Extra time, only to change multipower slots?

[Narthon]

I want to build a weapon with various attack powers as a multipower with different fixed slots for the different attacks.

Energy blast, cutting beam killing attack, flash to sight.

 

I want the operator to have to fiddle some controls to switch settings/multipower slots.

 

Any sugestions on that the lim should cost to take a half phase to switch between slots on a multipower? Is it just not worth points?

 

Am I being too confusing?

 

Thanks ahead of time,

 

Narthon

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Extra time, only to change multipower slots?

 

Originally posted by Narthon

I want to build a weapon with various attack powers as a multipower with different fixed slots for the different attacks.

Energy blast, cutting beam killing attack, flash to sight.

 

I want the operator to have to fiddle some controls to switch settings/multipower slots.

 

Any sugestions on that the lim should cost to take a half phase to switch between slots on a multipower? Is it just not worth points?

 

I'd say take the Extra Time limitation and halve it on the basis you have to spend the Extra Time each time you activate the slot. Since it applies to every slot, it should also apply to the Multipower as a whole.

 

The rules say minimum limit is 1/4, so I'd say it's -1/4 for "half phase to change", especially since that's normally a 0 phase action. YMMV (and your GM may impose different limits).

[Dr. Anomaly]

You could go with that reasoning based on the concept of "Only to Start": you only take the time to "start" the Power when you change slots; after that, you can use it at will.

[Farkling]

Ahem. From the FAQ::

 

"Q: Can a character apply an Advantage or Limitation to just the Multipower reserve, such as Extra Time to switch slots?

 

A: With the GM’s permission, yes, provided it makes sense to do so. Extra Time only to switch slots is a good example; there’s no reason such a Limitation would apply to each slot (once the character switches to it, he can activate the power in that slot normally). The GM can, if he wishes, alter the value of the Power Modifier if he thinks that’s appropriate for the power construct."

 

and I have one character using this model as is...the extra time modifier only applies to shifting the multipower...it's in the nature of a gun multipower, all ultra-slots...so I left it at normal value. HE isnn't the one being voted "overpowered" by the game group...

[Narthon]

Thank you.

 

It's strange, I checked the FAQ before I posted but didn't find that question.

 

I guess I didn't look hard enough.

 

 

Narthon

[Gary]

I would allow the limitation on the slots themselves, not on the actual reserve. That's because you can easily cheese the system and save points compared to buying a power straight.

 

Example, let's take a 50 pt multipower with 2 slots. If you allow a -1/4 limitation on the reserve, you would pay 40 pts for the reserve and 4 pts on each slot for a total of 48 pts. That's cheaper than buying a single 50 pt power, and you get a more useful power to boot.

[Narthon]

Well, you could buy the base power with a 1/4 lim and it would cost less. I don't really understand what you mean, I guess.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Narthon

Well, you could buy the base power with a 1/4 lim and it would cost less. I don't really understand what you mean, I guess.

 

Player A buys a straight 10d6 EB for 50 pts.

 

Player B buys a multipower with EB and flash with the limitation that changing slots takes full phase. If you allow the -1/4 limitation on the reserve, player B pays 48 pts for a more flexible and useful power. In fact, he could decide to choose to never use the flash at all and keep it in EB all the time. He saves 2 pts for having functionally the exact same power.

[Narthon]

Hmm. It seems to me that any lim you have should be backed up by the character concept. If one player comes up with an energy blast, and just says "I can shoot stuff" and another comes up with "My character built a little ray gun that can both shoot stuff with high intensity light, and dazzel someone with it's bright emisions. He hasn't flawlessly worked out all the bugs yet, and takes a little while to switch it between the different modes".

 

I think it is worth it to reqard the second player for thinking out his character. Multipowers are made to save points anyway.

 

Narthon

 

Reward well thought out character concepts.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

Player B buys a multipower with EB and flash with the limitation that changing slots takes full phase. If you allow the -1/4 limitation on the reserve, player B pays 48 pts for a more flexible and useful power. In fact, he could decide to choose to never use the flash at all and keep it in EB all the time. He saves 2 pts for having functionally the exact same power.

 

Make Player B use the full phase to initially allocate the points. They don't have a default. That's a full phase at the start of each combat.

 

Voila - limited!

[Gary]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Make Player B use the full phase to initially allocate the points. They don't have a default. That's a full phase at the start of each combat.

 

Voila - limited!

 

That's a legitimate limitation on the reserve. However, extra time to change slots by itself isn't a legitimate limitation on the reserve.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Gary

That's a legitimate limitation on the reserve. However, extra time to change slots by itself isn't a legitimate limitation on the reserve.

 

I don't know. Your example shows an abuse, but it is clearly designed to be abusive. A limitation is something the power can do normally, but we have removed, and a multipower normally allocates or reallocates points as a zero phase action.

 

I can't see there being extra time to "change slots" if there isn't extra time to initially allocate the points. Alternatively, your "flash" example would have to roll to see which setting it was last on. "Oh too bad; you were tuning up the flash ray last time you had the gun out".

 

You can deny the point savings, or you can make the limitation create some problems for the character. I prefer the latter.

[PhilFleischmann]

Yes! What Gary said!

 

This issue came up a long time ago on the old, old boards. I go with a general guideline of half the value of what the limitation would be on the power itself, if it's only on changing slots. And it's very important that this limitation be placed only on the slot costs themselves.

 

Here's a more extreme example:

 

Player A: 12d6 EB gun - 60 pts.

Player B: 60 pt MP gun

"Stun" 12d6 EB - 6 pts.

"Kill" 4d6 RKA - 6 pts.

 

Suppose the switching slot limitation is so severe that it's a -1 lim. Do you really want to give player B his gun for only 36 points?

 

There's nothing that says the gun can't be left on a particular setting. It could be just a switch. If it's left in one setting, it stays in that setting until you change it. (otherwise, yes, it would be worth a limitation if you can't use it at all for the first X amount of time of a combat.)

 

BTW, there are other limitations besides extra time that could be applied to switching slots.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Here's a more extreme example:

 

Player A: 12d6 EB gun - 60 pts.

Player B: 60 pt MP gun

"Stun" 12d6 EB - 6 pts.

"Kill" 4d6 RKA - 6 pts.

 

Suppose the switching slot limitation is so severe that it's a -1 lim. Do you really want to give player B his gun for only 36 points?

 

ummm...assuming it's an OAF, that's what it costs without the other limitation.

 

He'll pay 24 if he gets a further -1 limitation.

 

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

There's nothing that says the gun can't be left on a particular setting. It could be just a switch. If it's left in one setting, it stays in that setting until you change it. (otherwise, yes, it would be worth a limitation if you can't use it at all for the first X amount of time of a combat.)

 

BTW, there are other limitations besides extra time that could be applied to switching slots.

 

Sure - Concentrate (to focus on changing the settings) comes to mind. Requires a Skill Roll if it's a complex process. Activation if it's finicky.

 

And there is something that says it can't just be left (welded) on one setting - the GM imposing limits for those points saved by taking a Limitation. "Oh, it's currently set to RKA since you were working the kinks out of that in a maintenance routine." [or for any number of reasons] Is the player going to say "No! The gun has two settings, but I never ever ever swicth to Setting 2!" knowing the reply will be "then sell back the RKA and make it a plain EB"? I suspect not - not in my campaign anyway.

 

To my mind, the limit "extra time to change slots" is "extra time to activate" on each power in the slot, "only to start power up", so l;imit halved. That -1 means 5 minutes to start up either slot (at least that's what it means in my campaign). This limitation applies to every slot in the multipower so, as stated in FREd, it reduces the cost of the pool and each slot.

 

Frankly, any player who demands the "just a switch" option is abusing the construct. He'll either take the true extra time limit, or he can find another game.

 

Some GM's will disallow an ability because it could be abused. Others prefer to allow the ability in general and disallow the abuse in particular. I fall into the latter group.

[Farkling]

I see...

 

I always pictured a multipower reserve as being unallocated until it is consciously set...I also assume it is an obvious combat action...so if PointsGuy is shucking me for a limitation, then he will be asked by the NPC's (and at least ONE of the Pc's...I have a few great players) "Why are you prepping for combat? What do you know that we don't?"

 

Additionally, from the FAQ ::

"Q: If a character has allocated the reserve of his Multipower, and is then Knocked Out, does the reserve stay allocated to that slot when he awakens?

 

A: With most slots, the Multipower reserve won’t be allocated at all when the character awakens. If the character has allocated the reserve to a slot that works while he’s unconscious (such as Regeneration), the reserve remains allocated to that slot while he’s unconscious, and is still allocated to that slot when he awakens."

 

Which implies to me that the character has to consciously allocate the points, or they are simply unallocated. In combat he has a phase to phase ability to reallocate, or just let it ride. It's a 0-phase combat action in my book. doing it is conspicuous.

 

Y'alls descrtiption of the gun and the two settings is nice, but I wouldn't carry something that powerful in my pants without a safety set...(reserve unallocated)...any character who has a limitation on allocating the reserve who does so outside of combat is going to hurt himself or a bystander at some point...

 

I don't like rules abusers.

[tesuji]

"Frankly, any player who demands the "just a switch" option is abusing the construct. He'll either take the true extra time limit, or he can find another game. "

 

Judging from this, he would be better served with the latter.

 

This sounds to me like a case of making the concept fit the system rather than having the system fit the concept.

 

Allow me to offer you a sample case which would seem to be something so drastic you would lump it as abuse and toss the player to the curb...

 

I have a GUN.

The gun has clips.

The clips have different ammo tpyes.

In order to change ammo types i have to change clips, taking a full phase to do so.

Obviously, i can leave a clip in between combats or put one in at the base and enter combat ready to fire, only needing to change the clip when i change ammo.

 

This is an example of REAL GUNS found every day.

 

Kick him to the curb? hardly.

Abusive? Hardly.

 

It is not a problem with an abusive player or an abusive power or anything like that.

 

The problem is the system or at least the accounting you wish to apply to this player/power, is inaccurately costing the result.

 

is a gun with clips of differing ammo that do not magically and instantly change on demand really that abusive?

 

If i buy this as a 60 ap gun oaf it costs 30.

 

Now, if i build tis as 60 ap multipower with OAF and two 12 round clips of each type straight up I get the final cost to be 36 (30 plus 3 per slot.) In this case the changing of clips from AP to regular is free action but the changing of clips to reload the same type is a full action. That is of course by the system and silly.

 

If i add in -1/4 for the RESERVE and slots then the cost drops to 27 for the pool plus 3 for the slots or 33 ap. (We have skirted the "its cheaper" but only because the focus lim weighs in heavily.) The same rule would break without the -1 focus lim.

 

I think many Gms would look at 30 for one ammo, 33 for two ammos and a phase to change, and 36 for two ammos an no phase to change (only to reload) and think to themselves "Self, this looks right." They would probably continue right along and happy until someone pointed out that if you remove the focus the values become...

 

60 for one ammo

58 for two ammos and a phase to change

72 for two ammos and no phase to change

 

Now time is not the only issue.

 

Also consider the sister case "can only change slots in lab" to represent a cache of weapons the hero chooses from when he leaves the base.

 

Say for instance my powered armor has a shield module which can house either my force field generator, my stealth invisibility screen, or my life support screen for space travel and hostile environments. These are plug and play modules that I select when i suit up for a mission. this would seem an IDEAl case for a multipower with three slots and limited to only changing the slot in my lab.

 

However, again if this occurs, the net cost may well drop below that of the buying of one single power... if you allow the pool to be reduced in price.

 

*****************

 

All this boils down to...

 

if you want price to reflect utility, remember that you are NOT LIMITING THE USE OF THE POINTS... you can always 24 hours a day have the full pool cost in points available. So there should be NO LIMIT on the pool for "how hard is it to CHANGE slots." Apply whatever "HARD TO CHANGE SLOTS" to the slots cost, thats all it limits... how easy it is to switch to that slot from another.

 

So my suggestion is... apply the "difficult to change" lims at normal value to the slot costs and leave the pool cost with whatever routine limits it has.

 

But by all means, dont kick a player out because he wants the system that pruports to be universal to be able to reasonably handle a concept as difficult as "clips loaded with different ammos".

[tesuji]

"Y'alls descrtiption of the gun and the two settings is nice, but I wouldn't carry something that powerful in my pants without a safety set...(reserve unallocated)...any character who has a limitation on allocating the reserve who does so outside of combat is going to hurt himself or a bystander at some point...

I don't like rules abusers. "

 

If the acocunting system makes rules abusers out of something as mundane as carrying different clips with different ammo, then IMo the rage and dislike should be targetted at the system, not the player.

 

In this case, IMO, the problem is the desire to construct this in a way that makes the points go skewy, applying the lim to the pool, when it should be simple to apply it to the slots.

 

As for the default for a multipower, I always ruled it by effect. A gun can be left loaded with a given ammo and changed only when needed.

 

But again, if you apply the lims at normal value to the slots, to reflect "difficulty to change" things end up pricing out OK... the "difficult to change gun" will always fit in between the cost of "only one option gun" and "many options change instantly gun"... every time barring odd rounding.

 

Isn't making the system price things appropriately better as a choice than paying back your players with grief for having the audacity to assume they can duplicate common real world effects in this masively wonderful universal can-do-anything game?

 

isn't it?

[Farkling]

Guns have safeties in the real world, and normalyl you don't stop on the street, take the safety off, and slam a clip in because the GM rolled some dice...

 

Now using the clips analogy...and walking a bit further down the road...

I have a Multipower which consists of 4 guns and two clubs::

It takes a half phase to draaw a weapon right?

So if my Multipower slots are 4 seperate guns, I spend a half phase reallocating my reserve by game rules...EVEN IF I HAVE ONE GUN PER SLOT. I must now find THIS constuct just as abusive if I follow the indications of this discussion...after all, this construct is even MORE cost efficient.

 

As I stated before...one of the characters in my Supers game HAS the Extra Time limitation (only on the reserve). I haven't got a problem with the Extra Time to change slots..Mr. Long hasn't got a problem with it...

The discussion thread DOES seem to have a problem with it. I was trying to point out other "in game" limitations on it...but I wasn't thinking very clearly when I was writing, was I?

[tesuji]

I must confess to not be following your logic stream here, or maybe just not telling what you mean vs what you mean as a devils advocate sort of extreme position. So i will try and explain my point a little better and use some of your examples.

 

On the "each slot is a different focus"... i have seen and agree with myself that if a MP contains a focus limitation on each slot that represents a DIFFERENT focus on each slot, then it is probably not appropriate to have the full normal focus lim applied to the reserve. There are rules mentioned about this in the book (multiple focus rules, halving the focus lim if it represents a group of things) and so forth. So, as an example here, this starts off a little hinky.

 

*************************

 

Drawing the weapon... here i get confused.

 

Whether an item has to be drawn in order to be used is the same case whether the item is multifunctional or single functional. i do not have to draw my gun taking a half action BECAUSE i have clips of more than one ammo. I have to draw the item, taking a half phase, because of the focus limit and the fact that it is a stand alone focus.

 

FOCUS is a limitation. It carries with it certain problems and among them is that, if the focus is of a certain type, I have to waste a half action drawing it at some point. I might be able to do this well before trouble occurs or not. However, this aspect will be true of a given focus whether it is in a multipower, whether it is an entire multipower, or whether it is a single function weapon.

 

I think the mistake you are making here is assuming that putting DIFFERENT FOCI in a MP somehow removes the need to draw them. it doesn't.

 

********************

 

Safeties? Again i fail to understand your point here. It seems like much more of a distraction than a point. Whether a gun has a safety, whether that safety takes any action or not, and whether i can leave thre gun saftey off or not without concern are all nice points to consider.

 

However, not a single one of them changes or is affected by whether or not i have one clip of a single ammo type or multiple clips of multiple ammo types in my pocket.

 

So it does not seem to apply.

 

***********************

 

There is what the rules say, what setev long says, and what makes sense. Sometimes these are all in agreement. Sometimes they are not.

 

To me its really quite simple.

 

Do "hard to change" multipowers make sense as a power idea? Yes... whether its a gun with multiple clips of different ammo or a modular component changed at the base, it makes sense for there to be multipowers other than "instant change". The notion does not seem abusive nor would i suspect a player of being abusive and desire tio kick him out for suggesting it. I will call these two ICMP and HTCMP to save time. NOTE this is much different an animla than a "HARD TO USE" multipower where the limitation affects each USE of the powers. There is a large difference between 1 phase to switch slots and 1 phase to shoot.

 

How much should they cost?

 

It seems obvious on a common sense level that the costs should weigh out, in ascending order with MONO-GUN (has only one fundtion) to be cheaper than MULTI-GUN (several uses in an HTCMP) and that is also cheaper than WUNDA-GUN (multiple options in an ICMP.)

 

The system sdhould therefore reliably and consistently cost these out the same. Note that while i call the GUNS the same principle should apply to non-focus powers of the same sort.

 

So how do you do it?

 

IF you apply the "hard to change" limitations, in whole or in part, to the RESERVE, you run into the olde hero illogic I call "buying a lim" where adding something cheap (multipower slots) allows you to limit points off something big (the pool reserve) and thus you can literally "get something for nothing." This has been seen in such infamous examples as the tail of two tails and the tail of two bases.

 

So, if you use HTC lims on the reserve, you end up with some cases where your pricing scheme runs like this... HTC multi-gun is cheaper than MONO-GUN and this is cheaper than WUNDA-GUN. Some cases, it works out right, other produce this obviously WRONG result. (This may lead some Gms to treat the symptom and throw out players asking for this type of power or to decide to not allow this power by insisting the power cannot work how they wanted it.) Ugh!

 

So, i reject the HTC lim applying to the pool as making sense. it is inconsitent and silly. At some point, we do have to stop, well actually we dont and many seem to not, does this make sense?

 

On the other hand...

 

If you instead look at this and apply the HTC lim ONLY TO THE SLOTS, then you create the wonderful case where NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS the sensible cost structure of MONO-GUn is cheaper than MULTI-GUN and this in turn is cheaper thsn WUNDA gun. There will not be a case where this proves untrue.

 

Well, Ok, there might be one... if the slots are very limited already, a minor HTC lim might not make enough of a differene at all and so multi-gun and wunda-gun may be priced the same. Of course, this will only happoen in a few rounding cases and the issue of rounding rules merfing values is already a system issue... so this is no different than how rounding hits anywhere else. But at least it wont make the multi-gun ever move out of the middle position... it might just be tied.

 

Thats it in a nutshell (Ok a freakin' huge nutshell, but a nutshell.)

 

It may not agree with Steve Long, but then, when Steve long tells me 2+2=7... i tend to trust my own math knowledge.

 

So, if you want this to work "right" (defined as keeping monoo-gun, multi-gun and wunda-gun priced in the right order) apply the hard to change lims to the slots, not to the pool.

 

If you apply it to the pool, the standing of Mono-gun, wunda-gun and multi-gun will be somewhat variable in terms of price while their value in terms of utility is obvious and not variable. You lose cost ~ effect.

[prestidigitator]

I think the whole argument falls apart if the Multipower is used the way a Multipower is meant to be used.

 

Originally posted by Gary

In fact, he could decide to choose to never use the flash at all and keep it in EB all the time. He saves 2 pts for having functionally the exact same power.

 

If I saw a player who has a Multipower do this, I would probably think, "Hmm. Has he just not run into enough opportunities to use his powers, or did he take a Limitation which is never actually going to limit him?" If I thought it was the latter, I would probably ask him to remove the Limitation, using his next X experience points to pay for it if he can't find the points somewhere else (another Disadvantage?).

 

I think you always have to take into consideration what has happened, and what is likely to happen, during gameplay. If my player made a pirate character who is afraid of the water, and the adventure takes a turn which will put them in the desert for a good long time, I would probably suggest he switch Disadvantages (maybe on a temporary basis), even if the original were a perfectly valid thing at the time.

 

If a character took a Multipower which he only ever wound up using one slot of, I would eventually suggest he drop the Framework and make it a straight Power. If he never wound up switching it in combat, I would ask him to remove a Limitation which only limits its switching during combat.

[tesuji]

" If he never wound up switching it in combat, I would ask him to remove a Limitation which only limits its switching during combat."

 

OK starting from the top, I would instead make sure the points charged appropriately in the first place, and thus not have to worry as much.

 

That said...

 

Whether he needs to change in combat or not is as much a matter of the GM and his choices as it is the players.

 

Consider the following item:

 

Super-Cobbat Shotgun OAF

60 pt multipower OAF 30 rp

2 rp slot 1 4d6 RKA 12 charges (drum) "Silver Buck Shot" 1 phase to change slots

2 rp slot 2 2.5 d6 RKA AP 12 charges (drum) "Ap Slug" 1 phase to change slots

2 rp 2d6 RKA AOE Cone Fire "dragonsbreath" 12 charges (drum) 1 phase to change slots.

 

Here i applied a -1/4 lim to each slot to represent the changing of the drum to move to a new ammo type. This saves me 1 point per slot, from 3 to 2.

 

Now, whether i even decide to use the dragonsbreath round is frankly going to be circumstantial. Do i find myself against foes who are vulnerable to fire more than they are vulnerable to silver buckshot or large Ap slugs? Do i ever find myself facing groups of mugs where a large AOE cone wont be a problem and will be beneficial? Have i ever run into a combat where 12 rounds was not enough, or maybe 24 and so have i ever NEEDED to change mags in combat at all?

 

If the answer to all is NO, then its entirely likely i will never change to that slot. Heck if the answer is YES but it is predictable and so I can prepare ahead of time, i may only use it when i go into combat.

 

So all in all, whether i ever need to change to the dragonsbreath mag in combat is much more a case of the scenarios you provide me, the adversaries you choose and the obviousness ahead of time.

 

But, if i get this right, if you never provide me with these impetus and after a while you realize you have never seen me change to the Db drum IN COMBAT, you would charge me a point and make me buy off that lim?

 

So, then since i never did have to change to that one drum in combat, now my character can do so instantly, quicker than i can the others?

 

is that right?

[Talon]

Tesuji, I see your point, but putting the limitation on the slots doesn't seem appropriate to me. In particular, how is is a slot limitation? Once activated, the slot can be used instantly and repeatedly. The limitation is clearly restricting the reserve rather than the slots.

 

Also, having played characters with this Limitation, the reduction in utility is (or at least can be) worth more than 1 point per slot. If the GM ruled that it only applied to the slots, I would find a new Limitation.

 

The fact that this can be abused to make a MP cheaper than a single power points to two things:

 

1) The Limitation should probably be less than just half the corresponding Extra Time Value -- maybe even a flat -1/4 (especially if the character can leave/prepare the MP in a generally useful slot).

 

2) The GM has to make a contextual decision whether this is an appropriate Limitation or not; sometimes it will be -0 (for example, if the character always has other options which largely duplicate the MP slots).

 

For example (forgive the simplicity):

 

MP, Phase to switch slots

Slot 1: 4d6 RKA, only against inanimate

Slot 2: 12d6 EB, only against normal humans

Slot 3: 6d6 NND, only against paranormals

Slot 4: 4d6 AVLD, only against non-humans

 

Here you have a MP which is, in one large way, worse than a single power. If the character guesses wrong, he will be unable to respond until he switches to the right slot. If he's faced with multiple threat categories, he risks being unable to attack some of them without wasting more time.

 

To me this isn't as cut-and-dried as the base or Extra Limbs issues.

[Hugh Neilson]

To me, the bottom line here is that a TRUE multipower (ie one which has been purchased to enable multiple powers to be used) phases a very real limitation if extra time is required to change the slots. As such, if the slot cost alone is limited, the point benefits do not reflect the actual limitation, and the player is getting ripped off. Thus, the limitation should be applied to the multipower pool.

 

If the power is purchased as a multipower which requires extra time to change slots (perhaps excessively long - that would be the tipoff) solely to reduce the cost of the single slot which will actually be used, the player is trying to rip off the system by taking a limitation which is not actuallt a limitation. You can require him to buy off the limitation, or you can find a way to make the limitation worth the points.

 

For the guy with clips - he will run out of ammo, and be forced to change the clips. I'm pretty confident he is not just taking the limit for a point savings - he has placed a legitimate limitation on the power. If he wants to say "I always leave a clip of Regular EB charges", I'm inclined to say that's fine. Sometimes, he will regret his choice. Sometimes, he will run out of charges. He will be limited by his limitation.

 

But a player who buys the "EB/Flash" gun with no intention of ever using the flash, but to point whore beyond reason, and then tries to argue it's always switched to "EB" so he never has to suffer due to his "limitation" can find another game. I'm happy to lose him. How do you tell the difference? When the Flash NEVER gets used.

 

In practice, I would rather discuss the matter up front when I see the construct. "My view is that your Gun has three switches - "EB", "Flash" and "Off". You need to spend the 1/2 phase to switch it "on" in combat. As a result, each of your slots has "extra time only to activate, -1/4. As all the slots have the limit, so does the pool.

 

If he doesn't want this limitation to apply at the start of combat (or when he is expecting combat, pulls out the gun and switches it on), then maybe he should live with only having the limitation apply to the slots. He's not taking the full limitation, so he shouldn't get the full point benefit.

 

Frankly, it will never come down to this in my campaign, since a player who is manipulating the system with the "multipower, only one slot will ever be used" construct will be booted out pretty quick, for that and numerous other abuses, in fairly short order.

[Narthon]

If it helps at all, here is the writeup of the full multipower I'm trying to create:

 

Flashlight Laser multipower 75 active, oaf (-1) 37

u Heat/Light Energy Blast 0end (+1/2) oaf (-1) 10d6 4

u Flash vs Sight AE cone (+1) 0 end (+1/2) no range (-1/2) 6d6 3

u Images vs sight 0 end AE cone (+1) x4 side length (+1) (48â€) to create light only (-1) oaf (-1) no range (-1/2) 1

u Variable Sword: 2d6 HKA 2x Armor piercing (+1) 0end (+1/2) 4d6 HKA with str 4

u Laser 3d6+1 pip RKA 0end (+1/2) 4

 

I'm thinking about making it run off of an end reserve instead of being 0 end.

I also want it to take time to switch settings.

 

Please post comments.

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

Tesuji, I see your point, but putting the limitation on the slots doesn't seem appropriate to me. In particular, how is is a slot limitation? Once activated, the slot can be used instantly and repeatedly. The limitation is clearly restricting the reserve rather than the slots.

OK, imagine the power in comparison with the same thing but with only ONE SLOT. Adding the second slot and the phase to change limitation in now way limits the first power, the character can still ALWAYS have a 60 ap power. What is limited, the only thing limited is how he chooses which slot is working. That appears to me to be a limitation affecting how easily he can dial a specific slot, not a limit on how often he can have the RESERVE in a power.

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

Also, having played characters with this Limitation, the reduction in utility is (or at least can be) worth more than 1 point per slot. If the GM ruled that it only applied to the slots, I would find a new Limitation.

I do not think it is worth more than the SLOT costs GIVEN the comparison to a MONO-version. The onyl difference in price between a gun with one feature and a gun with multiple is the SLOTS.

 

if you allow adding new slots (buy little) to earn you the right to take a limitation on the reserve (save big) you have precisely the same identical problem as the base and tail issues...buying and adding a small cheap thing gives you the ability to buy a limit and save on a big thing. in some specific cases, buy little save big wont produce obviously skewed results, but in other it will.

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

The fact that this can be abused to make a MP cheaper than a single power points to two things:

 

1) The Limitation should probably be less than just half the corresponding Extra Time Value -- maybe even a flat -1/4 (especially if the character can leave/prepare the MP in a generally useful slot).

I think it shoudl vary with the real impact. I consider change at base only to be at least -1/2 while full phase to change at best -1/4.

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

2) The GM has to make a contextual decision whether this is an appropriate Limitation or not; sometimes it will be -0 (for example, if the character always has other options which largely duplicate the MP slots).

I suppose in some cases the Gm could rule this was just FX but in most cases i would see it as appropriate to have it be worth something. i think almost always the HTC MP should be priced between ICMP and Mono-power.

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

For example (forgive the simplicity):

MP, Phase to switch slots

Slot 1: 4d6 RKA, only against inanimate

Slot 2: 12d6 EB, only against normal humans

Slot 3: 6d6 NND, only against paranormals

Slot 4: 4d6 AVLD, only against non-humans

 

Here you have a MP which is, in one large way, worse than a single power.

I think you are dead wrong.

 

Pick any one of those slots, be sure to include the limitations on targets. make a gun with just that one power and show me how this multipower is in anyway worse than that one.

 

Now, what i think you are thinking is to compare this multipower to one of those powers WITH THE TARGETS LIMITATION REMOVED... which of course shows clearly the impact of those TARGET limitations.

 

Applying in other limitations, especially if you only consider them on one side, can mask or overwhelm the impact of the HTC limit. That however srill does not make the HTC limit accurate when placed on the pool.

 

otr do you really think this MP would be worse than a 4d6 RKA only vs inanimate attack power which could never be switched to the other settings?

 

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

 

If the character guesses wrong, he will be unable to respond until he switches to the right slot. If he's faced with multiple threat categories, he risks being unable to attack some of them without wasting more time.

And a character with ONE of those attacks would be unable at all to respond to the other threats. Again, if you want to prove something about HTC, you cannot apply a totally different lim to just the one side of the equation.

Originally posted by Geoff Speare

To me this isn't as cut-and-dried as the base or Extra Limbs issues.

 

To me it is.

 

A power with only one of the above four attacks would be worse than having the Mp and the limited ability to dial up one of the four. When MP guy met the wrong type, he would lose time. When one power guy met the wrong type, he would have no attack.