Using a limitation only on an advantage

[Christopher]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

A perfect example of an exception to this is the Resistant Advantage from 6e1 page 147.

Resistant, as you apply it to your PD, is NOT a naked advantage. It's jsut an advantage applied to a Characteristic. Resistant (+1/2) for 26 PD is as manatory as if you had 26 PD, Resistant (+1/2). See APG II 6, Advantages for Characteristics.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

The APGs are not core rules, they are optional. The example Hyper-Man gave is in the core rule books. You can argue that the example is not of a Naked Advantage, but you can't base that argument on a suppliment of optional (and often "alternate") rules.

[Christopher]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

The APGs are not core rules' date=' they are optional. The example Hyper-Man gave is in the core rule books. You can argue that the example is not of a Naked Advantage, but you can't base that argument on a suppliment of optional (and often "alternate") rules.[/quote']

In the APG's there is a clear difference between optional Rules and Rules Clarifications. What I cited is clearly the later, because of the lack of senteces like "Optional" or "if the GM wants to". And I am pretty certain that this part, as with most of these clarifications in the APG's, is based on a question asked over inte Rules question forum (I found half a dozen of my questions in the APG II and could identify a dozen others I've seen there).

Also evidence for this is Resistant for 20 PD not costing any Endurance - and the endurance cost for naked advantages is the one thing not lead with "usually". It's about the only thing fixed about how naked advantages work...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

I don't see the need to make the naked advantage cost more. I think the fact that it is a STOP SIGN power to begin with is good enough. GMs need to show caution when they allow such things to make sure they aren't unbalancing. I think just tacking on an additional cost abdicates that oversight.

 

As to when I most often use naked advantages, it is when I am building things that already apply to build in stats. For example, "AoE on X Str". This way I can just build up strength like normal and then let the Character have a 'quake' style attack by just making use of the naked advantage that is elsewhere. Or things like "Combat acceleration / deceleration" on Running. Again, for much the same reason. I have build Naked advantages that apply to traditional powers, too, but it is normally for ease and satisfying my inner munchkin. But in those moments, I have to check myself and make sure that the whole isn't disproportionate to the individual parts and thus unbalancing.

 

Well, I could argue that whether or not it is unbalancing, it is unbalanced: you pay the same and get more utility, which offends a pretty entrenched principle of Hero.

 

Say you could buy a 'Power' called 'Naked Modifiers Switch'. For 5 points you can apply the naked modifier to a single power, each +5 base cost allows you to apply it to twice that number of powers. To make things easy, Naked Modifier Switch is a power that you HAVE to buy if you want to use Naked Modifiers, but that does not form part of the base power or the Naked modifier for cost purposes. It is an instant power that does not cost END to use.

 

Then you buy the Power and the Naked Modifier as you would have before: this Power is just a 'meta-power' that allows you to turn the Naked Modifier on or off. It does have to be on or off though, you can not partially activate a Naked Modifier. It is considered to take a zero-phase action.

 

That is clean, pretty cheap but does attach a price tag for the added utility and gives greater authorial control over the build. Lovely.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

I always thought it made sense that advantages had to be used with the powers because they were part of the powers as such. A naked modifier is an option to use the power in a certain way. Should it cost more? Depends on what limitations you put on the use-option. I require players to have a good reason why they didn't just build the power that way in the first place' date=' and most of the time it makes more sense to build what they want as part of a multipower. I've used naked advantages most often when the powers in question are things like gear, so, buying autofire for up to 60 active points of small arms, or buying armor piercing for up to 40 active points of melee weapons, etc.[/quote']

 

At present, the Swordsman who buys a Naked AP, only for use on swords, the Weaponsmaster who buys AP usable on all weapons and the Combat Savant who buys AP usable on absolutely any attack (he spots a weakness in his target regardless) all pay exactly the same, yet the Swordsman is screwed if he has to pull out his dagger while the Combat Savant gets the advantage in a barroom brawl. I submit that the utility differs significantly, so the price should also differ.

 

I don't see the need to make the naked advantage cost more. I think the fact that it is a STOP SIGN power to begin with is good enough. GMs need to show caution when they allow such things to make sure they aren't unbalancing. I think just tacking on an additional cost abdicates that oversight.

 

So if we reprice, say, Blast to 1d6 per 1 point, that's OK as long as we put a stop sign on it? I think abilities of different utility should carry different costs, and I think a lot of Stop Sign abilities to carry different costs depending on their versatility and utility.

 

As to when I most often use naked advantages' date=' it is when I am building things that already apply to build in stats. For example, "AoE on X Str". This way I can just build up strength like normal and then let the Character have a 'quake' style attack by just making use of the naked advantage that is elsewhere.[/quote']

 

Again, should the cost not differ if the character's STR is too great to control, and can only be used AoE than if he has the fine precision to choose whether to target a single person or an area? And if he can also use the AoE on, say, an HKA and a Hand Attack (using different SFX, but the same mechanics), should that not increase the cost for increasing the versatility?

 

Or things like "Combat acceleration / deceleration" on Running.

 

Even here, isn't it advantageous to be able to choose not to use that advantage when it's not beneficial, and avoid paying the added END cost in such cases?

[Sougen]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

I'm not saying that the Naked Advantage doesn't add utility. I'm not saying that it can't be abused. I'm saying that in spite of that, I think the current pricing scheme is correct. I say it is good because it allows for simplicity in the system (Combat Accel / Decel is always +1/4). This bit of consistency and simplicity I think is good to have. Now, something that I don't think people consider is that not having the advantage on a power but off to the side is in and of itself a limitation. lets take three comparable builds:

 

1st: 10d6 Blast - 50 active - 50 real

 

2nd: 10d6 Blast w/ AP - 75 active - 75 real

 

3rd: 10d6 Blast - 50 active -50 real AND Naked Advantage (AP) - 25active - 25 real.

 

If I have a character with a drain v Blast, the degradation of the 1st and 3rd power is equal, but is effectively less vs the second. After applying 10pts of drain vs each power, I'm left with:

 

1st: 8d6 - 40active available

 

2nd: 8+1/2d6 - 65 active available

 

3rd: 8d6 - 40 active available AND AP - 25 active available.

 

Thus, to take down to 0 the second power requires 25pts more from an adjustment power than the 1st or 3rd build.

 

In essence, the very thing that makes NAs too advantageous (cost management) is also their weakness.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

I'm not saying that the Naked Advantage doesn't add utility. I'm not saying that it can't be abused. I'm saying that in spite of that, I think the current pricing scheme is correct. I say it is good because it allows for simplicity in the system (Combat Accel / Decel is always +1/4). This bit of consistency and simplicity I think is good to have. Now, something that I don't think people consider is that not having the advantage on a power but off to the side is in and of itself a limitation. lets take three comparable builds:

 

1st: 10d6 Blast - 50 active - 50 real

 

2nd: 10d6 Blast w/ AP - 75 active - 75 real

 

3rd: 10d6 Blast - 50 active -50 real AND Naked Advantage (AP) - 25active - 25 real.

 

If I have a character with a drain v Blast, the degradation of the 1st and 3rd power is equal, but is effectively less vs the second. After applying 10pts of drain vs each power, I'm left with:

 

1st: 8d6 - 40active available

 

2nd: 8+1/2d6 - 65 active available

 

3rd: 8d6 - 40 active available AND AP - 25 active available.

 

Thus, to take down to 0 the second power requires 25pts more from an adjustment power than the 1st or 3rd build.

 

In essence, the very thing that makes NAs too advantageous (cost management) is also their weakness.

 

Depends on the modifiers: you probably do not need a Naked Advantage on an AP attack, whereas it is REALLY useful on an AoE attack.

 

In addition, consider:

 

9d6 Blast 45 points: 4 END

AP Naked modifier: 22 points, 2 END

 

vs

 

9d6 AP attack: 67 points, 7 END

 

Buying the modifier naked allows you to take advantage of rounding to reduce END cost.

 

I take your point about drains but then again draining all of the power is unnecessary: all you have to do is get rid of the first 4 dice and the power is useless anyway, and the cost differentiation with a +1/2 modifier over 20 active points is 10 points (or 1 1/2 advantaged dice of Blast). The modified Blast might stay useful a LITTLE bit longer, but the actual effect difference is minor.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

Adding to Sean's comment, Aid and other positive Adjustment powers ramp the dice of that attack up a lot faster too.

 

Very useful if you didn't want to use the advantage on that target anyway (perhaps because he has hardened defenses so your AP isn't useful). Oh look - you spend less END as well, since you're not paying that 25% extra END that would otherwise be required to use AP whenever you use the Blast!

 

Maybe I should buy that AP Naked Advantage with the Limitation "not vs targets with hardened defenses".

[Christopher]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

At present' date=' the Swordsman who buys a Naked AP, only for use on swords, the Weaponsmaster who buys AP usable on all weapons and the Combat Savant who buys AP usable on absolutely any attack (he spots a weakness in his target regardless) all pay exactly the same, yet the Swordsman is screwed if he has to pull out his dagger while the Combat Savant gets the advantage in a barroom brawl. I submit that the utility differs significantly, so the price should also differ.[/quote']

At first he needs a GM that allows the Naked Advantage to add to "Any Attack". After all it is more than any of the examples even for Group Naked Advantages.

That same GM should then of ocurse allow the Swordsman to apply a Limitation to his build, propably "Sword of opportunity" (-1/2). Or allow the swordsman to just buy the one for all attacks as well...

 

Adding to Sean's comment, Aid and other positive Adjustment powers ramp the dice of that attack up a lot faster too.

 

Very useful if you didn't want to use the advantage on that target anyway (perhaps because he has hardened defenses so your AP isn't useful). Oh look - you spend less END as well, since you're not paying that 25% extra END that would otherwise be required to use AP whenever you use the Blast!

 

Maybe I should buy that AP Naked Advantage with the Limitation "not vs targets with hardened defenses".

Well, actually you just found another weak point in Naked Advantages: They only ever cover as much as you bought them for. Taking Sougens Nr. 3 build and aiding it for 15 Points. You can either use it at 13d6, or 10d6 Armor Piercing.

Aiding the Nr. 2 build, you would get you .. alot of math to figure out what damage exaclty, but it will be more definently.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

To an issue raised above, I note the rules refer to the application of advantages such as Resistant and Hardened to PD and ED as being "similar to a Naked Advantage", but provides no details on the similarities or differences. We assume, I think, that their persistence and lack of END cost is a difference from the usual Naked Advantage rules.

 

At first he needs a GM that allows the Naked Advantage to add to "Any Attack". After all it is more than any of the examples even for Group Naked Advantages.

 

Any build must be approved by the GM. There is no indication in the rules that "all firearms" works any differently from "all weapons" or "every possible attack".

 

That same GM should then of ocurse allow the Swordsman to apply a Limitation to his build' date=' propably "Sword of opportunity" (-1/2). Or allow the swordsman to just buy the one for all attacks as well...[/quote']

 

By that logic, the firearm advantage should be limited to "firearm of opportunity". That it is not seems to indicate your limitation does not accord with the rules.

 

You also assume the base is "just swords" rather than "only longswords", "all bladed weapons" or "all melee weapons". To assess any appropriate advantage or limitation, we must establish what the baseline, no advantage or limitation, ability affects.

 

Technically, the naked advantage for a single power is computed differently than for a group naked advantage, but for purposes of the very simple example we are using the end result is the same.

 

Mind you, I look at the example from the book:

 

Dweomer has a Spell Of Sublime Attack: Blast 8d6, Area Of Effect (2m Radius; +¼), Armor Piercing (+¼) (60 Active Points); OAF (wizard’s staff; -1), Incantations

(-¼) (total cost: 27 points). He decides he wants to create another spell, the Spell Of Augmentation, that applies the Advantage Penetrating (+½) to the Spell Of Sublime Attack. He

buys this as a naked Advantage. The power with Penetrating added would cost 80 Active Points, 35 Real Points. 35 - 27 = 8 points, so the naked Advantage costs him 8 points. The Focus and Incantations Limitations automatically apply to the naked Advantage, and do not reduce the cost. The naked Advantage costs 1 END to use. If Dweomer wants to apply a separate Advantage or Limitation to the naked Advantage, he starts with a base cost of 8 points.

 

So, he starts fresh for limitations, allowing a further limitation to reduce this cost a lot more than it would if he had applied Penetrating to the base power. As well, he pays 1 END to make his attack Penetrating should he wish to do so, and no END if he doesn't want penetrating, where adding the advantage to the base spell would add 2 END. Seems the more we look, the better a deal these naked advantages become.

 

Oh, and 15 points added to Build 2 is +2d6 AP (except that the whole series of builds assumes AP is a +1/2, rather than a +1/4, advantage, as it was in 5e).

 

This also opens the question of how many dice a Haymaker adds, and whether they are also made AP by the naked advantage, or whether the Hamaker, or any other maneuver, mus be pro rated between the dice and the naked advantage.

[Christopher]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

For the "Resistant is not a naked Advantage", aside from not being Costing Endurance and being Peristent, I also think that you cannot choose to not use them. So you cannot (for whatever reason) choose to have your PD non-Resistant or have your first 20 STR cost Endurance.

 

The difference between single Power Naked Advantage and Group Naked Advantage is only that the Single Power Variant can "use" the Limitations of it's base power for the calculation. Wich is why a Fantasy Spell example ws used.

Of course, if Limitations (with any game effect) are unlikely, the Group Naked Advantage provides no costing penalty. But going back to the Sword Example, this could count as only one Attack thus allowing the user to apply all the Limitations wich are part of swords (OAF, real weapon, etc.). There is a big difference between "Every Firearm" and one Single Weapon Type.

 

Regaring Haymaker and naked Advantage:

As far as I udnerstand it, the Attack with the Naked Advantage is the 'Base Attack'. As such Haymaker (or other DC adding maneuvers) would have to include it for well and worse.

[Zane_Marlowe]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

At present' date=' the Swordsman who buys a Naked AP, only for use on swords, the Weaponsmaster who buys AP usable on all weapons and the Combat Savant who buys AP usable on absolutely any attack (he spots a weakness in his target regardless) all pay exactly the same, yet the Swordsman is screwed if he has to pull out his dagger while the Combat Savant gets the advantage in a barroom brawl. I submit that the utility differs significantly, so the price should also differ.[/quote']

 

That's a good example, but I think it highlights the importance of GM arbitration. At issue is probably a clash between (4) and (5-6) on 6e2 297--see if you think so too. Were I GMing players who'd asked for these combinations, I wouldn't have a problem approving the first player's build, requiring the second to qualify a certain class of weapons, and requiring the third player to build his advantage more restrictively. I would think about ruling more permissively with respect to the third player if the first wasn't building things just that way. Hero character creation seems to be about the art of balancing character abilities against both the challenges in the world and (in a course-grained sense) those of their fellow party members.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

That's a good example' date=' but I think it highlights the importance of GM arbitration. At issue is probably a clash between (4) and (5-6) on 6e2 297--see if you think so too. Were I GMing players who'd asked for these combinations, I wouldn't have a problem approving the first player's build, requiring the second to qualify a certain class of weapons, and requiring the third player to build his advantage more restrictively. I would think about ruling more permissively with respect to the third player if the first wasn't building things just that way. Hero character creation seems to be about the art of balancing character abilities against both the challenges in the world and (in a course-grained sense) those of their fellow party members.[/quote']

 

We're using a Naked Advantage in all cases, so there aren't two or more powers. I think the problem is with #3 and/or #4 being violated. I can either have the advantage on the power (and be required to always use it, not start fresh adding more limitations, and not get the END rounding) or buy it as a naked advantage, but the cost is typically the same (possibly less if I add limitations; likely possible to construct a situation when it costs more). If there are benefits to one build over the other, the cost should differ. This is really not so much a naked advantage as an advantage with differing modifiers (including "may choose not to use").

 

Then there's the group naked advantage whose cost does not vary by the size of the group, but whose utility certainly does. The Deadly Blow type constructs vary based on the size of the group - shouldn't Naked Advantages?

 

So what happens when, after many scenarios, the first player now wants to buy his "swords only" build and the third build has been in the game, paying normal cost for his "affects all attacks" naked advantage, since character creation? To me, the rules should be consistent. The cost of both "works with all attacks" and "only works with a narrow group of attacks" should not depend on which one was purchased first.

[Christopher]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

So what happens when' date=' after many scenarios, the first player now wants to buy his "swords only" build and the third build has been in the game, paying normal cost for his "affects all attacks" naked advantage, since character creation? To me, the rules should be consistent. The cost of both "works with all attacks" and "only works with a narrow group of attacks" should not depend on which one was purchased first.[/quote']

Unless you have some ability to look into the future, this will never ever work out as you like it.

 

Let's take an example from the books:

Needs-Mag-Guy (NMG) has a Blast with "Only in Intense Magnetic Fields". since it's a WWII campaign, the GM assigns it a value of -2 since Intense Magnetic Field are really rare.

Now after about 50 experience points, Intense-Magnetic-Lass (IML) joins the team. She produces intense magentic fields just as a side effect of being there. Plus they are unlikely to be seperated much.

Apparently NMG's Blast is suddenly much less limited, since he can use it all the time. Propably down to -1/4 at tops.

 

So apparently the value of a single Limitation will just change (not should, will), if the overall situation changes. Don't see why this should not happen the same way with "works with all attacks" and "only works with a narrow group of attacks" Naked Advantages.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

Unless you have some ability to look into the future, this will never ever work out as you like it.

 

Let's take an example from the books:

Needs-Mag-Guy (NMG) has a Blast with "Only in Intense Magnetic Fields". since it's a WWII campaign, the GM assigns it a value of -2 since Intense Magnetic Field are really rare.

Now after about 50 experience points, Intense-Magnetic-Lass (IML) joins the team. She produces intense magentic fields just as a side effect of being there. Plus they are unlikely to be seperated much.

 

Comparing apples to oranges typically drives people bananas. Your example is one of a limitation based on how frequently a given situation arises, which can be modified by changes of the nature you describe. Mine is one of a naked advantage applying to a small group of attacks, a broader group, out to all attacks. To take a more comparable example, we have combat skill levels that apply to only one attack, to a small group of attacks, to broader groups of attacks, right on out to all attacks. Would you suggest that skill levels with All Combat might appropriately be priced at, say, 3 points or 5 points as long as there's no one on the team who has skill levels that are limited to a subset of All Combat, or would you suggest that the base pricing system value more flexible levels at a higher point cost than more limited/less flexible skill levels?

 

If a skill level (or Deadly Blow/Weaponmaster damage) with all blades should cost more than one only usable with swords, but less than one usable with all combat, why would you suggest a naked advantage usable with all blades should cost exactly the same as one usable only with swords or one usable with all attacks?

 

Apparently NMG's Blast is suddenly much less limited' date=' since he can use it all the time. Propably down to -1/4 at tops.[/quote']

 

The frequency with which it is usable has increased, so the limitation "can only be used on very rare occasions [-2]" has become "can be used almost all the time [-1/4]". Or maybe this is a Classic Golden Age campaign where the heroes meet at the start to discuss the situation, break off into separate solo adventures, then reconvene to resolve matters, typically with no combat at beginning or end. That -2 limitation may be unchanged. Or perhaps the GM and the player discuss the situation, and agree that IMFG's field does not trigger NMG's ability to use his blast - for some reason (either defined, undefined or left as future GM adventure fodder) the two are incompatible.

 

Armor Piercing does not scale up or down depending on whether the GM is using villains with hardened defenses either.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

The bit about 'similar to Naked Advantages' at 6.1.147 is purely relating to how to COST the power, not how it works. It is clear that once a defence is hardened or resistant, or whatever, you can not simply turn that off.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

On the 'only useable in intense magnetic fields' thing, and frequency in general, my take is that you can have a power that only works in intense magnetic fields and decide what limitation value you want and the limitation value will determine how often you come across intense magnetic fields. Even in a WW2 game you could pick -2 (there are not many about) or -1/4 (there may not be many about BUT I seem to keep finding them). You do not have to work out how common intense magnetic fields are in a particular setting: the limitation value defines how often YOU encounter the effect, whatever the 'background' frequency is.

 

If 'Intensely Magnetic Girl' joins the team the character can either re-arrange his character sheet OR, as GM, I will think of a reason why he can not take advantage of her magnetism. Perhaps her magnetism is phased so that it does not help NMG at all. Maybe it makes them both feel sick in some sort of weird feedback thing, so they have to stay away from each other. Either way, the point is that there may be some cause/effect problems here: if you set a limitation value, you are telling the GM how often you want the power to be affected, and it is up to the GM to make sure that it works like that. It is also up to you to not try and circumvent your own build with cheesiness.

 

To take another example, if I build a character, Night Man, whose powers only work at night, and I only take a -1/2 limitation on that, I expect my powers to work about 2/3 of the time, so 2/3 of the action will take place at night. I also conceed that 1/3 of the time I will not be using the power.

 

If I decide to have the character sleep through every day and only 'adventure' at night, the GM can still send villains to attack me in my lair at 12 noon.

 

This only becomes a real problem if there are characters in the same team with modifiers that are directly contradictory (say we also have Day Woman, whose powers also have a -1/2 limitation) EITHER the party has to keep on splitting up or we have to have a lot of encounters at Dusk or Dawn when both are up and running.

 

As GM I would have no problem forbidding a particular build, or requiring a re-write, if I thought it was going to cause me problems with running the game.

 

Probably the most obvious example is Superman. He has a frequent problem with Kryptonite BOT because K is common, but because he has built his character with the expectation that it will come up often. It is then up to the GM to make it so, and the player can hardly complain if two-bit hoods are turning up with K-dusted garotting wire.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

The bit about 'similar to Naked Advantages' at 6.1.147 is purely relating to how to COST the power' date=' not how it works. It is clear that once a defence is hardened or resistant, or whatever, you can not simply turn that off.[/quote']

 

Nope. That would require the Always On Limitation (even if only valued in the setting at -0).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

Nope. That would require the Always On Limitation (even if only valued in the setting at -0).

 

What it actually says is: "(though in this case the Advantage(s) always apply to the PD or ED)", which seems pretty clear. Advantages that are part of a power can not be turned off: Defensive Advantages are not a special category.

[Christopher]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

Nope. That would require the Always On Limitation (even if only valued in the setting at -0).

Once you have bought Resistant and Hardened for your 26 PD, you cannot turn it off - to for example have a better Aid effect. (keep in mind that Aid or Drain PD/ED affect PD/ED with Resistant, but not Resistant Protection [PD/ED]).

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Using a limitation only on an advantage

 

What it actually says is: "(though in this case the Advantage(s) always apply to the PD or ED)"' date=' which seems pretty clear. Advantages that are part of a power can not be turned off: Defensive Advantages are not a special category.[/quote']

 

Right you are!

Looks like another hidden exception similar to 5e "Regeneration".

It highlights another major difference between using the Resistant Advantage and the Resistant Defense Power (which my previous statement does apply correctly to).