Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

[Alcamtar]

I am thinking of using a real point limit for a fantasy hero game, instead of an active point limit. The reason is to allow for expensive powers (area effects, etc) as long as they are reasonably limited, as well as really big epic effects.

 

For starting 150pt characters, I'm thinking that no individual power may cost more than 15 real points. (This may need to be adjusted.) That easily allows powers in the 45 AP range, and you could go a lot higher if you're willing to limit it down.

 

There would still be guidelines on DCs and defenses, as well as the ole' GM eyeball to watch for problems.

 

Has anyone done this?

[mayapuppies]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

You'll have to let me know how that works out for you. I've never set limits as I just eyeball the power builds and go from there, but I've always wanted to have a "point guideline" for new players.

[Markdoc]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

I must confess, I've never tried it, but on the face of it, it sounds like a really terrible idea. It should be trivial to build spells that would be devastating for relatively few points - and you don't need devastating spells all that frequently.

 

Still, if you try it, let us know how it turns out.

 

cheers, Mark

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

I've used it, and it can work. You as the GM have to make sure that Limitations are real, and that they are enforced to make it work.

[jaws]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

I would love to know how it works too please. This sounds interesting as I am finding I have trouble modeling the effects I want when limiting AP. Where the power really isn't that overpowering as its AP's would indicate due to the limitations on it being so effective.

 

I know I can just hand wave as a DM, but I like consistency my players can count on, and the less I have to hand wave the better.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

Should be worth a go. I'm also interested in seeing how this works out.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

5d6 RKA, Gestures, incantations, 1 charge, requires a full phase, Concentrate - 0 DCV, costs END. 15 points

 

When most of the characters are tossing around 6 DC attacks with a total of -1 in limitations, the above will be a wonderful opener against the Big Boss.

 

Watching defenses and DC's will help, but then you're not really allowing that "truly high power, but very limited" spell you wanted, are you? I don't think any game can be boiled down to fixed mechanical rules - eliminating GM judgment also constrains or eliminates creativity.

[Alcamtar]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

Sure, if you allow a DC 15 attack. But if magic cannot exceed DC 6 killing (or DC 8 normal), then nobody is going to build that power. They could however build:

 

2d6 RKA, AP, 4" Radius, Gestures, incantations, 1 charge, requires a full phase, Concentrate - 0 DCV, costs END. 15 points

 

That's still a powerful attack, but it's probably not going to take out the big baddie, and you only have one shot. It'll make him bleed a bit. If a warrior can do as much as 3d6K with STR and MA, it may balance out against a once per day power.

[Outsider]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

Two can play at that game, of course.

 

Inviolable Skin

12 (75) 30/30 Forcefield

_______(+1/4) Trigger : Regular Armor is Pierced by BODY damage

_______(-2) Charges : 1 Charge/Day

_______(-1) Focus : Obvious, Inaccessible (Big Boss Armor)

_______(-2) Extra Time : 5 Minutes to set trigger

[Markdoc]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

Sure' date=' if you allow a DC 15 attack. But if magic cannot exceed DC 6 killing (or DC 8 normal), then nobody is going to build that power. [/quote']

 

Yes, but now you are back to limiting active points, not real points: which kind of takes the "point" away, no?

 

Two can play at that game, of course.

 

Inviolable Skin

12 (75) 30/30 Forcefield

_______(+1/4) Trigger : Regular Armor is Pierced by BODY damage

_______(-2) Charges : 1 Charge/Day

_______(-1) Focus : Obvious, Inaccessible (Big Boss Armor)

_______(-2) Extra Time : 5 Minutes to set trigger

 

Yes. Which is why limiting real points instead of active is so hard to do. It encourages weird builds. Personally, I don't worry about points caps at all. I look at the character in toto and see if it is balanced. That allows players to build effects that might be expensive to do but won't necessarily be overwhelming in practice.

 

cheers, Mark

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

Come now Mark. Surely you aren't suggesting that GMs should take charge of things and actually make decisions are you?

[Alcamtar]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

Yes' date=' but now you are back to limiting active points, not real points: which kind of takes the "point" away, no?[/quote']

 

No, not really. It's more like a limit on Base Points without regard to advantages. Normally in addition to AP caps I'd have CV/DC/Defense guidelines (that apply to everything, not just powers). One can remove the AP cap without removing the CV/DC/Defense guidelines.

 

 

Personally, I don't worry about points caps at all. I look at the character in toto and see if it is balanced. That allows players to build effects that might be expensive to do but won't necessarily be overwhelming in practice.

 

Generally I'd agree, except that it's a big waste of a player's time and energy if you fail to give any ground rules and then reject stuff they spent hours on. This is especially problematic with a new campaign and/or new players who don't really know what to expect. Also this can involve a lot of back and forth, which is difficult if you're not sitting around a table together.

[Cargus10]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

Why not stick with the AP cap for designing characters, but introduce a House Rule:

 

Any construct above the AP cap may be requested but only in general terms. The GM will construct the actual power with appropriate limitations for game balance purposes, if it is allowed in the first place. The player will request the general parameters (e.g. RKA, AoE, what have you) and the GM will provide the hard numbers with an eye toward balance.

[sbarron]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

I think limiting based on real points could work. However, I think the GM should take the time to list the limits that he's willing to accept, and perhaps more importantly, list the limits that fit the magic system.

 

There should be a system of give and take in place, so that characters can't sneak in high end attacks without paying a price. Extra time is great for this. The longer it takes to cast, the more powerful it can be. Increased END is good, too. The greater the AP power, the greater the END cost multiplier.

 

I wouldn't allow charges at all, because to me they don't give anything back. Sure, you can only do it once a day, but why? I think there should be a why that makes sense with every limit, and charges just never work for me in fantasy settings. I don't doubt some of you have explanations for charges that makes sense for you, but I can almost bet I won't like them. I'd much rather go with an END reserve or required ingredients.

 

Please do let us know how it works out.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

You guys are really over complicating things (IMO).

 

Caps are meant to limit something. If you are trying to limit raw power then an AP cap is the most direct way to do that. However if you are not trying to limit raw power but are instead trying to limit something else, then the kind of cap that will do that will vary. Dice of effect caps limit temporal potency and cresting. Character point caps limit overall character strength. Disadvantage caps limit complicating factors. Max advantage caps limit leverage. Max disadvantage caps limit flukey-ness. Speed caps limit action focus. CV caps limit accuracy. Etc etc etc. It all depends on what precisely you are trying to control.

 

Which brings to the main point...RC caps don't limit raw power as an AP cap would, they limit unrestricted power. If you want a game where very powerful effects are POSSIBLE but not COMMON, LIKELY, or UBIQUITOUS then an RC cap is one of many ways to accomplish that. The corollary is, the limits have to be enforced to make the cap meaningful. If you are the kind of GM that is good at enforcing limitations per the rules then its an effective tool and can add something to the tone / feel of the campaign. If you are the kind of GM that forgets about lims or lets your players run roughshod over you then it wont work and will just add a layer of overhead that detracts from the game and you might as well not bother with it.

 

It's as simple as that.

 

 

Personally, I use different mechanisms to accomplish my intent for different campaigns. For most campaigns RC caps are meaningless or not useful to my desired end result so I don't use them generally. However there have been several campaigns where they did make sense and I have used them to very good effect. Typically it works better in lower point / more cinematic settings; the three most notable examples that spring to mind are:

 

1) The Demon Hunter: FBI setting which was a cinematic heroic set up, and I used a 30 point total RC limit for "special talents" -- anyone with psionic or mystical abilities. This allowed people to play such a character if they wanted, but their power level was low; there was also a campaign restriction that all affects must be subtle and difficult or impossible to detect which imposed further pressure to keep such effects under wraps.

 

2) My original AD&D 2e conversion, the first pass, overloaded the VPP framework to do the magic system. It was END driven from a "mana pool" END reserve with a full REC that took 8 hours of rest to work. Spell Levels were based on Real Cost in increments of 10, so a 1st level spell was 0-10 RC and a 9th level spell was 81 to 90 RC. Each spell cost its Level in END from the Reserve on casting, ignoring its real END cost and any other factor; effects that needed to last needed to be Constant / Continuous, and Uncontrolled or Persistent. The size of the VPP capped the RC of the spells not the AP, so that a character needed a 90 Pool VPP to cast 9th Level spells. There were some metarules around "preparing" a list of Spells per day with a total END cost up to the size of the characters END reserve.

 

This system worked out OK. I mean, it was easy and closely modeled the source -- you didnt have to worry about some spells like Magic Missle having more AP than other "1st level" spells so long as you could sufficiently limit it to get the RC to 10 points or less -- , but it ran roughshod over HERO System mechanics to do it. Some truly ridiculous effects were possible at the high end; you can wring a lot of AP out of a 90 RC power with a little imagination. Ultimately it worked fine at the low end and ok in the middle, but proved to make spell casters way too powerful at the high end so I eventually scrapped it and moved to the current Vancian model on my web site. Regardless, this original version served well in many campaigns for many years.

 

3) In the MetaCyber setting I use a Real Cost limit on Meta powers but no Active Point limits. This contrasts nicely with the Active Point but no Real Cost limits on BodyTech (CyberWare, BioWare, PharmiTech) providing an interesting tension between Meta's and normals using tech \ drug enhancements and a design challenge to making a interesting Meta. It also keeps Meta's from dominating the other Archetypes (Ampers, Tubers, and Adepts).

 

 

 

Bottom line, the HERO Toolshed has a lot of tools in it; some specialized tools might hang on their hook for years unused, but its there if and when you run into a need where its particular function is well suited.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

Two can play at that game, of course.

 

Inviolable Skin

12 (75) 30/30 Forcefield

_______(+1/4) Trigger : Regular Armor is Pierced by BODY damage

_______(-2) Charges : 1 Charge/Day

_______(-1) Focus : Obvious, Inaccessible (Big Boss Armor)

_______(-2) Extra Time : 5 Minutes to set trigger

 

Let's bump the time to set the Trigger so we can make the charge Continuing.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

I don't normally 'me too' my way up my post count, but I'm with the majority here in thinking this is a bad idea. One clever player later and you have a huge, huge problem.

[Outsider]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

Let's bump the time to set the Trigger so we can make the charge Continuing.

 

That would make it a lot more powerful, but I didnt really write it to be a powerful effect, but instead as a spoiler specifically for the 'one big RKA/day to use on the boss mob' attack mentioned earlier.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

I don't normally 'me too' my way up my post count' date=' but I'm with the majority here in thinking this is a bad idea. One clever player later and you have a huge, huge problem.[/quote']

 

Care to substantiate that?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

You guys are really over complicating things (IMO).

 

...

 

This is HERO.

 

Otherwise known as Overcomplicating Things R US!

[Diamond_J]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

I am thinking of using a real point limit for a fantasy hero game, instead of an active point limit. The reason is to allow for expensive powers (area effects, etc) as long as they are reasonably limited, as well as really big epic effects.

 

For starting 150pt characters, I'm thinking that no individual power may cost more than 15 real points. (This may need to be adjusted.) That easily allows powers in the 45 AP range, and you could go a lot higher if you're willing to limit it down.

 

There would still be guidelines on DCs and defenses, as well as the ole' GM eyeball to watch for problems.

 

Has anyone done this?

 

In my Superhero games I moved away from active point limits and switched towards base point limits. The base points are what can get out of control and unbalance, seldom the advantages. The sky's the limit this way, it allows for more powers and effects to be reproduced without getting out of hand. When I run fantasy Hero next I'll be incorporating base point limits in the new game.

[Inu]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

Personally, I often allow players to breach AP limits, as long as the limitations are, as has been said, real and actually limiting. A once a day power taht you only NEED to use once a day (and costs so much END you'd be unlikely to use it more than once a day) doesn't really count. I'm talking more about powers that have feedback, or might go wrong, or something like that. I like the idea of having an energy-blaster who has his regular array of powers, but has a partially-limited blast that just goes up and up in power with ever greater END costs and Side Effects (damage to user). Sure, it could be used to take out the big bad... but if the big bad has a one-shot ubershield, then you've wasted your blast, and possibly knocked yourself out... best to wait until the bad guy's in a bad way anyway.

 

Hero's strength is team vs team, anyway, not team vs one big bad. You take out one enemy, you take yourself out... no net gain.

 

So yeah, I'm with Shrike. It's something you can do, with heavy GM scrutiny. Hero already requires a certain maturity among its players, due to the potential to abuse the system. This is why stop sign powers can exist -- the GM is advised to say no unless it's a good build. Same thing applies here.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

I am thinking of using a real point limit for a fantasy hero game, instead of an active point limit. The reason is to allow for expensive powers (area effects, etc) as long as they are reasonably limited, as well as really big epic effects.

....

Has anyone done this?

Yes. I've always done this and I find it works quite well. I've always found that Real Points are a better measure of a power's total utility than Active Points.

 

So, you've got your huge KA with one charge, and 0 DCV Concentration. Big deal, you fry one orc and then you're at 0 DCV until your next phase and 15 points down for the rest of the day.

 

This sort of "all-eggs-in-one-basket" style of character creation has never led to over-powered characters in my experience. More often, it leads to dead characters.

[Old Man]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

You shouldn't focus on the RKA example. I'd be more concerned about major transforms, summons, aids and the like.

 

The main problem I have with the real point limit is that limitations tend not to always be limiting. I can limit anything down to 15 points. It'll probably take all day to cast and only work under a full moon but if I'm summoning Azathoth or peanently raising all my stats by 30 it's probably still worth it. So to make real point limits work you might have to limit the limitations, which may or may not defeat the purpose.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Setting a real point limit, instead of AP limit

 

You shouldn't focus on the RKA example. I'd be more concerned about major transforms' date=' summons, aids and the like. [/quote']

 

ooo...good examples! Hmmm...

 

4d6 Aid, Any one characteristic (+1/4), Fade Rate 5 points per year (+2 - reset to whatever the +2 advantage level is), Costs END (-1/2) 10x END (-4 1/2), Extra Time (say the -1 1/2 level, which I think isn't that long), Gestures throughout (-1/2) Incantations throughout (-1/2), Concentrate 0 DCV throughout (-1), OAF (-1), AP 130; RP 14.

 

Now I spend the Extra Time (before to cast and after to recover from the END and STUN loss!) to buff everyone in the group to +24 STR, +8 DEX, +12 CON, +12 BOD, +24 INT, +12 Ego, +24 PRE, +48 COM (my we look swell!), +12 PD, +12 ED, +12 REC, +2 SPD, +48 END and +24 STUN. I'll buff myself first to cut down that post-casting recovery time. I bet the whole party will be superheroic in stats.

 

Of course, any enemy will be using the same spells - he'll have to in order to compete.

 

To me, any gains in the reduced need for the GM to review exceptions to the AP limit is offset by the increased need for the GM to review high AP abilities. Neither system is going to let the spell above through anyway, but every justifiable high AP/high limit spell that you don't have to approve can likely be offset by a High AP/High Limit spell you have to veto. Plus, we get the "but you SAID it was OK if it fit the real point limit" whine.