Gestalt Powers and Active Points

[Sean Waters]

Here’s an idea: trading advantages and limitations. I’ve been thinking about his for a while and something Hugh Neilson said in another thread crystallised it for me.

 

What you get is this, and it has a whopping great stop sign:

 

If you buy an attack, and apply advantages and limitations of equal value, you treat it as a new power, with those advantages and limitations as part of the description, with the same cost as the original.

 

So, for instance, if you want an EB that costs no END but takes a full phase to use, instead of:

 

8d6 EB (0 END +1/2) 60 points active (full phase –1/2) 40 points real

 

You buy 8d6 (0 END, Full Phase) 40 points active and real. Each 1d6 you add has the same characteristics, so you can get a 12d6 EB (0 END, full phase) in a 60 Active Point game.

 

Why?

 

Well, some advantages make a power more, well, powerful – for instance armour piercing – whereas some advantages just make the power easier to use (like reduced END, personal immunity and such).

 

It seems somewhat unfair that they are all treated the same for active point cost purposes.

 

Ask yourself this: which is the more powerful: 8d6 AP or 8d6 0END?

 

Arm two otherwise identical characters with these attacks, and the former will win 99 times out of 100 (luck will play some small part…). There seems little doubt that the AP version is far more powerful and useful, but the ‘power meter’ – the active point cost – has them registered the same.

 

So, under this idea you can not use ‘combat effective’ advantages. What they are is up to the GM but it certainly would include NND, AVLD, AP, Penetrating, and may include AoE, autofire and indirect.

 

As a side issue it makes the character sheet a less cluttered place J

 

Also has interesting consequences for frameworks...

 

Thoughts?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Gestalt Powers and Active Points

 

Well, some advantages make a power more, well, powerful – for instance armour piercing – whereas some advantages just make the power easier to use (like reduced END, personal immunity and such).

 

It seems somewhat unfair that they are all treated the same for active point cost purposes.

 

I agree. Personally, I solve this issue by not using point caps and instead use my own judgment when deciding what is too powerful for a specific power for a specific character. Of course, in some cases, these may definitely be equal, or the revers of what you'd expect...

 

Ask yourself this: which is the more powerful: 8d6 AP or 8d6 0END?

Well, this depends upon the circumstances and how they are used. Even given otherwise equally matched opponents, Mr. Zero END can always dodge, hide, stay behind cover or run away until Mr. AP is out of END, then laugh away as he blasts him back. As for circumstances, ask which one you'd like to use when in a fight against someone using those END draining batons of PRIMUS.

 

Of course, I'm just being devil's advocate here. Deep down I absolutely agree with you, which is why I'd more readily allow the 0 END over the AP in any given campaign. But deeper down I just hate point caps.

[pinecone]

Re: Gestalt Powers and Active Points

 

Here’s an idea: trading advantages and limitations. I’ve been thinking about his for a while and something Hugh Neilson said in another thread crystallised it for me.

 

What you get is this, and it has a whopping great stop sign:

 

If you buy an attack, and apply advantages and limitations of equal value, you treat it as a new power, with those advantages and limitations as part of the description, with the same cost as the original.

 

So, for instance, if you want an EB that costs no END but takes a full phase to use, instead of:

 

8d6 EB (0 END +1/2) 60 points active (full phase –1/2) 40 points real

 

You buy 8d6 (0 END, Full Phase) 40 points active and real. Each 1d6 you add has the same characteristics, so you can get a 12d6 EB (0 END, full phase) in a 60 Active Point game.

 

Why?

 

Well, some advantages make a power more, well, powerful – for instance armour piercing – whereas some advantages just make the power easier to use (like reduced END, personal immunity and such).

 

It seems somewhat unfair that they are all treated the same for active point cost purposes.

 

Ask yourself this: which is the more powerful: 8d6 AP or 8d6 0END?

 

Arm two otherwise identical characters with these attacks, and the former will win 99 times out of 100 (luck will play some small part…). There seems little doubt that the AP version is far more powerful and useful, but the ‘power meter’ – the active point cost – has them registered the same.

 

So, under this idea you can not use ‘combat effective’ advantages. What they are is up to the GM but it certainly would include NND, AVLD, AP, Penetrating, and may include AoE, autofire and indirect.

 

As a side issue it makes the character sheet a less cluttered place J

 

Also has interesting consequences for frameworks...

 

Thoughts?

 

This used to be a part of the mechanics of Hero...the most well known example is/was HTH.

Some had no problems... (like say...me) But others Hated it. Most seemed to hate it because of the frame work and active limits issues. I honestly think it is as much a personality issue as anything.

 

I'm guessing that Steve is amoung the "Me no likey" group because this style vanished as soon as he started running things rule wise.

 

So...if you had no problems with HA costing 3 pts a D6, then you'll like this. I always the liked the way it simplifed things for the less mathy players...Drain: X, Ranged is this many points a D6, so how much do you want? (remember Drain used to modify cost per D6 by Char, back then)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Gestalt Powers and Active Points

 

I agree. Personally, I solve this issue by not using point caps and instead use my own judgment when deciding what is too powerful for a specific power for a specific character. Of course, in some cases, these may definitely be equal, or the revers of what you'd expect...

 

 

Well, this depends upon the circumstances and how they are used. Even given otherwise equally matched opponents, Mr. Zero END can always dodge, hide, stay behind cover or run away until Mr. AP is out of END, then laugh away as he blasts him back. As for circumstances, ask which one you'd like to use when in a fight against someone using those END draining batons of PRIMUS.

 

Of course, I'm just being devil's advocate here. Deep down I absolutely agree with you, which is why I'd more readily allow the 0 END over the AP in any given campaign. But deeper down I just hate point caps.

 

I've always been a sucker for AP caps, but this has a real effect on frameworks too: in a 60 point MP, the best you can manage is an 8d6, 0 END power. With this idea you could get that up to 12d6, although it would have to be balanced with at least -1/2 in limtiations. That is potentially vey powerful, and would require serious monitoring.

 

An idea occurs - what if you had to 'overbalance' the advantages with a larger number of limitations, eg for a +1/2 advantage on a 5/point per 1d6 power, you need -1 in limtiations, but it is then still considered a 5 point per 1d6 power?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Gestalt Powers and Active Points

 

I'm not sure I like the idea of an AVLD attack that Does BOD being 5 points per die because, say, it has 4 charges (-1), Costs END (-1/2) and an OAF (-1), so you can plug 12d6 of this into your 60 point Multipower.

 

No, scratch that - I'm pretty sure I DON'T like that idea!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Gestalt Powers and Active Points

 

I'm not sure I like the idea of an AVLD attack that Does BOD being 5 points per die because, say, it has 4 charges (-1), Costs END (-1/2) and an OAF (-1), so you can plug 12d6 of this into your 60 point Multipower.

 

No, scratch that - I'm pretty sure I DON'T like that idea!

 

Fortunately then, that was not what I was suggesting: the whole point was to draw a line of demarcation between 'combat effective' advantages and others, and you will note that the pre-pre-penultimate line specifically embargoes employing AVLD in such a gestalt power (and NND, AP and Penetrating).

[pinecone]

Re: Gestalt Powers and Active Points

 

Fortunately then' date=' that was not what I was suggesting: the whole point was to draw a line of demarcation between 'combat effective' advantages and others, and you will note that the pre-pre-penultimate line specifically embargoes employing AVLD in such a gestalt power (and NND, AP and Penetrating).[/quote']

 

I use a soft cap...but ignore things like Zero end now...so whatever you like man, it's all Hero...