Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

[BlueBuddha]

VPPs consist of the Pool, and the Control cost. The active cost of any power in the pool can't be higher than the pool. That means a 60 point VPP, costing 90 points total, can have one power at 60 AP, 60 real points; 2 powers at 60 AP, and 30 real points; or 3 powers at 60 AP, 20 points real; etc.

 

Is there anything wrong with having a VPP large enough to hold more points in the pool while having a lower AP limit? For instance: a VPP that can hold 60 AP powers, but have 120 points in the pool? I never understood exactly why the pool cost and the AP limit were always the same. It forces you to put limits on powers in order to fit more into the pool. I guess there's nothing wrong with that, and you could always buy multiple VPPs, but anyone know why it works that way? Perhaps you could buy a 120-point VPP with a limit on the control cost that represents the decreased AP limit. What do you think?

[Citizen Keen]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

Haven't thought about the balance implications (which could be huge), but I wonder...

 

Would it be possible to just make it a house rule that the Base Cost of the Control is equal to 1/2 the maximum AP of the powers in the Power Pool? So, a standard VPP (no ads to the control, no lims), assuming the pool size stated above, would be 150 points? 120 points for the power pool, and 30 points for a Control with a maximum AP of 60?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

I've always handled this with the Limited Powers modifier for VPPs. I base how limiting the selection of Powers is with the desired AP limit compared to the possible AP limit. For an AP limit half that of the pool, I usually go with -1/2 (not quite a -1, because you can still have two Powers).

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

Limited Power modifier depending on the size of the cap.

[MitchellS]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

Reality Storm has an "official" limitation: No Individual Power Can Have More Than Half The Pool Size In Active Points: -1/2.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

I've always handled this with the Limited Powers modifier for VPPs. I base how limiting the selection of Powers is with the desired AP limit compared to the possible AP limit. For an AP limit half that of the pool' date=' I usually go with -1/2 (not quite a -1, because you can still have two Powers).[/quote']

 

-1 seems like heavy overkill to me as well. Maybe there should be a sliding scale. If the max AP is 75% or less of the pool, call that -1/4. 50% or less is -1/2. 25% or less could reasonably be -1. Does that seem equitable?

 

Alternatively, you could look at a combination of AP restructions, SFX restructions (such as "fire powers only"), and type of power restrictions (like "attack powers only") and assess an overall limit. For example, I have a character with a VPP (92 points at present) Magic Only, a listing of powers he can't access (including all mental powers, defenses through force fields only, some other prohibited or problematic powers), no power can reach 13+ damage classes (no AP restriction) and no multiple power attack can total 13+ DC.

[Doppler]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

I would avoid this at all costs! Diving headfirst into a wide, shallow power pool is what made me this way.

[Citizen Keen]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

Ok, so maybe -1 is overkill, but I'm glad to see allowing a wider, shallower VPP isn't completely broken. I've been thinking about doing the same thing for a Gadgeteer who doesn't have a lot of access to crazy research budgets. He can make a lot of stuff, but not nuclear powered devices or hvoer platforms or anything. Just glue-guns or emergency parachutes.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

Also, there's no rule stating that you have to make the AP of a power in a VPP at the maximum... you could very well just have a bunch of 20AP powers available in a 60 Point Pool... I do this quite frequently. It's a self limiting thing so if I really wanted to I could get a 60AP power.

 

But, if you wanted to put a Limitation to force the issue, we've always used a -1/2, as MitchellS pointed out, no Power can be more than 1/2 the Pool Points, and even a -1/4 no power can be more than 3/4 the Pool Points (once we used 2/3 instead of 3/4..)

 

Everything is possible within the scope of your game.

[Mike W]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

I did this on one of my street level characters. He was a body manipulator and he needed to have a certain size pool to be effective(and be able to get enough things in the pool) but the powers had to cap out lower than the max to fit in with the campaign type.

 

I think Hugh's sliding scale is the way to go.

[TaxiMan]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

Don't forget to compare the VPP AP limit to campaign max. If I have a 60pt max for the campaign and a 120pt pool, then the limit is worth nothing. I'd have to examine each VPP to see what the limitation is worth.

 

E.g., an Enhanced Senses VPP (where most powers would have trouble costing > 25pts) wouldn't get a limitation for "Limited to 25AP", whereas an attack VPP would.

[Citizen Keen]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

Don't forget to compare the VPP AP limit to campaign max. If I have a 60pt max for the campaign and a 120pt pool, then the limit is worth nothing. I'd have to examine each VPP to see what the limitation is worth.

 

E.g., an Enhanced Senses VPP (where most powers would have trouble costing > 25pts) wouldn't get a limitation for "Limited to 25AP", whereas an attack VPP would.

 

Very good observation. Rep.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

Very good observation. Rep.

 

Seconded.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

Don't forget to compare the VPP AP limit to campaign max. If I have a 60pt max for the campaign and a 120pt pool, then the limit is worth nothing. I'd have to examine each VPP to see what the limitation is worth.

 

E.g., an Enhanced Senses VPP (where most powers would have trouble costing > 25pts) wouldn't get a limitation for "Limited to 25AP", whereas an attack VPP would.

 

I agree in part. If the limitation is applied to an Enhanced senses pool, I agree it's not very limiting. However, if it's aplied to a pool in excess of campaign max, I'm inclined to allow the limitation, but also require it because of the campaign max. After all, if I've established it as a campaign requirement that certain powers cost END (or all powers in an EC must cost END), I still allow the limitation for "costs END".

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

Haven't thought about the balance implications (which could be huge), but I wonder...

 

Would it be possible to just make it a house rule that the Base Cost of the Control is equal to 1/2 the maximum AP of the powers in the Power Pool? So, a standard VPP (no ads to the control, no lims), assuming the pool size stated above, would be 150 points? 120 points for the power pool, and 30 points for a Control with a maximum AP of 60?

This is the method I always use and advocate. I have found it quite well balanced, simple, and much more flexible than a limit on the Control Cost.

 

For 120 points, you can have two specific 60 real point powers with no AP limit.

For 180 points, you can switch these powers to anything you want as long as the AP of each is no more than 120, or you could even have one big honking 120 AP & RP power.

Strictly rules legal so far. With the "1/2 Max AP" rule above:

For 150 points, you can have any two 60 AP & RP powers.

For 130 points, you can have a whole mess of 20 AP powers. (Six of 'em, without limitations, or more if you put lims on 'em.)

For 240 points, you can have any big, honking 240 AP power with lims to bring it down to 120 RP.

 

I don't remember who originally came up with this idea. I first saw it on one of the previous incarnations of these boards. I've always thought it was a great idea.

[BlueBuddha]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

Would it be possible to just make it a house rule that the Base Cost of the Control is equal to 1/2 the maximum AP of the powers in the Power Pool? So' date=' a standard VPP (no ads to the control, no lims), assuming the pool size stated above, would be 150 points? 120 points for the power pool, and 30 points for a Control with a maximum AP of 60?[/quote']

 

For a long time, this is actually how I thought it actually worked. It accomplishes the same thing as putting a limitation on the control cost, basically. I think this is how I will run it.

 

And in response to TaxiMan- even if the campaign maximum is 60 AP, I think a VPP with 120 points, 60 AP maximum should be cheaper than a VPP with 120 points, 120 AP maximum. In the end, it doesn't end up making a huge difference.

[Basil]

How About Narrower, Deeper Variable Power Pools

 

VPPs consist of the Pool, and the Control cost. The active cost of any power in the pool can't be higher than the pool. That means a 60 point VPP, costing 90 points total, can have one power at 60 AP, 60 real points; 2 powers at 60 AP, and 30 real points; or 3 powers at 60 AP, 20 points real; etc.

 

Is there anything wrong with having a VPP large enough to hold more points in the pool while having a lower AP limit? For instance: a VPP that can hold 60 AP powers, but have 120 points in the pool? I never understood exactly why the pool cost and the AP limit were always the same.

{snip}

This brings up an idea/question I've had for a while. Suppose my character has a VPP with the Limitation "Only One Power At A Time". The current method of VPPs means there's no impetus for me to put Lims on the power I have in the VPP---since its Active Cost is limited to the Pool Points, a lowered Real Cost gets me nothing.

 

IIRC, in one of the Adventurers Clubs, or HS Almanacs, was the idea of Pool Points that only increased the allowable Active Cost; they cost 1/2 Character Point per Pool Point. Does this seem acceptable to folks?

 

What about adding to Citizen Keen's idea:

Haven't thought about the balance implications (which could be huge), but I wonder...

 

Would it be possible to just make it a house rule that the Base Cost of the Control is equal to 1/2 the maximum AP of the powers in the Power Pool? So, a standard VPP (no ads to the control, no lims), assuming the pool size stated above, would be 150 points? 120 points for the power pool, and 30 points for a Control with a maximum AP of 60?

To continue this example: would buying a Control Cost equal to, say, 45 points (for a max Active Cost of 90) be acceptable to (generic) you? In general, or only if the VPP was limited to a small number of powers?

[Jhamin]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

And in response to TaxiMan- even if the campaign maximum is 60 AP' date=' I think a VPP with 120 points, 60 AP maximum should be cheaper than a VPP with 120 points, 120 AP maximum. In the end, it doesn't end up making a huge difference.[/quote']

 

My first response to this is:

 

Why should it be cheaper to have a power that can't do something you shouldn't do anyway?

 

I know that you rarely get medals for not breaking the law, why should you get points?

[BlueBuddha]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

My first response to this is:

 

Why should it be cheaper to have a power that can't do something you shouldn't do anyway?

 

I know that you rarely get medals for not breaking the law, why should you get points?

 

Why should you have to pay the control cost for an AP limit you can't use? I'm not talking about giving character points for not breaking rules, I'm talking about not making them pay points for something they can't use. What are you supposed to do if you want to have a pool of 120 points to buy powers with an AP limit of 60? Buy 2, 60 point VPPs? That's one way. Buy a 120 point VPP with a limit? That's another. Buy a 120 point VPP with the understanding that you can't go over 60 AP? That's another. I just think that since a 120 point VPP should allow you to build 120 AP powers, it should be at least a little cheaper if you can't.

 

I don't think Taximan was out of order, I'm just saying that if a power is less effective, it should be cheaper. How about having a VPP only for building small powers under your campaign maximum? Like a 60 point VPP only for 20 or 30 AP powers? Like a minor gadget pool or utility belt? Or a pouch of simple spell scrolls? I think this should cost less than a standard 60 point VPP. The PC will know right off the bat that this will never contain a big blast power, and that makes it less effective.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

My first response to this is:

 

Why should it be cheaper to have a power that can't do something you shouldn't do anyway?

 

Applying "costs END" to your Armor so it will be allowed in an Elemental Control saves points.

 

Applying Gestures, Incantations and "Spell to my Fireball saves points, even though these may be required limitations in my Fantasy Hero game.

 

Why should reducing the effectiuveness of a power from its "no limitations" baseline NOT save points?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

For a long time' date=' this is actually how I thought it actually worked. It accomplishes the same thing as putting a limitation on the control cost, basically. I think this is how I will run it.[/quote']

Pretty much, but the Limitation on CC method only allows for certain discrete values, while CC=Half Max AP method allows for any limit you want.

 

If you've got a 120 point pool, and you decide that a Max 60 AP is a -1/2 limitation, and a max 90 AP is a -1/4 limitation, then what would the limitation be for max 75 AP? With the CC=Max AP/2 method, you always have an answer. In this case 37 points.

 

IIRC, in one of the Adventurers Clubs, or HS Almanacs, was the idea of Pool Points that only increased the allowable Active Cost; they cost 1/2 Character Point per Pool Point. Does this seem acceptable to folks?

 

To continue this example: would buying a Control Cost equal to, say, 45 points (for a max Active Cost of 90) be acceptable to (generic) you? In general, or only if the VPP was limited to a small number of powers?

Yes. This turns out to give exactly the same costs as the CC=Max AP/2 method.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

Pretty much, but the Limitation on CC method only allows for certain discrete values, while CC=Half Max AP method allows for any limit you want.

 

If you've got a 120 point pool, and you decide that a Max 60 AP is a -1/2 limitation, and a max 90 AP is a -1/4 limitation, then what would the limitation be for max 75 AP? With the CC=Max AP/2 method, you always have an answer. In this case 37 points.

 

-1/4. The same as Extra Time above one increment and below the next gets the lower limitation, 11 charges is -1/4 and Act 12- is the same limit as Act 13-.

 

I see some merit in yoiur approach, but also some issues. For example, if you have other limitations on the control cost (eg. OAF for a gadget pool, only changes out of combat, or whatever), those limitations give more bang for the buck under your approach since the "max AP" is not a limitation but a reduction in base cost.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Wider, Shallower Variable Power Pools

 

I see some merit in yoiur approach' date=' but also some issues. For example, if you have other limitations on the control cost (eg. OAF for a gadget pool, only changes out of combat, or whatever), those limitations give more bang for the buck under your approach since the "max AP" is not a limitation but a reduction in base cost.[/quote']

But this works both ways. If you buy up the Max AP, Advantages cost even more. And of course the amount of "bang for the buck" you get with the Limitation method depends on the limitation values you use.

 

60/(1+2)=20

30/(1+1)=15

 

60*(1+2)=180

120*(1+1)=240