VPP discusion

[JmOz]

A recent couple of posts from Steve in rules says one of my favorite builds is illegal. Of course he writes the rules and is the final arbitrator, but I will be ignoring this ruling. I do not think the concept is a bad idea, and truley a good way to represent certain concepts.

 

The concept, for the record, is the character who has a MP like ability that he can trade out slots for at a central location.

 

The example most would be familiar with is Batman. The character has many things he CAN carry, but is limited to a certain number of items he DOES carry. He can go to the cave and switch out to a stunning amount of slots, but can on ly carry, lets say 10 at any time.

 

Admitingly you could build it with a huge amount of slots and a custom lim on the MP itself, or as a VPP with the F/X of he just happens to carry what he needs, but I do feel that a combined element here makes sense.

 

For the record any VPP used this way would need to be cosmic, with some limitations to represent what can be carried...

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

I agree. I feel like Steve's answer was a kneejerk reaction to a valid special effect problem not properly addressed in the rules or other published material. His answer is one of the biggest reasons that making decent starting versions of characters like Batman was always considered an impossible task in HERO because it costs 1000+ points to make the character. It looks like he just proved the critics right and that we are munchkins. woo hoo hurray.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: VPP discusion

 

I've disagreed with Steve on occasion, but this is the first time one of his ruling simply doesn't even make sense IMO. I just don't get it. I could see arguing that it is too cost effective and thus the Limitation should be smaller (or even -0 as it is a "flavor" thing), but it is not "creating a Multipower in a VPP", it's making a VPP function as MP when on a mission.

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

For the record any VPP used this way would need to be cosmic' date=' with some limitations to represent what can be carried...[/quote']

I did thought about it after posting my initial question and now I see points for both point of views.

 

Thoughts in favor of Steves Ruling:

As I was the one who asked te question, I will try to give you my reasoning to even consider it a balancing issue.

The main Limiting factor of a VPP is the Real Point Cost (as opposed to the active points in a Multipower).

Now this Cosmic, Limited Selection trick means you can save a TON on the Pool Point cost by paying a little more (of the much, much cheaper) controll Cost. The Controll Cost that also "profits" from any Limitations. And if said Limitations are "all Slots" limitations, that means you save Controll Cost and (jet again) Pool Cost.

I even misscalculated the "effective VPP" in my example a little. It doesn't costs 127 for the same utility, but 247 for 12*20 (30 AP slots with -1/2 Lockout). So this trick saves 75% of the cost, for the same Utility.

 

Thoghts against Steves Ruling:

Taking batmans ability to produce stuff/effects from thin air* into account it would look something like this.

The Million Tricks of the Batman:

Variable Power Pool 30 Control, 30 Real

Cosmic (+2)

Total Cost: 45+30 = 75 Real Cost

 

With Million tricks he could indeed let a smoke bomb go off that he had "Prepared" some time ago: Darkness, Invisible Power Effect (+1**).

 

*It goes way farther than the utility belt itself. Quite often he has a hidden lockpick in his glove or a smoke grenade he had "prepared" in advance. Or a Miniature Rocket that wasn't there before and that can take out Captain Marvel.

**You don't see him "using" that power the phase it goes of with the special effect that "he had placed it there in advance and timed them exactly right".

I have never seen him placing something in advance, being knock out and his smoke bombs going off without any effect or use while he was K.O..

They always go off at the right moment in the perfectly right way and everytime it mattered there was something he had prepared.

 

 

Now from Million Tricks down to Utility Belt writeup (OIF, Restrainable) is indeed a big step down in versatility. As opposed to the Milion Tricks it can be take away and he can be prevented from using it by beign tied up.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Isn't this just ... a basic Gadget Pool?

 

If the intent is that you can only use one of the powers in the pool at a time, why not just buy them all with Lockout (cannot use other VPP slots)?

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Isn't this just ... a basic Gadget Pool?

 

If the intent is that you can only use one of the powers in the pool at a time, why not just buy them all with Lockout (cannot use other VPP slots)?

Was excatly is the "this" in your post?

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

I noticed that there is another implication of the "buy Cosmic, limit selection" approach.

One that could either break the balance of the VPP or Revolutionize the way it works.

 

But first the built at hand that causes so much trouble (using a 60 AP, 6 Slot as example):

Batmans Utility Belt, Hyperman Version

Variable Power Pool: 60 Control, 30 Pool

Powes can be changed as 0-Phase Action (+1), No Skill roll Required(+1)

Limited Selection of Powes (Only 6 predetermined slots, but selection can be changed at batcave; -1/2), OIF (-1/2), Restrainable (-1/4)

Total Cost: 40 (Control Cost after modifiers) + 30 (Pool Cost) = 70

 

The Book approach for the same results is:

Batman Ultitliy Belt, Book Version

Variable Power Pool: 60 Control, 120 Pool

Powers can only be Changed at Batcave (-1/2), OIF (-1/2), Restrainable (-1/4), all slots Lockout (-1/2)

Total Cost: 11 (Control Cost after modifiers) + 120 (Pool Cost) = 131

 

So even with just 6 Slots Hypemasn Version cost only half as much. And his example had 12 Slots (but only a 30/15 VPP), so it would only cost 1/4 as much as the book version.

Also you have to keep in mind that applying the Focus Limitation to any slot will result in loss of Pool if the slot is lost.

 

 

Now let's come to the implications it can have for other VPP's. I will try to built a Mimic VPP with the same approach as Hyperman:

Your Powers are Mine

Variable Power Pool: 60 Control, 60 Pool

No Time (+1), No Roll (+1)

Limited Selection of Powers (Only Powers posessed by the current target copied; Copying requires hth-attack Rool; Powers can't be stronger that in copied person; -1*)

Total Cost: 45 (Control) + 60 (Pool) = 100

 

*I asume a total of -1 on the book VPP should result in a higher Limitation value here. Also not that this version won't run "out of Pool" when copying.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Also you have to keep in mind that applying the Focus Limitation to any slot will result in loss of Pool if the slot is lost.

 

Can you cite a reference on this Christopher?

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Can you cite a reference on this Christopher?

6E1 412. Pretty much the entire page.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

6E1 412. Pretty much the entire page.

 

And as has been pointed out on other threads for this particular special effect the focus on the pool represents the utility belt itself (lose it and yes, the character loses the ability to use it completely). However, the slots do not represent the "belt". Rather, they are contained within the belt. It is NOT the typical "Gadget Pool" example given in the books. I'll have to research if the rules on that page are significant changes from the 5er text later. If it is a change it just means that I'll have to house rule around that bit of special effect driven 6e nonsense.

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

And as has been pointed out on other threads for this particular special effect the focus on the pool represents the utility belt itself (lose it and yes' date=' the character loses the ability to use it completely). However, the slots do not represent the "belt". Rather, they are contained within the belt. It is NOT the typical "Gadget Pool" example given in the books. I'll have to research if the rules on that page are significant changes from the 5er text later. If it is a change it just means that I'll have to house rule around that bit of special effect driven 6e nonsense.[/quote']

The exactly same text is in my 5E Character Creation Handbook.

The rule is not Special effect Specific. "A Wizards collection of enchanted items" is among the examples.

And of course Focus is of doubtfull Limitation for slots, if you can just get out the next Batrang anyway.

[Ice9]

Re: VPP discusion

 

I don't think that makes sense. Consider a Magical Staff, represented as a VPP with the OAF limitation. Certainly, the staff itself can be taken. However, the slots within the VPP do not have their own separate focuses that can be separately taken.

When you make a utility belt VPP, the same thing is the case.

 

Now this does imply that if your utility belt contains a knife, then that knife shouldn't have OAF, just the base OIF of the utility belt.

 

 

As far as the ruling - I don't agree with it. It seems like a reaction to the term "multipower" in there, but this is really just a cosmic VPP with some limitations to which powers can be selected. Given that the alternative is "Schrodinger's Utility Belt", where anything can be pulled from it on a whim, I would say this is definitely worth a limitation! If anything, I think the "powers can only be changed at base" limitation is significantly undervalued.

 

And it seems to miss the point that you could already have a VPP that worked like a Multipower, except much better, just by not having that one limitation.

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

I don't think that makes sense. Consider a Magical Staff, represented as a VPP with the OAF limitation. Certainly, the staff itself can be taken. However, the slots within the VPP do not have their own separate focuses that can be separately taken.

When you make a utility belt VPP, the same thing is the case.

 

Now this does imply that if your utility belt contains a knife, then that knife shouldn't have OAF, just the base OIF of the utility belt.

I thought about Focus on the Control Cost.

All Advantages and Limitations on the Control Cost only affect the Changing of Slots. When your OAF "Wizards Staff" is take or destroyed you loose the ability to change slots, but you still have the slots you had before.

 

As for the magic staff:

If you apply focus to both, I could see there being a limited amount of energy for "manifestations". If you can't properly recycle a power (it's manifestation got stolen or destroyed), then there is less left for others.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Let's try this again. I have made two changes. I have split out the two halves of the "Gadget" Limitation and removed the Focus Limitation on the Control Cost.

 

37 The Utility Belt: Variable Power Pool (Gadget Pool), 15 base + 30 control cost, No Skill Roll Required (+1), Powers Can Be Changed As A Zero-Phase Action (+1) (60 Active Points); Slightly Limited Class of Powers Available (Gadgets) Power loses about a fourth of its effectiveness (from 6e1 page 410; -1/4), Operates As A Multipower Of ~ Dozen Different Slots Power - does not work in Uncommon Circumstances (Once Set, What Slots Are "Carried" Can Only Be Changed At Batcave; -1/4); all slots Restrainable (-1/2) <--- This is the ONLY Common Limitation to the Slots & the Control Cost

[Notes: This is just a small sampling of what is typically carried.]

0 1) Batlines: Swinging 40m (30 Active Points); OIF (-1/2), 4 clips of 12 Recoverable Charges (+1/2) Real Cost: 15 - END=[12 rc]

0 2) Batarangs: Blast 6d6 (30 Active Points); OIF (-1/2), 2 clips of 6 Recoverable Charges (-0) Real Cost: 15 - END=[6 rc]

0 3) Energy Knuckles: Hand-To-Hand Attack +4d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (30 Active Points); OIF (-1/2), Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/4) Real Cost: 13 - END=0

0 4) Flash Pellets: Sight Group Flash 4d6, Area Of Effect (32m Radius Explosion; +1/2) (30 Active Points); OIF (-1/2), 16 Charges (-0) Real Cost: 15 - END=[16]

0 5) Bat Bolas: Entangle 2d6, 4 PD/4 ED (30 Active Points); OIF (-1/2), 2 clips of 6 Recoverable Charges (-0) Real Cost: 15 - END=[6 rc]

 

Now, the only thing arguable about the Limitation highlighted in blue is its value (currently set at -1/4).

Focus on the slots is absolutely a valid limitation in conjunction with this because there are a finite # of slots to choose from & a majority of them will have Charges.

 

This change cost exactly 4 extra points from my original version.

 

However, as built, it means the container or actual utility belt itself cannot EVER be taken from the character.

 

So like I said earlier (possibly on a different thread, I'm too tired to check right now), that little bit of nonsensical special effect specific ruling in the text and by Steve is taking away my ability to accurately model something in the source material (the fact that Batman's Utility Belt can be be removed from his body (with much effort out of combat) as an action totally separate from him 'losing' a Batarang (which are already built as recoverable charges anyway).

[JmOz]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Here is my view:

 

Points represent power. A character should not have to buy an ability a more expecsive way due to f/x. If character A's power works the same as character B's then both should be equal. If one is weaker it should cost fewer points. To me this is a core aspect of a point buy system

 

Now, If I make the Forger, a character who's power is to summon any gadget he wants, this concept screems a VPP to me

Forger buys Master Forge VPP

---15 Real Points, 30 Control Cost, Cosmic, all slots must take OIF (45 real points). his power is to create a gadget out of thin air. I doubt many would say this is the wrong aproach

 

Now my friend is playing The Wham-Bat, master of the streets. He caries about 10 gadgets, while having tons back at his base: he is limited to what he can have with him, he must predecide, and to change the items around he must run to base...

 

Should his power cost, assuming he has 50 gadgets (see my Utility Belt thread)

 

1) 65 points for a 30 point MP, OIF, limit 10 slots usable with out going to base (-1/2): 15+50=65

2) 45 points (same as the more flexable forger)

3) VPP: 150 pool, 30 point control, OIF, Only at base (150+7=157)

 

Personaly I feel that the real cost should be higher than 30 (30 point MP, OIF, 10 1 point Slots) and less than 45 (Cost of the more versitile Forger)

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

....

 

However, as built, it means the container or actual utility belt itself cannot EVER be taken from the character.

 

...

 

...Even in his secret ID of Bruce Wayne.

 

The use of Restrainable just means he needs his hands free to access the 'Belt'. In and of itself it doesn't mean he can't use the belt in his "secret id".

 

So how should we model Bruce Wayne's limited access to his Utility Belt when he appears in public as "Bruce Wayne" since adding Focus as a Private modifier has nonsensical consequences according to RAW?

OIAID?? For frickin' Batman!!?? I don't think so. NOt if we take into account the Matches Malone persona (thanks JmOz for pointing that out to me a long time ago).

Once that identity was established he hid the belt under street clothes so IIF is reasonable for the slots in this new method but it still doesn't account for a mechanic for actually removing the belt.

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Hyperman:

1. You have already decided to go with OIF and ignore the point loss rule. So your questions are only rethoric.

2. Restrainable can mean many different things in many different campaigns.

[JmOz]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Hyper-man, and I know I started it this time, but do you sometimes feel we just keep doing this dance...

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Hyper-man' date=' and I know I started it this time, but do you sometimes feel we just keep doing this dance...[/quote'] Yes

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Hyperman:

1. You have already decided to go with OIF and ignore the point loss rule. So your questions are only rethoric.

2. Restrainable can mean many different things in many different campaigns.

 

1. I haven't decided anything. I have been venting. I am not above admitting I was wrong on some points.

2. This is reason from effect. I, designer of the character chooses the effect I am modeling and then the powers to model it.

 

Here is an example that might better get JmOz's previous point across (or maybe not).

 

56 Swiss Army Powers: Variable Power Pool (Gadget Pool), 20 base + 30 control cost, Powers Can Be Changed As A Zero-Phase Action (+1), No Skill Roll Required (+1) (65 Active Points); Limited Power - Operates As A Multipower Of ~ Dozen Different Slots VPP loses about a fourth of its effectiveness (Once Set, What Slots Are "Chosen" Can Only Be Swapped Out At Base; -1/4)

0 1) He's A Flasher: Sight Group Flash 4d6, Area Of Effect (32m Radius Explosion; +1/2) (30 Active Points); OIF (-1/2), 4 clips of 8 Charges (-0) Real Cost: 20 - END=[8]

0 2) He's A Swinger!: Swinging 40m, x8 Noncombat (30 Active Points); OIF (-1/2), 2 clips of 6 Recoverable Charges (-0) Real Cost: 20 - END=[6 rc]

0 3) He's A Blaster: Blast 6d6 (30 Active Points); OIF (-1/2), 2 clips of 6 Recoverable Charges (-0) Real Cost: 20 - END=[6 rc]

0 4) He's A Hitter!: Hand-To-Hand Attack +4d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (30 Active Points); OIF (-1/2), Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/4) Real Cost: 17 - END=0

0 5) He's A Roper!: Entangle 2d6, 4 PD/4 ED (30 Active Points); OIF (-1/2), 2 clips of 6 Recoverable Charges (-0) Real Cost: 20 - END=[6 rc]

 

No Focus or Restrainable on the Control Cost. Only a Limitation on the number of different slots that can be instantly swapped between in the field away from the character's base.

 

Maybe this IS the way to go. OIF means the slots can't be removed/stolen except out of combat anyway even if they are removed it doesn't hamper the characters ability to resupply at his base (per normal focus rules).

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Okay, NOW I think I see how this is supposed to work.

 

Yeah, I don't really see a problem with that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: VPP discusion

 

I've disagreed with Steve on occasion' date=' but this is the first time one of his ruling simply doesn't even make sense IMO. I just don't get it. I could see arguing that it is too cost effective and thus the Limitation should be smaller (or even -0 as it is a "flavor" thing), but it is not "creating a Multipower in a VPP", it's making a VPP function as MP when on a mission.[/quote']

 

On the one hand, I dislike Steve's ruling on general principal. Remove "can only change VPP between 12 slots, and the choice of those 12 slots can only be made at base" and we have a VPP that allows hundreds of different slots to be selected from at all times, with no rules issue. Capping available slots at 12 "like a 12 slot multipower" does not make it unbalanced.

 

I don't think that makes sense. Consider a Magical Staff' date=' represented as a VPP with the OAF limitation. Certainly, the staff itself can be taken. However, the slots within the VPP do not have their own separate focuses that can be separately taken. When you make a utility belt VPP, the same thing is the case.[/quote']

 

However, with the Focus issue, I do see the point. Your power gets a real points savings by having a Focus. The limiting aspect of that focus is markedly reduced if you can just say "fine - I change my VPP to a power with a different focus". This seems to suggest your solution, that you get the limitation for the VPP Focus only, and can't take a Focus within the VPP without accepting that the real points invested in that Focus are subject to the same restrictions as any other focus.

 

Lose that OAF gun and you can't reallocate the points until you get it back or you would have been able to replace the focus (s stolen OAF outside a VPP can be replaced).

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

However, with the Focus issue, I do see the point. Your power gets a real points savings by having a Focus. The limiting aspect of that focus is markedly reduced if you can just say "fine - I change my VPP to a power with a different focus". This seems to suggest your solution, that you get the limitation for the VPP Focus only, and can't take a Focus within the VPP without accepting that the real points invested in that Focus are subject to the same restrictions as any other focus.

 

Lose that OAF gun and you can't reallocate the points until you get it back or you would have been able to replace the focus (s stolen OAF outside a VPP can be replaced).

I always thought it had something to do with balance, but never thought it from that way.

 

But at least for the "Batmans utility belt", I think the Focus would mean that you can't use that slot at all. You can still use all other slots normally (as with a Multipower), but you don't have a second set of "Bat-Knuckles" (unless you defined your Slot Selection that way).

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Here is an example that might better get JmOz's previous point across (or maybe not).

Is that point any different from the one I made in post 4 of this thread under "Thoughts against Steves Ruling"?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Is that point any different from the one I made in post 4 of this thread under "Thoughts against Steves Ruling"?

 

Your example had completely different numbers from any of mine so it seemed like an apples to oranges comparison. What I just posted was intended to be more of an apples to apples one.