Magic VPP variant

[Alcamtar]

I have an idea for a modified VPP, and wanted to see what you think here on the boards.

 

I prefer the VPP for simulating the wizard who can use any spell from a spellbook, in the style of D&D. But I have two problems with VPPs:

(1) the Active Pt cap on the VPP limits how "epic" magic can be

(2) since RP = AP, there is reduced incentive to put lots of limitations on a spell. IMO the limitations are the coolest part of FH magic.

 

Ideally a VPP would allow a large AP ceiling for epic spells, but have restricted real points so spells don't resemble superpowers.

 

My idea is this: the Pool size cost for the VPP is the real points available, but the Control cost may be different and determines the AP limit. (Of course this is a magic pool with significant limitations on how spells can be used... no cosmic VPPs!)

 

EXAMPLE: Alcamtar the Cleaver wants a pool with a 120 AP ceiling, but only 20 real points available for use. The limitations on the pool are RSR (-1/2), requires spellbooks and time to change (-1/2), only for magic (-1/4) for a total limitation of -1.25. The Pool cost is 20 real points, and the control cost is 120 / 2.25 or 53. The total cost for the VPP is 73. Alcamtar will be able to cast a spell up to 120 AP, but he'll need at least -5 in limitations and will probably have to unload all other spells to make room for it.

 

What do you think? Reasonable or unbalanced?

 

Mike

[Frenchman]

Re: Magic VPP variant

 

Definitly reasonable, I've been toying with a similar idea for a while. I'd go with the base control cost being 1/2 the AP cap, though, as it is on a regular power pool - that way if someone wanted to have a pool with RC=AP it would cost the 'correct' amount.

So Mr. Cleaver's pool would cost 46 points - not unreasonable since any 120 point power would need an additional -3.75 in limitations above and beyond the requirements of the pool.

[Alcamtar]

Re: Magic VPP variant

 

I'd go with the base control cost being 1/2 the AP cap' date=' though, as it is on a regular power pool[/quote']

 

Oops, what was what I meant. I did my example wrong.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Magic VPP variant

 

I've been a cheerleader for an idea like this approximately forever.

There are a LOT of threads where the pros and cons of the idea have been debated. The general consensus seems to be that the Pool cost and Control cost mechanisims can remain at exactly their current costs but can be unlinked from each other, thus greatly increasing the diversity of effects that a VPP can simulate, and there are even ways to do some of these models legally within the current rules, tho mostly the opposite of what you propose ( Your version, a high AP Control and a low RP Pool, is much harder to do book-legally than the inverse, a low AP control and a high RP pool).

The High AP Conrol, low RP Pool is a distinct Stopsign... it has great unbalancing potential. I usually use this to represent Ritual magic, for instance.

 

Low AP Control with a higher RP pool isn't nearly so unbalancing, and is quite effective for simulating, for instance, cantrips and hedge magic.

[Frenchman]

Re: Magic VPP variant

 

For those of us who haven't seen those threads, what are the major cons of doing this? I can't really see any beyond a possible expansion of the abuse which VPPs allow.

[Alcamtar]

Re: Magic VPP variant

 

Your version' date=' a high AP Control and a low RP Pool, is much harder to do book-legally than the inverse, a low AP control and a high RP pool.[/quote']

 

I wasn't aware it could be done book-legally. Can you put limitations on the Pool cost?

 

The High AP Conrol, low RP Pool is a distinct Stopsign... it has great unbalancing potential. I usually use this to represent Ritual magic, for instance.

 

The major limitation is that with a small RP Pool you can only use one spell at a time... you have to drop your defenses to make a major attack. And if the RP drops to 1/8 or 1/10 of the AP, you are pretty much forced to use ritual magic in order to get enough limitations on the spell. So it seems self balancing.

 

The biggest "unbalancing" change is that a highly specialized 75+75 wizard could conceivably have a 360 AP pool, four times what he could manage with a standard VPP. On the other hand, using the Grimoire rules at 1/3 cost he could easily have 330 points of spells, up to around 3000 active points total! Or he could have 330 active points in spells with NO LIMITATIONS. And either way, he could have them all active at the same time.

 

When you look at it that way, the VPP doesn't seem unbalanced at all, in fact it seems kind of limiting.

 

Mike

[Lucius]

Re: Magic VPP variant

 

When I first encountered this idea (and repped Amadan for it) I said this is the way Variable Power Pools SHOULD be done. The official rules should be changed to de-couple active vs real points.

 

Nothing I've seen since has done anything but confirm that view.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary wants an indoor heated Variable Power Pool

[Cantriped]

Re: Magic VPP variant

 

I've loved VPP since I started playing hero (not to long ago I might add). My primary issue has always been that a VPP's cost doesn't accurately account for high limitation Pools. Even limitations which apply directly against what powers can be applied to the pool do not effect the actual pool, it kind of like saying that VPP limitations are only worth 1/3rd of what they are actually worth.

However, even normal VPPs do have some incentive to limit your powers, as that Powers RP cost is applied against the Pool just like AP is for a Multipower, but even so, I like the idea of being able to adjust the pool to be different from the AP cap.

To take it a step further though I would say that any Modifier which directly effects the availability of powers in the pool should be applied against the Pool, while anything that effects the powers themselves or how you change them going into the Control Cost.

Thus you could have pool limitations such as “Only Powers which Cost END”, “Only Instant Powers”, or “Only Attack Powers”. Then control Modifiers such as “Increased END Cost”, “Lingering”, and “Armor piercing”.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Magic VPP variant

 

When I first encountered this idea (and repped Amadan for it) I said this is the way Variable Power Pools SHOULD be done. The official rules should be changed to de-couple active vs real points.

 

Nothing I've seen since has done anything but confirm that view.

I 100% agree! I've been doing this for a long time now and have had no problems with it. Alas, I do not remember who it was on these boards that originally posted the idea. Was is Amadan? Whoever it was deserves far more than rep. (But rep's probably all he's going to get anyway.)

 

I also like the Low-AP, High-RP pools as well - for a big pool with lots of little powers (that often don't need that many, or even any, limitations).