Tired of Multipowers/EC

[CrosshairCollie]

D-Man:

 

Points don't always tell the tale. Having been playing Champions since the halcyon days of Champs III, I can tell you that. I've seen a 250 point character that could floor Dr. Destroyer in 1 round. I've a critical eye for twinky characters, and the presence or absence of frameworks and point-savings doesn't make something 'broken'. I've never seen a character who became obscenely effective or points-efficient for having a huge EC. I usually think of them as being pretty wasteful.

 

Why is it you don't have problems with MPs when you hate ECs? From your argument, MPs save *more* points.

 

At any rate, what I guess I'm saying is, don't sweat the points, theoretical or practical. When you're determining a character's suitability for a campaign, the end result is the important part. Whether you get a 30d6 attack from a super-pushed Haymaker or a massive Energy Blast in an EC is irrelevant ... it's still too much.

 

Then again, I'm a bookmonger. I'm more inclined to go along with the book than my gut feelings, figuring that, hey, people spent months and years playtesting this ... I shouldn't lightly alter their decision without knowing how they got there.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by CrosshairCollie

D-Man:

 

Points don't always tell the tale. Having been playing Champions since the halcyon days of Champs III, I can tell you that. I've seen a 250 point character that could floor Dr. Destroyer in 1 round. I've a critical eye for twinky characters, and the presence or absence of frameworks and point-savings doesn't make something 'broken'. I've never seen a character who became obscenely effective or points-efficient for having a huge EC. I usually think of them as being pretty wasteful.

 

Why is it you don't have problems with MPs when you hate ECs? From your argument, MPs save *more* points.

 

At any rate, what I guess I'm saying is, don't sweat the points, theoretical or practical. When you're determining a character's suitability for a campaign, the end result is the important part. Whether you get a 30d6 attack from a super-pushed Haymaker or a massive Energy Blast in an EC is irrelevant ... it's still too much.

 

Then again, I'm a bookmonger. I'm more inclined to go along with the book than my gut feelings, figuring that, hey, people spent months and years playtesting this ... I shouldn't lightly alter their decision without knowing how they got there.

 

I've been playing since Champs III, too. I consider the EC a legacy thing. "We can't take it out because too many fans will be pissed".

 

I have a nose for cheese, too. I see far more of it with EC's than I do with other constructs. I also don't like "free points".

 

Here's a hypothetical: I as a GM decide I'm running a 200+150 game. I picked that number because I had a certain power range I was expecting. I also handed my players a sheet of construction guidelines, because total points isn't the only measure.

 

The character who has an MP has two very real restrictions:

 

1. he can't exceed the maximum number of active points in the MP, so the number of powers he can activate is generally limited to one or two. In my experience, its usually 1. The character is relatively limited by this. The reason slots are cheap is that you can't use them all at one time - if you could you'd lose the savings in paying for the reserve. It would just be a VPP, with the slots counting as the control cost.

 

2. any points he gets from limitations are guinuine. They suffer for them.

 

3. my experience as a gamemaster is that the MPs inherent drawback - 1-2 powers at a time, and the fact that they are generally used to simulate "many EB SFX" or "untility belts" instead of "all my powers" in superheroic games, means they aren't abused as much.

 

Its not a "feeling". Its my experience.

 

The character with the EC has one restriction - a common drain, which is only worth about 1/4 as a limitation. The inherent limitations of the EC do NOT make up for the point savings the way an MPs inherent limitations do. Its just a 50% price break without any real drawbacks.

 

They're freebie points based on "conception", which means they unfairly benefit character types that lend themselves to narrowness. In addition, total points, when characters fit the game masters other design requirements, DO matter. The character with the EC is more effective than anyone else on the team. He got more powers for less.

 

The guy with the MP can only USE 350 points at one time, even if his slots would total out to be more than that, but the guy with the six slot EC I mentioned above can USE 530 points at one time - which is 180 points more than I wanted for the game I was running.

 

The EC - in my games - is dead.

[i3ullseye]

Well, the base cost of an EC woudl suggest a -1 limitation. Since points paid in initial (say 30 pts) are basically doubled for the sub powers.... 15 pts gets you 30. Now -1 certainly is alot, but this ignored the base power itself.

 

So lets assume a 30 pt base... and 3 powers added. Becuase adding only one power to the EC is kinda pointless, you really need 2 to get the real effect.

 

Base 30 +15 power 1 +15 power 2 +15 power 3 = 75 Pts for 120 Pts active.

 

Everything being in even quarters, this is indeed around -1/4 give or take. Lets do the same with JUST the -1/4 lim...

 

30 (-1/4) = 22 per power... or 88 total. Not much difference.

 

BUT>.... doing it this way, any power can have any power level and still apply the same -1/4 limitation. It need not be in increments of the pase power, nor does the point savings stop if you exceed the basic power. If one power is 50 active instead of 30, the entire 50 can have the -1/4 savings, not just the first 30. And any 15 point power can be dropped in and STILL recieve that -1/4 savings.

 

In the end, EC is actually more restrictive than this purchase wise, easier to calculate... and once it is all said and done, will cost about the same.

[Trebuchet]

The very fact that so many characters are built without Elemental Controls is pretty good evidence in my mind that ECs are not inherently over-efficient. If they were abusive or unbalanced every character would have one; it's not hard to rationalize a theme. {"Ninja abilities? Powered Armor? Sure, go ahead.")

 

Any character construction can be abusive. As Crosshair Collie pointed out, it is quite possible to build a 250 point character that can deck Dr. D in a couple of shots and still be "legal" by the rules. I prefer to examine the overall concept. I think ECs are a reward for a tight concept. Of course they can be abused, but so can anything else in an open ended game. It's up to the GM to say yes or no.

[Blue]

It was a hard decision in my campaign to rule that Multipowers are forbidden, but it was on the advice of players who warned me that there were a few real bonified number crunchers who would ovewhelm the rest of the party.

 

ECs I'm allowing, and I'm pretty loose on what is an acceptable grouping.

 

But there are times when I wish they hadn't been invented. It would be a cleaner game without power frameworks.

[CPaladino]

I guess I'm just responding to Trebuchet's:

----

"The very fact that so many characters are built without Elemental Controls is pretty good evidence in my mind that ECs are not inherently over-efficient. If they were abusive or unbalanced every character would have one; it's not hard to rationalize a theme. {"Ninja abilities? Powered Armor? Sure, go ahead.")"

----

Not true. Trying to remember characters from the through the old Champs. books brings back memories of 20/20 Armor Spandex Suit; Disadvantage: Mesmerizingly Beautiful (when the character has a 10 Comeliness); Everything built w/ EC and Multipowers; and all sorts of rules raping.

 

-Chris

[Enforcer84]

If you set limits on active points, then all the EC's and MP's allow you to do is have more abilities that you can use together (or not in MP with Ultra slots). Why is that such a bad thing? I don't think that any of the power frameworks are abusive if you enforce the existing rules of FRED and of your campaign.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by CPaladino

Trying to remember characters from the through the old Champs. books brings back memories of 20/20 Armor Spandex Suit; Disadvantage: Mesmerizingly Beautiful (when the character has a 10 Comeliness); Everything built w/ EC and Multipowers; and all sorts of rules raping.

 

Rules raping is a flaw of the players and GM, not the rules themselves. Without MPs and ECs, there are many common concepts that would be difficult or impossible to create. I'm not going to force the rules to be rewritten because I'm an inadequate GM and can't bring myself to tell a player "No." It's the GM's responsibility to enforce the genre, not the game system's. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

Any GM is free to forbid anything in his campaign he so chooses. I just can't see any reason to prefer forbidding Power Frameworks outright instead of simply treating them on a case by case basis. I happen to like Power Frameworks; I think they add a useful element to the game. YMMV.

[Mutant for Hire]

Right now it seems that the most efficient way to build a (non-brick) character is:

 

1. Multipower/VPP for the main active power attack.

2. EC for the defensive, movement and other passive personal powers that don't require targetting and often run in parallel.

 

Am I mistaken?

[Just A Guy Name]

I do not think anyone has advocated rewriting the rules. Certainly that would be a huge inconvenience for those that like EC and MP frameworks, as they would be forced to change the rules for their own games to suit themselves Perhaps we can sum up by saying: 1.Use your best judgement as a GM in evaluating each character concept. 2.If you do not want EC and/or MP frameworks, just disallow them, but consider that some concepts will be harder to build w/o them.

[DrSavant]

Power Modifiers

 

Actually I've seen players want both an EC and a MULTIPOWER, (and a few who also wanted VPP too)

How I do it is this;

I put a slot limit on EC and MULTIPOWER to avoid abuse of the system (the limit is 6 powers) I also require that the powers be related in some well defined way.

Fire, Ice,etc seem fine but something like "Known Spells" seems like a munchkinization.

[rjcurrie]

Originally posted by Mutant for Hire

Right now it seems that the most efficient way to build a (non-brick) character is:

 

1. Multipower/VPP for the main active power attack.

2. EC for the defensive, movement and other passive personal powers that don't require targetting and often run in parallel.

 

Am I mistaken?

 

That design strategy has certianly been popular with most of the players I have played with. But from what I have gathered from people on these boards, it would seem to be more of the exception rather than the rule.

 

To be honest, I can't see building anything but the most primitive and simplistic designs without frameworks. Certainly, such a character would be lacking in flexibility, especially if you want a significant number of skills, perks, and talents as well as talents.

 

Of course, I am used to playing in a group where virtually everyone has GMed Hero at one point or another and most of us are pretty good at building efficient characters. Often, the one or two people who are not as good at optimizing characters have one of us who are good at it take a look at their designs and help make them more efficient.

 

Rod

[Fry Daddy]

JmOZ said:

 

I have said this before, but will repeat it today

 

The reason for MP/EC is to give a bonus to the various Blasters and mentalist types (Wizards, Gadgeteers, etc...)

 

Bricks get the same bonus in the form of kickbacks from high stats

 

MA get it from a combination of kickbacks from high stats (CHALLANGE ME on the versitility of DEX), effectiveness of MA, and the ability to use the 3 point skill levels

 

I have to agree.

[Tech]

Depending on the player, an EC or MP can be used well or used poorly. I agree that having both of them and the reasoning for them is sound. However, if a GM doesn't like them, don't use them.

 

Regarding concepts, not every single character has to have a 'tight concept'. So what if someone wants an EB, Flight, Desolid, Tunneling, Ego Attack, etc, ad nauseum? If your character concept allows it, the character will probably be allowed to have them; just don't expect any breaks on the cost with an EC or MP. The game is for the players to have fun - yes, the GM, too. If someone wants a weird or wacky concept and doesn't cause problems for the campaign, GM or players, go ahead and let them! It's for fun.