VPPs and Aid, a problem?

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Ok, so I'm sure each person here has their own style of playing HERO. One thing I'm noticing in the game that I'm playing in, is that positive adjustment powers are too good, specifically Aid.

 

More information: two characters have 60 active point "Magic" VPPs, which they use to buff either each other or the 3rd non VPP character, using Aid. Basically the first round of combat might be:

 

(all hold to phase 1)

Player 1: Multiple Attacked Aid SPD on Player 3

Player 2: Multiple Attacked Aid STR on Player 3

Player 3: Splat something with ~20DC attacks in a game where the average is 12d6

 

then on the next set of actions, Player 3 is going to get aided in OCV, or the buffers will aid their own speeds. Does anyone else see this happening in their games?

 

I'm pretty sure the problem (for us) isn't Multiple Attack with Aid, since that would just make the buffing take longer to hit maxium effect, I think the problem is that you can now get 10d6 of Aid for 60 AP, rather than 6d6 Aid for 60AP.

 

And sometimes it gets even worse, as the characters just Aided their own STR, then bought Hand-to-Hand Attack with their VPPs and started to crunch things.

 

I may have missed a rule somewhere about adjustment powers, adding damage, or frameworks, and if that is the case please bring it to my attention. Thanks!

[Chimera 12]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

Well, as far as I can see, that tactic is legit. It does, of course, come with a few drawbacks.

 

-- As long as the "buffers" have their VPPs entirely committed to Aid, they're not using them for anything else. (This assumes, of course, that they're not putting any Limitations on the Aid to reduce its Real Cost...but most that I could immediately think of that actually might apply would probably come back to bite them.)

-- By default, Aid has no range and requires an attack action even when used on a willing target. So the "buffers" have to stay close to whoever they are buffing (which isn't an issue when targeting themselves, but makes it easy to catch a pair or entire group with suitable attacks otherwise) and are limited in what else they can do during that phase, particularly since using Aid ends it just like any other attack would.

-- Multiple Attack in particular requires a full phase action to use unless the character in question also has the Rapid Attack skill (10 character points to reduce that to a normal attack action) and can rack up a large END bill fairly quickly.

 

It also sounds as though the characters in question have Cosmic (or nearly so) VPPs since they're apparently able to change their Aid powers freely at will, which isn't normally the default. That would, of course, exacerbate the problem...but then, they'd presumably have invested the points to make themselves that powerful. (Alternatively, they could have Aid with Variable Effects, but that would cut into how many raw dice of Aid they have available since they have to stay under the Pool's Active Point limit.)

 

In the end, I haven't run into this kind of situation myself in practice (yet, anyway), but from hearing about and occasionally running into similar things in the context of D&D (which also has plenty of 'buffing' effects) I'm not sure that it's necessarily unbalanced against opponents that bother to actually attack our Sitting Duck Posse while they're busy buffing up instead of returning fire. And given how relatively quickly the added points are going to fade unless the characters voluntarily cut back on their raw base Aid by applying Delayed Return Rate (+1 Advantage at a minimum), the window of opportunity for a "buff up to full strength first, then engage" seems pretty small even under optimal conditions.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

Not to mention that making multiple attacks puts you at 1/2 DCV.

[Ternaugh]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

Okay, it's legal, but here's some stuff to think about:

 

1. The Optional Changing SPD rules on 6e2 17 should be used. That is, they only get to act on the next Segment that both SPDs had in common.

2. I'd enforce the negative aspects of Multiple Attacks: 1/2 DCV and -2 OCV per additional attack after the first (note that this is a cumulative penalty: for example, if they are attempting 3 hits, each To Hit roll is at -6, and yes, I'd make 'em roll, even though the target's willing). If any of the attacks miss, then all subsequent attacks miss, but they have to pay the END for all of them. And, as noted before, unless the Aid has Range, they all have to be bunched up within touch range.

3. Adjustment powers applied against Defensive powers are at 1/2 value (see 6e1 135, 141 for more info).

4. I'd track the Fade effects for each application of the power, meaning that at the end of the Turn, I'd subtract 5 points of rolled effect from each hit. (See Chimera 12's note above about Delaying the Fade rate for how they can lengthen the time, at a reduction in power).

5. I'd let one or more of my villains analyze their fighting style over time, and work out counter methods. Drains and Entangles come to mind, as do various Mental powers, including Mind Control and Mental Paralysis (Entangle). And take out the folks who can buff first...

 

JoeG

[Kraven Kor]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

You could also rule that AP limits can't be broken even with Aid.

 

So, set a max speed of 5 or 6 and say even aided speed can't go higher than that. 60 AP limit is 60 STR or 12d6 attacks.

 

And for less paperwork, maybe require that the rate of return be bought up to 5 AP / Minute. That will increase the AP of the Aid and thus limit how much they are aiding their mates by.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

Positive Adjustment Powers are too good in a game with 'hard' active point caps.

 

Whether this is an argument against Aid or 'hard' I will leave to the peanut gallery to figure out.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

Do the PC's opponents also have large, cosmic VPP's? Ternaugh's right -- it won't take long for a clever villain to come up with a countermeasure for this sort of thing. Power defense is cheap, even with the Usable As Attack and Ranged advantages. A few pre-emptive hits of that, and the PC's will have a very hard time using Aid on each other.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

Thanks for the feedback guys! To answer some questions:

 

1) Yes the VPPs in question are either cosmic or close enough for debate (0 phase with high rolls, or 1/2 phase actions with no rolls and the rapid attack skill)

 

2) Yes Aid isn't ranged, but most of the time the PCs start off combat adjacent to each other (usually because they were walking along and a fight broke out, or they knew a fight was coming and wanted to be adjacent to buff each other.

 

3) It does take a full phase action, but NPCs have to chose between attacking the 1/2 DCV buffing character, or the full DCV buffed kill monster that is coming after them now.

 

4) We apply fade individually to each aid (5 points from each aid) as per the rules, but usually fights are over in 1-2 turns at most, so fading isn't really an issue.

 

5) Entangles and Drains are good ideas, but do they go through barrier? The PCs in question have a habit of aborting to barrier against attacks that they don't like. It's not a bad suggestion though, since it does force them to be a little thoughtful of counter attacks.

 

6) All buffing is done in combat, if sides could buff out of combat, they'd just curbstomp their opponets no questions asked.

 

7) Some NPCs have larger cosmic VPPs. I like the idea of UAA Power Defense. I'm not so big on UBO defenses to start, but that has a decent chance of making them immune to adjustment powers. Unfortunatly it does tie up the character's VPP (so maybe he needs it as a trigger with a continuing charge?)

 

So far our starting measure are going to be:

 

Aid is now 8 points per die

You cannot Multiple Attack Aid

You cannot more than double the caps regardless of what you do (although going from 12DC to 24DC is still huge)

You cannot positively adjust Speed at all

 

I hope this will reduce the power of buffing in our games, to the point it is not better than attacking, just as good as attacking

[Patriot]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

OK , I must be the only one not thinking about this correctly:

The cap is 12d6 (for for 3 heroes, damage output is going to be 36d6). The two mages are sacrificing their damage to make a team mate do 24d6 of damage. That doesn't. seem like to much of a balance issue.

 

An opponent with power defense as an attack is a novel idea... As is a villian with the ability to parry one of the heros touch aid powers to himself

[dmjalund]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

Make the bad guys attacks Indirect, that should bypass Barrier

[prestidigitator]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

If you allow Cosmic VPPs, you have to expect pretty cosmic things to happen. There are few limits to what the characters can get done. Of course, the same should be true of the villains. Ramp up the challenges.

[Lezentauw]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

OK , I must be the only one not thinking about this correctly:

The cap is 12d6 (for for 3 heroes, damage output is going to be 36d6). The two mages are sacrificing their damage to make a team mate do 24d6 of damage. That doesn't. seem like to much of a balance issue.

 

An opponent with power defense as an attack is a novel idea... As is a villian with the ability to parry one of the heros touch aid powers to himself

 

I guess, the OP is saying that in his opinion, this is reducing the challenges that he is setting up.

 

The issue is, that with one person at 24d6, they are bypassing the defenses. Just to keep it simple, say for 12 DC only 4 DC gets past defenses. So 3 people attacking and hitting would do 12 DC. But one person super buffed would do 16 DC. Of course the 3 attackers would have to hit to do that much damage. Where as they are buffing the tank so he is certainly guaranteed to hit.

 

Perhaps putting them up against a steel golem. Automaton rules and above normal defenses would be a good counter.

 

A 30-40' tall Giant with thick armor on as well, have him using a hammer that can be used to target an area, because it is so big. All the while the tank is only able to hit is feet or legs with his sword, that is when he gets inside the giants reach

 

Or you could put them up against a non-corporeal opponent. The tank's sword would be useless at that point, and he would become a liability in that fight.

 

I don't really play High Fantasy anymore, but those are some ideas you can use, and yet allow the PCs to play their gimmick...

[Chimera 12]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

One slightly underhanded trick that might be worth trying out: If the tactic is that effective, the idea probably hasn't occurred to the player characters alone. So have them run into their opposite number -- an enemy team that happens to make heavy use of the same "turtle, buff, and then attack" approach that they do.

 

Then sit back and watch.

[Lezentauw]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

Though my previous answers do not actually answer your questions. Let me see if I can give a couple of different other ideas.

 

You can have a house rule that states that a person can only be affected by the highest aid. It does not matter if 30 mages cast str aid on a warrior, he is still only going to be affected by the single strongest version.

 

Some people use NCM to limit aid from getting out of hand.

Example 1; Str NCM is 20, every 10 pts there after that cost doubles. So Str 21-30, costs 2x; Str 31-40 costs 4x; and so on.

Example 2; Str NCM is 20, the next 10 pts cost double, and a character cannot exceed NCM by more than 10.

 

Using example 1, an aid worth +40 str to a warrior with a 20 STR already, would end up with a STR of 35. That is +3 DC, instead of +8 DC,

Using example 2, an aid worth +40 str to a warrior with a 20 STR already, would only end up with a STR of 30. No matter how many points is used, his str is maxed out.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

Again thank you guys for the responses. More answers:

 

1) 3 x 12d6 is not as good as 24d6, because once you get "past" armor and damage negation, the 24d6 attack will be doing more damage to the enemy. I.E. Yes, if they have no defenses, 3 x 12d6 is better, but if they do, 24d6 is better, and gains in damage as defenses increase.

 

2) Indirect to get past barrier is pretty much a must I think. This will reduce barrier to "how much hardened do I need to block your drain" and you only need to buy 10AP or so, then many many x Hardned, which is a losing set up for an indirect drain, but does at least get the first shot through.

 

3) With cosmic VPPs, you need to expect out of combat things to be easier, since they will nearly always have the right power for a job (and the more permission with powers you give, the better the VPP is). You can still have Out of Combat challanges, they just need to be built with VPPs in mind. The trick here is making challanges in combat, that arn't "I give everything +X DCs, DEF, SPD, etc" because once you inflate the attackers to the point where they can fight a buffed character, the unbuffed character: 1) Can't hurt them, and 2) gets flattened if they are hit. This isn't exactly the tactical combat outcome I want, because it turns buffing from overpowered to a "must or die".

 

4) For a giant golem, that would be a fun challange. I think it's probably going to be "fly up to the golem's head, stab repeattedly" OTOH if he has no hit locations, then it doesnt' matter that you hit it in the feet. As for a big AoE hammer, again would be an interesting challange. As far as an incorporeal opponet, that would be more of a challange, but would also be "you sit out this comabt, as you don't have "Affects Desolid"" which is rather poor encounter design. Maybe a mix of ghosts/zombies to let the other player fight something. Although then you buff STR, buy a Affects Desolid HKA, and go to town on the ghost, just like I explained in the OP, only with Affects Desolid. Still another interesting fight that we haven't done, so thank you.

 

5) Against another party of "buff one character, and defend that character, let them kill for you" the winner is probably going to be the side with DEX+1 nearly 100% of the time I expect. Either you buff your melee first, and let him attack the unbuffed team, or you wait for the unbuffed team to buff, then you buff, and use your Dex advantage to force them to commit, then avoid their attack (by having an unbuffed character abort for the buffed character) then have your buffed guy attack when they can't do the same. Not really a fight I want to see, I'd rather figure out how to balance the stratagy against a team of "we all attack, or some attack and some defend, or we have crazy weird powers". To reitterate, I'm sure your stratagy would work, but at least 90% if not 100% of the time, go to the team with higher DEX (and that's a big swing for 2 points).

 

6) We already use the rule that the maxium you can be adjusted is dice rolled x 6 (or maximum rollable on the dice). So your suggested house rules would just be moving the maxium cap of aid smaller. That might fix the problem, by decreasing the number of damage classes you can do past defenses.

 

7) Pretty sure I don't want to use NCM on this problem, especially because if it was a superheroic game (it's not but I can see the same team working in a super heroic game), NCM would just be out of place.

 

Thank you all for your replies!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

Thanks for the feedback guys! To answer some questions:

 

1) Yes the VPPs in question are either cosmic or close enough for debate (0 phase with high rolls, or 1/2 phase actions with no rolls and the rapid attack skill)

 

2) Yes Aid isn't ranged, but most of the time the PCs start off combat adjacent to each other (usually because they were walking along and a fight broke out, or they knew a fight was coming and wanted to be adjacent to buff each other.

 

They're nice and bunched up for an AoE. Maybe an AoE Drain, which will offset much of the benefits of their Buffing strategy. Maybe an AoE END drain now that they've blown a bunch of END on those Multi-Attack Aid's. Perhaps one enemy fires off an AoE Dispel first to eliminate the Aid and a second uses a Drain.

 

3) It does take a full phase action' date=' but NPCs have to chose between attacking the 1/2 DCV buffing character, or the full DCV buffed kill monster that is coming after them now. [/quote']

 

Or they could fire off a Rapid Fire attack against one of those half DCV targets, then run. Who says they have to stand and fight the buffed character?

 

4) We apply fade individually to each aid (5 points from each aid) as per the rules' date=' but usually fights are over in 1-2 turns at most, so fading isn't really an issue. [/quote']

 

Maybe the enemy needs to stall to let the buff wear off.

 

5) Entangles and Drains are good ideas' date=' but do they go through barrier? The PCs in question have a habit of aborting to barrier against attacks that they don't like. It's not a bad suggestion though, since it does force them to be a little thoughtful of counter attacks.[/quote']

 

First, if the barrier lacks power defense I think a Drain does go right through it. If it's not opaque, there's no issue with targeting. If it is, the PC's can't see what's going on outside the barrier either.

 

Second, with the barrier up, what prevents the opponents making their own preparations outside the barrier and making the PC's put in the effort to break it down, with the Aid fading as they do so? It sounds like every encounter is a straightforward "here are the bad guys; their only objective is to kill you; they are charging" encounter. Change up the challenges and standard tactics don't work so well.

 

Third, if they used Aid in Phase 12, they can't also Abort to barrier.

 

The opposition can also delay until the Buffed character takes his attack. The one being attacked aborts to full defensive abilities, and the remaining opponents all coordinate their attacks on one of the two who were bufffing him, while he's at half DCV and can't act since he has already used Aid this phase.

 

On the subject of DCV, to Multiple Attack, the Buffers are taking a -2 penalty to OCV for each extra attack. What is the DCV of the fellow being buffed? If he maintains his full DCV, that Multiple Attack isn't going to succeed very often. If he drops it down to 0 to make it easier for the Buffers, why can't the opposition also attack while he's at 0 DCV? He can't be effectively dodging the opponents while standing still so it's easy for his teammates to Aid him.

 

 

One slightly underhanded trick that might be worth trying out: If the tactic is that effective' date=' the idea probably hasn't occurred to the player characters alone. So have them run into their opposite number -- an enemy team that happens to make heavy use of the same "turtle, buff, and then attack" approach that they do.[/quote']

 

I agree 100% - what is preventing their opponents from using similar tactics? Rather than implementing a bunch of rule changes, my question would be to the players - how do we want this to work for PC and NPC alike? If you can Rapid Attack an Aid against a zero DCV teammate, and he can get his full DCV against anything else incoming, then the enemy can use the same appproach. The Necromancer Rapid Attacks the Giant Bone Golem with his Necromantic Aid while you're Aiding your buddy.

 

Now that he's all buffed (and his buddies have acted this phase, committed their VPP's to Aid and used a bunch of END), the Enchanter uses a Mind Control spell on that Buffed warrior. Now who's facing a 20d6 enhanced attack from a much higher Speed enemy?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

Rather than make the fairly drastic changes you are suggesting to Aid, why don't you re-evaluate your use of VVPs in your game?

[Hida Tsuzua]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

I'm the GM for this game and I've been discussing the problems with the players in making good encounter designs for them. While I've been (hopefully) successful so far, I know I'm having difficulties. After all, my goal is to give them a world full of colorful people for roleplaying in and tactically interesting combats if they fight those same people. While we could do gentlemen's agreement (like we do for no out of combat aids), we do try to keep those few as possible. I'm also curious to know if other GMs have seen similar issues.

 

One issue is that their foes really have to choose between attacking the 1/2 DCV "spent" buffer before he can abort or do something about the 7d6 HKA rapid attacker coming their way. Firstly, it's not guarantee that you'll take out the buffer. Secondly even if you do take him out while vulnerable, his buffs will remain up and the pain train from them will still be coming. It may feel nice to punish the caster (from an IC perceptive), but it still leaves open for the heavily buffed smack down. Usually this comes up more when fighting roughly equals (being built at similar point and cap totals). And once the enemy team loses a guy (which is totally likely) they will often lose the speed advantage and thus can't deal with both buffed and buffs since at that point anyone attack can abort to a respectable defense. Thus, "buff, smash, and abort as necessary" default strategy is made.

 

Now a mirror match is totally viable and "fair." The problem with that is that basically it's me deciding "do I want the defeat the PCs or not?" since the difference of +-1 Dex relative to the PCs will determine the fight. If not that, it's the first side to make any sort of error. Overall, while it will work for a one memorable battle (I actually have the idea already), I don't want this style to be the default. One is that I'll really like other strategies to be viable for tactical complexity (so figure out the enemy's plan means something). Something seems wrong with a HERO game (especially one that's fairly liberal with powers and builds) leads to a "how can I get this one strategy to work or what specific countermeasures I need to have up 24/7 to deal with it?" versus "how can I get my strategy to work and how can I figure out and deal with my foes before he does it?" Secondly, it puts me in a bad position of just writting "they will win/lose" on the NPCs's sheets. Thirdly, causally flinging around such huge killing attacks where defenses did not take account can and will lead to PC chucky salsa explosions sooner or later. While I have no problems will killing their characters, I think it's prudent to not to end up playing so dangerously close the time every fight (after all I've come close to killing them twice and have killed a NPC out from underneath them).

 

Likewise to the third point, I've also done boss battles designed for super buffed parties. While they were all successes, the issue was since that assumed a buffed party lucky shots or dangerous shots at the start of the battle had a huge impact. Basically if they couldn't start the buffing or buffed the wrong stat first, they tended to get massacred. It was enough that the players were able create a "master plan" of fighting, getting pwned, having 1 person running away/stall enough for them to get back into the fight. Honestly, the issue is less the plan itself, but the fact I wasn't sure if I could deviate them from that plan.

 

I do think 6 points per die aid is too effective. If you buff someone with an aid of equal size to the attack power aided (either STR or the attack power directly), unless the foe has no or nearly none fixed defenses (such as PD/ED), you'll do more damage buffing and having the other guy attack for you than if you attacked with an attack of the same AP. In addition, the aid will keep on giving bonus damage phase after phase. I'm also talking straight

 

The issue with barriers I'm not so worried about. And the UAA Power Defense may be the way to go and thank you for that idea (UAA DCV would be interesting as well). Most of the other tactics I've tried or rejected for various reasons (mind controlling the buffed characters is fun).

[prestidigitator]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

Drains have no cap....

[Hida Tsuzua]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

Drains have no cap....

 

The problem with that in a race of equal dcs, aids will beat drain at least in the short term. This is because aiding ignores having to hit and Power Defense. Drains don't do anything if they miss or get blocked by a barrier. If they do hit, they are reduced by Power Defense. In the meanwhile, you'll be being beat on quite handily.

 

Now I've done something similiar in a fight with an energy sucking ghost that reduced positive adjustment powers by 1/2 and was equally buffed by the same amount. That was fun (and I must admit I didn't expect the PCs to run and gather help to defeat it, at least when they released it would be tricky to mental whammy it into oblivion). My issue is more that this rapid aiding is dominating the rest of the combats so if fights are "how will the GM try to shaft aiding?" that doesn't seem right.

[Chimera 12]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

At the end of the day, I'm not sure that it's specifically Aid that's the problem. Especially when I stop to consider how the same characters could potentially switch their VPPs to suitable Transforms to endow themselves and their allies with rather longer-lasting and altogether new powers, whereas Aid can really only enhance what's already there -- and, the way it's used here, only one thing at a time at that.

 

Rather, it's simply the high power level of the player characters in the first place. A simple basic Variable Power Pool with a 60-point reserve and a like Active Point limit may look innocuous enough, but is effectively a 90-point power right there. Add the ability to switch as a zero-phase action? 120 points. Half-phase action instead, but not requiring a skill roll? 135. At levels like those, yes, I'd kind of expect some pretty outrageous things to happen, especially if there's no clear limit on the kinds of powers the characters can pull out of their pools...

 

Also, on the verisimilitude side of things: Make no mistake, if insta-buffing is the new uber-tactic and it's use it or lose, then everybody who hears of it and can do so will adopt it. Metagame concerns ("well, fighting that way all the time is boring/it all comes down to who has the better DEX") shouldn't IMO enter into it as far as reasonable NPC responses are concerned.

 

Not that I'm convinced yet that it is, mind. Team Band Aid here basically depends on being able to stick closely together on the battlefield, after all. That leaves them vulnerable to both area effect attacks (Area Effect Flash vs. Sight, anybody? Or Area Effect Drain: Running? ) and the old chestnut of being divided and conquered individually.

[Ternaugh]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

In the "divide and conquer" frame of mind, sending a large group of coordinated, lesser-powered opponents against them might be a challenge. If each one is literally surrounded by 4 or 5 lower level characters (with more on the way), then the group aid tactics really can't work. All of those opponents would be able to get the Multiple Attackers bonus with coordinated attacks (see 6e2 49). And while this technique works well with "goblin swarms", it also works well with phalanx of archers firing at range. There's nothing that says that their opponents have to go toe to toe with them in Hand to Hand.

 

JoeG

[Doc Samson]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

We use a "Rule of X" to limit character designs in our game. We do not allow adjustment powers to violate the rule of X. If a player has an aid or absorption, it usually has a side effect that lowers another chatacteristic or power so that the character's X value remains intact. For example, in our game a STR Aid would likely have a side effect that it reduces the characters OCV or SPD. This has not slowed our PCs down at all. If I throw a giant monster or robot at them (i.e. low DCV due to size), I can usually expect to see an "Adrenaline Stimulant" or "Spell of Berserking" come into play the next phase.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem?

 

At the end of the day' date=' I'm not sure that it's specifically Aid that's the problem. Especially when I stop to consider how the same characters could potentially switch their VPPs to suitable Transforms to endow themselves and their allies with rather longer-lasting and altogether [i']new[/i] powers, whereas Aid can really only enhance what's already there -- and, the way it's used here, only one thing at a time at that.

 

Rather, it's simply the high power level of the player characters in the first place. A simple basic Variable Power Pool with a 60-point reserve and a like Active Point limit may look innocuous enough, but is effectively a 90-point power right there. Add the ability to switch as a zero-phase action? 120 points. Half-phase action instead, but not requiring a skill roll? 135. At levels like those, yes, I'd kind of expect some pretty outrageous things to happen, especially if there's no clear limit on the kinds of powers the characters can pull out of their pools...

 

1) Using transform to give yourself more points, is kind of like using delayed fade rate Aid to give you free points. Both are generally really really broken and I've never seen anyone allow them, so I think that's not a problem.

 

2) I'm hesitent to say that the VPPs are the problem, because while there is no clear limit on the kinds of powers characters can use, that shouldn't mean there is one overpowering stratagy that is clearly better than straight attacking. I'd like buffing to be as good as attacking, not overpoweringly better (which is currently the case). It also wouldn't be any different than a 60 point reserve MP with 3 slots, aid STR, aid SPD, and Aid OCV (which would be on the order of 78 points before disads).

 

In other responses:

 

We have fought mind control enemies, generally that results in the buffing characters either aborting to stop the mind control (via barrier or darkness generally) or using a counter-mind control attack to either weaken or proc breakout checks for the character.

 

I also like the idea of fighting many small things, as it would give AoEs more use, and it would be different.