extra time to change slots

[Rebar]

What lim would be on extra time to change slots in a MP?

 

Say it took a 1/2 phase? -1/4? or -0?

 

If you said -0, then how long a delay would you impose in order to qualify for a -1/4 lim? A full phase? More?

 

Is that a used phase, or can the character act?

[Derek Hiemforth]

I don't have a firm answer to offer you, but rather a word of caution. It can be very easy for this kind of Limitation to be abused...

 

For example, I used to have a powered-armor superhero that had a Multipower of Movement Powers. I wanted it to take a moment to switch between propulsion modes, so I took a Limitation, "Full Phase to Change Slots" on the MP. I set the Limitation on it at -1/4, based on the logic that this was half the value of Extra Time: Full Phase. I wasn't trying to do anything abusive by it, and it seemed okay. Until someone pointed this out...

 

Depending on how you apply this, you can take extra powers you don't want and never plan to use, and save points by saying it takes a long time to switch to them. For example, let's say a character has a 12d6 Energy Blast as his attack. That's all he wants. That's all he planned to buy. He doesn't want a Killing Attack or anything else, just an EB. So pays 60 points.

 

However, he could put that EB in a Multipower with a 4d6 RKA in a second slot, apply a -1/2 Limitation to the whole MP "1 Turn to Change Slots", and then it only costs 48 points (40 for the MP reserve and 4 for each slot). The thing is, he just never uses the RKA slot. Doesn't matter to him, because he didn't want the RKA anyway!

 

So to make a long story short (too late!), I would say that if you want this kind of construct, apply the Limitation only to the slot cost(s)... not to the MP reserve.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm not sure if Derek's experience is separate or not, but there's a prior thred discussing this somewhere and the same issues were raised.

 

I would use half the extra time, like Derek. However, this is based on the rule that, if you take time to activate it after which it can be used freely, you use 1/2 the limitation. In allowing this, I would also expect the character to accept that whatever slot he first wishes to activate will require the "Extra Time" to get it rolling (ie this is the same as putting that "extra time" limnitation on all of the slots).

 

Depending on the construct, I might accept that there is always one slot set (eg. one cartridge in the gun), but which one that is would not always be "player's choice", but might be randomly determined. If the player wants to always have the EB set (to use Derek's example), and never uses anything else, his limitation should probably be applied only to the slot costs, and not to the multipower base.

 

As I like to believe players will be reasonable, I'd probably allow it on the reserve and watch it in play for abuse. I suspect I'd be OK with Derek (sounds like he would switch slots fairly often) but a player with the mentality of Derek's icon would find the limit applied only to the slots pretty quickly.

[Dust Raven]

Not long ago I was comparing VPPs to MPs, just to figure out the most efficient point breaks between them.

 

Because the default for a VPP is to take a Full Phase to change the points, I was searching for a Limitation for a Multipower to reflect that. It took me a while, but eventually came to similar conclusions as Derek.

 

Then I thought, does Extra Time even apply to the MP Reserve at all? Sure, it'd apply to all the slots, but that doesn't mean it applies to the Multipower as a whole. So I only apply Extra Time (Only At Startup, half value) to the slots. I've feel that this is balanced and helps prevent getting more for paying less.

 

This slightly goes against the rules (specifically stating that any Limitation that applies to all the slots also applies to the reserve), but there is already precident with Utility Belts, where all the slots have OAF, but a lessor Limitation (OIF) is placed on the actually reserve.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Dust Raven

Then I thought, does Extra Time even apply to the MP Reserve at all? Sure, it'd apply to all the slots, but that doesn't mean it applies to the Multipower as a whole. So I only apply Extra Time (Only At Startup, half value) to the slots. I've feel that this is balanced and helps prevent getting more for paying less.

 

This slightly goes against the rules (specifically stating that any Limitation that applies to all the slots also applies to the reserve), but there is already precident with Utility Belts, where all the slots have OAF, but a lessor Limitation (OIF) is placed on the actually reserve.

 

I think this depends on how you apply it. If you get to pick a slot which requires no extra time, and that's where your reserve starts, then the limitation doesn't apply to the reserve - it's available from the outset. If it will require a full phase when you first allocate the points, then I think the limitation is legitimate.

 

Let's use the abusive example from above: 60 point reserve, with two ultra slots, a 12d6 EB and a 4d6 RKA.

 

(A) If a full phase will be required to activate the EB or the KA, and then to change later, cost is 58 (reserve 60/1.25; each slot 6/1.25).

 

( If the power has a default - EB if we only wanted an EB anyway - so I can fire the EB whenever I want, with no requirement to spend a full phase the first time I use it (in each combat), then I pay 60 for the reserve (no limit), and 5 for each slot (6/1.25), for a total of 70.

 

Compare this to just buying the EB.If I could use it whenever I want, no extra time, it costs 60 points. This is 2 points more than (A), but 10 points less than (. However, it does not have the full phase startup that (A) has. If we bought the EB Full Phase to Activate, it would only cost 48 (60/1.25), 10 points less than the multipower option.

 

So, to me, the test comes back to whether activating any slot, even the first allocation where we aren't changing from one slot to another, require extra time.

[Rebar]

All good points. I can see that applying the lim on the slots not on the MP pool cost is a valid way to go. (rationale is easy: *this* slot takes extra time to activate).

 

The idea of taking slots that aren't really limiting is especially relevant to my situation - the slots I'm building aren't all that different. Each are compound powers, yet each have some of their points devoted to an EB, with the remaining devoted to other SFX-dependent things, thus:

 

slot 1: EB (sml) fully indirect + clairsentience

slot 2: EB (lrg) + flight

[tesuji]

This has been gone over before.

 

Most of the time, we run into the concept vs the mechanics.

 

First issue: if your concept calls for, in short, a multipower where changing the slots is more difficult than a free action, however you don't want an actual activiation issue for whatever it is set to, then you are not going to get a satisfactory answer. I will call this the slow multipower.

 

Example: I have a gun with different types of ammo. Each type of ammo is a different slot. I have to change clips to switch ammo, however, i dont start things with an empty clip, so when trouble breaks out, i can shoot right away with my "default" clip.

 

Example: My powered armor suit has several hardpoints where i can mount various modules. I have a gun hardpoint with about 5 different weapons. I have a shields module which can have a defense screen or a stealth shield. i have a back hardpoint where i can mount a wing for better flying, a sensor dish for surveillance or a booster power cell. Whenever i leave the base, i have to choose which is in. in the field, i have whichever options i chose and cannot change them. There is no "start of the fight" delay time for this... its just auxialliary components.

 

A lot of people want this to be a limitation on the pool. However, that doesn't work. That will often put the cost of this slow multipower LESS than the cost of just buying one set of options with no chance to change ever, which is silly. (The guys who want this mechanic anyway will now start talking about adding in a "no default, must always take delay" type of thing so they can justify the cost... making the concept change to serve the preferred mechanic... so much for being able to do anything?!?)

 

If you apply this as a limit on the cost of the slots, then whether the limitation isa light one (must change clips to change slots -1/4) or a big one (""must go back to base and reconfigure suit -1 ) then the final cost will always fall between the cost of "one suit no options" and "all the options, free action to change at will on the fly". In this case, there is no need to shoehorn in additional problems because the cost fiuts inside the reasonable range.

 

So, IMO, apply a reasonable limitation value to the slots and not the pool and you can get good, reliable and sensible costs for your "slow multipower" regardless of how slow it is.

[Derek Hiemforth]

A lot of it is also in how you word the Limitation. For maximum clarity, I would probably apply the Limitation only to the slot costs (not the reserve), and call it "Takes (fill in time) to allocate reserve points to this slot, unless this slot was the last slot used".

 

This way, the gun with multiple clips of different ammo would still be loaded with the most recently-used clip, whether it was used just a second ago or a month ago. But if you wanted to use a different clip -- whether in the midst of a battle or at the very beginning of it -- it would take the time to change clips (or whatever).

[PhilFleischmann]

We had a (rather heated) discussion on this not too long ago. I posted a long argument for why the limitations must be put on the slots only. And I suggested half the normal limitation for a limitation which "only applies when switching to this slot." Tesuji does a good job above succinctly summarizing the idea and the reasoning behind it. This particular topic has been of particular interest to me for a long time. I've been using this idea in campaigns for quite a while.

 

Note also that while "Extra Time" is the most commonly mentioned limitation in this context, there are many other limitations that may be applied to slots of MP's, allowing all kinds of powers and abilities to be made. (I LOVE HERO!)

 

F'rinstance:

Charges - can only switch so many times

Costs END - not just to *use* the power, but also to *choose* the power

Concentration - "Cover me while I switch the settings on my - AAARRGGHH!"

Focus - to switch, say Bulky (wizard's spellbook) or Immoble (lab equipment), or even Expendible

Side Effects - uh-oh! But only when switching the slots

Noisy - "He's setting his weapon! Get him before he fires it!"

RSR or Activation - "Switch to AP." "I tried." "Try again."

 

Also note that different slots might have different switching limitations. A multi-setting energy gun has a standard 12d6 EB with no limitation, you can use it freely until the power battery (END Reserve) runs out; a 4d6 RKA that uses up some of the battery when you set that setting (Costs END); an 8d6 Explosion that takes time and skill to jury-rig (Full Phase, RSR); and a 6d6 Flash, but you have to hold the gun very steady to set that setting (Conc: 0 DCV).

 

Or a wizard who knows several spells: a few are second-nature to him and he can always cast them; some are only accessible if he can study his spellbook for a while (Extra Time: 15 Min., OAF Bulky); some require a moment of concentration to recall to the front of his mind (Conc 1/2 DCV, unaware of surroundings); some require a pact with a demon (Side Effect: Corruption of soul); some are only accessible at a particular time of day (1 Charge).

 

In each of these cases, my recommendation is to apply half the normal limitation to the slots only.

[Al_Beddow]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

I don't have a firm answer to offer you, but rather a word of caution. It can be very easy for this kind of Limitation to be abused...

However, he could put that EB in a Multipower with a 4d6 RKA in a second slot, apply a -1/2 Limitation to the whole MP "1 Turn to Change Slots", and then it only costs 48 points (40 for the MP reserve and 4 for each slot). The thing is, he just never uses the RKA slot. Doesn't matter to him, because he didn't want the RKA anyway!

 

To paraphrase a rule:

"If a limitation isn't a limitation then it is a -0"

[Caped Crusader]

I am currently playing a character with just this sort of construct. Every power he has is on a "slow" multipower of some kind. (He's a spellcaster, if it matters...) And having to burn time to switch slots is a limitation. My character is a speed 5, but this limitation effectively reduces him to closer to a speed 3-4 because of the time he loses every time he wants to change slots (which happens frequently). Sure, if the character never changed slots it'd be less of a limitation, but I end up changing slots quite a bit. And every time I do, I lose a move. A lot of the time I have to juggle whether I want to take the time to swap slots or not. Just last game I ended up getting clocked out cold because I was in a situation where I didn't get the chance to change slots because I had to recover from knockback and couldn't afford to spend the time. So, while I'm taking the minimum limitation for the loss, (-1/4), it's definitely making a difference in my charaters actions. And "If a Limitation applies to every slot in a Multipower, that Limitation applies to reduce the cost of the Multipower reserve".

 

And seriously, if a player sets up a construct like this with the express intent of never changing slots, then the problem is not with the rules, it's with the player.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Caped Crusader

I am currently playing a character with just this sort of construct. Every power he has is on a "slow" multipower of some kind. (He's a spellcaster, if it matters...) And having to burn time to switch slots is a limitation. My character is a speed 5, but this limitation effectively reduces him to closer to a speed 3-4 because of the time he loses every time he wants to change slots (which happens frequently). Sure, if the character never changed slots it'd be less of a limitation, but I end up changing slots quite a bit. And every time I do, I lose a move. A lot of the time I have to juggle whether I want to take the time to swap slots or not. Just last game I ended up getting clocked out cold because I was in a situation where I didn't get the chance to change slots because I had to recover from knockback and couldn't afford to spend the time. So, while I'm taking the minimum limitation for the loss, (-1/4), it's definitely making a difference in my charaters actions. And "If a Limitation applies to every slot in a Multipower, that Limitation applies to reduce the cost of the Multipower reserve".

 

While I sympathize to some extent with the posrters who note "the multipower is cheaper than one base p[ower", I think the point they miss is that the "one base power" can always be used, any time, with no delay. The Multipower points cannot.

 

Your comments get at the crix of the problem with applying the limnitation only to the slots. The points saved un der such a structure are not commensurate with the drawbacks to the character. As a result, players taking this construct because it fits their character suffer a disadvantage they do not recover points for, and wind up with a less effective character than a "gamist" who simply comes yup with another concept because this one won't be point-effective.

 

Originally posted by Caped Crusader

And seriously, if a player sets up a construct like this with the express intent of never changing slots, then the problem is not with the rules, it's with the player.

 

Amen, brother!

[tesuji]

Ok, let me try to show you this...

 

I will start with one assumption, not explicitly stated, that you do NOT have as part of this limitation an actual mandated "start of combat" delay.

 

IE if the combat starts with your various slow multipower set where you want them, you can start up just fine without a hitch.

 

Ok, so now, IN PLAY you choose to switch your slots and lose time. In fact, for you, you choose to do this quite a bit and so actually see the impact as an overall reduction in speed.

 

So you wonder why you should not get it cheaper than the one power route?

 

Now take a look at it this way...

 

Imagine each of those slow multipowers gone and replaced with ONE of their slots.

 

That means you would never lose any time "changing" slots.

 

That SHOULD be cheaper than your "slow multipower" options.

 

Really, it should!

 

Why?

 

In combat, that guy has NO CHOICE. He cannot ever CHOOSE to accept a "change powers but lose time" option. He can never say "the loss of time is worth it, dial up flight instead of invisibility."

 

You can.

 

You can ,each and every phase, make a choice between "keep my powers and act" or "trade my action for different powers."

 

Thats more than mr one option guy can do. Thats apparently an option you CHOOSE as preferable quite often. often enough that you do so an average of 1-2 times per turn of combat.

 

That should cost more. Not necessarily a lot more, but a little more.

 

Thats what limiting the slots does.

 

No change guy is the cheapest. (he has no multipowers)

Change at will no delay guy is the most expensive (normal multipowers guy.)

 

Slow change guy fits nicely between those two...

 

The easiest example i find to wrap my mind around is that of a gun... with clips of ammo.

 

Abel has a gun with a single 16 round clip with one ammo type... 4d6 rka. (one gun, no multipower)

Baker has four 16 round clips with four different ammo type (4d6 rka, 366-1 Ap rka, 12d6 Eb, 6d6 nnd gas, one clip each) but it takes a reload action to change the clips. (slow multipower)

Charlies has a similar gun but with four connectied feed mags so he can switch between ammo on the fly. (normal multipower)

 

Baker should pay more than abel, he has more choices and a wider variety of options, but less than charlie who has no lost actions to change types.

 

you pay more for the choice.

 

Again, apparently IN PLAY you choose to take "lose action" over "keep power as is" quite a bit... you find it a "good choice" quite often. So, obviously, if you did not have that choice, you would not have been as good if you had not ever had the choice.

 

thats why it costs more than the no choice guy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Caped Crusader

I am currently playing a character with just this sort of construct. Every power he has is on a "slow" multipower of some kind. (He's a spellcaster, if it matters...) And having to burn time to switch slots is a limitation. My character is a speed 5, but this limitation effectively reduces him to closer to a speed 3-4 because of the time he loses every time he wants to change slots (which happens frequently). Sure, if the character never changed slots it'd be less of a limitation, but I end up changing slots quite a bit. And every time I do, I lose a move. A lot of the time I have to juggle whether I want to take the time to swap slots or not. Just last game I ended up getting clocked out cold because I was in a situation where I didn't get the chance to change slots because I had to recover from knockback and couldn't afford to spend the time. So, while I'm taking the minimum limitation for the loss, (-1/4), it's definitely making a difference in my charaters actions. And "If a Limitation applies to every slot in a Multipower, that Limitation applies to reduce the cost of the Multipower reserve".

 

And seriously, if a player sets up a construct like this with the express intent of never changing slots, then the problem is not with the rules, it's with the player.

 

FWIW, i dont think this is a serious concern... its just a highlight to how the mechanic is flawed.

 

Applying the lim to the pool will in some cases produce nonsensical results, where the power wqith more options and choices is worth less than the one without. (this leads some to want to piggyback in new problems to justify the cost drop.)

 

if you apply it to the slots only, you get reliable and understandable results. The only trouble with this is, BECAUSE MULTIPOWER MAKE FREE CHANGES COST SO LITTLE, the savings are not always worth enough to convince players to take the lim and they opt to go with the normal multipower.

 

But in fact if abel's one ammo gun costs 30 rp as an OAF, and charlie's multi mag gun free change multipower costs 42 pts (30 for pool plus 3 per slot) with four 16 round different ammo types and free changes... then the value for baker and his four separate clips take action to change clip/type gun should lie between 30 and 42... and thats what limiting the slots would do. (I would apply -1/2 which would cause baker's gun to price in at 38 30 for pool and 2 per slot.)

 

I can empathize with the notion that "4 pts out of 42" may not be enough to entice on point-efficiency-allure alone SOME players away from the free change multipower. But, the system says that the difference between 16 shots of one ammo type and 16 shots each of four ammo types is ONLY 12 out of 42... and IN THAT CONTEXT 4 pts for "free change to action to change" seems appropriate.

 

 

Compared to 4d6 RKA 16c OAF 30 pts.

 

+12 pts... four different types, 64 total rounds (divided into 16 rounds each type) instead of 16 total, free change (normal multipower)

 

+8 pts... four different types, 64 total rounds (divided into 16 rounds each type) instead of 16 total, action to change (slow multipower with limitation on slots.)

 

Doesn't seem that far off, does it?

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Your comments get at the crix of the problem with applying the limnitation only to the slots. The points saved un der such a structure are not commensurate with the drawbacks to the character. As a result, players taking this construct because it fits their character suffer a disadvantage they do not recover points for, and wind up with a less effective character than a "gamist" who simply comes yup with another concept because this one won't be point-effective.

 

Every single time he suffered the "drawback" it was because he looked at the situation and decided "its a good idea to lose my action to change my powers." (OK, its possible sometimes he was wrong, but no one will be arguing for being wrong not having drawbacks.)

 

The guy with no such option, who had only one power instead of the slow multipower, in EVERY one of those cases, would have ended up with the worse outcome. he never had a choice to trade off action for powers when the trade was beneficial.

 

You are paying for the CHOICE. You have more options, more adaptability, more resources. Thats why "slow multipower" needs to be more in price than no multipower.

 

In HERo the choice, no matter how bad a choice it might be, costs points.

 

If i want +1 OCV with hth combat with side effects (4d6 RKA taken to self) in HERO, so that whenever i call on this spirit guide to aid me it's negative energy harms me greatly, it COSTS me points. About 2 in fact. Will it ever be worth it to use this power? maybe not, but i have the choice, which is more than i did if i did not pay the points.