Power Framework Question

[unclevlad]

My take is different.

 

A prototypical use case for an MP is the blaster's MP...blasts, flashes, RKAs.  Target different defenses, maybe toss in special-use goodies like AoE or Autofire.  Maybe include a Red Pen attack, to use when a full-damage attack may be too lethal.  Other than the Red Pen, where you don't care about the point savings, the costs will likely all be the same, or close, based on the DCs of the attack.  Limitations need to be common to help reduce costs, like Limited Range does.  

 

So the MP cost itself, for this style, isn't saving any points.  It's the active cost, less only common limitations.  And you still pay the slots.  These do add flexibility, but also cost.  Saying you're getting freebies is a mischaracterization.  This isn't D&D, where every wizard and sorcerer spell has one narrow effect only.  Supers often demonstrate more flexibility than this.  

 

If you're doing multiple MPs, you're probably doing it wrong...altho, to be fair, it can also result in a cleaner looking character sheet.  Yeah, we had a loud, sometimes ugly debate...but you can have a 150 point MP regardless of any active point cap because the MP is a FRAMEWORK.  The restriction is that you can only have 60 active in any slot, which is a campaign principle and not worth any sort of limitation, and the MP size is just the pool size here.  NOW, you can take limitations specific to individual powers, for the cost reduction, to change how powers fit into your pool.  So, perhaps when you're using your Flight, you can only use your Red Pen, Reduced by Range Blast...because that's how things fit together.  By design.  

 

Quote

Buy 12d6 of every power, straight out, no advantages or Limitations.

 

Buy enough Power Pool to create 12d6 of any power.  Do you have them all?  Not at the same time, but without anywhere near the investment.

 

 

OK, so you have a VPP with a pool size of 60, and control cost of 60?  Are you paying for No Skill Roll?  That's another 30.  If not, you're buying a Power Skill roll that's gonna probably be at least 20.  Changing in combat is required to even try to reach equivalence.  That's another 15.  You're getting no limited powers limitation, so your 60 points of effectiveness costs anything from 125 to 150 points.  Sure, you can do more things, but you've spent 125 to get 60 points at a time.  That's Christopher's point.  You're getting a lot, but you're PAYING a lot.  

 

Your argument doesn't hold up to detailed inspection, IMO.  Or, let's put it another way.  500 points.  You have your VPP giving you 60 active points for whatever you want to do...but leaving only 375 for the rest.  I have all 500.  We otherwise agree to similar strategies, power builds and costs, and acceptable limitations...so we're not trying to metagame our limitations any differently.  You effectively have a bunch of 435 point "multiforms."  I have a single, 500 point type.  Which wins?

 

The issue with an EC is, this is NOT the case.  A classic EC might be Blast, Force Field, Flight.  Let's get definite:

 

--9d6 Blast (45)

--15 PD, 15 ED FF, 0 END, still legal in the EC (45)

--Flight, 12", x4 NC + Position Shift (handy) or x8 NC, 1/2 END.  Base cost 34, active cost 42.

 

That's a 21 point EC, giving you 132 active points all usable together, for 21 (EC) + 24 + 24 + 21 = 90 points.  That IS 42 free points.

 

Yes, I can play games with VPPs and give myself much more than this.  If I have RSR on all powers in the VPP, I can define my pool size to be 2x my control cost...and with the RSR, I'm getting 3x the control cost in active points usable at once.  And there's this *extreme* form, NOT that this'd pass GM muster for game use:

 

Variable Power Pool (Magic Pool), 130 base + 30 control cost, Powers Can Be Changed As A Half-Phase Action (+1/2) (152 Active Points); Hard Skill Roll (-1/2); all slots Requires A Roll (Skill roll, -1 per 5 Active Points modifier; -1)

 

1) Persistent Powers:  Real Cost: 0 - END=0
   2) Resistant Protection (6 PD/6 ED), Hardened (+1/4), Impenetrable (+1/4) Nonpersistent (-1/4) Real Cost: 12

   3) Damage Negation (-3 DCs Physical, -3 DCs Energy)  Nonpersistent (-1/4) Real Cost: 13 
   4) Energy Damage Reduction, Resistant, 50%  Nonpersistent (-1/4) Real Cost: 13 
   5) Physical Damage Reduction, Resistant, 50% Nonpersistent (-1/4) Real Cost: 13 
   6) Boosted Reflexes I: (Total: 29 Active Cost, 13 Real Cost) +2 SPD Nonpersistent (-1/4) plus Lightning Reflexes (+9 DEX to act first with All Actions) 
   7) Boosted Reflexes II: (Total: 30 Active Cost, 14 Real Cost) +3 OCV, +3 DCV, Nonpersistent (-1/4)  

   8- Go the distance: (Total: 30 Active Cost, 13 Real Cost) +15 STR  plus +10 REC  Nonpersistent plus +25 END Nonpersistent 
   9) Stretching 12m, Does Not Cross Intervening Space (+1/4), IPE (Inobvious to Sight; +1/4), Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4) ; Only To Cause Damage, no Noncombat Stretching Real Cost: 8
10) Attacks...pick 1:
   11) TK (12 STR), Fine Manipulation (28 Active Points) Real Cost: 14 - END=3
   12) HA +6d6, Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4) (30 Active Points) Real Cost: 15 - END=1
   13) HA +3d6, Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4), AVAD (Power Def, LS (Cold) [NND]; +1) (27 Active Points) Real Cost: 13 - END=1
   14) HA +2d6, Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4), AVAD (Power Def, LS (Cold) [NND]; +1), Does BODY (+1) (26 Active Points) Real Cost: 13 - END=1
15) Movement, pick 1:  Real Cost: 0 - END=0
   16) Teleportation 24m, Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4) (30 Active Points) Real Cost: 15

   17) Teleportation 9m, Safe Blind Teleport (+1/4), NRM , MegaScale (1m = 100 km) (29 Active Points) Real Cost: 14
18) Miscellaneous:  2 slots, 30 points each (Invis, shape shift, that sort of thing)
 

 

The issue here *isn't* the VPP.  I could do a LOT of the same by simply picking a prime configuration...MAYBE with a  30 point MP for the TK, HAs and Teleports...but keeping the honkin huge -1 limitation on practically everything.  Certainly everything that's got Nonpersistent on it. 

 

But again...that is not true with an EC.  The EC alone gives you savings...and you can play abusive limitations games on top of that, if you like.  Say you want OIAID as a common modifier on the EC I built.  OK, the base EC cost --> 17.  The powers go to 19, 19, and 17.  90 points --> 72.  Another 18.  It's not as dramatic, but we're also not applying it to nearly as many points...and there's already been a huge honkin' reduction in cost because of the EC.  That's the basic difference. 

 

The reason why it might be OK, tho, in those earlier editions, as I noted, is that ANY powers-based character is at a significant disadvantage compared to a more characteristics-heavy character. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

In some ways, a power pool is a lot like a very flexible multipower: you can only do x number of powers with it based on your points available, so you have to make choices.  I cannot both have my 25 resistant PD and ED (hardened) AND my 12d6 blast.  You gain flexibility but its more expensive than any single power of that active point cost.

 

Unless you're the kind of GM that lets your player have a 180 point multipower, and I guess you get what you deserve.

[unclevlad]

Nope.  If they want a 180 point MP, they sank 180 points into it.  There is no problem there...so long as an eye is kept on the active points, and more likely simply the damage DCs, in any slot. 

 

 

Recognized something earlier today.  It doesn't matter that much, how many active points are on a sheet.  What matters much more, is how many active points you can use at any one time.  That should be a much stronger predictor of a character's power/balance.

 

The biggest abuses here are:

--limitations on a very large number of points...focus (especially, say, OIF), OIAID, Linked, RSR, Always On, and potentially Unified Power.

--Multiform, sometimes

--ECs,,,because all the powers are available all the time, but you're still getting a significant cost savings.   

--Duplication and Summon, in many cases....but they're clear STOP SIGN powers, so this should be recognized implicitly.

[Grailknight]

23 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

In some ways, a power pool is a lot like a very flexible multipower: you can only do x number of powers with it based on your points available, so you have to make choices.  I cannot both have my 25 resistant PD and ED (hardened) AND my 12d6 blast.  You gain flexibility but its more expensive than any single power of that active point cost.

 

Unless you're the kind of GM that lets your player have a 180 point multipower, and I guess you get what you deserve.

 

????

 

Opportunities for abuse are far more common with a VPP than with a Multipower. 

 

Any Powers within a Multipower are right there on the character sheet in black and white and are the only available options. A VPP can be changed each Phase and tailored to the optimal available solution. 

 

It doesn't matter how many Limitations you place on a Multipower slot; the Active Points are what are allocated from the pool. Limitations on a Power in a VPP free up Points to purchase other Powers with. Limitations are also fixed on the Multipower slots, in the VPP, they're options that I don't have to use if I don't need the extra points for another Power.

 

Multipowers are actually the more expensive option in 6th. 180 Points will purchase a 90 Point Control Cost and a 90 Point Pool VPP. I then set up my initial configuration and go. I can spend that same 180 Points on a 180 Point Multipower Reserve, but I don't actually have any Powers yet.  Just a Reserve waiting to be allocated. Yes, the VVP requires a Skill Roll if you want to change Powers in combat but that's more than offset by the cost of one or more slots to actually have any Powers in your Multipower.

 

All in all, you only have to read over the Multipower once to vet it as a GM, you have to vet that VPP every time it gets changed. GM supervision is always the issue.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Grailknight

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Opportunities for abuse are far more common with a VPP than with a Multipower.

 

Yes.

[unclevlad]

Uhhhhh......

 

No.  Sorry, Grail, but that's not even close to correct with the VPP. A VPP has 2 starting numbers:  pool size and control cost.  Pool size is the maximum number of real points that can be kept selected and ready in the pool at any one time.   Control cost is the active point limit.  For an MP, it's better to think of it as pool size ONLY, while imposing an additional condition on the powers that can be included in the framework.   

 

A 90 size/90 control VPP starts at 135 character points because the control cost (in CP) is 1 per 2 points.  It is important to remember tho:  they are NOT coupled in 6E, as they were in 5E.  You can have a pool size of 80 with a control cost of 50...10d6 Blast with Limited Range (40 points), 14 hardened rPD with Nonpersistent (21), and 6d6 physical Damage Negation, STUN Only, nonpersistent (17).  78 real points for the 3 combined.  I can also do a pool size 41, control cost 62...the intent being 10d6 Blast at 1/2 END, or 12d6 Blast at full END, where maybe I've got one targeting PD, another ED.  And Flash attacks built the same.  Fine...everything must have -1/2 in limitations.  But they don't have to be the SAME limitations, as they would have to be in an MP.  But this is only a problem when you're planning a framework where you'll use one full-sized power at a time.  

 

The major difference between a VPP and an MP, for costing, is that the MP doesn't have a pre-defined control cost;  the slot costs replace the character points spent on the control cost in the VPP.  EVERYTHING you can do in a VPP to reduce active costs, you can do in an MP...and it's very easy to do if you treat the MP as purely pool size, where the max points in a slot is always going to be smaller.  Also note that if your VPP requires a Power skill roll, the total cost TO YOU must include the cost of the Power Skill.   

 

It's also important to remember that the VPP can't be changed in combat without sharp increases to the control cost.  Large cosmic power pools force a MASSIVE expenditure on the control cost...if the basis is 75 points (12d6 blast, 1/2 END), then +2 takes the control cost from 37 character points, to 111.  That's a huge expenditure.

 

The VPP does support one particular abuse, as I mentioned:  RSR.  GMs aren't likely to balk when your Power skill roll, to manipulate your pool in combat, is pretty high like 15-, even manipulating max points at a time.  Some might balk at 17-...that's something to discuss in advance.  The rules allow the power skill to be used to activate your powers too...and by definition, none of these can be any higher.  OK...you can buy a Power skill for an MP, as a common modifier, and scale it similarly...but in the VPP, the cost of the Power skill is already covered by NOT having to put No Skill Roll onto the VPP control cost.

 

What the VPP absolutely requires, that the MP doesn't, is a thorough discussion of what can, and can't, be done.

[Grailknight]

I was trying to refute the example of CRT's argument and that required a VPP with the possibility of a 180-point Power. So yeah, it only has 90 Real Points to work with, but I know any of the three of us can get more than 180 Active Points of Powers from that with just a little effort. Try as you might, you'll never get more than 180 Active points from that 180 Point Multipower but you'll have to spend more to even have any powers at all.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Grailknight

[unclevlad]

6 hours ago, Grailknight said:

I was trying to refute the example of CRT's argument and that required a VPP with the possibility of a 180-point Power. So yeah, it only has 90 Real Points to work with, but I know any of the three of us can get more than 180 Active Points of Powers from that with just a little effort. Try as you might, you'll never get more than 180 Active points from that 180 Point Multipower.

 

That's ONLY true if the MP is filled with 180 point slots...which is something the VPP could not have.  The control cost is the bound there for individual powers, so you can't have anything more than 90 in any one power, as you wrote it.

 

180 MP?  I'll set up 180 real that can be used simultaneously...they may not all make sense on one character, but we could work something out.  

14d6 Blast, 1/2 END (87 active), No KB, Limited Range, 58 real

Resistant Protection, 10 PD, 10 ED, 10 Mental, 10 Power, allocatable (75 active), Nonpersistent, 60 real

+3 OCV, +3 DCV, +3 SPD (60 active), nonpersistent, 48 real

Clinging, 10 points

 

176 real, 232 active, and nothing more than 90 active.  Also note, I haven't tossed in a big one like Skill Roll.  I've done a super-abusive VPP that was, IIRC, 210 pool size, 70 control cost...WITH RSR as a required modifier.  It came out close to 350 active.  A lot of it was that the baseline character had mostly human-level physical characteristics...until they got bumped, and that was in the VPP.  I also posted the 130 pool / 30 control...that one has about 210 active at one time, IIRC.  The major difference is, the one I posted has the concept that everything is No Range, the bigger one is a blaster.  I could rebuild either of those in a 130 point MP...but the slot costs would be higher than the control cost.  That's a pretty direct consequence of doing a VPP with a TINY control cost.

 

But the issue here isn't the frameworks that much, it's the limitations first.  Consider:

12d6 Blast, 1/2 END

15/15 Resistant Protection

Flight, 26m, Position Shift, 1/2 END 

 

75, 45, and 39 active.  Now toss on OIAID, with Limited Range for the Blast, nonpersistent for the defense, and Restrainable for the Flight, so everything gets -1/2.  50, 30, 26.  The only thing really arguable would be the Blast...if you strictly adhere to 60 active, it's too high, but if it's 12 DCs, it's fine.  And I've shaved 53 character points off.  No framework involved.  

 

 

[LoneWolf]

As duke pointed out the purpose behind all frameworks is to save points.  If you object to elemental control because they just save points, you should disallow all frameworks and the unified power limitation. The way elemental controls were in earlier editions did not have any real drawback, but that changed in latter editions.  Having all powers in the framework drained when any power in the framework is drained is a legitimate drawback.  

 

The Idea behind all frameworks is to allow the player to create certain types of characters.  While elemental controls and unified powers allow you to purchase more powers, they also make it easier for the character to purchase all the powers and abilities the special effect should have.  This can really reinforce the idea of paying for everything the character can do including rarely used power.  As a GM have qualms about being incredibly hard ass on what a character can do.  You want your precog to be able to figure out what people are going to do in combat buy the skill tactics with the unified power limitation on it or you don’t have it.  You want your electricity-based character to create magnetic fields buy change environment.   Don't complain to me you cannot afford it that is why you are saving points on the other powers. 
 

[Doc Democracy]

2 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

As duke pointed out the purpose behind all frameworks is to save points.

 

He is right too, and I think the key driver for their existence was the efficiency of characteristic based characters, especially the brick.

 

Characteristics are essentially framework powers and to make a blaster character competitive with the brick, ir martial artist, there was a need to give them ways to save points equivalentbto investing in characteristics.

 

A lot of that has been leavened out with new editions but the fingerprints remain in the system.

 

Doc

[Christopher R Taylor]

Huh, all this time I thought power frameworks were a system designed to help build character concepts, like all the other character creation rules.

[Grailknight]

They are but Figured Characteristics (mainly STR) gave such an edge to Tanks and Martial Artists that something was necessary to keep ranged characters competitive. The Multipower was the best solution to that.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I figured Elemental Control was the offset for figured characteristics.  Multipowers are "choose what you get" like Ultraman.  Unless your GM allows you to have too many points

[Hugh Neilson]

On 5/8/2023 at 9:38 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Okay, if I drain one of your spider powers in your EC, you lose clinging, bonus STR, Bonus DEX, Spider sense.....

 

And your completely mechanical web shooters.....

 

This suggests that those mechanical web shooters do not belong in your Spider Powers EC. A tight concept of a human with spider powers seems loosened when he's a combination of natural superpowers and gadgeteering. And no GM would ever have allowed Danger Sense as a spider power if Stan Lee had not added a "spider sense" to Peter Parker.

 

On 5/8/2023 at 9:38 PM, Duke Bushido said:

If I drain your gun MP, you only lose the specific attack I drained, and evey other attack in the gun works fine....

 

If your turbine boots give you swimming and flight, and I drain them, I only drain one power, in spite of both powers coming from the same pair of turbines.....

 

Sounds like your one laser gun with many setting should have applied Unified Power to all of those settings, doesn't it?  But why would Draining its laser power make it less effective when I use that HA slot and club the villain with the butt of the laser rife, or dull the bayonet?

 

Draining my handgun should not drain my hand grenade either.

 

Those turbines also suggest unified power, but the jet pack and flippers don't see like they would both be drained by the same adjustment power.

 

On 5/9/2023 at 10:50 AM, unclevlad said:

And this can easily be viewed as dubious, but...for a combat VPP, you generally don't buy No Skill Roll.  It's too expensive in most cases.  Well, OK...you're gonna buy your Power skill up to something fairly good anyway, right?  If we're talking 18 INT, and a 60 point control cost, to get to a 14- requires 7 levels.  That's 17 points.  Well, taking it to a 17- is only 6 more.  And here's the dubious part:  slap the common modifier Requires a Skill Roll on.  Your Power skill's already the natural choice, and you've already paid for it.  Yeah, you have to make the roll, but that's why you buy the roll up.

 

What this means is, everything in your VPP is now getting a -1/2 limitation.  In a 6E VPP, pool size and control cost are completely separate.  Pool size is character points.  So you can have pool size 41, control 62...say, for a VPP where you have 10 dice at 1/2 END, or 12 dice at full, for a swath of basic attack powers, and you can tweak for AoEs or whatnot.  You can also define the pool size as much larger, so you throw your Flight in there, with both combat and non-combat modes.  With the -1/2 limitation applying.

 

It also means that your 60 point powers only activate 62.5% of the time, and the full phase you use to try to change one has a 37.5% chance of just wasting your phase.  Recalling that skill rolls are penalized based on AP. One challenge with designing a VPP is that using it for a power you almost always want (like base defenses) just adds costs. That power is better purchased outside the VPP.

 

On 5/10/2023 at 11:45 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

In some ways, a power pool is a lot like a very flexible multipower: you can only do x number of powers with it based on your points available, so you have to make choices.  I cannot both have my 25 resistant PD and ED (hardened) AND my 12d6 blast.  You gain flexibility but its more expensive than any single power of that active point cost.

 

Unless you're the kind of GM that lets your player have a 180 point multipower, and I guess you get what you deserve.

 

They are just a very flexible MP.  A 60 point VPP with a 30 control cost, change with no skill roll and zero phase, costs 150 points. A 60 point Multipower with 15 Ultra slots costs the same 150 points.  This assumes no limitations on types of powers, and no limitation on the pool itself, but demonstrates that it doesn't take all that many slots before the VPP becomes the cost-effective choice.

 

Let's try that attack power in an OAF build.  MP - 60 point pool with -1 OAF limitation = 30 + 3 per slot.  VPP - 30 point pool + 30 point control cost, Cosmic, OAF adds 45 so 75 in total.  45/3 = 15 slots is still the breakeven.

 

Looking to the source material, most Supers with a lengthy history should have a VPP for all the creative uses they have made of their powers over the years.

[unclevlad]

5 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

It also means that your 60 point powers only activate 62.5% of the time, and the full phase you use to try to change one has a 37.5% chance of just wasting your phase.  Recalling that skill rolls are penalized based on AP. One challenge with designing a VPP is that using it for a power you almost always want (like base defenses) just adds costs. That power is better purchased outside the VPP.

 

I said 18-, 7 levels, so 20-.  -6 is 14-.  14- works 90% of the time.  And if that's not good enough?  Spend 2 points, it's 95%;  spend 4, it's 98%.

 

Also, you're wrong about the defenses.  6E1, 390:

 

Quote

The default choice, worth an additional -0 Limitation, is that the character must make his Required Roll once, when he activates/uses the Power. If the Power is Constant or Persistent, it continues to work without the need for further
rolls; the character only has to roll again after the Power gets turned off and he wants to activate/use it again.

 

All the standard defense powers are persistent.  The situation is actually the OPPOSITE...unless you want to say the character doesn't know that his skill roll failed, and the defense didn't activate, then the activation roll will generally be meaningless, UNLESS the defense power is itself readily apparent, or tied to something that's readily apparent.  If the defense power can be activated far outside combat, then...ok, just try it again.

 

Second point:  nope, it adds no costs.  It means you buy a bigger pool size, but pool size is 1:1 for character points...just as buying it standalone would be.  If you're happy with largely static defenses, sure, put them outside the VPP.  If they're dynamic, then the VPP is better.  Also note:  powers outside the VPP can also take RSR, and use the Power skill.  This is legal:

Magical Defenses (all slots Requires a Skill Roll, -1/2)

--Damage Reduction 50%, Resistant Physical (20)

--Damage Reduction 50%, Resistant Energy (20)  

--Resistant Protection, 10/10 Hardened (24)

 

This may allow the VPP to be attack powers...Blast, Flash, RKA.  That buys a bigger Limited Powers limitation for the VPP, plus it allows both RSR and Limited Range as required limitations, which shaves more points off the control cost, and guarantees you don't need a huge pool size.  62 points would be 10d6 with 1/2 END;  a pool size of 36 accommodates that, given the -3/4 limitation.  Control max 62 starts at 31 points.  Let's go for 0 Phase to switch, so it's 62.  Limited Power:  blasts, flashes, RKAs.  If they can attack a fairly wide swath...PD, ED, Flash;  different SFX...let's call that -3/4.  With the common limitations, there's a net -1 1/2.  Final cost for the control part is 40% of 62, or 25.  Pool size is 36, as above.  So the VPP, limited just to the attack powers, is 61 points.

 

Now, if I want to add the defenses?  Limited Range can't be a common limitation.  The limited powers in the VPP drops from -3/4 to -1/2, at best, so the total limitations I can apply to the control side is -1, rather than -1/2, so now it's 31, rather than 25.  (Alternately, I might go with 1/2 phase to switch instead.)  The pool size would be 36 for the attack power (which will still have Limited Range), plus the same 64 for the defenses...100 points.  The only difference in costs, for having the defenses inside or outside the VPP, is the impact of the common mods/limited powers when they're inside.

 

What you *can't* do is Link powers within the framework...generally, should just stay outside the VPP tho, and you're good.  Or you build along OIAID lines...with RSR as the starting point for your total limitations, the difference between -1/4 and -1/2 more isn't that much.  

 

Quote

They are just a very flexible MP.  A 60 point VPP with a 30 control cost, change with no skill roll and zero phase, costs 150 points. A 60 point Multipower with 15 Ultra slots costs the same 150 points.  This assumes no limitations on types of powers, and no limitation on the pool itself, but demonstrates that it doesn't take all that many slots before the VPP becomes the cost-effective choice.

 

Let's try that attack power in an OAF build.  MP - 60 point pool with -1 OAF limitation = 30 + 3 per slot.  VPP - 30 point pool + 30 point control cost, Cosmic, OAF adds 45 so 75 in total.  45/3 = 15 slots is still the breakeven.

 

Looking to the source material, most Supers with a lengthy history should have a VPP for all the creative uses they have made of their powers over the years.

 

Slight correction:  it'd be 7 Ultra slots and 1 fixed slot.  MP base 60, so 90 in slot costs at 12 per ultra slot and 6 for the fixed.  In a VPP where pool size and control max are the same (the situation in an MP), then the pool sizes are direct offsets.  The slot costs in the MP compare strictly to the final control cost of the VPP.  Some of this, tho, begs the question:  why pay for Ultra slots?  If you're buying a 12d6 Blast in a fixed slot, that just always use up 60 points of your pool...but you can dial it back to an 8d6 blast when you use it, still.  Ultra slots can be useful at times, like, say, this:

Damage Negation 8d6 physical

HA attack 

Healing

 

The Healing can *easily* be 15-20 points more expensive than the HA...but you don't want to turn off the Negation altogether, if you have to heal while the fight's still going on around you.  The HA and Healing get fixed slots, the Negation an Ultra.

 

But, yes...the way many characters are written, does advocate for having VPPs.  Supers, in comics or fiction, and even supernatural types in urban fantasy, very often have much more flexibility.  It can be fine to allow a Power skill to tweak a power, but IMO that should be in fairly narrow ways.  The source material, as noted, blows through this like it was nothing.  

 

 

 

[unclevlad]

16 hours ago, Grailknight said:

They are but Figured Characteristics (mainly STR) gave such an edge to Tanks and Martial Artists that something was necessary to keep ranged characters competitive. The Multipower was the best solution to that.

 

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I figured Elemental Control was the offset for figured characteristics.  Multipowers are "choose what you get" like Ultraman.  Unless your GM allows you to have too many points

 

CRT is closer here...the EC's core use case does seem to be to make up for the fact that figured characteristics lead to underpricing, and it's dramatic.  10 STR gives 31 points in quantifiable benefits;  10 DEX costs 30, but gives 50 (SPD, CV, acting first) along with a build-dependent value, for DEX skills;  10 CON gives 21 points in direct benefits (ED, REC, END, STUN) and a benefit for resisting getting stunned.  That one's hard to quantify.  With STR and DEX, too, the practical upper bound is high, so the impact shows more.  

 

Also note, it's not specifically ranged versus HTH.  It's powers users versus heavily Characteristics based builds.  In 6E, I can build a no-range, melee type with (at least) low STR...base it on Blast, No Range.  I thought that was a bad choice, but you're getting 3d6 for 10 points.  It can work out surprisingly well.  In 5E...I doubt it.  As noted, STR just gives too much.  12d6 Blast, no range, I'm only saving 20 points.  That's 40 points.  Say I'm starting with a 15 STR...it's 45 to take that to 12d6, but it comes with 9 PD, 9 REC, and 22 STUN.  It's not a contest.  

[Hugh Neilson]

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Also, you're wrong about the defenses.  6E1, 390:

 

All the standard defense powers are persistent.  The situation is actually the OPPOSITE...unless you want to say the character doesn't know that his skill roll failed, and the defense didn't activate, then the activation roll will generally be meaningless, UNLESS the defense power is itself readily apparent, or tied to something that's readily apparent.  If the defense power can be activated far outside combat, then...ok, just try it again.

 

Emphasis added. If the roll is meaningless, then it is not limiting, so it saves no points.  It's a lot more meaningful if you want to customize them in combat, though.

 

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Slight correction:  it'd be 7 Ultra slots and 1 fixed slot.  MP base 60, so 90 in slot costs at 12 per ultra slot and 6 for the fixed.  In a VPP where pool size and control max are the same (the situation in an MP), then the pool sizes are direct offsets.  The slot costs in the MP compare strictly to the final control cost of the VPP.  Some of this, tho, begs the question:  why pay for Ultra slots?  If you're buying a 12d6 Blast in a fixed slot, that just always use up 60 points of your pool...but you can dial it back to an 8d6 blast when you use it, still. 

 

I'm mixing terminology; sorry.  Duke will back me up, I am sure, that "Ultra" was the old term for "fixed slot", so I'm comparing only to the traditional Swiss army attacks multipower. The VPP is infinitely more flexible out of the box.

[unclevlad]

57 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Emphasis added. If the roll is meaningless, then it is not limiting, so it saves no points.  It's a lot more meaningful if you want to customize them in combat, though.

 

 

I agree, but that's notably harder to spot, as it applies to ALL Constant powers.  It's also subject to serious interpretation differences...when is it "not limiting"?  I may well put Nonpersistent onto my VPP defenses...so now reactivating them may have to occur in combat.  So when is it limiting?  Even with Instants, if my roll is 17-, is that really limiting, since that only fails 1 time in 216?  

 

And it's no worse than OIF on a ton of stuff...which people allow.  Even OIAID, rather than RSR, on the 3 defense powers, would shave 19 points off.  How limiting is OIAID?  Heck, my favorite for attack powers is Limited Range.  How limiting is that, when range mods are so large, so fast?  If you want to enforce "a limitation that isn't limiting isn't worth points" seriously, you have to re-evaluate a BIG chunk of the rules, and if you're gonna do that, you should also reconsider whether there are things that are overpriced, or don't give enough of an impact for the limitation value.

 

On the slots...might be my bad too.  Yeah, it's 15 fixed slots...and it's not all that hard to get there.  Even more, tho, that's the worst case for a VPP, and largely overkill.  For 60 active, -6, just to change slots, I can go with 16- net...probably even 15-.  So, 21- or 22-;  I need 8 or 9 levels.  That's 19 or 21 points, to NOT have to spend 31...but have it work almost all the time.  Plus...the MP gives a price break because once you have a 12d6 Blast vs. PD, how much additional capability does a 12d6 Blast vs. ED get you?  Some, yes, but not a lot.  That argument applies to slots in the MP vs. control cost in the VPP.  The base point cost for the control size, for the 60 point VPP, is 30.  Add in 1/2 Phase...45.  Now factor the 16- skill roll for 21...66 points.  That's 11 slots.  At what point should it stop mattering?  Or is it more accurate to say that 1/2 Phase to Switch, and 0 Phase to Switch, are much TOO expensive in practice?  Same with No Skill Roll.  

 

To be sure:  we haven't included Limited Powers on the VPP, which can't be applied to an MP at all, and can readily smack down the final control cost.  But that's Hero.  It's core principles...particularly 6E...make it all about gaming the rules to get the most you can, so picking and choosing problem elements is mostly futile.

[Hugh Neilson]

14 hours ago, unclevlad said:

On the slots...might be my bad too.  Yeah, it's 15 fixed slots...and it's not all that hard to get there.  Even more, tho, that's the worst case for a VPP, and largely overkill.

 

On one side, 15 fixed slots feels much more limiting than "it changes to whatever you want". On the other hand, 150 points in a 60 AP game is a big investment either way. Viewed another way, for 90 points (the control cost) a large portion of your character's abilities can be reconfigured at your discretion. Having spent that 90 points to make the Swiss Army Multipower into a VPP, why not toss in your defense and movement powers?  That means you have a bigger pool and can move those points around as well if it becomes worthwhile.

 

Of course, anything PCs can do, NPCs can do. The value of configurable defenses drops off a lot if all the opponents have configurable attacks.  As well, the game will bog down fast if a half dozen inexperienced players are all reconfiguring their powers every phase, and the GM is managing the same for half a dozen opponents.

 

14 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 For 60 active, -6, just to change slots, I can go with 16- net...probably even 15-.  So, 21- or 22-;  I need 8 or 9 levels.  That's 19 or 21 points, to NOT have to spend 31...but have it work almost all the time.  Plus...the MP gives a price break because once you have a 12d6 Blast vs. PD, how much additional capability does a 12d6 Blast vs. ED get you?  Some, yes, but not a lot.  That argument applies to slots in the MP vs. control cost in the VPP.  The base point cost for the control size, for the 60 point VPP, is 30.  Add in 1/2 Phase...45.  Now factor the 16- skill roll for 21...66 points.  That's 11 slots.  At what point should it stop mattering?  Or is it more accurate to say that 1/2 Phase to Switch, and 0 Phase to Switch, are much TOO expensive in practice?  Same with No Skill Roll. 

 

Both No Skill Roll and using a skill will scale with AP. For 21 points versus 31, the savings is basically a -1/2 limitation. That's high for a 16- activation. But a pure activation roll won't change if the characteristic your skill roll is based on is somehow impeded (drains, change environment, etc.) If you have also tossed your defenses and movement into the VPP, do you want to reconfigure your attack, your defenses or your movement.  The more AP you add for one swap, the greater your chances of failing the roll.

 

Taking a half or full phase to switch means giving up on actions, which is pretty painful in play. It also makes a missed roll even more painful.

 

14 hours ago, unclevlad said:

To be sure:  we haven't included Limited Powers on the VPP, which can't be applied to an MP at all, and can readily smack down the final control cost.  But that's Hero.  It's core principles...particularly 6E...make it all about gaming the rules to get the most you can, so picking and choosing problem elements is mostly futile.

 

6e's segregation of control cost helped a lot - that weaponsmaster with an OAF now doesn't have to buy a 60 point pool to have a single 60 AP attack with -1 in limitations always in the pool.

[unclevlad]

No Skill Roll costs 1 point per 2 points in the control size...subject to common modifiers and limited powers limitations.  The skill roll costs 1 point per 5 in the control size.  It's not subject to those limitations, but you can reduce the costs a bit by going with a higher INT, which has the nice advantage of adding to your base PER, and several useful skills.  The skill roll has the advantage that you can use it as a limitation on power activation.  Even if the GM disallows it on persistent powers, just putting it on the attack powers reduces a 60 active to 40 on its own, or from 48 to 34 with Limited Range.  Either way, that's allowing for a smaller pool size, and that's a direct savings.  

 

As far as missing the roll...16- succeeds 53 times out of 54.  And for 2 more points, it's 17- and succeeds over 99.5% of the time.  Heck, at that point, a missed roll...ok, it can be painful at the time, but I think I can just shake it off with an eyeroll and a big sigh...because I can treat it as a fluke.

 

How often do you need to change things that frequently, too?  The half phase, to me, is more about tactical thinking.  It can be accommodated.  

 

It comes down to whether the overall cost difference is worth going from "VERY RARELY fails" to "never fails."  Or half phase to zero phase.  Let's go with control cost 60, pool size starts at 60, but is reduced by common mods.  Limited powers, -1/2, to be concrete, for attack powers, and a common mod of Limited Range.  Then the total cost:

 

skill roll, half phase:  75 (54 + 21, I'm using a 23 INT)

skill roll, zero phase:  82 (61 + 21)

no skill roll, half phase:  91

no skill roll, zero phase:  99 points

 

Control size matters.  In a higher-power game...15 DCs with 1/2 END needs 94 active.  The costs go to 112, 123, 142, and 155. 

 

And clearly, the more points I can attach RSR to?  That's where the massive point shaving happens.  Conversely, losing the Limited Powers becomes MUCH MORE expensive...the 60 active pool's costs, with no Limited Powers, goes to 81, 89, 108, and 120 character points.  Plus, you very likely lose Limited Range as a *common* modifier.  Common mods reduce the cost of the control side.  Even if you keep a 48 point pool size...your 60 active point powers will always have a -1/4 limitation...the no skill roll, zero phase goes to 48 + 90 or 138 points.  Even a simple -1/4 common modifier is saving you 18 character points...because the control side is SO expensive in this configuration.

 

It's something of a juggling act...and to be honest, useful to me.  In many cases, going from half phase to no phase just isn't that expensive.  If the character notion is based on high mobility, then half phase to switch is more of a pain.

 

Yes, this whole thing gets to be a serious artform.   HD makes these manipulations MUCH!!! easier, as long as you're willing to play around.

[Hugh Neilson]

Have to say that what I really see here is arguments for better scrutinizing limitations.  A -1/4 limitation is expected to have an impact in play. If it does not, then it should not be a limitation. If the limited range is still so much range that the limitation has no impact, it is worth no points. Ditto a skill roll that has no impact, an OIAID if the character will always be free to adopt that AID or a Focus that will never be damaged or unavailable.

 

If we're going to allow -1/4 or -1/2 limitations for issues that never, or almost never, come up in the game, why not just give everyone a -1/4 or -1/2 AutoLimitation, rather than allow players prepared to game the system to gain advantages over players using the system for a game?

Edited May 14, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[rravenwood]

19 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I am sure, that "Ultra" was the old term for "fixed slot"

 

Yep, exactly right.  In old character writeups, "m" denoted a normal Multipower slot, while "u" denoted an "ultra" fixed slot.  (2E Howler and Pulsar are examples of both.)

[unclevlad]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Have to say that what I really see here is arguments for better scrutinizing limitations.  A -1/4 limitation is expected to have an impact in play. If it does not, then it should not be a limitation. If the limited range is still so much range that the limitation has no impact, it is worth no points. Ditto a skill roll that has no impact, an OIAID if the character will always be free to adopt that AID or a Focus that will never be damaged or unavailable.

 

If we're going to allow -1/4 or -1/2 limitations for issues that never, or almost never, come up in the game, why not just give everyone a -1/4 or -1/2 AutoLimitation, rather than allow players prepared to game the system to gain advantages over players using the system for a game?

 

The root problem is that, it's a direct consequence of the power assembly process, and the attempt to be everything for everyone.  There will be holes like that.  There are, IMO, also things that are horribly overpriced...floating fixed locations for Teleport is a big one for me.

 

I actually posted here, a couple years ago:  whatever your baseline point level is, add X%...but disallow virtually all limitations.  In some cases, this might mean restructuring a power...HA comes with an implicit limitation, for example.  Fine, how about dropping the cost to 4 points.  If you don't like that, well, that might be a limitation you need to keep, but generally...no, disallow limitations.  You can try to scrutinize all you want, but you have to toss out a fair bit of RAW, and trying this piecemeal is also guaranteed to have holes. 

 

Note:  I'm talking for supers.  This almost certainly falls apart for fantasy, at least not without even more extensive consideration.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Hand attack shouldn't get a limitation anyway, its the equivalent of HKA.

[unclevlad]

1 minute ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Hand attack shouldn't get a limitation anyway, its the equivalent of HKA.

 

Then why ever take HA versus PD?  Why not just buy STR?   

 

I think the intent with HKA is to discourage them.  Personally?  I'd love to just throw killing dice out...which probably is why I wasn't about to make them cheaper.  I hate them, because their variance is far too high since you're rolling so few dice.  Make it a form of AVAD...targets resistant PD or ED for the BODY, and still does BODY.  Or avoid the AVAD structure and just say it's +1/4, "BODY damage is resisted only by resistant defense."  In a 12 DC game, if 12 DC KAs are allowed, you need to worry about 18 BODY headed at you.  That's over the average roll, sure, but it's still fairly frequent...16% of the time, just under 1 time in 6, you have to deal with 18 or more BODY.  You don't necessarily need 18 resistant, but you'd better have a fairly substantial amount.  That also points out that the HKA is *more* effective than the HA, even at the same number of DCs...because the defense against the HKA is more expensive.

 

BTW:  what I did was to make HA 4 points per d6, with 1/2 d6 for 2...mostly for +1 AVADs and NNDs.