Rulebook reference help please

[Lord Liaden]

Hey, gang, as someone who is still using FREd, I'd appreciate a bit of help looking up an official ruling from 5ER. According to a discussion I read on these boards a while back, 5ER rules it illegal to use more than one slot in the same Multipower as part of a Multiple-Power Attack. Could someone please check the book to confirm this, and if it's true provide the page number on which that ruling appears?

 

This is for an article I'm writing to submit to Digital Hero, so I want to make sure of the reference. I would be grateful.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

a character may not combine two or more slots from a single Power Framework as part of a multiple-power attack attack' date=' even if he has sufficient reserve or base points to use both slots at once.[/quote']

 

A ruling I personally disagree with, but there's the reference.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

Hugh, my thanks and Rep to you.

 

I think I'll hold off presenting my own opinion/analysis of the matter, until I see if anyone else wants to start a discussion over it.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

I also disagree with that rule. Might as well say you can't have your FF on (slot 1) while using your EB (slot 2), even if you have enough points to allot to both simultaneously.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

Yeah, I disagree with the rule too: I don't think we should have MPAs at all.

 

Freaky little munchkin constructs that they are.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

Yeah, I disagree with the rule too: I don't think we should have MPAs at all.

 

Freaky little munchkin constructs that they are.

 

I like MPAs.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

Without getting into the "MPA's - good or bad" discussion, my position is that, if we have MPA's, there is no logical reason they cannot be made with two or more attacks in the same framework, provided the framework could otherwise allow those two or more attacks to be accessed simultaneously.

 

In my view, if MPA's are a bad idea, then it would be preferable to add an advantage for "can be used in a MPA" such that this ceases to be the default and gets paid for as an advantage. Of course, this advantage would apply to Linked attack powers if you wanted them to act together.

 

For myself, I'd rather set some form of DC limit for MPA's - ie if the campaign max is 12 DC's, having three 12 DC attacks fired off as an MPA would be considered to exceed the campaign maximum. I'm not sure how I'd dovetail that in, however.

[zornwil]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

I'm suspicious of MPAs but they seem to make sense to me as something that does occur and should be able to be replicated in HERO. I imagine the same-framework ban is again a mechanical balancing rule that assumes a likelihood of flexiibility for cheap price that needs to be countered, but much as with the (long-in-place) rules in EC I think this is again a brute-force mechanism that doesn't address the core issue (or may address an issue not even worth addressing except for various warnings).

 

We haven't really used MPAs in our group, largely because the group is old-time HERO players who haven't really adopted many of the newer 5th things even if they are allowed, but also because at least for now I do charge an Advantage for MPAs, so that may also discourage it to much. I'm considering opening it up purely for the sake of seeing how they play out.

[Insaniac99]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

For myself' date=' I'd rather set some form of DC limit for MPA's - ie if the campaign max is 12 DC's, having three 12 DC attacks fired off as an MPA would be considered to exceed the campaign maximum. I'm not sure how I'd dovetail that in, however.[/quote']

 

I too find the ban weird, in fact I strongly encourage multipower MPA, the player buys a EB, a flash, and an entangle in multi slots and just mixes and matches the points instead of buying twenty different compound powers. I'm hesitant about allowing MPAs that are outside of frameworks because you can easily go above the campaign maximum.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

Yeah, I disagree with the rule too: I don't think we should have MPAs at all.

 

Freaky little munchkin constructs that they are.

 

The only reason I disagree is I don't see why the concept wasn't part of the initial ruleset to begin with. And several conversations on the topic in the past revealed that there was every intention to allow two attacks in a phase like this from the begining.

 

The rules never said you couldn't, we've been using them since 4E anyways. At least the idea of them.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

The only reason I disagree is I don't see why the concept wasn't part of the initial ruleset to begin with. And several conversations on the topic in the past revealed that there was every intention to allow two attacks in a phase like this from the begining.

 

The rules never said you couldn't, we've been using them since 4E anyways. At least the idea of them.

 

Until I joined the boards I'd never considered the possibility, but once it was presented it made total sense to me as well. Otherwise, Linked is a limitation that acts an an advantage, which is a big No-No usually.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

Just some speculation....

 

The ban against MPA's using different multipower slots is probably an attempt to make sure that Variable Advantage and other variations on a single 'power' are still worth the points spent on them. If mix-matching* of different power/slots IS allowed it is done so for free. The idea of requiring an advantage (+1/4 ?!) is worth further consideration but tests the granularity of the system.

 

I don't think Linked** is necessarily required but I think my solution would be to require a seperate combo-slot with each part of the MPA's power-ratio set in the same way that a Force Wall's PD+ED has to be set at build time (unless part of a multipower with 2 seperate 'multi-slots').

 

*Assuming all the power/slots are bought 'multi' and each is capable of utilizing the entire multipower reserve on its own.

**Linked saves some points but is not cheaper than just allowing Multipower-slot MPA's.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

Until I joined the boards I'd never considered the possibility' date=' but once it was presented it made total sense to me as well. Otherwise, Linked is a limitation that acts an an advantage, which is a big No-No usually.[/quote']

 

This is a big point.

 

Linked allows you to make a Half Move and then use two Attack Powers at the same time under the same Attack Roll. Perfectly valid Limitation.

 

But suddenly introduce the idea that a character can take a Full Phase to do the same with two Powers that aren't Limited and suddenly you've got a balance breaking game wrecker???

 

Oi!

[Dust Raven]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

MPA is a Full Phase Action? Really? I can't believe that.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

Just some speculation....

 

The ban against MPA's using different multipower slots is probably an attempt to make sure that Variable Advantage and other variations on a single 'power' are still worth the points spent on them. If mix-matching* of different power/slots IS allowed it is done so for free. The idea of requiring an advantage (+1/4 ?!) is worth further consideration but tests the granularity of the system.

I'm confused at to how such a ban would accomplish this? Or how would the lack of the bad actually diminish the worth of Variable Advantage and similar? In order to use two Multipower slots at the same time, you need to have enough points to fill both of them, or one or both of them needs to be a multi slot. This already costs more points. Why would even more points need to be spent to make it fair?

 

I don't think Linked** is necessarily required but I think my solution would be to require a seperate combo-slot with each part of the MPA's power-ratio set in the same way that a Force Wall's PD+ED has to be set at build time (unless part of a multipower with 2 seperate 'multi-slots').

 

That would certainly be a viable and valid option. Of course, so is buying a large PD only FF in one slot and a large ED only FF in another (both multi) and then modulating them to what you need. Individual GMs may not allow this, but it's possible. I've checked the end cost compared to just buying a static FF, and I feel the extra cost of having that much flexibility is worth it. You could also just buy a VPP with a big Limitation "FF Only" and get an even broader effect without much more of a cost. Then again, you said Force Wall, not Force Field, and there is a difference there, but that difference is in how the mechanic works. You can't do this with a Force Wall, because if they are different Powers, then they create different walls, which don't meld together (though you could buy each transparent to the other's DEF and end up with effectively one wall).

[ghost-angel]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

MPA is a Full Phase Action? Really? I can't believe that.

 

No, I'm wrong. It is a standard Attack Action. 1/2 Phase. My bad.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

I'm confused at to how such a ban would accomplish this? Or how would the lack of the bad actually diminish the worth of Variable Advantage and similar? In order to use two Multipower slots at the same time, you need to have enough points to fill both of them, or one or both of them needs to be a multi slot. This already costs more points. Why would even more points need to be spent to make it fair?

 

I think the traditional intent behind 'multi' slots was to allow variation in attack, defense and movement power levels at a discount. See example below.

 

 

That would certainly be a viable and valid option. Of course, so is buying a large PD only FF in one slot and a large ED only FF in another (both multi) and then modulating them to what you need. Individual GMs may not allow this, but it's possible. I've checked the end cost compared to just buying a static FF, and I feel the extra cost of having that much flexibility is worth it. You could also just buy a VPP with a big Limitation "FF Only" and get an even broader effect without much more of a cost. Then again, you said Force Wall, not Force Field, and there is a difference there, but that difference is in how the mechanic works. You can't do this with a Force Wall, because if they are different Powers, then they create different walls, which don't meld together (though you could buy each transparent to the other's DEF and end up with effectively one wall).

Good catch on my Force Wall gaff. Here is an example to illustrate the issues at hand.

 

I don't think anyone would allow slots 5-8 as is but slot 9 is perfectly legal and is not that different than buying a seperate 8d6 AP EBlast slot.

 

-

60.....MULTI-slot: Multipower, 60-point reserve

12m.....1) Force Field (30 PD/30 ED) (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....2) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....3) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....4) Sight Group Flash 6d6, Area Of Effect (3" Radius; +1) (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....5) alternative: Force Field (60 PD) (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....6) alternative: Force Field (60 ED) (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....7) alternative: Force Wall (16 PD), Transparent to ED Attacks (+1/2) (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....8) alternative: Force Wall (16 ED), Transparent to PD Attacks (+1/2) (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....9) Legal MPA (set ratio): (Total: 60 Active Cost, 60 Real Cost) Energy Blast 8d6 (Real Cost: 40) plus Sight Group Flash 2d6, Area Of Effect (1" Radius; +1) (20 Active Points) (Real Cost: 20) - END=6

[zornwil]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

No' date=' I'm wrong. It is a standard Attack Action. 1/2 Phase. My bad.[/quote']

Well, this pretty much discredits every point you've ever made, I'll remember this...

 

[Dust Raven]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

No' date=' I'm wrong. It is a standard Attack Action. 1/2 Phase. My bad.[/quote']

Okay, cool. I'll continue not believing it then.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

-

60.....MULTI-slot: Multipower, 60-point reserve

12m.....1) Force Field (30 PD/30 ED) (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....2) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....3) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....4) Sight Group Flash 6d6, Area Of Effect (3" Radius; +1) (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....5) alternative: Force Field (60 PD) (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....6) alternative: Force Field (60 ED) (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....7) alternative: Force Wall (16 PD), Transparent to ED Attacks (+1/2) (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....8) alternative: Force Wall (16 ED), Transparent to PD Attacks (+1/2) (60 Active Points) - END=6

12m.....9) Legal MPA (set ratio): (Total: 60 Active Cost, 60 Real Cost) Energy Blast 8d6 (Real Cost: 40) plus Sight Group Flash 2d6, Area Of Effect (1" Radius; +1) (20 Active Points) (Real Cost: 20) - END=6

 

It might be better to compare a ultra slot multipower vs a multi slot multipower. One does cost more than the other, and it's the one with more utility. As a note, I find nothing illegal or abusive in the MP you have here. I would certainly understand why some GMs wouldn't allow some of the slots, but I'm not one of those GMs.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

It might be better to compare a ultra slot multipower vs a multi slot multipower. One does cost more than the other' date=' and it's the one with more utility. As a note, I find nothing illegal or abusive in the MP you have here. I would certainly understand why some GMs wouldn't allow some of the slots, but I'm not one of those GMs.[/quote']

 

So you are cool with giving a Force Field a free variability between PD and ED just for being purchased as a "multi" slot in a Multipower? That's a pretty huge divergence from the rules.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

There is no point cost difference between, say, one 100-point reserve Multipower, whose slots you can't combine for a MPA, and two 50-point reserve Multipowers which you can combine, assuming the same number and Active Point size of the slots. However, if MPA were allowed in the first case it would be a more flexible construct, since you could mix and match slots freely, whereas in the second case you'd be assigning specific slots to either one Multipower or the other, restricting which Powers you could combine. In addition, with a single Multipower you can improve OCV for any slot using 3-point Combat Skill Levels, whereas two or more MPs would require at least 5-point Levels.

 

So, the single Multipower is noticeably better if you allow MPAs with its slots. Is it sufficiently better to become a balance issue? That would be a GM call, and I guess we've heard where Steve Long comes down on it. Considering how many times Steve has bent his own rulings in published books to get the effect he wants, though, I really don't feel bad about doing the same.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

So you are cool with giving a Force Field a free variability between PD and ED just for being purchased as a "multi" slot in a Multipower? That's a pretty huge divergence from the rules.

 

Ummm...how is this free?

 

A 30 PD, 30 ED Force Field costs 60 points.

 

A Multipower with a 60 point reserve and 2 standard slots, one a 60 PD Force Field and one a 60 ED force field, costs 84 (60 for the pool + 12 for each slot). That's 40% more expensive. Viewed another way, if you only have 60 points total, you either go with fixed allocations, or the Multi gets, say, a 44 point pool and two slots, one for 42 PD and one for 42 ED Force Field, to get the same cost.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

Ummm...how is this free?

 

A 30 PD, 30 ED Force Field costs 60 points.

 

A Multipower with a 60 point reserve and 2 standard slots, one a 60 PD Force Field and one a 60 ED force field, costs 84 (60 for the pool + 12 for each slot). That's 40% more expensive. Viewed another way, if you only have 60 points total, you either go with fixed allocations, or the Multi gets, say, a 44 point pool and two slots, one for 42 PD and one for 42 ED Force Field, to get the same cost.

 

So going with that logic I should be able buy a 20PD/20ED Force Field multi-slot and apply a 'fixed-ratio' limitation (-1/4 ?) when using less than 40 reserve points towards the Force Field. What's the limitation worth? And why is it only an issue if a Force Field is built as a multi-slot in a Multipower?

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

So you are cool with giving a Force Field a free variability between PD and ED just for being purchased as a "multi" slot in a Multipower? That's a pretty huge divergence from the rules.

 

If this were submitted to me on a Character and 60 PD or ED was something I'd consder withing campaign gudlenes, the only thing I'd suggest is removing slot #1 as a redundant waste of points... any functionality you receive from slot #1 can be duplicated with slots #5 & 6.

 

Fora straigh comparison in terms of assessing if single mulitpower MPA's are balanced, lets look at something like Starbursts "Photonic Blast"

 

Option 1: No Limits/No Frameworks.

60 12d6 EB 6 End

60 12d6 Flash 6 End

 

For 120 points, you have the ability to choose to do either attack or MPA both together.

 

Option 2: Linked

60 12d6 EB 6 End

40 12d6 Flash Linked (-1/2:standard Lesser dependent) 6 End

 

For 100 points, they must be used together, but only the EB can be used seperately.

 

Option 3: Multipower/ no MPA

60 Control

6 u- 12d6 EB

6 u- 12d6 Flash

 

72 points, cheapest option, can't ever be used together

 

Option 4: Elemental Control

30 Control

30 12d6 EB 6 End

30 12d6 Flash 6 End

90 points, utility loss reflected by 30 point discount from Option 1 reflected in the "drain one, drain all" aspect of EC's, and if played by the book the inability to use in MPA. If MPA's from the same EC are allowed, increased utility over option 3, other wise Multipower is a better deal.

 

Option 5: Multipower/ allowing MPA potential

120 Control (large enough to operate both slots a full power)

12 m- 12d6 EB

12 m- 12d6 Flash

 

144 points, most expensive option, most flexibilty.

Costs 12/24 points over unframeworked powers depending on Flexible/Fixed slots.

Added advantage/utility... slots can be potentially doubled in power for 24 additional points when not used in MPA's. Can't be duplcated with Variabe Advantage (thus the VA comment, which was probably a valid design consideration, doesn't really apply in this case).

 

Putting this togeter led to another realization.... without allowing single Multipower multipower attacks there is essentially NO reason to ever take Flexiible slots in an attack powers Multipower