continuing charges alternatives

[Hyper-Man]

Re: continuing charges alternatives

 

Per the FAQ:

 

How do Charges work with a Power Framework? Does it require the expenditure of a Charge to re-allocate a Multipower reserve or VPP Pool?

 

If a Power Framework has Charges, those Charges indicate the number of times per day any one slot from the Framework can be used. The character can re-allocate points in his Framework to different slots as often as desired without using a Charge (unless the GM, some other rule, or a Limitation says otherwise), but if he activates/uses a slot, that costs a Charge. (Constant Powers require one Charge per Phase, as usual.) If he activates two or more slots in a single Phase or Action, each slot uses one Charge (unless the GM rules otherwise in the interest of common sense, dramatic sense, special effects, considerations of game balance, or the like).

 

*I forgot about the section in RED regarding my earlier examples.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: continuing charges alternatives

 

(I think that "costs END only to activate" is underpriced' date=' but that's a different issue.)[/quote']

I think that's the source of the issue. The system has arbitrarily decided that Advantages and Limitations must all come in 1/4 increments. This causes some modifiers to be priced a bit off.

 

If 1/2 END is +1/4, and 0 END is +1/2, then the actual value of "Costs END Only to Activate" is about +0.4.

 

But yes, I see what you are asking for:

 

Turn the power on X times per day, and keep the power on for as long as you want each time. I'm not sure there is a way to build this in the rules at all, other than by buying Continuing Charges up to 1/X of a day, which sort of works, and then you can apply Costs END if you like.

[Mr. Gridlock]

Re: continuing charges alternatives

 

Anyway...

This still leaves us with my original question/point:

If one charge is meant to equal one usage, then one charge should get you more than one phase of a constant power.

If (as I believe to be the case) one charge is meant to equal one expenditure of END, then the construct of costs only to activate along with "instant charges" makes sense, no?

 

I'm not sure that actually IS the designed intent. One charge is simply one charge. Spending END is spending END. They don't necessarily have to be synonymous or even comparatively equal.

 

IIRC, a +1/2 Advantage with Charges gets you 64 of them. For the same Advantage you get 0 END. The latter clearly is the better deal. But it depends on what effect you're after/trying to simulate.

[secretID]

Re: continuing charges alternatives

 

I'm not sure that actually IS the designed intent. One charge is simply one charge. Spending END is spending END. They don't necessarily have to be synonymous or even comparatively equal.

Hard to say, but even if it isn't the intent, it should still balance. If you can use one charge instead of using 5 END for an instant, you should be able to do it for a constant, too. (And you kind of can, by using one charge for one phase of a constant.)

 

The response to my idea may be: If "costs END only to activate" is only +1/4 as a "necessary" evil (i.e., if they're going to do everything in 1/4 increments), then the problem shouldn't be compounded by using it to make other mechanics.