Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

[incrdbil]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

If a construct could be used fairly or unfairly' date=' abusively or non-abusively, munchinly or for greater roleplaying creativity, should it be forbidden because someone might misuse it, or should it be allowed because someone might use it well?[/quote']

 

A construct shouldn't be used if its inherently broken with the rest of the system. Payment starts at the active point max; limiations on a slot are soley limitations on the cost of a slot, not a multiplier of effectiveness of a reserve.

 

Sure, you can say why nt, because every construct has to be viewed with an eye to game abuse, but using a multipower reserve in this manner gains very little in exchange for being a guaranteed source of abuse. you get a lot of something for virtually nothing. The limitations on a multiple power slot used in a legal way (and thew fair, game balanced way) save onyl a few points because they are only affecting a few points that have been spent. Limitations in your version of a multipower slot are massive enhancements to power. -1 in limitations on a multipower slot you only spend 5 points on saves you three points--a fair savings for what youve spent so little for. Using iot as a real point reserve, it gives you a 50 point boost in active points--points you've not paid for in the reserve of the multipower.

 

You may never agree Phil, maybe your rule works for your game in particualr. Thats why there are GM's, and no game police. But as a base level, default rule, using a multipower reserve in the fashion you proclaim is broken, and prohibitively unbalanced even if firm DC caps are in place. If active point caps are in place, the real cost method makes little sense, except as a trick to get lots of powers and attacks at a drastically, unfairly reduced cost. Flexibility can be bandied about, but in the end, almost ever player instance of the real cost build I've seen, and the sample builds you've shown comes down to getting huge attacks for little cost, or campaign limited attacks in an incredible variety for little cost, and done in such as way that the individual slot limitations mean nothing.

 

It may work for you, but it in no way will ever work for the Hero system.

 

5 Editions of rule, and an overwhelming majority of opinion may not settle the issue for you, but beating a dead horse won't change things either.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

No you don't, as I showed with Seenar's and gojira's examples. Let me illustrate it again:

 

Two powers:

50 10d6 EB

50 20d6 EB, 2x END, 0 DCV

Total cost: 100 points, and they can be used together as a MPA

 

Multipower (Book Legal):

100 Reserve

5 10d6 EB

10 20d6 EB, 2x END, 0 DCV

Total Cost: 115 points, and they cannot be used together as an MPA.

 

15 points more for less utility. (And do you really think the limitations in the MP above are less limiting than they are in the full buy two powers above?)

 

The following is equally book legal:

 

10d6 EB [50 points]

+10d6 EB, Concentrate (0 DCV; -1/2), 3x END (-1) [20 points]

 

Total 70 points for the same ability to fire 20d6 at 0 DCV and 20 END, or 10d6 for 5 END at normal DCV. That's a 30% discount from a 20d6 EB, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

In other words, there is no need to change the MP's A/P and RP rules to achieve this result. If the 106d EB were in a Multipower, a the boost can be purchased outside. If the first MP also has several other aqttack powers, a second MP could have a slot to boost each of them (or have 50 reserve unlimited, + 50 limited).

 

This approach avoids the "mix & match" limitations approach (ie take one slot with 4 charges, 1 with 8 charges that cost END, one that replaces 2x END with OIF, etc.), with a variety of attack powers. It also avoids that 50 point MP having a very limited (starting w/ 1 charge) 33d6 1 hex accurate EB.

 

What do we need on that? -4 in total. Say 1 charge (-2), Costs END (-1/2), 3x END (-1), Concentrate (0 DCV; -1/2). It only costs 5 points, so why not Multipower your 50 AP attack to have a one shot Major Baddie Buster? Sure, you spend 45 END, but if 33d6 doesn't take him out, your 106d Blast isn't worth much anyway.

[Lucius]

Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

This is a limitation?

 

Yes, because those extra points can't be used to run another slot. They can only apply if a slot is already "maxed out" and only to bring the slot's active point total up to its full potential.

 

Slot A is 50 active,

Slot B is 75 active,

Slot C is 100 active,

Slot D is 100 active.

 

Say the basic multipower is at 50 pts and the "add-on" is another 50.

 

If slot B is at, say, 40 pts, and slot A at 10, you can NOT add the "extra" 50 pts to slot C, or to any other slot for that matter.

 

If all 50 pts are in slot A, you still can't use the "extra" 50 pts. That slot is already at its maximum value.

 

If all 50 pts are in slot B, NOW you can use the extra pts - but only up to 75.

 

And if all 50 pts are in slot C or D, you can add the whole 50 extra and have 100 active pts.

 

Note that if the extra is coming into play, it means you are using only one slot - you can't have any points in other slots, because if you did, by definition you wouldn't be using all your points on one slot - the precondition of the limitation.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary Enterprises

[Seenar]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

Going by the rules means you don't get to use active points you don't pay for.

 

Your system, Phil basically means I can spend 5 points on an ultra-slot and then spend a Day, X10 End, Incantaions, Gestures, ODCV, and 13- to create a 50d6 EB, Area of Effect, with a 110" Diameter, Personal Immunity.

 

Meanwhile the poor soul not using a multipower is stuck with 50 points just sitting there doing nothing unless he activates that one power.

 

The 5 points of the ultra slot do not offset the effect of the power.

 

(I know this example is exteme, but I am using it to make a point)

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

A construct shouldn't be used if its inherently broken with the rest of the system. Payment starts at the active point max; limiations on a slot are soley limitations on the cost of a slot' date=' not a multiplier of effectiveness of a reserve.[/quote']

So, just to make sure I understand you: You think that the real cost version I use for MP reserves can't be used in a balanced way? There there are no creative uses for this? I would refer you to the other thread we had on this. There were many uses I mentioned: the specialty target attack, the sacrifice attack, the heavily limited backup power, the normal-level power with advantages and balancing limitations, etc.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the statement I bolded. You don't pay Active Points in HERO, you pay Real Points. That's why they're called that. I think Real Points are a much more acurate measure of a power's actual utility than Active Points. That's why Real is the bottom line.

 

...using a multipower reserve in this manner gains very little in exchange for being a guaranteed source of abuse. you get a lot of something for virtually nothing.

On the contrary, it has gained me quite a bit. I don't see where you get this "guarantee of abuse." I don't let my players abuse it, and they almost never try to.

 

-1 in limitations on a multipower slot you only spend 5 points on saves you three points--a fair savings for what youve spent so little for. Using it as a real point reserve, it gives you a 50 point boost in active points--points you've not paid for in the reserve of the multipower.

Again, you don't pay for Active Points at all, you pay for real points. I don't know how many other ways I can say this. I gave examples of a limited 100 AP power that only costs 50 RP. Isn't that 50 active points you haven't paid for? My problem is with the inconsistancy between inside a MP and outside.

 

But as a base level, default rule, using a multipower reserve in the fashion you proclaim is broken, and prohibitively unbalanced even if firm DC caps are in place.

Do you have any reasoning behind this claim? Here's an example (similar to one I've actually used in play) that uses a DC cap:

 

50 Reserve

5u 10d6 EB

5u 10d6 EB, AE: Radius, 2x END

 

Is that inherently broken and unbalanced? Don't just say, "yes," give me a reason why.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

Here's how I look at it, and why MPs are fine the way they are.

 

Buying the MP Pool is buying The Power itself, to it's Active Point Cap. A 60 MP Pool is like buying a 60 Point Power.

 

What you've not done is define that Power, so it's just Empty.

 

Each Slot in the MP is Filling The Power, It's what that Power Can Do. Each Slot a cost based on the how variable that Leve Of Power can be. Ultras are rigid definitions of The Power, Variable are less so. It doesn't matter what the Cost is because they're all limited by the Power Level (Pool) itself. 60 AP Pool means the Powers are equal to or lesser than that Level, because that's the Power you bought- a 60 AP Power.

 

Limitations are applied to the Cost, a common Lim is applied to the Power and to the Slots both, the Cost of the Slots, not the AP Threshhold of the Slot. Lims unique to the Slot are applied only to the slot.

 

You pay for a 60 Active Point Power - you GET a 60 AP Power. The MP Pool/Slots are just buying a bit of versitality with that Power.

 

and that's all I gotta say on that.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

The following is equally book legal:

 

10d6 EB [50 points]

+10d6 EB, Concentrate (0 DCV; -1/2), 3x END (-1) [20 points]

 

Total 70 points for the same ability to fire 20d6 at 0 DCV and 20 END, or 10d6 for 5 END at normal DCV. That's a 30% discount from a 20d6 EB, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Fine. So yours costs 70 and mine costs 60 - a 10 point difference. The version with the 15d6 intermediate slot had an 8 point difference. That's at least in the ballpark, but it doesn't work when the powers are actually different (as they are in most of the instances that I would use. The examples we've been discussing here are from Smokeless Joe's original post). So if you want:

 

10d6 EB

15d6 Flash

5d6 Drain, AE

 

By the book, you still have to use a multipower with a 100-point reserve, even though all three of those powers are only 50 points. That would lead to a 35-point difference between the one-at-a-time multipower, and buying them all without a framework and using them at the same time! 35 points to bump the AP & RP of an attack by 100 points!

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

Going by the rules means you don't get to use active points you don't pay for.

Only in a Multipower. Outside a Multipower, you get to use Active Points whether you paid for them or not.

 

Your system, Phil basically means I can spend 5 points on an ultra-slot and then spend a Day, X10 End, Incantaions, Gestures, ODCV, and 13- to create a 50d6 EB, Area of Effect, with a 110" Diameter, Personal Immunity.

Not in my game, you couldn't. There's a ! on the Multipower Framework for a reason. The power you describe I would consider abusive. In the other thread, I gave a long list of Limitations that I wouldn't allow with this. I don't remember tham all off hand, but Gestures, Incantations, Charges, Focus, Activation were some of the more obvious ones. Notice that your power still gives the target 24 hours to get out of the area or dispel the power, or interrupt the Gesturing/Incanting, or to kill/stun you (which won't be hard seeing as you're at 0 DCV). A guy with no legs and no wheelchair can pull himself out of the area in time to avoid the blast, and he can stop for lunch on the way. This is just to illustrate that Limitations do mean something. They do make the power less effective.

 

Meanwhile the poor soul not using a multipower is stuck with 50 points just sitting there doing nothing unless he activates that one power.

1) He get's to do it once per phase for 24 hours.

2) He could buy the exact same power outside of a multipower.

 

The 5 points of the ultra slot do not offset the effect of the power.

Considering that the power as written is practically useless, it might.

 

(I know this example is exteme, but I am using it to make a point)

And that point would be what? That my Real Point rule for Multipowers can be abused? I have already agreed with that point. We can stop debating that point now.

[stan da ork]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

Just a note, the powers in your example cost 225 points (50 + 75 + 100), not 150. Perhaps you meant to include some Limitations?

 

Okay, you keep saying that everyone else is using purposefully abusive examples that you would never allow. Then let's look at the example that started this, since that example is abusive.

 

50 Multipower, 50 Point Reserve

5u EB 10d6 (50 AP)

5u EB 15d6 (75 AP), Concentration (0 DCV, -1/2)

5u EB 20d6 (100 AP), Concentration (0 DCV, -1/2), Increased END Cost (x2 END, -1/2)

 

This guy spent 15 more points than one that bought a vanilla EB. And for those 15 points, he gained the following:

 

In any situation where he doesn't have to fear retaliation (not many foes, foes are otherwise engaged, this shot is likely to Stun or KO the foe) he can fire an EB that is 50% more powerful without any real Limitation (as I said before, 0 DCV doesn't mean anything if no one is swinging at you). Furthermore, in any situation where he doesn't have to fear retaliation and he has some extra END, he can fire an EB that is 100% more powerful. In either case, if the base EB would have hurt the foe, all the extra dice are effectively NND, since the foe's defenses have already been overcome. In every other situation, he can use his 10d6 EB just like anyone else who bought a 10d6 EB.

 

So, in effect, he paid 15 points to gain up to a 100% increase in firepower whenever the Limitations on that firepower won't hurt him.

 

And you don't see the problem with this?

 

As far as I'm concerned, the unbalancing nature of the construct is clear. If you can't see the problem here, no one is going to be able to make you see it, and I'm done trying to convince you.

[incrdbil]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

 

And that point would be what? That my Real Point rule for Multipowers can be abused? I have already agreed with that point. We can stop debating that point now.

 

How about we agree they give you active power you never pay for? Multipowers are different from standard straight bout powers--if they weren't, they wouldn't have their own rules. Where they are not different is that you pay for a multipower by starting with the highest active point affect it can acheive. Thsi is the disconnect in your method. The floatign reserve of real points has no defined active point limit--it goes as long as you toss on those limitations that no longer have diminishing returns--limitations who can easily be avoided by the plethora of powers available. the slot costs are not the determiner of how many active points you shou8ld get--anythign divided by 5 or 10 off the bat shouldn't be, thats painfully obvious.

 

So in review...

 

The real point method doesn't add any more flexibility because you can achieve its effects many other ways, easily so in campaigns with a DC active point limit.

 

Limitations on a real point reserve dont behave like limitations on anything else; they have a constant yield of points, no matter how many you tack on.

 

Just because a GM can squash any power doesn't mean its not abusive. Every other build and framework becomes obsolete in comparison to the real point reserve MP.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

This guy spent 15 more points than one that bought a vanilla EB.

He also spent 15 more points than one that bought the third slot only, and for this he gains a *less* powerful attack with fewer limitations in those situations where he wants to avoid them.

 

In any situation where he doesn't have to fear retaliation (not many foes, foes are otherwise engaged, this shot is likely to Stun or KO the foe) he can fire an EB that is 50% more powerful without any real Limitation... Furthermore, in any situation where he doesn't have to fear retaliation and he has some extra END, he can fire an EB that is 100% more powerful.

True, *IF* the character makes those assumptions. He may not be aware that there's a second wave of enemies coming around the corner. He may not be aware that one of them has a big END Drain. He may not be aware of the invisible/hidden enemy drawing a bead on him. If the GM doesn't make the Limitations limiting, that's the GM's fault, not the construct's.

 

So, in effect, he paid 15 points to gain up to a 100% increase in firepower whenever the Limitations on that firepower won't hurt him.

 

And you don't see the problem with this?

No, I don't. I've been making an assumption which I thought was obvious, but I suspect now that it may not have been: that for this particular construct (which wasn't mine, you'll recall), fits in the campaign, i.e., that it would be OK to have a 20d6 attack. I didn't want to make any assumptions about the campaign/genre/game/etc. IOW, assuming a 20d6 EB is fine for the particular game, then no, I do not have any problem with that construct.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

How about we agree they give you active power you never pay for?

Repeating myself: You never pay for Active Points, you pay for Real Points.

 

Multipowers are different from standard straight bout powers--if they weren't, they wouldn't have their own rules. Where they are not different is that you pay for a multipower by starting with the highest active point affect it can acheive.

Repeating myself: I know what the rules *are*. We don't have an argument about that. I'm talking about what they *should be*.

 

It is a circular argument to say "The rule should be the way it is, because that's the way the rule is."

 

The floatign reserve of real points has no defined active point limit--it goes as long as you toss on those limitations that no longer have diminishing returns--limitations who can easily be avoided by the plethora of powers available.

Limitations always have diminishing returns. Piling on limitations gives less and less return for each additional one. 100 AP with -1 saves 50 points. Another -1 saves only 17 points. The next -1 after that saves 8 points. etc.

 

As I mentioned in the last post. I am assuming, with Smokeless Joe's multipower, that a 20d6 EB is OK for the particular game. That doesn't mean that a 40d6 EB (with even more limitations on it, obviously) is automatically also OK.

 

So in review...

 

The real point method doesn't add any more flexibility because you can achieve its effects many other ways, easily so in campaigns with a DC active point limit.

Fair enough. But do you get a fair price on those other methods?

 

Limitations on a real point reserve dont behave like limitations on anything else; they have a constant yield of points, no matter how many you tack on.

I may not be understanding you correctly here, but it seems to me that this is patently false, as I showed above. The 20d6 EB with -1 in lims, costs 50 points outside of a multipower, and (with my method) takes up 50 points of a MP reserve. They seem to me to behave exactly the same way.

 

Just because a GM can squash any power doesn't mean its not abusive. Every other build and framework becomes obsolete in comparison to the real point reserve MP.

And just because one particular build is abusive, doesn't mean every build is abusive. As to the obsolesence of other frameworks, that certainly hasn't been the case in my experience. Other frameworks are still just as useful in my games. Since this is a new claim you've made on this thread, could you provide some reasoning behind it?

[radioKAOS]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

Here's how I look at it, and why MPs are fine the way they are.

 

Buying the MP Pool is buying The Power itself, to it's Active Point Cap. A 60 MP Pool is like buying a 60 Point Power.

 

What you've not done is define that Power, so it's just Empty.

 

Each Slot in the MP is Filling The Power, It's what that Power Can Do. Each Slot a cost based on the how variable that Leve Of Power can be. Ultras are rigid definitions of The Power, Variable are less so. It doesn't matter what the Cost is because they're all limited by the Power Level (Pool) itself. 60 AP Pool means the Powers are equal to or lesser than that Level, because that's the Power you bought- a 60 AP Power.

 

Limitations are applied to the Cost, a common Lim is applied to the Power and to the Slots both, the Cost of the Slots, not the AP Threshhold of the Slot. Lims unique to the Slot are applied only to the slot.

 

You pay for a 60 Active Point Power - you GET a 60 AP Power. The MP Pool/Slots are just buying a bit of versitality with that Power.

 

and that's all I gotta say on that.

 

 

So what about the option of having the AP capped, but allow usage of the pool as 'real points' as in a VPP?

 

So a 60pt MP could allow for 2 [or more, really, if you had a LOT of lims] 60AP powers to be used at the same time, so long as the real cost is within the 60pts?

[incrdbil]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

Limitations always have diminishing returns. Piling on limitations gives less and less return for each additional one. 100 AP with -1 saves 50 points. Another -1 saves only 17 points. The next -1 after that saves 8 points. etc.

 

But not in your real point reserve.

 

Slot with no limitations in a 50 point reserve, under your rules points 50 points max active effect

Slot with 1/2 limits 75

-1 limit 100 points

-2 limits 150 in active...

 

Nice, straight gains with no diminishing effects of stacked limitations.

 

 

 

As I mentioned in the last post. I am assuming, with Smokeless Joe's multipower, that a 20d6 EB is OK for the particular game. That doesn't mean that a 40d6 EB (with even more limitations on it, obviously) is automatically also OK.

 

 

And a game where a 10d6 is meaningful, and 20d6 wouldnt be overpowering is so rare, as to be nonexistant. If the 20d6 attack is not overpowering, then the 10d6 attack is meaningless and not used. Your example construct is, effectively, useless as a demonstration point, except shoing how in a 10Dc average game how it could be abused for a 'sure win' attack.

 

 

I may not be understanding you correctly here, but it seems to me that this is patently false, as I showed above.

It's not patently false--you're just ignoring any other rationale but your own.

 

 

As to the obsolesence of other frameworks, that certainly hasn't been the case in my experience. Other frameworks are still just as useful in my games.

 

They can be used--but anyone building offenses without the easy to abuse multipower is deliberately handicapping themselves--or if they hold to thge campaign limits, they get a lot of cheap, potent attacks, with plenty of points to save for other abilities, and they never fairly pay for the pure active potential of all of their powers.

 

Since you've assumed the brick wall debating posture, I'm really losing interest in this display. To sum things up--thats how your game runs, wonderful. Don't believe for a moment that the powers that be would for a moment considering to change the official rules to your method. With that, the potentials for discussion seem to end.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

So what about the option of having the AP capped, but allow usage of the pool as 'real points' as in a VPP?

 

So a 60pt MP could allow for 2 [or more, really, if you had a LOT of lims] 60AP powers to be used at the same time, so long as the real cost is within the 60pts?

 

I would be OK with this only if it were accompanied by a rule that the cost of the reserve can never be reduced by limitations, just like a VPP.

 

Allowing a character to pay 60 points for a 60 point reserve, then have 2 60 AP, 30 RP powers active, each with a -1 limitation, at one time is fine. Allowing a character to pay 30 points for a 60 point reserve with a -1 limitation, and have any one 60 AP, 30 RP power operate at a time is also fine.

 

Allowing the player to pay 30 RP for a 60 pt reserve, then use it to run two 60 AP, 30 RP powers at the same time is not fine.

 

I do allow a player to take "variable limitation" on the pool if all slots will have that level of limitations (variable or fixed).

[radioKAOS]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

I would be OK with this only if it were accompanied by a rule that the cost of the reserve can never be reduced by limitations, just like a VPP.

 

Allowing a character to pay 60 points for a 60 point reserve, then have 2 60 AP, 30 RP powers active, each with a -1 limitation, at one time is fine. Allowing a character to pay 30 points for a 60 point reserve with a -1 limitation, and have any one 60 AP, 30 RP power operate at a time is also fine.

 

Allowing the player to pay 30 RP for a 60 pt reserve, then use it to run two 60 AP, 30 RP powers at the same time is not fine.

 

I do allow a player to take "variable limitation" on the pool if all slots will have that level of limitations (variable or fixed).

 

 

Agreed.

 

Not positive about the variable lims for the pool cost. Seems good, but sounds like it could be abused somehow. Not that I'm sure how, or anything.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

So what about the option of having the AP capped, but allow usage of the pool as 'real points' as in a VPP?

 

So a 60pt MP could allow for 2 [or more, really, if you had a LOT of lims] 60AP powers to be used at the same time, so long as the real cost is within the 60pts?

I would take that on a case by case basis.

 

Part of AP Caps, at least how we use them, is a limit on the power level being thrown around the game. If you're expecting everyone to be around 60 AP I'd ask no Power exceed that.

 

If a player wants a MP Pool to exceed that to run more multiple Powers I'd check to see if an EC might not serve them better in concept. Or other factors... it would all depend on the Game at hand and the situation.

[Seenar]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

Only in a Multipower. Outside a Multipower, you get to use Active Points whether you paid for them or not.

 

 

Not in my game, you couldn't. There's a ! on the Multipower Framework for a reason. The power you describe I would consider abusive. In the other thread, I gave a long list of Limitations that I wouldn't allow with this. I don't remember tham all off hand, but Gestures, Incantations, Charges, Focus, Activation were some of the more obvious ones. Notice that your power still gives the target 24 hours to get out of the area or dispel the power, or interrupt the Gesturing/Incanting, or to kill/stun you (which won't be hard seeing as you're at 0 DCV). A guy with no legs and no wheelchair can pull himself out of the area in time to avoid the blast, and he can stop for lunch on the way. This is just to illustrate that Limitations do mean something. They do make the power less effective.

 

 

1) He get's to do it once per phase for 24 hours.

2) He could buy the exact same power outside of a multipower.

 

 

Considering that the power as written is practically useless, it might.

 

 

And that point would be what? That my Real Point rule for Multipowers can be abused? I have already agreed with that point. We can stop debating that point now.

 

 

Talk about missing the point. I was not making a point about limitations "meaning something", nor that multipowers can be abused.

 

What we are talking about is that you are givng people access to active points for which they did not pay. And you spend real points to pay for active ones.

 

The rules on multipowers have been this way since day one of the system. You cannot exceed the active point cap of the mulipower with slots in it. If you reduce the cost of the multipower reserve with limitations, then all powers in the slots must have those limitations. This is a built in balance mechanism.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

Slot with no limitations in a 50 point reserve, under your rules points 50 points max active effect

Slot with 1/2 limits 75

-1 limit 100 points

-2 limits 150 in active...

 

Nice, straight gains with no diminishing effects of stacked limitations.

Oh, I guess I didn't understand what you meant. But if this is what you meant, so what? The same exact thing applies outside of a multipower. And each additional limitation you take makes the power less useful. And any campaign AP caps still apply.

 

And a game where a 10d6 is meaningful, and 20d6 wouldnt be overpowering is so rare, as to be nonexistant. If the 20d6 attack is not overpowering, then the 10d6 attack is meaningless and not used. Your example construct is, effectively, useless as a demonstration point, except shoing how in a 10Dc average game how it could be abused for a 'sure win' attack.

Again repeating myself: This wasn't my example. It was Smokeless Joe's example. And there could easily be games where both 10d6 and 20d6 attacks are appropriate. I don't know the details of Smokeless Joe's campaign. If you prefer, we can change the last slot example to: 10d6 EB, AE Radius, 2x END, 0 DCV Conc, for the same 100 Active, 50 Real. That way, the DCs are the same.

 

It's not patently false--you're just ignoring any other rationale but your own.

If you actually read what I wrote, you'd notice that I said, "I may not be understanding you correctly here, but it seems to me that this is patently false, as I showed above." If I misunderstood your point, you could rephrase it or explain it, rather than assume I'm ignoring it. If I'm doing something unfair or unbalanced in my campaigns, I want to know so I can fix it. It's hard to seriously consider your argument when you don't give me the reasoning to back it up.

 

They can be used--but anyone building offenses without the easy to abuse multipower is deliberately handicapping themselves--or if they hold to thge campaign limits, they get a lot of cheap, potent attacks, with plenty of points to save for other abilities, and they never fairly pay for the pure active potential of all of their powers.

I don't see why. Can you give an example?

 

Since you've assumed the brick wall debating posture, I'm really losing interest in this display. To sum things up--thats how your game runs, wonderful. Don't believe for a moment that the powers that be would for a moment considering to change the official rules to your method. With that, the potentials for discussion seem to end.

I've asked you for clarification. I've responded to your claims. I've provided examples. I've shared the reasoning behind my decision. You've insulted me. You've ignored my questions. You've argued from authority. You've repeatedly brought up points I've already agreed to. You've brought up points that aren't relevant. It may be that the potential for discussion with *you* has come to an end, but it isn't me that's the "brick wall" here.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

Talk about missing the point. I was not making a point about limitations "meaning something", nor that multipowers can be abused.

 

What we are talking about is that you are givng people access to active points for which they did not pay. And you spend real points to pay for active ones.

No, I think you've missed my point. You don't pay for Active Points! If you have a 200 Active Point power, you might pay 200 Real points, or you might pay 100 points, or 67 points, or 50 points, or 40, or 33, etc. If you have -9 in Limitations on the power, you pay 20 Real Points. And if it's an Ultra slot in a Multipower (without limitations), you pay 20 Real Points for the slot. To use your terms, you're getting "180 active points that you didn't pay for." To put it another way, you "pay for active points" with a combination of Real Points and Limitations. And my whole point is that this is true in or out of a MultiPower! With my rule, those limitations do fully affect you when you use the limited slots, just as they normally would.

 

The rules on multipowers have been this way since day one of the system. You cannot exceed the active point cap of the mulipower with slots in it. If you reduce the cost of the multipower reserve with limitations, then all powers in the slots must have those limitations. This is a built in balance mechanism.

Please stop quoting the rules to me. I fully understand what the official rules are. Saying, "It's always been this way," is not a valid argument for why it's right. Saying my rule is unbalanced doesn't explain why or how.

[Vondy]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

So I looked it up and was wrong. You can't pay 1 to 1 for the active point difference on a slot that exceeds the multipower reserve. I've seen so many character builds that have done it over the years without having a problem (either as GM, or as a player in a game where they existed) that I must have assumed it was legal. Its never been a problem (either as a cost or balance issue). Oh well, live and learn.

[Seenar]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

So I looked it up and was wrong. You can't pay 1 to 1 for the active point difference on a slot that exceeds the multipower reserve. I've seen so many character builds that have done it over the years without having a problem (either as GM' date=' or as a player in a game where they existed) that I must have assumed it was legal. Its never been a problem (either as a cost or balance issue). Oh well, live and learn.[/quote']

 

 

What is the difference between the 1:1 and just having a bigger reserve?

[Seenar]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

Let me try coming at this from another angle.

 

I have a 60 active point multipower OAF (-1)

 

30 Reserve (60 active with OAF)

3u 12d6 EB 60 active

3u 6d6 Entangle 60 active

3u 6d6 NND 60 active

3u 4d6 RKA 60 active

 

 

OK. Now I lose my OAF and I lose all my powers, right?

 

 

OK under your system:

 

30 Reserve

3u 12d6 EB (OAF) 60 active

3u 6d6 Entangle (OAF) 60 active

3u 6d6 NND (OAF) 60 active

3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active

 

The OAF gets taken away, I still have a 2d6 RKA.

 

Same cost, but under your system, the player gets to have a different limitation on one of the powers. He could have also reduced the power level and had no limitations.

 

Your system gives a player access to 30 active points when he should not have it.

 

I cannot make it any more clear that this.

 

BTW quoting the long standing rules is a valid form of argument. The rules as written have worked for decades. You are the one making the argument they should be different, so in fact, you need to be convincing us you are right and your way is better.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

OK under your system:

 

30 Reserve

3u 12d6 EB (OAF) 60 active

3u 6d6 Entangle (OAF) 60 active

3u 6d6 NND (OAF) 60 active

3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active

 

The OAF gets taken away, I still have a 2d6 RKA.

 

Same cost, but under your system, the player gets to have a different limitation on one of the powers. He could have also reduced the power level and had no limitations.

 

Your system gives a player access to 30 active points when he should not have it.

 

I cannot make it any more clear that this.

Yes, you've been perfectly clear. What you haven't don't is explained *why* this is unbalanced. Simply asserting that he's getting 30 points that "he should not have," doesn't tell me why. Why shouldn't he have them?

 

BTW, Focus is one of the limitations I would not allow in such a real-points-MP construct, as I've mentioned before, but that's not really what's important here. We could change it to:

 

30 Reserve

3u 12d6 EB (Only vs. Undead) 60 active

3u 6d6 Entangle (Only vs. Undead) 60 active

3u 6d6 NND (Only vs. Undead) 60 active

3u 4d6 RKA (Full Phase, ODCV) 60 active

 

Now, if I'm not facing an undead opponent, I only have the (heavily limited) RKA. What's the problem? Note that the book-legal build would cost 72 Real points, even though I can never use more than 30 Real points of power at a time. If I had the 60-point reserve according to the rules, I could then buy off all the limitations, which *halve* the utility of the powers, for only 12 points. Why would anyone take such heavy limitations for such paltry savings? (And please, let's not get into the role-playing vs. point crunching debate. Even good role-players want a fair price. You shouldn't have to be penalized for role-playing. If it seems better, I could rephrase the question: Why should the person who leaves off the colorful role-playing lims get such superior power over one who does take these lims?)

 

BTW quoting the long standing rules is a valid form of argument. The rules as written have worked for decades. You are the one making the argument they should be different, so in fact, you need to be convincing us you are right and your way is better.

It depends on what your point is. That the rules are long-standing doesn't mean they can't be improved upon. It only means they're not bad enough for anyone with the authority to have made the effort to change them. I'm not saying that the rules as-is are broken, just that my rule is an improvement in that it allows for genre-reinforcing, drama-generating, character-enriching builds to have a more appropriate price than they would otherwise. As the rules stand, the above construct would cost 72 points. For the same 72 points, you could buy:

 

60 Reserve

6u 6d6 Entangle 60 active

6u 4d6 RKA 60 active

 

Lose two slots and eliminate *all* of the limitations! Earn 12 xp, and you can buy the other two slots, with no limitations. Is that comparable to the other (book-legal) build?

 

I cannot make it any more clear than this.

[Seenar]

Re: Multipower active points vs. reserve points: why?

 

Your system and the legal way might end up with a difference of much more than 12 points. And if you have to spend them, then spend them. Frankly, my builds are always down to the last couple of points. What you propose is extra points to play with. That is unbalanced to me.

 

If you don't think it is unbalanced, that is fine. You are in a clear minority on this one. I don't think there is anyway to change your mind anymore than you are going to change mine (or Steve's or about 1000 other people).

 

But, you can run your game the way you want too. My house rules have all sorts of non-5th Ed bits in them.