Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

[BNakagawa]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

Until you do a better job of convincing me otherwise, no.

[Kristopher]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

I've also found that it's not that much of a point savings, if at all. I'm mainly trying to come up with something other than piling on lots of Hardened, Resistant exotic defenses. I've been concentrating on high-end NPCs lately, and their defenses are starting to look the same.

[Rapier]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

I've also found that it's not that much of a point savings' date=' if at all. I'm mainly trying to come up with something other than piling on lots of Hardened, Resistant exotic defenses. I've been concentrating on high-end NPCs lately, and their defenses are starting to look the same.[/quote']

Try the standard DEF multipower and a couple of naked advantages:

 

DEF MP

m 20 rPD

m 20 rED

m 20 MD

m 20 FD

m 20 PowD

 

SuperDEF MP

m NakAdv: Hardened x2

m NakAdv: Resistant

 

I threw in Resistant because you mentioned it and figured maybe you might want to rDEF PowD or something. If that is not the case just buy the hardened x2 straight out as a naked advantage. This may be a little slower than straight out DEF purchases, but it is very versatile. It is also going to be a heck of a lot faster than a VPP.

 

Or just toss the NakAdvs in with the regular MP and increase the pool cost so you can run the Hardened along with the DEF.

[Agent X]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

One thing I get tired of is folks who think there is only one way to accomplish something. If someone wants a 30 Point Reactive Defense Pool, so be it. 30 Base +1 zero phase action +1 no skill required -1/2 only powers meant to provide defense -1/2 minimum of 20 points devoted to protecting against last effective attack 10 points can remain in place for attack right before last

 

30 +15x3/2 = 52 points

 

That's a lot of points for most characters. Assuming the character hasn't bulked up too much on defenses already, I don't see the problem. If the character's schtick is invulnerability and they aren't also the movement/sensory/attack guy in the team I don't have a problem with that either.

 

Heck, those 52 points spent straight on the usual defenses would probably prove more useful in most encounters just like raw dice usually are better than armor piercing or penetrating advantages

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

One thing I get tired of is folks who think there is only one way to accomplish something. If someone wants a 30 Point Reactive Defense Pool, so be it. 30 Base +1 zero phase action +1 no skill required -1/2 only powers meant to provide defense -1/2 minimum of 20 points devoted to protecting against last effective attack 10 points can remain in place for attack right before last

 

30 +15x3/2 = 52 points

 

Now THAT I would probably allow (subject to the "character as a whole" caveat). The difference? Agent X has fleshed out the manner in which the power works, and how the points are reallocated.

 

How do yo beat this guy? Keep changing up the attacks you hit him with.

[paigeoliver]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

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

 

It has nothing to do with fairness, it has everything to do with keeping my games from slowing down while players "build powers" constantly.

 

I also tend towards multipower designs that feature all ultra slots.

 

Only power pool I would allow that could be changed during adventures would have to be limited to one power/combination at a time selected from a predefined list. I don't care how long the list is, I just don't ever want to have a player or myself having to build an effect mid game.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

...it has everything to do with keeping my games from slowing down while players "build powers" constantly.

 

Then that should be your rule (and it is a reasonable one): that the character can only shift the Power Pool into a Power that has been written up prior to the player's turn to do something in the game, so that no one has to wait for her to write it up. Whether it was written up ten minutes earlier or ten weeks earlier is of no consequence.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

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?

 

To make a long post really short.

 

I do not feel that tiered Limitations are anymore conceptually fair than saying that different kinds of Psychological Limitations are worth more or less points if they have the same severity and frequency. A limitation is a limitation, regardless of whether it affects the power implictly, as each impacts the power instrinsicly. Attack powers only (a limited Subset only worth -1/2) is just a valid as OIF and both reduce the cost of the control cost by the same amount; ie one is not more advantageous to have than the other. Both are limitations and both should apply to the powers bought with the VPP.

 

You and Derek and obviously Steve disagree. Fine. You go do that...I'll be over here.

 

Besides my interpretation is the *only* way I have ever seen to get the mimic pool to work even close to the ideal. You are severely hampered in you choice of powers, the way you get them and the how the pool is allocated. It just makes conceptual sense to apply those limitations to the powers bought with the pool.

 

As to Firelad vs Firegirl, if Firelad bought his MP Pool points sans limitations and only limited the slots they would be *identical* in application. The difference lies in the framework build, not in rules or fairness.

 

Hawksmoor

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

To make a long post really short.

 

I do not feel that tiered Limitations are anymore conceptually fair than saying that different kinds of Psychological Limitations are worth more or less points if they have the same severity and frequency. A limitation is a limitation, regardless of whether it affects the power implictly, as each impacts the power instrinsicly. Attack powers only (a limited Subset only worth -1/2) is just a valid as OIF and both reduce the cost of the control cost by the same amount; ie one is not more advantageous to have than the other. Both are limitations and both should apply to the powers bought with the VPP.

 

You and Derek and obviously Steve disagree. Fine. You go do that...I'll be over here.

 

Besides my interpretation is the *only* way I have ever seen to get the mimic pool to work even close to the ideal. You are severely hampered in you choice of powers, the way you get them and the how the pool is allocated. It just makes conceptual sense to apply those limitations to the powers bought with the pool.

 

To make this post even shorter:

 

(1) I think Derek and I agree with Steve and you do not, but I don't have the book in front of me to take a quote.

 

(2) The 12d6 EB I purchase in my "Fire Powers Only", "Attack Powers Only" power pool is not in any way limited by the fact that I can't trade those points away for a sonic-based force field. Hence, the limitations do not apply to the powers, only the cost of being able to change the powers.

 

(3) The 12d6 EB I purchase with an OIF (regardless of whether all powers in the pool are, or are not, required to have the OIF limitation) is limited by the fact that it is an OIF, and thus the cost of the power is reduced by the OIF limitation.

 

(4) Agree that the Mimic pool severely impairs your ability to chooose which powers you can purchase with it. That's why the control cost is limited. But once I mimic your 12d6 zFireblast, the EB is in no way impaired by the inability to change it to a 4d6 lightning RKA, so there is no limitation for the EB.

 

(5) However, I would certainly like to play a VPP based character with serious limits on what powers can be placed in the VPP in your campaign

[Kristopher]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

Besides my interpretation is the *only* way I have ever seen to get the mimic pool to work even close to the ideal. You are severely hampered in you choice of powers, the way you get them and the how the pool is allocated. It just makes conceptual sense to apply those limitations to the powers bought with the pool.

 

I'm not sure how much sense the following power makes:

 

Firebolt: 12d6 EB, -1/2 Only Fire-Based Powers.

 

I'd never let someone buy that power. Ever. It's a nonsense limit.

 

By suggesting that the limitations placed on the VPP's control cost are also and always placed on the powers within the VPP, you're insisting that players get the kind of nonsense, meaningless limits on the powers in their VPPs.

 

It just doesn't work that way, and your suggestion that it does work that way is the first time I've seen that suggestion in over 10 years of HERO.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

I'm not sure how much sense the following power makes:

 

Firebolt: 12d6 EB, -1/2 Only Fire-Based Powers.

 

I'd never let someone buy that power. Ever. It's a nonsense limit.

 

By suggesting that the limitations placed on the VPP's control cost are also and always placed on the powers within the VPP, you're insisting that players get the kind of nonsense, meaningless limits on the powers in their VPPs.

 

It just doesn't work that way, and your suggestion that it does work that way is the first time I've seen that suggestion in over 10 years of HERO.

 

You are right the exact limitation seems silly, but the idea of only limiting the slots in a MP and getting increased AP out of an unlimited Multipower pool is quite normal. In fact that is how I see limited VPPs working. The pool is unlimited but each and every power you pull out of it has a real cost significantly below the AP of the VPP. It works the same as a MP.

 

On to Hugh's points

 

No I disagree with Steve (who sides with you according to the FAQ)

 

Why?

 

Because limiting what you can do with a VPP when you can do it, and how the points can be allocated is just a severe a limitation as say OIF or Gestures. If I have a pool that can only be changed in a lab the powers I take are limited. Period. If I can't create Energy Blast, that pool is limited. Period. I does not matter if the power is not implictly limited, my ability to use the pool is restricted compared to the unlimited cosmic guy next to me.

 

Further all limitations are the same, no one got a cost break on more limiting -1/2 limitation. Thus to express otherwise is nonsensical, no matter how it might seem, because the limtations are effecting the power even if it is not obviously expressed. Although I would argue the limitations are obvious and tangible since the power is an expression of the limitations applied to it. Take the instance of the Defensive VPP, he is never getting EB or Flight or Teleport or any one of a hundred powers out of his pool. Thus the power he takes out of the pool is limited, even if the Armor he pulls out has no extra limitations stacked on to it. Compare this to Cosmic VPP Guy or even unadvantaged VPP guy who can do everything Defense Pool guy can do and more:

 

His powers are limited (in choice and application) and thus he deserves the break on the AP of his powers he gets from the pool.

 

In the end it is an argument that verges on the religious. I just can't see how some limitations of the same value are more limiting than others. Perhaps if pool only effecting limitations were increased in value since the pool powers would be uneffected, but since that is not the case, the argument lacks internal logic.

 

Hawksmoor

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

In the end it is an argument that verges on the religious.

 

No, Hawksmoor: dogs do not have eight legs, the moon is not made of cheese, and Limitations that only concern the type of powers which may be in a Power Pool are not applied to the Powers bought in the Pool. This is not a difference in doctrine nor in interpretation: you are simply wrong. Your method is grossly unbalanced and unfair (as unfair, in its way, as Paigeoliver's knee-jerk restrictions on all Power Pools), which is why the game is written as it is.

 

That being said, if you want to make that a house rule, knock yourself out. Expect a lot of Power Pool characters.

[Katherine]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

No, Hawksmoor: dogs do not have eight legs, the moon is not made of cheese, and Limitations that only concern the type of powers which may be in a Power Pool are not applied to the Powers bought in the Pool. This is not a difference in doctrine nor in interpretation: you are simply wrong. Your method is grossly unbalanced and unfair (as unfair, in its way, as Paigeoliver's knee-jerk restrictions on all Power Pools), which is why the game is written as it is.

 

That being said, if you want to make that a house rule, knock yourself out. Expect a lot of Power Pool characters.

 

You know it is possible to disagree with someone without being a jerk about it.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

You know it is possible to disagree with someone without being a jerk about it.

 

It's "tough love".

[Agent X]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

There is a difference between fact and opinion. Hawksmoor has a different opinion than most of the folks who have posted on here. That doesn't make his opinion any less valid. I think some folks on these boards need to give up on being so forceful about shoving their house rules or favorite official rules or favorite nicknames for books down someone elses' throat. This ceased being a reasonable debate some time ago.

[Katherine]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

It's "tough love".

 

And that's typically reserved for parents, loved ones or people in position of authority over the recipient. Somehow I don't think you're any of those when it comes to Hawksmoor (or anyone else on this board for that matter).

 

In other words, just who the Hell do you think you are?

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

:sigh:

 

Hawksmoor

 

-BTW thanks Agent and Katherine

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

In other words' date=' just who the Hell do you think you are?[/quote']

 

As humbled as I am at your gentle correction of my manners, I feel I should point out that your saintly ire might be more appropriately directed at people who insult, shout at, and fabricate criminal assertions about others (none of which I have done to Hawksmoor, to whom I have spoken directly, but respectfully nonetheless). Surely your gift of righteous indignation would be of more benefit when directed at sinners more deserving than my unworthy self.

[Katherine]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

As humbled as I am at your gentle correction of my manners' date=' I feel I should point out that your saintly ire might be more appropriately directed at people who insult, shout at, and fabricate criminal assertions about others (none of which I have done to Hawksmoor, to whom I have spoken [i']directly[/i], but respectfully nonetheless). Surely your gift of righteous indignation would be of more benefit when directed at sinners more deserving than my unworthy self.

 

Oh, please think nothing of it, you seem QUITE deserving of it.

 

You can call it "tough love" if you want.

 

Seriously, if that is your idea of "respectfully" how do you make it threw the day without getting smacked several times? You have some good ideas, but you come across like you feel there are three kinds of people in the world. You, people that agree with you and total idiots.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

You have some good ideas' date=' but you come across like you feel there are three kinds of people in the world. You, people that agree with you and total idiots.[/quote']

 

(sigh)

 

Yeah, I know. It's a personality flaw. I try to make up for it in other ways.

 

(And no, I'm not being facetious about that.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

You are right the exact limitation seems silly' date=' but the idea of only limiting the slots in a MP and getting increased AP out of an unlimited Multipower pool is quite normal. In fact that is how I see limited VPPs working. The pool is unlimited but each and every power you pull out of it has a real cost significantly below the AP of the VPP. It works the same as a MP.[/quote']

 

ummm...limiting the MP slots does not increase the AP of powers available for use - the pool sets that. A 60 point Multipower with OAF sees the pool cost (and each slot cost) halved. 60 AP worth of powers can be used at one time. A 60 point VPP with OAF has no change to the pool cost (because pool cost never changes), but each power has its real points halved. [That's clear as mud...]

 

Let's try an example. I want to have 2 60 AP powers available at all times, and they will all have OAF. I can:

 

(a) Buy a 120 point multipower and 15 Ultra slots, each with 60 AP. That's all OAF, so the cost is 120 + [6 x 15 =] 90 = 210/2 for OAF = 105. I can use any two of those slots at a time.

 

( Buy a 60 point Cosmic VPP with OAF. The control cost is 60 x 1/2 x 3/2 = 45 for a total cost of 105. I can select any two 60 point powers, each of which will have OAF, and take up 30 points of the pool.

 

Both achieve the desired result at the same cost. If I have less than 15 desired slots, the MP is cheaper. If I have more, the VPP is cheaper. Hence, VPP is the superior construct for a highly flexible character.

 

On to Hugh's points

 

No I disagree with Steve (who sides with you according to the FAQ)

 

OK, that's settled.

 

Why?

 

Because limiting what you can do with a VPP when you can do it, and how the points can be allocated is just a severe a limitation as say OIF or Gestures. If I have a pool that can only be changed in a lab the powers I take are limited. Period. If I can't create Energy Blast, that pool is limited. Period. I does not matter if the power is not implictly limited, my ability to use the pool is restricted compared to the unlimited cosmic guy next to me.

 

The limitation impacts only the ability to change the powers, which you paid for with the control cost. Let's take another example. Player A wants to have a 24/24 Force Field at 1/2 END (60 points), 24" Flight at 1/2 END (60 points) and a 12d6 EB (60 points). They all have the same SFX - let's say Electricity. He buys an EC and pays 120 points for the three powers.

 

Player B wants the same basic configuration, but he also wants versatility. He buys a standard Power Pool (electric powers only), and sets the points in an EB, flight and force field. How much does he pay (ignoring his Power Skill)?

 

(a) BY THE BOOK: 180 points for the pool + 90/2 control cost = 225 points. He can have all three powers going at once, each taking up 60 points of his pool. He can also change the powers to any of hundreds of other abilities (more power for greater END, less at lower END, no flight so he boosts force field and EB, etc.).

 

( YOUR WAY: He buys a 90 point pool, and the control cost is 22 points = 112. Each power costs 60/2 = 30 thanks to the "electric only" limitation. He gets all the same powers the EC character has (and some would say EC's are broken!), does not face the risk of any one power being drained and sucking points out of the rest, has far more versatility as he can reallocate points, and saved 8 character points.

 

Which costing approach is reasonable and balanced? To my mind, the guy with 3 powers, never changeable, should be paying less points than the guy who can have the same three powers, or swap them for an infinite number of other choices (albeit with time and skill).

 

Further all limitations are the same' date=' no one got a cost break on more limiting -1/2 limitation. Thus to express otherwise is nonsensical, no matter how it might seem, because the limtations are effecting the power even if it is not obviously expressed. Although I would argue the limitations are obvious and tangible since the power is an expression of the limitations applied to it. Take the instance of the Defensive VPP, he is never getting EB or Flight or Teleport or any one of a hundred powers out of his pool. Thus the power he takes out of the pool is limited, even if the Armor he pulls out has no extra limitations stacked on to it. Compare this to Cosmic VPP Guy or even unadvantaged VPP guy who can do everything Defense Pool guy can do and more.[/quote']

 

Restrictions on the ability to chanmge the powers in the pool do not reduce the ultility of the powers the pool is used to acquire. The control cost is the cost of the specific ability to reallocate the points within the VPP. Limiting the ability to reconfigure reduces the utility of the "Reconfigure" power, but not on the specific powers configured.

 

Let's use your examples - Defense and Cosmic. A 60 point Cosmic VPP costs 60 + 90 = 150. The Defense pool costs 60 + 45 (90/2, assuming it's cosmic and only defense powers is -1) = 105. Defense gets a limitation on the control cost, because he has restricted his ability to vary the VPP configuration.

 

If Cosmic puts his 60 points into a 30/30 force field, his VPP is tapped.

Defense also wants to maximize a force field. Should he be able to have:

 

(a) a 30/30 force field [the rules]

( a 60 PD force field and a 60 ED force field (your approach)?

 

I'd say that the more limited character should not be able to save 45 points (30%) AND have twice as much power available to him. The only thing he has restricted is his ability to select an EB.

 

Let's take this one step further. Cosmic wants to have two 60 AP attack powers and 2 60 AP defense p[owers available at any one time. He buys a 240 cosmic VPP for 240 + 360= 600 points (high powered campaign...).

 

I want my character to have 2 attack and 2 defense powers, and I'm prepared to surrender the ability to have other types of powers in my pool. I will buy an attacks only, and a defenses only pool (assume -1 limit for each). Should it be:

 

(a) 2 pools of 120 points, with control costs of 90 = 210 each, for a total cost of 420 - each pool has two 60 point powers in it.

 

( 2 pools of 60 points, with control costs of 45, for a total of 210 points. Each pool has two 60 point powers with the -1 limitation "attacks only" or "defenses only"?

 

A 180 point savings for loss of versatility of the VPP seems a lot more reasonable than shaving off 390 points! emember also that a character who buys 2 60 point defensive powers and 2 60 point attacks directly pays 240 points. Why should the guy who can select any two attacks and any two defenses SAVE 30 points (12.5%) for this added versatility?

 

His powers are limited (in choice and application) and thus he deserves the break on the AP of his powers he gets from the pool.

 

I woulld say his powers are more limited in choice and application than a character who did not place a similar limitation on a VPP. Thus, he deserves to save points, and he does - the control cost is reduced.

 

However, his powers are less limited in choice and application than a character who purchased the powers without any ability to change the allocation of their points, so he shuld pay more than those characters. By the rules, he does. By your rules, the VPP sructure can be made more point-effectiove than simply buying "fixed configuration" powers.

 

In the end it is an argument that verges on the religious. I just can't see how some limitations of the same value are more limiting than others. Perhaps if pool only effecting limitations were increased in value since the pool powers would be uneffected' date=' but since that is not the case, the argument lacks internal logic.[/quote]

 

I assume by "religious", you mean "a position is maintained regardless of all logic refutinmg it", I would have to agree you have a religious argument. As your approach leads to a character with versatility costing lkess than a character lacking versatility, I submit that it is your case which lacks internal logic. I'm curious whether you (Hawksmoor) will consider whether, given the above, you should consider converting to the "One True VPP Faith" and put your heathen ways behind you.

 

I'm not going to get into bblackmoor and Katherine's discussion, except to say that rebutting Hawksmoor's position by logic is, to me, infinitely preferable to name calling. Although I have to admit the "religious" comment does invite a snide response (I made mine above, so I'm done with it), it's the one such statement in Hawksmoor's overall discussion of his views that does.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

I'm not going to get into bblackmoor and Katherine's discussion' date=' except to say that rebutting Hawksmoor's position by logic is, to me, infinitely preferable to name calling.[/quote']

 

I agree with this sentiment (and you have more patience than I do, which I admire). However, I have not seen anyone call Hawksmoor any names, so I am not sure why you feel the need to make this statement.

[Kristopher]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

You are right the exact limitation seems silly, but the idea of only limiting the slots in a MP and getting increased AP out of an unlimited Multipower pool is quite normal. In fact that is how I see limited VPPs working. The pool is unlimited but each and every power you pull out of it has a real cost significantly below the AP of the VPP. It works the same as a MP.

 

On to Hugh's points

 

No I disagree with Steve (who sides with you according to the FAQ)

 

Why?

 

Because limiting what you can do with a VPP when you can do it, and how the points can be allocated is just a severe a limitation as say OIF or Gestures. If I have a pool that can only be changed in a lab the powers I take are limited. Period. If I can't create Energy Blast, that pool is limited. Period. I does not matter if the power is not implictly limited, my ability to use the pool is restricted compared to the unlimited cosmic guy next to me.

 

Further all limitations are the same, no one got a cost break on more limiting -1/2 limitation. Thus to express otherwise is nonsensical, no matter how it might seem, because the limtations are effecting the power even if it is not obviously expressed. Although I would argue the limitations are obvious and tangible since the power is an expression of the limitations applied to it. Take the instance of the Defensive VPP, he is never getting EB or Flight or Teleport or any one of a hundred powers out of his pool. Thus the power he takes out of the pool is limited, even if the Armor he pulls out has no extra limitations stacked on to it. Compare this to Cosmic VPP Guy or even unadvantaged VPP guy who can do everything Defense Pool guy can do and more:

 

His powers are limited (in choice and application) and thus he deserves the break on the AP of his powers he gets from the pool.

 

In the end it is an argument that verges on the religious. I just can't see how some limitations of the same value are more limiting than others. Perhaps if pool only effecting limitations were increased in value since the pool powers would be uneffected, but since that is not the case, the argument lacks internal logic.

 

There's nothing religious about it.

 

One of the core rules of the HERO system is that a Limitation that does not limit a Power doesn't give you any savings in points.

 

Limitations on a VPP that only restrict what kind of power you can put in it are by nature different from Limitations that actually affect the powers themselves.

 

If you put the Limit "OIF" on a VPP, then putting that Limit on every Power within the Pool is entirely fair and reasonable, because it fits the SFX and actually limits the powers.

 

To use my earlier example, how exactly does "Only for Fire-based Powers" hinder or limit the Power "Firebolt: 12d6 EB" purchased within the VPP's Pool? It doesn't -- end of story. It only hinders and limits the VPP itself, and therefore only applies to the VPP's Control Cost.

 

To use an example from the VPP I was brainstorming when I posted this thread, how on Earth does the Limitation "Only for Defensive Powers" limit or hinder 20 points Power Defense purchased within the VPP's Pool? Again, it in no way limits the usefulness or applicability of the Power Defense, and again, it's not worth any point savings on the Power Defense itself.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

ummm...limiting the MP slots does not increase the AP of powers available for use - the pool sets that. A 60 point Multipower with OAF sees the pool cost (and each slot cost) halved. 60 AP worth of powers can be used at one time. A 60 point VPP with OAF has no change to the pool cost (because pool cost never changes)' date=' but each power has its real points halved. [That's clear as mud...']

 

Let's try an example. I want to have 2 60 AP powers available at all times, and they will all have OAF. I can:

 

(a) Buy a 120 point multipower and 15 Ultra slots, each with 60 AP. That's all OAF, so the cost is 120 + [6 x 15 =] 90 = 210/2 for OAF = 105. I can use any two of those slots at a time.

 

( Buy a 60 point Cosmic VPP with OAF. The control cost is 60 x 1/2 x 3/2 = 45 for a total cost of 105. I can select any two 60 point powers, each of which will have OAF, and take up 30 points of the pool.

 

Both achieve the desired result at the same cost. If I have less than 15 desired slots, the MP is cheaper. If I have more, the VPP is cheaper. Hence, VPP is the superior construct for a highly flexible character.

 

Sorry wasn't being clear: a 60pt MP with two 60AP Powers with -1 limitations functions identically to the description I made (60pt VPP with -1 Limitations on the control) on the example VVP given. You do not need to go to point extremes.

 

 

The limitation impacts only the ability to change the powers, which you paid for with the control cost. Let's take another example. Player A wants to have a 24/24 Force Field at 1/2 END (60 points), 24" Flight at 1/2 END (60 points) and a 12d6 EB (60 points). They all have the same SFX - let's say Electricity. He buys an EC and pays 120 points for the three powers.

 

Player B wants the same basic configuration, but he also wants versatility. He buys a standard Power Pool (electric powers only), and sets the points in an EB, flight and force field. How much does he pay (ignoring his Power Skill)?

 

(a) BY THE BOOK: 180 points for the pool + 90/2 control cost = 225 points. He can have all three powers going at once, each taking up 60 points of his pool. He can also change the powers to any of hundreds of other abilities (more power for greater END, less at lower END, no flight so he boosts force field and EB, etc.).

 

( YOUR WAY: He buys a 90 point pool, and the control cost is 22 points = 112. Each power costs 60/2 = 30 thanks to the "electric only" limitation. He gets all the same powers the EC character has (and some would say EC's are broken!), does not face the risk of any one power being drained and sucking points out of the rest, has far more versatility as he can reallocate points, and saved 8 character points.

 

Which costing approach is reasonable and balanced? To my mind, the guy with 3 powers, never changeable, should be paying less points than the guy who can have the same three powers, or swap them for an infinite number of other choices (albeit with time and skill).

 

The issue here is the level of limitation you are applying. Electric powers are a SFX, and not easily applicible to a limitation value. If you instead had used -1/2 limited Subset (Electrical Powers: EB RKA Force Feilds, Teleport, Flight) and increased the pool to reflect the 1.5 increase on demand to 135 points the real cost of the pool would be 120 points and the power pool would do exactly as requested. Also the 180pt VPP is capable of so much more, and should cost more. It is an orange to Mega-orange argument.

 

 

 

Restrictions on the ability to change the powers in the pool do not reduce the ultility of the powers the pool is used to acquire. The control cost is the cost of the specific ability to reallocate the points within the VPP. Limiting the ability to reconfigure reduces the utility of the "Reconfigure" power, but not on the specific powers configured.

 

Let's use your examples - Defense and Cosmic. A 60 point Cosmic VPP costs 60 + 90 = 150. The Defense pool costs 60 + 45 (90/2, assuming it's cosmic and only defense powers is -1) = 105. Defense gets a limitation on the control cost, because he has restricted his ability to vary the VPP configuration.

 

If Cosmic puts his 60 points into a 30/30 force field, his VPP is tapped.

Defense also wants to maximize a force field. Should he be able to have:

 

(a) a 30/30 force field [the rules]

( a 60 PD force field and a 60 ED force field (your approach)?

 

I'd say that the more limited character should not be able to save 45 points (30%) AND have twice as much power available to him. The only thing he has restricted is his ability to select an EB.

 

Or teleport or AID or Tunnelling or Extra Speed or any of a thousand other things. A pretty hefty limitation I would say.

 

 

Let's take this one step further. Cosmic wants to have two 60 AP attack powers and 2 60 AP defense p[owers available at any one time. He buys a 240 cosmic VPP for 240 + 360= 600 points (high powered campaign...).

 

I want my character to have 2 attack and 2 defense powers, and I'm prepared to surrender the ability to have other types of powers in my pool. I will buy an attacks only, and a defenses only pool (assume -1 limit for each). Should it be:

 

(a) 2 pools of 120 points, with control costs of 90 = 210 each, for a total cost of 420 - each pool has two 60 point powers in it.

 

( 2 pools of 60 points, with control costs of 45, for a total of 210 points. Each pool has two 60 point powers with the -1 limitation "attacks only" or "defenses only"?

 

A 180 point savings for loss of versatility of the VPP seems a lot more reasonable than shaving off 390 points! remember also that a character who buys 2 60 point defensive powers and 2 60 point attacks directly pays 240 points. Why should the guy who can select any two attacks and any two defenses SAVE 30 points (12.5%) for this added versatility?

 

Simply because of the established fact that frameworks are more efficient than not using them? I mean we can wonk ECs to the ground to make them balanced, or say Attack Multis are munchkinsh but using a framework is always going to get a bigger bang for the buck than not using one.

 

I woulld say his powers are more limited in choice and application than a character who did not place a similar limitation on a VPP. Thus, he deserves to save points, and he does - the control cost is reduced.

 

However, his powers are less limited in choice and application than a character who purchased the powers without any ability to change the allocation of their points, so he shuld pay more than those characters. By the rules, he does. By your rules, the VPP sructure can be made more point-effectiove than simply buying "fixed configuration" powers.

 

So? I do not subscribe to the "what ever costs the most must be right approach." Further I do not see a problem with the system since all VPPs would be treated the same. All limitations are the same and treated the same when regarding a VPP. No one gets screwed over and no one stands out as wonky. Not the Gadget VPP guy, not the Magic VPP guy and not the Mimic VPP guy, and each of them is limited in power compared to Cosmic VPP guy (even if he has to spend time and roll to change his powerset).

 

As to the difference between a straight out build and a VPP or MP model the difference is one straight out guy is able to freely use all of his abilities, Drains are reduced to normal potency, and he can sling MPAs with inpugnity. VPP guy of course very powerful and efficient but drain his reserve, or catch him in a situation he cannot deal with: Webfluid MP/VPP in deep space and the limitations on that VPP will bite him. Cosmic Power VPP with no limits what so ever has no problems no matter what you do to him.

 

I assume by "religious"' date=' you mean "a position is maintained regardless of all logic refuting it", I would have to agree you have a religious argument. As your approach leads to a character with versatility costing lkess than a character lacking versatility, I submit that it is your case which lacks internal logic. I'm curious whether you (Hawksmoor) will consider whether, given the above, you should consider converting to the "One True VPP Faith" and put your heathen ways behind you. [/quote]

 

Nah! I respect your positions I just won't subscribe to them. It is like the dispel argument against foci. To me all it would do is turn the foci off not destroy it. Steve disagrees. Again that is fine I'll be over here doing my thing and be quite happy. Call me a Protestant in a Catholic Hero World.

 

Hawksmoor

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this?

 

Simply because of the established fact that frameworks are more efficient than not using them?

 

No: because your method provides more flexibility than a Multipower and a greater cost savings than an Elemental Control. I would take that as an indication that I needed to reconsider my assumptions.