lim cost: semi-lockout

[secretID]

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout

 

I think ECs are unique in that there is no downside built into the mechanic - other than the fairly meaningless drains together. With MPs, you can't use the powers together (in most constructs), and with VPPs you get a similar limitation plus others plus a high price, but with ECs you get an enormous price cut with nothing really limiting you other than theme/special effect coherence.

 

Shouldn't you already have that coherence? Wouldn't you already want it?

 

I'm sure this has been discussed many times, but I wonder if there's really a good justification for frameworks, other than VPPs, which can be so problematic that many (most?) GMs don't allow them for PCs anyway.

[tesuji]

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout

 

 

Shouldn't you already have that coherence? Wouldn't you already want it?

 

why?

 

sure there are some comic book supers who have a "coherent theme" of powers like human torch or iceman or spidey.

 

but for every one of them there is a martian who shapeshifts flies and has telepathy or an amazon princess who is super-strong and flies and has a magic rope that makes you tell the truth or another alien who has superstrength, freeze breath invulnerability and xray vision.

 

while i started fond of ecs, i have eventually came tyo dislike their effects.

 

rewarding with cheaper costs certain character types and creating a rather odd criteria for what can and cannot go in and yes rewarding those who finagle things the best are not imo good things.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout

 

To me, the drawback to an EC is that common SFX. That SFX should be sufficiently defined that the risk of opponents specifically protecting themselves against it should be very real. Human Torch underwater? No powers. Iceman? Heat becomes his nemesis. ElectricMan? Ground him.

[tesuji]

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout

 

but any given sfx should be, by hero standard, as vulnerable as any other - otherwise a lim is appropriate.

 

so yeah human torch is problematic in water.

but amazonian princess may have magical flight and mutant superstrength and each of those is vulnerable to a counter issue -

 

so torch will be in trouble against water world, but wonder woman will be impaired against anti-mutant guy AND also against anti-amazonian ladd. So she should be say "half as effected" but also be affected twice as often, unless the gm is throwing more anti-fire than he is throwing either anti amazon or anti magic.

 

in practice, if anything, the "all my powers stem from one source" is more problematic to employ as a lim because it makes it harder to ikeep the character in play.

 

I can easily put the amazon into "no magic" situations since tht costs her her flight but still leaves her mutant super strong. Putting the torch into an underwater scene is rather pointless however - excepting of course very constrained circumstances and rebalancing the challenge to be "he is normal guy". capable.

 

imo...

[sbarron]

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout

 

but any given sfx should be, by hero standard, as vulnerable as any other - otherwise a lim is appropriate.

 

so yeah human torch is problematic in water.

but amazonian princess may have magical flight and mutant superstrength and each of those is vulnerable to a counter issue -

 

so torch will be in trouble against water world, but wonder woman will be impaired against anti-mutant guy AND also against anti-amazonian ladd. So she should be say "half as effected" but also be affected twice as often, unless the gm is throwing more anti-fire than he is throwing either anti amazon or anti magic.

 

in practice, if anything, the "all my powers stem from one source" is more problematic to employ as a lim because it makes it harder to ikeep the character in play.

 

I can easily put the amazon into "no magic" situations since tht costs her her flight but still leaves her mutant super strong. Putting the torch into an underwater scene is rather pointless however - excepting of course very constrained circumstances and rebalancing the challenge to be "he is normal guy". capable.

 

imo...

Your take on ECs is a valid one, especially today. Everything should be balanced, and no character type should be punished for his sfx. I agree with that. But I don't think EC was created with that in mind. EC was created to promote characters like the Human Torch. Characters that had a tight sfx/theme that caused all of his powers to interact with the environment the same way. It encourages players to build characters like that, or to find some thin thread upon which they can argue their character is like that. For wrong or right, that was the intention. The drain/suppress all at once is not nearly a big enough limitation to warrant the type of savings characters see in a EC. Not even close.

 

Personally, I think the time for ECs has past. There may have been a time earlier in superheroic RPGs for trying to promote characters that have a common theme, especially if the players didn't have much experience with the genre. But that was 20-25 years ago. If you want a character with a strong theme, it should cost you just as much, and be just as effective as, a character with no theme at all. ECs just promote a specific type of character design, and that may not be what you want in your game.

 

 

PS: To say that "water" should be as common in a game as "anti-magic" + "anti-amazon" is a big stretch.

 

PPS: Wonder Woman's powers clearly don't fit into an EC. At least no EC other than "Wonder Woman" powers. If you wanted to create an Amazonian EC, that's fine. But it could only include stuff that all Amazons have. Which would leave out magic flight, magic lassos, and mutant strength.

[Sean Waters]

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout

 

Hmm.

 

10 EC Pool

10 Slot A

10 Slot B

10 Slot C

10 Slot D

10 Slot E

10 Slot F

70 points

 

Becomes...

 

10 EC Pool

07 Slot A Lockout B

10 Slot B

07 Slot C Lockout D

10 Slot D

07 Slot E Lockout F

10 Slot F

61 points

 

70 points at a -1/4 limitation would be cost 56 points.

 

I'm thinking that -1/4 is too much, so -0 seems right.

 

OTOH, not having access to half your powers seems like it oughtt o be worth more than that, doesn't it?

 

I'm not sure we can derive a guiding principle here. We are talking about Slot A and Slot B and so on, but what really matters if what is IN those slots: if you have 6 different atatcks, no biggie, really, whereas if you have to chose between movement and defence, I can see that being an issue.

 

Of course:

 

30 MP Pool

3u Slot A

3u Slot B

3u Slot C

3u Slot D

3u Slot E

3u Slot F

48 points

 

That's well worth -1/4, not far off -1/2. Given that you could (arguably) save another 3 points with lockouts on 3 of the slots, I'd say -1/2 sounds about right there.

 

*sigh* Never easy is it?

 

I think I'd conclude -3/4 is defintiely too much, and the 'true' figure lies between -0 and -1/2, depending , probably, on slot content.

[mmshah]

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout

 

This thread got me thinking about lockout in general and the first thing that comes to mind is that lockout as a limitation is alot like having only ultra slots. Now given that it seems to me that the lockout limitation should only be taken on slots not the reserve, even if all slots have the limitation. Otherwise you get the following:

 

13rc 20 AP Multipower (-1/2 Lockout)

3m Power 1 (20AP) (-1/2 Lockout)

3m Power 2 (20AP) (-1/2 Lockout)

 

So for 19 total points you get 2 20 point powers one at a time, which is of course ridiculous. Even if we value Lockout at -1/4 we could have the following:

 

16rc 20 AP Multipower (-1/4 Lockout)

3m Power 1 (-1/4 Lockout)

3m Power 2 (-1/4 Lockout)

 

For 22 Points which is the same as a 20 Point MP with 2 20 Point ultra slots which would have cost 24. I realize the point difference is minor but it still doesn't seem quite right.

[Sean Waters]

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout

 

I do not allow limitations that simply affect how or when you can use slots in a MP, or in what combination they can be used, to modify the cost of the pool, even if all slots have it, so, for instance, extra time to change slots - no effect on pool, extra time to activate each slot - affects pool.

[tesuji]

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout

 

ditto to what sean said.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout

 

Expanding on Sean and Tesuji's point, consider:

 

Character A has 60 points 12d6 Flash

 

Character B has 60 points 12d6 Energy Blast

 

Now assume Character C will have a 12d6 EB and a 12d6 Flash in a Multipower. It takes a turn to change the slots. Which is appropriate:

 

60 60 point MP Pool

3 u 12d6 EB (1 turn to change to this slot)

3 u 12d6 Flash (1 turn to change to this slot)

 

66 points

 

OR

 

30 60 point MP Pool, 1 turn to change slots

3 u 12d6 EB (1 turn to change to this slot)

3 u 12d6 Flash (1 turn to change to this slot)

 

36 points

 

Character C gets to have either of A or B's power at any given time, and can switch. Character C should, IMO, pay more as he has more options. Applying a "change the slots" limit to the pool means he pays less to have greater flexibility.

 

I would be OK with

 

40 60 point MP Pool, all powers 1 turn to activate

4 u 12d6 EB (1 turn to activate)

4 u 12d6 Flash (1 turn to activate)

 

But now Character A and B can fire at will, while C must take a turn before firing either power, as well as to activate one or the other.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout

 

By "turn" do you mean "phase" or are you suggesting they can only change the MP slot every post-12?

[tesuji]

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout

 

By "turn" do you mean "phase" or are you suggesting they can only change the MP slot every post-12?

 

turn as in a turn... if i start to use the power on turn 1 segment 3 it goes off turn 2 segment 3.

[mmshah]

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout

 

Well I certainly agree with you 3 about changing slot limitations, but my point was to illustrate the similarity between Lockout and ultra slots so as to better price the Lockout limitation. So by the above one MIGHT allow Lockout at -1/4 on a reserve, but probably not. So lets examine it on slots only.

 

On a flexible slot a Lockout limitation is actually worse then making it into a fixed slot, which is half the cost (effectively a -1 limitation). Why is it worse? Because while you may not have to assign all the MP points to the slot you still can't use any points assigned to something else anyway due to the Lockout limitation. At least if it was a fixed slot instead if you had points to spare in the reserve you might be able to use another power at the same time. So by this reasoning for Flexible slots Lockout should be worth at least -1 (for the slot only).

 

Now for fixed slots its a little more interesting, first a fixed slot that is the full size of the MP, a Lockout limitation is worth nothing, since you don't have any points to spend anywhere else anyway. For a fixed slot that isn't equal to the full reserve points, then it depends. If there are no other powers in the MP that one had enough points left to assign to, then in that case again Lockout is worth nothing. If there are powers available then this is where the Lockout limitation could have varying cost depending on how badly it affects the MP. Heres an Example:

 

60 MP

12rc Power 1 (60 AP Flexible)

2rc Power 2 (20 AP Fixed) (-? Lockout)

 

In this case by adding Lockout you lose the ability to use 40 of your 60 points thats a pretty extreme penalty so is probably worth at least -1. If however you had the following:

 

60 MP

12rc Power 1 (60 AP Flexible)

5rc Power 2 (50 AP Fixed) (-? Lockout)

 

You only lose 10 points out of 60 that not really even worth a -1/4, more like a -0.

 

I forgot to take Type and duration into account either. Type being Attack/Non-Attack and duration being Instant/Constant or Persistent (these being effecively the same for this purpose). Because clearly a Instant power with Lockout isn't as limiting as a Constant/Persistant power. Also an Attack power with Lockout would mean no further Zero Phase actions so one could not shift Points back to another power until the next Phase thus effectively extending Lockout for 1 Extra Phase. These factors also need to be considered before pricing Lockout as a Limitation.

 

So to me it seems Lockout should generally be worth -1 to -0 depending on the situation a flat -1/2 doesn't seem approriate at all.

[tesuji]

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout

 

lockout is imo like many other traits in that while they give it a flat static middle-of-the-road value its actual value varies greatly.

 

consider the following two sets

 

12d6 eb

30/30 force field

30" run -1/2 lockout on eb

 

vs

 

12d6 eb

30/30 force field -1/2 lockout on eb

30" run

 

these all should by rule cost the same but in practice not being able to run in combat but having shields and attack is more valuable, more useful than being able to move but having to drop your shields when you wanna fight.

 

thats without even getting into having small powers lockout larger ones.

 

it, like many lims, really needs to be looked at case by case, just like "no figured characteristics" should.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout

 

turn as in a turn... if i start to use the power on turn 1 segment 3 it goes off turn 2 segment 3.

 

I misread "to activate." Was thinking it was 1 turn to change slots. However, I'm still a bit confused. You say, "if i start to use the power on turn 1 segment 3 it goes off turn 2 segment 3," but if it's one turn to activate (which is the Extra Time Limitation, unless I'm not understanding you), then wouldn't that be "if I start to use the power on turn 1 segment 3 I can't actually use it until turn 2 segment 3"?