Help With Elemental Control Question

[VRabubo]

My GM is running 4th edition and suggested that we use the Elemental Control Framework for the character my husband is building. However we don't have the book and I am unsure if we apply modifiers to the control cost or the individual power cost.

 

Example: All the powers in the framework will have a -1/2 for not working in bright light. Does that modify the 50CP for the Control Pool or does it modify the cost for his Flight, Regen, and Umbrakinesis individually?

[LoneWolf]

I think you are confusing a VPP for an elemental control.  With an elemental control there is no pool.  You pay a set amount for the EC and all powers in the EC subtract that cost from the active cost before applying any limitations.  All powers in the EC have to be at least twice the cost of the EC.

 

For example if you have a 25 point EC all power in the EC have to be at least 50 active points.  You subtract 25 (the cost of the EC) from all powers in the EC and then apply limitations.  If every slot in the EC has a limitation you can apply that limitation to the cost of the EC.  So if all his powers have the -1/2 limitation not working in bright light that can be applied to the cost EC as well as the powers.  In the above case the EC would cost 17 but still deduct 25 points from it.  Not all powers can be put in an EC.  In 4th edition you cannot put special powers in an EC.  I think all powers also have to cost END to be put in an EC, but that might be for 5th edition.  
 

[VRabubo]

Thanks. I don't quite have the terms right because I only have the 6e book. So, If I got this right I can do something like:

 

25 (17) Darkness Elemental Control -1/2 not working in bright light

       50 (25) Regeneration

       50 (25) Flight

       50 (17) Umberkineseis -1/2 only at night (because this power is in the "pool" it will also be effected by the activation cost's disadvantage) 

 

This is assuming those powers are not considered special or use endurance because they are just random examples right now. I will check for endurance when I remake the character, but I don't know what counts as "Special Powers".

[LoneWolf]

The flight is fine as it normally costs END.  Not sure what Umberkeneseis is, if it is telekinesis it should be fine.  If I remember correctly Regeneration was a special power in 4th edition and does not cost END so cannot normally be put in an EC.  Check with you GM on that, if the GM is ok with it you can put it in.    

 

Each of the slots also get the limitation as well or you cannot put it on the EC.   So the cost of the EC and all slots are 17.   If the regeneration and flight works in bright light, you cannot put that limitation on the EC and the cost would be 25 for the EC and slots without the limitation.  
 

Edited April 16, 2023 by LoneWolf

[Duke Bushido]

Check with your GM specifically about powers that ordinarily are Endurance free but have taken the "Costs End" limitation.

 

Back in the day, most of us would allow such a power in an EC (though somw of us would not allow the cosr savings, and,instead made it a -0 Limitation as a requirment to put such a power into an elemental control.

 

 

[VRabubo]

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Check with your GM specifically about powers that ordinarily are Endurance free but have taken the "Costs End" limitation.

 

Back in the day, most of us would allow such a power in an EC (though somw of us would not allow the cosr savings, and,instead made it a -0 Limitation as a requirment to put such a power into an elemental control.

 

 

I'm waiting for a reply right now since I have access to a character he made with the EC and that one doesn't have any limitations to help guide me with my question, but it also doesn't have a single power that uses END. We have been playing this character for 3 games now, so I know how it works in his game too and that is definitely contrary to what I am reading in the Errata and Clarification section too. However, the main limitation he puts on the power is that you can only have 1 power per 5cp, so you can't have infinite low cost powers like was one of the munchkins people used to do.

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, VRabubo said:

, the main limitation he puts on the power is that you can only have 1 power per 5cp,

 

Well that's one I haven't seen before.  Good for him!

 

2 hours ago, VRabubo said:

 

so you can't have infinite low cost powers like was one of the munchkins people used to do.

 

 

Before going forward, let me say that I am not terribly familia with 4e Elemental Control, as I neber dound a compelling reason to move beyond 2e.  With that qualifier understood, I can honestly say that almost every over-stuffed or overpowered EC build I have ever run across has always been either a misunderstanding or deliberate misapplication of the EC rules.  In general, the overall,savings breaks out roughly equivalent to the 6e replacement "Unified Power," or about a -1/4 over all.  A truly experienced player can push that a bit, but in general (at least in 1 and 2e), if you werw usinf the rules correctly, the savings weren't huge.

 

I have always suspecyed that a lot of the hate directed at EC (at least, that which does not come from believing the objectively false idea that points equate to game balance and,character equality) comes from improperly-applied buulding rules.

 

 

[LoneWolf]

I never had a problem with players trying to get a bunch of low-cost powers.  When you do that you don’t save as much.  In general a bunch of low cost powers are not as effective as a few high-cost powers.  Since every power has to be twice the active cost of the EC a low point EC does not save you many points.  Unless your GM is allowing multiple EC on the same character it is better to have a higher cost EC and buy the low cost powers outside the EC. 

 

For example, if you put the 3 powers you listed into a 5-point EC instead of a 25 Your EC would cost 3 point and your 3 50-point powers would cost 35 point instead of 17.  That means you are paying an extra 40 points for the same powers.  You could then put in a bunch of 10-point powers for 3 points each, but  all that does is increase the final cost of the character.  You would need to have 13 10-point powers to make equal out and even then, you would be spending an extra 39 points.  At that point each point you spend is getting you 1.7 points.  With the 25-point EC each point is getting you 2.2 points.  Throw in a few more 50-point powers and the saving are even higher.  If your 25-point EC has 6 powers each point gets you 2.5 points.  

 

One of the reasons that special powers are not allowed in an EC is that for the most part they are usually dirt cheap.  If a GM is too permissive with what they allow in it can allow a character to get all of the special defenses dirt cheap.  This is the easiest way to abuse an EC and why a good GM will be careful what they allow in it.   

[Hugh Neilson]

And yet all of those special defenses could be purchased in one or more force fields and be perfectly legal in an EC.  "Special powers can only go in frameworks with GM permission" has resulted in a lot of variance between GMs on what can go into a framework.

 

What I saw evolve over the years as common design was a Swiss Army Multipower to hold a variety of Ultra slot attack powers, and an EC to hold a force field, a movement power and one or more utility powers.

 

Three 50 point powers in an EC would cost 100, rather than 150, points, the equivalent of a -1/2 limitation on all of the powers.  Make it 5 and it costs 150 rather than 250, but that's getting pretty expensive. It would work if you only wanted one attack power, or perhaps if you wanted a Constant attack power (like Darkness) and a Fire & Forget attack power (like Blast). If you wanted a variety of attack choices, Multipower was the go-to.  5 different attacks for 75 points was a lot more cost-effective.

 

Multipower for abilities you only need one at a time; EC for abilities you need all at the same time.

 

When Combined Attacks came out, it seemed like prohibiting these with powers in a framework was a really bad call, as that could have been a reason to put more than one attack in an EC (usable at the same time) rather than a multipower (use one at a time).  By the time that evolved to "if they can all be used at the same time, you can use them all in a combined attack", EC had evolved into "Unified Power".

 

 

[Chris Goodwin]

If I recall correctly, and Hugh can correct me if I'm wrong or if his memory is better than mine, the reason for the removal of EC wasn't anything to do with point costs; instead, EC's generated rather a lot of rules questions.  Steve saw utility in reducing the complexity of this construct in particular. 

[unclevlad]

They do have several unusual nuances, so I could see this.

[Hugh Neilson]

I don't recall a ton of discussion on ECs, so I think Steve pretty much assessed that one on his own, but they definitely saw a lot of rules questions.