What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

[Theron]

My wife has a pet character concept we've tried to build on a number of occasions. Since she wants to run this character in my upcoming campaign, I took another, different crack at it yesterday. But after sleeping on it, I'm not sure it was the best approach, given that it breaks a couple of the rules that Hero Designer will let slide with a warning.

 

Here's the basic idea: Oracle has the ability to channel the powers of Athena, Artemis, and Aphrodite, but only one at a time. Athena is a HtH combat monster and overall skill booster, Artemis is a ranged combat machine with high running speed and tracking abilities, and Aphrodite is a mentalist/social monster.

 

The logical approach to this is a multiform, but we found that rather cumbersome in implementation. Especially since the character concept allows for significant freedom in switching between aspects.

 

This time around, I decided to take a different approach and make her fairly competent right out of the box (which gives her a range of consistent stats and skills across the board) and used a VPP with Lockout and a Limitation that she can only use the pre-defined powers of the individual goddess packages.

 

My reasoning for this is that she's not really taking on different forms, more like she's shifting enormous ultra slots in a MP. When she's channeling Athena, she has access to greater strength, a HtH attack with reach (her spear), a few non-combat skill levels, and a bunch of combat skills stuff. Of course, that means putting things in a Power Framework that shouldn't go in one, like Skill levels and Enhanced Senses.

 

As far as I can tell at this point, it basically works. But I have this niggling feeling that doing it as a multiform would be more efficient in some respects, just as long as her CON, BOD, DEX, SPD, and Stun remain constant between forms. I'm also not sure what sort of can of worms I may be opening with putting verboten stuff in a Framework.

 

Any suggestions? The game's tentatively scheduled for next week, so I've still got a few days to work on her.

[bubba smith]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

that sounds like it could work

[Tom]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

Does Oracle always channel one of the three named dieties or does she also have a form where she's not 'currently' channeling any of them?

 

One option would be grouped MP slots (though this may also be a bit clunky). Make the skills, enhanced senses, and any other normally 'non-END' using powers 'Cost END only to Activate' to represent the effort on her part to 'switch' forms.

[JmOz]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

Does Oracle always channel one of the three named dieties or does she also have a form where she's not 'currently' channeling any of them?

 

One option would be grouped MP slots (though this may also be a bit clunky). Make the skills, enhanced senses, and any other normally 'non-END' using powers 'Cost END only to Activate' to represent the effort on her part to 'switch' forms.

 

First the END requirement is ONLY for EC's

 

As for the OP

 

The rule about not putting these things in a MP is actualy a "Make sure the GM approves" type thing over a hard restriction, it is legal if the GM is willing, and as a GM I would allow it, as it is F/X driven.

 

That is the catch, look at the F/X it screams MP, as a GM I do not see it as being overly abusive (You are not trying to have your skills in a MP so that you can save points, but rather so you can have an interesting ability).

 

If it makes you feel better look at the write ups for Utility belts in gadgets and gear, lots of enhanced senses and skill levels in a MP there, and less restrictive in my opinion

[Chris-M]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

I actually think the restricted VPP approach is your simplest and best bet. If my thinking matches yours, you basically have three 250 point (or whatever) packages of powers and she can cycle through them one at a time as desired. Like you said, it's sort of a set of uber Multipower ultra slots, but I think this way it's just simpler and easier to handle than either an actual linked-up Multipower build or a multiform-based build.

[Theron]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

Does Oracle always channel one of the three named dieties or does she also have a form where she's not 'currently' channeling any of them?

 

She does have a "normal" form. Of course, the normal form is low-level superheroic in her own right.

 

At the moment, I'm playing around with the Multiform, paying attention to make sure the stats all line up between the forms. It served to make the "Normal" a little better, and freed up points to do a couple more "Goddess-y" things (like add some life support) with the Aspect of Athena (the first I've tried so far). I suspect The Missus will like this version better, since it's got more stuff.

 

Thanks for the input. I haven't had this much fun crunching numbers in ages.

 

(And Chris, I wish you were local. I'm a little short on players for this game.)

[Chris-M]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

(And Chris, I wish you were local. I'm a little short on players for this game.)

 

Thanks, man. For gaming, I wish I was, too. I'm building an original hybrid Fantasy Hero campaign that I plan to start running in September, and I am desperate for players at the moment. Thanks to OwlCon, I know a lot more good gamers in Houston than I do North Austin/Round Rock.

[Tom]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

First the END requirement is ONLY for EC's

 

Hmmm, I managed to miss that somehow. I stand corrected...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

I'd be inclined to just use the three Multipower slots as Ultras (I'm assuming that she can't mix & match, however).

 

In any case, I'd probably maintain a character sheet for each channeled aspect, as well as a fourth for "no one channeled" for ease of reference during play.

[Theron]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

I've finished the Multiform version and I have to say, I'm liking it better now that I actually sat down and did it that way. I think the problem with MF last time was that we had too many cooks, with two players and the GM all having different ways of portraying the characters, and that's not even counting my wife.

 

There are definitely character sheets for each form.

[Fedifensor]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

I've finished the Multiform version and I have to say, I'm liking it better now that I actually sat down and did it that way. I think the problem with MF last time was that we had too many cooks, with two players and the GM all having different ways of portraying the characters, and that's not even counting my wife.

 

There are definitely character sheets for each form.

Glad to hear it worked out. I have to say that both the Multiform and large Multipower solutions sound better than the VPP. Going to post the character to the list?

[Chris-M]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

Glad to hear it worked out. I have to say that both the Multiform and large Multipower solutions sound better than the VPP. Going to post the character to the list?

 

Why so? The Multiform build I can see, but I don't see why a big multipower would be better than a specifically limited VPP. I'm genuinely curious if I'm missing something -- I'm not trying to challenge your opinion or anything like that.

[Fedifensor]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

Why so? The Multiform build I can see' date=' but I don't see why a big multipower would be better than a specifically limited VPP. I'm genuinely curious if I'm missing something -- I'm not trying to challenge your opinion or anything like that.[/quote']

If the powers are set to one of three choices (call them list A, list B, and list C), a VPP with Lockout and a custom limitation is more complex that the multipower, and probably more expensive as well.

[gmurie]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

It depends on the exact concept I think:

 

If you have a person who actually CHANGES into something fundamentally different with each option (especially if there are wildly different characteristics or disadvantages like the vulnerabilities or psych lims change around) then the only clean and easy way to do it is with Multiform. You can add disadvantages like personality loss, no concious control (eek!) or Accidental Change if the concept is that Oracle doesn't have full control over her changes.

 

If what you're thinking of is a character that always has the same physical form and mind (and for the most part characteristics), but has access to a different suite of powers depending on which goddess she's calling on... The best way to do it might indeed be the VPP concept. My own inclination would be to create a set of powers that have the Lockout limitation on them. The lockout being that she can't use the powers of Aphrodite or Artemis if she's using Athena powers. It's probably the cleanest way to do this if you've got powers that shouldn't be in frameworks like enhanced senses or always on defenses.

[Maelstrom]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

VPPs are so expensive, though.

 

If not MF, I would rather use two or three Multipowers -- even four, depending, with linked powers. It'd be cheapest, I think. Might be a fun gedankenexperiment.

[gmurie]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

VPPs are so expensive, though.

 

If not MF, I would rather use two or three Multipowers -- even four, depending, with linked powers. It'd be cheapest, I think. Might be a fun gedankenexperiment.

 

And also a violation of the character building guidelines. A character shouldn't have more than one of each of the frameworks, and VPPs are expensive for a VERY good reason. Honestly, there's little point to taking multiple MPPs because you can just ram them all together into a single very large pool.

 

I just noticed that skill change outs are a part of this character, so yeah you probably should do it as a Multiform. Taking skills as powers that get locked out at different times is clumsy any other way. I realize that you are the GM so anything you like goes, but the other players might be annoyed at your wife having a character that's been allowed to violate the structure of the rules several ways from sunday.

 

I may end up building a character like this just to see if my suggestion pans out.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

And also a violation of the character building guidelines. A character shouldn't have more than one of each of the frameworks' date=' and VPPs are expensive for a VERY good reason. Honestly, there's little point to taking multiple MPPs because you can just ram them all together into a single very large pool.[/quote']

 

Several smaller MP's actually limits the character, according to concept in this case, by preventing the character taking a bunch of the smaller point powers instead of one at each power level (ie one aspect for each power level).

 

Multiform is the approach I'd take if the aspects are all or nothing, but if she can take on some aspects from each archetype at any given time, that complicates matters and the MP, or the VPP, may be the superior approach.

[JmOz]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

And also a violation of the character building guidelines. A character shouldn't have more than one of each of the frameworks, and VPPs are expensive for a VERY good reason. Honestly, there's little point to taking multiple MPPs because you can just ram them all together into a single very large pool.

 

I just noticed that skill change outs are a part of this character, so yeah you probably should do it as a Multiform. Taking skills as powers that get locked out at different times is clumsy any other way. I realize that you are the GM so anything you like goes, but the other players might be annoyed at your wife having a character that's been allowed to violate the structure of the rules several ways from sunday.

 

I may end up building a character like this just to see if my suggestion pans out.

 

Can you point me to the bit about not more than one of each Framework, I build characters with multiple MP's all the time

[Bloodstone]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

You're not allowed to link slots of different frameworks together, but I don't know of any rule saying you can't have more than one of the same framework.

 

In fact, I know of quite a few official write ups that violate that rule...

 

The OP kinda reminds me of my character Pantheon, who I built with a single MP. He had a few more gods to channel though...

[Maelstrom]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

Hmm . . . 'link' was a bad word, especially since I was envisioning a disadvantage. The first MP would be the "control". You build the MPs with the same amount of slots. Each of the "slaved" MPs would be bought with the disadvantage, "Can only use the same number slot as control". Disadvantage level to taste, I'd give it a -1/2, but I could see it as high as a -1 considering the way it could lock out 2/3rds or more of the powers at a time. I like the concept, may try it for a shapeshifter.

[Bloodstone]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

I'd have to see the final build, but there's a good chance that you would be better off going with a single large MP and having certain slots only usable with other slots (which probably constitutes an overall limitation)

[Maelstrom]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

That'd be even cheaper, prolly.

[pinecone]

Re: What's the Simplest Way To Do This?

 

I kinda like the Multi-form solution I'd only suggest a VPP as a futre version who can channel more Goddes's with exp...maybe a VPP: Multi-form Lim group (Dietys who conselt to be channeled) and use char sheets.

 

It's a pain to write up the sheets, but in play it's seamless, just swap sheets...

 

Of course you can just add gods at 5 per double....