Rulebook reference help please

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

Here's a better illustration of my point:

 

[b] - [/b]
[b][u]Cost[/u]   [u]POWERS[/u][/b]

60     Multipower, 60-point reserve - END=
8m     1)  [b][i]Defense Power (normal)[/i][/b]: FF (20 PD/20 ED) (40 Active Points) - END=4
4m     2)  [b][i]Defense Power (split-example 1)[/i][/b]: FF (20 PD) (20 Active Points) - END=2
4m     3)  [b][i]Defense Power (split-example 2)[/i][/b]: FF (20 ED) (20 Active Points) - END=2
6m     4)  [b][i]Defense Power (fixed ratio example)[/i][/b]: FF (20 PD/20 ED) (40 Active Points); Fixed Ratio (-1/4) - END=4
12m     5)  [b][i]Attack Power[/i][/b]: EB 12d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6
10m     6)  [b][i]Movement Power[/i][/b]: Flight 25" (50 Active Points) - END=5

 

There is no functional or cost difference between slot 1 and the combined slots 2 & 3. If you assume that the Starburst like slots 5 & 6 are present in either case slot 1 should automatically behave like slot 4 as far as I can tell by the book. Building a Force Field as a slot in a multipower does not automatically give it the ability to vary the defense ratio's. I'm sure someone will have to check the FAQ or Steve's rule thread to confirm this though.

 

If, by the character's SFX, modulating his force field is a reasonable ability, I'd be OK with slots 2,3,5 and 6. The character takes the risk that, while he's using only his ED force wall, someone tosses a bus at him.

 

That said, how often do you see a Multipower that is intended to mix & match movement, attack and defense. With the sole exception of Starburst, I can't think of any. Attack multipowers, however, are common.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

My thoughts on the matter are that MPA's help characters that paid full points or a substantial number of the points for their abilities without the benefit of a VPP or an MP. Allowing characters to make MPA attacks w/ multiple slots in either sort of framework erodes this benefit.

 

Oddly, my first read of MPA's started with "good idea - finally a benefit to an Attacks EC", followed by reading the "Not in EC's" rule and rolling my eyes.

 

I think allowing MPA's with multiple slots in multipowers can be reasonably balanced with EC/full cost attacks in that the multipower as a whole cannot exceed its pool. So I can have a 12d6 Flash and a 12d6 EB in a Multipower, and use them as an MPA, but that means I need a 120 point multipower pool (same cost as buying the Flash and EB individually anyway).

 

I would apply the same limit to a VPP, limiting the AP of attacks combined in an MPA to the pool, regardless of how many attacks you can get with limitations.

 

Personally' date=' I particularly like and most use MPA's with Martial Arts. I like finding neat combinations of manuevers that have a lot of synergy with each other. Using MPA'd Maneuvers in this way is the best way to pull off some of the stunts you find in more over the top Kung Fu films.[/quote']

 

I find a discrepancy that you don't like MPA's used with frameworks, but are OK using them with martial arts maneuvers, which to some extent are framework uses of STR. Paying 3 - 5 points for each martial maneuver, and allowing them to MPA with the character's (say) 50 STR, seems less balanced than paying for a 60 point multipower pool, and 12 points for each os several attack slots which you can then mix & match.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

Actually, I think there is a rule against stacking 2 multipower slots with the same power even if the reserve has enough points.

 

say you have a 100 point reserve and a 10d6 EB (50 active) and a 8d6 EB 1/2 End (50 active). I don't think you can fire an 18d6 EB for 7 End even if you devote the entire 100 point reserve to the attempt. This is the direct analogy to the Force Field stacking example.

 

Well, it's clearly illegal since using both slots would be using a MPA with two slots from the same framework. If I eliminated that rule, I would call it an MPA - you do a 10d6 EB and an 8d6 EB, not an 18d6 EB.

[zornwil]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

But, from previous discussions on the subject, from what I can tell the very idea was intended from the onset.

 

Somewhere a comment was made that Peterson, or one of the other original writers, had intended the idea to be there all along and was stunned to find out some groups made it verboten simply because the rules didn't say it could be done explicitely.

As I understand it, there was not a consensus around the original group, and Peterson of course wasn't the only designer. I believe some played only single-attacks, can't swear to it, will try to check with a couple people who knew them.

[Tech]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

I don't allow/like MPA's for the reason that what's good for the heroes is good for the villains. Okay, so you get to throw 2 powers at once, so do the villains and villains are generally nastier both in power and intent. Yes, this is my preference but that's the way things are in the campaign. The other thing is that the players don't like/care for the idea so I'm fine with it.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

The reason why nobody looked at linked as a balance wrecker is that anyone who bought a main attack with an additional effect tacked on would be closely inspected by any GM with half a brain.

 

Now, with MPA, you have to check not only every power, but the context of each power. Let's see, you have a 12d6 EB. That's fine. You also have a 6d6 NND. That's fine. You also have a 4d6 RKA. That's fine. Unfortunately, because they aren't in the same multipower, I can't let you play this character.

 

Why not? If the character paid the points for these abilities outright, why not let them use them? Due to point economies, the character is probably very focused in that area and should be permitted to excel.

 

Also the END costs associated with it should also prove to be some deterrent, and skylining themselves as a high priority target is its own "reward".

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

Oddly, my first read of MPA's started with "good idea - finally a benefit to an Attacks EC", followed by reading the "Not in EC's" rule and rolling my eyes.

 

I think allowing MPA's with multiple slots in multipowers can be reasonably balanced with EC/full cost attacks in that the multipower as a whole cannot exceed its pool. So I can have a 12d6 Flash and a 12d6 EB in a Multipower, and use them as an MPA, but that means I need a 120 point multipower pool (same cost as buying the Flash and EB individually anyway).

 

I would apply the same limit to a VPP, limiting the AP of attacks combined in an MPA to the pool, regardless of how many attacks you can get with limitations.

 

 

 

I find a discrepancy that you don't like MPA's used with frameworks, but are OK using them with martial arts maneuvers, which to some extent are framework uses of STR. Paying 3 - 5 points for each martial maneuver, and allowing them to MPA with the character's (say) 50 STR, seems less balanced than paying for a 60 point multipower pool, and 12 points for each os several attack slots which you can then mix & match.

 

I didnt say I don't like MPA's used with frameworks.

 

I personally don't have a problem with using multiple slots in a framework to do an MPA, have designed characters that explicitly are intended to do so, and have posted them with comments to that effect at least once on these boards.

 

I stated why I think the rule exists for game balance purposes, not whether I agreed with it, or why I would or wouldnt allow them.

[Dust Raven]

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.

 

It's not free. Compare the cost of a FF bought outside the MP, and one bought within using 2 multi slots. And yes, I'm cool with it, so long as it fits the character's concept and it's not unbalancing given whatever else is on the character's sheet.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

And I like you' date=' so I'll try to live with them, but don't go expecting me to buy them dinner or anything.[/quote']

 

Oh, no, no, no... of course not.

 

Flowers would be fine as usual.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

I don't allow/like MPA's for the reason that what's good for the heroes is good for the villains. Okay' date=' so you get to throw 2 powers at once, so do the villains and villains are generally nastier both in power and intent. Yes, this is my preference but that's the way things are in the campaign. The other thing is that the players don't like/care for the idea so I'm fine with it.[/quote']

 

But you'll allow the Linked Limitation? Which does the same thing.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

I don't allow/like MPA's for the reason that what's good for the heroes is good for the villains. Okay' date=' so you get to throw 2 powers at once, so do the villains and villains are generally nastier both in power and intent. Yes, this is my preference but that's the way things are in the campaign. The other thing is that the players don't like/care for the idea so I'm fine with it.[/quote']

 

I like them for the exact same reason (well, among others). You see, before the villains started using MPAs, the PCs didn't Abort to defensive maneuvers... ever. Now they have a reason too. Well, they had a really good reason too, they just didn't. Apparently a 16d6 EB doesn't scare them, but a 12d6 EB MPAed with a 3d6 NND does. Who would've figured?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

I like them for the exact same reason (well' date=' among others). You see, before the villains started using MPAs, the PCs didn't Abort to defensive maneuvers... ever. Now they have a reason too. Well, they had a really good reason too, they just didn't. Apparently a 16d6 EB doesn't scare them, but a 12d6 EB MPAed with a 3d6 NND does. Who would've figured?[/quote']

 

Many players are math challenged like that.

 

Although, the way the GM describes an attack has more to do with how seriously players take it than the actual effect. Perhaps you're unconsciously "flavoring" the description of the MPA more?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Rulebook reference help please

 

Many players are math challenged like that.

 

Although, the way the GM describes an attack has more to do with how seriously players take it than the actual effect. Perhaps you're unconsciously "flavoring" the description of the MPA more?

 

In my experience, it seems to be more with how I describe the effects of the attack, and whether or not I include an "and" in there somewhere. For whatever reason, saying "you take 30 STUN, and an addition 10 STUN" is more scary than saying "you take 40 STUN". The flavor text doesn't seem to matter unless the taget character has a particular issue with a certian SFX.