Charges is a limitation?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

Wasn't that also the time when each level of Reduced END only cut the END cost in half' date=' and to make a power cost no END you had to buy it enough times to make the END cost <= 0.5? It got expensive back then to make a Zero END power. And IIRC, some powers cost 1 END per 5 Active Points as well.[/quote']

IIRC, *all* powers back then were 1 END/5 AP. And yes, it was quite expensive to buy 0 END. One benefit was that once you bought it all the way down to 0, you got Persistant for free. There was no separate advantage called "Persistant".

 

It should be fairly easy to see why that half-END-per+1/4 isn't quite fair. Say you have a power that costs 8 END by default. Add +1/4 (increase cost by 25%) and it only costs 4 END to use. You've saved 4 END per use. If you want to save another 2 END per use, it costs the same as it did to save the first 4 END - another 25% of the base price for half as much benefit! Saving another measly 1 END per use costs the same price again.

 

It would be like walking into a widget store and buying 4 widgets for a dollar, or 6 widgets for $2, or 7 widgets for $3.

[Fedifensor]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

I don't see the point of 'gimping' the value of a limitation on a power that is in a Multipower (barring silly end-runs using Limited Power). A 60 Active Point standard slot with 8 Charges(-1/2) will save the character a whopping 4 points because it's a slot and not it's own power or the Reserve. Thus IMO the full value of the 8 Charges limitation is valid considering the small point savings.

 

The point is that there is absolutely no reason to put 16 charges on an entire multiplier if you can give every single slot 16 charges at the same cost.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

The point is that there is absolutely no reason to put 16 charges on an entire multiplier if you can give every single slot 16 charges at the same cost.

Actually, I don't think you can. IIRC, there is a specific exception for Charges in the rules for limitations on a Multipower.

[John T]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

IIRC' date=' *all* powers back then were 1 END/5 AP.[/quote']Minor quibble: IIRC Movement Powers all costed 1 END/5" (except Gliding)... would have to dig up one of the books to be sure.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

The point is that there is absolutely no reason to put 16 charges on an entire multiplier if you can give every single slot 16 charges at the same cost.

 

Putting Charges on multiple slots only limit those respective slots, and only modifies the cost of those slots, and not the Reserve. Even if it's on each slot.

 

Putting Charges on the whole Multipower applies the Limitation and it's cost reduction to the Reserve only, and limits the total uses of the MP as a whole.

 

This is covered very clearly on pg 321 in 5RE.

[tesuji]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

I don't see the point of 'gimping' the value of a limitation on a power that is in a Multipower (barring silly end-runs using Limited Power). A 60 Active Point standard slot with 8 Charges(-1/2) will save the character a whopping 4 points because it's a slot and not it's own power or the Reserve. Thus IMO the full value of the 8 Charges limitation is valid considering the small point savings.

 

Which is better...

 

10d6 Eb with X uses

 

or

 

multipower with 10d6 EB slots with each slot having 16 uses.

 

Answer... according to cost ~ effectiveness... it varies based on how many shots...

 

X = 32... EB by 2 cp

X = 64... EB by 5 cp

X = 128... MP by 3 cp

 

Not remembering all the permutations of slot vs pool lims for assessing the following two powers cost

 

10d6 Eb 12 charges = 40 cp (i know that one)

 

50 ap Multipower Z rp for pool??? Z = 50, 40, or 25???

slot ith 10d6 Eb 4 charges 2 cp

slot ith 10d6 Eb 4 charges 2 cp

slot ith 10d6 Eb 4 charges 2 cp

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

Actually' date=' I don't think you can. IIRC, there is a specific exception for Charges in the rules for limitations on a Multipower.[/quote']

 

Yes, there are. To summarize, if you apply the Charges Modifier to an entire Multipower Reserve but not the individual slots, you change only the cost of the Reserve, not that of the slots. The converse is true if you apply Charges to each slot but not to the Reserve. Thus there is a difference in cost for each way of buying Charges as an Advantage or a Limitation for a Multipower - not enough of a difference to reflect their relative utility IMHO, but the distinction is there.

 

However, there is no difference when buying 16 Charges, because that is neither an Advantage nor a Limitation. The cost of 16 Charges for an entire Reserve, and for each slot, are exactly the same. The Charges Table shift that I mentioned in a previous post is one attempt to make such a distinction. I also believe that it makes the whole cost structure for Multipowers with Charges more balanced (IME and again IMHO).

[incrdbil]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

Actually (5ER p427) you can't push a power that has the advantage '0 END'.

 

I've always ignored that rule.

 

Hmm, missed that. I don't blame you for skipping that, I'm going to blatantly ignore it as well. When buying an advantage, one shouldn't be incurring a limitation as well, even a small one.

[incrdbil]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

To explain a bit better though, teleport is not as useful a power for some characters as others and is generally not as useful in combat as other movement powers because of the limitations it has - can't add velocity damage being the main one.

 

Ever want out of an entagle or grab, no questions asked? (I've got a few martial Artists whose Martial Escape was actually bought as a teleport. You just could not keep a hold of the slippery devil.)

 

Ever want to retreat--or persue--through a door you cant open, but you are reasonably sure is an empty room on the other side (blind teleport risk there.) Ever not want to be easily followed or tracked in your movement?

 

Only having a few precious uses makes it much less likely to engage for such little tricks. Just not having the velocity modifier is not a bad trade off for the capabilities, so i think the charge limitations effect is still a valid value.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

Which is better...

 

10d6 Eb with X uses

 

or

 

multipower with 10d6 EB slots with each slot having 16 uses.

 

Answer... according to cost ~ effectiveness... it varies based on how many shots...

 

X = 32... EB by 2 cp

X = 64... EB by 5 cp

X = 128... MP by 3 cp

 

Not remembering all the permutations of slot vs pool lims for assessing the following two powers cost

 

10d6 Eb 12 charges = 40 cp (i know that one)

 

50 ap Multipower Z rp for pool??? Z = 50, 40, or 25???

slot ith 10d6 Eb 4 charges 2 cp

slot ith 10d6 Eb 4 charges 2 cp

slot ith 10d6 Eb 4 charges 2 cp

 

While I know that Charges can be taken at a level that makes it an Advantage, can we leave that part out of the equation? The way Advantages work (if allowed) on a Multipower reserve just complicates the matter.

 

So if we consider the following:

 

60 Multipower (60 reserve)

3-u Power #1 (60 Active) - 4 Charges(-1)

3-u Power #1 (60 Active) - 4 Charges(-1)

3-u Power #1 (60 Active) - 4 Charges(-1)

 

A cost of 69, and each slot can be used 4 times.

 

Now, compared to:

 

48 Multipower (60 reserve) - 12 Charges(-1/4)

6-u Power #1 (60 Active)

6-u Power #1 (60 Active)

6-u Power #1 (60 Active)

 

Costs 66 points -- almost identical. This form is more flexible, but since there is just the single "pool" of charges, a power that removed charges has to only target it, and not three separate targets.

[Fedifensor]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

Stevezilla, I think you're missing the point.

 

Sure, you can cherry-pick a multipower build where buying charges for the entire multipower is nearly as good as putting them on individual slots. But, from what I've seen, that's not how it works out in most HERO games.

 

Most multipowers I see (I generally play Champions as opposed to other HERO games) are 4+ slots, and they have the points to not need a large limitation. Charges are used simply as a way to avoid paying END on the power. A 5 slot multipower with 5 different powers at 16 charges each has much more staying power than putting 16 charges on the multipower as a whole. To repeat my earlier point, there is NO mechanical reason to use 16 charges on the entire multipower when you can put 16 charges on every slot in the multipower.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

Stevezilla, I think you're missing the point.

 

Sure, you can cherry-pick a multipower build where buying charges for the entire multipower is nearly as good as putting them on individual slots. But, from what I've seen, that's not how it works out in most HERO games.

 

I didn't mean to "cherry-pick", and I had no idea they would come out that close before I did the math. I just limited myself to a number of charges that would be Limitations, and used the same total for each Multipower. I haven't made a starting 350 pt character yet with more than 4 slots in a Multipower, so I didn't see a problem with using only 3 slots.

 

Most multipowers I see (I generally play Champions as opposed to other HERO games) are 4+ slots' date=' and they have the points to not need a large limitation. Charges are used simply as a way to avoid paying END on the power. A 5 slot multipower with 5 different powers at 16 charges each has much more staying power than putting 16 charges on the multipower as a whole. To repeat my earlier point, there is NO mechanical reason to use 16 charges on the entire multipower when you can put 16 charges on every slot in the multipower.[/quote']

 

If they have the points to not need a large limitation, why don't they have the points for buying extra END?

 

But seriously, if they're putting 16 charges (not fuel or continuing) on each slot purely to avoid spending END, then I think the GM should question that as a valid build. (It does seem a bit Munchkin-ey to me.) Or he can set up an extended combat so that the character is likely to run out of some of the slot's charges.

 

If they bought multiple slots that are effectively identical (each with 16 charges) just to be able to have 32 (or more) shots without using an advantage -- that is IMO fairly clearly Munchkin and shouldn't be allowed.

 

Are all the powers in this Multipower instant powers? Are they all attack powers?

[Fedifensor]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

IIf they have the points to not need a large limitation' date=' why don't they have the points for buying extra END? [/quote']

Big difference between a 60 point multipower with 12 DC attacks, and a 90 point multipower with the powers all at 0 END.

 

But seriously, if they're putting 16 charges (not fuel or continuing) on each slot purely to avoid spending END, then I think the GM should question that as a valid build. (It does seem a bit Munchkin-ey to me.)

It's a perfectly legal build. I can think of a hundred different ways to rationalize it. And not every slot has to be 16 charges...you could have a few using END, and a few using charges. Here's a sample multipower from a powersuit character I created a while back:

 

40 Weapon Systems: Multipower, 60-point reserve, (60 Active Points); all slots OIF (-1/2)

4u Force Beams: Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points); OIF (-1/2)

4u Laser: Killing Attack - Ranged 3d6-1, Armor Piercing (+1/2) (60 Active Points); OIF (-1/2)

4u Heavy Autogun: Killing Attack - Ranged 3d6-1, Autofire (3 shots; +1/4), 32 Charges (+1/4) (60 Active Points); OIF (-1/2)

4u Concussion Rockets: Energy Blast 8d6, 16 Charges (+0), Explosion (+1/2) (60 Active Points); OIF (-1/2)

4u Energized Multi-Bolas: Entangle 4d6, 4 DEF, Takes No Damage From Attacks (+1/2) (60 Active Points); 16 Charges (+0), OIF (-1/2), Cannot Form Barriers (-1/4)

 

As you can see, it wouldn't make sense to put charges on the entire multipower. However, the multipower has three slots that don't cost Endurance, which means the character has a huge amount of staying power in a battle. And it only cost 12 points total for those three slots, each of which has enough charges that the character is unlikely to run out.

 

Or he can set up an extended combat so that the character is likely to run out of some of the slot's charges.

Which is an artificial penalty imposed by the gamemaster. If the character had bought the multipower with charges instead of the slots, they'd be out that much quicker.

 

If they bought multiple slots that are effectively identical (each with 16 charges) just to be able to have 32 (or more) shots without using an advantage -- that is IMO fairly clearly Munchkin and shouldn't be allowed.

As shown above, it's fairly easy to make a multipower that justifies having that many shots. And even if it was "Munchkin"...the point of the HERO system is that the points are supposed to show balance. 16 charges per slot versus 16 charges for the multipower (or a greater number of charges, for that matter) is where that equality breaks down.

[Guest TheUnknown]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

If charges are not on the MP then each slot has its own set of uses thems the rules!

[ghost-angel]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

I think what Stevezilla is trying to say is that once Charges approach the +/- 0 mark one should look if the Player is looking for a cheap version of Reduced END: 0 END or if the Power actually makes sense SFX wise to have Charges of that nature.

 

It's beyond a points issue to a certain degree. It becomes a "What is really trying to be achieved here?"

[SteveZilla]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

It's a perfectly legal build. I can think of a hundred different ways to rationalize it.

 

Isn't the GM the final arbiter of what is legal? Just because it's book legal doesn't mean it's specific campaign legal. The GM has the right to request changes to a character (or refuse entry to the game outright) for game-balance issues.

 

And not every slot has to be 16 charges...you could have a few using END, and a few using charges. Here's a sample multipower from a powersuit character I created a while back:

 

40 Weapon Systems: Multipower, 60-point reserve, (60 Active Points); all slots OIF (-1/2)

4u Force Beams: Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points); OIF (-1/2)

4u Laser: Killing Attack - Ranged 3d6-1, Armor Piercing (+1/2) (60 Active Points); OIF (-1/2)

4u Heavy Autogun: Killing Attack - Ranged 3d6-1, Autofire (3 shots; +1/4), 32 Charges (+1/4) (60 Active Points); OIF (-1/2)

4u Concussion Rockets: Energy Blast 8d6, 16 Charges (+0), Explosion (+1/2) (60 Active Points); OIF (-1/2)

4u Energized Multi-Bolas: Entangle 4d6, 4 DEF, Takes No Damage From Attacks (+1/2) (60 Active Points); 16 Charges (+0), OIF (-1/2), Cannot Form Barriers (-1/4)

 

That actually seems like a well constructed battlesuit attack Multipower. Though the last slot should cost only 3 points.

 

As you can see' date=' it wouldn't make sense to put charges on the entire multipower. However, the multipower has three slots that don't cost Endurance, which means the character has a huge amount of staying power in a battle. And it only cost 12 points total for those three slots, each of which has enough charges that the character is unlikely to run out.[/quote']

 

I agree that it wouldn't make sense to put charges on the whole MP, or even on every slot in this case. But those slots that use charges can only be uses so many times. A target with Missile Deflection (Any Physical Projectile) would all but force the character to use his non-physical (and thus END-costing) slots. And a large number of weak targets (like agents) could cause a character to use up the rockets & bolas. Unless he doesn't care about causing severe injury and death, I don't think he'll be using the Autogun against targets with only 4-5 points of resistant defenses.

 

And part of the reason they only cost 12 points has nothing to do with Charges, but with it being an OIF. Which means that the entire Multipower can be destroyed by taking 1 point of Body damage over the character's defense.

 

Which is an artificial penalty imposed by the gamemaster.

 

I disagree. An essential part of the GM's job is to make the Limitations the character took actually limit the character appropriately. And to allow, disallow, or adjust the value of advantages & limitations to keep them in line with what they do.

 

If the character had bought the multipower with charges instead of the slots' date=' they'd be out that much quicker.[/quote']

 

In the case of 16 Charges(-0), my argument that they would save much more points falls apart, though for all values below that it still holds. Hmm. I think then this issue would fall to the Effectiveness Test. If any character is much more (or less) effective than the average, that could be a problem for the game.

 

As shown above' date=' it's fairly easy to make a multipower that justifies having that many shots. And even if it was "Munchkin"...the point of the HERO system is that the points are supposed to show balance. 16 charges per slot versus 16 charges for the multipower (or a greater number of charges, for that matter) is where that equality breaks down.[/quote']

 

Actually, the points are a guideline of balance, not an absolute indicator. I agree that for any Multipower with more than one slot, X Charges on the reserve is generally more limiting than the same Limitation taken on every slot. But with the sole exception of a -0 value, there is a commensurate savings in points. Because there is just the one exception, I don't think we need to make special case rules for Multipowers with Charges.

[Fedifensor]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

Isn't the GM the final arbiter of what is legal? Just because it's book legal doesn't mean it's specific campaign legal. The GM has the right to request changes to a character (or refuse entry to the game outright) for game-balance issues.

As a GM, I find it hard to say, "You can't have 16 charges on the slot...but you can have 32, or 8, or 12..."

 

That actually seems like a well constructed battlesuit attack Multipower. Though the last slot should cost only 3 points.

It's correct in Hero Designer...I was just manually copying it over.

 

I agree that it wouldn't make sense to put charges on the whole MP, or even on every slot in this case. But those slots that use charges can only be uses so many times. A target with Missile Deflection (Any Physical Projectile) would all but force the character to use his non-physical (and thus END-costing) slots.

The Missile Deflection guy is using up his own actions to do this, though. And the first time M.E.C.H.A (the villain I copied the pool from) fires a Energy Blast, the deflector is probably going to start doing other things besides aborting to deflection.

 

And a large number of weak targets (like agents) could cause a character to use up the rockets & bolas. Unless he doesn't care about causing severe injury and death, I don't think he'll be using the Autogun against targets with only 4-5 points of resistant defenses.

Well, he is a villain, though he isn't a casual killer. M.E.C.H.A. (Mechanically Enhanced Combat Heavy Armor) would probably alternate between the rockets and spreading his 12d6 EB to take down multiple targets with each attack.

 

And part of the reason they only cost 12 points has nothing to do with Charges, but with it being an OIF. Which means that the entire Multipower can be destroyed by taking 1 point of Body damage over the character's defense.

20/20 Resistant Defenses in a 12 DC game, and Penetrating is rarely used in my game world. If he ever gets taken down that way, the next version of the armor will have Hardened defenses.

 

I disagree. An essential part of the GM's job is to make the Limitations the character took actually limit the character appropriately. And to allow, disallow, or adjust the value of advantages & limitations to keep them in line with what they do.

But I can't make that adjustment in a vacuum. If I throw more foes at a group just because one character has lots of charges, that penalizes ALL the characters. In fact, the character with charges will probably still be going when the others are trying to take recoveries.

 

In the case of 16 Charges(-0), my argument that they would save much more points falls apart, though for all values below that it still holds. Hmm. I think then this issue would fall to the Effectiveness Test. If any character is much more (or less) effective than the average, that could be a problem for the game.

Actually, I think it's a problem for anywhere between 8 and 16 charges. Even 8 charges per slot is enough to go through multiple fights in a day, especially if one of the slots uses END instead of charges. I have yet to see a Champions combat go past 3 turns, and with a 5 average Speed in my game, that's no more than 15 uses of an attack power.

 

Actually, the points are a guideline of balance, not an absolute indicator. I agree that for any Multipower with more than one slot, X Charges on the reserve is generally more limiting than the same Limitation taken on every slot. But with the sole exception of a -0 value, there is a commensurate savings in points. Because there is just the one exception, I don't think we need to make special case rules for Multipowers with Charges.

I disagree, because I see the problem as a larger issue. Especially since 16 charges is the "default" choice (no advantage or limitation).

[Robyn]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

But I can't make that adjustment in a vacuum. If I throw more foes at a group just because one character has lots of charges' date=' that penalizes ALL the characters.[/quote']

 

This makes several assumptions; that all the characters are going to be combat-oriented, that combat is where their players want the PC's to have their moment of glory, that the PC's will always enter combat in a group and stay with each other throughout it

[tesuji]

Re: Charges is a limitation?

 

Boiling down some various viewpoints...

 

there are the book rules on charges and multipowers.

 

If a GM follows those rules, its then his job to make the points play out balanced.

 

the "value in play" VIP should be proximate to the "value on paper" VOP if h is doing his job right.

 

The VIP is highly subjective based on the scenarios the Gm chooses, the challenges he provides.

 

If a Gm sees " most of my combats are over in a few turns" and "there are ample opportunities between most combats to refresh charges" then he may well see that the rules as written do not make VIP and VOP for charges on multipowers work in sync for his game.

 

the Gm has several options...

 

He can change his scenes, challenges and setups to provide fewer "refresh charges breaks" between combats. (the "longer combats" as noted probably misses the point and actaually FAVORS the charger.) This makes it so that the charger guy feels the penalty appropriately often. Depending on campaign style and falvor this can feel "right" or can be done as to feel "artificial". This can be described as making the campaign fit the system or work for the system... cuz his choices ae made to make the book rules right. This will rankle those who think the campaign style is more sacred than the book.

 

Alternatively, he can alter the rules to bring the VOP in line with the VIP for his campaign as he will play it. He makes the system fit his campaign, makes the system work for him. This will rankle the "by the book types" or those who trust the book more than the GM and are leery of house rules.

 

alternatively, he can not change either and simply disallow those limitations he feels produce conflicting VIP and VOP. this will rankle some.

 

Now, the camp i fall into is the second... make the system work for me... though i beieve heartily that the firt is necessary for most if not all VOP to actually play out well and accurate to their VIP. The latter to me is a last ditch... an admission of "thats too far afield for me to handle" unless its a case of "just inappropriate for this game". Saying "no" because "it doesn't fit the game" is one thing but saying "no" because its not going to play well systematically" is another. The latter i should be able to fix.

 

What we seem to have here in part is a disagreemen over which is the preferreed method for handling charges on multipowers... alter the challenges so there isn't a value problem, or alter the rules so there isn't a value problem or refuse the write ups which cause there to be a value problem.

 

no one answer will suit everyone.