Conditional Power Limitation Question

[Darkhope]

I once saw a character with a power that had a conditional limitation, “active points Ego x 3” -1/2. It was explained to me that the power limited the player from spending points on it to make it better, by placing a maximum active point cost that cannot exceed the characters Ego x 3.
 

For example, a character has an Ego of 20, then the most active points the power could have would be 60. I believe it was on an VPP that was a focus. Has anyone ever seen or heard of something like this? 

[Asperion]

This was the trick that I used that was behind how the GL rings operate.  At max ability,  they were at EGO x5. It was copied for the other clones that were modeled after them. 

[LoneWolf]

This is something I would be very hesitant to allow.  I could see allowing it on a VPP or a multipower, but only if the pool was significantly higher in points then the cap.  If the character can use the full point of the pool it would not really limit them.  If I have a 60 point pool and can only use 60 points that is not limiting me in any way.  For a -1/2 limitation the character should be limited to using no more than 2/3 of the pool, a -1/4 would allow you to use about ¾ of the pool.  Anything more would be a -0 limitation.  Allowing it on anything else should not be allowed. 

[IndianaJoe3]

My first thought was, "No, that's not how point expenditures are balanced." Character points are fungible, so any points the character can't spend on one thing can be spent on something else of roughly equal utility. If we're talking about a VPP (under 6e), the character buys the Control Cost up to their limit and receives no compensation for not being able to buy it higher.

 

My second thought was, "Well, what about Adjustment Powers?" In theory, a character could be operating with a reduced EGO and not have access to their full powers. How often is this going to happen? If that character frequently has their EGO Drained or Suppressed, "Limited to EGOx3 Active Points" might be worth -1/4. Otherwise, it's -0 (but an opportunity for great role-playing when it happens).

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

My first thought was, "No, that's not how point expenditures are balanced." Character points are fungible, so any points the character can't spend on one thing can be spent on something else of roughly equal utility. If we're talking about a VPP (under 6e), the character buys the Control Cost up to their limit and receives no compensation for not being able to buy it higher.

 

My second thought was, "Well, what about Adjustment Powers?" In theory, a character could be operating with a reduced EGO and not have access to their full powers. How often is this going to happen? If that character frequently has their EGO Drained or Suppressed, "Limited to EGOx3 Active Points" might be worth -1/4. Otherwise, it's -0 (but an opportunity for great role-playing when it happens).

 

Another way to look at this is that the player's choice of limitation values will drive the frequency of situations where the character will likely be operating with a reduced EGO.  Your limitation value said that this was pretty common, so why are you surprised it happens pretty commonly? A discussion on how often the GM envisions this arising, and at what level of severity, can help set expectations and prevent the game becoming un-fun for one or the other.

[Duke Bushido]

A summation of all that has been said:

 

If the player has access to all the points he would have wirhout the limitation, then the limitation is not limiting.

 

Say his EGO is twenty (for. Limit of 60 pts of pool), and the pool is 45, then there is zero actual limitation going on.  Id the pool was 90 (ans I have a strong feeling that the pool will not be more than EGOx3, whatever that works out to be), then there is limitation on 30 of the points; must push or boost EGO to use.

 

The only way for this to be limiting is, as Hugh pointed out, for the character to routinely,sugger reduxrions to his EGO.

 

I would suggest sitching or modifying this limitation, or getting with the GM and creating a reasonable list of conditions,and,reasons that the xharacter will be suffering reductions to his EGO score.  At the very, very least, expect "Drain:Ego to make refular appearances at the table.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Looking at Duke’s summary, specifically “If the pool was 90 (and I have a strong feeling that the pool will not be more than EGOx3, whatever that works out to be), then there is limitation on 30 of the points; must push or boost EGO to use, that’s not entirely true.  No one power can exceed 60 AP, but the pool can have more than one power at a time.  It could, for example, have a 12d6 Energy Blast and a +15/+15 Force Field in pre-6e terms.

 

Le’s take a step back, and start with a 90 point VPP in pre-6e. The control cost is 45 points, and the character can have one or more powers in the pool, up to 90 AP per power and up to 90 real points in total.

 

Ignoring the whole EGO link for a moment, if no power in the pool can exceed 60 AP, that is a limitation. The character has less flexibility in using the VPP.  The question is the point value of that limitation.

 

Let’s look to 6e.  Since the pool and control cost were de-linked, this is easy.  The character buys a 30 point control cost (up to 60 AP powers) rather than a 45 point control cost and we’re done. That’s equivalent to a -1/2 limitation on the control cost. Reminding oneself that the control cost provides the sole benefit of making points up to a certain AP “reassignable”, that does not seem too unreasonable. 

 

We could port that 6e rule to prior editions, or assign a limitation based on the reduction in AP choices in those prior editions. If we adopt the 6e logic, backporting seems just as easy as assigning a -1/2 limitation.

 

OK, what about the “EGO x 3” part?  If we’re OK with 3x actual EGO, simply setting the maximum AP at 3x the character’s 20 EGO does the trick. But what if we want the maximum AP to move with EGO?

 

Maybe that means buying a full 45 point control cost (could it be even higher? What if the character was Aided to a 40 EGO?) and limiting it based on 3x EGO.  That last 15 points could be heavily limited if enhanced EGO is unlikely to happen often, or even at all.  It may not be limiting at all (consider using the VPP for a slow-fade EGO aid!).

 

The first 30 points may also merit some limitation if EGO reducing situations will appear in-game.  Imagine that this is a standard for some campaign fixture (Green Lanterns; Jedi; Wizards), everyone knows about the link and it’s pretty easy to get an ego-suppressing ability (technology; magic).  Suddenly this is much more limiting.

 

I come back to the need to assess the implications for the campaign and discuss the frequency of EGO modifications, and thus limitation values, with the player.  That crosses all editions.

[unclevlad]

 

We can simplify this.  The principle under discussion is a metagame consideration...it's how the *player* allocates earned XP.  What goes onto the sheet cannot consider metagame issues....just in-game issues.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

 Your limitation value said that this was pretty common, so why are you surprised it happens pretty commonly? A discussion on how often the GM envisions this arising, and at what level of severity, can help set expectations and prevent the game becoming un-fun for one or the other.

 

Right, if you take a limitation that indicates something is going to happen fairly commonly, then the GM -- a good one at least -- will make that happen fairly commonly in the story.  This is the power of the GM, who should instead of saying "no" find a way if possible to make it work in the game.  If you want points for making your powers based on your EGO total, expect your EGO total to be reduced at least once an adventure.  Its like old Iron Man comics: he dominated, but ran out of power and had to find a way to make his tech work or be clever about beating his enemies, almost every comic.

[LoneWolf]

One thing I would bring up is that some limitations are not really limitations they are simply special effects.  The whole idea that a power is limited by the mind of its user in not a limitation it is a special effect.  The GL rings are a good example of this.  The ring may be limited only by the imagination of the user, but that is not a limitation that is a special effect of how the ring works. In the hero system you pay for what you can use in the game.  If you have a power that has is theoretically has infinite power, you still only have to pay for what you can use.  Different characters may pay different price for the same power, because the game mechanics are different. For example, two different green lanterns may pay different prices for their ring.  The ring may be physically the same, but because one can use it better, he pays more for it. 

 

The value of the limitation is based on the character purchasing the power.  So, if the limitation does not limit the character purchasing the power it is considered a -0 limitation.  Prior to 6th edition this might be an acceptable limitation on a VPP with the GM’s permission assuming the limitation would actually restrict what the VPP could have in it.  

 

Limitations on how you spend your XP should never be allowed.  If this is allowed any power or stat the character does not intend to buy up will have a limitation on it.  Do you really want characters putting a -1/2 limitation most of their abilities?