Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

[IKerensky]

Nearly all is in the title.

 

The more I check PC build (less NPCs but some still), the more I notice the omnipresence of Multipower Pool.

 

For Movement, for Combat, for Defense.

 

You can basically put all the player powers into 1 single Multipower Pool or play with 2-3 different.

 

I understand the limitation of 1 active power per pool at a time, but by having access to several pool you can easily go around that.

 

The trick is that a player with 3 80pts PP or 4 60pts PP will be far more versatile and efficient than a player with 240 powers points.

 

If that is so easy to use the PP and the only limit is the GM decision (cheers one more thing to decide everytime a character is build, is it balanced, is it not ? and this one ? and this one ? ), why not simply remove the Power Pools powers ( except the Gadgeteer Belt wich will become a new Power all by itself ) and cut by half the price of all and every powers and use Link and a Doesn't Work with X Power limitation.

 

Or put a limitation on the number of Power Pool a character can have, let say 1 or 2, not more.

[Tasha]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

Multiple Power attacks are a big reason that the character who has a collection of abilities outside of a MP can be more powerful than a character with a ton of powers inside of it. (6e2 pg 73 and somewhere in 5e and 5er) Also Multipowers are suceptable to drains to the pool which hose the powers inside.

[IKerensky]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

And what about the player that have a collection of MP ? that certainly make him less suceptible to drain and still be able to use Multiple Power attack...

 

To take back my example of the 3 80pts MP, just put an attack power in each one of the MP.

 

Lets imagine a guys with 4 60pts MP ( or 65 pts.. ) each one is an element, Fire, Water, Earth, Air. Each one have at least several attacks, several movement, a defense, some increase in sense, a trick power too...

 

You will need several drain to remove him from his 4 MPs and he have very large attack and defense option even Multiple Power Attacks... and all his powers were buyed dirt cheap.

[Rapier]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

In that particular case, you are now paying for 3 80pt MultiPowers. You are still dishing out quite a bit of points, for which you get more utility.

 

I don't see the problem.

 

Multipowers group a tight group of similar powers. These powers are, in a manner, linked. It is fairly easy, as Drains go, to do quite a bit of 'damage' to the group of powers by Draining the Reserve. For the limitation (lower case L) of this Drain-ability along with being unable to use the powers in concert (to a greater or lesser extent depending on points in the slot and fixed/variable [i believe those are the new terms]) and cost you SHOULD receive some sort of benefit.

[jtelson]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

I understand the limitation of 1 active power per pool at a time' date=' but by having access to several pool you can easily go around that.[/quote']

 

Did Multipowers change? Traditionally only if you purchased all slots as Ultra Slots at the AP limit of the pool were you limited to 1 Active Power at a time with Multi slots you could potentially have all of the powers active.

 

why not simply remove the Power Pools powers ( except the Gadgeteer Belt wich will become a new Power all by itself )

 

Why would you make an exception for one Special Effect?

[jtelson]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

And what about the player that have a collection of MP ? that certainly make him less suceptible to drain and still be able to use Multiple Power attack...

 

To take back my example of the 3 80pts MP, just put an attack power in each one of the MP.

 

Lets imagine a guys with 4 60pts MP ( or 65 pts.. ) each one is an element, Fire, Water, Earth, Air. Each one have at least several attacks, several movement, a defense, some increase in sense, a trick power too...

 

You will need several drain to remove him from his 4 MPs and he have very large attack and defense option even Multiple Power Attacks... and all his powers were buyed dirt cheap.

 

60 point MP with 3 Powers 78 Active Points x4 = 312pts Access to 4 powers (Say 2 Attack, 1 Def, 1 Movement) at a time from a total of 12. I could purchase 4 60AP powers for 240 AP and have 72 points left to spend on other things - like making them 75 AP powers with an Overall Level (or 3-4 levels with the 2 attacks). Which is better diversity or power and skill?

[Rapier]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

Did Multipowers change? Traditionally only if you purchased all slots as Ultra Slots at the AP limit of the pool were you limited to 1 Active Power at a time with Multi slots you could potentially have all of the powers active.

 

While I am still reading (and reading and reading, man thats a lot of words) I am fairly certain they haven't changed other than nomenclature. They are now fixed and variable slots instead of ultra and multi.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

3x80 point MP (or 4x60 point MP) - both cost 264 points (assuming fixed slots), so it is certainly true that you are paying for the utility - but it may well still be a bargain.

 

Having said that a lot of the characters I design don't use frameworks because there is no good conceptual reason for them to do so, even if it would make them more versatile.

[Jagged]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

Or put a limitation on the number of Power Pool a character can have, let say 1 or 2, not more.

 

That would be a perfectly acceptable Campaign-World-Rule.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

There are various ways MPs can be used too - a common one - and one that I generally do not like - is stacking racks of attacks with different modifiers designed purely to overcome the schtick of others: an AoE, an attack that affects desolid, an AP, an NND, etc.

 

Of course you CAN come up with a valid concept that build fits, but it happens more than if should, sometimes. Sure you want your character to be effective BUT:

 

1. We often design characters as all round individuals rather than with a view to them being team members AND

2. Sometimes we should just accept that the direct application of force is not the answer - it makes for a more fun game.

 

Other MPs though are no problem - they work on the concept of a single pool of power that can be used for very different things: there used to be a characetr in Champions called (IIRC) Starburst who had Flight, Force Field and Energy Blast in one MP - design madness - but a fun to play character.

 

Because you CAN have valid reasons for having several frameworks that do not simply come down to 'it makes the character objectively 'better'', I'd be reluctant to have any absolute injunction on frameworks or the number of frameworks a charcter can have.

[tarragon]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

Did Multipowers change? Traditionally only if you purchased all slots as Ultra Slots at the AP limit of the pool were you limited to 1 Active Power at a time with Multi slots you could potentially have all of the powers active.

 

Yes, but in 5ER you explicitly couldn't use multiple powers from a single pool in an MPA even if you could run them all at the same time.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

Yes' date=' but in 5ER you explicitly couldn't use multiple powers from a single pool in an MPA even if you could run them all at the same time.[/quote']

You can in 6E?

[Tasha]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

You can in 6E?

6e2 78 "A character can make a Multiple Attack with two or more slots in a single Power Framework, provided he has enough reserve/Pool Points to allocate to the two or more Slots used in the attack Simultaneously"

 

I would actually be quite surprised if this is a change from 5e. Seeing as multi slots in a Multipower were designed to allow 2 or more powers to be used at the same time as long as you had enough pool points to accommodate both powers. Perhaps someone who has their 5er close at hand can find the rule that says differently.

[SirViss]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

5ER p.358: "...However, a character may not combine two or more slots from a single Power Framework as part of a multi-power attack, even if he has sufficient reserve or base points to use both slots at once."

 

I don't have 6ed (yet), but I would reread what's allowed in the new edition just to make sure. It is a BIG change (IMO) from 5ed. I think it would make VPP user and MP user VERY (too?) powerful.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

6e2 78 "A character can make a Multiple Attack with two or more slots in a single Power Framework, provided he has enough reserve/Pool Points to allocate to the two or more Slots used in the attack Simultaneously"

 

I would actually be quite surprised if this is a change from 5e. Seeing as multi slots in a Multipower were designed to allow 2 or more powers to be used at the same time as long as you had enough pool points to accommodate both powers. Perhaps someone who has their 5er close at hand can find the rule that says differently.

 

In my opinion, this is not a change from 5e. 5e indicated you could not combine two or more attacks from an Elemental Control in a single MPA. It did not address other frameworks. 5er changed the rule, as shown above. 6e removed this, IMO, inappropriate and artificial restriction. If you can use the powers at the same time, they can be used in an MPA.

 

It seems reasonable that, if you pay for the flexibility to mix & match your MP attack slots, you should be able to do something you can't do with all fixed slots.

 

The VPP is a greater concern, in my view, as you can have a 60 point pool with several limited 60 AP attacks. I would suggest a restriction that the total AP in a single MPA be limited to the maximum AP of any single power in the pool, or alternatively be limited to AP equal to the total RP the pool can provide. Due to the new flexibility of VPP's, the GM would have to assess which restriction is most appropriate for any given VPP.

[Ice9]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

6E Multiple Attacks are different than in 5E. You take a progressive penalty to each shot (and can make as many shots with a single power as you want), so it's really more like 5E Sweep/Rapid Fire. How many powers you have has no effect on how many shots you can fire.

 

Combined Attack is the 6E version of 5E's Multiple Power Attack, and is somewhat more limited - it's more for things like a Damage+Flash Lightning Bolt.

 

 

I feel Multipowers are accurately priced, because multiple smaller powers just aren't as strong as one huge power. For instance compare these:

Elemental Force: Blast 12d6, AoE Blast 8d6, NND Blast 6d6, or 2x Knockback Blast 8d6

Elemental Force: Blast 24d6, Variable Advantage (+1/2 advantages)

 

That would be the comparison if you had to buy MP slots as separate powers.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

Not that big a change - I never really understood the injunction in 5e: if you want to Multiple Attack with two 60 point powers in a MP you need a 120 point pool. You can activate a 60 point defence and a 60 point attack simultaneously if you have a pool that big - why not two attacks, say your Blast and your RKA?

 

Answer - game balance. I hate game balance.

 

It doesn't make framework users too powerful - what it does is require GMs to look carefully at character builds before allowing them. In any event we don't have MPAs any more - we have Multiple Attacks and you can Multiple Attack with one power or more than one power, so the difference is all but gone.

 

You used to be able to (if you were insane) buy two 60 point powers because you wanted to pop them off together without penalty. You can't do that any more. The only reason to use two different attacks is to get two different effects - if all you are worried about is damage maximisation you do not need more than one attack power.

[Rapier]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

there used to be a characetr in Champions called (IIRC) Starburst who had Flight' date=' Force Field and Energy Blast in one MP - design madness - but a fun to play character.[/quote']

 

I used that concept a few times. The theory was that the character was able to project a force (through energy, fire, magnetics etc). That force could be used to attack, to provide movement or protection. It was basically one power that had three possible effects. It wasn't a great design, numbers-wise, but it was a very tight build conceptually. It was also extremely expensive because there was very little (if any) Limitations that could be applied to the Reserve. I believe that an EC came out to almost the same amount of points and was much more utility friendly.

 

BTW, way to go on the wayback machine!

[ghost-angel]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

I say ditch Multipower Pools - divided the cost of everything by 2 and try it out.

 

Tell us how it worked. Could be awesome. Could be a disaster. Worth a game or two to try it out with.

[IKerensky]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

Cuting everything by 2 sound a bit too much... Especially because now Character that didn't used a Powerpool (there ought to be some) got a freebee...

 

I will try to play with a new limitation instead : Part of a Multipower Pool -1 : The Power is treated as a part of a Powerpool with other power sharing the limitation... with a possibility to group the powers in different pools. This way the thematic Pool can still be used, but there is no real incentive to abuse them for every character...

 

There is some testing needed anyway...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

If I was going to ditch MPs and instead use a limitation, I might (for fixed slots) start with 'Lockout'. EDIT - actually, even with Lockout, you could probably model variable slots, thinking about it...

 

Lockout one power: -1/2 on each

 

Lockout 2-3 powers: -3/4 on each

 

Lockout 4-7 powers -1 on each

 

Etc.

 

I'd do it that way because it seems more of a limitation if you are tying up more points when you can only use some of them.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

I used that concept a few times. The theory was that the character was able to project a force (through energy, fire, magnetics etc). That force could be used to attack, to provide movement or protection. It was basically one power that had three possible effects. It wasn't a great design, numbers-wise, but it was a very tight build conceptually. It was also extremely expensive because there was very little (if any) Limitations that could be applied to the Reserve. I believe that an EC came out to almost the same amount of points and was much more utility friendly.

 

BTW, way to go on the wayback machine!

 

It is certainly a challenging build to play

 

As to the wayback machine - indeed - but unfortunately my memory is failing rapidly with age - what was the name of the character with the dinky little buckler shield with a star on, who fought alongside Starburst against Ogre in the Combat Example? I've got the wrong name attached to the character in memory, I'm sure...I won't say what I'm thinking because it might blindside you too...

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

I say ditch Multipower Pools - divided the cost of everything by 2 and try it out.

 

Tell us how it worked. Could be awesome. Could be a disaster. Worth a game or two to try it out with.

 

Yep.

 

Though I am pretty sure this will help prove to you why Multipowers are an almost necessary tool in the toolkit for building some effects.

 

example:

How else would you build a non-killing HTH weapon that can also be thrown (mulitpower with HA slot and EB slot)?

 

Also, if you ditch Multipower frameworks what happens to Variable Power Pools?

Are they not allowed as well?

 

I ask because in most cases VPP's just boil down to a Multipower with an infinite # of slots to choose from.

[IKerensky]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

Yep.

 

How else would you build a non-killing HTH weapon that can also be thrown (multipower with HA slot and EB slot)?

 

 

No rulebook avaliable at work, but I guess I will simply add the Ranged advantage.

 

 

Also, if you ditch Multipower frameworks what happens to Variable Power Pools?

Are they not allowed as well?

 

I ask because in most cases VPP's just boil down to a Multipower with an infinite # of slots to choose from.

 

VPP would be the only kind of Multipower avaliable, simply because they are so damn specific. Even then a lot of them wouldn't qualify as true VPP ( Green Lantern by example is only a Telekinsis and Bareer, everything else is related on the SFx of thoses 2 powers ).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Multipower are so common, why not just cut every cost by 2 ?

 

In most cases VPPs boil down to 'I tell you what, I'll decide what powers I want when you tell me what I need to do with them'

 

As for the HtH attack/EB, you could buy a HtH attack with 'ranged'. If that is specifically disallowed by the rules (I can not recall if it is - I know you are not supposed to make STR ranged), change the rules - enough else is changing.

 

MPs are useful though - say you have a weapon that uses various sorts of ammo. That is a clear instance where only one 'slot' can be used at a time - and so there should clearly be a cost break - but whether that cost break needs to be provided by a MP like structure is debateable - there may be equally viable, if possibly more expensive, alternatives.