New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

No it doesn't. Read carefully:

 

90 Multipower #2 - 60 point reserve, 64 Charges

6u 12d6 EB, 16 charges

6u 8d6 AP EB, 16 charges

6u 6d6 Entangle, 6 DEF, 16 charges

6u 4d6 RKA, 16 charges

Total cost: 114

 

Just because the reserve has 64 charges doesn't mean you can ignore the limitation of 16 charges on each of the slots. If you wanted to be able to use any slot 64 times, the multipower would look like this:

 

90 Multipower #2a - 60 point reserve, 64 Charges

9u 12d6 EB

9u 8d6 AP EB

9u 6d6 Entangle, 6 DEF

9u 4d6 RKA

Total cost: 126

 

Why am I paying for 90 AP slots when the slots only have 60 AP each? More to the point, why not just buy:

 

90 Multipower #2b - 90 point reserve

9u 12d6 EB 0 END

9u 8d6 AP EB 0 END

9u 6d6 Entangle, 6 DEF 0 END

9u 4d6 RKA 0 END

Total cost: 126

 

instead? Now I can use each power as many times as I want, at no END cost, and it didn't cost any more.

[ghost-angel]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

I don't know what the point of that last sentence is. Sure' date=' you can fire 16 regular EBs, 16 Entangles, 16 RKAs, and 16 Armor Piercing EBs, total. That's 64 actions, all right. So what happens after you've done all that? What else can you use the reserve for? Answer: Nothing. 16+16+16+16=64. In my games, if you want to use a power 64 times a day without paying END, you need an Advantage.[/quote']

 

You aren't using a power 64 times. You're using 4 Powers 16 Times Each.

 

They aren't and never will be the same thing.

 

It's not addadtive. You can't say "Oh, you've got five powers with 4 charges each. That's like having 20 charges, so I'm making you pay for an Advantage instead."

 

How is that even logical?

 

You forget - a Multipower is not "A Single Power." It does not have to have a unifying Special Effect, They are not Drain One/Drain All. A Multipower is a group of Seperate Powers under a framework.

 

You can't say "Yeah, you've got 64 charges in that Multipower."

 

What happens if I buy a few slots without the Charges? What then?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

What GA said.

 

There is no rule in 5E or 5ER stating that a multipower MUST take any advantage or limitation that is common to all of its slots. To do so is an OPTION only.

[ghost-angel]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

That and there's a VAST (MASSIVE. HUGE.) difference in utility to

 

Multipower; 64 Charges

(4 slots of powers)

 

and

 

Multipower

(4 slots of powers with 16 charges each).

 

The first allows you to choose how many of each power you can use, if Slot 3 won't do you any good the charges you might otherwise allocate to it can be redistributed.

 

The second you ONLY have 16 Charges for each slot. And if you can't recharge the Charges and Slot 3 does you no good you really have 0 uses of that power.

 

So no. In this case 4 x 16 =/= 64. 4 x 16 = 4 x 16.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

You aren't using a power 64 times. You're using 4 Powers 16 Times Each.

 

They aren't and never will be the same thing.

You said that already. And I agreed with it. A 4 slot multipower that can be used 64 times is more flexible than a multipower with 4 slots that can be used 16 times each. With me so far? OK, continuing: Therefore they should not have the same cost. And by the method I proposed, they don't. The less flexible one costs 114 points, and the more flexible one costs 126 points.

 

It's not addadtive. You can't say "Oh, you've got five powers with 4 charges each. That's like having 20 charges, so I'm making you pay for an Advantage instead."

 

How is that even logical?

Because you're getting more that you paid for that way. Charges comes with 0 END by default. The rules as written allow you to have 16 charges on a power at 0 END for the same price as unlimited uses at regular END. More than 16 charges at 0 END costs more that the base power. Less than 16 charges costs less.

 

You forget - a Multipower is not "A Single Power." It does not have to have a unifying Special Effect, They are not Drain One/Drain All. A Multipower is a group of Seperate Powers under a framework.

I have not forgotten any such thing. This has nothing to do with any method I'm proposing or any argument I am making.

 

You can't say "Yeah, you've got 64 charges in that Multipower."

Yes, I can. Because I can add. If each slot can be used 16 times, and there are four slots, then the whole multipower can be used 64 times, right?

 

It doesn't make sense that

 

A) 60 point reserve - 16 charges and 4 ultra slots

 

costs the same as

 

60 point reserve, and 4 ultra slots with 16 charges each.

 

Nor would it make sense for a single power with 16 charges to cost the same as a single power with 64 charges (or 0 END).

 

What happens if I buy a few slots without the Charges? What then?

As I already said, that's a different case with a different solution which I did not address. To be brief, the best solution would probably involve adding a -1/2 "Limitation," or reducing the Advantage by 1/2, and proceeding as if the powers still cost their normal END (which can then be bought back off where desired, with the usual 0 END advantage).

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

That and there's a VAST (MASSIVE. HUGE.) difference in utility to

 

Multipower; 64 Charges

(4 slots of powers)

 

and

 

Multipower

(4 slots of powers with 16 charges each).

I don't think it's that "vast/massive/huge." It's just more flexible, and yes, one should have to pay extra for the extra flexibility.

 

Maybe we're getting hung up because were at the 16 charges at +/-0 thing.

 

How 'bout this:

 

40 Multipower A - 60 point reserve, 8 charges

6u 12d6 EB

6u 8d6 AP EB

6u 6d6 Entangle, 6 DEF

6u 4d6 RKA

 

60 Multipower B - 60 point reserve

3u 12d6 EB, 2 charges

3u 8d6 AP EB, 2 charges

3u 6d6 Entangle, 6 DEF, 2 charges

3u 4d6 RKA, 2 charges

 

Would this be right? Is it fairly priced?

[ghost-angel]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

yes.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

yes.

Really? Both multipowers can be used a total of eight times, but those 8 times can be distributed freely among the four slots of multipower A, while multipower B only allows 2 uses per slot. Clearly Multipower A is the more flexible. And yet Multipower A costs 40+6+6+6+6= 64 points, while Multipower B costs 60+3+3+3+3= 72 points. So according to you, it is fair that the less flexible build costs more points.

 

To my way of thinking, the slots of Multipower A should get an 8 Charges limitation, since clearly, they can never be used more than eight times - not matter how you arrange the charges, you'll never have more than eight of them. So it should be built like this:

 

40 Multipower A' - 60 point reserve, 8 charges

4u 12d6 EB, 8 Charges

4u 8d6 AP EB, 8 Charges

4u 6d6 Entangle, 6 DEF, 8 Charges

4u 4d6 RKA, 8 Charges

Total Cost: 56 Points

 

While Multipower B ought to have the 8 Charges limitation on the Reserve, since it obviously can't be used more than 8 times. And thus should be built like this:

 

40 Multipower B' - 60 point reserve, 8 Charges

3u 12d6 EB, 2 charges

3u 8d6 AP EB, 2 charges

3u 6d6 Entangle, 6 DEF, 2 charges

3u 4d6 RKA, 2 charges

Total Cost: 52 points

 

My way, the less flexible build indeed costs less.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

Why am I paying for 90 AP slots when the slots only have 60 AP each? More to the point, why not just buy:

 

90 Multipower #2b - 90 point reserve

9u 12d6 EB 0 END

9u 8d6 AP EB 0 END

9u 6d6 Entangle, 6 DEF 0 END

9u 4d6 RKA 0 END

Total cost: 126

 

instead? Now I can use each power as many times as I want, at no END cost, and it didn't cost any more.

Sure. It just works out that way because 64 Charges has the same price as 0 END (for non-autofire powers).

[ghost-angel]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

Clearly some take issue with the interaction of Mulitpower Pools and Charges at various levels.

 

My suggestion? Instead of a kludge simply disallow the combo.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

Why disallow it when it's a simple matter to come up with a fair price for it?

 

BTW: I made a slight math error in the examples above. It doesn't change the basic point, though. The slots of Multipower B and B' should round to 2 points each, rather than 3. So B costs a total of 68 points and B' costs 58 points.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

Why disallow it when it's a simple matter to come up with a fair price for it?

 

So it's fair to charge the same amount for a MP of four slots, each usable 16 times, as you do for one with unlimited uses of each slot at 0 END? I would never make a character oay a higher advantage on a power with Charges than he would pay to have 0 END on the power with unlimited uses.

[Fedifensor]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

Maybe we're getting hung up because were at the 16 charges at +/-0 thing.

Probably because it is a flaw in the system...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

The most straightforward change would be to have Charges not eliminate END usage and adjust the limitation values accordingly. Thus, we would change the Charges limitation to be as follows:

 

Charges Limit 60 AP New Limit 90 AP

 

1 -2 20.00 -3.5 20.00

2 -1.5 24.00 -2.75 24.00

3 -1.25 26.67 -2.5 25.71

4 -1 30.00 -2 30.00

5-6 -0.75 34.29 -1.5 36.00

7-8 -0.5 40.00 -1.25 40.00

9-12 -0.25 48.00 -1 45.00

13-16 0 60.00 -0.5 60.00

17-32 +0.25 75.00 -0.25 72.00

33-64 +0.5 90.00 0 90.00

 

Except for 3 charges, 5-6 charges, 9-12 charges and 17-32 charges, we get exactly the same cost if we buy 0 END and take the new Charges limitation. The others are still very close. There is no advantage, and 33-64 should more properly be considered "33 charges or more".

 

That covers normal attacks. What about Autofire? Well, a 60 AP autofire attack is probably 40 AP with a +1/2 advantage, so 0 END would bring that to +1 1/2, or 100 AP. No one would buy 1 charge Autofire. What if we move the limitation one up the chart for an autofire attack (ie Autofire gets a greater limitation for Charges)?

 

Charges Limit 60 AP AF New Limit 100 AP

 

1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2 -1.5 24.00 -3.5 22.22

3 -1.25 26.67 -2.75 26.67

4 -1 30.00 -2.5 28.57

5-6 -0.75 34.29 -2 33.33

7-8 -0.5 40.00 -1.5 40.00

9-12 -0.25 48.00 -1.25 44.44

13-16 0 60.00 -1 50.00

17-32 +0.25 70.00 -0.5 66.67

33-64 +0.5 80.00 -0.25 80.00

65-128 +0.75 90.00 0 100.00

129-256 +1 100.00 0 100.00

 

Not as many perfect matches, and some wider spreads, making autofire attacks with small numbers of charges less expensive on the whole. The 65-128 range is problematic, Maybe we make 33 - 96 a -1/4 limitation and 97+ no limitation at all (or saw it off at an even hundred for simplicity). 96 charges with a typical Autofire attack (3 shots) is 32 attacks, the point at which a non-autofire attack would get no further limitation from the calc's above.

 

[sorry for the lousy chart - maybe a kind soul with better formatting skills than me will fix it.]

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

So it's fair to charge the same amount for a MP of four slots' date=' each usable 16 times, as you do for one with unlimited uses of each slot at 0 END? I would never make a character oay a higher advantage on a power with Charges than he would pay to have 0 END on the power with unlimited uses.[/quote']

I'm not charging the same amount. The one with 16 uses of each slot costs less (as it should) because the advantage of 64 charges isn't applied to each charge:

 

90 Multipower #2c* - 90 point reserve

9u 12d6 EB 0 END

9u 8d6 AP EB 0 END

9u 6d6 Entangle, 6 DEF 0 END

9u 4d6 RKA 0 END

Total cost: 126

 

as opposed to

 

90 Multipower #2b - 60 point reserve, 64 Charges

6u 12d6 EB, 16 Charges

6u 8d6 AP EB, 16 Charges

6u 6d6 Entangle, 6 DEF, 16 Charges

6u 4d6 RKA, 16 Charges

Total cost: 114

 

The less flexible Multipower costs less, as it should.

 

The most straightforward change would be to have Charges not eliminate END usage and adjust the limitation values accordingly.

That was the next thing I was going to suggest. You beat me to it. Though I was going to propose simply adding -1/2 to the Limitation value for Charges to reflect that they still cost END as normal. I hadn't worked out the math as you did. My version would look like this:

 

Charges Limit 60 AP New Limit 90 AP 

1       -2    20.00    -2.5   20.00 
2       -1.5  24.00    -2     30.00 
3       -1.25 26.67    -1.75  32.72 
4       -1    30.00    -1.5   36.00 
5-6     -0.75 34.29    -1.25  40.00 
7-8     -0.5  40.00    -1     45.00 
9-12    -0.25 48.00    -0.75  51.43 
13-16    0    60.00    -0.5   60.00 
17-32   +0.25 75.00    -0.25  72.00 
33-64   +0.5  90.00     0     90.00

 

I'm not sure if that's better or fairer. I was also going to suggest that since the zero-point has moved, the point at which charges start doubling should also be moved. Thus a -0.5 Lim is 16 charges, as above, but a -0.25 Lim would be, say 17-24 Charges, and a -0 Lim would be 25-32 Charges. Looking at it now, it looks like that wouldn't improve things.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

I'm not charging the same amount. The one with 16 uses of each slot costs less (as it should) because the advantage of 64 charges isn't applied to each charge:

 

90 Multipower #2c* - 90 point reserve

9u 12d6 EB 0 END

9u 8d6 AP EB 0 END

9u 6d6 Entangle, 6 DEF 0 END

9u 4d6 RKA 0 END

Total cost: 126

 

as opposed to

 

90 Multipower #2b - 60 point reserve, 64 Charges

6u 12d6 EB, 16 Charges

6u 8d6 AP EB, 16 Charges

6u 6d6 Entangle, 6 DEF, 16 Charges

6u 4d6 RKA, 16 Charges

Total cost: 114

 

The 0 END advantage could technically be applied solely to the reserve, and not to the slots, although I'm not a big fan of that particular mechanic.

 

That was the next thing I was going to suggest. You beat me to it. Though I was going to propose simply adding -1/2 to the Limitation value for Charges to reflect that they still cost END as normal. I hadn't worked out the math as you did. My version would look like this:

 

Charges Limit 60 AP New Limit 90 AP 

1       -2    20.00    -2.5   25.71 
2       -1.5  24.00    -2     30.00 
3       -1.25 26.67    -1.75  32.72 
4       -1    30.00    -1.5   36.00 
5-6     -0.75 34.29    -1.25  40.00 
7-8     -0.5  40.00    -1     45.00 
9-12    -0.25 48.00    -0.75  51.43 
13-16    0    60.00    -0.5   60.00 
17-32   +0.25 75.00    -0.25  72.00 
33-64   +0.5  90.00     0     90.00

 

 

At lower numbers of charges, your approach results in a greater cost. Of course, whether that's inappropriate depends on whether you thought combining 0 END with 1 charge being a -2 was apppropriate to begin with.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

The 0 END advantage could technically be applied solely to the reserve' date=' and not to the slots, although I'm not a big fan of that particular mechanic.[/quote']

True, but #2c would cost the same either way. I wrote it the same way you wrote it.

 

At lower numbers of charges, your approach results in a greater cost. Of course, whether that's inappropriate depends on whether you thought combining 0 END with 1 charge being a -2 was apppropriate to begin with.

True, and that's probably not a good thing. Now that I've actually looked at the numbers, I like your way better. It leads me to think about the way Advantages and Limitations are applied. It would be different if they just "cancelled each other out". For example a power with +1/2 of Advantages and -1 od Limitations would instead be calculated as a total -1/2 Limitation. That isn't necessarily better, or worse, just different. I'm not advocating such a change, so instead I'll post your table in a nice format:

 

Charges Limit 60 AP New Limit 90 AP 

1       -2    20.00    -3.5   20.00 
2       -1.5  24.00    -2.75  24.00 
3       -1.25 26.67    -2.5   25.71 
4       -1    30.00    -2     30.00 
5-6     -0.75 34.29    -1.5   36.00 
7-8     -0.5  40.00    -1.25  40.00 
9-12    -0.25 48.00    -1     45.00 
13-16    0    60.00    -0.5   60.00 
17-32   +0.25 75.00    -0.25  72.00 
33-64   +0.5  90.00     0     90.00

 

And if you like, you could increase the granularity by letting 5 Charges be -1.75, and 6 Charges be -1.5. (So 5 charges would cost 32.72 points.) How many people take less than the maximum amount of charges at any given level?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

I'm not advocating such a change' date=' so instead I'll post your table in a nice format:[/quote']

 

And I still can't rep you Life is unfair!

 

And if you like' date=' you could increase the granularity by letting 5 Charges be -1.75, and 6 Charges be -1.5. (So 5 charges would cost 32.72 points.) How many people take less than the maximum amount of charges at any given level?[/quote']

 

Wasn't it you who suggested some time ago moving from 1/4's to 1/10 increments for advantages and lomitations? That would improve the granularity. [Mind you, look at the arguments we have about appropriate values when we only have 1/4 increments to fight over...]

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

Wasn't it you who suggested some time ago moving from 1/4's to 1/10 increments for advantages and lomitations? That would improve the granularity. [Mind you' date= look at the arguments we have about appropriate values when we only have 1/4 increments to fight over...]

Yes, sort of. I actually suggested 1/20 increments ("nickels"), only because you can't make a quarter (1/4) out of dimes (1/10). With nickels, you can keep some modifiers at +1/4, -3/4, etc., if you want, while also being able to have values like -1/20, +1/10, -3/20, etc. Of course at that point, you'd probably use decimals exclusively to express them: -0.05, +0.1, -0.15, etc.

 

If and when I have the time, maybe I'll post a list of nickel-valued limitations (and advantages) for charges with increased granularity.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

60 Multipower #1 - 60 point reserve, 16 charges

6u 12d6 EB

6u 8d6 AP EB

6u 6d6 Entangle, 6 DEF

6u 4d6 RKA

 

60 Multipower #2 - 60 point reserve

6u 12d6 EB, 16 charges

6u 8d6 AP EB, 16 charges

6u 6d6 Entangle, 6 DEF, 16 charges

6u 4d6 RKA, 16 charges

 

Multipower #2 is MUCH more desirable than Multipower #1, and both have the same point cost. That's why the change has been proposed...

 

Thread Necromancy Powers Activate!

 

I'm sorry but this is such a bad example that current posters are looking at I had to chime in.

 

60 Original example #1: Multipower, 60-point reserve, all slots 16 Charges (+0)

[Notes: Each slot has its own 16 charges.]

6u 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points)

6u 2) Energy Blast 8d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2) (60 Active Points)

6u 3) Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF (60 Active Points)

6u 4) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points)

 

60 Original example #2: Multipower, 60-point reserve

[Notes: Functions EXACTLY like Original example #1.]

6u 1) Energy Blast 12d6, 16 Charges (+0) (60 Active Points) - END=[16]

6u 2) Energy Blast 8d6, 16 Charges (+0), Armor Piercing (+1/2) (60 Active Points) - END=[16]

6u 3) Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF, 16 Charges (+0) (60 Active Points) - END=[16]

6u 4) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6, 16 Charges (+0) (60 Active Points) - END=[16]

 

60 NEW example #3: Multipower, 60-point reserve, all slots 16 Charges (+0)

[Notes: ALSO Functions EXACTLY like Original example #1. Just uses a different notation.]

6u 1) Energy Blast 12d6, 16 Charges (+0) (60 Active Points) - END=[16]

6u 2) Energy Blast 8d6, 16 Charges (+0), Armor Piercing (+1/2) (60 Active Points) - END=[16]

6u 3) Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF, 16 Charges (+0) (60 Active Points) - END=[16]

6u 4) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6, 16 Charges (+0) (60 Active Points) - END=[16]

 

60 NEW example #4: Multipower, 60-point reserve, 16 Charges (+0)

[Notes: This is what was implied in the Original example #1. However, the charges ONLY apply to uses of the RESERVE. ANY combination of slots can be used 16 times (example: slot1 x7 + slot3 x5 + slot4 x4). Since the Charges Limitation is ONLY being applied to the reserve All of the slots still cost END to use. ]

6u 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6

6u 2) Energy Blast 8d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2) (60 Active Points) - END=6

6u 3) Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF (60 Active Points) - END=6

6u 4) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6

 

60 NEW example #5: Multipower, 60-point reserve, 16 Charges (+0)

[Notes: This is the most ineffecient example. A common 'All slots 4 Charges' could be applied to the Reserve and reducing its real cost to 30 without changing the overall function at all.]

3u 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1) - END=[4]

3u 2) Energy Blast 8d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2) (60 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1) - END=[4]

3u 3) Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF (60 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1) - END=[4]

3u 4) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1) - END=[4]

 

HM

[Istaran]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

Thread Necromancy Powers Activate!

 

I'm sorry but this is such a bad example that current posters are looking at I had to chime in.

 

 

60 NEW example #4: Multipower, 60-point reserve, 16 Charges (+0)

[Notes: This is what was implied in the Original example #1. However, the charges ONLY apply to uses of the RESERVE. ANY combination of slots can be used 16 times (example: slot1 x7 + slot3 x5 + slot4 x4). Since the Charges Limitation is ONLY being applied to the reserve All of the slots still cost END to use. ]

6u 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6

6u 2) Energy Blast 8d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2) (60 Active Points) - END=6

6u 3) Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF (60 Active Points) - END=6

6u 4) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6

 

60 NEW example #5: Multipower, 60-point reserve, 16 Charges (+0)

[Notes: This is the most ineffecient example. A common 'All slots 4 Charges' could be applied to the Reserve and reducing its real cost to 30 without changing the overall function at all.]

3u 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1) - END=[4]

3u 2) Energy Blast 8d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2) (60 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1) - END=[4]

3u 3) Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF (60 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1) - END=[4]

3u 4) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1) - END=[4]

 

HM

 

Some points that maybe someone with a book handy can confirm or deny.

a) According to Hero Designer putting charges on the reserve automatically confirs 0 END to the slots. (And consequently automatically allows Costs END as a common limiter even if some of the slots previously cost END and some do not.) (This was relevant in making my char so I became familiar with it.)

According to Hero Designer Charges is not an allowable common limiter. Charges can ONLY be put on a multipower reserve if it is a number of charges for the whole pool (which Hero Designer puts in a seperate pop-up window from common limitations).

 

If Charges could be applied as a common limitation, look at extreme example of ultimate munchkinship:

 

20 NEW example #M (for Munchkin): Multipower, 60-point reserve, All slots: 1 Charge (-2)

2u 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2) - END=[1]

2u 2) Energy Blast 8d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2) (60 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2) - END=[1]

2u 3) Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF (60 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2) - END=[1]

2u 4) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2) - END=[1]

...

2u 20) Redundant 60 AP Attack #20 (60 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2) - END=[1]

Total cost: 60 RP

 

So you've got the bandalier of 20 assorted projectiles, one charge each, 0 END for free, for the exact cost of a single 60 AP attack that costs END. (okay, if it's a bandalier we throw in Focus for more savings). Several of those slots are likely "just like #10, only this one is Fire SFX!", because that is technically a different power (and on rare occasions actually makes a difference).

 

-------

 

I like Hugh's recosting idea, but would add the following caveat for MPs:

If every slot in the MP has charges, you can take charges as a limitation on the pool cost: in this case you take the limitation coresponding to the total number of uses shared between all of your powers in the multipower. So if you have 4 slots with 4 charges each you can take -2 on the pool and have a grand total of 4 charges, -0.5 on the pool and have a grand total of 16 charges, or anywhere in between. If not all slots in the MP have charges, you cannot take charges as a limitation on the pool because the pool as a whole is not limited by them.

 

For VPPs I would give the option of taking Charges on the control cost for a total number of Charges shared between all uses of powers from the pool.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

First, all of my examples were created with HDv3.

 

Putting Charges as a Limitation on the Reserve of the Multipower is done by using the "Private Modifier" and as such does not apply individually to the slots.

 

Putting the same Limitation as a "Common Modifier" on the Reserve of the Multipower does apply that Limitation to each slot individually (note the END cost on my examples).

 

I am also attaching screenshots from HDv3 showing the Private and Common modifier options.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

Note the differences between these 3 examples.

(#6 is fair and balanced. #7 and #8 are not.)

 

30 NEW example #6: Multipower, 60-point reserve, (60 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1)

[Notes: The 4 Charges are taken on the Reserve Only as a PRIVATE MODIFIER to reflect the total # of charges based on all 4 slots.]

2u 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2) - END=[1]

2u 2) Energy Blast 8d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2) (60 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2) - END=[1]

2u 3) Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF (60 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2) - END=[1]

2u 4) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2) - END=[1]

 

20 NEW example #7: Multipower, 60-point reserve, (60 Active Points); all slots 1 Charge (-2)

[Notes: 1 Charge is being applied as a COMMON MODIFIER here and shows an imbalance. Any time Charges are being taken as a LIMITATION with a value other than (-0) on both the individual slots and the reserve a PRIVATE MODIFIER should be used on the reserve reflecting the overall number of charges among all the slots.]

2u 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2) - END=[1]

2u 2) Energy Blast 8d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2) (60 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2) - END=[1]

2u 3) Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF (60 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2) - END=[1]

2u 4) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2) - END=[1]

 

30 NEW example #8: Multipower, 60-point reserve, (60 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1)

[Notes: This example further illustrates the need for the use of private modifiers on the reserve AND individual Limitations on each slot to describe the effect correctly costed in example #6.]

6u 1) Energy Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6

6u 2) Energy Blast 8d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2) (60 Active Points) - END=6

6u 3) Entangle 6d6, 6 DEF (60 Active Points) - END=6

6u 4) Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (60 Active Points) - END=6

[Hyper-Man]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

If you build a Multipower where all slots take a # of Charges < 16 you should only apply the Charges Limitation to the Multipower Reserve IF the COMBINED total # of charges from ALL slots is also < 16. You should apply the Limitation as a private modifier to the reserve only for the total combined # of charges between ALL the slots. If this combined # is >/= 16 it is NOT necessary to apply an Advantage to the Reserve. You are paying for more charges directly through individual slot costs.

[Istaran]

Re: New Limitation: Charges On Multipowers

 

First' date=' all of my examples were created with HDv3.[/quote'] Good point.. I need to remember my HD is out of date.

 

Putting Charges as a Limitation on the Reserve of the Multipower is done by using the "Private Modifier" and as such does not apply individually to the slots.

True. Though this is the only option that preserves the standard ratio of advantage to limitation for how many charges you should get, including the implied 0 END.

 

Putting the same Limitation as a "Common Modifier" on the Reserve of the Multipower does apply that Limitation to each slot individually (note the END cost on my examples).

Question for someone with a book handy: Does Charges on the multipower pool (i.e. "Private Modifier") make all slots 0 END according to the book text?

 

I am also attaching screenshots from HDv3 showing the Private and Common modifier options.

I did not find those screenshots helpful. Maybe screenshots of the power list with the framework and it's slots in place would be more helpful. But I doubt they are necessary.