VPP discusion

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: VPP discusion

 

But at least for the "Batmans utility belt"' date=' 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).[/quote']

 

I'm a bit on the fence on this one. How much is your VPP really constrained by that Focus if you can just reconfigure the pool and have a different power should the focus be lost, stolen or broken? On the other hand, lots of limitations affect individual powers without affecting the pool. And if the Bat-Knuckles were a Multipower slot, I don't think anyone would be arguing that Bats couldn't toss a Batarang or use his Bat Crime Lab until he puts his Bat-Knuckles away properly - also allowing full ongoing access to the pool.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: VPP discusion

 

I'm a bit on the fence on this one. How much is your VPP really constrained by that Focus if you can just reconfigure the pool and have a different power should the focus be lost' date=' stolen or broken? [/quote']

 

If I'm interpretting this right, he can't do that without returning to the Batcave (or some other equipment cache).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: VPP discusion

 

If I'm interpretting this right' date=' he can't do that without returning to the Batcave (or some other equipment cache).[/quote']

 

In the example power given, he can, but only within the other 11 slots. As I understand the build, each of the 11 slots could use up the entire real point and/or active point limit, and he can freely switch between them.

 

However, my comment was directed more at Focus used in a VPP in general than at the specific example.

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

In the example power given, he can, but only within the other 11 slots. As I understand the build, each of the 11 slots could use up the entire real point and/or active point limit, and he can freely switch between them.

 

However, my comment was directed more at Focus used in a VPP in general than at the specific example.

Focus in VPP(Controll Cost has no Limitation):

I think if you loose the Focus, you have to Re-Create the entire slot from sratch or get it back.

That means you have to go through all the preparations (Full Phase + Skill Roll). If you can't change the slots right now (you lack the skill, time or other requirement), then you are out of luck.

There a cases like the Cosmic VPP where this is not a penalty, wich results in a "given the total environment, Focus is not Limiting". You might still make it worth something if you can name a different penalty, for example: "Until he recovers the focus or does something similar, he cannot re-create that slot or any similar slot". Loosing your Sword would then mean, that you cannot make bladed weapons (or even anything with HKA) anymore.

But in most cases a Focus is limiting simply by the need to re-ceate the slot.

 

Now for the Utility belt, lossing the focus means one thing:

You can use that entire slot at all. You cannot re-create it. You could switch to a similar or identical one (if you had defined two slots as Bat Knuckles, or one normal and one Nth-Metal Knuckles). But unless you can recover that Focus (or a similar one in the batcave), you are out of luck.

[ghost-angel]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Couple thoughts. First, there's nothing in Cosmic about how available parts are for a Focus in a VPP - Cosmic only means you can change a Slot as a 0-Phase Action with No Skill Roll. Nothing else, and a lot of people automatically assume that means "access to every power in the book" which is simply not really true. Especially if you bring in "Focus."

 

Some of these have been brought up earlier:

If you have Focus on the Slots, and you lose the Power, you lose the Power until you can replace it In Game some how/when. This should be story driven. You shouldn't be able to, in fairness to the mechanics, be able to simply switch to a new variation of the Power without some investment, with or without Cosmic.

 

If you have Focus on the Slots and Control Cost, and you lose the Power, well, you've lost that portion of the Control Cost - if you don't want that to happen, don't do that. Build to SFX. If you're going to take a Limitation, it has to Limit.

 

One custom Limitation I think makes more sense is "Must Take X Level Of Focus Or Greater" at the lowest level you can take. The VPP really isn't the Focus, but if you're forced to take a Limitation I think you should get a break for it. If a GM thinks that's too easy, make this Limitation cost half the value of the Limitation you must take (like Variable Limitation).

 

Though, I must say, I'd question the use of Cosmic on a VPP with a limitation on the number of items you can carry unless that's going to be a separate discussion of "choose 10" even if you can't power all 10 with the Pool at once, in which case Cosmic becomes relevant again...

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Couple thoughts. First' date=' there's nothing in Cosmic about how available parts are for a Focus in a VPP - Cosmic only means you can change a Slot as a 0-Phase Action with No Skill Roll. Nothing else, and a lot of people automatically assume that means "access to every power in the book" which is simply not really true. Especially if you bring in "Focus."[/quote']

Nice of your to bring that up, but it totally misses my point.

 

I pointed out that when "re-create the slot" is a way to get a working power again (even an identical with working focus) and you can effortlessly do so (because you have Cosmic) - then Focus is not a limitation, because it does not limits.

You need to come up with a different downside for lossing that focus.

 

Some of these have been brought up earlier:

If you have Focus on the Slots, and you lose the Power, you lose the Power until you can replace it In Game some how/when. This should be story driven. You shouldn't be able to, in fairness to the mechanics, be able to simply switch to a new variation of the Power without some investment, with or without Cosmic.

The question is if "being forced to re-allocate" plus the normal activation time is worth the value of the focus.

 

If you have Focus on the Slots and Control Cost' date=' and you lose the Power, well, you've lost that portion of the Control Cost - if you don't want that to happen, don't do that. Build to SFX. If you're going to take a Limitation, it has to Limit.[/quote']

You don't lose controll, ever. You only lose pool (the real points).

[ghost-angel]

Re: VPP discusion

 

my response was to the discussion as a whole - not your specific post. If it was to you directly, I would have quoted it.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

For those who are interested, these 2 old threads cover many of the topics raised here:

VPP based MP, help with limitation

Help with a VPP

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

I just posted another followup in the rules forum with a very specific question to Steve regarding his earlier response.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Not sure I aggree but I think I'm starting to see Steve's point of view on the topic. We've been comparing the suggested build with its custom limitation to the build without the limitation and saying "well of course it should be less". I would suspect Steve is comparing it to the RAW build needed for the same effect, which would have a pool big enough for all 6 powers at once and the regular change at base only lim. Compared to the RAW build it is crazily under priced. One might argue that the RAW build is over priced for its utility, but than our custom build comes in very close in cost to the comparable MP, which suggest either the MP and the RAW VPP are both over priced, or that the custom limitation VPP is indeed greatly under-costed.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Not sure I aggree but I think I'm starting to see Steve's point of view on the topic. We've been comparing the suggested build with its custom limitation to the build without the limitation and saying "well of course it should be less". I would suspect Steve is comparing it to the RAW build needed for the same effect' date=' which would have a pool big enough for all 6 powers at once and the regular change at base only lim. Compared to the RAW build it is crazily under priced. One might argue that the RAW build is over priced for its utility, but than our custom build comes in very close in cost to the comparable MP, which suggest either the MP and the RAW VPP are both over priced, or that the custom limitation VPP is indeed greatly under-costed.[/quote']

 

I hope that's not the case.

 

I'm on a pc without HeroDesigner so my examples are going to be from memory...

 

30 Multipower Reserver

3u 1) Power example1

3u 2) Power example2

3u 3) Power example3

3u 4) Power example4

3u 5) Power example5

 

5 slot example Total cost = 45 points

10 slot example = 60 points

15 slot = 75 points <--- (this is the cost break point at which it makes sense to switch to the VPP example below)

etc...

 

75 Variable Power Pool 30 Pool & 30 Control with Cosmic (+2) with no Limitations

*functions as multipower with infinite # of slots

 

The cost breakpoint for switching from Multipower to VPP goes down with Limitations.

if limitations are taken on the slots only, the "real points" can reduced meaning less than 30 points are needed on the base "Pool".

if all slots have (-1/2) Limitations, then their "Real Cost" will be 20 (meaning a total VPP cost of 65)

if all slots have (-1), then ... 15 (total VPP cost of 60)

etc...

 

The inclusion of the "Cosmic" Advantage in the VPP examples removes the "normal" VPP requirement to pre-allocate the Pool points for any specific builds. This means that 5 different ability slots do not need a 150 point pool.

 

All of this is a rehash of concepts discussed in the 2 old threads I linked to above.

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

30 Multipower Reserver

3u 1) Power example1

3u 2) Power example2

3u 3) Power example3

3u 4) Power example4

3u 5) Power example5

 

5 slot example Total cost = 45 points

10 slot example = 60 points

15 slot = 75 points <--- (this is the cost break point at which it makes sense to switch to the VPP example below)

etc...

 

75 Variable Power Pool 30 Pool & 30 Control with Cosmic (+2) with no Limitations

*functions as multipower with infinite # of slots

I would not compare them that way. a Multipower with Flexible Slots is closer to the VPP, than one with Fixed Slots. Depending what you have in there, the ability to use multiple powers (at reduced power) simultaniously can be an important factor.

So the break even point is more around 8 Slots.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

...key differences between Multipowers & VPP's

 

A default Multipower always consists of a limited number of slots but does not have a requirement for a skill roll to change slots. It only takes a 0-Phase action to switch slots.

 

A default VPP has no limit on the number of slots it can have. It does come with a required skill roll to change and takes 1 phase to switch slots.

 

Adding the "Cosmic" Advantages to the VPP gives all the positives of the Multipower with none of the drawbacks.

There is no equivalent way to remove the default limits of a Multipower.

 

This means there is no method under RAW to model something like Batman's Utility Belt where he only 'carries' a limited selection of 'Bat-gadgets' (handled perfectly by Multipower) with him but can swap out the selection carried ad infinitum back at the Batcave (NOT handled by Multipower at all).

 

Ergo, adding a custom limitation to the default positives of the VPP that already has "Cosmic" is the way to model a Utility Belt.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

I would not compare them that way. a Multipower with Flexible Slots is closer to the VPP, than one with Fixed Slots. Depending what you have in there, the ability to use multiple powers (at reduced power) simultaniously can be an important factor.

So the break even point is more around 8 Slots.

 

My example is based on an assumption of 30 active point builds (an arguable minimum for combat effectiveness concerns).

 

I could easily add Lockout (-1/2) only to the VPP slots reducing its real cost to 65.

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

This means there is no method under RAW to model something like Batman's Utility Belt where he only 'carries' a limited selection of 'Bat-gadgets' (handled perfectly by Multipower) with him but can swap out the selection carried ad infinitum back at the Batcave (NOT handled by Multipower at all).

Excuse me, but I don't think you tell the truth.

There is a way: to increase the Pool until you can have all those Bat-gadgets in the VPP at once. And Lockout on all slots a get's you close to a fixed slot multipower. This is a RAW concept (that was possible by the changes to VPP's in 6E).

 

You just say: "It's too expensive for the effect for me".

 

 

I am not even certain on wich side I really stand here, a both have their merit. I just point out that it isn't a question of "the Rules can't" anymore. It's a question of "are the rules setting a proper price for the resulting effect?"

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

I just posted another followup in the rules forum with a very specific question to Steve regarding his earlier response.

 

And it got the dreaded "You're getting into game design/philosophy questions, and I don't answer those." response.

 

I asked the current core game mechanics question of note as clearly as I could.

I didn't ask a "why" question.

 

I think this response confirms my earlier suspicion that his first answer was knee-jerk in nature.

Oh well....

[Doc Democracy]

Re: VPP discusion

 

And it got the dreaded "You're getting into game design/philosophy questions' date=' and I don't answer those."[/url'] response.

 

I asked the current core game mechanics question of note as clearly as I could.

I didn't ask a "why" question.

 

I think this response confirms my earlier suspicion that his first answer was knee-jerk in nature.

Oh well....

 

I think Steve is probably right, this delves deeply into the game design/game philosophy.

 

You have received a legal response and I do not think Steve often provides knee-jerk responses. I think he answered the question within the strictures of the rules as they lie. I think that he indicated the there are two tools there and it is not expected that one will be used to create the other.

 

I am sure that he, as a player, has twisted the rules to suit his games and has deep concerns about the way certain things play out in certain circumstances but was not able to iron out in the rules as written. I am sure that he pulls Multipowers towards VPP style effects and vice versa. Its just that all of those things are player/gm stuff. As game designer/owner he plays a straight bat and provides proper, quasi-legal pronouncements.

 

If you want real thoughts - buy him several beers at a con, THEN ask him the questions you REALLY want his thoughts on!!

 

 

Doc

[JmOz]

Re: VPP discusion

 

I think Steve is probably right, this delves deeply into the game design/game philosophy.

 

You have received a legal response and I do not think Steve often provides knee-jerk responses. I think he answered the question within the strictures of the rules as they lie. I think that he indicated the there are two tools there and it is not expected that one will be used to create the other.

 

I am sure that he, as a player, has twisted the rules to suit his games and has deep concerns about the way certain things play out in certain circumstances but was not able to iron out in the rules as written. I am sure that he pulls Multipowers towards VPP style effects and vice versa. Its just that all of those things are player/gm stuff. As game designer/owner he plays a straight bat and provides proper, quasi-legal pronouncements.

 

If you want real thoughts - buy him several beers at a con, THEN ask him the questions you REALLY want his thoughts on!!

 

 

Doc

 

I think that is an interesting point. Realising that if he gave the answer he would play with some people would take it as ammo to overrule a GM. I do think that the "right" answer to the original question would have been "Leave it up to the GM based on his sense of game balance"

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Perhaps... Perhaps not....

 

Anyway, here is an example of what I think the rule was designed to prevent (for good reason).

 

45 Swiss Army Powers: Variable Power Pool (Gadget Pool), 30 base + 30 control cost

0 1) See Below*: Custom Power (30 Active Points) Real Cost: 30

 

20

Below:

Multipower, 30-point reserve, (30 Active Points); all slots OIF (-1/2)

2f

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) - END=[8]

2f

2)

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

2f

3)

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

2f

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) - END=0

2f

5)

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

 

The total real cost of the "Below" Multipower is 30 points and without the quoted rule in place it could theoretically be taken as 'whole cloth' as a slot within the "Swiss Army VPP" above it (which does NOT have either of the Cosmic Advantages: No Skill Roll & 0 Phase to Change). Since "Below" is a single "Slot" within the VPP neither of those Advantages would be required to switch between the 5 Multipower slots because a "Multipower" does not need them.

 

Preventing that bit of munchkinery is the only valid reason I see for the rule. Does anyone else have a different example that justifies the RAW?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

Excuse me, but I don't think you tell the truth.

There is a way: to increase the Pool until you can have all those Bat-gadgets in the VPP at once. And Lockout on all slots a get's you close to a fixed slot multipower. This is a RAW concept (that was possible by the changes to VPP's in 6E).

 

You just say: "It's too expensive for the effect for me".

 

 

So your solution is essentially to pay more for a limitation? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: VPP discusion

 

I think that is an interesting point. Realising that if he gave the answer he would play with some people would take it as ammo to overrule a GM. I do think that the "right" answer to the original question would have been "Leave it up to the GM based on his sense of game balance"

 

Exactly, the fact that a resounding "No" answer was given instead is why I think it was knee-jerk in nature.

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

The total real cost of the "Below" Multipower is 30 points and without the quoted rule in place it could theoretically be taken as 'whole cloth' as a slot within the "Swiss Army VPP" above it (which does NOT have either of the Cosmic Advantages: No Skill Roll & 0 Phase to Change). Since "Below" is a single "Slot" within the VPP neither of those Advantages would be required to switch between the 5 Multipower slots because a "Multipower" does not need them.

 

Preventing that bit of munchkinery is the only valid reason I see for the rule. Does anyone else have a different example that justifies the RAW?

You are way too focused on the "changing slot rules", when there is much more to the difference. Multipower and VPP are two totally different Constructs. Thier entire pricing model is based on very different Asumptions/Starting points.

 

The pricing Scheme for both is by all regards just "Steve Longs best guess". By extension the entire pricing scheme for everything in the book is, but at least the VPP is something still in it's infancy (it's only the second generation). Just because to like to buy the powers cheap, does not means it is balanced.

With the entire pricing for the VPP the asumption was that you either increase your ability to change slots, or decrease. The fact that there is no Limitaiton like "limited Nr. of Slots" in RAW makes it clear. The fact that there is a "only at base" limitation makes that clear. But most importanlty the examples make that clear.

 

Sure you CAN ignore every thought Steve Long has invested in it. But then it's your own problem. The GM can alter the rules as he sees fit (even ignore "can not"'s), but then he is responsible for all that comes from that.

 

So your solution is essentially to pay more for a limitation? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Are you even having a valid point there? I mean do you really WANT to be unable to throw a batarang while swinging? Do you really want to be unable to Multiattack with Flash and Entangle?

As far as I can tell this could not even a practical build. It could just be a "look how well I can save points" thing, with limited practical gameplay application.

 

 

Aslo note that whenever a power tend to be rarely used, the game tends towards making it a special power:

Senses, Special Defenses, Luck, Extra Limbs, Duplicaiton.

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

20

Below:

Multipower, 30-point reserve, (30 Active Points); all slots OIF (-1/2)

2f

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) - END=[8]

2f

2)

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

2f

3)

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

2f

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) - END=0

2f

5)

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

Perhaps one factor you haven't considered yet is what a Multipower actually means.

Sure you buy the Reserve and then the slots.

 

But what this Multipower actually represents is you buying:

20 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) - END=[8]

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

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

20 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) - END=0

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

With some limitations that allow you to put all that much Real Points worth of powers (60 Points) into half the Price.

 

I doubt the Multipower stays balanced long beyond the 5 Slot Range and that many GM's allow a 10 slot Multipower.

[Christopher]

Re: VPP discusion

 

As contrast to the MP example, Steve thought process when developing the VPP propably looked like this:

In effect the character has access to every power in the book. In all variations. So in effect he has infinite powers. But he can't use all of them at once and Infinite amount of Character Points is a little stupid.

 

What would a GM need most? Active Point Limits and the Amount of Real Points, of course. So let's see:

Real Points of the Powers are paid fully.

For the Active Points, let's try what happens if we let them cost 1:2.

 

So now we have the basis for a VPP that can be changed in 1 Minute out of Combat. Now let's try to see how much it should cost to have a faster switch...

A few thoughts later he finally has the current rules version.

 

I can't guarantee it worked that way, but asuming he is not a god that can look into alternate future timelines to see how what version will work out, this is about how such things are done.

The entire Cost Structure for VPP is nothing but an educated guess. That only holds true as long as nobody comes along with a "Limited Selection of slots that can only be changed aat base" Limitation.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: VPP discusion

 

I think that is an interesting point. Realising that if he gave the answer he would play with some people would take it as ammo to overrule a GM. I do think that the "right" answer to the original question would have been "Leave it up to the GM based on his sense of game balance"

 

I am presuming that this question and the follow-up from Christopher was the Q&A that you have been referring to?

 

Now forgive me if I am wrong but, to me, that is what he said - RAW, it is wrong, and Hyperman has come up with an example of why the structure is disallowed. However - the meat of the response was (bolding added by me)

 

I can certainly see situations where as GM I would allow a character to build a Multipower-based gadget in a VPP -- for example' date=' an energy pistol with multiple settings -- despite the general rule cited above, if I felt the player weren't intentionally trying to undermine game balance (and that the gadget wasn't unbalancing regardless of his intentions, of course). But what you've described here strikes me as deliberate flouting of the rules, not a legitimate request for an exception to them.[/color']

 

My other thought is that reading the Q&A I do see some of the issues, though I do not think I would go as far as to disallow without question.

 

There are advantages in switching powers a la multipower over VPP. If I have a VPP where I can have any power any time but need to make a skill roll to make those changes but instead want one where I can have ready and instant access to a small number of pre-defined powers but need to make a skill roll to change those ready ones back at my base, then I have to decide where the advantage lies.

 

Am I better off being able to tool up and have anything I want whenever I need it from that small group or am I better off having anything I want at any time? To me the answer to that question is obviously the second - I may suffer a small limitation in needing to make a skill roll but I can do anything I want.

 

If the question is changed to mean that if I want to use any power (pre-defined or not) that I need to have a focus ready to hand then the balance changes. How many foci could I carry? Once that number is limited then the balance swings closer to the first being better - if I have defined the slots in advance then I have probably also sorted out foci, if I have not then I need to find the right focus before I can use the power...

 

I am not 100% convinced of the value of the limitation for 'acts like a multipower' if the focus limitation is also in play. At this point I am not sure that the multipower and VPP costs and benefits level off. If there was no focus limitation there (or if the foci were so ubiquitous that I could pick them up anywhere as and when needed) then I think that the VPP definitely deserves a limitation for acting like a multipower.

 

Doc