so is this broken?

[ayinde]

one of the new guys in my group brought me this power

hand to hand weapons : Multipower, 10-point reserve, all slots Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2); all slots OAF (-1) cost 7cp

slot 1 club weapon stick: Hand-To-Hand Attack +2d6 (10 Active Points); OAF (-1), Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/4) cost 1cp

slot 2 blade weapon: dagger: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6-1 (1d6+1 w/STR) (10 Active Points); OAF (-1) cost 1 cp

blade weapon: long sword: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand plus two to dmg class, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (15 Active Points); Linked (blade weapon: dagger; Lesser Power can only be used when character uses greater Power at full value; -1/2), IAF (-1/2) cost 3cp

so how broken is this build. he explained his thoughts basicly the dagger and the long sword are differnt weapons but he can only use one at a time

is it broken

[Rapier]

Re: so is this broken?

 

In this case, I would say it is not broken but if not illegal ill-advised.

 

He has built a number of separate weapons and tried to sneak in a cost break by putting them in an MP.

 

If he had a sword (2d6 HKA) with a sharpened grip (1d6 HKA) and a nice big fat hilt (+2d6 HA) that would be one thing. They are all aspects of a single item.

 

However, in this case he has taken three separate items: a knife, a sword and a club and tried to link them together.

 

So, I'm not sure if you would call this broken, illegal or just wrong but at the end of the day it's not getting into one of my games.

 

EDIT: Oh, and just fyi your post was almost impossible to decipher. Carriage returns and spaces are your friend!

[Daltwisney]

Re: so is this broken?

 

I'd agree with Rapier here, with an additional note:

 

As built, it is 'illegal' in one sense simply because the powers in the Multipower are 15 Active Points each. Although he has a 10 point reserve, each of the powers in it has Reduced Endurance - 0 END on it, which is a +1/2 Advantage. Also, the 'linked' Power is 15 Active with a total (-1) Limitation. In my book, that is also 7 pts, not 3.

 

I'm going on the assumption that the 2 slots in the Multipower are supposed to represent using the dagger as a club (HA) and a blade (HKA). That's perfectly acceptable, other than my note above.

 

Adding a 'linked' power outside the MP to turn it into a completely different weapon (complete with reduced Obviousness when it's a longsword instead of a dagger??? And he can't use the 'longsword' version as a club? ) is where I would draw the line.

 

It just doesn't make sense to me, I would not allow this in my games either.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: so is this broken?

 

An OAF is able to be Grabbed as a single phase action. Is the player comfortable that a single Disarm by an opponent removes all three weapons? IIRC, it was suggested this could be a legitimate limitation if, say, all the weapons are on a single weapon belt which can be removed by a single action. Some official writeups, I believe, make "multiple weapon" multipowers with an OIF to represent the fact it takes more than one attack to remove all of the weapons.

 

If the Blade Weapon is to augment a slot, it cannot take Linked. Two Linked 10 point HKA's would each act separately, so he would do 1d6+1 w/ STR once for the first power, and again for the second power, with the opponent's defenses applying separately against each of these attacks. Assuming he envisions a single attack of 1d6 + 1 (2 1/2d6 w/ STR), he can't have Linked as a limitation. I don't like the logic of this one. If his dagger is broken, he can't use the Longsword (the power it augments is unavailable) based on the mechanics he has chosen. That doesn't fit with the special effects.

 

While the rules provide an option to place an advantage on the reserve which then applies automatically to all slots, I generally don't allow this, but I doubt the cost changes. It would be:

 

hand to hand weapons : Multipower, 15-point reserve, all slots OAF (-1) cost 7cp

 

slot 1 club weapon stick: Hand-To-Hand Attack +2d6 , 0 END (15 Active Points); OAF (-1), Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/4) cost 1cp

slot 2 blade weapon: dagger: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6-1 (1d6+1 w/STR), 0 END (15 Active Points); OAF (-1) cost 1 cp

 

I'd ask why he is restricted to one weapon at a time - could he not hold one in each hand and attack with both? If paid for separately, this would allow him to perform a multiple power attack with two or more weapons.

 

I'd be more inclined to build the weapons separately, which does make the character more powerful (he can attack with two weapons as a multiple power attack with no penalty; book legal he could use all three, but absent an extra arm the SFX preclude this, and I'd say that's part of the Focus limitation).

 

Overall, I don't think it's necessarily broken, but I would not allow the build - too many gaps between what the powers should logically do and what these mechanics will allow them to do.

[Matt Holck]

Re: so is this broken?

 

won't know with out play test

[ghost-angel]

Re: so is this broken?

 

If I'm reading that correctly... he's Linked Slots 2 and 3 (dagger and sword) together, which is illegal.

 

If the Dagger and Sword are the same Slot, then they exceed the Pool Points Active Cost, which is illegal.

 

Either way you slice that - it's an illegal build.

 

Weapons: Multiower, 15 Point Pool (OIF: various weapons) (15 Active, 10 Real Points)

Slot 1 - Club +2d6 Hand Attack, HA Only OIF (10 Active, 1 Real Point)

Slot 2 - Dagger 1D6-1 Hand KA, OIF (10 Active, 1 Real Point)

Slot 3 - Sword 1D6 Hand KA, OIF (15 Active, 1 Real Point)

Total Cost: 13 Points

 

All of them being Fixed Slots automatically prevents him from using one at a time, so there's no further Limitation that can be applied to this build to represent that.

[Daltwisney]

Re: so is this broken?

 

If I'm reading that correctly... he's Linked Slots 2 and 3 (dagger and sword) together' date=' which is illegal.[/quote']

 

His formatting is kind of hard to make out, but I don't believe the 'linked' power is supposed to be in the Multipower at all, it's not listed as Slot 3. He's attempting to 'boost' the power in slot 2 (the dagger), by 2 DC (+1/2d6 HKA, 0 END), thus turning it 'into' the sword (total 1d6+1, plus STR). It's just cheese.

[ghost-angel]

Re: so is this broken?

 

His formatting is kind of hard to make out' date=' but I don't believe the 'linked' power is supposed to be in the Multipower at all, it's not listed as Slot 3. He's attempting to 'boost' the power in slot 2 (the dagger), by 2 DC (+1/2d6 HKA, 0 END), thus turning it 'into' the sword (total 1d6+1, plus STR). It's just cheese.[/quote']

 

It's costed oddly at 15 Active and 3 Real as well, which makes it extra hard to decipher where it belongs. You could be right, that it sits outside the MP altogether.

 

Which also makes your statement about it being cheese correct.

[Ice9]

Re: so is this broken?

 

It's not even cheese, it's just a weird design - there's very little benefit to putting the "sword augment" outside the Multipower, given that Linked is invalid.

 

His way:

15 Multipower (15p):

1u HA 3d6

1u HKA 1d6

15 HKA +1d6

 

Simpler, and costs almost the same (3 points more, but much better expansion potential):

30 Multipower (30p)

1u HA 3d6

1u HKA 1d6

3u HKA 2d6

 

Putting weapons that you don't intend to use at the same time in a Multipower is a legitimate design though.

[Rapier]

Re: so is this broken?

 

Putting weapons that you don't intend to use at the same time in a Multipower is a legitimate design though.

 

I'm not so sure that I agree.

 

In heroic games, [MultiPowers] most often used to represent weapons or other pieces of equipment with multiple functions (such as a three-setting laser pistol defined as a Multipower).

 

There has always been some kind of link or common/shared SFX within the group of powers inside a multipower. The most borderline case is that of the Utility Belt (and I'm certainly not going to start that again, but suffice it to say that it's a hotly debated topic split fairly evenly between defining it as an MP or EC - or the new version of EC, as it were).

 

In this case you've got three entirely separate weapons. This would be analogous to having an MP with three slots: a motorcycle, an airplane and a boat.

 

It bends the rules of common sense and good design, at the least, if not the rules themselves. I certainly don't see that putting the three weapons in an MP is going to limit them in any appreciable fashion.

[ghost-angel]

Re: so is this broken?

 

I'm not so sure that I agree.

 

 

 

There has always been some kind of link or common/shared SFX within the group of powers inside a multipower. The most borderline case is that of the Utility Belt (and I'm certainly not going to start that again, but suffice it to say that it's a hotly debated topic split fairly evenly between defining it as an MP or EC - or the new version of EC, as it were).

 

In this case you've got three entirely separate weapons. This would be analogous to having an MP with three slots: a motorcycle, an airplane and a boat.

 

It bends the rules of common sense and good design, at the least, if not the rules themselves. I certainly don't see that putting the three weapons in an MP is going to limit them in any appreciable fashion.

 

Depends entirely on the game and genre though...

 

You could have a "collection of weapons" in a common weapon belt or something. Or one weapon with a series of settings. Or a weapon that morphs into various kinds of weapons.

 

It Can Be a legitimate use, but it isn't always one.

[Ice9]

Re: so is this broken?

 

I certainly don't see that putting the three weapons in an MP is going to limit them in any appreciable fashion

It limits them in that they can't be used simultaneously. What's that, you say they already weren't going to be used simultaneously, because that doesn't fit the concept?

 

Exactly, that's why they should be a Multipower. The fact that the concept is having multiple weapons that aren't used at once - rather than having a weapon, a personal defense drone, and armor - makes the Multipower pricing structure appropriate.

[Rapier]

Re: so is this broken?

 

It limits them in that they can't be used simultaneously. What's that, you say they already weren't going to be used simultaneously, because that doesn't fit the concept?

 

Exactly, that's why they should be a Multipower. The fact that the concept is having multiple weapons that aren't used at once - rather than having a weapon, a personal defense drone, and armor - makes the Multipower pricing structure appropriate.

 

Hardly. You are reasoning backwards, towards effect.

 

You could fill an MP with MultiForm into a giant spider, an Flash Grenade and a Summon Motorcycle with the understanding that you can't use them at the same time, but that doesn't make it a good build.

 

The fact that you are dropping unrelated items in a power framework with the sole reasoning that 'it saves points' is highly suspect under the best of cases.

 

FrameWorks are also gauged by their ability to be drained/supressed/aided/dispelled as a group. So casting a Dispel Only vs Wooden Objects would destory the club in the MP, but how does it effect the Sword? Similarly, how does a Rust spell effect a wooden club? 'Because they're weapons' is not a common SFX.

[Beazulbob]

Re: so is this broken?

 

Thought - DCs bat dude has a utility belt with a bunch of gadgets on it. If he takes an item out, it can be taken from him, leaving him his belt. You could take his belt, which leaves him with the one item he removed from it. So - how do you write up the belt?

I can see the mp in question as -

15 pt mp - oif collection of weapons (so 15pt with 1/2 limit)

slot - oaf weapon on belt (so a 15 point slot with -1 limit, not -1.5).

So - if captured, all his gear is removable easily, otherwise it is 3 separate oaf focuses to take. The weapons point values inside the slots determine their defense and body. A big mp version of this - say 60 point mp of sci-fi weapons would limit the def/body of each slot to the slots value, not the sum total of the entire multi-power (a 60 pt mp with 'u' 10 slots is 120 points, but the weapons are limited to the 60 pt slots.

 

Beazulb:sneaky:b

[Hyper-Man]

Re: so is this broken?

 

....

 

FrameWorks are also gauged by their ability to be drained/supressed/aided/dispelled as a group.

 

Huh?

The only Framework that Adjustment Powers affected equally was the Elemental Control.

Since the OP used a HA with a -1/4 instead of -1/2 Limitation it seems pretty clear that he's using 6e rules which eliminated the EC Framework and replaced it with the Unified Power Limitation.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: so is this broken?

 

Thought - DCs bat dude has a utility belt with a bunch of gadgets on it. If he takes an item out' date=' it can be taken from him, leaving him his belt. You could take his belt, which leaves him with the one item he removed from it. So - how do you write up the belt?[/font']

 

See this thread:

Ways to limit my Utility Belt VPP?

[ghost-angel]

Re: so is this broken?

 

FrameWorks are also gauged by their ability to be drained/supressed/aided/dispelled as a group.

 

MPs are not drained as a group.

[Daltwisney]

Re: so is this broken?

 

FrameWorks are also gauged by their ability to be drained/supressed/aided/dispelled as a group. So casting a Dispel Only vs Wooden Objects would destory the club in the MP, but how does it effect the Sword? Similarly, how does a Rust spell effect a wooden club? 'Because they're weapons' is not a common SFX.

 

Actually, 'a group of weapons' is a legitimate construct for a multipower, there are several examples (descriptive, not built) of just this sort of thing. The caveat of 'not appropriate' is applied only in the case of a character using a multipower as a way to hand off weapons to his friends. And, in 6E, you cannot target the Multipower pool itself with Drain/Suppress/Dispel, you must instead target the slots. Unless two or more slots shared the Unified Power Limitation, they are each affected separately.

 

30 Multipower (30p)

1u HA 3d6

1u HKA 1d6

3u HKA 2d6

 

in this example, since the MP Reserve would technically allow slots 1 and 2 to be used simultaneously, you would probably apply Lockout (-0 to -1/2)to those two. The value really doesn't matter, since the slots can't get any cheaper, but it maintains the "I can only use one of these at a time" stipulation.

 

A Multipower is just a collection of powers/abilities that share a common resource that must be divided between them. They might be variations of the same power (common for Energy Projectors) or SFX (Magic Spells), abilities that run off a limited Power source (Power Armor) or in this case, the resource is 'hands'. (Yes, he has 2 hands, but maybe he's clumsy, or untrained in 2 weapon combat, or has some weird Code of Honor that makes using 2 weapons 'unfair').

 

Other than the math mistakes, the only glaring issue with the original construct in my mind is the "I have a dagger" and "I can add damage and turn it into a sword". Putting them as separate slots in a MP big enough to handle them eliminates that logical inconsistency.

[dmjalund]

Re: so is this broken?

 

Actually, 'a group of weapons' is a legitimate construct for a multipower, there are several examples (descriptive, not built) of just this sort of thing. The caveat of 'not appropriate' is applied only in the case of a character using a multipower as a way to hand off weapons to his friends. And, in 6E, you cannot target the Multipower pool itself with Drain/Suppress/Dispel, you must instead target the slots. Unless two or more slots shared the Unified Power Limitation, they are each affected separately.

 

 

 

in this example, since the MP Reserve would technically allow slots 1 and 2 to be used simultaneously, you would probably apply Lockout (-0 to -1/2)to those two. The value really doesn't matter, since the slots can't get any cheaper, but it maintains the "I can only use one of these at a time" stipulation.

 

A Multipower is just a collection of powers/abilities that share a common resource that must be divided between them. They might be variations of the same power (common for Energy Projectors) or SFX (Magic Spells), abilities that run off a limited Power source (Power Armor) or in this case, the resource is 'hands'. (Yes, he has 2 hands, but maybe he's clumsy, or untrained in 2 weapon combat, or has some weird Code of Honor that makes using 2 weapons 'unfair').

 

Other than the math mistakes, the only glaring issue with the original construct in my mind is the "I have a dagger" and "I can add damage and turn it into a sword". Putting them as separate slots in a MP big enough to handle them eliminates that logical inconsistency.

on the other hand, the cheaper items can be considered weildable in one hand, allowing the user to use both at the same time, while the larger slot would be considered a 2 handed weapon

[Matt Holck]

Re: so is this broken?

 

Huh?

The only Framework that Adjustment Powers affected equally was the Elemental Control.

Since the OP used a HA with a -1/4 instead of -1/2 Limitation it seems pretty clear that he's using 6e rules which eliminated the EC Framework and replaced it with the Unified Power Limitation.

 

might get more millage out of links

but I see your point

 

 

 

what's the difference between 2 DC KA and 1/2d6 KA?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: so is this broken?

 

...

 

what's the difference between 2 DC KA and 1/2d6 KA?

 

The same difference between a 1d6-1KA and a 1/2d6KA.

[secretID]

Re: so is this broken?

 

I the Club Weapon maneuver in 6e? Might that not be a cheaper way to do this - just have the HKA, and club with it when desired?

 

Re different MP constructs, my house rule is that the only limit on MP powers is that they could be used simultaneously if not in the MP. Swinging and HA is OK, but Swinging and Gliding is not. I'm a little more flexible with attacks - e.g., no problem with a mental and physical attacks in the same MP.

[BNakagawa]

Re: so is this broken?

 

Does the PC have martial arts?

 

The reason I ask is that you can never judge anything in the HERO system without knowing the context.

 

More information is needed before any construct can be judged as broken or fair.

[Opal]

Re: so is this broken?

 

In 4e, you could take a variable limitation on a multipower reserve. Among many other things, you could use different OAFs, that way. So, take 'various OAFs' -1/2 instead of -1, and you cover the fact he's harder to disarm than a character with a single multi-function OAF. I'm not sure if or when that option went away, but it's always easy enough to throw in a custom limitation if need be.

[ghost-angel]

Re: so is this broken?

 

In 4e' date=' you could take a variable limitation on a multipower reserve. Among many other things, you could use different OAFs, that way. So, take 'various OAFs' -1/2 instead of -1, and you cover the fact he's harder to disarm than a character with a single multi-function OAF. I'm not sure if or when that option went away, but it's always easy enough to throw in a custom limitation if need be.[/quote']

 

It didn't go away. In 5E or 6E you can take the Lowest Common Limitation, if every aspect of the MP has Focus, from IIF or OAF you can give IIF to the entire Pool as every slot has the Focus Limitation.