Need some feedback on this power framework

[Darkhope]

Had an idea for a different kind of power framework. Its already in my campaign and I like the way it works so I'm not looking to see if its impossible to do with the system. I just want to know what others think and if it is wrong a way to build it with the hero system. Here goes:

 

The character in question has a 240 pt Magic pool, 48 Control Pool (requires spellbook -1/2, KS: Magic Roll -1/2, only change at base -1/2)

 

Now the character has a set of abilities he wants to use to enhance his pool. So I built it as this:

 

32 EC:Archmage Training

(Can only use with spell pool -1/2)

32 A. Master of Elements END 6

Apply Variable Special Effects +1/2

on any spell in pool up to 240 active

points. (Cost 1/2 End -1/4)

32 B. Master of Shaping END 6

Make any AE spell selective +1/4

and/or hole in middle +1/4 up to

240 active points (Cost 1/2 End -1/4)

32 C. Innate Spell END 6

Remove skill roll/gestures/ and

incantations on spells up to 240

active points (cost 1/2 End -1/4)

32 D. Multi Spell END 6

Make any Spell Autofire 5 +1/2 up

to 240 Active Points (cost 1/2 End -1/4)

 

48 E. Arcane Reach END 18

No range penalty +1/2 and/or

Increased Maximum Range +1/4

(Cost End -1/2)

32 F. Delay Spell END 6

Make any spell variable trigger +1/2

up to 240 active points

(cost 1/2 End -1/4)

 

Each facet isn't really a power, its an advantage that will tack on any spell he is currently casting from his pool, up to the maximum of the pool (240 Active Points). Now this is the advanced high high level of the training. I have a PC with some of the abilities and its only a 11 pt EC.

 

So is it legal? built wrong? or do you like? Your thoughts please

[prestidigitator]

Re: Need some feedback on this power framework

 

Yikes! Well, usually you don't have a power in one Framework affect a power in another, but the GM can, of course, allow it. If it were my game, I would rather see the VPP increased in size (if needed) and just have different variants of the spells the character memorizes, with the desired Advantages built in. That's the beauty of a VPP, and the EC really just feels like a cheap way to buy a big amount of wrongness.

 

Also, I don't really know how I would handle a bare Advantage on a power that has a duration (like a spell that lasts a while). If you apply the Advantage to a new spell you cast, does it continue to affect the one with the duration? I'd really have to struggle with this decision, and it's so much easier to modify the spells.

 

Maybe what you are looking for is a cheap way to let the character do something which is not normally affordable to a character with the number of points he has. If that is the case, it feels really artificial. When I am tempted to do that, I try to find another way, like giving the character more points (limited to the specific kind of development) because of some really good roleplaying in his training or research, or allowing the character to take some really haneous Disadvantages even if they surpass the normal limits (this sounds like it is not the beginning of a campaign--I usually allow for changing/additional Disadvantages in the process of a campaign if they really fit with the storyline).

[prestidigitator]

Re: Need some feedback on this power framework

 

I saw a Star Wars Hero conversion someone did once, and what they did is just straight divide the cost of all "Force Powers" by 3. That just made me shudder. You want some characters to be vastly more powerful than others just because...well, just because!? Because they have a certain concept? Because you like seeing some characters womp on enemies and the others twiddle their thumbs? What? Might as well just say, "Jedi get an extra 100 points for free because they are cool." If you want to do that, fine, but just make sure your players aren't gonig to turn on you!

 

I'm not saying this is the same, but it is an example of that artificial feel I mentioned. It's an indicator that something else should be done, like at least using standard and accepted Power Frameworks in the way they were designed to be used.

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Need some feedback on this power framework

Had an idea for a different kind of power framework. Its already in my campaign and I like the way it works so I'm not looking to see if its impossible to do with the system. I just want to know what others think and if it is wrong a way to build it with the hero system. Here goes:The character in question has a 240 pt Magic pool' date=' 48 Control Pool (requires spellbook -1/2, KS: Magic Roll -1/2, only change at base -1/2)Now the character has a set of abilities he wants to use to enhance his pool. So I built it as this:32 EC:Archmage Training (Can only use with spell pool -1/2) 32 A. Master of Elements END 6 Apply Variable Special Effects +1/2 on any spell in pool up to 240 active points. (Cost 1/2 End -1/4) 32 B. Master of Shaping END 6 Make any AE spell selective +1/4 and/or hole in middle +1/4 up to 240 active points (Cost 1/2 End -1/4) 32 C. Innate Spell END 6 Remove skill roll/gestures/ and incantations on spells up to 240 active points (cost 1/2 End -1/4) 32 D. Multi Spell END 6 Make any Spell Autofire 5 +1/2 up to 240 Active Points (cost 1/2 End -1/4) 48 E. Arcane Reach END 18 No range penalty +1/2 and/or Increased Maximum Range +1/4 (Cost End -1/2) 32 F. Delay Spell END 6 Make any spell variable trigger +1/2 up to 240 active points (cost 1/2 End -1/4) Each facet isn't really a power, its an advantage that will tack on any spell he is currently casting from his pool, up to the maximum of the pool (240 Active Points). Now this is the advanced high high level of the training. I have a PC with some of the abilities and its only a 11 pt EC.So is it legal? built wrong? or do you like? Your thoughts please [/quote']There's a basic rule against using naked Advantages in Power Frameworks (see 5ER pp. 244, 311), and also against applying a naked Advantage to a slot in a Framework (see 5ER 245). It's one of those "unless the GM allows it" rules, because such constructs can be very unbalancing. They're a little like cosmic VPPs; unless the player is disciplined and the GM watchful, they can easily become "dial a solution" pools that are vastly more useful than their point costs would indicate.Now, as to your specific construct: Your costs aren't correct. The Active Points required for a +1/2 Advantage on 240 Active Points would be 120 points ((240 * 1.5) - 240). So, your base EC value is 60 (half the Active). Applying a -1/2 Limitation to 60 points leaves 40, not 32. Second, I'm not sure what "Cost 1/2 END -1/4" means. Half END is an Advantage, not a Limitation, so it should be +1/4 - meaning a slot would cost ((120 * 1.25) - 60) / 1.5, or 60 points. (You can't take "costs END" as a Limitation because naked Advantages already cost END to use.)If I were the GM, I also wouldn't allow the -1/2 Limitation on the overall EC, because all the Advantages only make sense when applied to spells, which, by definition, come out of the character's pool. That's only my opinion, of course; your GM is free to allow or disallow as he sees fit.Sorry to be a party pooper, but you did ask...

[Darkhope]

Re: Need some feedback on this power framework

 

Second, I'm not sure what "Cost 1/2 END -1/4" means. Half END is an Advantage, not a Limitation, so it should be +1/4 - meaning a slot would cost ((120 * 1.25) - 60) / 1.5, or 60 points. (You can't take "costs END" as a Limitation because naked Advantages already cost END to use.)

 

How would it cost end its not a power? Its a radical way to build ability's that apply to his spells. The reason I didn't just put these ability's on the spells themselves is because in my game each spell is built and unalterable. The only way for a wizard to change his spell is to pay endurance for the advantages they are trained to apply to the powers. Since they are normals and dont have alot of endurance i made a -1/4 lim meaning it cost half end. When a power doesn't cost end and you apply the lim its -1/2. I can't apply a +1/4 advantage reduced endurance by 1/2 if the ability doesn't cost end in the first place.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Need some feedback on this power framework

 

Second, I'm not sure what "Cost 1/2 END -1/4" means. Half END is an Advantage, not a Limitation, so it should be +1/4 - meaning a slot would cost ((120 * 1.25) - 60) / 1.5, or 60 points. (You can't take "costs END" as a Limitation because naked Advantages already cost END to use.)

 

How would it cost end its not a power? Its a radical way to build ability's that apply to his spells. The reason I didn't just put these ability's on the spells themselves is because in my game each spell is built and unalterable. The only way for a wizard to change his spell is to pay endurance for the advantages they are trained to apply to the powers. Since they are normals and dont have alot of endurance i made a -1/4 lim meaning it cost half end. When a power doesn't cost end and you apply the lim its -1/2. I can't apply a +1/4 advantage reduced endurance by 1/2 if the ability doesn't cost end in the first place.

 

I believe what Mikey is saying (and IIRC he is correct) is that naked advantages are, in fact, Powers under the rules and, as a default, cost END. You make it cost half END by applying a +1/4 advantage, not a -1/4 limitation.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Need some feedback on this power framework

 

There are several problems I'd have with this. First is that a Naked Modifier really should apply to a specific Power, not "any power". It's bad enough that you can choose whether or not the modifier applies (normally you must use all modifiers), but getting to apply it to anything of your choise is ridiculous. Second, Naked Modifiers shouldn't be placed in a Framework on their own. Granted, there is a GM Permission issue, but then again, with GM Permission, Energy Blast only costs 1 point per die and Life Support is free.

 

You mentioned something about spells being unalterable and must be left as is, yet they can be modified by things that a specific spellcaster has mastered. What's wrong with just letting a particular mage use certain Advantages when building his spells in the VPP, and not allowing others who haven't learned them. If you want to keep track of those points, require a KS for each Advantage so you've got a list of what each spellcaster knows and how good they are at it. Put the rest of the point into the VPP to allow for the Advantages when they're used.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Need some feedback on this power framework

 

You mentioned something about spells being unalterable and must be left as is' date=' yet they can be modified by things that a specific spellcaster has mastered. What's wrong with just letting a particular mage use certain Advantages when building his spells in the VPP, and not allowing others who haven't learned them. If you want to keep track of those points, require a KS for each Advantage so you've got a list of what each spellcaster knows and how good they are at it. Put the rest of the point into the VPP to allow for the Advantages when they're used.[/quote']

Agreed. You could even have the character learn each new variant of a spell by having them come across it, "research" it, use the Inventor Skill, pay 1 Character Point per variant, or whatever. Or maybe have them learn each new way of modifying spells in this manner. There's all kinds of ways to handle this.

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: Need some feedback on this power framework

I believe what Mikey is saying (and IIRC he is correct) is that naked advantages are' date=' in fact, Powers under the rules and, as a default, cost END. You make it cost half END by applying a +1/4 advantage, not a -1/4 limitation.[/quote']Yes, naked Advantages are considered Powers, and do cost END. See 5ER 244-245. (Thanks, Hugh.)

[Herolover]

Re: Need some feedback on this power framework

 

Hello.

 

My question Darkhope is considering the guy has a VPP why make him pay more points to do something he can already do with the VPP?

 

Maybe I don't understand the situation. Magic User A can cast spells and he has learned how to cast them using certain special abilities. Okay, then in HERO terms he cast the spells using his VPP.

 

You don't need anything extra. To me this is kind of like making someone by EB does Stun Only and the EB Does Body only to make a single EB.

 

Why can't the person/player just use his VPP to do what you have created the EC for?

[Herolover]

Re: Need some feedback on this power framework

 

Re thought and decided to send PM