Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

[Kristopher]

I'm reworking a character I posted some time ago, and I'm trying to come up with a creative (and slightly cheaper) way of expressing supernatural levels of resilence. This would be along with normal defenses (PD and ED), and change according to what kind of attacks the character is facings.

 

Reflexive Defenses:

Variable Power Pool, 30 base + 15 control cost, Cosmic (+2) (75 Active Points);

Defensive Powers Only (-1), Character Has No Choice Regarding When Or How Powers Change (-1)

Real Cost: 45

[megaplayboy]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

I'm reworking a character I posted some time ago, and I'm trying to come up with a creative (and slightly cheaper) way of expressing supernatural levels of resilence. This would be along with normal defenses (PD and ED), and change according to what kind of attacks the character is facings.

 

Reflexive Defenses:

Variable Power Pool, 30 base + 15 control cost, Cosmic (+2) (75 Active Points);

Defensive Powers Only (-1), Character Has No Choice Regarding When Or How Powers Change (-1)

Real Cost: 45

since it's not really under player control, and the defenses aren't likely to be permanent, I'd allow it.

[paigeoliver]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

Nope, I wouldn't allow it. It SOUNDS like it automagically changes to whatever defense you need most. How wonderfully munchkin.

 

Although I only allow power pools to be changed inbetween adventures.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

Reflexive Defenses:

Variable Power Pool, 30 base + 15 control cost, Cosmic (+2) (75 Active Points);

Defensive Powers Only (-1), Character Has No Choice Regarding When Or How Powers Change (-1)

Real Cost: 45

 

I might allow it, but I wouldn't alow a limitation for the fact that your pool shifts automatically to whatever defenses the character needs the most (eg. shifts to ED just before he's hit with an energy blast, PD right before he's hit with a physical blast, blends to Flash Defense and ED as someone fires an MPA EB and Flash, etc.). Without this modifier, the character wuld have to select the desired defenses based on his own expectations of the attacks which will target him, and would need a zero phase action (ie wait to his next phase, or abort) to change the mix if he guessed wrong.

 

If the change of powers applies to automatically shift to defend against the attack he was last struck by (after the effects of that attack are resolved), then I would consider it. But it probably wouldn't take smart opponents long to figure out the best approach is to alternate attacks (eg. after he';s punched, hit him with a fireblast).

 

I'd also look very closely at the character's base defenses. With the ability to add, say, 30 PD or 30 ED, I wouldn't allow him to have 20 or 25 to begin with.

 

I'd also need to see a good basis for tis power - to me, "supernatural resilience" generally means "very tough all the time", not "has extra defenses only when he needs them".

[Metaphysician]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

I don't see anything wrong with the concept, but no way should the fact that its automatic and uncontrolled result in a limitation and point break. The pool should have something like Uncontrolled on it, if its supposed to be automatic.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

I'm reworking a character I posted some time ago, and I'm trying to come up with a creative (and slightly cheaper) way of expressing supernatural levels of resilence. This would be along with normal defenses (PD and ED), and change according to what kind of attacks the character is facings.

 

Reflexive Defenses:

Variable Power Pool, 30 base + 15 control cost, Cosmic (+2) (75 Active Points);

Defensive Powers Only (-1), Character Has No Choice Regarding When Or How Powers Change (-1)

Real Cost: 45

Does the Defensive Powers only mean that it could provide Power Defense or Ego Defense? Do the powers affect him only or could he create a Force Wall?

 

Assuming the answers are NO in both cases it's not too bad. I agree that the No Choice aspect seems a little cheesy. A better mechanic would be to state that the character has to take damage from a new/unfamiliar attack once before the Reflex Defenses VPP can change and have a list of prebuilt configurations of the VPP to choose from. I would not allow any limitations to be take on powers IN the pool however so 30 active points would be IT.

 

HM

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

I would allow it for a very carefully designed character. Supreme would be an example of a character that would have it, as would my old MSH character Powerglide.

 

I would reduce the limitation to at best a -1/2 for defensive powers only, and restrict the pool to be a reactive pool as well. Meaning that it changes after the effect is resolved so that the next hit would be defended against, but not a priori effect. In short it would work like Absorbtion to a defense.

 

I would also concur with Hyerman that limitations would be forbidden, but since there are at least 1 1/2 limitations on the pool already it can pump out two 30 point and one 15 point defense on a standard loadout. It woul really be a quite potent ability for a character to have.

 

In the GGU there is a new game coming up with a robot NPC or PC that very well could have this ability.

 

Hawksmoor

-Think Yes! You'll Be Happier.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

Given the description of "supernatural levels of resilence" given, I would be disinclined to permit this. IMO this resilience would be more plausibly represented with increased BODY, CON and/or STUN. (Extra BODY helps defend against Transforms and the like as well as making the character harder to fatally injure.) 45 Real Points of these Characteristics would go a long way towards making this character tougher than mere mortals.

 

If I were to allow it, it would be "No Conscious Control" and would only create the defense against the most recent attack.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

II would also concur with Hyerman that limitations would be forbidden' date=' but since there are at least 1 1/2 limitations on the pool already it can pump out two 30 point and one 15 point defense on a standard loadout. It woul really be a quite potent ability for a character to have.[/quote']

 

As a point of order, the VPP powers themnselves don't have any limitations. Restrictions on the types of powers, and when they can be changed, apply to the control cost, but not to the powers taken in the VPP.

 

So he'll only have 30 points of defenses (assuming no other limitations) at any given point in time. Still a pretty nice power to have.

 

Thinking on it, does it actually need Cosmic? Doesn't "only changes in ciurcumstance X" override cosmic? ANyone got the Mimic Pool example handy?

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

As a point of order, the VPP powers themnselves don't have any limitations. Restrictions on the types of powers, and when they can be changed, apply to the control cost, but not to the powers taken in the VPP.

 

So he'll only have 30 points of defenses (assuming no other limitations) at any given point in time. Still a pretty nice power to have.

 

 

Is that how you read it?

 

I do not. For instance your example would mean that the powers bought in a OAF Gadget Pool were purchased straight out. IE no Focus applied to them, which is of course not the way such a pool works. Thus limitations applied to the control cost *automatically* apply to the slots inside a VPP just as it would on a MP, which is all a VPP is; an unlimited slot MP.

 

Hawksmoor

[Metaphysician]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

As a point of order, the VPP powers themnselves don't have any limitations. Restrictions on the types of powers, and when they can be changed, apply to the control cost, but not to the powers taken in the VPP.

 

So he'll only have 30 points of defenses (assuming no other limitations) at any given point in time. Still a pretty nice power to have.

 

Thinking on it, does it actually need Cosmic? Doesn't "only changes in ciurcumstance X" override cosmic? ANyone got the Mimic Pool example handy?

 

I don't, but IIRC, Mimic pool was cosmic too. Makes sense, given that otherwise, the "limitation" would effectively add functionality to the pool.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

Is that how you read it?

 

I do not. For instance your example would mean that the powers bought in a OAF Gadget Pool were purchased straight out. IE no Focus applied to them, which is of course not the way such a pool works. Thus limitations applied to the control cost *automatically* apply to the slots inside a VPP just as it would on a MP, which is all a VPP is; an unlimited slot MP.

There are three kinds of Limitations you can apply to VPP Control Costs:

1. Limitations that affect what Powers can be in the Pool.
2. Limitations that affect when and how the Pool allotment can be changed.
3. Limitations that affect the Powers in the Pool (like Focus for a Gadget Pool).

The first two types apply to the Control Cost only... they do not apply to the Powers in the Pool. The third type applies to both the Control Cost and the Powers in the Pool.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

Is that how you read it?

 

I do not. For instance your example would mean that the powers bought in a OAF Gadget Pool were purchased straight out. IE no Focus applied to them, which is of course not the way such a pool works. Thus limitations applied to the control cost *automatically* apply to the slots inside a VPP just as it would on a MP, which is all a VPP is; an unlimited slot MP.

 

I read it as Derek has stated above. Limitations which affect when the pool may change, or which affect what powers may be placed in the pool, do not affect the powers within the pool, but affect the control cost.

 

Limitations which affect all powers in the pool affect the control cost and the powers within the pool.

 

Limitations which affect one or more powers in the pool, but are not applied to every power in the pool, affect the cost of the powers to which they apply, but not the control cost.

 

Otherwise, Cosmic would logically require a +2 advantage on every power in the pool (it's just an advantage, rather than a restriction, on the ability to select powers for the pool).

 

How is the 12d6 EB I take in my VPP affected by the fact my VPP may only have attack powers (-1), or may only be changed between adventures (-1/2)? It isn't. It is affected by the fact it is OAF, so it would benefit from that limitation, and only take up 30 of my pool's available real points.

 

Otherwise, the character who buys an EB straight up should get limitations for the facts he can only use those points for energy blasts (-2) and can never change the point allocation (-2) in addition to his OAF (-1), and pay only 10 points for his 12d6 EB?

 

The control cost "pays" for the privilege of being able to reallocate the points within the VPP. Modifiers which affect that ability, and not the powers selected, only affect the control cost. In fact "OAF" on the control cost is better read as "All powers must take the OAF limitation (-1)", as the pool itself doesn't have a focus.

 

I agree the VPP is an unlimited slot multi. Let's look at an example. FireGuy has a Multipower (60 points) with 3 Multi slots, a 12d6 EB, a +24/+24 Force Field 1/2 END and 30" Flight. He pays 96 points. If FireGuy adds a slot, his MP now costs 108 points. He can use one of his four powers at full power at a time.

 

Should FireGal be allowed to buy a 60 point VPP (Cosmic +2; Fire Powers Only, -1) for a total of 105 and be able to have two of the three slots available to FireGuy running full power at the same time, plus have an unlimited selection of other fire powers available to her? That seems like a lot of benefit for an investment of 9 points! Is it reasonable that FireGuy would have four powers available, any one at full power, for 3 points more than FireGal pays to have 2 powers at full, with a broader selection at her disposal?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

I don't' date=' but IIRC, Mimic pool was cosmic too. Makes sense, given that otherwise, the "limitation" would effectively add functionality to the pool.[/quote']

 

It does add functionality - if the Mimic pool also has Cosmic, that would settle it in my mind. Thanks.

[Rapier]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

Su-pair Fro-mage.

 

 

Not a chance. The only approaching concept I would allow is an MP with each defence bought as a separate multi slot and let the character adjust as he sees fit.

 

This construct seems to imply that there is some kind of prescient magic going on that would allow the character to automatically know what kind of attack is coming at him and allow him to switch to the appropriate defense before it lands...and do this multiple times within the same phase.

 

Any player that brought this to me would fully expect a smack on the peepee.

[Max Faraday]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

I would allow it as a reactionary change--as others have suggested. Very Borg-like

[pinecone]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

My concept organ is buzzing...I see this as a reacts to last attack as a given, maybe put in RSR:Danger sense...and then you've got a changes as needful VPP, the only way to fry that construct is two differant attacks at the same time....I'd tend to be leery of it...it just seems too efficient for the points spend...I'd probibly be happier with Damage reduction, after all I'm really hard to hurt is special effect number one for DR......

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

Although I only allow power pools to be changed inbetween adventures.

 

If fairness is a concern, you should apply that to Multipowers, as well.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

For instance your example would mean that the powers bought in a OAF Gadget Pool were purchased straight out. IE no Focus applied to them' date=' which is of course not the way such a pool works.[/quote']

 

You may have misread what he said: restrictions on the types of powers, and when they can be changed, apply to the control cost, but not to the powers taken in the VPP.

[nexus]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

If fairness is a concern' date=' you should apply that to Multipowers, as well.[/quote']

 

Althought I do allow combat variable VPPs, it does take a HUGE multipower to match the sheer versility of a VPP. After all, switching a multipower slot is automatically a 0 phase action, doing so with a VPP is a hefty Advantage.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

it does take a HUGE multipower to match the sheer versility of a VPP.

 

Huge multipowers exist. Power Pools that have a limited range of possible effects exist. If I, as a GM, were to apply some kind of blanket meta-rule on one of them, it would only be fair to apply it to the other.

[nexus]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

Huge multipowers exist. Power Pools that have a limited range of possible effects exist. If I' date=' as a GM, were to apply some kind of blanket meta-rule on one of them, it would only be fair to apply it to the other.[/quote']

 

IME, very broad flexible VPPs are far more common than huge Multipowers. Even then a VPP is somewhat more flexible. Its a Multipower with basically infinite slots. Do you automatically allow switching powers in VPP as 0 Phase action in the interest of fairness? They're already treated differently. What PageOliver has done is not that big a deal.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

As for the eponymous defensive Power Pool, I would allow it if the limitations were appropriate. The "reactionary" force field, perhaps, along the lines pinecone suggested, would be fine. But from a purely practical standpoint, I would suggest the player simply create it as a Multipower, since that is cheaper and would pose less temptation for abuse.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

What PageOliver has done is not that big a deal.

 

Well, I have seen worse things, unfortunately.

[nexus]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

Personally, on the Defensive Pool I wouldn't allow it, but take that with a big grain of salt because I'm just plain leery of VPPs on the whole.