, I'd ask the GM if all the players could (re)design their characters so that all PCs had outsized Multipowers, too. This way each PC could contribute in the same way as the original PC who had the outsized Multipower. Assuming the GM agreed, the risk becomes that all of the campaign's characters have outsized Multipowers (or even VPPs) because they're really efficient.

 

 

 

 

Your issues can be handled easily enough but it takes a GM with the confidence and experience to say NO.  Hero is unlike many open build games in the sense that the GM has far greater veto power over over otherwise RAW legal combinations. 

 

In the first case, I 'd require any DC's of Powers that fall under this case to be purchased outside the Multipower or place a maximum on any individual slot.  If the second case is an issue just make Change Environment a Special Power or say that it cannot impose a Skill Roll on Powers that do not have the Limitation. Also remember that you as GM must approve any added Power purchased with XP just as if it is a starting build. The third case requires you to make a ruling forbidding the Combined Attack or to let it go as a risky but useful tactic and occasionally use it against the PC's. If they object too loudly then you'll have their tactic buy-in on forbidding it. 

 

Much depends on the variance in character optimization among your PC's and your level of acceptance of it. The second hardest part of being a Hero GM(after all the prep work) is learning that saying no in a consistent manner to what you feel is an abusive build is sometimes necessary even if the build in question is legal by RAW. 

[Ndreare]

 

 

I thought a character specifically not use multiple powers from a framework in a combined attack. I need to go reread that. 

 

As an aside the player has agreed to the 50 point limit so I am not concerned with him buying a 10d6 killing attack or something.

 

But yes,  being able to change defences from Shadow armor (13/20 r Def) to shadow form (Desolidification endurance only to activate) and change movement from combat teleport to non combat teleport is all a deliberate part of the build.

 

It just went from 3 seperate one's to a single pool.

[SCUBA Hero]

16 minutes ago, Ndreare said:

I thought a character specifically not use multiple powers from a framework in a combined attack. I need to go reread that

 

IIRC, that was true in 5e, removed in 6e.

 

Edit:  Found it!  5erp311, "However, a character may not combine two or more slots from a single Power Framework as part of a multiple-power attack, even if he has sufficient reserve or base points to use both slots at once."  

 

6e1p399, "A character can make a Multiple Attack (6E2 73) with two or more slots in a single Power Framework, provided he has enough reserve/Pool points to allocate to the two or more slots used in the attack simultaneously. A character can use slots from two or more different Power Frame - works to perform a Multiple Attack, assuming he obeys all the rules for such attacks."  So it looks like that's already a Multipe Attack, not a Combined Attack, by RAW.

Edited July 16, 2022 by SCUBA Hero

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, Hey I Can Chan said:

It's only fishy if the GM doesn't tell the players that this is the expectation for PCs. If some PCs have an outsized Multipower and others don't, there will likely be some dissatisfaction among players as the power level of those with the outsized Multipower will be higher than the power level of those without. In the abstract, the character's outsized Multipower raises the following issues: 

• The player mitigates your house rule that sees a character's Power cost double beyond 60 Active Points by paying 1/5 or 1/10 for that higher-than-normal Active Point Power. For example, even with the house rule that doubles the price of a Power after 60 Active Points, a player can buy a slot in his character's 150-point reserve Multipower that's a Blast 21d6 (maybe with a number of Limitations on it to reduce the slot cost). Using that Power may render the character vulnerable, but if activating the Power wins the fight, then that's less of a problem. Players whose characters lack a huge Multipower don't have the same option to buy bigger-than-normal Powers on the cheap. You may find yourself having to say, "No, you can't buy that Power."

 

As a 90 AP power would cost 120 points in this campaign, I would simply require that it be considered 120 points of the pool.  The other players either paid 120 points for their own 90 AP powers or they don't have any such powers.

 

3 hours ago, Hey I Can Chan said:

• The player whose character possesses that huge Multipower can spend a comparatively small number of Points to gain new Powers that solve problems encountered during the campaign. For example, if all the villains can bamf away, it's relatively inexpensive to buy a Multipower slot that's an Area Of Effect Change Environment that penalizes Teleportation. The Power may frequently go unused, but when it's useful the character can still do other things because of the character's outsized Multipower, and with enough such Powers the character will consistently overcome troublesome campaign obstacles that other character's can't while being relatively effective at the same time. Players whose characters lack a huge Multipower either must pay full price for similar niche Powers or allocate their non-outsized Multipower reserves to such niche Powers (therefore likely limiting those characters' efficacy while the Power is activated). You may find yourself having to say, "No, you can't spend your experience points on that Power."

 

This is a consistent issue for Hero if players are engaged in an arm's race with the GM rather than building interesting characters and expecting to be challenged in-game.  Both characters in your example have one less power they can use while the niche power is in play, so they both have reduced efficacy.

 

3 hours ago, Hey I Can Chan said:

• The player can allocate the character's Multipower reserve to different Attacks simultaneously then use the Combined Attack rules (6E2 74). This, too, may render the character vulnerable, but the possibility of making one Attack with three different Powers at once, for example, may make that vulnerability worthwhile, especially if the character can consistently start combat with a Combined Attack from surprise. (Expect Lightning Reflexes!) Similar to the above, players whose characters lack huge Multipowers usually pay full price for Powers that can be used with the Combined Attack rules. Further, characters with non-outsized Multipower reserves may just not have the option to make a Combined Attack with different Attack Powers in their Multipowers, their reserves being too small. You may find yourself having to say, "No, this campaign doesn't use the Multiple Attack rules."

 

If my character spends 150 points and buys three 50 AP attacks, they can use those three attacks together as a Combined Attack.  This character spent 150 points on a pool and 15 points on three slots (at least).  Why is it unfair that he can use his 165 points to do the same combined attack someone who spent 150 points can do? 

 

16 minutes ago, Ndreare said:

 

 

I thought a character specifically not use multiple powers from a framework in a combined attack. I need to go reread that. 

 

As an aside the player has agreed to the 50 point limit so I am not concerned with him buying a 10d6 killing attack or something.

 

But yes,  being able to change defences from Shadow armor (13/20 r Def) to shadow form (Desolidification endurance only to activate) and change movement from combat teleport to non combat teleport is all a deliberate part of the build.

 

It just went from 3 separate ones to a single pool.

 

6e changed that rule.  I recall specifically suggesting that change back in the day.  If the pool allows a Blast, Flight and a Force Field to work at the same time, why should it not allow a Flash, Blast and Drain to work at the same time?

 

As you note "one huge pool" is not a lot different from "three smaller pools".  If there is no issue with the latter, there should be no issue with the former.

 

I recall reading the first edition of Mutants and Masterminds and thinking they lifted a lot from Hero/Champions.  One thing they did not lift, and Hero should, was the suggestion that, as a GM, you should be looking for ways to say "yes", not reasons to say "no".  It sounds like you are not concerned this build will be unbalanced.  I tend to agree.  He will be very flexible, and likely should consider evolving this into a VPP.  So what?

 

If he were really looking to abuse this, I would expect him to structure for 180 points to have three max AP powers going at once.  He has already reduced his raw power, offsetting his flexibility.

[assault]

I think the issues are in fact more in the abstract than real.

Even with the doubling beyond a certain point, I would put on a hard cap as well. That would fix the problem of a monstrously huge power.

I wouldn't stress about players spending points on seldom used multipower slots. The points add up quickly, and they aren't that efficiently used. (VPPs can be a problem though.)

Multiple attacks? Well, I don't have much concern or respect for glass cannons. The character can get away with some stuff occasionally, but there will be enough other cases where they will get hosed to compensate for that.

[Hey I Can Chan]

17 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

As you [Ndreare] noted "one huge pool" is not a lot different from "three smaller pools".  If there is no issue with the latter, there should be no issue with the former.

 

Right. And since there is no issue with the latter, instead of making a list of additional house rules and build guidelines to accommodate the outsized Multipower possessed by one PC, the GM could have the player split the character's outsized Multipower into 3 Multipowers, maybe one for offense, another for defense, and third for movement and utility. (And then tell other players they can do the same.) I'm okay with that, and I'm not sure why the player wouldn't be okay with it, too, unless splitting the outsized Multipower thwarts the player's plan.

[Hugh Neilson]

Why do you assume the player has some "plan" that cries out to be "thwarted"? Too often, such an assumption succeeds only in "thwarting" the "plan" to have an interesting character which is fun to play and adds to the campaign.

 

It sounds like Ndreare has reasonable players (or at least that this player is reasonable) who he trusts to build interesting characters who are effective, but not abusive, within the system.  Maybe he wants to be able to trade off offense for defense or movement (much like Starburst, the very first Multipower example in the game's history, before the Swiss Army Attacks Multipower took over). 

 

In my view, a 150 point pool with 50 point slots would likely be less offensive than 50 points with flexible slots for PD, ED, rPD, rED, power defense*, mental defense* and flash defense* for each sense group.

 

* make them "resistant defense" if you want to get around the restriction on special powers in a framework.

 

Focus on the limits for this specific game.  If it is not acceptable, in that specific game, to have 3 50 AP attacks used as a Multiple Power Attack, then the multipower should not be allowed to circumvent that restriction. If a player who paid for 3 50 AP attacks outside a framework could use an MPA with them, why is having the attacks as three slots in a Multipower that paid the freight to access all three at one time offensive?

 

Why should  the player have to choose whether using his Barrier, or Darkness, or Change Environment requires he sacrifice attack, or defense, or movement, rather than sacrificing any one of attack, defense or movement?  If his attack, defense and movement powers all draw on the same source, one big pool seems a far better fit that multiple smaller pools!

 

I don't perceive this massive inherent abuse by having one big pool instead of several smaller pools.  It's simply one more point between "all powers outside a framework" and "a cosmic VPP".

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Would that bother you as a fellow player in the game?

 

Not so much as a player, but yes as a GM that would bother me and I wouldn't allow it.  The Multipower has an active cost as well, if you want to allow one guy to have a 150 active point power then why not others?  The  entire point of a multipower is to force people to make choices.

[Hey I Can Chan]

 

 

51 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Why do you assume the player has some "plan" that cries out to be "thwarted"? Too often, such an assumption succeeds only in "thwarting" the "plan" to have an interesting character which is fun to play and adds to the campaign. It sounds like Ndreare has reasonable players (or at least that this player is reasonable) who he trusts to build interesting characters who are effective, but not abusive, within the system.

 

I didn't mean to give the impression that Ndreare's player actually has a plan that needs thwarting. At the time, I couldn't conceive of any other reason to object to dividing the Multipower, but you've raised an alternative: player agency. I get that, and thank you. To clarify, I don't know anything about Ndreare's players, campaign, or GMing style; I can only say how it would make me feel—and what my concerns would be and how those concerns could be alleviated—were my PC not to have a 150-point reserve Multipower and another PC to have a 150-point reserve Multipower, without knowing anything else.

 

Here's where I'm coming from: Imagine two players both build characters. My PC has 4 50-point Powers that can be used simultaneously (200 Character Points). That other PC has a 150-point reserve Multipower and 10 50-point Powers in 10 different ultra slots so that only 3 can be used simultaneously (also 200 Character Points). Everything else about the two PCs is functionally identical. Upon learning how that other player built his PC, I would feel bad because…

• That other PC is more versatile than my PC. Although that other PC can only use 3 Powers at a time, that other PC has access to more than twice the number of Powers that my PC has. Remember that we know nothing about the campaign, so I don't know yet if my 4 Powers at once will allow me to participate as meaningfully in the campaign as that guy with 10 Powers—that'll hinge on the GM, the narrative, my own inventiveness, and so on—, but I'd absolutely worry that my 4-Power PC couldn't contribute to the same degree as the 10-Power PC in as many different situations, under as many different conditions, or within as many different narratives.
• That other PC's versatility means that he can use simultaneously Attack Powers to launch encounter-ending alpha/omega strikes (bearing in mind that a Combined Attack using different slots of the same Multipower is legit—see here). Alternatively, that other PC could render himself virtually invulnerable by employing simultaneously multiple Defense Powers. My PC is only doing 2/3 of one of those, albeit all the time. Also, my PC's abilities are fixed, while that other PC might not just be able to execute alpha/omega strikes or to become nigh invulnerable but also be able to pick how.
• That other PC has opportunities for growth that my character lacks. That other player can spend experience points to buy that other PC new, plot-advancing Powers relatively inexpensively. Further, were the campaign's Active Point cap raised, that player can increase that PC's Powers' efficacy relatively inexpensively. Finally, for the same price as my PC could buy a fifth Power, that player can add a fourth Power to those that PC can already use simultaneously—while still behind my character in usable simultaneous Powers, the combinations that other PC can employ then increase tremendously.

To be clear: I'm still in the abstract on all of this. I know that an RPG requires—among other elements—a GM and a narrative in addition to players and mechanics, so I'm not addressing many elements. My concerns are just based on feelings about character-building. Those're what I'd worry about as a player were that situation to arise at a table I was at. 

 

Keep in mind that my initial response—which might've been overlooked—would be to ask the GM if I could (re)design my PC to be more like the PC with the outsized Multipower. That'd be my preferred solution if the GM is inclined to let the outsized Multipower stand: Give everyone the same option. That other player may have exercised agency that some players didn't realize they had, so let the other players exercise the same agency. That's fair.

[Hugh Neilson]

I would have no issue with the other players being allowed to redesign their characters.

 

The two characters you describe, however, do not seem unbalanced.  One can use four powers simultaneously (but cannot vary which powers), while the other can use only three (but has a wider choice of which three).

 

You can add a power usable simultaneously at the same cost he would pay. Or you could spend 50 points to make one of your powers into a 10-slot Multipower (perhaps a Swiss Army Attacks multipower).

 

If I were the GM, I would be concerned with your focus on "being the same as the other player" rather than on building your own character, and having your own niche.  You redesign your character to have the same structure, then along comes a third player with another build.  Are you now going to want to copy that build?

 

6 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Not so much as a player, but yes as a GM that would bother me and I wouldn't allow it.  The Multipower has an active cost as well, if you want to allow one guy to have a 150 active point power then why not others?  The  entire point of a multipower is to force people to make choices.

We've had that debate quite recently.  By your metrics, that 60 AP cap means the player can only have a 10-slot Multipower of 30 AP powers, with a 30-point pool.  I would typically avoid using Multipowers in your game, as they will be largely ineffective. 

[unclevlad]

6 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Not so much as a player, but yes as a GM that would bother me and I wouldn't allow it.  The Multipower has an active cost as well, if you want to allow one guy to have a 150 active point power then why not others?  The  entire point of a multipower is to force people to make choices.

 

Again:  we beat that horse to death in the other thread.  Leave it there.

[Hey I Can Chan]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The two characters you describe, however, do not seem unbalanced.  One can use four powers simultaneously (but cannot vary which powers), while the other can use only three (but has a wider choice of which three).

 

Yeah. I dunno if it's unbalanced or not. Maybe balance here defies discussion in the abstract? I mean, without further information, I'd say that having a choice when someone else doesn't is itself boss, but you're right that if having that choice has the net effect of reducing my simultaneous options—well, then I'd need to evaluate those options. I know that were I initially given a choice of a character who could use 4 Powers simultaneously or a character who could use 3 Powers simultaneously from a 10-Power list—all Powers being equal, of course—, then I, personally, would take the latter. I've had players, though, who'd absolutely always take 4-Powers Guy even if they later learned that 3-of-10-Powers Guy was available, and that's a playstyle I respect.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If I were the GM, I would be concerned with your focus on "being the same as the other player" rather than on building your own character, and having your own niche.  You redesign your character to have the same structure, then along comes a third player with another build.  Are you now going to want to copy that build?

 

Why would that concern you? I built my character thinking that I was building him so that I'd have the most fun, but I later learned that another player had built his character in a way that would've afforded me more fun. I'm not going to literally copy his character or unprotect his character's niche. (Y'know, except perhaps in the broadest sense in that now my PC might be a 3-of-10-Powers Guy, too, and not a 4-Power Guy. To me, 3-of-10-Powers Guy and 4-Power Guy don't seem to warrant niche protection like Amazonian Ambassadress, Strange Visitor from Another Planet, and Avenging Billionaire Detective do. Your opinion may differ. That's cool.)

 

So, yeah, I'd ask for the opportunity to redesign my character in light of the guidelines that the GM revealed are available by approving that player's character. ("I didn't know that was allowed. Could I revamp my PC?") And, yes, if the GM approves a second character that opens up more new design avenues that I think would allow me to have even more fun, then I'd totally like to take that into consideration, too. ("I didn't know that was allowed either. Rerevamp?") And, finally, if either of those two other players were interested in how I'd originally built my character, I'd let them know. I don't think it should be a secret from the other players how each PC is designed, and good ideas that can make people happy should be shared.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Again:  we beat that horse to death in the other thread.  Leave it there.

 

Sorry I didn't realize that you can share your opinion on the subject but nobody else can.

 

Incidentally you don't seem to grok what the active cost of the multipower is. Its the pool, not all the slots.  But if you want to ignore the AP cost for multipowers in your game, that's fine for you.  I personally think letting someone have that big an AP power and not let anyone else have it seems sketchy, though.

[Ndreare]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I personally think letting someone have that big an AP power and not let anyone else have it seems sketchy, though.

 

I don't understand.  Why would you think I only let one player do it?

Our creation process is open in our game.  So if another player felt inspired to do the same they could.

 

We have had an opportunity to talk about it since then and no one seemed to care or feel the need to imitate the approach. I guess that means I lucked out for players.

 

PS: Unrelated to original post.  But in the end only the tank even has an ability over 60 AP. Her strength is 75 and 0 endurance on the first 50 of that. Which let's her do 15d6 damage. 

[unclevlad]

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Sorry I didn't realize that you can share your opinion on the subject but nobody else can.

 

Incidentally you don't seem to grok what the active cost of the multipower is. Its the pool, not all the slots.  But if you want to ignore the AP cost for multipowers in your game, that's fine for you.  I personally think letting someone have that big an AP power and not let anyone else have it seems sketchy, though.

 

The OP clearly DOESN'T accept your interpretation of a cap like that.

 

No, you don't get it.  As we beat to death before.  And that's the point.  This is not the thread to discuss whether the overall active points of an MP should be capped to the same level as most other powers.  We did that in in the other thread.  Rather than repeat the same points, why not simply put up a link to that thread?