I have never used a VPP

[Manic Typist]

It's true. I've never used a VPP, or any framework except for the infamous "Divide by 3." However, I have decided to give the VPP a shot for my next campaign that I am running.

 

Now it's just a matter of figuring it out...

 

What I am used to, and striving for, is a very specific, unencumbered VPP. No studying your spellbooks each day, or forgetting spells as you use them, or needing time "between scenes" to change your "inventory" of spells. No, what I am looking for is a VPP where the only limitation on which spells you cast is whether or not those spells are on a predetermined list of spells that the GM has approved.

 

Basically, it stems from the image of a wizard who just KNOWS all the spells that he needs, limited by the fact that this is a beginning wizard. So his list of starting spells would be relatively small...

 

Is this too unbalancing?

 

Also- am I correct in my understanding that I cannot have total Real value of spells that exceeds the Active Cost? pg. 324 Fifth Ed Revised, under "Buying Power Pool Slots." If that's the case, the VPP is not NEARLY as versatile as I'd thought. I thought that I could have an essentially infinite number of possible spells (granted that I have the resources such as the training and magical libraries, etc), it's just I can only have so many "loaded" into the VPP at one time.

 

So confused.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

Is this too unbalancing?

 

No more so than any other use of VPP.

 

I thought that I could have an essentially infinite number of possible spells (granted that I have the resources such as the training and magical libraries, etc), it's just I can only have so many "loaded" into the VPP at one time.

 

This is correct. You can have a total number of Real Points worth of Powers "loaded" into the VPP equal to or less than the Active Points in the Pool.

[ghost-angel]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

Ok, several levels of VPP occur:

 

Basic VPP

-Active Points of Spells may not exceed Pool Points

-Total Real Points of all Spells "active" cannot exceed Pool Points

-Changing Spells (slots) takes a Skill Roll (at -1 per 10 AP) & a Full Phase

 

Adding Versatality:

You can alter part 3 with the following options:

-No Skill Roll Required (the VPP takes a Full Phase to change, but no roll)

-Takes 1/2 Phase To Change Slots

-Takes 0 Phase Action To Change Slots

 

Now, here's why the VPP is so versatile - if you can change Powers as a 0-Phase Action you only need to track the Real Point Cost of Continuous Powers from Phase to Phase. If you're only using Instant Powers then it's like having all those Powers at full value all the time.

 

Cosmic VPP is referencing both Requires No Skill Roll & Takes 0-Phase Action To Change.

 

--

Now, a lot of the danger of a VPP (especially a Cosmic VPP) comes from Players being able to build/adjust Powers on the fly to counter the situation.

 

If you, like you state you will, restrict the Choices of Available Powers to a predetermined list you've removed about 75% of the Game Unbalancing Danger of a VPP. Players cannot simply use it to come up with the solution on the fly. They still have a set of Powers to work from, on the fly, but can't spontaneously make new ones.

 

My suggestion is that "Only Known Spells" be worth a -0 Limitation - this is simply how you're handling VPPs in your game. It's a good control, won't take game time as a player attempts to make a new Spell all the time. They simply choose from the list and go.

 

They will, however, need to track the Real Points of active Spells/Slots to make sure all the Spells they are using don't exceed the Pool Points. In some cases this may cause them to use Spells at less than the VPPs maximum Active Point Limit.

[Manic Typist]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

Oh... good.

 

Well, that reassures me. What Value limitation would you assign to a pool that designates "Only spells from approved list?" -1/4? 0?

 

Edit: someone posted as I was posting. Thank you.

 

Other thoughts?

 

It looks like I'm building a Cosmic Pool...

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

Oh... good.

 

Well, that reassures me. What Value limitation would you assign to a pool that designates "Only spells from approved list?" -1/4? 0?

 

It kinda varies by how "mean" you're gonna be, but I usually put it at -1/4 to -1/2.

 

And if you want some additional mild complications I can explain my common optional VPP variant that decouples the Control Cost and Pool Cost from each other. It expands your options by quite a bit without really requiring much in the way of additional rules, but does add another stopsign to the whole package.

[ghost-angel]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

Here's what I'd build:

 

VPP Control

Control Advantages/Limitations: Cosmic (+2); Magic Onloy (-1/4); Spell List Only (-0) [plus any Common Spell Limitations you use like Incantations, etc]

[OddHat]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

Oh... good.

 

Well, that reassures me. What Value limitation would you assign to a pool that designates "Only spells from approved list?" -1/4? 0?

 

Edit: someone posted as I was posting. Thank you.

 

Other thoughts?

 

It looks like I'm building a Cosmic Pool...

 

I'd use -0 if the approved spells could pick and choose from any and all mechanics within the SFX of "magic", -1/4 if there were some restrictions that might come up now and then (""Sorry Dave, there's just no resurrection through your style of magic"), -1/2 if there were restrictions that would come up fairly often ("Dave, you know that your style of magic can't support any direct physical attack spells").

[Manic Typist]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

And if you want some additional mild complications I can explain my common optional VPP variant that decouples the Control Cost and Pool Cost from each other. It expands your options by quite a bit without really requiring much in the way of additional rules, but does add another stopsign to the whole package.

 

Please. I'll try anything once, and most things twice.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

Please. I'll try anything once' date=' and most things twice.[/quote']

 

Cool.

 

It's really fairly easy.

 

Right now, A VPP has 2 components, Pool and Control.

This remains the same.

Base costs remain the same.

 

Current System:

Pool= The number of Real Points you can shuffle around. Cannot be limited.

Control=Represents the Maximum Active Points allowed in any power in the Pool. Fixed value equal to the Pool, cost= pool/2. Can be modified w/ Advantages & Limitations

 

My Variant:

Pool= The number of Real Points you can shuffle around. Cannot be limited.

Control= The maximum Active Point value of any Power in the Pool. Flexible Value cost 1 point for 2 AP of Control Value. Can be modified w/ Advantages & Limitations

 

The only difference with my approach is that the Control is not required to match the Pool.

Basically I just remove the Control= Pool/2 part of the equation and allow that portion to be determined at the time of purchace.

 

What this allows is a lot more flexibility at the risk of game breaking power.

 

Examples:

Normal (by the Book) Magic VPP

80 pt. Pool Cost:80

Control (80AP)/2= Cost:40

total cost: 120 points

 

Allows up to 80 Real points worth of spells at any one time, each with up to 80 active points.

 

Cantrip Pool (variant VPP rules)

40 point Pool Cost:40

Control (20AP)/2 Cost:10

Total Cost: 50

 

Allows up to 40 Real points worth of spells at any one time, each with up to 20 active points.

 

Ritual Pool (Variant VPP rules)

40 point Pool Cost:40

Control (120AP)/2 Cost:60

Total Cost: 100

 

Allows up to 40 Real points worth of spells at any one time, each with up to 120 active points. Obviously, in this case, to use his pool to full effect, the player will have to put at least -2 worth of Limitations on every Power in the pool. This application is the Stopsign part of the variant, due to potential for abuse.

 

Limit to flavor and Voila!

 

Feel free to ask questions if I've been unclear.

[SteveZilla]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

Current System:

Pool= The number of Real Points you can shuffle around. Cannot be limited.

Control= Pool/2. Represents the Maximum Active Points allowed in any power in the Pool. Can be modified w/ Advantages & Limitations

 

My Variant:

Pool= The number of Real Points you can shuffle around. Cannot be limited.

Control= The maximum Active Point value of any Power in the Pool. Can be modified w/ Advantages & Limitations

 

A very interesting idea! And an identical purchase functions identically. Letting the Control Cost * 2 set the upper limit of Active Points in all the pool powers makes it more important. (I.e., it shifts something that was controlled by the Pool Cost to be controlled now by the Control Cost.)

 

There is no danger of misuse (over and above that from it being a VPP) for a character who buys a smaller Control than normal. But the ability to buy a small Pool and a huge Control is a little worrisome. Have you thought about a cost increase at that point, kind of like a "Normal Characteristic Maxima" for VPPs?

[OzMike]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

I've used a VPP for magic for before, and it worked. I've also used multipowers for a system based around elements.

 

One house rule I've used in the past that's worked has been to have 1pt spell familiarities for each spell the character knows, and limited the maximum number of spells the character can learn to their INT (e.g. 10 INT = 10 spells max).

 

This is why older wizards generally can learn more - their INT goes up with characteristic maximums and the aging disadvantage.

 

Also the VPP was generally only for dedicated wizards - others could buy individual spells and granted powers.

[ghost-angel]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

A very interesting idea! And an identical purchase functions identically. Letting the Control Cost * 2 set the upper limit of Active Points in all the pool powers makes it more important. (I.e., it shifts something that was controlled by the Pool Cost to be controlled now by the Control Cost.)

 

There is no danger of misuse (over and above that from it being a VPP) for a character who buys a smaller Control than normal. But the ability to buy a small Pool and a huge Control is a little worrisome. Have you thought about a cost increase at that point, kind of like a "Normal Characteristic Maxima" for VPPs?

 

It does have some self limiting features... if you buy a small Pool and a large Control you may have to put so many Limitations on the Powers you end up crippling yourself.

 

And of course, if the GM has a rule where you can only -X Limitations on any given Power you're going to end up with a ceiling anyways.

 

Not to say it isn't abusable, I just don't think it's more abusable than a standard VPP.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

It does have some self limiting features... if you buy a small Pool and a large Control you may have to put so many Limitations on the Powers you end up crippling yourself.

 

And of course, if the GM has a rule where you can only -X Limitations on any given Power you're going to end up with a ceiling anyways.

 

Not to say it isn't abusable, I just don't think it's more abusable than a standard VPP.

 

Honestly, it does have the potential to be very nasty... hence why I consider it a Stopsign power. It does, however, allow for concepts like the Ritualist who, armed with his sanctom sanctorm and a bunch of extra time can work up some Major Mojo (but who is quite vunerable away from his toys) on a lower point scale.

 

it'd work well for Lovecraftian magic or as Dragerean Sorcery as well, I'm thinking. As an option it allows a bit more power ramping for the same points... essentially giving the VPP some of the advantages normal spells have... being able to ramp up to some of the higher AP effects at the expense of a grip of Limitations. Done the normal way, that is something a VPP magic style doesn't do well. Could it be abused? Damn skippy. Does it increase the toolkit? Yep.

Good enough for me

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

A very interesting idea! And an identical purchase functions identically. Letting the Control Cost * 2 set the upper limit of Active Points in all the pool powers makes it more important. (I.e., it shifts something that was controlled by the Pool Cost to be controlled now by the Control Cost.)

 

There is no danger of misuse (over and above that from it being a VPP) for a character who buys a smaller Control than normal. But the ability to buy a small Pool and a huge Control is a little worrisome. Have you thought about a cost increase at that point, kind of like a "Normal Characteristic Maxima" for VPPs?

I could certainly see putting campaign maximums, or thresholds (like NCM) on the Control cost.

[Checkmate]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

Since you seem to have gotten what you need for most of your questions, so I'll take the "Unbalanced" one:

 

At first glance I'd say that it is terribly unbalancing. I mean why have a fighter type when a wizard can do whatever they want whenever they want. Why have a bow which I had to spend points on a WF skill and takes a half-phase to nock an arrow, then a half-phase to shoot and am limited by how many arrows I have, when I can launch as many more effective, possible AoE, fireballs that I want? Why buy armor that has to be maintained (Real Armor limit) has weight and maybe minuses to my skills, when I can just put up a magic force field any time I need it?

 

Sure the cost of the VPP balances things out a bit but a wizard doesn't need to buy the skills a fighter does. Don't need skill levels with AoE's. Or even if you did need some skill levels 3 point skill levels with VPP are a lot cheaper than +5 w/HtH or even +8 with combat. This means a wizard could afford the fighters stats. Maybe lower STR to raise INT but there really is no need to even do that, since there are no skills involved with your system.

 

You need to be VERY careful what spells you have on your list, and even then, I'd say in a Fantasy setting, the wizards have the edge

[OddHat]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

Let the sword swingers buy Superskills in a MP or VPP and the spell casters no longer have much (if any) of a combat edge. Let the sword swingers buy Superskills for use outside of combat and make sure that magic has its own limitations and it's not that hard to strike any balance you care to.

 

The downside, as much as there is one, is that you can quickly end up with combats that look like Wuxia or wild American action films; you'll need to decide if that's the flavor you want.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

How many points will the typical warrior spend on weapon skills, and what will he get for them?

 

A maxed out Longsword, with STR bonuses and/or levels converted to damage, will do 3d6 + 1. That's a 50 AP power.

 

To get the same level of damage out of a VPP, the wizard needs to invest 35active points (2d6 + 1 HKA, and assuming he has a 15 STR to add 1d6). That's 52 points for his VPP.

 

Of course, that HKA costs him 4 END (3 for the KA and 1 for STR) per use, where the sword swing probably costs 2 or less, so he also needs a 1/2 END KA, which means a 41 point pool, costing 61 points.

 

But that's a pool that takes a full p[hase and a skill roll to change in combat. The proposed system will be a Cosmic VPP, so the control cost will be 150% of the pool. That raises our "costs END" VPP to an 87 point cost, and our "1/2 END" pool to 102 points.

 

The Wizard will have more flexibility, but I suggest he will have less versatility.

 

The system proposed, in my opinion, will create a system for "dedicated" spellcasters, with little room or tolerance for dabblers. It will allow for very versatile spellcasters, able to switch their spells on the fly, from the list available. However, it will also require a substantial initial point investment to have access to higher AP powers - a 30 point pool will cost 75 points, and provides for a 6 DC attack with no advantages, at the wizard's base CV. Spending, say, 30 points on magic won't get the character much in the way of power, although it will provide for an array of minor magical effects.

 

The Warriors and other characters will lack versatility, but should be very superior at their chosen areas of expertise.

 

My point values assume no limitations like Spell, or Restrictive Prepared List, of course. However, if these are truly limiting, there will be a point cost savings offset by a loss of versatility.

 

It also assumes the standard VPP, not the suggestion of a more flexible control cost for maximization of AP available. However, that aproach means the Wizard's spells will have more limitations. Since they can only choose from spells they have learned or researched, taking (say) a 15 point pool and a 30 point control cost to be able to access 60 AP is relying on the GM providing a lot of 60 AP spells with -3 in limitations that will still be generally useful to the character. How likely is that? And it still cost 105 points, since the control cost must be made Cosmic.

 

Playuers will still likely want some limitations on their spells to reduce the real cost, and fit more spells into their pool (eg. being ableto atack while having a defensive spell up). However, the system suggests no overall limits on the control cost. If it does allow for these as "styles of magic", then any spells that don't have those limitations aren't usable due to the character's style, further restricting flexibility.

 

I'd want to playtest it for certainty, but I don't see a huge balance problem leaping off the page.

[ghost-angel]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

Hugh said it before I could. And naturally I can't Rep him for it.

[Manic Typist]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

Part of the problem is that it's the only thing I know. I've never played any other way, and I've never really read any source material that would help me get an idea of the "flavor" created by alternate systems. Hence, it is very difficult for me to wrap my head around why its fun (I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just saying I can't make myself experience the fun just by thinking about it. It eludes me), and I would have no real preparation to adjudicate it.

 

I would love to run under a GM who DOES do this, just so I can get a feel for it.

 

I don't fully understand the appeal of a system where you have to go study your books after using a spell, or are limited to the spells that you happened to study that day, etc.

 

I will definitely ride reign on the spells and try to be careful, but I am still open to the idea of other ways of doing this. I would just need to prep some more, that's all.

[Checkmate]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

How many points will the typical warrior spend on weapon skills, and what will he get for them?

 

A maxed out Longsword, with STR bonuses and/or levels converted to damage, will do 3d6 + 1. That's a 50 AP power.

 

To get the same level of damage out of a VPP, the wizard needs to invest 35active points (2d6 + 1 HKA, and assuming he has a 15 STR to add 1d6). That's 52 points for his VPP.

 

Of course, that HKA costs him 4 END (3 for the KA and 1 for STR) per use, where the sword swing probably costs 2 or less, so he also needs a 1/2 END KA, which means a 41 point pool, costing 61 points.

 

But that's a pool that takes a full p[hase and a skill roll to change in combat. The proposed system will be a Cosmic VPP, so the control cost will be 150% of the pool. That raises our "costs END" VPP to an 87 point cost, and our "1/2 END" pool to 102 points.

 

The Wizard will have more flexibility, but I suggest he will have less versatility.

 

The system proposed, in my opinion, will create a system for "dedicated" spellcasters, with little room or tolerance for dabblers. It will allow for very versatile spellcasters, able to switch their spells on the fly, from the list available. However, it will also require a substantial initial point investment to have access to higher AP powers - a 30 point pool will cost 75 points, and provides for a 6 DC attack with no advantages, at the wizard's base CV. Spending, say, 30 points on magic won't get the character much in the way of power, although it will provide for an array of minor magical effects.

 

The Warriors and other characters will lack versatility, but should be very superior at their chosen areas of expertise.

 

My point values assume no limitations like Spell, or Restrictive Prepared List, of course. However, if these are truly limiting, there will be a point cost savings offset by a loss of versatility.

 

It also assumes the standard VPP, not the suggestion of a more flexible control cost for maximization of AP available. However, that aproach means the Wizard's spells will have more limitations. Since they can only choose from spells they have learned or researched, taking (say) a 15 point pool and a 30 point control cost to be able to access 60 AP is relying on the GM providing a lot of 60 AP spells with -3 in limitations that will still be generally useful to the character. How likely is that? And it still cost 105 points, since the control cost must be made Cosmic.

 

Playuers will still likely want some limitations on their spells to reduce the real cost, and fit more spells into their pool (eg. being ableto atack while having a defensive spell up). However, the system suggests no overall limits on the control cost. If it does allow for these as "styles of magic", then any spells that don't have those limitations aren't usable due to the character's style, further restricting flexibility.

 

I'd want to playtest it for certainty, but I don't see a huge balance problem leaping off the page.

 

The sword example doesn't wash, as the wizard could have the same sword. May not hit as often or quite as hard, but it'd be close assuming NCM.

 

While the inital cost of the VPP would be high, I don't think it will be enough. What really will determine if it is or isn't unbalanced is the spells in the list (hence the warning in the last line of my post). If you allow a wizard a sort of Tenser's Transformation (increase combat characteristics), the fighter is now a waste of time.

[Checkmate]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

Part of the problem is that it's the only thing I know. I've never played any other way, and I've never really read any source material that would help me get an idea of the "flavor" created by alternate systems. Hence, it is very difficult for me to wrap my head around why its fun (I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just saying I can't make myself experience the fun just by thinking about it. It eludes me), and I would have no real preparation to adjudicate it.

 

I would love to run under a GM who DOES do this, just so I can get a feel for it.

 

I don't fully understand the appeal of a system where you have to go study your books after using a spell, or are limited to the spells that you happened to study that day, etc.

 

I will definitely ride reign on the spells and try to be careful, but I am still open to the idea of other ways of doing this. I would just need to prep some more, that's all.

I created a magic system using a VPP, but I had a few more limitations on it.

- They only had a number of slots equal to INT-10

- To increase the number of slots they had to spend Real Cost/3 in XP to add the spell to the list, on top of the RP elements (time to research or time and skills to understand a new book or scroll).

- They had to buy skills for Spell Colleges and could only make spells that went with those colleges.

- Every spell had to have the RSR limit on it.

 

I thought this made people invest enough points into being a wizard that they could barely dabble at being a fighter. This also allowed the players to come up with their spells, which I would rather if I were a player. You still had to closely monitor the spells, but you could see all possible combinations pretty easily as most players will have at most 10 spells. If you create a large list, players may come up with some combination of powers you never thought of and unbalance the game.

[Vondy]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

I've found the best way to keep VPPs quick and clean is to have all powers that will be used with them written in advance. Then players don't sit around trying to manufacture powers at run time, and the game-master knows what to expect and need not fear abuse. This also allows some review and discussion of the VPP and its effects on the game. I don't think VPPs are more inherently broken than anything else in the system, and provide many character concepts with much needed flexibility. You just have to approach them maturely, and with a jaundiced eye.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

The sword example doesn't wash' date=' as the wizard could have the same sword. May not hit as often or quite as hard, but it'd be close assuming NCM.[/quote']

 

Where did all those points the warrior didn't spend on his VPP go? Assuming he didn't buy a 100+ Comeliness, I suspect they went into STR and DEX which are better than the wizard's , combat skill levels that help him hit more often and /or inflict more damage and/or avoid being hit in return, and superskills making his use of the blade vastly more effective than the wizard's.

 

I've played in Supers games where one character has a VPP. He doesn't outshine the rest of the team, and he doesn't have a pre-list restriction.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

I created a magic system using a VPP, but I had a few more limitations on it.

- They only had a number of slots equal to INT-10

- To increase the number of slots they had to spend Real Cost/3 in XP to add the spell to the list, on top of the RP elements (time to research or time and skills to understand a new book or scroll).

 

Assuming the RP cost of the spell was 8+, why not buy another INT instead? That's only going to cost 2 points, assuming he's already at NCM. Plus, that should gradually boost his skills, reducing the impact of that mandatory RSR.

[Checkmate]

Re: I have never used a VPP

 

You could only raise your stats 5 points above starting if you were under NCM, 3 points if it went over. 16 could go to 20, 17-18 could go to 21, 19 to 22.

 

I agree in a supers game a cosmic VPP is MUCH less unbalancing than in a heroic game. I'm assuming we're talking heroic, were something as small as pluses to hit locations totally change the outcome of combat.