Limited Deflection

[Sean Waters]

I was building a character with Deflection and noticed that, if the power only works against a limited range of attacks the limitation is less than generous: for example, the character I was working on has air powers and is able to deflect physical attacks with a gust of wind, but energy attacks, say a laser, will pass through without a problem (OK you CAN change the course of a laser with air pressure but not for this particular piece of rubber science).

 

So, 'Only against physical attacks - not energy attacks' - what would you reckon that is worth? In superheroic games energy and physical attacks are probably one for one , more or less. It is worth -1/4.

 

An example Arrow Deflection power has 'Only v Arrows' at -1/2. That might be OK in a medieval world with no magic, where Arrows or Bolts are the most common and deadly projectile weapon - but as a general example? How often do you get shot at with arrows?

 

Not sure the balance is set right there...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

I am sure that the limitations for defensive powers are traditionally lowballed. This is the same way. ED, only vs Fire is set at what, -1/2? I'd rather spend the extra points and be protected against all energy attacks in most games. Yet that -1/2 remains consistent from edition to edition, even in books like, say, USPD or Fantasy Grimoire whose other contents clearly demonstrate a huge array of SFX for energy attacks.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

I'm not sure why that should be. I would very much like to encourage people building characters to take 'specialist' defences, but, as you say, for a measly -1/2 on 'Only v Fire', it is almost not worth it at all. It doesn't encourage that sort of variation in concept.

 

IMO, certainly for superhero games, and probably for fantasy games with a decent amount of magic, 'Only v one sfx', even if the sfx if pretty common, should be -1 at least: there can not be many sfx that account for half the attacks you are likely to face. I know that there are problems, potentially, if you have multiple MP slots: you could overwhelm opponents who do not have mixed attacks BUT that is a matter for GM oversight not a fix at the system level.

 

To make things sillier, we now have the 'Allocateable' advantage:

 

Borg Shields: Resistant Protection (5 PD/5 ED/5 Mental Defense/5 Power Defense), Allocatable (+1/4) (37 Active Points)

 

So, for 37 points I can now have (up to) 20 points in PD or ED or Mental Defence or Power Defence. To have 20 rPD (just 20 rPD) would cost 30 points.

 

Of course that is not a straight comparison, because Deflection now, for 20 of your Earth points, works against ANYTHING. To only have it work against (say) physical attacks - a very common attack type, but still probably only half of the ranged attacks you'll face -costs 16. Doesn't seem enough of a discount.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

Interesting point, actually - what would 'Only v Fire' be worth on Deflection?

 

On ED it is worth (whatever you might think of this) -1/2, but ED only works against energy attacks anyway. Deflection works against both physical and energy attacks so, it would seem, limiting it to 'only v fire' would be limiting it much more: you're cutting out all the physical attacks as well as the rest of the energy attacks. Even though it is the same limitation it should therefore have a different value because it is far more limiting to Deflection than to ED.

 

The book does not seem to take that into account.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

Yeah, I'd prefer Allocatable to be a little more along the same cost level as a Multipower: more like +1/4 per type of defense you can switch between, or per type after the first, instead of a flat +1/4, perhaps (a Multipower with nothing but Defense powers in variable slots would effectively cost +1/5 per defense).

 

I agree those Limitations are undervalued. I'd start with -1 for only physical/energy/mental (for any power that would normally work against both/all/most; Desolidification is another good example, but notice that it suggests -1 for any and all such restrictions). For any particular SFX--unless they are really common like maybe "HTH attacks"--I'd start with at least -1 for powers that are normally split between physical/energy/mental, and probably more like -2 to -3 for powers like Deflection and Desolidification that are usually pretty universal.

[Netzilla]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

To make things sillier, we now have the 'Allocateable' advantage:

 

Borg Shields: Resistant Protection (5 PD/5 ED/5 Mental Defense/5 Power Defense), Allocatable (+1/4) (37 Active Points)

 

So, for 37 points I can now have (up to) 20 points in PD or ED or Mental Defence or Power Defence. To have 20 rPD (just 20 rPD) would cost 30 points.

 

Yeah, but it comes pretty close to the same cost as doing the same thing via a Multipower:

 

24 Bord Ghields - 30 MP Pool (Unified Power, -1/4)

5f - 20 rPD

5f - 20 rED

3f - 20 MD

3f - 20 PowD

 

Total Cost = 40

 

Yeah' date=' I'd prefer Allocatable to be a little more along the same cost level as a Multipower: more like +1/4 per type of defense you can switch between, or per type after the first, instead of a flat +1/4, perhaps (a Multipower with nothing but Defense powers in variable slots would effectively cost +1/5 per defense).[/quote']

 

If you go that route, MP ends up a very clear winner:

 

Borg Shields: Resistant Protection (5 PD/5 ED/5 Mental Defense/5 Power Defense), Allocatable (+1) (60 Active Points)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

Yeah, but it comes pretty close to the same cost as doing the same thing via a Multipower:

 

24 Bord Ghields - 30 MP Pool (Unified Power, -1/4)

5f - 20 rPD

5f - 20 rED

3f - 20 MD

3f - 20 PowD

 

Total Cost = 40

 

..................

 

 

Y'see I've not looked up whether you can get away with using 'Unified power' on a MP like that, and, frankly, I'm afraid to. Adjusting MPs has always been, well, wrong. Also PowD and MD are special powers and should not appear in a MP. Without 'Unified Power' it comes out at 50 points.

 

I suspect that, although HD allows it as a limitation, you can not unify the slots of a MP. That would lead to enormous silliness:

 

48 60 point pool (unified power)

5 12d6 Blast

5 6d6 Entangle

 

So for 58 points you get a power that can entangle or blast for less than either costs on their own.

[Netzilla]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

Y'see I've not looked up whether you can get away with using 'Unified power' on a MP like that' date=' and, frankly, I'm afraid to. Adjusting MPs has always been, well, wrong.[/quote']

 

I've not seen anything that would prevent you from applying Unified Power to a Multipower.

 

Also PowD and MD are special powers and should not appear in a MP. Without 'Unified Power' it comes out at 50 points.

 

True, but I've seen it often enough on Force Field type builds in MPs that I don't see it as that big a deal unless you try buying gratuitous levels of it.

 

I suspect that, although HD allows it as a limitation, you can not unify the slots of a MP. That would lead to enormous silliness:

 

48 60 point pool (unified power)

5 12d6 Blast

5 6d6 Entangle

 

So for 58 points you get a power that can entangle or blast for less than either costs on their own.

 

First, that's the case with most limitations on 2-slot Multipowers that only have enough pool points to use one power at a time. If you replace Unified Power with x2 END, it's the same thing even though you'll never be using more than one slot at the same time. Nothing special about Unified Power as far as that goes. If you go with more slots or have a larger pool, you don't run into that issue.

 

Second, if it's a SFX that logically would be drained in an all-at-once fashion (like Telekinesis) why would Unified Power be inappropriate? Without the Limitation, you must drain each slot individually, so if one gets drained you can switch to the other and work at full power. With it, all the slots are drained at once so switching slots doesn't help.

[Ice9]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

It is bizarre. Personally, I've been houseruling it since 5E, based on the actual percentage of attacks. So for instance, Missile Deflection, Arrows Only, in a Champions game:

 

First off the bat, that's physical only, so half the spectrum.

Within physical ranged attacks, bullets are probably the most common, at maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of the attacks, arrows at lot less so - probably no more than 20% of even ranged physical attacks, even assuming multiple archer-themed villains exist. So that's in total, 10% of possible attacks - a -9 limitation. Even in an "archer heavy" campaign where arrows were twice that common, it would still be -4.

 

Heck, "bullets only", a much more common situation, could still reasonably be a -2 to -3 limitation.

[Jagged]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

I suspect that, although HD allows it as a limitation, you can not unify the slots of a MP. That would lead to enormous silliness:

 

48 60 point pool (unified power)

5 12d6 Blast

5 6d6 Entangle

 

So for 58 points you get a power that can entangle or blast for less than either costs on their own.

 

Agreed. I would expect MP that don't work in a unified way to be an advantage.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

Although I would look sideways at the 58 point Multipower, the fact is that putting Unified Power on the slots does mean the powers are drained simultaneously, where they would not be without that limitation. There is no reason the character should have the mechanical drawback if he gets no benefit in terms of point savings.

 

For most structures, I suspect the answer is that the MP will be also unified with other powers.

[Jagged]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

I guess I am a harsh referee then because if I applied a drain to a Multipower I would apply it to the power pool. After all that is where the active power points reside.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

I guess I am a harsh referee then because if I applied a drain to a Multipower I would apply it to the power pool. After all that is where the active power points reside.

 

Whether it's harsh or not is a subjective question. It is, however, a variation from the rules by the book.

[Netzilla]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

I guess I am a harsh referee then because if I applied a drain to a Multipower I would apply it to the power pool. After all that is where the active power points reside.

 

By the book you can't do that:

 

6E1 pg 139

5ER pg 108

 

As I recall, 4E and earlier never declared one way or the other if an Adjustment power could affect a Framework Pool/Reserve/Control directly.

[director13]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

Y'see I've not looked up whether you can get away with using 'Unified power' on a MP like that, and, frankly, I'm afraid to. Adjusting MPs has always been, well, wrong. Also PowD and MD are special powers and should not appear in a MP. Without 'Unified Power' it comes out at 50 points.

 

I suspect that, although HD allows it as a limitation, you can not unify the slots of a MP. That would lead to enormous silliness:

 

 

+1 to the opposing camp that allows it, mostly because of drains (there are a fair number of technological drains against mutations in my Gamma World game).

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

I definitely think the limitation values should be tailored to the game world. I regularly and have always adjusted them to the frequency in my game worlds.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

Guys, seriously: the maths doesn't work. Sure I'd allow 'Unified Power' on a MP, and it would be -0. Mind you, I'm with Jagged: the current 'drain a MP' rules (actually I have not checked but no one seems to be saying they've changed from 5th) are, frankly, stupid.

 

Does anyone seriously think that paying 58 points for 2x60 point powers in a MP with no other limitation than they are simultaneously negatively adjusted could ever be appropriate? You might as well put every power in a 2 slot unified MP. You get twice the powers and - here's the rub - no actual limitation AT ALL on the power.

 

So, knock yourselves out, whichever way you slice it, you can't apply Unified Power, as a limitation worth -1/4, to a MP because, even if, by some bizarre oversight it IS legal, it isn't a limitation in that context, and what do we know about limitations that do not limit?

 

They are not worth anything.

[Ice9]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

Thinking about it that way, the new MP-drain rules do seem a bit off. I mean, you can basically make a power require two separate drains, as approximately a +1/5 advantage.

 

Laser Powers: 60p Multipower

6u Red Laser: Blast 12d6

6u Blue Laser: Blast 12d6

 

Now I doubt anyone would actually use MP that way, but it does mean you get that as an added benefit whenever you use a MP.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

Well, keep in mind:

 

• That is the only scenario where the MP would be less expensive than a single power. Use variable slots or more than two of them, and it'll come out more expensive.
  
• The one power does potentially gain another weakness. Let's say that the original power was EB and now we're going to replace it with a MP with the EB and an RKA. Now an opponent with either Drain EB or Drain RKA would be able to target the EB (both, but comparing it to the original build...). Likewise a SFX-based negative Adjustment power may have a larger set of potentially matching SFX to target.

 

Whether that's enough to justify allowing the build or not is up to you, but it's not quite so strictly black-and-white as replacing a single power with multiple at lesser cost.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

Well, keep in mind:

 

• That is the only scenario where the MP would be less expensive than a single power. Use variable slots or more than two of them, and it'll come out more expensive.
  
• The one power does potentially gain another weakness. Let's say that the original power was EB and now we're going to replace it with a MP with the EB and an RKA. Now an opponent with either Drain EB or Drain RKA would be able to target the EB (both, but comparing it to the original build...). Likewise a SFX-based negative Adjustment power may have a larger set of potentially matching SFX to target.
  

 

Whether that's enough to justify allowing the build or not is up to you, but it's not quite so strictly black-and-white as replacing a single power with multiple at lesser cost.

 

The two slot MP illustrates the point, but it still applies even if you have more than 2 slots, or use variable slots - it is just harder to see that way. Using three or more slots or variable slots gives you more utility - which you are paying for: just because it is now more than a single power doesn't make it alright.

 

The major problem here is that draining a MP means you have to (unless you have expanded effect) drain EACH slot seperately: you can not drain the pool. That is, frankly, insane. I GET that there are potential problems, when you've defined your MP as several different gadgets, but that's an EASY fix - it doesn't need this mularkey. 60 point pool, 4 fixed slots: 80 points, you need 240 points of effect to drain it. Best of luck with that. It's like having 75% damage reduction v drains on your MP.

 

I do take the point about one slot unified to another making both more vulnerable, but that is a minor consideration IMO. Let us think on this:

 

12d6 Blast (Limitation: can be negatively adjusted by adjustment powers affecting Blast or RKA)

 

What would you give that limitation? Not even -1/4.

 

In fact even if it was 'Can be drained by Blast/RKA/Entangle/Drain affecting adjustment powers' would it reach the dizzy heights of -1/4 IMO. You'd need to have half the powers in the book before it was worth a limitation at all, and you never would: it would be a VPP long before then.

[Jagged]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

The one power does potentially gain another weakness. Let's say that the original power was EB and now we're going to replace it with a MP with the EB and an RKA. Now an opponent with either Drain EB or Drain RKA would be able to target the EB (both' date=' but comparing it to the original build...). Likewise a SFX-based negative Adjustment power may have a larger set of potentially matching SFX to target.[/quote']

 

I see a MP as a way to represent abilities that pull from a single "ability well". Therefore I find it hard to justify why a drain that effects part of the ability well should not effect it all.

 

Obviously its just me and Sean on this one but I think were I the ref I would overrule the book on this one

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

I see a MP as a way to represent abilities that pull from a single "ability well". Therefore I find it hard to justify why a drain that effects part of the ability well should not effect it all.

 

Obviously its just me and Sean on this one but I think were I the ref I would overrule the book on this one

 

By the book, a Multipower is simply a group of powers that are, to whatever extent, mutually exclusive. The SFX of a single ability well, or an arsenal of weaponry, or a utility belt full of pouches, is customized to fit the power like everything else in the game.

[phookz]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

Obviously its just me and Sean on this one but I think were I the ref I would overrule the book on this one

 

Which is a perfectly valid position. As GM you are well within your right to veto any power combo. It is technically RAW, but you need to do what makes sense for your game. Since the Unified Power has the exclamation point, it is clearly something that should require an extra level of scrutiny.

[phookz]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

For myself, I'm on the fence on the UP limitation. On the one hand, it does provide a limitation that cannot really be modelled in any other way, but is it enough of a limitation to justify a -1/4? I think the answer may well be that it depends.

 

If a character puts all of his powers through the same UP limitation, then he is taking a bigger risk than a character who only has a couple of powers in it. The first character stands to lose more if any of his powers are adjusted, while the second is only risking one single other power.

 

The best uses of this limitation may very well be "it depends."

[Sean Waters]

Re: Limited Deflection

 

By the book' date=' a Multipower is simply a group of powers that are, to whatever extent, mutually exclusive. The SFX of a single ability well, or an arsenal of weaponry, or a utility belt full of pouches, is customized to fit the power like everything else in the game.[/quote']

 

The book says you can define a collection of gadgets as a MP, but it is not a cheap way to be able to hand guns and gasmasks to all your mates: I'm paraphrasing.

 

My view is this: there is a duty (if that is not too grand a concept here) to get the build right. The build should reflect the actual concept.

 

If you do have a torch and a cutting tool and a gun and a molecular bonder all defined as separate objects that are slots in a MP, why can you not hand one to your team mate (say the torch) to shine on the Nega-Crystal while you glue it together? Answer: because that is not how MPs work. If that is not how MPs works, why are you building the 'lots of separate stuff' concept with a MP?

 

Because it is cheap.

 

Not, to me, a good reason. Sure it is a valid concept, but what it is not is a proper realisation.

 

Now if there were several devices that did all those things but (say) only one power source for all of them, fine: that is a conceptual reason you can only use one device at a time; it would even allow you to lose part of the MP without losing all of it BUT - and here is the thing - I'd say the actual pool has to have sfx too: it is the battery in that example - and there is no reason IT can not be taken away - if that is grabbed NONE of the slots work.

 

I can see another type of Framework, specifically for focus based stuff like this - the gadget pool - that runs using the +5 = x2 rule: define a base number of points (example 30) you use to buy your first gadget. Apply a power modifier (something like 'variable sfx', but actually 'variable build') and THEN +5 points for twice the number of gadgets.

 

SO:

 

30 point power +1/2 (say) = 45 points, 4 gadgets (+10 points)

 

Total: 55 points, and you get 4x30 point gadgets

 

The 'base points' should probably be the real points for the gadget, otherwise you are immediately devaluing the 'gadget pool' advantage, but we can talk that one through.

 

You could take a higher limtiation if you can change the actual gadget builds (say +1): then for 70 points you get 4 quite seperate 30 point gadgets you can change between adventures. You'd probably want some restriction preventing you MPAing them, but maybe not - again, one to talk through.

 

That looks like quite a useful idea to me.