Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

[Resartus]

Can you have a partially limited VPP? And if so what would it look like?

[Resartus]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

I'm asking because I'm trying to model something specific in a campaign and the only other construct I can find is Aid or Succor.

 

The campaign has high level Psionics, there is a material (a metal alloy) that amplifies psionic powers when you're in it's presence. The more material you're near the bigger the boost to your powers. This is perfect for a partially limited power using conditional limitations, except that the power is a VPP. I can use Aid or Succor for this but it gets messy. The characters in this setting use the material in just about everything they make and Aid adds a lot of cost and verbage to each and every item in the campaign that I'd rather ignore.

 

A VPP is the only way I can cover everything that the characters can do in this setting without making it an exercise in bookkeeping. And since you can't mitigate the cost of the Pool itself the only thing I can think to do for this is to partially limit the control cost. Does anyone have any other ideas on how to do this? Should I just come up with single compound limitation like Beam and apply it to the control cost?

 

Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

Is it a heroic or superheroic campaign? If it's Heroic, such that equipment doesn't cost points, I'd be inclined to simply consider the material "equipment" and set the impact on the VPP as additional points without worrying about the mechanic behind it.

[Resartus]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

While most of the characters won't have stats above 20 it is definitely a superpowered campagin. Point totals so far are hitting 750, one of the NPCs is 1200 points already and I'm not done with him. The equipment is definitely going to cost points I don't like the balance issues that charging money brings into a game. It's actually one of the reasons that I quit playing Gurps and switched to Hero. I can cost everything out to insure balance.

[Fireg0lem]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

To answer your question: to the best of my knowledge, yes. You might want to consider just building it as CSLs with Psionics bought through a Focus, though, since that would be a lot simpler.

[Resartus]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

To answer your question: to the best of my knowledge' date=' yes. You might want to consider just building it as CSLs with Psionics bought through a Focus, though, since that would be a lot simpler.[/quote']

 

I hadn't thought of that possibility before. But how would it help things like telepathy? I need to boost anything that can be in a VPP with a psionics SFX. I will file that suggestion away for future use though, it will help me with some of the other hardware I've thought up.

 

Thank you

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

I've seen this type of construct for a number of published characters in the past; AFAIK there's nothing against it in the current rules.

 

Normally the conditional part is bought as an additional VPP which adds directly to the non-limited VPP, with the conditional Limitation applied to the Control Cost, not the Pool. If the material which boosts the character's power level is also needed to use any Power in the "booster Pool", that Power would also get to take the Limitation to reduce its cost; but the cost of the Pool itself isn't reduced.

 

If that wasn't clear, please feel free to post followup questions.

[Resartus]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

I've seen this type of construct for a number of published characters in the past; AFAIK there's nothing against it in the current rules.

 

Normally the conditional part is bought as an additional VPP which adds directly to the non-limited VPP, with the conditional Limitation applied to the Control Cost, not the Pool. If the material which boosts the character's power level is also needed to use any Power in the "booster Pool", that Power would also get to take the Limitation to reduce its cost; but the cost of the Pool itself isn't reduced.

 

If that wasn't clear, please feel free to post followup questions.

 

That was very clear. Thank you. But I still have a quick question. I thought there was a general rule that powers in one framework coulndn't be added to powers in another framework. Or does that restriction only apply when the frameworks are of different types like a multipower and an elemental control?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

That was very clear. Thank you. But I still have a quick question. I thought there was a general rule that powers in one framework coulndn't be added to powers in another framework. Or does that restriction only apply when the frameworks are of different types like a multipower and an elemental control?

Technically speaking, they aren't two different Frameworks, but a single Framework that is partially limited. It's just the notation that makes it look like two.

 

As for using CSLs, remember than you can increase the DC of an attack by +1 per 2 levels if you don't use them for CV.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

Quoth the Raven... 'cause he's right.

 

Essentially you're just breaking up a single VPP into the part that can always be used, and the part that requires the special alloy to be used. The "booster" can't be employed separately from the base Pool.

[JmOz]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

I would allow it: HOWEVER officialy Steve has said no to this, and to MP's with a similar construct

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

I would allow it: HOWEVER officialy Steve has said no to this' date=' and to MP's with a similar construct[/quote']

 

JmOz, I'm afraid I'm not seeing that prohibition in the FAQ under Variable Power Pools; could you please direct me to it?

 

EDIT: I did find the FAQ note against Multipower Reserves not being partially Limited. I'm not sure if this is the same kind of situation; I think I'll run it by Steve and see what he says. (Or one of you guys can if you like; I'm going to bed first.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

I hadn't thought of that possibility before. But how would it help things like telepathy? I need to boost anything that can be in a VPP with a psionics SFX. I will file that suggestion away for future use though' date=' it will help me with some of the other hardware I've thought up.[/quote']

 

?? Skill levels with Telepathy can boost OCV, DCV or Damage Classes, right? SO let's say our Psionic has 6 levels from this material, and 12d6 Telepathy. He can use it to boost his OECV (better chance of success, especially vs another psionic), DECV (better protection from other psionics, or his target, while mind probing) or add 3 DC - more likely to get the depth of probe desired and/or more penalties to the target's breakout roll.

 

Although I don't generally allow levels to add DC's in a superheroic campaign, here I think I would make an exception.

[Resartus]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

?? Skill levels with Telepathy can boost OCV, DCV or Damage Classes, right? SO let's say our Psionic has 6 levels from this material, and 12d6 Telepathy. He can use it to boost his OECV (better chance of success, especially vs another psionic), DECV (better protection from other psionics, or his target, while mind probing) or add 3 DC - more likely to get the depth of probe desired and/or more penalties to the target's breakout roll.

 

Although I don't generally allow levels to add DC's in a superheroic campaign, here I think I would make an exception.

 

Sorry, my earlier reply missed the point. What I meant to say was CSLs won't increase the strength of telekinesis or the range of telepathy or the inches of movement in teleportation (a psionic ability in this setting). I'm looking for raw power increase and I'm very happy with Lord Liaden and Dust Raven's suggestions.

 

I like the applications for CSLs that you've mentioned and I'll probably use them for some of the "training" equipment. In the setting it's possible to record the experience and memories of a person and play them back as the situation demands. These memory devices are called skeins and look like braided strands of plant material worn around your head. The game effect is increased experience with your abilities which is a perfect fit for CSLs. I'm planning on letting the players buy off the Focus limitation over time to reflect their characters integrating the experiences they've been exposed to over and over again.

 

Thanks again.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

JmOz, I'm afraid I'm not seeing that prohibition in the FAQ under Variable Power Pools; could you please direct me to it?

 

EDIT: I did find the FAQ note against Multipower Reserves not being partially Limited. I'm not sure if this is the same kind of situation; I think I'll run it by Steve and see what he says. (Or one of you guys can if you like; I'm going to bed first.)

I believe this was asked in the Questions board and Steve said no, but I'm not sure.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

I believe this was asked in the Questions board and Steve said no' date=' but I'm not sure.[/quote']

 

I asked Steve specifically about a Partially Limited VPP on that forum yesterday. He said that it was legal, but not recommended. Guess we can officially stick a "Yield" sign in front of this one.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

I asked Steve specifically about a Partially Limited VPP on that forum yesterday. He said that it was legal' date=' but not recommended. Guess we can officially stick a "Yield" sign in front of this one. [/quote']

A Yield Sign it is then.

 

Is it just me, or does "with GM permission" seem to be Steve's stock answer to everything even remotely ambiguous?

[Resartus]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

A Yield Sign it is then.

 

Is it just me, or does "with GM permission" seem to be Steve's stock answer to everything even remotely ambiguous?

 

It's not just you, GM permission seems to be getting more and more frequent the longer I spend time on these boards.

 

On a different note, I want to say thank you to everyone for helping me with this construct. It works much better than Aid in my setting. I'm hoping to eventually post the whole thing to the Other Genre form.

 

Thanks again to everyone that helped, I'm much happier about this now.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

A Yield Sign it is then.

 

Is it just me, or does "with GM permission" seem to be Steve's stock answer to everything even remotely ambiguous?

 

To me, "with GM permission" is longhand for "Yield Sign" or "Stop Sign" - ie "this is something that, while technically book legal, should be closely reviewed for its impact on balance and the campaign as a whole".

 

I suspect Steve also doesn't want his answers quoted with "Steve Long himself said this is OK, so if you won't allow it, you're not really a Hero GM"

[zornwil]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

I am very happy with what I also perceive as an increase in "GM permission". It properly empowers GMs and makes it (IMHO) clearer that however complex HERO may be, it's really a matter of core rules that apply to 75% of everything, specific/niche rules for the other 15% and (as in any system) that can be the "gotcha"/complex part, and GM discretion for the other 10%. BTW, those percentages are just "fer instance", not meant as anything so accurate.

 

I think when game designers/publishers give too many "this is it" answers it begs codification (and IMHO the FAQ is an example of too much such codification as the consensus, which I agree with, is that the FAQ represents orthodoxy), increases complexity, and disempowers GMs somewhat (none of which overly-concerns me as I feel "in control" and have a good group, but I can see the issue that some have expressed re how players counter GMs with "but it's in the rules as okay!").

 

Not to sound entirely wishy-washy, but I also think though that the "GM discretion" shouldn't be used when a very common or critical situation is being addressed. If it's going to be a common situation in any gaming group it should be addressed with an orthodox position. Otherwise we run a risk akin to that I described of effective anarchy in another thread recently (not quite sure where that was, if needed I can/will find it).

[JmOz]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

To me, "with GM permission" is longhand for "Yield Sign" or "Stop Sign" - ie "this is something that, while technically book legal, should be closely reviewed for its impact on balance and the campaign as a whole".

 

I suspect Steve also doesn't want his answers quoted with "Steve Long himself said this is OK, so if you won't allow it, you're not really a Hero GM"

 

I actualy look at it as a fourth step

 

1) Commonly available

2) Yeild

3) Stop

4) GM Permision

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Are partially limited VPPs valid constructs?

 

I actualy look at it as a fourth step

 

1) Commonly available

2) Yeild

3) Stop

4) GM Permision

 

My conclusion started with the theory that "GM Permission" was a separate line item somewhere in that group. But give it a read - signs appear at the header for the ability. GM permission appears only in text, where iot doesn't apply to the whole ability description (ie where a sign would not fit neatly).

 

Whether it's equal to Yield or Stop...well, I haven't given it that detailed level of consideration, but I'd probably say "stop". Yield comments, I think, tend to be more along the lines of "GM's should be careful of...", like the END battery/3xEND comment in FREd.