Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

[Dust Raven]

I was updating some of my old characters from 4th edition and came across one I'm not sure what to do with. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how it worked in 4th, as I was using Metacreator when I wrote him up. Here is the general idea:

 

The character has a Multipower with several slots. Each slot has a Limited Advantage; the Advantage only applied in specific conditions. Specifically, the character's Multipower slots all have Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) through a Focus (OAF; -1). Without the Focus, he can still use the Multipower, but must pay END. With the Focus, there is no END cost for anything.

 

My question is, how do I build this in 5th Edition? I've come up with a few methods, but I'm not sure if any of them are correct/legal, and I'm sure there a few that haven't occured to me. My initial thought was to just pay for the additional Active Point cost of the MP Reserve and the Slots with the OAF Limitation, but it looks kinda funny on paper. Maybe I can't apply it to the Reserve and just the slots. Maybe I just buy a Naked Advantage... I don't know.

 

So how is this done (or how can it be done)?

 

Thanks!

[tesuji]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

assuming ALL slots have the advantage and the limitation...

 

Assume the Ap of the pool before 0 end is 80

 

MP reserve = 80 + 20 (40 for 0 end -1 for OAF) or 100. (simply apply the -1 for oaf to the 40 from the +1/2)

 

each slot would cost similarly... X ap +1/4x (+1/2 for ther 0 end with a -1 for oaf.)

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

assuming ALL slots have the advantage and the limitation...

 

Assume the Ap of the pool before 0 end is 80

 

MP reserve = 80 + 20 (40 for 0 end -1 for OAF) or 100. (simply apply the -1 for oaf to the 40 from the +1/2)

 

each slot would cost similarly... X ap +1/4x (+1/2 for ther 0 end with a -1 for oaf.)

 

From the description of Partially Limited Powers in the rulebook, this would seem to be a legal construct.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

From the description of Partially Limited Powers in the rulebook' date=' this would seem to be a legal construct. [/quote']

 

Seem to be? Mayby I should post a question to Steve...

[Simon]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

It's not legal. The book is rather poorly worded on that, but you cannot partially limit a Framework. Something I've checked with Steve on in the past (on several occasions).

 

The question has come up on the rules questions forum before (some time ago). You'll find the answer here:

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21407

[Simon]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

Just as an aside, I think that I can understand the reasoning on this: two Framework slots (either in the same Framework or different Frameworks) cannot add to or modify the other. No Linking of two different Framework slots, no adding of Powers, no MPAs, etc.

 

Let's say you wanted to go the "partially Limited MP" route. You want a 60 point reserve, 30 points of which are through a Focus (OIF). So you build it: 30 points straight, 30 points with a -1/2 Limitation (20 points) for a total of 50 points for the MP.

 

A slot in the MP that would be easy to calculate for our example would be a 12d6 EB. Cost breakdown is the same as for the MP, with the final slot cost ending up at 5 points (ultra slot).

 

This is no different from:

 

MP1: 30 point Reserve

3u) 6d6 Energy Blast

 

MP2: 30 point Reserve, all slots: OIF (-1/2)

2u) 6d6 Energy Blast

 

 

Those two MPs cannot be used together. You don't get a 12d6 EB out of that. At best (if the GM allows for MPA using two different Frameworks), you get 2 6d6 Energy Blasts.

 

In short (too late): this all flows from the rule that you cannot have two different framework slots add to or modify each other (5ER 310). In order for that rule to hold, you cannot have a partially Limited (or partially Advantaged) Framework.

[tesuji]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

Huh? What?

 

Ok let me get this straight...

 

Lets take for instance the following power, for instance, the following power...

 

A firebolt with a low power easy-to-use and a full strength but very tiring level, bought as a 12d6 eb with 4d6 partially limited to 2xend (60 ap and 53 rp)

 

You are saying that somehow this power cannot be in a multipower slot? its illegal or somehow abusive to have this eb costing 8 end for a full strength shot in a MP slot but one at nornal end costing 6 per shot or one at double end costing 12 per shot are fine?

 

Well, i certainly haven't read 5er or looked at the FAQ recently, but having multiple powers in a single slot of a multipower like say a falsh+eb combo power, hasn't been a problem in decades, either legally iirc or in practice, and i certainly wouldn't treat a partially limited power as such anyway, even though hero creator tends to portray it that way... or used to.

 

I really don't get the logic here.

 

probably a good thing.

[Simon]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

Huh? What?

 

Ok let me get this straight...

 

Lets take for instance the following power, for instance, the following power...

 

A firebolt with a low power easy-to-use and a full strength but very tiring level, bought as a 12d6 eb with 4d6 partially limited to 2xend (60 ap and 53 rp)

 

You are saying that somehow this power cannot be in a multipower slot? its illegal or somehow abusive to have this eb costing 8 end for a full strength shot in a MP slot but one at nornal end costing 6 per shot or one at double end costing 12 per shot are fine?

 

Well, i certainly haven't read 5er or looked at the FAQ recently, but having multiple powers in a single slot of a multipower like say a falsh+eb combo power, hasn't been a problem in decades, either legally iirc or in practice, and i certainly wouldn't treat a partially limited power as such anyway, even though hero creator tends to portray it that way... or used to.

 

I really don't get the logic here.

 

probably a good thing.

no....a partially limited slot is just fine. A partially limited Framework is not.

[tesuji]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

no....a partially limited slot is just fine. A partially limited Framework is not.

 

 

Uhhh... ok so now i am really confused.

 

What was all that stuff about two different slots to do with partially limited frameworks? AFAICT there are no two slots doing anything together in the examples given so far.

 

mind is boggling...

 

So, if i get this right, if i have a multipower of "plasma bursts", all of whom are built on 75 ap, all of whom take normal end on the first 50 ap but take double end on the next 25 ap (again all with the low power then higher power extra effort kind of thing), then you are saying i CANNOT reflect this cost in the MP reserve by applying the exact same limitation the exact same way on the reserve as i did every single slot?

 

If i want a brick tricks multipower, and i want to have the tricks also reflect my "super pushing" (an extra 30 ap of effect at 10xend) just like i do my strength, then the MP reserve SHOULD be priced with the extra 30 ap at FULL PRICE, ignoring the x10 end?

 

or finally, the following two multipowers should cost almost exactly the same... 4 pts different

 

60 ap Mp total cost 72 pts

1 12d6 Eb (6 pt)

2 4d6 rka (6 pt)

 

60 ap Mp total cost 68 pts

1 12d6 eb 6d6 Eb with normal end and 6d6 with x10 end (4 pt)

2 4d6 rka with 2d6 normal end and 3d6 x10 end (4 pt)

 

and definitely absolutely not cost...

 

60 ap Mp total with 30 pts at regular cost and 30 pts at x10 end -4 cost for total cost 44 pts

1 12d6 eb 6d6 Eb with normal end and 6d6 with x10 end (4 pt)

2 4d6 rka with 2d6 normal end and 3d6 x10 end (4 pt)

 

even though this comes the closet to keep the same cost ratio between the limited powers and the unlimited powers???

 

Allow me to say... ahhh, the soothing joys of the highly precise, untra-consistent, not-arbitrary, lauded HERO math!

 

See, had someone handed me these three powers as Mp suites, i would never, without the HERO math to guide me, have reached the conclusion that the difference in the first two or 4 cp total was "right."

 

had i just used my subjective judgement based on experience and reason, i would have thought the difference between the two multipowers in cost should have been about the same proportion as between the powers if bought normally, individually.

 

Silly, silly me.

[Simon]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

Uhhh... ok so now i am really confused.

 

What was all that stuff about two different slots to do with partially limited frameworks? AFAICT there are no two slots doing anything together in the examples given so far.

 

mind is boggling...

 

So, if i get this right, if i have a multipower of "plasma bursts", all of whom are built on 75 ap, all of whom take normal end on the first 50 ap but take double end on the next 25 ap (again all with the low power then higher power extra effort kind of thing), then you are saying i CANNOT reflect this cost in the MP reserve by applying the exact same limitation the exact same way on the reserve as i did every single slot?

 

If i want a brick tricks multipower, and i want to have the tricks also reflect my "super pushing" (an extra 30 ap of effect at 10xend) just like i do my strength, then the MP reserve SHOULD be priced with the extra 30 ap at FULL PRICE, ignoring the x10 end?

 

or finally, the following two multipowers should cost almost exactly the same... 4 pts different

 

60 ap Mp total cost 72 pts

1 12d6 Eb (6 pt)

2 4d6 rka (6 pt)

 

60 ap Mp total cost 68 pts

1 12d6 eb 6d6 Eb with normal end and 6d6 with x10 end (4 pt)

2 4d6 rka with 2d6 normal end and 3d6 x10 end (4 pt)

 

and definitely absolutely not cost...

 

60 ap Mp total with 30 pts at regular cost and 30 pts at x10 end -4 cost for total cost 44 pts

1 12d6 eb 6d6 Eb with normal end and 6d6 with x10 end (4 pt)

2 4d6 rka with 2d6 normal end and 3d6 x10 end (4 pt)

 

even though this comes the closet to keep the same cost ratio between the limited powers and the unlimited powers???

 

Allow me to say... ahhh, the soothing joys of the highly precise, untra-consistent, not-arbitrary, lauded HERO math!

 

See, had someone handed me these three powers as Mp suites, i would never, without the HERO math to guide me, have reached the conclusion that the difference in the first two or 4 cp total was "right."

 

had i just used my subjective judgement based on experience and reason, i would have thought the difference between the two multipowers in cost should have been about the same proportion as between the powers if bought normally, individually.

 

Silly, silly me.

It's not that complicated, really. Quite the opposite.

 

I'm sorry that you don't value internal consistency in your games. I do....so I'm quite happy with the rule.

 

As an aside, Steve just gave the page reference in 5ER which explicity states that a partially limited Framework is not allowed under the rules (see the rules questions forum).

[tesuji]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

I'm sorry that you don't value internal consistency in your games. I do....so I'm quite happy with the rule.

 

Huh? You read this and somehow conclude i DON"T want internal consistency?

 

I am complaining about the INCONSISTENCY!!

 

CASE-1

A 12d6 Eb costs 60 ap

A 12d6 Eb which costs 10xend for the last 6d6 costs 36 ap (half-push)

This seems Ok since the massive end increase does limit the power.

 

Same thing for an RKa with 4d6 half-push.

 

cost break to reflect loss ineffectiveness is the limited power is that it costs about 60% as much as the unlimited one.

 

CASE-2 Multipower

 

taking a 4d6 RKA and a 12d6 Eb and putting them into a multipower costs 6 per slot plus the base 60. Thats 72 pts for both in a MP. Cost increase for the increased options (compared to only having one attack) is 72 vs 60 for

an increase of about 20%.

 

These are the basic "how things work" cases.

 

Now here is the INTERNAL CONSISTENCY part, which makes me wonder what you define internal consistency as...

 

We have the cost for unlimited attack vs limited attack and for single attack vs two-in-a-mp attack.

 

it would seem INTERNALLY CONSISTENT for the price for MP with the same two RKA and Eb attacks with the half-push limitations to be about 20% more than the cost of s single half-push attack. That makes the "put them in a MP" thing cost about the same increase.

 

It would seem INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT for some arbitrary reason to jack the cost of the Mp with the half-push RKA and Eb way up so that it is almost the same as the unlimited powers.

 

or, put in math terms...

 

if these are correct:

individual 4d6 RKA or 12d6 eb = 60

Same powers as half-push = 36 each

4d6 rka and 12d6 eb in a mp = 72

 

then to be CONSISTENT:

half push powers in a MP cost ~ 43 (44 in fact is the result one gets)

 

the following is INCONSISTENT in a big huge honking way:

half-push powers in a MP = 68 or almost the exact same cost as if they were unlimited.

 

Now, this assumes by consistent you mean something like "makes sense", "uses same premises and axioms" or "produces similar overall results", or even "tries to link effectiveness and cost".

 

if by INTERNAL CONSISTENCY you mean "using the printed rules verbatim whether the result makes sense or not" then your statement makes sense.

 

But really, why is making the half push multipower cost 68 instead of 44, making it cost almost the same as the unlimited powers instead if a little more than the single limited power, to our reasoning more INTERNALLY CONSISTENT or a sign of "valuing internal consistency"?

 

Simply put, because of my frank disbelief, i gotta ask... would you in your game as Gm really charge a player character 68 pts for the half-push multipower or 44 or just tell him he could not buy these powers in a multipower?

[Simon]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

I would charge him 68 points, as that is the cost of the MP when constructed in accordance with the rules of the system.

 

Your complaint seems to be that the limitation doesn't have enough effect on the cost after you take into account the 1/10 cost break of the MP itself. I don't view that as a valid complaint.

 

You've got a 60 point slot costing you 6 points and you've got a 36 point slot costing you 4 points. That's they way MPs work -- the difference in the cost of the slots is reduced by a factor of 10 (when dealing with ultra slots).

 

Internal consistency is in reference to the rules of how Frameworks interact. Two Framework slots cannot add to or modify each other. You cannot Link two Framework slots. You cannot use two Framework slots in an MPA. You cannot have a 6d6 EB in one slot and a 6d6 EB in another slot and expect to end up with a 12d6 EB. The rule disallowing partially-limited power frameworks is utterly consistent with this concept.

 

To allow partially limited frameworks is inconsistent with the rule that two different framework slots cannot add to or modify each other, as I pointed out in my post (above).

[tesuji]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

 

I would charge him 68 points, as that is the cost of the MP when constructed in accordance with the rules of the system.

OK, but you do realize that by that logic he could buy both these half-push attacks for just 4 pts more, 36 each, and fire them both, not being limited to one at a time?

 

Does 68 vs 72 cost wise seem "right" to you?

 

if there weren't a rule forbidding the Mp reserve thing, would you look at the unlimited Mp and the half-push Mp and go "yeah, they should be almost the same cost?"

 

Your complaint seems to be that the limitation doesn't have enough effect on the cost after you take into account the 1/10 cost break of the MP itself. I don't view that as a valid complaint.

No, my complaint is that it is inconsistent with cost-effectiveness" for the half-push multipower to be priced about the same as the unlimited multipower. The EXECPTION given, that you cannot partially limit the multipower, produces costs way outside of reason which are INCONSISTENT with the effectiveness shown.

 

You've got a 60 point slot costing you 6 points and you've got a 36 point slot costing you 4 points. That's they way MPs work -- the difference in the cost of the slots is reduced by a factor of 10 (when dealing with ultra slots).

I get the slot costs. Obviously, well i thought obviously, its not the slot costs that create the issue. its the radicaly difference in reserve costing created by the flawed EXCEPTION.

 

Internal consistency is in reference to the rules of how Frameworks interact.

Ok, for me and i suspect others, rules are internally consistent if they work the same way, if they use the same principles, and so forth. EXCEPTIONS such as "you cannot partially limit a multipower" which cause out of whack results are examples of lack of INTERNAL CONSISTENCY.

 

Following slavishly the RAW says nothing about internal consistency.

Two Framework slots cannot add to or modify each other. You cannot Link two Framework slots. You cannot use two Framework slots in an MPA. You cannot have a 6d6 EB in one slot and a 6d6 EB in another slot and expect to end up with a 12d6 EB. The rule disallowing partially-limited power frameworks is utterly consistent with this concept.

 

To allow partially limited frameworks is inconsistent with the rule that two different framework slots cannot add to or modify each other, as I pointed out in my post (above).

 

Ok, i guess i better type this slowly...

 

in none of the cases i presented, the unlimited MP or the half-push multipower, did any slot ever work with or modify any other slot.

 

never.

 

not once.

 

ever.

 

really look up there again.

 

it didn't.

 

one slot is an RKA that 2d6 of is normal and the last 2d6 is at 10xend for the "half-push effect.

 

the other is an eb with the same build, just 6d6 each side.

 

neither slot ever works with the other.

 

they are all FIXED slots using the entire multipower reserve.

 

So, please, maybe treat me like a moron and explain slowly using small words, what in the world does two different multipowers or two different multipower slots have to do with this "do you also limit the reserve cost" bit at all?

 

Whether you charge 68 pts or 44 pts for the Mp with the half push 4d6 rka and half push 12d6 Eb, never do you have a case of slots linking together or working with each other, right?

 

So why do you keep trying to link charging way-out-of-whack 68 pts for the half-push mp to slots working with each other as some sort of consistency thingamajig?

 

truly baffled.

[Simon]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

So why do you keep trying to link charging way-out-of-whack 68 pts for the half-push mp to slots working with each other as some sort of consistency thingamajig?

 

truly baffled.

Let's say you wanted to go the "partially Limited MP" route. You want a 60 point reserve, 30 points of which are through a Focus (OIF). So you build it: 30 points straight, 30 points with a -1/2 Limitation (20 points) for a total of 50 points for the MP.

 

A slot in the MP that would be easy to calculate for our example would be a 12d6 EB. Cost breakdown is the same as for the MP, with the final slot cost ending up at 5 points (ultra slot).

 

This is no different from:

 

MP1: 30 point Reserve

3u) 6d6 Energy Blast

 

MP2: 30 point Reserve, all slots: OIF (-1/2)

2u) 6d6 Energy Blast

A partially-Limited MP is functionally no different from two separate MPs whose slots add together.

 

It is constructed the same way. The points are the same. The usage is a combination of two slots from two different MPs, which goes against the rules of the system.

 

Partially limiting a slot is fine, but you cannot do that to the MP. As soon as you do, you end up with two separate MPs which are adding together. The fact that you want to list them as a single entity on the sheet is just shorthand and does not change the fact that you have two distinct and separate frameworks (with differing Modifiers) adding to each other.

 

I don't see how the rules can be any clearer on this. The page that Steve pointed out flat out states that you cannot partially limit a Power Framework.

[tesuji]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

A partially-Limited MP is functionally no different from two separate MPs whose slots add together.

 

It is constructed the same way. The points are the same. The usage is a combination of two slots from two different MPs, which goes against the rules of the system.

 

stares dumbfoundedly at the computer screen and struggles to find a polite way to say this.

 

I must say, that is a very "unique" way to look at this.

 

look at these examples of perfectly valid MP...

 

MP 60 ap 72 cp total

1. 9d6 Eb with 3d6 flash 6 cp

2. 3d6 RKA with 1d6 ranged con drain 6 cp

 

Why are these not also a violation of the "two different multipowers cannot link" when they COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN AS:

 

MP#1 45

1. 9d6 EB

2. 3d6 RKA

 

MP#2 15

1. 3d6 flash

2. 1d6 ranged con drain

 

The justification you gave ... "It is constructed the same way. The points are the same. The usage is a combination of two slots from two different MPs, which goes against the rules of the system. " ... applies just the same to this example as it does to the half push ones.

 

Is there a rule which says you cannot have the half push multipower priced for 44, you cannot limit the reserve, YES, there is a written rule for that. (My point is that rule is wrong and produces inconsistent results)

 

is this in any way logically tied to or make sense links to the two slots working together prohibiution? No, not hardly.

 

if you want that justification to fly, then you just outlawed a whole lot of other perfectly legal multipower builds too.

 

heck, for that matter, why isn't:

 

MP 60 ap 66 total cp

1. 12d6 Eb 6 pts

 

illegal since it has "It is constructed the same way. The points are the same. " as:

 

MP#1 30 ap 33 total cp

1. 6d6 EB 3 pts

 

and MP#2 30 ap 33 totalcp

1. 6d6 EB 3 pts

 

Why isn't it a violation of that two slots design rule?

[tesuji]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

I don't see how the rules can be any clearer on this. The page that Steve pointed out flat out states that you cannot partially limit a Power Framework.

 

I am not debating whether that rule exists but am discussing two issues...

 

1. is it right, as in does it produce reasonable results, consistent results, in terms of cost and effectiveness.

 

2. is it an example of internal consistency, as you implied in your comment a while back, In fact, it is an internally INCONSISTENT thing.

 

3. it has nothing to do with different multipower slots working together!

 

if all you need to decide that it is right, that it produces accurate results, and that it is INTERNALLY CONSISTENT is that "its written down there", then we really have little more to say on this. The fact that errata exists should be enough to show that just being written down in the rulebook is not enough to warrant such.

[Simon]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

stares dumbfoundedly at the computer screen and struggles to find a polite way to say this.

 

I must say, that is a very "unique" way to look at this.

 

look at these examples of perfectly valid MP...

 

MP 60 ap 72 cp total

1. 9d6 Eb with 3d6 flash 6 cp

2. 3d6 RKA with 1d6 ranged con drain 6 cp

 

Why are these not also a violation of the "two different multipowers cannot link" when they COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN AS:

 

MP#1 45

1. 9d6 EB

2. 3d6 RKA

 

MP#2 15

1. 3d6 flash

2. 1d6 ranged con drain

Because in neither case are you applying a Modifier to the MP Cost which does not apply to every slot (in its entirety). Simple as that.

 

A partially limited MP requires that you have two distinct pools (regardless of whether you list them as the same to save space on writeup), each with their own list of Modifiers.

[Simon]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

I am not debating whether that rule exists but am discussing two issues...

 

1. is it right, as in does it produce reasonable results, consistent results, in terms of cost and effectiveness.

 

2. is it an example of internal consistency, as you implied in your comment a while back, In fact, it is an internally INCONSISTENT thing.

 

3. it has nothing to do with different multipower slots working together!

 

if all you need to decide that it is right, that it produces accurate results, and that it is INTERNALLY CONSISTENT is that "its written down there", then we really have little more to say on this. The fact that errata exists should be enough to show that just being written down in the rulebook is not enough to warrant such.

Then I suspect that we have little more to say on the matter.

 

I can see the internal consistencies with the rule. Steve (obviously) can see the internal consistencies (as he wrote teh rule).

 

You don't.

 

Such is life.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

Seem to be? Mayby I should post a question to Steve...

 

Operating on the assumption that Simon is correct and that this construct is illegal (I'm not masochistic enough to get in the middle of the debate above) ,

 

my suggestion for a rules-legal approach, DR, would be using a Naked Advantage. An Advantage which has a separate Limitation from the Powers that it modifies would be a perfect candidate for that.

 

According to the rules description of Naked Advantages, a NA which modifies several Powers would have to be large enough to apply to the Active Points of the largest Power, including all other Advantages that it has, as though those Active Points were Base Points. Allowing a NA to work for several slots in a Multipower is a GM's Permission case according to the FAQ, but I'd say it's justified in this instance.

 

Note that a Reduced Endurance NA would still cost END itself to use base on its own Active Points, unless Reduced Endurance is bought for the Naked Advantage itself.

[Simon]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

Note that a Reduced Endurance NA would still cost END itself to use base on its own Active Points' date=' unless Reduced Endurance is bought for the Naked Advantage itself.[/quote']

Actually, a correction on that bit:

 

A NA costs END unless the Naked Advantage is Reduced END. The rules have an exception for that case, as it doesn't make much sense to pay END in order to not pay END on a Power....

[Dust Raven]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

Unfortunately I do not have 5ER, so I can't comment on the rules. It does strike me as odd that you can't partially limit a Framework when you can partially limit anything else. Lots of things are functionally identical, but in most cases neither is incorrect. I don't see why Frameworks would be a special case. In either case, I believe the applicable phrase in the case is "with the GM's permission". Since I don't have the book, I don't know if it says that or not, but I'm willing to bet it does. And if it does, then it's legal.

[Simon]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

Unfortunately I do not have 5ER' date=' so I can't comment on the rules. It does strike me as odd that you can't partially limit a Framework when you can partially limit anything else. Lots of things are functionally identical, but in most cases neither is incorrect. I don't see why Frameworks would be a special case. In either case, I believe the applicable phrase in the case is "with the GM's permission". Since I don't have the book, I don't know if it says that or not, but I'm willing to bet it does. And if it does, then it's legal.[/quote']

5ER states flat out that you cannot partially limit a Framework. No "without GM permission" statement involved.

 

Of course, the Hero Police won't break down your door if you do it anyway....

[Dust Raven]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

So, back to my example... how sould I write him up then?

 

MP 90 point powers (90 points)

1) Ego Attack 6d6 (6 points)

2) Ego Attack 6d6, 0 END, OAF (4 points)

3) Mental Illusions 12d6 (6 points)

4) Mental Illusions 12d6, 0 END, OAF (4 points)

5) Telepathy 12d6 (6 points)

6) Telepathy 12d6, 0 END, OAF (4 points)

Total Cost: 120

 

vs

 

MP 90 point powers (90 points)

1) Ego Attack 6d6 (9 points)

2) Mental Illusions 12d6 (9 points)

3) Telepathy 12d6 (9 points)

Total Cost: 117

 

??? It actually costs LESS to buy the MP without any Limitations associated with it. There is something not right here, and I'd like to know what it is.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

5ER states flat out that you cannot partially limit a Framework. No "without GM permission" statement involved.

 

Of course, the Hero Police won't break down your door if you do it anyway....

 

But they will prevent me from using HD to write up such a character. Well, unless I actually buy it as two seperate MPs, but I'd rather have a way to keep in all on the same line.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Partially Limited Multipower Reserve?

 

Actually, a correction on that bit:

 

A NA costs END unless the Naked Advantage is Reduced END. The rules have an exception for that case, as it doesn't make much sense to pay END in order to not pay END on a Power....

 

Ah, gotcha. I misread the wording in the FAQ on NA regarding the exception for Reduced Endurance to mean that it did cost END.

 

Thanks, Dan.