confused by MPA, frameworks and linked

[tesuji]

Sometimes, i can be dense. (Which may come as no surprise to some of you here.) But i don't get this.

 

I am referring to two recent QnAs between Steve and Oz.

 

In the first, titled questions three, Steve confirms that an Eb in a multipower and a flash in an EC could indeed be fired in an MPA together. (That means the user can choose to fire the Eb, the flash or both together without penalty at the time of firing.)

 

OK I am hip with that. I get it.

 

In the next one, titled followup, he states that the same character could NOT buy the powers as linked, so that one power cannot be used without the other, even if he wants to reflect this as a -0 limitation, giving him back no points.

 

He said it was "It's not a matter of cost, but of game balance."

 

Now the second case seems clearly weaker than the first, with at least one of the three firing options removed and nothing gained at all.

 

How is this imbalancing? How is the first case OK but the second case a problem of balance?

 

At first i thought it might be a case of not wanting to shortchange the second guy, that he should get points back to reflect his lower capability, but in fact he described it as "No, they can't get around that rule that way." which seems to imply it would be too powerful.

 

Hopefully, one of you guys more versed in the HERO system than i can explain this, seeming to me, not-fitting-cost-effect example. obviously, i have missed something... so please, tell me what it is!

[Blue Angel]

I read the same thing and had the same thought you did. It makes no sense. If it is not imballancing to use the powers as a multipower attack it cannot be imballancing to have the powers linked. Especially at a -0 limitation.

 

Either the answer wasn't given too much thought or a better explanation is needed.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Blue Angel

Either the answer wasn't given too much thought or a better explanation is needed.

Considering that Steve is at a convention and does not have a lot of time to come up with answers he might rethink some of the answers he has given over the last few days after he gets back.

 

The issue with Linked is a game balance issue though. The purpose of Linked is to create a power which cannot be used without a host. The purpose of an Elemental Control is to create a group of power stunts which represent different SFX of a single power. Saying that one power stunt out of 4-5 in the EC can only be Linked to an outside power is not consistant with the general purpose of an Elemental Control (once again this being a group of power stunts which represent a single power). If one power stunt cannot be used unless an outside power is being used then all the power stunts should have the same Limitation; but to allow that Limitation is to give players a double cost break (once for the EC and once for the Limitation). MPA are different in that they are not dependent upon the use of an outside power. It is just two or more powers being used at the same time.

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by Monolith

Considering that Steve is at a convention and does not have a lot of time to come up with answers he might rethink some of the answers he has given over the last few days after he gets back.

 

 

To be honest I am surprised Steve has time to answer questions under normal circumstanses. The fact that he takes the time is a big credit to him. I certainly was not intending a criticism of his efforts. But it doesn't mean the answer does not require more thought. So here we are...

 

From the original posting it is clear that the poster wanted to acheive the limitation without double dipping. Taking the limitation at a -0 limitation does not give the character any more power since he could use the powers together in a MPA anyway. The player is not double dipping by taking double cost savings and he is not gaining any expanded ability. If it works with the character concept (must be something unusual to be built this way) and he is only restricted why not allow it for 0 cost savings. Since the character is limited without gain play ballance is preserved.

 

Maybe if more details of the power construct were posted we would have a better idea of what we were discussing.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Blue Angel

From the original posting it is clear that the poster wanted to acheive the limitation without double dipping. Taking the limitation at a -0 limitation does not give the character any more power since he could use the powers together in a MPA anyway. The player is not double dipping by taking double cost savings and he is not gaining any expanded ability. If it works with the character concept (must be something unusual to be built this way) and he is only restricted why not allow it for 0 cost savings. Since the character is limited without gain play ballance is preserved.

From a stictly "rules" standpoint it is not legal (you are not allowed to Link powers from one Power Framework to another, part of the reason is from what I expressed above). That does not mean that someone who does not feel it abusive should not allow it in their games. It is just that the rules should not make exceptions; that is the GM's job.

[JmOz]

I admit I thought his answer to me was odd, ohh well not the first time me and steve did not see eye to eye on something.

 

The F/X was actualy a magic spell in a VPP affecting a multipower (pistol with a variety of ammo), the reason for the -0 limitation on the link was that the character is not really limited by the link (as it is in a VPP)

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by Monolith

From a stictly "rules" standpoint it is not legal (you are not allowed to Link powers from one Power Framework to another, part of the reason is from what I expressed above). That does not mean that someone who does not feel it abusive should not allow it in their games. It is just that the rules should not make exceptions; that is the GM's job.

 

I think we are pretty much in agreement in terms of why the rule is there.

 

Except there are virtually no rules systems of sophistication (like Hero) that are not filled with exceptions. If not the word exception would not appear in the rules FAQ. It does, so exceptions are part of the rules. There are examples in 5E and published material where exceptions are made. I have no problem with those things. Just don't say there are no exceptions in 5E.

 

Also, GM's Job aside, why do you feel that linking two powers with no cost benefit is abusive?

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Blue Angel

Also, GM's Job aside, why do you feel that linking two powers with no cost benefit is abusive?

I did not say it was abusive. What I said what that I can understand Steve not wanting to make any more exceptions that necessary. Steve and I have had a couple of email conversations about things such as that in the past.

 

Now if you are asking me what I would do if a player wanted to Link a slot in an EC with a slot in a MP then I think I have already answered that above. All the slots in an EC are not individual powers, they are power stunts of the named power of the Elemental. Since a slot is not a separate power I would require that the player in question either -0 Linked the entire Elemental (because the Elemental itself is the actual power) or Linked none of it.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by JmOz

The F/X was actualy a magic spell in a VPP affecting a multipower (pistol with a variety of ammo), the reason for the -0 limitation on the link was that the character is not really limited by the link (as it is in a VPP)

I would never allow a slot in a VPP to be Linked to a slot in another Power Framework for the very simple reason that slots in a VPP are fluid and can change from minute to minute. A Limitation which is not really limiting, even when listed as a -0, is not any type of Limitation at all, IMO.

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by Monolith

I did not say it was abusive. What I said what that I can understand Steve not wanting to make any more exceptions that necessary. Steve and I have had a couple of email conversations about things such as that in the past.

 

Now if you are asking me what I would do if a player wanted to Link a slot in an EC with a slot in a MP then I think I have already answered that above. All the slots in an EC are not individual powers, they are power stunts of the named power of the Elemental. Since a slot is not a separate power I would require that the player in question either -0 Linked the entire Elemental (because the Elemental itself is the actual power) or Linked none of it.

 

That depends on special effects. It would be highly unusual for that to happen but there are examples of pretty major breaches of rules. Like some having desolid while being able to affect the real world without the +2 advantage to the powers. This was done because it was not viewed as abusive in this special case and it made sense for the special effect in question. If the rules arn't hard and fast in publications then go ahead and use the exception if it is not unballancing.

 

Besides I have argued against the introduction of exceptions in the examples in 5E for the very reason you state. I did not open that can.

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by Monolith

I would never allow a slot in a VPP to be Linked to a slot in another Power Framework for the very simple reason that slots in a VPP are fluid and can change from minute to minute. A Limitation which is not really limiting, even when listed as a -0, is not any type of Limitation at all, IMO.

 

No it is not a limitation, it is really more of a special effect. But since he can use them together anyway why not just say it must always be used with...

 

The spirit of the rule is to prevent abuse. If there is no abuse then the spirit is preserved.

 

Maybe Steve should have typed his usual "Unless the GM aproves" the whole discussion would be moot.

 

I just think he missed the part about no gain for the character, just a restriction at no point benefit. If he had more time to think about it he may have answered differently.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Blue Angel

Like some having desolid while being able to affect the real world without the +2 advantage to the powers. This was done because it was not viewed as abusive in this special case and it made sense for the special effect in question.

I do not know of any published characters who have that ability.

[JmOz]

Originally posted by Monolith

I do not know of any published characters who have that ability.

 

There are a couple of characters with the "Immunity" type desolid.

 

I will say this, I think I have a different view of linked than some others here. The F/X was enchanting the bullets of the gun, thus it was in my mind one power (The enchanted bullets), thus the link, others have rightly so said that in a VPP it would not be a limitation, thus the reason why as both a GM and a player I would call it a -0 limitation, as it does limit the player, but not serverly enough to count as a real limitation (Even at the -1/4 level, a level I consider to be trivial in my games)

[Monolith]

Originally posted by JmOz

There are a couple of characters with the "Immunity" type desolid.

As far as I know there are no characters with Desolidification who can affect the real world who do not have the +2 Advantage.

 

I will say this, I think I have a different view of linked than some others here. The F/X was enchanting the bullets of the gun, thus it was in my mind one power (The enchanted bullets), thus the link, others have rightly so said that in a VPP it would not be a limitation, thus the reason why as both a GM and a player I would call it a -0 limitation, as it does limit the player, but not serverly enough to count as a real limitation (Even at the -1/4 level, a level I consider to be trivial in my games)

You could just as easily have an AID as a slot in the VPP which increases the ability of the gun in the MP. If that is all that it was doing then problem solved. If you want to use an addtional attack with the gun slot them just do an MPA. There is no reason for the Limitation. But if it is impossible for the character to change the slots in his VPP and you want to have a spell which only works with his guns then just give him the -0 Limitation and call it even.

 

The reason I would not give it a Limitation value is because VPP slots can be changed. They are not fixed like slots in a MP or EC. Not every case such as this will be unbalancing, but many will and thus the reason for the rule in the first place; and thus the reason for the GM to ignore the rule if the construct is not unbalancing. It is a GM's call, not Steve's, IMO.

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by Monolith

I do not know of any published characters who have that ability.

 

See the possession option in Bestiery page 120. The Ghost can affect physical world with it's mind control without the +2 advantage. There is a reason for the exception but it is an exception none the less. All in the sake of fun.

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by JmOz

There are a couple of characters with the "Immunity" type desolid.

 

I will say this, I think I have a different view of linked than some others here. The F/X was enchanting the bullets of the gun, thus it was in my mind one power (The enchanted bullets), thus the link, others have rightly so said that in a VPP it would not be a limitation, thus the reason why as both a GM and a player I would call it a -0 limitation, as it does limit the player, but not serverly enough to count as a real limitation (Even at the -1/4 level, a level I consider to be trivial in my games)

 

I think that if the result is additional damage adding directly then you can't have the two powers add. If the two powers are applied against defences seperately then there is no problem. If you just want to up the damage then AID is the way to go.

 

I think if you just build the spell with the focus limitaton, bullets on hand, then the whole limitation thing is rolled in without needing to bother with linked.

 

PS: Do you remember off hand who the characters are with the imunity type desolid?

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Blue Angel

See the possession option in Bestiery page 120. The Ghost can affect physical world with it's mind control without the +2 advantage. There is a reason for the exception but it is an exception none the less. All in the sake of fun.

I believe that Steve has since offically ruled that the power would require the Affects Advantage when this discussion came up in regard to Bodyjacker. The errata written for the Bestiary predates the errata information for Bodyjacker. Steve has just never gotten around to changing it.

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by Monolith

I believe that Steve has since offically ruled that the power would require the Affects Advantage when this discussion came up in regard to Bodyjacker. The errata written for the Bestiary predates the errata information for Bodyjacker. Steve has just never gotten around to changing it.

 

I can't comment on hypothetical errata. Even if it is likely. And in this case the right thing to do. But as stands it is a published exception.

 

Anyone know if there are any plans to fix that darn flashlight example?

[JmOz]

THe enchantments changed the bullets in other ways than direct damage.

 

A couple of examples "Ice Bullets" Encrusted the individual with Ice (Entangle)

 

Blinders: A flash to sight & Hearing.

 

Stunners: Flash: Touch does KB, Double KB

 

For direct damage it was done via a succor

 

I think we all agree that there is no problem with the power being used as a MPA

 

For all who say it should not be linked ask yourself this question: why should it matter if the second power (the one from the VPP) is said to be linked for F/X reasons only, gaining no savings from the limitation (a -0 limitation), what does it matter?

 

 

Just for the record, a comment in my seccond question was that it is purely academic, I still hold this true, it does not matter either way

[Monolith]

Originally posted by JmOz

For all who say it should not be linked ask yourself this question: why should it matter if the second power (the one from the VPP) is said to be linked for F/X reasons only, gaining no savings from the limitation (a -0 limitation), what does it matter?

As far as game balance goes it does not matter. But ask yourself this instead: Why does it matter to you that you get a -0 Limitation? It makes no difference if the power gets the Limitation or not. You are not taking anything away from the character because the VPP has unlimited options (you listed 4 in your example). The Limitation (valued or not) is not limiting anything because you can just change the VPP the next attack to make it something different.

[JmOz]

As the character does not have a Cosmic pool it is posible for the character to have trouble changing the pool especialy in combat situations (The VPP has no advantages on it and a -1/4 lim), thus locking in a linked situations. It is possible the character would not want to shoot someone with an RKA but does want to freeze them in place, if the power is set up with the -0 linked the character would have to spend a phase changing the pool and making a roll to change the pool, this is far from an advantage, but it is not worth a savings either, not even the faux savings one gets for using a limitation on powers in a VPP (it does not save points on the sheet, just points in the pool)

[Killer Shrike]

If the VPP just exists to buff the EC gun, then just buy it through the same FOCUS as the gun and call it even. Thus, without the Focus he cant use either, but if he has the Focus he can use both via MPA. No Linking necessary.

[Blue Angel]

Do you intend for the character to be able to use the freeze attack without the RKA portion? If so that particular power is not linked. It is a kind of "spell" that expends the bullit as a material component and is not linked.

[JmOz]

All characters I play that have a VPP have some common build powers done pre game, the ice bullets above is an example of one, and it does require the use of a bullet and does do RKA damage

 

As it is a VPP it is posible to make a "Ice Blast" spell but it is not on the list of common builds

[Blue Angel]

So it is a pure blooded multipower attack.

 

Do all powers in the VPP require the bullits as a "carrier" for the attack?