A hypothetical hybrid framework.

[unclevlad]

This combines aspects of both the VPP and MP.

 

1.  It's primarily defined by pool size and control size.  Pool size is in real points;  control size is in active points.  This part is identical to a VPP.

2.  The control cost is 1/2 the pool size.  

3.  Framework powers are organized by slots like an MP.  They can be fixed or variable, like an MP.  

4.  The slot costs are FREE, up to the amount of the control cost.  After that, they're paid for just like MP slots.

5.  Common limitations that apply to the entire pool reduces the control cost and the "slot costs"...but also reduce the amount of free slot points.  It's still a net savings, tho.

5.  There's no skill roll and no time, because these are fixed slots.

 

Why suggest this?  Mostly it's for more complex MPs...but ones where Limited Powers in a VPP won't make up for the VPP's penalties.  The issue is that the size of an MP is ambiguous.  Is it active or real points?  If the MP has a common limitation, while some slots have limitations and others don't...what's the math to determine which powers can be used together?  Separating pool size and control size is the VPP solution, and it's a good one.  Every slot now has a clean active cost AND real cost, so determining which slots can be used together is easy.

 

This is the framework that got me thinking this way, using the hybrid form:

"Multipower", 80 base + 87 control cost,  (124 Active Points); all slots Unified Power (-1/4)

--  Clairsentience (Sight Group And Normal Hearing), Mobile Perception Point (can move up to 12m per Phase), Costs Endurance Only To Activate (+1/4), NRM (+1/2), MegaScale (1m = 1 km; +1) (82 Active Points, 66 Real)

--  TK (40 STR), Fine Manipulation, Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4) (87 Active Points, 70 real)

--  TK (36 STR), Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4) (67 Active Points); Limited Range (-1/4) (45 real)

--  TK Blast:  (Total: 85 Active Cost, 57 Real Cost) Blast 4d6 (vs. PD), PLUS Blast 8d6 (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4);  Half Range Modifier (+1/4), Limited Range (-1/4) (25 + 60 Active Points per part) 

--  Flight 18m, x4 Noncombat, Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4) (29 Active Points, 23 Real)

 

While flying, he can't use the Fine Manip TK or clairsentience;  he can use the coarser TK, or the blast.  Working out the pool size is trivial to get things to fit in.  This framework would allow 35 points in "slots" for free (44, reduced by the -1/4 limitation);  it's got 26 right now.

 

This wouldn't replace the RAW MP in all cases...like when you have a few 10d6 Blasts and Flashes, where the total slot costs are quite low.  Or it might just need some limitations specifically on the control size to reduce it...and thus, the "free slots" you'd get in this framework.

[unclevlad]

To explain a bit, perhaps clarify...

 

One of the nice improvements in 6E was separating a VPP's pool size and control size/cost.  Very nice, very flexible.  

 

So that's what this suggestion is based on.  Pool size is pool size.  When you say control size is separate, the ability to have large powers needs to be expressed as its own cost function.  My first cut is to just put it at 1/2.  These are still MP-style slots, tho...the slot list is fixed, the powers are fixed.  So, let the control cost give that many points to be used on the slots.

 

It's not for a powers list with extensive flexibility, like, say, Blasts that can use 2-3 different SFX, where you want to cover normal blasts, AoEs, and even Autofires for *each*.  And maybe a Flash and an NND targeting Flash Def.  That's a whole lotta slots.   VPPs also have a notable issue with pricing limited powers available...in this framework, it's simply not an issue.

[Hugh Neilson]

OK, so 124 points ignoring any limitations where an 87 point Multipower + slot costs of 44 would be 131 points.  This ignores any limitations.  No two power could be used in tandem with Fixed slots as all combinations exceed the 87 active point pool, but the pool cost gets common limitations.  Slap on unified power and this model saves 9 points.  The Multipower saves another 17 by applying a -1/4 limitation on the pool itself. The VPP could have a "limited powers" limitation further reducing the control cost.

 

It may be less expensive to just make some slots Variable and accept the 87 AP cap for powers in use at one time, or buy a bigger pool to fit in certain combinations.  I'm not sold either way as I haven' really dug in, but I question whether the added value of this "middle ground" framework is worth the added complexity of a third framework. 

[unclevlad]

That's for this one.  Note that you could have an 87 point control size and a 58 point pool size, for example...each slot will have -1/2 in limitations, and in this construction, they don't have to be the same.  That's an issue with RAW Multipower.  If everything can take a common limitation, all well and good, but you can't mix and match the limitations.

 

You can also build something like a 120 point pool size, 60 control size "MP."  Where the cap on active points is clear and explicit, as opposed to a 120 point RAW MP, where it's not.

 

EDIT:  
Limited powers isn't going to make up for 1/2 phase to change slots, which'd be the minimum...and you need to buy a skill roll on top of the control cost.  VPPs are for when you want significant flexibility within the powers allowed.  Building a healer-drainer type;  he can heal or drain any characteristic, or 2 at once (END and STUN was the example built).  (I think draining 3 cuts too much into the dice.)  So there's a nice notion of limited powers, plus flexibility within them.  So that's a VPP.  But when the powers don't necessarily need a LOT of flexibility, a combat VPP is very expensive.  

 

This framework tends to be overly expensive when you have a small number of fairly high-power slots...like a blaster MP with perhaps 3 Blasts (PD, ED, Flash) and a Flash.  All the same points.  Well, a "limited powers" equivalent here might be to simply allow a limitation on the control cost.  It ONLY affects the control cost, but the principle here:  the real points in the control cost == the number of free points you get in slots.  At that point, I think this could be a full replacement for RAW MP.  Both frameworks have the notions of pool size and control cost;  the "MP" has all slots pre-defined, the VPP is "make it up as you go along."

[Hugh Neilson]

I have not gone back to look at 6e specifically,  but I thought it was always pretty clear that Multipowers are AP driven.  That is, the pool needs enough AP for the slot(s) in use (contrast VPP where the real cost is used to 'fill' the pool but no limitation ever applies to the pool). Pre-6e, this made the VPP a bad fit for, say, the archer with an arrow for every situation.  A 60 point Multipower pool would benefit from all the limitations on the bow and arrows (say -1) so the pool cost 30 and each fixed slot cost 3.  The VPP would be 60 + control cost, so if you wanted to benefit from the pool, you needed Dual Arrow Archer to use 2 30 real point arrows every time.

 

That control cost would start at 90, since you needed Cosmic.  Assuming the same -1 limitations (and it should be higher as the powers are restricted), you were looking at 105 points - the Multipower only breaks even at 25 slots.

 

If we adopted this option, how long before we need a further variant - "well, I should have 40 points of slots for my control cost, so if I only have four 80 AP powers, with -1 in limitations, I get ripped off because I only use 12 of my 40 points."  You pay 40 for the pool so it can only use one slot at a time, but your multipower pool would only have been 40 points since it would be 80 with -1 in limitations.  The bigger question might be the "limited powers available" limitation for the VPP.  Given Attacks Only is vastly more flexible, "only these four attacks" seems like a pretty hefty limitation is warranted.  I wonder if you could extrapolate something from the doubling rule - 1,2,4,8,...unlimited slots available.

 

I agree that a fair comparison of Multipower to VPP requires Cosmic as the Multipower builds that in.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[unclevlad]

15 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I have not gone back to look at 6e specifically,  but I thought it was always pretty clear that Multipowers are AP driven.  That is, the pool needs enough AP for the slot(s) in use (contrast VPP where the real cost is used to 'fill' the pool but no limitation ever applies to the pool). Pre-6e, this made the VPP a bad fit for, say, the archer with an arrow for every situation.  A 60 point Multipower pool would benefit from all the limitations on the bow and arrows (say -1) so the pool cost 30 and each fixed slot cost 3.  The VPP would be 60 + control cost, so if you wanted to benefit from the pool, you needed Dual Arrow Archer to use 2 30 real point arrows every time.

 

That control cost would start at 90, since you needed Cosmic.  Assuming the same -1 limitations (and it should be higher as the powers are restricted), you were looking at 105 points - the Multipower only breaks even at 25 slots.

 

If we adopted this option, how long before we need a further variant - "well, I should have 40 points of slots for my control cost, so if I only have four 80 AP powers, with -1 in limitations, I get ripped off because I only use 12 of my 40 points."  You pay 40 for the pool so it can only use one slot at a time, but your multipower pool would only have been 40 points since it would be 80 with -1 in limitations.  The bigger question might be the "limited powers available" limitation for the VPP.  Given Attacks Only is vastly more flexible, "only these four attacks" seems like a pretty hefty limitation is warranted.  I wonder if you could extrapolate something from the doubling rule - 1,2,4,8,...unlimited slots available.

 

I agree that a fair comparison of Multipower to VPP requires Cosmic as the Multipower builds that in.

 

MPs are AP-driven because they generally are expected to be more narrowly defined, and the distinction between "AP with common limitations" and "Real Points" isn't considered.  

 

You don't need a new variant for the "a few big powers" case.  You simply need a limitation specific to the control cost alone...which is analogous to VPP's Limited Powers anyway. 

 

Pool size:  40

Control size:  80  Cost AND FREE SLOTS:  40.  Limitation:  all powers must take at least -1 in limitations.  -1 applies to the control cost, and therefore to the slot pool size.  20 points for slots before paying for them.  Your 4 slots would total 16...but if you want, hey, one could be an ultra slot.  Now it's 20.  Or mix and match, 2 ultra slots with 1 fixed.  20.  

 

You don't get free slots equal to the control size, you get free slots equal to the control COST.  And, note that in a RAW MP, the cost of the MP can only be reduced by the amount of the *common* limitations.  Say everything has -1/2 in common limitations, and another -1/2 that vary from slot to slot.  Now your 80 point MP --> 53 character points, plus 16 for the slots.  (Example?  Heals and Drains.  Let's say that for concept, the Drain also has to be touch-driven, so No Range.  The Heals might have Full Phase and 1/2 DCV.  The common mods might be Unified and OIAID.)  

 

In a VPP?  If you're talking a cosmic pool, forget it.  That 80 point control size is now 120, given it's a +2 on all 40 points.  To get that down to 20 points is a -5 limitation.  It's the diminishing returns aspect of limitations;  the control size in my alternate MP doesn't go OVER 40, whereas in the VPP, it's gonna be much, much larger.  A -2 limitation gets you back to 40, sure...but to get to, say, 32?  From alternate MP's 40, it's a simple -1/4.  From a VPP's 120?  You're already dividing by 3, so to knock off the points, you go from -1/4 to -3/4 needed.  That's a big jump.

 

Plus, doing it like that, is ad hoc;  it won't be uniform.  If I want somehow to drop the alternate MP's control cost to 20, it'd be -1.  For the VPP, gotta triple that to add it atop the -2, so it's now a -5.   And if we can live with stuff like 1/2 phase to switch slots along with the No Skill Roll, we're at +1 1/2, so the numbers change all over again.  

[Hugh Neilson]

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

MPs are AP-driven because they generally are expected to be more narrowly defined, and the distinction between "AP with common limitations" and "Real Points" isn't considered. 

 

That's a question of game design philosophy. Especially recalling that 6e is the first time we have seen maximum AP divorced from pool size, I'm not sold that this was (or was not) a design consideration.

 

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

You don't need a new variant for the "a few big powers" case.  You simply need a limitation specific to the control cost alone...which is analogous to VPP's Limited Powers anyway.

 

When I first read this, I had to remind myself that you started the thread.  You want a special new variant for "a few big powers with variant limitations". Why would someone with fewer slots than they could technically receive for free not want some discount for not fully taking advantage of that versatility?

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Pool size:  40

Control size:  80  Cost AND FREE SLOTS:  40.  Limitation:  all powers must take at least -1 in limitations.  -1 applies to the control cost, and therefore to the slot pool size.  20 points for slots before paying for them.  Your 4 slots would total 16...but if you want, hey, one could be an ultra slot.  Now it's 20.  Or mix and match, 2 ultra slots with 1 fixed.  20.  

 

First off, "Ultra" is earlier edition speak for "fixed", not for "variable". 

 

If I take -1 in limitations that can be changed between powers, what is the limitation for the less flexible arrangement where all powers have the same limitations?

 

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

And, note that in a RAW MP, the cost of the MP can only be reduced by the amount of the *common* limitations.  Say everything has -1/2 in common limitations, and another -1/2 that vary from slot to slot.  Now your 80 point MP --> 53 character points, plus 16 for the slots.  (Example?  Heals and Drains.  Let's say that for concept, the Drain also has to be touch-driven, so No Range.  The Heals might have Full Phase and 1/2 DCV.  The common mods might be Unified and OIAID.) 

 

The one change that I think would be very reasonable for Multipowers would be a Variable Limitation on the pool if all slots have different limitations. If all of the slots had Variable Limitations totalling -1, then the pool would get the same -1/2 limitation as the slots. It seems reasonable that, where the limitations of each slot are fixed, this should save at least as many points on the pool as would be saved if every slot had Variable Limitations (and, to be clear, the slots would still get the full limitation since the individual slots can't vary their limitations.

 

Turning the Multipower into "you get the point savings for limitations on the pool plus you get to squeeze more slots at the same time into the pool based on slot limitations" feels wrong ("feels" as I don't have the time to really dig into the meat of the math).