Suppressing Frameworks

[bigdamnhero]

OK, I seem to having trouble wrapping my brain around the "Why?" behind this one. I'm hoping someone here can `splain it to me.

 

So if you use Suppress against someone with an Elemental Control, one Suppress affects both the base and all the slots at the same time. But if they have a Multipower, you have to Suppress each slot individually? (5ER p108-109, 314-15) I understand why it works that way for EC: the powers are all closely linked, same sfx, that's the downside of the cost saving you get, etc. What I don't get is why those reasons don't apply equally to most MPs.

 

Say you've got two fire-based characters, Flame Guy I and Flame Guy 2. FG2 has a 60-point MP with five 60 AP fixed slots. FG2 has the exact same powers, but he built them as an EC. He probably had to spend more points than FG1 did, but that's okay because he wanted to be able to use more than one power at a time. Fine.

 

Now along comes the Human Sprinkler with his 10d6 Suppress Fire power, with the +1/4 Adv "Any Fire power, one at a time." He hits FG2, and in one shot all the slots in his EC are down to half power. He would have to hit FG1 five times (once per slot) to acheive the same effect? Or looked at another way, even if HS had taken "Four powers simultaneously" (a +1 Adv!) he still wouldn't be able to affect all of FG1's MP slots at once?

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but that just doesn't seem equitable to me. That is to say, I just don't see EC's being that advantageous over MPs to justify this big a disparity in the way they're affected. Can anyone put this in some sorta perspective for me? Thanks,

[archermoo]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

Because having closely related SFX isn't a requirement of MP, so that isn't built into the way that framework works. Think of it this way:

 

Add Fireboy3 into the mix. He buys 5 60 point powers outright, with no framework. His powers are also only effected by the Human Sprinkler's supress one at a time. Granted he spent the most, but he also got the most flexability. Since the "everything goes down if one goes down" bit is the only real downside to an EC (other than the closely tied by SFX thing, but we're already assuming all three characters have that anyway), it should count. MPs have other limitations.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

As Achermoo pointed out, MPs don't require similar SFX.

 

The following is a perfectly good MP:

Elementalor:

Fire Blast (EB)

Ice Cage (Entangle)

Rock Fist (HA)

 

There's no common SFX there beyond "All are elemental attacks." So it's not part of an MPs nature to require the Drain One Drain All aspect.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

If you have a character with a multipower that you want to react the same way as an EM would when hit by adjustment powers you can always just take a custom limitation like: Affected by Adjustment Powers as an EM (-1/4) on the multipower and all it's slots. It makes tracking the effects of adjustment powers a lot easier.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

Because having closely related SFX isn't a requirement of MP' date=' so that isn't built into the way that framework works. [/quote']

Yeah okay, you're right. I'm used to building MPs with closely related sfx; I forgot that's not actually a requirement. Thanks.

 

...you can always just take a custom limitation like: Affected by Adjustment Powers as an EM (-1/4) on the multipower and all it's slots...

:nod: Not a bad suggestion. Or what if I wanted to do it the other way: add a Variable Effect to the Suppress so that it affects all MP slots of the same sfx -- would that make sense? How much do you think that would be worth? +1? +1/2?

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

Yeah okay, you're right. I'm used to building MPs with closely related sfx; I forgot that's not actually a requirement. Thanks.

 

 

:nod: Not a bad suggestion. Or what if I wanted to do it the other way: add a Variable Effect to the Suppress so that it affects all MP slots of the same sfx -- would that make sense? How much do you think that would be worth? +1? +1/2?

 

To affect everything under at once under given sfx is +2 by the rules. the +1 aloows up to 4 things at the same time and the +1/2 allows 2.

 

I also feel a limitation that makes a MP loses power from all slots should be worth more than -1/4 bt that's just me.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

focusing purely on mechanics can make this appear far more complicated than it needs to be.

 

The problem is very similar to an old question about how to build a Cleric/Paladin's power to 'Turn Undead'. Several suggestions (bonus PRE or Mind Control only vs. 'Undead', etc..),were made regarding builds for the Cleric/Paladin. However, the simpliest solution is to just give ALL relevant 'Undead' in the campaign a disadvantage (built any way the GM wants) vs. Clerics and/or Paladins.

 

Human Torch from the FF is a character that can be built with numerous framework options: (single EC for everything, EC + MP combo, EC + VPP, etc..). Regardless of the mechanics used it is generally assumed within the source material (comics) that if his powers are suppressed, ALL of them are suppressed. The chosen framework mechanic should not affect this. As I suggested earlier, taking a (-1/4) limitation on the MP is one method to balance things out. Another approach would be to say ALL frameworks are affected by adjustment powers using EC rules but that MP's and VPP's can take an advantage (+1/4) to work by the current rules. It all depends on what the GM wants to happen. I think that 1/4 is about right as the value since adjustment powers are generally an uncommon occurance in most games.

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

focusing purely on mechanics can make this appear far more complicated than it needs to be.

 

The problem is very similar to an old question about how to build a Cleric/Paladin's power to 'Turn Undead'. Several suggestions (bonus PRE or Mind Control only vs. 'Undead', etc..),were made regarding builds for the Cleric/Paladin. However, the simpliest solution is to just give ALL relevant 'Undead' in the campaign a disadvantage (built any way the GM wants) vs. Clerics and/or Paladins.

 

Human Torch from the FF is a character that can be built with numerous framework options: (single EC for everything, EC + MP combo, EC + VPP, etc..). Regardless of the mechanics used it is generally assumed within the source material (comics) that if his powers are suppressed, ALL of them are suppressed. The chosen framework mechanic should not affect this. As I suggested earlier, taking a (-1/4) limitation on the MP is one method to balance things out. Another approach would be to say ALL frameworks are affected by adjustment powers using EC rules but that MP's and VPP's can take an advantage (+1/4) to work by the current rules. It all depends on what the GM wants to happen. I think that 1/4 is about right as the value since adjustment powers are generally an uncommon occurance in most games.

 

Again I would have o humbly disagree adjustment powers are only as rare as the GM makes them inaddition to that to make a character pay for an advantage on a frame work to eliminate a limitation that does not even aplly to it is not fair and just away to make them burn points.

 

However as I've said time and time again the GM has the last say of what he wants in his game whether is fair or not so I'm not argueing how you do it in your world just that as a base guideline I would not agree with it for several reasons. If it works for you and the players to increase playibility and fun then go for it!

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

Again I would have o humbly disagree adjustment powers are only as rare as the GM makes them inaddition to that to make a character pay for an advantage on a frame work to eliminate a limitation that does not even aplly to it is not fair and just away to make them burn points.

 

However as I've said time and time again the GM has the last say of what he wants in his game whether is fair or not so I'm not argueing how you do it in your world just that as a base guideline I would not agree with it for several reasons. If it works for you and the players to increase playibility and fun then go for it!

 

For the record, I have just been offering a different perspective on the matter. There are appropriate circimstances to use all the different approaches presented in this thread.

 

example (actual mechanical builds are not necessary since they can be assumed to be identical)

 

Multipower Gun #1

Gun has no moving parts and has a 'variable output control' which can be used to vary the attack effects which are built as multiple slots including a non-advantaged slot*.

 

Multipwer Gun #2

Gun has a 'revolver mechanism' where each 'chamber' is modeled by a different slot in the MP.

 

Example #1 could otherwise be built using Variable Advantage except for the non-advantaged slot*. And by the description should be affected by appropriate adjustment powers as if it were built that way.

 

Example #2 is the 'classic MP' and an individual slot could be disabled without affecting the other slots.

 

Since #1 is desribed (by player or GM depending on whether the player is paying the points) in a way that implies "affect 1, affect all" I would offer them the option of either a (-1/4) limitation or example #2.

 

Regarding the 1/4 amount itself:

Giving the limitation a higher bonus than this seems a little strange since OIHID is worth exactly the same and has an all or nothing 'drain' aspect built in as well. If Billy Batson can't speak say 'SHAZAM!' he doesn't change; If Tony Stark doesn't have his briefcase with his armor handy, Iron-Man is not going to make an appearance, etc...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

I think it is utterly deranged that you have to supress each slot of a multipower and do so at the full active cost. The same goes, only with knobs and whistles on, for VPPs: effectively this rule makes VPPs practically undrainable, and MPs not far off unless you have some VERY broad ranged (and thus expensive) drains.

 

Now the reason that it works this way is presumably that nebulous 'balance' thing: if you made it easier to drain MPs and VPPs, you'd presumably make it easier to boost them with aid. So what? I don't see that being an enormous advantage.

 

The argument for the official method probably also includes the fact that MPs and VPPs do not need to be linked by sfx, although I have a problem thinking of a logical build for a MP or VPP that is not linked by sfx at SOME level. Anyone help me out here?

 

I'd prefer to see adjustment powers for MPs work on the pool and active point cost of the slot, and for VPPs work on the pool and control cost of the power, treating the whole as a single power, in effect.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

The argument for the official method probably also includes the fact that MPs and VPPs do not need to be linked by sfx' date=' although I have a problem thinking of a logical build for a MP or VPP that is not linked by sfx at SOME level. Anyone help me out here?[/quote']

 

The Elementalor MP I presented earlier - sure they're all linked on the idea of being "Elemental" powers. But let's say I've got a dozen in there, 3 are Fire Powers and someone has Drain: All Fire Powers. Should they still be able to Drain my entire MP based on that because I happen to have a few fire powers - or should they be forced to go through each slot individually?

 

Perhaps a compromise on that front: all 3 of those slots are drained at once, leaving the MP itself alone.

[TaxiMan]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

I'm with Hyper-Man here, in that a character with a set of common SFX powers should be designed appropriate to the game. Take a special limitation if the powers should be drained together.

 

Alternatively, you could have a special advantage for Drain: Affects All Powers of a Single SFX In a Framework +1

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

I think it is utterly deranged that you have to supress each slot of a multipower and do so at the full active cost. The same goes, only with knobs and whistles on, for VPPs: effectively this rule makes VPPs practically undrainable, and MPs not far off unless you have some VERY broad ranged (and thus expensive) drains.

 

Now the reason that it works this way is presumably that nebulous 'balance' thing: if you made it easier to drain MPs and VPPs, you'd presumably make it easier to boost them with aid. So what? I don't see that being an enormous advantage.

 

The argument for the official method probably also includes the fact that MPs and VPPs do not need to be linked by sfx, although I have a problem thinking of a logical build for a MP or VPP that is not linked by sfx at SOME level. Anyone help me out here?

 

I'd prefer to see adjustment powers for MPs work on the pool and active point cost of the slot, and for VPPs work on the pool and control cost of the power, treating the whole as a single power, in effect.

 

Batmans utility belt would and could be a multipower and it would be insane for hiswhole belt to go down because something affects his gas pellets his bat-a-rang works less effectively. I dont think so!

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

I'm with Hyper-Man here, in that a character with a set of common SFX powers should be designed appropriate to the game. Take a special limitation if the powers should be drained together.

 

Alternatively, you could have a special advantage for Drain: Affects All Powers of a Single SFX In a Framework +1

 

My point is the game does not give advantages for free especially +1 so to make the MP just get drained that way is giving an unfair advantage to the person with drain.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

Batmans utility belt would and could be a multipower and it would be insane for hiswhole belt to go down because something affects his gas pellets his bat-a-rang works less effectively. I dont think so!

 

Batman's utility belt is often designed as a MP but shouldn't be. It has various focii in various pockets. Although he doesn't hand these out to his mates in the comics very often, there is no reason not to: opening one pocket does not lock all the others (darned strange utility belt if it did), so I'd argue that MP is a poor fit for such a concept.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

The Elementalor MP I presented earlier - sure they're all linked on the idea of being "Elemental" powers. But let's say I've got a dozen in there, 3 are Fire Powers and someone has Drain: All Fire Powers. Should they still be able to Drain my entire MP based on that because I happen to have a few fire powers - or should they be forced to go through each slot individually?

 

Perhaps a compromise on that front: all 3 of those slots are drained at once, leaving the MP itself alone.

 

Presumably though the MP is justified, or explained because the character has a link to the elemental planes, or is able to speed up, slow down or even condense molecules out of thin air.

 

Either concept - or any others I can think of - have a common basic sfx even if the individual power sfx are quite different. If the 'fire slot' is explained through the base sfx, then an adjustment power that affected the fire could also affect the other elements of the build - the link to the elemental planes is futzed, or the ability to control molecules interfered with.

 

My argument is simply a cost/utility one - I don't see why a multipower of 50 point pool and 5 ultra slots that costs you 75 character points to buy should require the poor sucker who spent his points on adjustment powers to find 250 points of effect to remove those powers.

 

Now my approach has its problems - do you just drain the pool (which makes the power easier to drain than the cost would imply) or do you drain the pool and slots in prortion - which is technically difficult to impliment - but I still think it is fairer than the official approach.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

Seems like there’s a few different ways we could slice this:

 

Option #1: Use the Variable Effect Advantage on the adjustment power.

Option #2: Make it a Limitation on the MP

Option #3: Just house-rule that Adjustment powers affect MPs the same way they do ECs if the MP is based on a single sfx.

 

#1 is probably the most consistent with existing rules. I can see allowing “Affects all powers in MP/VPP of the same sfx” as a +1. (For the same reason a 3-pt CSL gives you +1 with all attacks in an MP no matter how many there are.) The problem is at that cost I don’t see many players taking it. Which means it’ll primarily be an NPC ability mostly used against the players. Also I’m not sure I like forcing the attacker to pay for something that is really a function of the target’s build.

 

#2 is perhaps the simplest, and gives the players a small price break (-1/4?) for having an MP based on a consistent sfx. But MPs are already such a bargain, I’m not sure making them cheaper is really desirable.

 

#3 is tempting, frankly. But I’m trying to cut down on the number of house rules I use these days (especially with all the con games I’ve been running lately). Also, I’m hesitant to do anything that could be seen as punishing players for creating MPs based on a consistent sfx.

 

Hmm…maybe there’s a #3A: As a house rule, allow Drains to target either an individual slot as per normal rules, or they can target the MP pool itself but at ½ effect. In other words, it Drains 1 AP per 2 rolled on the Drain dice. The result is the same as if the attacker had bought a +1 Variable Effect Adv, but makes it a standard feature rather than an add-on.

 

Any thoughts?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

Batman's utility belt is often designed as a MP but shouldn't be. It has various focii in various pockets. Although he doesn't hand these out to his mates in the comics very often' date=' there is no reason not to: opening one pocket does not lock all the others (darned strange utility belt if it did), so I'd argue that MP is a poor fit for such a concept.[/quote']

 

All the indivual slots could arguably be built individually with lockout limations to represent that he still can only use 1 at a time. But MP is a simpler method for 'newbies' to HERO.

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

Batman's utility belt is often designed as a MP but shouldn't be. It has various focii in various pockets. Although he doesn't hand these out to his mates in the comics very often' date=' there is no reason not to: opening one pocket does not lock all the others (darned strange utility belt if it did), so I'd argue that MP is a poor fit for such a concept.[/quote']

 

I would argue that its a good fit and so would the hero sysytem since they too have built utility belts with MP. By the way may you dont know but mechanically and legally each slot in the MP can be a different completely unrelated Focus thus it works perfectly. In addition to that if you buy your MP slot Multi instead of ultra you can use as many slots as you MP active cost covers. but hey I didn't say MP was the only way but it is a legetimate method.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

I would argue that its a good fit and so would the hero sysytem since they too have built utility belts with MP. By the way may you dont know but mechanically and legally each slot in the MP can be a different completely unrelated Focus thus it works perfectly. In addition to that if you buy your MP slot Multi instead of ultra you can use as many slots as you MP active cost covers. but hey I didn't say MP was the only way but it is a legetimate method.

 

The fact that something has always been done that way does not make it the best, or even the right way to do it. There are things you could do with a utility belt full of interesting stuff (pass the Anti-Barracuda Spray, Robin) that you cannot mechanically do with a multipower.

 

I fully accept that the cost of buying each item individually would be prohibative, but I see no reason to start being practical about such things now.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

...There are things you could do with a utility belt full of interesting stuff (pass the Anti-Barracuda Spray' date=' Robin) that you cannot mechanically do with a multipower....[/quote']

 

Why not?

Buy Robin as a follower. Buy a second identical Multipower for 5 points. Robin probably can't repair the focus if its broken so this actually makes more sense than having it on his character sheet.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

Batman's utility belt is often designed as a MP but shouldn't be. It has various focii in various pockets. Although he doesn't hand these out to his mates in the comics very often' date=' there is no reason not to: opening one pocket does not lock all the others (darned strange utility belt if it did), so I'd argue that MP is a poor fit for such a concept.[/quote']

 

Why shouldn't it be? If you have a bunch of stuff, and you only use one item at any given time, you have matched the definition of a Multipower. If you want to insist all characters who can conceivably use any two foci at the same time always buy them separately even though they never will, you are being too restrictive in character design. Might as well disallow Multipowers completely.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

Here Robin, take this torch, from my utility belt, and this set of lockpicks - ditto - and see if you can open that door over there, while I use my swingline - also from my utility belt, and this flaregun to see if I can attract the attention of The Green Arrow, who should eb around here somewhere.

 

Four pieces of equipment in a utility belt, all being used simulaneously. Now you COULD buy them in a MP with a reserve large enough to have them all working simultanoeously, but that would cost more than actually buying them individualy.

 

The question is, perhaps, why could you NOT do this? The only anwswer would seem to be 'because I bought the items as a multipower'. Cool.

 

Now I think there is some mileage in the 'twice as many for 5 points' idea that HyperMan mentioned:

 

VPP 50 point pool

Control cost 25 (limits: focus OAF can not change once used, except between adventures) about 8 points

 

Cost 58 points

 

8 items: +15 points

 

Total cost 73

 

A 50 point MP with 8 ultra slots would cost 37 points with OAF limit, but would be far more limited.

 

Seems more utility beltt o me: you have a bunch of gadgets just right for the situation, and you can use them all simultaneously if you like.

 

It's a thought

[Dust Raven]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

It's not an issue of "can I?", but "will I?".

 

 

A character might want a sword with a sturdy sheath. He plans on using the sword to cut people up into tiny pieces, so he buys an HKA. He does not plan on using the sturdy sheath to pummel people, so he does not buy an HA. Could he use a sturdy sheath to pummel people? Yes. But he won't, so he doesn't buy the ability to pummel people.

 

Same with the utility belt MP. Does the character plan on handing out his foci or using multiple foci simultaneously? If not, then why buy them that way?

[archermoo]

Re: Suppressing Frameworks

 

The fact that something has always been done that way does not make it the best, or even the right way to do it. There are things you could do with a utility belt full of interesting stuff (pass the Anti-Barracuda Spray, Robin) that you cannot mechanically do with a multipower.

 

I fully accept that the cost of buying each item individually would be prohibative, but I see no reason to start being practical about such things now.

 

Yup, there are ways to use a utility belt that wouldn't work with a utility belt purchsed as a multipower. So if you want to be able to use one in one of those ways, don't buy it as a multipower. If you don't mind it being limited in the ways that a multipower is limited, go ahead an buy it as a multipower.

 

If UtilityBeltMan has a nifty utility belt MP with lots of nifty stuff on it, there don't have to be locks on all of the pouches to stop him from being able to access the ones he doesn't have powered up in the MP. From a metagaming standpoint, he can't use those slots. The character and/or the ref are free to determine WHY they can't be used themselves. Which can be as simple as just that the character won't use more than one at a time.