Would you allow this

[JmOz]

A group of powers, each taking charges, then each one taking an aditional limitation "shared Charges" as a -1/4 lim, and permits the "Takes additional charge" limitation (See FAQ), probably simplified (to not include the bit about the number of main charges effecting the cost)

 

This is because I hate END REserves BTW

[Silbeg]

Re: Would you allow this

 

A group of powers, each taking charges, then each one taking an aditional limitation "shared Charges" as a -1/4 lim, and permits the "Takes additional charge" limitation (See FAQ), probably simplified (to not include the bit about the number of main charges effecting the cost)

 

This is because I hate END REserves BTW

 

I would have no problem allowing that.

The -1/4 is probably appropriate, since there should be a price break for this...

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Would you allow this

 

I would probably look at it funny, ask you why you didn't want/don't like ENDReserves, then probably okay it.

[JmOz]

Re: Would you allow this

 

I would probably look at it funny' date=' ask you why you didn't want/don't like ENDReserves, then probably okay it.[/quote']

 

I guess I should say what I dislike about END Reserves

 

Many times END reserves actualy serve to limit a power, but you are spending points for that privlidge, or if bought big enough serve to be a benefit are more expensive than 0 END versions of the power

 

Now having said that I also dislike the idea of keeping track of an extra characteristic, that uses a different REC stat. While this point is just a minor annoyance, it does exist.

 

That's it in a nutshell

[McCoy]

Re: Would you allow this

 

This is because I hate END REserves BTW

That answers my first question.

 

I'd have to see the writeup, but I think I probably would allow it.

[nexus]

Re: Would you allow this

 

I'd allow it. I can imagine some sfx where it would be appropriate.

[Qelan]

Re: Would you allow this

 

I think maybe I am missing something but it seems as if you could put the powers in a Multipower Framework then put charge limitation on the multipower pool.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Would you allow this

 

I think maybe I am missing something but it seems as if you could put the powers in a Multipower Framework then put charge limitation on the multipower pool.

 

what he said.

[HalloweenKnight]

Re: Would you allow this

 

I think maybe I am missing something but it seems as if you could put the powers in a Multipower Framework then put charge limitation on the multipower pool.

 

I agree.

 

The Multipower method is good - put the Charges limitation on the MP Reserve itself and on the Slots, so that way it becomes "all one pool of Charges" by default. The potential "redundancy" of a Slot having available Charges when the MP Reserve does not is a non-issue, since the reverse (MP Reserve has available Charges and the Slot does not) will never happen.

 

And I think I just hurt myself.

[nexus]

Re: Would you allow this

 

I was wondering about that too.

[JmOz]

Re: Would you allow this

 

I think maybe I am missing something but it seems as if you could put the powers in a Multipower Framework then put charge limitation on the multipower pool.

 

Actualy the powers are slots in a MP, but becuase of the following factors it is not appropriate to put in on the reserve:

 

One number of charges is an advantage (32), I do not let advantages on reserves, pay per slot (A bit of a house rule I know)

 

Some charges are continuing, not strait charges while others are strait charges

 

Some slots in the MP are 0 endurance

 

The F/x Basicaly the MP is a reserve of nanobots, if the character "Shoots" them (EB, Entangle, etc) away he looses some of them until he "reclaims" them, but he has a few functions that the bots stay with him (Stretching, swinging, hammer hands, etc...)

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Would you allow this

 

Well, enough Charges are an advantage, and it is a House Rule, so the answer is "No, I wouldn't allow it, because I would place the Charges on the MP," and "No, I don't think that it warrants an additional limitation, it's a special effect and should net a -0."

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Would you allow this

 

Actualy the powers are slots in a MP, but becuase of the following factors it is not appropriate to put in on the reserve:

 

One number of charges is an advantage (32), I do not let advantages on reserves, pay per slot (A bit of a house rule I know)

 

Some charges are continuing, not strait charges while others are strait charges

 

Some slots in the MP are 0 endurance

 

The F/x Basicaly the MP is a reserve of nanobots, if the character "Shoots" them (EB, Entangle, etc) away he looses some of them until he "reclaims" them, but he has a few functions that the bots stay with him (Stretching, swinging, hammer hands, etc...)

 

It sounds like you have the makings of 2 separate groups of powers. I would set all the self-only/never-lose abilities in one group and limit accordingly and group the rest as a standard Attack Multipower. Now the exercise is no different than the typical Trick-Arrow Archer build.

[Silbeg]

Re: Would you allow this

 

Well' date=' enough Charges are an advantage, and it is a House Rule, so the answer is "No, I wouldn't allow it, because I would place the Charges on the MP," and "No, I don't think that it warrants an additional limitation, it's a special effect and should net a -0."[/quote']

Agreed.

 

Given the extra information, I would have to say this would be the way to do it. There are plenty of "book" examples that do this... so I have to agree with you, Thia.

 

I rescind my previous agreement.

[Tonio]

Re: Would you allow this

 

Many times END reserves actualy serve to limit a power' date=' but you are spending points for that privlidge, or if bought big enough serve to be a benefit are more expensive than 0 END versions of the power[/quote']

 

Can you describe a situation where an END Reserve is "spending points to limit a power"?

 

And if you're buying an END Reserve big enough (or that recovers fast enough) to be effectively 0 END, then you're not reasoning from effect properly. You should've bought 0 END on your power (or powers). "My plasma rifle is powered by an antimatter reaction battery which will run out after seven quintillion shots" is not a ginormous END Reserve and it's not a humongous number of Charges; it's 0 END.

[Sidume]

Re: Would you allow this

 

Can you describe a situation where an END Reserve is "spending points to limit a power"?

 

Sure. Power X can only draw from the end reserve. If the end reserve is a focus, appropriate limitations apply. If I paid points to have a flashlight, the end reserve would be the battery. If the end reserve is exhausted, I stil have a +1d6 HA, but the Change Environment (light) doesn't function. If paid points for the flashlight & didn't take the focus limitation, it's not fair for GM to take away the flashlight (permanently anyway), but it's perfectly reasonable that the end reserve limits the effectiveness of the power.

 

Dead batteries = no light.

 

As to the original question, I would recommend using the charges modifer. You call it "Shared Charges" as the SFX, but pay as appropriate for charges (limitation or advantage, depending on the number of charges). If -1/4 fits the limitation, fine. Calling it "Shared Charges" and claiming a 1/4 limitation shouldn't apply if you have enough charges that you would be paying as an advantage if you used the book modifier.

[Vondy]

Re: Would you allow this

 

I would use the hero-designer method.

 

1. Create List.
   
2. Add Charges Limitation to the List.
   
3. Check the Box-Thingy that Applies the Limitation to List Items.
   
4. Add Powers as List Items.
   

 

As for the additional limitation "shared charges" - without seeing the construct - I'd lean towards allowing it.

[Silbeg]

Re: Would you allow this

 

I would use the hero-designer method.

 

1. Create List.
   
2. Add Charges Limitation to the List.
   
3. Check the Box-Thingy that Applies the Limitation to List Items.
   
4. Add Powers as List Items.
   

 

As for the additional limitation "shared charges" - without seeing the construct - I'd lean towards allowing it.

 

Huh...

So simple... why didn't I think of that?

d'oh!

[SteveZilla]

Re: Would you allow this

 

Actualy the powers are slots in a MP, but becuase of the following factors it is not appropriate to put in on the reserve:

 

One number of charges is an advantage (32), I do not let advantages on reserves, pay per slot (A bit of a house rule I know)

 

Observation: Because of that house rule, you will be getting more of a cost break using your "shared charges" method than were it strictly by the book, I think.

 

Some charges are continuing, not straight charges while others are straight charges

 

Some slots in the MP are 0 endurance

 

The F/x Basicaly the MP is a reserve of nanobots, if the character "Shoots" them (EB, Entangle, etc) away he looses some of them until he "reclaims" them, but he has a few functions that the bots stay with him (Stretching, swinging, hammer hands, etc...)

 

But if he "shoots" all of them away (used up all charges), how can he continue to use any of the "remaining" functions? At first look I would think that the powers that don't take charges are still dependent upon there being charges left. Unless I'm missing something.

 

And those powers are possibly also dependent in scale to the number of charges left (I.e., the more you shoot off, the more reduced the Stretching & other Powers would be)?

 

Would you be willing to post the individual powers with a note of how many charges (if any), and how long those charges last (if continuing)?

 

EDIT: Also, why can't he "throttle" his EB's and Entangles (i.e., choose to shoot less than full dice) to make his supply last longer? With charges, whether he shoots 1d6 or 12d6 at once, it's one charge. I would think that nanobots would be more flexable than that.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Would you allow this

 

I would use the hero-designer method.

 

1. Create List.
   
2. Add Charges Limitation to the List.
   
3. Check the Box-Thingy that Applies the Limitation to List Items.
   
4. Add Powers as List Items.
   

As for the additional limitation "shared charges" - without seeing the construct - I'd lean towards allowing it.

 

Huh...

So simple... why didn't I think of that?

d'oh!

 

Simple, yes. But if I were to follow just 5ER, what method would I use to build such a construct? The only similarly-acting build I can think of would be a Zero-Point Elemental Control. Just because it can be generated in HD doesn't mean it's doable in The Book (barring a House Rule, of course).

[Silbeg]

Re: Would you allow this

 

Simple' date=' yes. But if I were to follow just 5ER, what method would I use to build such a construct? The only similarly-acting build I can think of would be a Zero-Point Elemental Control. Just because it can be generated in HD doesn't mean it's doable in The Book (barring a House Rule, of course).[/quote']

Well, just by the book, I would place 32 charges on an MP... and not worry about it.