Frameworks Simplified

[bcaplan]

I've always thought that Multipowers and VPPs were abusive. Elemental Control bothers me less, but it seems needlessly complex. Why not just give a "package deal discount" of -1/4 (for stuff loosely linked to a character concept) or -1/2 (for stuff tightly linked to a character concept), and leave it at that?

 

If this seems too cheap, notice that a well-designed Elemental Control can almost half the cost of included powers.

 

Notice that this would also solve the problem, noted in another thread, that 5th Edition "package deals" don't save any points - my version of package deals could encompass any purchases the GM was willing to OK.

[Robyn]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

Notice that this would also solve the problem' date=' noted in another thread, that 5th Edition "package deals" don't save any points - my version of package deals could encompass any purchases the GM was willing to OK.

 

Well, any "version" of anything in the HERO system can do pretty much anything, if the GM okays it.

 

GM approval of custom solutions can solve pretty much any problem

[dstarfire]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

Frameworks are neccesary for power-based characters to compete evenly with stat-based characters. Without frameworks, a martial artist or brick would be far more powerful and effective than an energy projector, and most all the other archetypes

[Metaphysician]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

I've always thought that Multipowers and VPPs were abusive. Elemental Control bothers me less, but it seems needlessly complex. Why not just give a "package deal discount" of -1/4 (for stuff loosely linked to a character concept) or -1/2 (for stuff tightly linked to a character concept), and leave it at that?

 

If this seems too cheap, notice that a well-designed Elemental Control can almost half the cost of included powers.

 

Notice that this would also solve the problem, noted in another thread, that 5th Edition "package deals" don't save any points - my version of package deals could encompass any purchases the GM was willing to OK.

 

Simple: flexibility is valuable, but not infinitely valuable. Even with a cosmic VPP, which can produce an infinite number of possible configurations, your not infinitely more powerful than someone with a single power at that active point cap. . . and probably weaker than a character with that many real points of powers usable simultaneously. Likewise for a multipower.

 

Frameworks are necessary, because there are vast legions of comic book characters and concepts that simply cannot be done otherwise.

[gojira]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

Well, he's got a good idea. It's almost Fuzion like in it's simplicity, so I'm not sure how it would work out in practice. But there's a certain amount of tedium in the current build process that this would eliminate.

 

So I guess a very tight grouping might be all attack powers with a single SFX, or maybe a single group of powers (say from a single OAF) might qualify for the -1/2. This should probably be kept to five or less powers, just to keep things sane.

 

Hmm, now we have the problem of multislots vs ultraslots. So the -1/2 route definitely looses some flexibility. Heros that can power up one or more powers at the expense of other powers could be hard to model. The -1/2 lim for tight grouping is a good idea, but the more detailed multipower lets those who want to put in the effort get a lot of benefit out of it with a flexible character.

[schir1964]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

Hmm' date=' now we have the problem of multislots vs ultraslots. So the -1/2 route definitely looses some flexibility. Heros that can power up one or more powers at the expense of other powers could be hard to model. The -1/2 lim for tight grouping is a good idea, but the more detailed multipower lets those who want to put in the effort get a lot of benefit out of it with a flexible character.[/quote']

That's where the Active Pont Reserve (as opposed to an END Reserve) would come into play as a separate power that other powers link to.

 

Hmmm.... interesting....

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

Frameworks are neccesary for power-based characters to compete evenly with stat-based characters. Without frameworks' date=' a martial artist or brick would be far more powerful and effective than an energy projector, and most all the other archetypes[/quote']

 

Well you'd think so, according to conventional wisdom, but which is more powerful:

 

13d6 EB*

 

or

 

50 point MP

Slot 1 10d6 EB

Slot 2 10d6 Flash

Slot 3 5d6 6 5EF entangle

 

I think the main benefit of multipowers is that we conveniently ignore the fact that they are really a single power and so have a much higher AP total. It is not the multipower itself that makes the character more effective, it is the fact that character has a much beefier power than everyone else. If you had a series of variations on an EB and bought it with 'variable advantage' then there would be no question: it is a single power. MPs allow you even more flexibility, but without the 'sinlge power' tag.

 

Whilst similar comments can apply to VPPs, ECs are different: that is, in effect, a limitation for having 'drain-linking' on the powers in a group of powers (and a couple of other minor limtiations), and I think that could be done with a straightforward limtiation, as is suggested by bcaplan.

 

 

 

 

*Or even 10d6 WITH 7 DEX and 2 points of COM**, or +10 energy armour or....

 

 

 

 

**Given that almost everyone pays extra for SPEED

[CraterMaker]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

It's definately an interesting idea - Maby add an option "Lockout - Only One Power May Be Usable At A Time: -1/2" to the list of options for it..

 

I do so love Multipowers - Not so much EC's anymore, tho..

 

_CraterMaker

[gojira]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

That's where the Active Pont Reserve (as opposed to an END Reserve) would come into play as a separate power that other powers link to.

 

I guess I missed this. How would an AP reserve work? And would it be simpler than a Multipower?

 

It sounds like what you are proposing is that MP slots cost -1/2, rather than the current one-tenth or one-fifth.

[schir1964]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

I guess I missed this. How would an AP reserve work? And would it be simpler than a Multipower?

 

It sounds like what you are proposing is that MP slots cost -1/2, rather than the current one-tenth or one-fifth.

It's just an idea I've toyed around with before.

 

Instead of having an END Pool, you have an AP Pool. Just like a Multipower Pool, but there are no slots. You link powers to it at different levels.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

Frameworks as necessary to produce a large range of different playible character types and with out them most characters would not be afforable with the average point setting. Plus Frameworks have an innate disad everything suffers a loss in points even if only 1 effect was drained because they all derive their power from the same source.

[schir1964]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

I think the main benefit of multipowers is that we conveniently ignore the fact that they are really a single power and so have a much higher AP total. It is not the multipower itself that makes the character more effective' date=' it is the fact that character has a much beefier power than everyone else. If you had a series of variations on an EB and bought it with 'variable advantage' then there would be no question: it is a single power. MPs allow you even more flexibility, but without the 'sinlge power' tag.[/quote']

Now this is interesting view.

 

I've seen many times where a Multipower is used to simulate a Utility Belt or other collection of "non related things" items.

 

Are you suggesting that a Multipower is inappropriate for these type of things?

 

Elemental Controls are by definition a single power, but I thought that a Multipower didn't have that foible of being considered a single power, especially in conjunction with Adjustment Powers.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[tesuji]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

General comments and the specific responses.

 

I think each frameowkr is its own animla.

 

ECs: i could live with a limitation approach. It gets rid of the "all powers same size" issue. otherwise, the merits of "is it good to reward tighter sfx" and "blasters vs characteristic boys" have been hashed for a while. I would suspect losing Ecs altogether and multipowers and also losing figureds might well all wash out in the end cost wise and comparison wise but i think you also end up with a lot of "mono" characters with one attack, one defense, one movement etc or much higher point totals. *I think a lot of the nuissance Ec rules like "must cost end" and such are just in the way.

 

MP: I think very MP are mostly good ways to reflect the reality that two keys to the same car is not the same thing as having two cars. Having a 12d6 firebolt and a 6d6 choking smoke nnd are two different ways to do the same thing... to open the same door (beating down an enemy.) Where i think multipowers suffer and fall down is when the powers put in them are powers which naturally wont ever be used simuktaneously... like say 4d6 RKA "anti-life ray" and HEALING 12d6. Now i have two keys to entirely different doors, doors i normally cannot open at the same time, so why get the price break?

 

 

VPP: the ultimate "heavy on the FREQUENCY low on POWER" side framework. I no longer allow anything but highly restrictive VPPS after seeing a mage transition from an EC and MP guy into a VPP guy over a three years campaign and the obvious downsides that followed. he became mr fix it... every problem started with "what can you dial up" and it wasn't his POWER at all but his versatility. Instead of sending our scout type tigerman in to sneak, transform someone into a small dog, one local to the region, and have him run around. there were almost no strategic problems presented that some spell couldn't be whipped up to solve. Meanwhile, in combat his performance dwindled more and more due to Ap limits on attacks and defenses imposed by the framework. it became more boring for him and everyone else. So now I insist on VPPs being both much more limited in terms of what it can produce, no "magic" no "gadgets" but more "fire magics" or "laser gadgets", and also more restricted in use and frequency to change (No "make a skill roll and spend a half phase to change powers" or anything like that and more "out of combat in your laboratory" or "meditate over prasyer books at dawn for a half hour")

 

 

 

Well you'd think so, according to conventional wisdom, but which is more powerful:

 

13d6 EB*

 

or

 

50 point MP

Slot 1 10d6 EB

Slot 2 10d6 Flash

Slot 3 5d6 6 5EF entangle

More powerful? Why obviously the single 13d6 EB.

 

But did youy somehow get the impression that costs in hero were linked to POWER alone? :-)

 

Costs in HERO, disclaimer: assuming one believes the hype, are related to effectiveness, not POWER alone. Effectiveness is basically determined by the combination of POWER and utility... HOW OFTEN time HOW MUCH. (basically the inverse of frequency and severity standard used for disadvantages.)

 

In a campaign where attacks on the order of both 10d6 and 13d6 were both viable, then I would really consider the two powers you listed to be of similar effectiveness, based on how i tend to run games. Is blinding an adversayr worth not doing some more stun off him... sometimes yes and IMX often enough to be worth it.

 

However, the key there is, like all cost vs effectiveness, it comes to the GM to make this true. HERO does not run itself. If the typical enemy has 15 flash defense, 35 PD/ED and enough to bust thru the entangle without batting an eye, the the Gm has just made, FOR HIS CAMPAIGN, the 10DC multipower nigh on useless. He has chosen, perhaps unconsciuosly, to make it not worth 65 cp. Thats certainly his call, but if he does that, IMO he should also not charge 65 cp for it. (Alternatively he can provide adequate info on expected enemy stats" so the players know 10dc is useless.)

 

Were i to approve both powers for PCs, I would then provide situations and challengs which make the costs i gave work out.

 

your question implies you think 13d6 is worth more than the three power multipower. Is that how it plays out in your games? If so, why do you charge the same for them, or do you?

 

I think the main benefit of multipowers is that we conveniently ignore the fact that they are really a single power and so have a much higher AP total. It is not the multipower itself that makes the character more effective, it is the fact that character has a much beefier power than everyone else.

I disagree. to me its not a BEEFIER power as much as its a variety of powers. I see a definite difference between POWER and EFFCTIVENESS, between SEVERITY and FREQUENCY and multipower hits FREQUENCY while "treat as one power" is more akin to SEVERITY.

 

as an example: go the other way and compare 26d6 EB ACT 11- which also costs the same as the 13d6 and the multipower. It loses out on the effectiveness quite a bit but its POWER rating, its SEVERITY is so far over the top as to trump that and make it pretty much unacceptble for me in any game where 13d6 and 10d6 were acceptable.

 

 

If you had a series of variations on an EB and bought it with 'variable advantage' then there would be no question: it is a single power. MPs allow you even more flexibility, but without the 'sinlge power' tag.

this may be getting into whether or not you consider active points a reasonable metric for acceptability. HEro 5+ seems to drive away from that metric and prefer to think in terms of DCs and such. I tend to agree as sometimes calculated costs produce high AP for much less gain.

 

if your game doesn't feature GM imposed AP limits as a balancing tool, the it shouldn't matter whether you get X abilities by buying them as amultipower or as a advantaged single power.

[Robyn]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

That's where the Active Pont Reserve (as opposed to an END Reserve) would come into play as a separate power that other powers link to.

 

I think I understand what you're describing here. Would it be possible to model it by putting every power in a special "other frameworks can exist inside this" Multipower the size of however much XP they spent on powers, and eliminating the Endurance rules from the campaign?

[schir1964]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

I think I understand what you're describing here. Would it be possible to model it by putting every power in a special "other frameworks can exist inside this" Multipower the size of however much XP they spent on powers' date=' and eliminating the Endurance rules from the campaign?[/quote']

Perhaps I should start another thread to go into more detail on what I am thinking on this.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

It sounds like what you are proposing is that MP slots cost -1/2' date=' rather than the current one-tenth or one-fifth.[/quote']

Well, it wouldn't have to be -1/2, but the idea is each individual power would get a limitation based on the restrictive the linkage to the AP Pool would be. This would add flexiblity in that you could then have small powers that get larger limitations due to eating up all the available APs in the Pool.

 

Hmmm...

 

I guess I'm going to have to start another thread to delve into the possiblities of this.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Sean Waters]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

More powerful? Why obviously the single 13d6 EB.

 

But did youy somehow get the impression that costs in hero were linked to POWER alone? :-)

 

Costs in HERO, disclaimer: assuming one believes the hype, are related to effectiveness, not POWER alone. Effectiveness is basically determined by the combination of POWER and utility... HOW OFTEN time HOW MUCH. (basically the inverse of frequency and severity standard used for disadvantages.)

 

In a campaign where attacks on the order of both 10d6 and 13d6 were both viable, then I would really consider the two powers you listed to be of similar effectiveness, based on how i tend to run games. Is blinding an adversayr worth not doing some more stun off him... sometimes yes and IMX often enough to be worth it.

 

However, the key there is, like all cost vs effectiveness, it comes to the GM to make this true. HERO does not run itself. If the typical enemy has 15 flash defense, 35 PD/ED and enough to bust thru the entangle without batting an eye, the the Gm has just made, FOR HIS CAMPAIGN, the 10DC multipower nigh on useless. He has chosen, perhaps unconsciuosly, to make it not worth 65 cp. Thats certainly his call, but if he does that, IMO he should also not charge 65 cp for it. (Alternatively he can provide adequate info on expected enemy stats" so the players know 10dc is useless.)

 

Were i to approve both powers for PCs, I would then provide situations and challengs which make the costs i gave work out.

 

your question implies you think 13d6 is worth more than the three power multipower. Is that how it plays out in your games? If so, why do you charge the same for them, or do you?

 

 

I disagree. to me its not a BEEFIER power as much as its a variety of powers. I see a definite difference between POWER and EFFCTIVENESS, between SEVERITY and FREQUENCY and multipower hits FREQUENCY while "treat as one power" is more akin to SEVERITY.

 

as an example: go the other way and compare 26d6 EB ACT 11- which also costs the same as the 13d6 and the multipower. It loses out on the effectiveness quite a bit but its POWER rating, its SEVERITY is so far over the top as to trump that and make it pretty much unacceptble for me in any game where 13d6 and 10d6 were acceptable.

 

 

 

this may be getting into whether or not you consider active points a reasonable metric for acceptability. HEro 5+ seems to drive away from that metric and prefer to think in terms of DCs and such. I tend to agree as sometimes calculated costs produce high AP for much less gain.

 

if your game doesn't feature GM imposed AP limits as a balancing tool, the it shouldn't matter whether you get X abilities by buying them as amultipower or as a advantaged single power.

 

I mentioned power as a response to dstarfire's post: context is important.

 

The method that you use to judge effectiveness is a matter for the individual, but the recommended way, and as you'll all know I'm a stickler for tradition, is use of AP. I know it is not terribly fashionable, but there we have it.

 

Now whilst it is true that the MP and the 13d6 EB from my example have different virtues, one thing they share is the same AP, and indeed, RP. The 26d6 on 11- has the same RP but not the same AP, and that is an important distinction.

 

The EB and MP will be 'better' in certain situations: a blinded opponent can't hit you, or will have a real job, but against an opponent with a different targetting sense that slot is useless. Sometimes the access to an entangle might be useful, but against an opponent with a 13d6 EB, probably not THAT useful. The only point I was trying to make is that comparing a 10d6 EB and a MP with a 10d6 EB slot is simply not a meaningful comparison. A 13d6 EB v a 50 point MP is a more realistic match, and my thesis was that a MP is, in many important ways, a single power, and should often be treated as such for cost/effectvieness comparisons.

[Robyn]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

Well' date=' it wouldn't have to be -1/2, but the idea is each individual power would get a limitation based on the restrictive the linkage to the AP Pool would be. This would add flexiblity in that you could then have small powers that get larger limitations due to eating up all the available APs in the Pool.[/quote']

 

I was basically thinking (and I didn't express this very well, since I forgot what the rest of the theory was partway into my reply ) that the AP Pool was a measurement of your Recovery, and it assumed that you could only use powers simultaneously whose total END cost was equal to or less than your REC.

 

In other words, the AP pool measured your aerobic capacity, not your anaerobic capacity.

[schir1964]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

I was basically thinking (and I didn't express this very well, since I forgot what the rest of the theory was partway into my reply ) that the AP Pool was a measurement of your Recovery, and it assumed that you could only use powers simultaneously whose total END cost was equal to or less than your REC.

 

In other words, the AP pool measured your aerobic capacity, not your anaerobic capacity.

That sounds more like a modified END Pool than a Active Point one.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[bcaplan]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

Frameworks are neccesary for power-based characters to compete evenly with stat-based characters. Without frameworks' date=' a martial artist or brick would be far more powerful and effective than an energy projector, and most all the other archetypes[/quote']

 

With my approach, it's also possible to get a package deal discount on Characteristics. A Brick might get a -1/2 price break ("Brick powers package deal) on Strength and Body, and a -1/4 break on Con and Stun, for example. If you're right, of course, this just makes matters worse. But if you really thought that, why not raise the price of Characteristics?

[Robyn]

Re: Frameworks Simplified

 

That sounds more like a modified END Pool than a Active Point one.

 

Well, as you said:

 

Instead of having an END Pool' date=' you have an AP Pool. Just like a Multipower Pool, but there are no slots. You link powers to it at different levels.[/quote']

 

That's where the Active Pont Reserve (as opposed to an END Reserve) would come into play as a separate power that other powers link to.

 

So, instead of deriving END from AP with modifiers for Extra/Reduced Endurance modifiers, charging END per Phase or Turn or less often depending on power, and recovering END irregularly depending on whether, when, and how often you took a Recovery - you would avoid all of this up-and-down bookkeeping by simply stating that every power you potentially could use had to draw on your Active Point pool, a reserve of energy that powered your powers.

 

The difference would be that, with an END pool, you could run out and burn into STUN (anaerobic capacity). With an AP pool, you couldn't do that (it only measures your aerobic capacity).