Extra time, only to change multipower slots?

[tesuji]

of course, hugh keeps coming back to his vison of the power being discussed... applying the flaw to BOTH changing slots and initiating use of the slot... as in you expect the MP guy to have to waste time at the beginning of the combat as opposed to having the power set on a useful default.

 

The trait being discussed by mean and others is not that one, though it is similar. it is the hard to change Mp where WHATEVER the lim is called the difficulty does not rear its head at the beginning of combats, as the power is set on one of the slots well out of combat, but ONLY when the slots are changed/reallocated.

 

As long as Hugh's positions and arguments rely on the loss of time or other flaw hitting at the beginning of combats, he is talking about hius own little power construct.

 

Now, if like me and the others, you are discussing the hard to change MP... and take a look at hugh's example...

 

One guy has 60 ap 12d6 Eb. The other has 60 ap Mp with an Eb and a flash slot at full and some form of the hard to change lim. (alternately, you can use a shield slot Mp with force field and invisibility)

 

Both character walk into a bar. MP guy has his default set on EB. If an Eb is needed, npoth characters fire off well. If a flash is needed and an Eb inappropriate, MP guy has the CHOICE to take the time and switch to flash or not. EB guy has NO CHOICE.

 

Had MP guy instead been walking around with Flash as default, then in flash-philic bars he is good while the other guy is screwed. In Eb-philic settings he is going to have the CHOICE.

 

So, EB guy is only better off overall IF MP guy is continually making poor choices (at least guessing wrong more often than not.) of course, Mp guy is making his decisions earlier in the day while Eb guy for all intents and purposes made his decision back when he built the character.

 

Simply put, if MP guy leaves his slot on EB he will never be in a worse situation than EB guy and will have the OPTION of improving his position when flash-philic situations come up.

 

That seems fairly obvious.

 

Now, back to Hugh's specific issue... I know that some Gms will simply prefer to refuse to acknowledge or allow the "only on change" limitations and insists that "in order to make it worth the savings" they must inflict it at scenario start too. Thats fine if they want to basically limit the options in their games that way. To me its making the play fit the system... forcing the character to the systems limits. i prefer, especially when using a system that makes such claims about its flexibility, to not mangle the concept to fit the system.

 

In short, i would like to be able to have a pistol (or non-oaf style power) with clips of different ammos that will require an action to change ammo without also having a Gm such as hugh force me to leave the gun unloaded until the fight starts. I would love to be able to say "this clip is loaded" and have it stay that way... so that i only have to concern myself with changing it when i want a different ammo type or when i want to reload.

 

However, i also want the system to reliably and consistently value this limited power at somewhere between ONLY ONE AMMO TYPE PERIOD and INSTANT CHANGE BETWEEN AMMO TYPES.

 

just looking at basic examples, it seems that applying the lim to the POOL does not do this reliably and consistently, while applying it to the slots alone does so much more reliably. Except for the occasional round offs (which may cause the limited power to tie with either extreme) the slot approach will always place the limited change between the free change and the never change in terms of cost.

 

Those are my preferences.

 

They clearly do not suit everyone.

 

I agree with hugh in that if you expand the limitation to also cover "start of scenario" so that the difficulty will be felt every time the power is initiated AND if you then want to compare that to an ***unlimited*** single power, then you can indeed see reasonable results which put the mulitpower limited as cheaper.

 

However, thqts simply because you have chosen to change the comparison...

 

EB 12d6 -1/4 "takes a full phase to turn on but afterward holds itself ready to fire" would be worth 48 rp.

 

The same power in a MP setup with a flash would cpost more.

 

its when you decide to compare that Mp to the bare Eb without the lim in order to show you are applying the lim right that your argument fails.

 

but thats fine.

 

On one other note, for the guy who mentioned he would rather not worry about the points being wonky a little and then balancing it in play, thats fine and, read my sig, in truth balance comes entirely IMO from the Gms challenges.

 

However, IMo the costs need to make sense when i give them to my players. i refer to this as "my stupid rule" where if a rule i tell my players makes me sound stupid, then i consider it a bad rule.

 

If i were asked by a player why the multi-ammo gun was cheaper than the single ammo gun, i would feel stupid saying "because i am going to punish the multi-ammo gun more in play for chosing the power that way."

 

I would much rather have my player look at the prices i give him for the two guns and have him think "more useful, more expensive... makes sense to me" and move on than start worrying if the way he bought one of his powers puts him on my "smack 'em one" list.

 

YMMV

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Gary

You wouldn't allow a 2 slot multipower because it's too simplistic?

A two slot Multipower with nothing but a tiny Limitation on switching between the slots? No other Powers or Limitations or anything? No, I probably would not allow this in most circumstances.

 

And your N>=3 analysis doesn't matter because of course a multipower with 3 or more powers should cost more than a single power.

I believe you are arguing that any Multipower should cost more than a single power. This shows that the Limitation we are talking about does not make a Multipower less expensive than a power if there are at least 3 Powers in the Framework, or...

That's a bogus comparison. A limitation on a single power obviously affects the entire power. A limitation on a single slot only affects that slot. All the rest of the slots wouldn't be affected at all by that limitation. Of course a limitation on an entire power would save more points than a limitation on part of a power.

...if there are more realistic powers in the Framework. Example:

 

10d6 EB, Not Underwater (-1/4) [50 active/40 real]

 

Multipower: 50 pt reserve, 1/2 Phase to Switch Powers (-1/4)

u 10d6 EB, Not Underwater (-1/4) [50 active/4 real]

u 3d6+1 RKA, Only on Humanoids (-1/4) [50 active/4 real]

Total cost: 48

 

The Multipower certainly costs more than the single power. Your original example is an extremely degenerate case. Base things on the majority of cases, and deal with the rare exceptions as they come up. Otherwise you will be pulling your hair out way before you ever touch any dice; there would be far too much to worry about. Anyone could come up with some example to tell you why your justification for a cost is wrong.

[Gary]

Originally posted by prestidigitator

A two slot Multipower with nothing but a tiny Limitation on switching between the slots? No other Powers or Limitations or anything? No, I probably would not allow this in most circumstances.

 

You wouldn't allow a gun with regular and armor piercing bullets in separate clips? Perhaps a mecha who's arm can change into a gun. A pretty limited campaign if something as basic as clips with different ammo is banned.

 

Originally posted by prestidigitator

I believe you are arguing that any Multipower should cost more than a single power. This shows that the Limitation we are talking about does not make a Multipower less expensive than a power if there are at least 3 Powers in the Framework, or...

 

...if there are more realistic powers in the Framework. Example:

 

10d6 EB, Not Underwater (-1/4) [50 active/40 real]

 

Multipower: 50 pt reserve, 1/2 Phase to Switch Powers (-1/4)

u 10d6 EB, Not Underwater (-1/4) [50 active/4 real]

u 3d6+1 RKA, Only on Humanoids (-1/4) [50 active/4 real]

Total cost: 48

 

The Multipower certainly costs more than the single power. Your original example is an extremely degenerate case. Base things on the majority of cases, and deal with the rare exceptions as they come up. Otherwise you will be pulling your hair out way before you ever touch any dice; there would be far too much to worry about. Anyone could come up with some example to tell you why your justification for a cost is wrong.

 

You're the one only focusing on a tiny subset where the limitation on the reserve is -1/4.

 

If you had 1 turn to change powers instead of full phase, perhaps a robot with a built-in weapon which has to switch barrels, then you would apply a -1/2 limitation to the reserve by your logic. Thus you get:

 

1) 50 pts for a straight EB with no limitations.

 

2) 33 pts for the reserve and 3 pts per slot for a multipower with 1 turn to change slots. This multipower could be set to EB as a default and still have 5 other slots available in emergencies, and still cost less than (1)

 

Perhaps a power has 5 minutes to change slots. Maybe a robot with some delicate self programming to change built-in weaponry. That would provide a -1 limitation to the reserve by your logic. Then you get:

 

3) 25 pts for the reserve and 2 pts per slot. The default for this weapon would be EB and you would have 11 additional slots available in emergencies, and still cost less than (1).

[Farkling]

The longer the time delay, the more relucatant yonder superhero is to change the powers around. It balances out in the long run.

 

Ont he gun/clips/safety issue...it states under extra time that the character can continue with actions while activateing the power...so MECHANICS wise, you shift to the active power as you draw the gun...which is a half phase action. It balances out.

 

In a heroic level campaign, Fast Draw can shorten this at risk of a jam...in a superheroic game I would prefer RSR to change slots.

 

YMMV

 

Now, by the nit picking over the Multpower cost...I think we should move onto variable power pools. Let's take a look at the 60 pt power pool...which gives me access to any power int the book...now we apply -2 in limitations to the control cost...(location, RSR, yadda yadda yadda)

 

My access to all the powers int he book costs me 60 + (30/3) = 70 points. Chepaer than the Multipower. Even at full price, 60+30 = 90...it is more cost effective than (60) Multipower and 6 U (60) slots, and more flexible. It's more cost effective that (60) Multipower and 3 m (60) slots also. So should we ban the VPP's also?

 

**shrugs** we are all correct or we all all wrong. I allow extra time only to shift reserves, ...it keeps the players aware of delays and they play more catiously. They also have to call upon straight EB guy with "distract him while I load a different clip' So straight EB guy is going to say "no way...your power was cheaper and cooler than mine" and let his friend get gunned down? I think not.

 

I have learned two things::

1) Tesuji's players are both more observant and nitpickier than mine

2) I am not going to stop allowing extra time only to shift the reserve.

 

The players ARE of the opinion that Megascale Change Environment (Weather Manipulation) is an unfair power for the price, and that Mind Scan and Mind Control for computers is waaay underpriced for the effect it can have in the game....they will not be nitpicking over Michael's power framework...

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji

of course, hugh keeps coming back to his vison of the power being discussed... applying the flaw to BOTH changing slots and initiating use of the slot... as in you expect the MP guy to have to waste time at the beginning of the combat as opposed to having the power set on a useful default.

 

The world does not begin atv the commencement of combat. There is nothing wrong with the player with the two clip gun saying "before I leave on patrol, I will put the Regular Clip in my gun." He has used a phase. Since it wasn't in combat, the time cost is negligible. That's why it's only -1/4.

 

If, however, he was at a fancy dress ball in secret ID, and has just scrambled into his costume to deal with a robbery, what are the odds the gun, holstered, had a clip in it? It's pretty bad for your secret if the gun goes off in its secreted holster while you're dancing (or when your locked briefcase gets jostled in the cloak room). So there is no clip in it (the reserve is not allocated) and it will take a phase to insert one (allocate the points).

 

Originally posted by tesuji

The trait being discussed by mean and others is not that one, though it is similar. it is the hard to change Mp where WHATEVER the lim is called the difficulty does not rear its head at the beginning of combats, as the power is set on one of the slots well out of combat, but ONLY when the slots are changed/reallocated.

 

This does not mean it must be allocated at the beginning of combat - the player has the option to "spend a phase" outside combat. Just as the player with -1/4 "one phase to activate EB" can spend that phase before he enters the warehouse, expecting combat. But if he is going to say "every morning when I wake up, I spend a phase to activate my EB and keep it active the rest of the day" then no - no limitation at all. The player with the multipower has the same issue. If you want to say "it's always in EB unless I spend a phase to change it to flash - always always always - then the Flash slot only should be limited. It requires 1 phase to activate or to deactivate, and the EB requires no time whatsoever (but must wait until Flash is deactivated so the points are freed up). This character would, I believe, pay 6 extra points for the privilege of having other options (cost of the EB slot), plus 5 for each extra option (cost of each limited slot).

 

Originally posted by tesuji

One guy has 60 ap 12d6 Eb. The other has 60 ap Mp with an Eb and a flash slot at full and some form of the hard to change lim. (alternately, you can use a shield slot Mp with force field and invisibility)

 

Both character walk into a bar. MP guy has his default set on EB. If an Eb is needed, npoth characters fire off well. If a flash is needed and an Eb inappropriate, MP guy has the CHOICE to take the time and switch to flash or not. EB guy has NO CHOICE.

 

And if MP Guy decided he should put his slot into Flash, and an EB is needed, EB Guy has it right there, fully available. MP Guy does not. THIS is where the limit comes in. Your assumption is that MP Guy will take one power he wants, and one he expects never to use, just to point whore. I have more faith in my players than that. They are taking two powers they want access to, and limiting that access. And there will be times when the power is not, at the start of combat, in the slot they would prefer.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

So, EB guy is only better off overall IF MP guy is continually making poor choices (at least guessing wrong more often than not.) of course, Mp guy is making his decisions earlier in the day while Eb guy for all intents and purposes made his decision back when he built the character.

 

Or if MP Guy wants to make changes. "I'd be way better off with EB here; I'll spend my phase to change." EB Guy fires his EB at the guy and knocks him out. MP Guy wants his flash back for another opponent. Another phase shot.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Now, back to Hugh's specific issue... I know that some Gms will simply prefer to refuse to acknowledge or allow the "only on change" limitations and insists that "in order to make it worth the savings" they must inflict it at scenario start too. Thats fine if they want to basically limit the options in their games that way. To me its making the play fit the system... forcing the character to the systems limits. i prefer, especially when using a system that makes such claims about its flexibility, to not mangle the concept to fit the system.

 

In short, i would like to be able to have a pistol (or non-oaf style power) with clips of different ammos that will require an action to change ammo without also having a Gm such as hugh force me to leave the gun unloaded until the fight starts. I would love to be able to say "this clip is loaded" and have it stay that way... so that i only have to concern myself with changing it when i want a different ammo type or when i want to reload.

 

No - you unload the gun when it would make sense to do so, or when you decide to do so. If you CHOOSE not to do so, you will face the consequences when and if it is appropriate. Perhaps that means your focus going off at an inopportune moment. For a regular EB, it means walking around sparkling all day because your EB is on - and your EB is visible by three senses, remember?

 

That's the case whether you took "takes a phase to change" or not. However, if you didn't take "requires a phase to change", you can slap a clip in with no wasted time. Or you can turn on, fire and turn off your EB in a half phase.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

However, i also want the system to reliably and consistently value this limited power at somewhere between ONLY ONE AMMO TYPE PERIOD and INSTANT CHANGE BETWEEN AMMO TYPES.

 

Go ahead. But only an idiot is going to tie up future phases for changing those ammo clips if he's not getting any point break. And, frankly, a whopping 2 points on a 72 point multipower is close enough to "no savings" that I'll sell back some STUN, END or COM instead.

 

Congratulations - you have a power construct which fits your technical sense of how things should work. Well done. No one will ever take the power, because the value of the points saved far outweighs the costs to your character, but that's OK because it's consistent. You have built another 5e damage shield.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

I agree with hugh in that if you expand the limitation to also cover "start of scenario" so that the difficulty will be felt every time the power is initiated AND if you then want to compare that to an ***unlimited*** single power, then you can indeed see reasonable results which put the mulitpower limited as cheaper.

 

The difference is that you compare an unlimited single power to a limited multipower. I am also comparing a limited single power to both the unlimited power and the limited multipower. If EB Man takes "costs one phase to power up EB", he ALSO gets a -1/4 limitation, and pays 48 points for his EB. Just like Clip Man, he can choose to use that phase before entering the abandoned warehouse. Just like ClipMan, he can be caught unprepared and lose a phase to activate his powers. ClipMan has the added flexibility that he can select a Flash, and he paid the extra cost (10 points) to do so, just as he would pay more if both had unlimited powers.

 

EB Man can pay 12 points and get rid of the limitation. MP Man can pay the extra 14 points and get rid of the limitation. Balance is achieved.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

its when you decide to compare that Mp to the bare Eb without the lim in order to show you are applying the lim right that your argument fails.

 

No, it's where your logic fails. You are comparing a multipower with two limited powers to a single power with no limits. Fast EB Man paid 60 points for his EB and it's always available. Slow EB Man paid 48 points for his EB and it's available any time once he spends a phase, until he shuts it down. They are about to walk into a bar. Slow EB Man says "Oh, my shoe is undone" and, taking a phase, activates his EB. They walk into the bar and both have an EB ready to go. But Slow EB Man saved 12 points. You have stated that this limitation would save 12 points. You have stated that there should be no difference in points between two characters who both have their two EB's ready. Which is correct?

 

Originally posted by tesuji

However, IMo the costs need to make sense when i give them to my players. i refer to this as "my stupid rule" where if a rule i tell my players makes me sound stupid, then i consider it a bad rule.

 

And you don't think the above makes you sound stupid? Well, I'd say "sound like you have not fully considered the issue", because it is a tough concept to wrap the mind around, and I definitely see where you are coming from. If it was easy, we wouldn't have a 4 page thread on it.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

If i were asked by a player why the multi-ammo gun was cheaper than the single ammo gun, i would feel stupid saying "because i am going to punish the multi-ammo gun more in play for chosing the power that way."

 

What is your explanation to Quick EB Man for the fact that he paid 12 points more than Slow EB Man for what, in the bar, seems to be exactly the same power? Or is Slow EB Man not permitted to "start up" his power prior to combat? If not, why not?

[tesuji]

"Your assumption is that MP Guy will take one power he wants, and one he expects never to use, just to point whore. "

 

i have NEVER said that or made it a piece of my argument.

 

I have repeatedly stated and argued that the INTENT of the player should have NO BEARING on the way the system calculates the cost.

 

You keep asserting this is my position. You arw wrong and frankly, you are just making that up.

 

Thats fine.

 

Just not worth continuing to try and get you to discuss the issues at hand.

 

please continue to argue as long as you wish with what you wish to pretend that i meant or said in some fantasy world.

[tesuji]

"...now we apply -2 in limitations to the control cost...(location, RSR, yadda yadda yadda)

My access to all the powers int he book costs me 60 + (30/3) = 70 points. Chepaer than the Multipower."

 

OK, pay attention...

 

after you apply -2 to the powers in the VPP, including RSR which means you would need to make the skill roll EVERY time in order to use the power (a skill roll to change powers is INHERENT already in the VPP mechanics after all.)

 

So you are comparing at the very minimum a multipower with no skill roll required against a VPP with skill roll required to use the powers, not just change them.

 

I can see where this would be a possible case for the VPP being cheaper. The MP guy will neber have his powers fail in combat AND would be able to move between multiple powers freely, whereas the VPP guy would only be able to move between powers IN COMBAT if all those -2 limitations were met AND if he made two skill rolls (one to change and one to activate.)

 

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

 

In the One power vs hard to change multipower vs freely change multipower, those issues do not apply to the minimum assertion. The minimum assertions made by me, and those who agree is simple, the limited change multipower (NOT A LIMITED USE MULTIPOWER) should never be cheaper than the NO CHANGE base power.

 

Some seem to agree. Some seem to view the answer to be to in fact disallow the limited change multipower and only accept either limited USE multipowers or unlimited use multipowers.

 

For me, in my game, i can allow the limited change multipower and get the math to work out as it should... by applying the limitations to the slots.

 

"The longer the time delay, the more relucatant yonder superhero is to change the powers around. It balances out in the long run."

 

As far as i can tell , whatever the time delay, he would never be more reluctant to do so that the guy with only an Eb who cannot ever change it. hence my belief it should not be cheaper.

 

"The players ARE of the opinion that Megascale Change Environment (Weather Manipulation) is an unfair power for the price,"

 

Hmmm i would not think so.. the vast majority of my games take place in relatively urban areas and so megascale areas with derogatory effects would be something no hero would be anxious or ever inclined to cut loose on. The after-action reports of accidents and injuries that took place among the civilians when he conjured his gale or superdense fog "out of thin air" (when whatever penalties are applied to the normal civies out there driving at highway speeds or even maybe just walking down steps) would prove amazingly troublesome in the long run. (Then again, i wont go into my overall views on how screwed up the 5e megascale rules are.)

 

"I have learned two things::

1) Tesuji's players are both more observant and nitpickier than mine"

 

Actually, while i would expect my players to catch such a silly notion as is being discussed here, it is not them but me. I feel that, as a GM, it is my job to make the values i assign make sense and be reflective. i never view it as "thats what the system says it should cost" but rather "thats what i am saying it costs and will be worth." i would rather give out costs that i can explain and show make sense than not and just say "well sometimes I dont have to make sense. Sometimes i can just let the costs make sense and tell you to deal with it because i am the GM." I don't want to ban such an onvious real world type of power. i dont want the costs to produce erratic results some of which do not make sense. i do not want to nod and wink and tell the players "i will fix him for taking it in play... just you watch." I also do not want one set of rules for the players i like and another for the players i dont.

 

net result, its a lot easier on me to do the math, see how the results turn out, and chose the model that produces reliable, consistent and explainable results.

 

In this case, thats making the lims apply to the slots.

 

I can, however, see and accept the notion that a Gm and players see and have decided to swallow even more egregious errors in the system and have become basically accepting that sometimes the costs wont make sense... and that they will perhaps as you have find this problem to be within their tolerance zone. I really cannot understand it, since this is a problem of your own making... but hey, people have different thresholds and levels of tolerance for errors.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji

"Your assumption is that MP Guy will take one power he wants, and one he expects never to use, just to point whore. "

 

You keep asserting this is my position. You arw wrong and frankly, you are just making that up.

 

Um, no. The impression I have from your prior posts is that you believe "straigh EB Man" pays 60 points for his EB, and you can't see the Multi for 58 because MultiMan can just leave it in EB 100% of the time and be EB Man. The only way that happens is if MultiMan's player is point whoring.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Just not worth continuing to try and get you to discuss the issues at hand.

 

You quote two lines from my extensive post and believe it;s the only point discussed. Let's lay it out plainly.

 

Four characters. Each has natural powers, for simplicity. They walk into a bar and wish to use their EB.

 

A EB 12d6 60 points. He walks into the bar and fires at will.

 

B EB 12d6, requires 1 phase to activate 48 point. He spends a phase on the way to the bar, arrives, and fires at will.

 

C Multi 12d6 EB 12d6 Flash 72 points. He arrives at the bar and fires at will.

 

D Multi 12d6 EB 12d6 Flash requires a phase to change - I say 58 point; you say 70. He spends a phase on the way to the bar (to load his "EB" clip), arrives, and fires at will.

 

Oh look - under your example, they all get the exact same results for widely different point costs. Why would Character A be mad that Character D saved 2 points (if we use my model), but not that Character B saved 12 (under both models)? You have said that "EB 12d6 -1/4 "takes a full phase to turn on but afterward holds itself ready to fire" would be worth 48 rp. The same power in a MP setup with a flash would cost more."

 

Let's change the example. The characters do not expect trouble at the bar, so they have not prepared their weapons. Now we get:

 

A EB 12d6 60 points. He walks into the bar and fires at will.

 

B EB 12d6, requires 1 phase to activate 48 point. He is surprised, and must blow a phase before he may use his EB.

 

C Multi 12d6 EB 12d6 Flash 72 points. He arrives at the bar and fires at will.

 

D Multi 12d6 EB 12d6 Flash requires a phase to change - I say 58 point; you say 70. He must spend a phase to load his EB clip before he can use his EB.

 

Here, A and C have the clear advantage. They also paid more points than B or D.

 

What if we need a flash? Well, C is clearly best off, followed by D. A and B are screwed.

 

The question, however, is whether the time limit or the lack of a Flash is the greater limitation. My way, the time factor is a slightly greater (2 point) limitation. Your way, the lack of a flash is a considerably greater limitation. However, in virtually all games I've played, while the flash may be nice, you're still able to do something with your EB. Conversely, if I have to wait a phase, I've missed a phase - in any game.

 

The above results are consistent with the existing limitation rules and get a pretty fair result. In your campiagn, there will be no character D - he loses a phase every time he wants to change his MP, and all he gets is 2 miserly points.

 

As for your "changes only in a lab" limitation, that sounds an awful lot like it takes at least an hour (-3 limitation). However, because once it's changed, it stays changed forever (even if the character shuts it off, starts it up again, etc), and because VPP's are a very different animal, the limit on a VPP control cost is different.

 

Would I let a player take an MP whose slots can be changed only after an hour? On the same restrictions noted above - there will likely be times when you have no specific power "loaded up", so you do without or burn an hour. If there is a defualt slot, take the limit "takes one hour to activate or deactivate" on each of the other slots. Your default slot is clearly not limited, since it falls in automatically.

 

But my guy with two ammo clips CAN have no clip at all in place, and thus require a full phase to start ANY power. The EB clip doesn't slide in when no one's looking because he took out the AP clip.

[tesuji]

I am a glutton for punishment it seems.

 

Hugh...

 

Another try... why i dont know but another try...

 

I have already given that your case of the multipower limited in USE (where he will have to deal with startup issues and not change issues) could very well result in powers that as multpowers SHOULD be cheaper than the unlimited base powers. I will give an easy case...

 

MP 60 ap

12d6 Eb

12d6 flash

 

Apply the USE limit of only on feb 29th for at least -2.

 

When you compare this to a 12d6 eb with no limit or a 12d6 flash with no limit and insist the limit apply to startup as well as change so that entering a combat on anything other than feb 29 basically means NO power, it should be cheaper.

 

Now, there are plenty of middle grounds and lesser lims, but as long as the presumption is that the limitation will be forced to apply to use/startup during action sequences, your point holds true.

 

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

 

of course, those were not the cases i have been arguing.

 

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

 

Now i ask you to imagine some insane Gm who believes multipowers COULD POSSIBLY represent powers with limitations on just CHANGING THE SLOTS. That no matter how or when the combat starts one power can be available and that only if you decide to change slots will the problems come into play. I know, maybe you think no sane Gm would allow something like a gun with different ammo clips without insisting that the gun wont stay with a cip inside... but hey just role play as if you were a Gm who could imagine such a thing.

 

To avoid the hangups some people have on EBs and extra time, i am going to go to my other example.

 

Mystic Sheields Multipower

30 ap

15/15 force field

invisibility sight no fringe

life support 30 pts worth.

 

Any one of these powers as a base power costs 30 cp.

the multipower unlimited costs 39 pp.

 

I am going to apply -1/2 can only change at base (to represent him drawing the magiuc from this sacred temple at his base. to avoid all those forusy results preseum it is an indestructable temple, OK.)

 

So this guy can leave the bas eiwht any ONE of these three powers set but cannot change it at all until he returns.

 

Now -1/2 might be cheap since for VPPs it a -1/2 but a VPP has many restrcitions on changing already, so this takes the multipower all the way from instant change to the same level as the vpp which went from skill roll or out of combat only to this level.

 

But as a conservative approach i will apply it as -1/2 figuring that the only arguement that could be raised is that i am UNDERVALUING the lim.

 

Now if i take your approach and apply this -1/2 to the pool the MP costs 29 points. Thats one less than the single powers.

 

So, MP guy can leave his base with EITHER the ff or the invis or the LS depending on what he feels he will need for that day. Single power guy can leave his base with only the one option he bought and nothing else. However, MP guy paid 1 pp less for the ability.

 

It shoudl; be obvious that having three choices to choose from when you leave the base should be worth MORE than only having the one, and certainly not less.

 

So this to me shows the apply the lim to the reserve is flawed and will produce incorrect results or at best will produce unreliable results.

 

If you do it my way and apply the limitation to the slots and not the pool, the multipower will result in a cost of 36, which plants it squarely between the one power guy and the three powers chose at will guy. mathematically, i can see that applying it to the slots will in all cases keep the value of the limited CHANGE powers between the cost of the unlimted change and the no change (wityh only a feew rounding cases edging this to be an INCLUSIVE between but still a between.)

 

So, the apply to slots produces relaible and "correct" values... at least from the perspective of is it between the two OBVIOUS bound cases of one power and three unlimited change powers.

 

One method places it erratiucally at points maybe between the bounds and maybe not. The second method places it completely and reliably between the obvious bounds.

 

i cannot fathom why this could be viewed as a toos up.

 

But hey, there are more than a few people i cannot fathom.

 

So for me it boils down to two questions...

 

Can you acknowledge that the value of the three powers change at base i describe above should be reliably and consistenyl scored at between the value of one of those powers bought singly and the value of the three powers bought in an unlimited multipower... ir between 30 and 39 reliably?

 

If so, can you also admit that applying the limitation to the pool FAILS to do this while the limitation to the slots succeeds?

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The only way that happens is if MultiMan's player is point whoring.

Your abilkity to divine the intent of a hypothetical player is frankly amazing. I am not making ANY assumptions on the intent of the player. The intent of the player should be IRRELEVENT to the way the system values powers.

 

it is that simple.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

You quote two lines from my extensive post and believe it;s the only point discussed. Let's lay it out plainly.

I believed nothing of the sort, its just an example of why i have begun to feel this discussion is pointless.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Four characters.

Snip... you have taken my point out of context. in an attempt to show you the ongoing flaw made by some of continuing to compare a multipower with STARTUP issues to a vase power without startup issues, I used the example of the EB with startup issues.

 

This was not me stating that the Eb with startup issues was a good example of an applied lim. it was an attmpt to get thru the misdirection that seemed to keep coming up of assuming the change only Mp would have trouble at startup more than an unlimited single power would.

 

If you want to debate whether -1/4 is an appropriate value of the lim when applied to s single power Eb, then you should probably start a new thread.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Let's change the example. The characters do not expect trouble at the bar, so they have not prepared their weapons. Now we get:

OK, here we go again, why would the CHANGE LIMITED guy need to spend a phase or be unprepared? Get this straight... it is really quite simple. The limitation being discussed is not a lim which would put the powers at a STARTUP problems and thus would never require them to be prepared any more than a single base unlimited power would be.

 

The ONLY effect being discussed is making CHANGING the pool a problem, changing the powers.

 

This is why i tried to use the silly EB example earlier... you KEEP adding in under the tent the notion that the limit on changing SHOULD AND MUST ALSO MEAN the power is prepared less often than the base power would be.

 

You keep gravitating back to that point. I AGREE... IF the power has a USE limit so that he will need to spend time to startup any of the powers then it is possible that startup limit can be so severe as to make the power worth less.

 

However, if there is no startup limit and just a change limit i cannot see why this would be the case.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Would I let a player take an MP whose slots can be changed only after an hour? On the same restrictions noted above - there will likely be times when you have no specific power "loaded up", so you do without or burn an hour. If there is a defualt slot, take the limit "takes one hour to activate or deactivate" on each of the other slots. Your default slot is clearly not limited, since it falls in automatically.

So it appears you would not be inclined to allow a guy to have change only limitations where any slot can be the default but where you do not see the 'startup problems."

 

OK, you wont allow the constructs we have been diuscussing. i wish you had said that at the beginning.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

But my guy with two ammo clips CAN have no clip at all in place, and thus require a full phase to start ANY power. The EB clip doesn't slide in when no one's looking because he took out the AP clip.

No but apparently it may slide out unexpectedly in your games? because otherwise, you have NO REASON to expect that power, which took no limit to say it would ever be unprepared, is any worse off than the same power bought individually.

 

Do you have an answer to the two questions regarding the change at base? Notice i did NOT include any limitation that would force the character to ever have a power unprepared. Also there is no power base ddefault... so he can choose any of the three when he leaves tha base. The only time he would ever be bare of one of those powers would be if for some reason he chooses to voluntarily forfeit the powers, but there is no reason he should expect that to be the case any more than mr 12d6 Eb should.

 

What do you say to my two questions? i tend to expect the answer to be some form of "i would not alolow that" though more windy and less direct...

 

either way, i am interested.

[tesuji]

As an aside, a minor rules gripe...

 

i do not agree with the assessments neing tossed around that the HARD TO CHANGE variety of disads being discussed here are APPROPRIATELY derived from time delay. Time delay is per use or for some powers per startup.

 

However, even with startup only, if the power is turned off (a wholly different sanimal than reallocating slots) the time delay kicks in again.

 

A force field with -1.5 for an hour to startup would require the force field delay every time the character shut down the force field.

 

A MP with a lim of 1 hour to change slots would, once set on force field, allow the FF to be turned on or off at will and only kick in the new delay once the time came to change to a different power.

 

Just pointing out that whether you use the Hugh approach of limiting the pool or my approach of limiting the slots, do not just drag in the extra time limit.

 

personally, i think -1/2 for change slots only at base is pretty much close if not dead on. i would not give it more than -1 at most and then only if the campaign would stray far afield enough to make getting to the base unreliable. (if the guy had enough teleport to get back to base poof and poof reliably,,, maybe -1/4.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji

Now i ask you to imagine some insane Gm who believes multipowers COULD POSSIBLY represent powers with limitations on just CHANGING THE SLOTS. That no matter how or when the combat starts one power can be available and that only if you decide to change slots will the problems come into play. I know, maybe you think no sane Gm would allow something like a gun with different ammo clips without insisting that the gun wont stay with a cip inside... but hey just role play as if you were a Gm who could imagine such a thing.

 

That's the thing. "Allocating the points" and "changing the slots" is the same thing. A character who bought an EB that requires a phase to charge up can charge it up whenever he wants to. He can charge it up at 6 AM, and keep it charged and ready to go ALL DAY LONG. And voila - he can use the power. Yet he still gets the -1/4 limit. BY THE BOOKS. Is his power vastly limited? No - that's why he only gets -1/4. Is it limited? YES - there will be times he hasn't charged the power. Maybe it shuts down when he's knocked out. Maybe he doesn't normally keep live ammo in it at all times.

 

If he wants to say "I spent the first phase after birth and never have to do it again", I will not allow the limitation. But my players would not be STUPID enough to ask for it. It would sure make mutants cheap, though. "Requires 12

years to charge" for -3 1/4. It didn't kick in until he reached puberty, right?

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Mystic Sheields Multipower

30 ap

15/15 force field

invisibility sight no fringe

life support 30 pts worth.

 

Any one of these powers as a base power costs 30 cp.

the multipower unlimited costs 39 pp.

 

I am going to apply -1/2 can only change at base (to represent him drawing the magiuc from this sacred temple at his base. to avoid all those forusy results preseum it is an indestructable temple, OK.)

 

Now -1/2 might be cheap since for VPPs it a -1/2 but a VPP has many restrcitions on changing already, so this takes the multipower all the way from instant change to the same level as the vpp which went from skill roll or out of combat only to this level.

 

But as a conservative approach i will apply it as -1/2 figuring that the only arguement that could be raised is that i am UNDERVALUING the lim.

 

Yup...as you are in respect of extra time to change. But carry on.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Now if i take your approach and apply this -1/2 to the pool the MP costs 29 points. Thats one less than the single powers.

 

So, MP guy can leave his base with EITHER the ff or the invis or the LS depending on what he feels he will need for that day. Single power guy can leave his base with only the one option he bought and nothing else. However, MP guy paid 1 pp less for the ability.

 

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.

 

So, if your Force Field is drained, dispelled, or otherwise forced to shut off, including being knocked out, the points are no longer allocated. Goodbye power (until you get back to your temple). We're out of the country battling the forces of VIPER when ForceField Man and MultiMan are both KO'd by an insidious NND vs Armor. ForceField Man's extra 1 point investment looks pretty good right now - he still has a power! You need to get back to the stated and change your reserve from "nothing" to "something".

 

Now, I would let ClipMan still have a clip in his gun (how did it get out?) based on special effects. He has other drawbacks. MysticMan? You need to get back to your temple...

 

Originally posted by tesuji

It shoudl; be obvious that having three choices to choose from when you leave the base should be worth MORE than only having the one, and certainly not less.

 

And it would be if this were a VPP, since the slots would not close down on KO. But that's why VPP reserves are never limited, isn't it?

 

Originally posted by tesuji

So this to me shows the apply the lim to the reserve is flawed and will produce incorrect results or at best will produce unreliable results.

 

No, it indicates I remember the FAQ question and you don't. Absent that ruling (in your game, as it always has been in mine) I would agre with you that MysticMan holds an advantage (though not much of one if the temple is far far away).

 

This makes the rest of your points moot. MysticMan has taken a far greater limitation than you considered. Now, if he had a 30 point VPP, only changes at base, limited to these three powers, I'd say he pays no more than 35 points (30 base + a control cost with a -1/2 "return to base" limit and a -1 1/2 - at least - "very restricted powers" limit. Pretty much right between MultiPower Man and Single Power Man.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji

i do not agree with the assessments neing tossed around that the HARD TO CHANGE variety of disads being discussed here are APPROPRIATELY derived from time delay. Time delay is per use or for some powers per startup.

 

However, even with startup only, if the power is turned off (a wholly different sanimal than reallocating slots) the time delay kicks in again.

 

A force field with -1.5 for an hour to startup would require the force field delay every time the character shut down the force field.

 

A MP with a lim of 1 hour to change slots would, once set on force field, allow the FF to be turned on or off at will and only kick in the new delay once the time came to change to a different power.

 

One example of the "extra time only to activate" limitation is the creation of a magic item which requires months to create and thereafter never requires Extra Time again. Such an item could legitimately grant a force field which could be turned on and off at will once the extra time has been spent.

[Farkling]

I want to point this out loudly, because I missed it when I posted before...

 

""...now we apply -2 in limitations to the control cost...(location, RSR, yadda yadda yadda)

My access to all the powers int he book costs me 60 + (30/3) = 70 points. Cheaper than the Multipower.

 

OK, pay attention... "

 

YOU pay attention after you get that one into your head.

RSR is my shorthand for the Pool skill needed...let me get the damned book out and make sure I quote it COMLETELY and ACCURATELY.

 

"So you are comparing at the very minimum a multipower with no skill roll required against a VPP with skill roll required to use the powers, not just change them. "

 

And you were comparing a limited framework to a straight EB...and in some cases...still are.

 

"I can see where this would be a possible case for the VPP being cheaper. The MP guy will neber have his powers fail in combat AND would be able to move between multiple powers freely, whereas the VPP guy would only be able to move between powers IN COMBAT if all those -2 limitations were met AND if he made two skill rolls (one to change and one to activate.)"

 

I also note that you didn't even CONSIDER the comment on the full price version, as you were busy picking apart my theoretical construct...so I will go off and construct an ACTUAL, CONCRETE example for you, just as soon as I finish the essays I have due on Monday...oh, and I have a game Sunday...so maybe someone else will find the time. I was done discussing this. I think I still am. I still refuse to tell you that you are correct and I will change my heretical ways.

 

And as a final not::

You said. "If you do it my way and apply the limitation to the slots and not the pool, the multipower will result in a cost of 36, which plants it squarely between the one power guy and the three powers chose at will guy. mathematically, i can see that applying it to the slots will in all cases keep the value of the limited CHANGE powers between the cost of the unlimted change and the no change (wityh only a feew rounding cases edging this to be an INCLUSIVE between but still a between.)"

 

So what about that little rule in the book that says any limitation applied to all the slots is also applied to the reserve cost? Your house rules disallow this? If we are arguing over house rules...you play at your house...and I'll play at mine.

[tesuji]

Hugh...

 

I hate to break it to you, but i entered this discussion saying that i disagreed with Long's ruling on this situation. If i were to be accepting long's rules without question, there would be no discussion since he has stated you can limit the reserve for difficulty in changing slots.

 

As i expected, it seems your answer is that you will not allow difficult to change slots as a lim unless it also piggynacks in startup problems that will occur in play.

 

Thats fine, if thats how limited you want your games to be.

 

I, and i think some others, would be OK with having multipowers that are hard to change (anything more restrictive than a free action anytime) that are not also saddled with startup or use problems... no matter what Steve long says.

 

MOREOVER, i will agree that if you add all those long rulings together so that the hard to change thing will hit everytime you are stunned and such, then hey, the limited multipower will be in play a weaker power than the plain old bare power... since it is effectively getting the full use flaw.

 

of course, even using longs rulings (and yours) it still remains inconsistent. If my example MP was of powers NOT affected by unconsciuos or stun, then i would not be running into these USE issues after Ko and the like. In your own case, if its a gun instead of amjystic spell, you wont enforce the sudden clip withdrawl.

 

i prefer consistency. As i stated at the beginning... there is what the rules say, what steve long says, and what makes sense and those thre are not al;ways the same thing.

 

YMMV.

 

Glad we cleared this up. I now uderstand your position. i disagree with it but i figure you have good reasons for so limiting the options in your games.

 

Me, i didn't feel that need.

 

Enjoy your games.

[Farkling]

On a side note,

 

The FAQ specifically mentions Knocked Out...it does not mention Stunnned...perhaps one of us should ask sTeve's opinion?

 

I also think that the statements following the points are quite useful...but, as I am noted to say on game nights...what's a few points between friends?

 

I just have a loose view on it I guess, and am willing to admit I can't see a problem with it as it stands unless my players want it changed. Considering that everyone but the new guy has some kind of framework, I doubt they want it changed. And the new guy simply built a combat monster, who actually seems more efficient that the otehr players...go figure.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Farkling

And as a final not::

You said. "If you do it my way and apply the limitation to the slots and not the pool, the multipower will result in a cost of 36, which plants it squarely between the one power guy and the three powers chose at will guy. mathematically, i can see that applying it to the slots will in all cases keep the value of the limited CHANGE powers between the cost of the unlimted change and the no change (wityh only a feew rounding cases edging this to be an INCLUSIVE between but still a between.)"

 

So what about that little rule in the book that says any limitation applied to all the slots is also applied to the reserve cost? Your house rules disallow this? If we are arguing over house rules...you play at your house...and I'll play at mine.

 

Ok since you seem to have missed it...

 

Way back in the beginning of this thread there was a quote from the FAQ that said you would apply the lim for changing slots to the pool.

 

When i weighed in i said that i disagreed with that approach and why.

 

There has been NO QUESTION since that quote as to what the rules ARE. The discussion has been about what they should be.

 

Did you miss all that? Did you not get it at all that we have been discussing the rules and alternative rules and which is better and why for about three and a half pages now.

 

If you answer is to see house rules and run for the hills you should have done that long ago.

 

The OFFIIAL rules produce nonsensical and inconsistent results. The house rule i am pointing out instead produces reliable and sensible results (based on the rather obvious cases.)

 

The argument is quite simple... i apologize for using mathematical jargon...

 

A multipower that constains several powers but which is limited in the ability to change between the slots (as opposed to being limited in its ability to allocate the slots or use the powers) should be costed at a point BETWEEN any one of those powers bought soley and the value of the multipower without the limitation on changing slots.

 

If you disagree with that axion or premise, we can stop now.

 

if you agree with that premise then you have to admit, as i can show several examples, that sometimes the long ruling and official rules will cause the limited change multipower to be outside the bounds. thus it violates that premise. On the other hand, my method of applying it to the slots and not the pool does result in always fitting in that premise, reliably and consistently.

 

As such, if you believe in the premise, then my way works better.

 

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

 

As for lims on charges carrying to the reserve, you have it wrong... the rule is not absolute. The exception mentioned in the book is CHARGES. There, of course, can be other exceptions. This would be one such case.

 

Why would it be an exception? because it produces unreasonable results.

 

Even in HERo, after doing the math, there is still supposed to be a step which many hero guys ignore. that step is "does this result make sense." its kind of like looking at the weather report and being told that by their very complex models it should be a clear sky and warm and opening the door and seeing rain. Do you grab your umbrealla or do you just walk on out thinking "hey, they ran the models and its not raining?"

 

Even if i follow all the rules to the letter, and run my math several times, using every FAQ ruling, if the result i see on paper as to the cost is obviously wrong, then something needs to be corrected.

 

Now, if you go by all the rules precisely, the multipower only to change gun with different ammo clips would not be possible. You would have to accept that when you were Koed the gun unloaded itself and needed a new clip. Alternatively, you could decide the "common sense' rules or guidelines mentioned all thru the book and Gm latitude meant you would not accept that and might allow the gun to keep its clip in.

 

At that point you have CHANGED the value and the cost needs adjusting.

 

A gun which empties it own clip when i get KOed might well be worse (even if it has several ammo types) than a gun with only one ammo type but that did not jetison its clip when i got whacked too hard.

 

See, its easy for me to describe in very normal terms the effect we are discussing, but everytime you guys wiehg in suddenly new effects weigh in.

 

lets try this as an example.

 

My character has a gun. it ius, as is allowed in the rules NOT A FOCUS... because i never seem to lose it and it never seems to get broken. it being a gun is just a plot effect. i carry said gun with one magazine of ammo with 16 rounds in it. i have multiple types of ammo, all stored back at the base, but i only carry around one clip not wieghed down with many many rounds. (for sake of argument i will assume the value of only change ammo type at base to be -1/2. Some may argue it should be higher but i will be conservative.)

 

So the power is

60 ap multipower

6 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c

6 8d6 AP 16c

 

As written this guy has 32 rounds evenly divided between the two and can switch back and forth for free. this cost him 72 points instead of 60.

 

Now, another guy has the same gun but only the EB ammo not the Ap stuff. He pays 60 points for this.with the same 16c.

 

If you use the official method, the two ammo guy pays either 52 or 48 (i forget whether it said slots too) which is cheaper than the guy who only has one ammo type.

 

If you use my method, the two ammo guy pays 68 which is sitting right between the one ammo guy and the guy carrying both ammos.

 

The 52 point case is totally nonsensical to me. The 64 case makes more sense.

 

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

 

After all this typing i will let you all in on a secret... what i think the basic disconnect between the two sides is...

 

look at the above example...

 

one ammo type period at 16 shots for 60.

two ammo types, 16 shots each and choose between them on the fly for 72 points.

 

That leaves only 12 points of leeway for every other type of "change" between NO CHANGE AT ALL and CHANGE FREELY AS ZERO PHASE.

 

So while i see the two cases of NO CHANGE and FREELY CHANGE as bounds which the limited change options should always fall in between, the other guys are looking and saying "well that cannot be right because there is no way any reasonable player will take "change at base" for only 4 points. Its gonna have to get down to 50 points or so before that serious a difference is worth it"

 

hey, on the surface, that seems logical... i mean you are talking about no choice of ammo after leaving the base AND 16 shots vs 32 shots. Thats clearly worth more to drop from the unlimited multipower to the limited one than 4 points or even 12 points.

 

I would agree except for one simple thing...

 

the system values the entire distance from ONE POWER with ONLY 16 shots TO two ammo types choose freely and 16 shots of each... the system has already told me and you what this drastic a change is... its 12 points.

 

If your player wont buy that the difference between the unlimited Mp and the limited Mp is less than 20 points, why in thw world would they ever buy that the difference beyween ONE POWER and the unlimited multipower is only 12 points?

 

So, when faced with this dilemma, my answer is to make the lims apply to the slots so as to keep the price break between the ONE POWER and the frely multipower.

 

The other guys, they seem to want to take a different approach.

 

They are Ok with the limited power being cheaper than the one power, after all thats where the rules place it. But instead they intend to "fix" it in play. Whether it was defined as different or not, the limited multipower guy is 'going to get his" and be plagued with a variety of additional probalems as payback... to make sure he gets whats coming to him for chosing the intermediate stage and getting it for cheaper.

 

To me this is a "follow thr rules and if that means screwing the concept so be it" notion that makes little sense.

 

I think they arr right when they assess THEIR PLAYERS and decide that there would not be any takers on the limited MP if it did not save more than 4 points or even more than 12 points. I also agree that if they do decide to allow the limited Mp as described above to weigh in cheaper than the solo gun they SHOULD as GMs get the guy... make sure he sees in play additional hardships above what the nbormal EB guy does so as to make the 52 gun NOT BE BETTER than the 60 gun in play. After all, they told EVERYONE that 52 gun was worth less... its now their job to make sure they were not just bald faced lieing thru their teeth.

 

So the rsult will be the 52 gun guy gets more out of his gun in many cases but gets a lot of other problems to help balance

it out.

 

Some people will like that decision... me i prefer to have the costs model the effect required and not need to piggyback on a heap oif additional nonsense.

 

HERo tends to short circuit in the in betweens... if you purchase a base thing or a common group, it works fine. However when you go in between... you get problems.

 

other examples include a character with a weak extra limb costing more than a character with a stronger extra limb in some cases when done by the rules... a base with everything a smaller base has but more room and area added on costing LESS than the smaller base in some cases... and also, now we see, a multipower with restrictions on changing between its powers being cheaper than only having one of those powers in some cases.

 

They are all actually the same mathematical PROBLEM... in all three cases you create the breakdown by buying something cheap (extra limb, base size, or multipower slots) and because you buy that cheap thing you get to apply a LIMITATION to reduce the cost of a much larger thing (the character's strength score, the base's armor and such, or the mp pool reserve.)

 

This is a buoilt in mathematical FLAW accepted by the system.

 

To fix the fundamental problem, you simply need to add the following as a fenberal addition to the mathematical model...

 

when adding a small cheap element enables a limitation to be taken, you do not apply the limitation to anything bigger than the small cheap element.

 

Spending 5 pts to save 20, or in the mp case above spending 12 pts to save 20 is a failed model.

 

All three cases, same issue, same error, same degree of rules supporting them and the obvious results defying common sense.

 

soapbox over... but any one of you who wants to agree to me giving you 12 bucks and you giving me 20 back as a reasonable deal... drop me an email.

[Hugh Neilson]

Ever notice how much one seemingly minor departure from the "official" rules requires you to change as you go along?

 

Farkling and I accept that you have to allocate your MP points after being KO'd, so we place a value on the extra time to change slots limitation.

 

We aren't unhappy it applies to the pool cost (which it does if it's a limitation on all the slots) because this rule, combined with the de-allocation of points on KO, makes sense.

 

I wonder what other little inconsistencies arise over time from the decision not to apply that one little rule/ruling.

[Farkling]

Okay...I am now officially intrigued by your theory...but I have a question...does it hold true beyond the section of the spectrum to which you are applying it?

 

ALL mathematical models break down in extreme cases...it is the nature of mathematical models. (even E=mc square...the flaw with that being IF you can exceed light speed, you get energy for free...hello Star Trek)

 

Your example follows the FAQ ruling for charges::

*"Q: If a character has a Multipower with Charges for the entire Multipower, can he “pre-allocate†those Charges, defining how many can be used for each slot?

 

A: As a default rule, no; if a character wants Charges for each slot, he should buy them individually for each slot. However, the GM could allow reserve Charge pre-allocation if he wanted to."*

 

Alright...no hard feelings here...let's look at apples only...sit up Hugh, it's time to shred one of my arguments again.

 

Tsuji;

You consistently quote what I would designate as a maximum deformity example. I am fully willing to admit the model probablt breaks down at the extreme limit you have chosen.

So let's restate your construct here at the beginning::

60 AP Multipower

6 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c

6 slot-2 8d6 AP 16c

72 points to pay and play...

 

Does the model hold on other setups in the same range? What if Two Power guy has Multi Slots instead of Ultra Slots?

 

60 (60 AP) Multipower

12 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c

12 slot-1 8d6 AP 16c

This power costs 84 points...and the player would very rarely fire ANY form a Multiple Power attack, as it would cost him two charges.

 

Now, same construct::

60 (60 AP) Multipower (16 charges)

12 slot-1 12d6 EB

12 slot-1 8d6 AP

is nonsensical...at first glance. But this is NOT the same construct...it's still 84 points...but I lost 16 shots for versatility in multiple power usages...which would cost two shots on the prior one...so it is an even trade.

 

Again::

75 (60 AP) Multipower (32 charges)

12 slot-1 12d6 EB

12 slot-1 8d6 AP

This is (of course) even more expensive...99 points. But I now have my versatility AND 32 shots.

 

Back to you:

60 AP Multipower

6 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c

6 slot-2 8d6 AP 16c

Hmmm....72 points. Yours is cheaper, and lacks flexibility for the discount, a fair trade. This is the 32 shot version though. If you need more than 16 EB's today...you're shit out of luck. I paid 27 points extra to be sure I don't have that problem as soon as you.

 

Now, again to yours::

75 (60 AP) Multipower (32 charges)

7 slot-1 12d6 EB

7 slot-2 8d6 AP

this is 89 points...cheaper, but not much. But this allows for up to 32 uses of either power...and I think it fits quite nicely into the spread (72, 84, 84, 89, 99).

 

The model seems internally consistent under analysis.

 

Arguments comparing charges to extra time are spurious you know...it took me a bit to remember that...I'm too used to thinking in multiple soft cost scenarios.

You dislike the extra time limitation on multipower reserves, And I think it's a crock that your charges don't cost END for free, since in a multipower that means cheap powers and lots of free use of the powers.

We can dismantle THAT on another thread.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

Alright...no hard feelings here...let's look at apples only...sit up Hugh, it's time to shred one of my arguments again.

 

It's an interesting case study.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

So let's restate your construct here at the beginning::

60 AP Multipower

6 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c

6 slot-2 8d6 AP 16c

72 points to pay and play...

 

OK

 

Originally posted by Farkling

60 (60 AP) Multipower

12 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c

12 slot-1 8d6 AP 16c

This power costs 84 points...and the player would very rarely fire ANY form a Multiple Power attack, as it would cost him two charges.

 

I doubt anyone would build this. As you say, the only real advantage is MPA's, and what's the point if it costs two charges. Either you want AP or you don't. Plus, you're splitting your attack against the same defenses twice (halved once, I grant).

 

Make Slot 2 a flash and we may see some MPA usage.

 

Assuming MPA is useful, I'd say the extra 12 points is reasonable. The exact construct isn't a system flaw so much as a character design flaw - it's accurate, but the player spends 12 points for no real benefit.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

Now, same construct::

60 (60 AP) Multipower (16 charges)

12 slot-1 12d6 EB

12 slot-1 8d6 AP

is nonsensical...at first glance. But this is NOT the same construct...it's still 84 points...but I lost 16 shots for versatility in multiple power usages...which would cost two shots on the prior one...so it is an even trade.

 

I disagree here. You could use up to 16 MPA's with the first construct if you wanted to. And you have the added versatility to decide to use 16 EB's and 16 AP EB's in a day with no MPA's. This structure wastes charges.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

75 (60 AP) Multipower (32 charges)

12 slot-1 12d6 EB

12 slot-1 8d6 AP

This is (of course) even more expensive...99 points. But I now have my versatility AND 32 shots.

 

27 points seems a lot to add that versatility. Especially when you could pay 6 more and have 32 shots of each power (or 10 less and have ultras with 32 charges each, but we've already established standard slots are useless in this construct).

 

Originally posted by Farkling

60 AP Multipower

6 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c

6 slot-2 8d6 AP 16c

Hmmm....72 points. Yours is cheaper, and lacks flexibility for the discount, a fair trade. This is the 32 shot version though. If you need more than 16 EB's today...you're shit out of luck. I paid 27 points extra to be sure I don't have that problem as soon as you.

 

As I said earlier, I think 27 is a lot to pay.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

75 (60 AP) Multipower (32 charges)

7 slot-1 12d6 EB

7 slot-2 8d6 AP

this is 89 points...cheaper, but not much. But this allows for up to 32 uses of either power...and I think it fits quite nicely into the spread (72, 84, 84, 89, 99).

 

Shouldn't that be 32 charges on each slot? For 89 points, I get 32 shots of AP and 32 shots of EB.

 

OK, I've lost what you were trying to illustrate here, Farkling. What I see is this:

 

- For 89 points (multi and slots both pay +1/4), I can shoot my EB 32 times, and my AP 32 times.

 

- For 87 points (multi pays +1/4, 2 ultras do not) I can fire EB or AP, 32 shots per day total.

 

- For 72 points (no advantages; 16 charges each) I can fire each 16 times.

 

- For the same 72 points, I can fire EB or AP 16 times.

 

What that means to me is that you ALWAYS put the Charges limitation or advantage on the individual slots and let the limitation filter up to the pool cost. Otherwise, you;re shorting yourself seriousl on shots. For 2 points, I doubled my total uses per day (87 to 82).

 

Worse, consider 8 charges:

 

40 (60 AP) Multipower (8 charges)

6 slot-1 12d6 EB

6 slot-2 8d6 AP

 

52 points, and I can fire 8 shots total, each one EB or AP at my discretion.

 

40 (60 AP) Multipower (8 charges per slot)

4 slot-1 12d6 EB (8 charges)

4 slot-2 8d6 AP (8 charges)

 

48 points, and I can fire 8 shots total, each one EB or AP at my discretion. The system paid me 4 points for doubling available usages.

 

For a truly awful example, assume 20 different slots are either 1 charge each or 1 charge in aggregate.

 

BOTTOM LINE: I'm not sure which one is the right answer, but the system should either:

 

(a) Give the pool a limitation based on the least charges in the slots (ie no overall "multipower uses per day" limit).

 

or

 

( Add all the slot charges together and that's the number of charges for purposes of the Multipower limitation.

 

I'm inclined to say (a) on the basis it is consistent with the handling of other limitations on multipowers, and you could either buy 64 charges per slot or make every slot 0 END. But I'll be looking closer at anyone with a charged multipower from now on.

 

After all, I can buy a Flash and an EB for 120 points, or put them in a multi for 72 points.

 

I can buy a Flash (8 ch) and an EB (8 ch) for 80 points, so putting these in a multi for 48 points is consistent.

 

I think a dispute on these values implies a challenge to the multipower framework rather than the charges limitation.

[Farkling]

Option B is how it is supposed to be constructed in the fact.

 

Trade out the EB for the Flash you mentioned....

 

Now those straight reserve shifters can MPA, say 4d6 AP and 6d6 Flash as a single shot...

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Farkling

Okay...I am now officially intrigued by your theory...but I have a question...does it hold true beyond the section of the spectrum to which you are applying it?

Well as i went thru several differing aspects, i actually do not know which theory you are referring to. The parent theory is that BUY CHEAP TO SAVE BIG is an organic flaw in the HERo model that produces in more than just this case (hard to change multipowers) nonsensical and inconsistent results. The child theory is that the better way to represent hard to change multipowers is to apply the reduction in price to the slots and not the pool. The overarching theory is that even if you build it right, you should look at the results to see if they make sense.. as in the RESULTS PROVE THE MODEl not vice versa.

Originally posted by Farkling

ALL mathematical models break down in extreme cases...it is the nature of mathematical models. (even E=mc square...the flaw with that being IF you can exceed light speed, you get energy for free...hello Star Trek)

That catch is, i really do not consider something as basic as a multipower that doesn't change as freely as a zero phase action anytime you want it as an extreme case. i do not consider a gun with several different clips which all work like clips (so relaoding to the same ammo works the same as switching clips to a different type.) is extreme. i consider these to be rather normal, obvious and that they should be simple. None of the cases where BUY SMALL TO SAVE BIG are that wacky... whats whacky is that since they don't fit into the predefined breakpoints (one power OR many powers freely switched between, no tail or rail as strong as your arm, etc.) they system seems to choke.

 

The net result is, as has already been stated, people will either just buy what HERo makes easiest (the breakpoints) or they will concoct a bunch of off the paper ways to force things to work out.

 

personally, i consider the basic multipower "can freely and instantly choose between the powers" to be the extreme case, the easiest most unlimited version in the comparison of one power vs multiple powers to choose from.

Originally posted by Farkling

Your example follows the FAQ ruling for charges::

Gotta say, i try and avoid the charges thing as an analytical element because in my experience most people have one issue or another with how charges work and HERO5 seems to have just added more fuel to the fire when it comes to "do charges cost out right" for many reasons.

 

if you want to debate charges, go ahead, but i will decline.

 

In general, what i was trying to show is the MATH PROCESS being used was flawed. One of the distractions that keeps creeping in is to debate and define and redefine the question of "is this lim costed corrctly for what it does." So i will leave the charges debates tyo you guys.

Originally posted by Farkling

Tsuji;

You consistently quote what I would designate as a maximum deformity example. I am fully willing to admit the model probablt breaks down at the extreme limit you have chosen.

So let's restate your construct here at the beginning::

60 AP Multipower

6 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c

6 slot-2 8d6 AP 16c

72 points to pay and play...

I really do not consider that to be a maximum case at all. It is a rather clean one, with no other toss in lims and such to throw the math into a kilter where you try and see which modifier is causing the trouble. IMX using one elemental change at a time is better to study results than to apply three or four and see what happens.

 

Also, i find 60 ap multipower, with ultra slots and attacks powers, to be quite common in play. Qhilw i myself often run multpower driven characters (where the bulk of the powers are in a large multipower, i find myself the odd man out in many cases and the attacks multipower with defense/movement EC to be the more common character structure.

 

So, maybe you see this as an extreme case, i see it as a relevent and simple case for purposes of comparison and analysis.

Originally posted by Farkling

Does the model hold on other setups in the same range? What if Two Power guy has Multi Slots instead of Ultra Slots?

 

60 (60 AP) Multipower

12 slot-1 12d6 EB 16c

12 slot-1 8d6 AP 16c

This power costs 84 points...and the player would very rarely fire ANY form a Multiple Power attack, as it would cost him two charges.

It has been ages since i saw such a construct. multi slots are rarely used. however, REGARDLESS of whether the slots are multi or ultra, my method would keep the cost of the limited change MP to between the values of the one power and the freely changeable multipower (with multi slots.) The by the book model would simply move the breakpoint of where you see the inconsistency to maybe a -1 limitation instead of a -1/2.

Originally posted by Farkling

Arguments comparing charges to extra time are spurious you know...it took me a bit to remember that...I'm too used to thinking in multiple soft cost scenarios.

Thats why i try to avoid unnecessary differences and trat one change at a time. the relative value of limitations will by needs vary from campaign to campaign. thats why i really try and avoid getting to hung up on complexities.

Originally posted by Farkling

You dislike the extra time limitation on multipower reserves,

Actually, to be specific, i do not like applying any hard to change limit to the reserve... but this is an outgrowth of an even more elemental error... i do not like being allowed to buy some cheap element (multipower slots, extra limbs, extra base size) and then from that cheap purchase be allowed to apply a limitation or cost reduction to some other element with a LARGER cost (multipower reserve, strength and dex, base traits such as armor, body and powers.) The reason i dislike that is it can and will in some cases, even very reasonable cases or even common ones, result in nonsensical results. The correct answer seems to be in EACH case to apply whatever limitation or cost reduction to the small element being bought. This will consistently keep the net result between the tow obvious bounds/extremes.

Originally posted by Farkling

And I think it's a crock that your charges don't cost END for free, since in a multipower that means cheap powers and lots of free use of the powers.

Thats definitely another subject for debate but i long ago discarded the notion of "but its broken worse here so i can live with this other thing." Even if charges were egregiously broken and wrecking the system that would not lead me to think i should let Buy SMALL to save BIg go.

 

indeed the driving elements behind how i prioritize my choices of what to fix is based mostly on significance of problem (includes impact and believability) AND difficulty of repair. Fixing buy small to save big is easy and can be applied consistently.

 

i imagine fixing charges would make for a much longer thread.

Originally posted by Farkling

We can dismantle THAT on another thread.

 

i have seen the charges debated online since 3rd... it got IMO worse not better with 5e and the some times more touchy feely "dramatic sense" as well as the wonderful addition of fuel charges.

 

It wont end soon. heck, i sometimes wax nosyalhic for the 3rd ed star hero charges where you bought charges in terms of clip size and difficulty to "change" clips.

 

enjoy your games

[Farkling]

the MPA options are NOT so apparent with that construct...I was using Tesuji's Framework...my mistake.

 

The MPA options aside...

I think it is all fairly well priced internally.

 

And Steve has stated repeatedly that Charges on the reserve apply to the maount of times the ENTIRE Multipower can be used...

[Farkling]

"i find myself the odd man out in many cases and the attacks multipower with defense/movement EC to be the more common character structure."

 

I hate those constructed characters. They seem abusive.

As I stated in the threads about EC's and how horrible THEY are.

 

The extreme case I was referring to was the Multipower with TWO ultra slots...that's an extreme case to me. This is not a maximum case...it is an EXTREME case...it is a minimum case. Multipowers in my games would need to have at least four powers in them to be allowed with reserve limits...

 

Your primary complaint (as I have seen it all along) is that a reserve limited Multipower is cheaper than an actual power purchase...so you wish to restrict Multipowers from reserve limitations, that is your perogative. My preference is to require more powers in the Multipower...so I can see it's conept, rather than point scrounging.

 

i am sorry that your players have played HERO so long that all they use is Ultra slot multipowers full of attacks, but 5th edition seems to have encouraged those constructs... we still have multi slots around here...indeed...some characters would have died without them.

[tesuji]

On the EC/Mp combo characters, this has been "commonplace" in hero design for more than a decade. i no longer see it as a problem. its an expected design item.

Originally posted by Farkling

The extreme case I was referring to was the Multipower with TWO ultra slots...that's an extreme case to me. This is not a maximum case...it is an EXTREME case...it is a minimum case. Multipowers in my games would need to have at least four powers in them to be allowed with reserve limits...

 

i see lots of different numbers of powers. if i had to guess THREE is the most common. the catch is, all having more slots does is move the bar, it may hide the problem a little further out...

 

with two powers as ultras a -1/2 change lim makes the problem, the error, visible. if i used three powers it might take -3/4 lim or maybe -1, if i used 6 it might be fiurther out. the key point is hiding the evidecne of the model being wrong doesn't mean the ones which are not evident are any more right.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

Your primary complaint (as I have seen it all along) is that a reserve limited Multipower is cheaper than an actual power purchase...so you wish to restrict Multipowers from reserve limitations, that is your perogative. My preference is to require more powers in the Multipower...so I can see it's conept, rather than point scrounging.

I wish to not apply slot CHANGE limitations to the reserve. i wish to not allow buying slots (cheap) to enable a limit on the larger pool, as the Buy small so you save big model FAILS to produce good results. in general USE limits on the reserve are OK, CHANGE limits wont be.

 

Think of it this way, any limit that would be applied to the base power as well as the multipower is probably good on the reserve. Any limit that comes about SOLEY by dint or turning a single power into a multipower (buying cheap slots) and so would not appear on the base power when solo, is not going to produce goof results on thepool itself.

Originally posted by Farkling

i am sorry that your players have played HERO so long that all they use is Ultra slot multipowers full of attacks, but 5th edition seems to have encouraged those constructs... we still have multi slots around here...indeed...some characters would have died without them.

 

i am not sorry that my plauers uderstood and recognized what HERO does well and that they build character appropriately... following the guidelines and examples the game has fostered for ages. Most any system has things it is designed to handle and things that dont... i do not think any less of my players for having the good sense to be able to tell the difference. My last character, Enforcer, was built on no Ec and mostly multipower in order to show that it still works.

 

if you want to fell sympathy, feel sympathy for HERO the system for these cases where its lacks, even in fairly basic cases, show so distinctly.

 

Then again, with enough common sense, dramatic sense, and sense of balance, i am sure we will all do just fine.