Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

[esampson]

So under the Multiform thread the issue came up with GMs allowing Multipowers under VPPs in certain specific situations (such as my VPP is used to copy other people's powers and they have a Multipower).

 

This has been an issue with me less for the purposes of a power copy VPP but for purposes of a gadget pool VPP. I had stated that I would probably allow it as a GM with some very tight controls as to what Multipowers would be allowed. This was so a character could take something like a gun with clips of standard, armor piercing, and rubber bullets or a kusari gama which can (at least in a superhero comic) be used as stretching + hth attack, stretching + hka, or swinging. Both exceptionally well suited to a Multipower but which become a bit awkward if you try to fit them into a standard VPP. Despite the fact that I said I was making the decision as a GM and it would be tightly controlled I was sent a link warning me about the evils of allowing a Multipower under a VPP and people seemed to have a fairly negative view (in their defense I didn't go into full detail with two examples of what I was going to allow and they may have been trying to save me from being steamrollered by my own players).

 

Of course the other half of my problem is that I'd like to be able to do such things as a player and while I'm comfortable about making such decisions as a GM there's no guarantee that my own GM will be quite so comfortable. So how to work it out so that I can get the effect I want while being legal (and without trying to do anything that feels to me like a loophole such as placing a Multiform within the VPP and then a Multipower as part of the Multiform). That's when it suddenly occurred to me that a VPP really is a more advanced form of Multipower and with a little thinking I can achieve the effect I want without being completely overpowered.

 

Long story short:

 

Base 'gadget pool' VPP control cost:

10 - Variable Power Pool (Gadget Pool), 40 point control cost, (20 Active Points); Can Only be changed in a laboratory (-1/2), IIF (-1/4), Limited Effect: Gadgets (-1/4)

 

Of course that is more or less the one everyone is familiar with.

 

New 'gadget pool' VPP control cost:

24 - Variable Power Pool (Gadget Pool), 40 point control cost, No Skill Roll Required (+1), Powers Can Be Changed As A Zero-Phase Action (+1) (60 Active Points); Limited Power: Powers can only be changed in laboratory with the exception of ammunition or reasonable multi-functioning objects (alternate ammo and abilities must be approved at the laboratory. New powers cannot be created in the field). May require a full phase action to change powers depending upon special effect. (-1), IIF (-1/4), Limited Effect: Gadgets (-1/4)

 

14 points more for the control cost isn't that big a deal. Hurts a little since it more than doubles the control cost but since I'll have a minimum of 40 points in the pool (bringing the totals to 50 and 64) and quite probably more the true cost ratio isn't nearly as high.

 

Obviously there might be disagreement as to whether or not the limited power limitation is a full -1 but considering that without it I can change my powers whenever and however I want and that with it I still need approval of all the powers I'm going to take with me into the field and can very easily have to spend a full phase changing my power (to represent changing clips) and I'm pretty comfortable with -1. In fact I might even find it a little bit low.

 

So, thoughts? Suggestions? Death threats?

[massey]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

Put the limitation on the "no skill roll required" and "zero phase action" advantages instead of the control cost.

 

Edit: I don't think it'll let you do it in Hero Designer, but it's legal. I think it'll be cheaper.

[massey]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

Don't listen to me. I'm smoking crack. It's 3 points more expensive than the way you had it. However, I think you might be able to justify a higher limitation that way. I'd definitely give you the -2 on the advantage cost.

[esampson]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

Thought about that. I was just worried that would make it even more complicated. Assuming it would increase the limitation to -1 1/2 (-2 just seemed too much to me) I come up with:

 

10 -

Variable Power Pool (Gadget Pool), 40 point control cost, (20 Active Points); Can Only be changed in a laboratory (-1/2), IIF (-1/4), Limited Effect: Gadgets (-1/4)

18 - Naked Advantage: No Skill Roll Required (+1), Powers Can Be Changed As A Zero-Phase Action (+1) for up to 20 Active Points, Limited Effect: Gadgets (+1/4) (50 Active Points); Limited Power: Power can only be changed in laboratory with the exception of approved ammunition or reasonable multi-functioning weapons. May require a full phase action to change powers depending upon special effect. (-1 1/2), IIF (-1/4)

 

So 4 points more that way or 18 points higher on the complete control cost.

 

BTW, I realized afterward that while the control cost increased the size of the pool itself actually decreases. Assuming that the gun was a '40 point multipower' with 3 slots it actually costs you 52 points (yeah, I'm grossly simplifying because we don't have foci or anything else in there, but you get the idea) while the VPP doesn't have to pay anything extra for the 'slots' that are approved.

[Cassandra]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

Here is a fun concept.

 

Multiform in a Mulitpower slot.

[Haerandir]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

Multiform in a Mulitpower slot.

 

The last time I suggested a character with this build to my GM, he just glared at me.

[Balabanto]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

That is because Multiform never should have been a standard power. While some things might be cool in the comics, they can be really bad for having fun with your gaming buddies.

[dmjalund]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

I alway slook at Multiform as a slot in a multipower, where YOU are the multipower

[psyber624]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

My only issue with the concept as a whole is that it smacks of powergaming....its a fun theoretical concept, but I'd have to give a really hard look at someone trying to do something like this in a game.

 

Personally Ive always looked at VPP's as multipowers with variable slots anyway. If you want a gun with variable settings, just make it as normal in the VPP, if you need to change the setting, you have to swap it in the VPP.... buying it as a gun with multiple settings at once (the Multipower in a VPP option) seems abusive and overly powerful.

[esampson]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

My only issue with the concept as a whole is that it smacks of powergaming....its a fun theoretical concept, but I'd have to give a really hard look at someone trying to do something like this in a game.

 

Personally Ive always looked at VPP's as multipowers with variable slots anyway. If you want a gun with variable settings, just make it as normal in the VPP, if you need to change the setting, you have to swap it in the VPP.... buying it as a gun with multiple settings at once (the Multipower in a VPP option) seems abusive and overly powerful.

 

Sorry. Perhaps I wasn't clear. That's what my solution is. You don't actually have a multipower within a VPP. You just use the normal VPP ability to swap powers, however the ability to swap powers is limited. Whereas someone who normally took '0 phase' and 'no skill roll' could simply swap to pretty much any power they want at will a character with this build is intended to primarily swap their powers 'in the lab' with a highly limited ability to swap some of the powers in the field. In essence you are using the normal functions of a VPP to simulate the fact that some of the gadgets are normally best build using a multipower but there is no actual multipower involved.*

 

Now, could I build the character under the more standard 'gadget pool' build and buy each type of ammo as special attacks? Sure. However the way the points work out there's no difference between me taking one gun that fires 4 different types of rounds and 4 different guns and as a character you're actually better off taking the 4 different guns (since they have to each be taken away with separate disarm maneuvers). Additionally having to purchase the attacks separately can put the gadgeteer at a significant disadvantage points-wise against someone building weapon with a reasonable multipower (obviously the gadgeteer should have to pay something more for their flexibility but not being able to use multipowers at all would probably make them pay significantly more).

 

I could also build the character as a 'cosmic gadget pool'. I can change the power to whatever I want whenever I want to represent the fact that 'Wait a minute, I have the perfect gadget right here!' (and in fact this proposal is basically a more limited form of that to prevent the ability to absolutely change to any gadget desired).

 

This seems to me like a good middle ground between the those two options. Of course it requires a bit of a firm hand on the part of the GM (no, I'm not letting you take all your weapons as alternate powers, just different functions for each weapon) but I've always been of the opinion that the only real way to run a successful Champions game is for the GM and the players to be working together rather than the players trying to force through things because the book says they can do it.

 

On the other hand, maybe it still seems to you to be too powergaming. That's one of the reasons I wrote it up and threw it out there, to see what people think. Please let me know if you still think the build is too 'powergamey' now that I've clarified (and I would welcome any suggestions about how to modify the build so it seems less so).

 

 

*While I am primarily referring in terms of gadget pools and multipowers this solution also has other applications such as a VPP used to mimic powers which is then used on someone with a multipower. Rather than wasting points by copying each slot independently or only copying a limited number of the slots the mimic can copy all the slots, switching between them through the VPP without having to 're-copy' each time they want to change. Of course in such a case the limitations would need to be changed but the core concept remains.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

Long story short:

 

Base 'gadget pool' VPP control cost:

10 - Variable Power Pool (Gadget Pool), 40 point control cost, (20 Active Points); Can Only be changed in a laboratory (-1/2), IIF (-1/4), Limited Effect: Gadgets (-1/4)

 

Of course that is more or less the one everyone is familiar with.

 

Nothing would prevent that pool holding, say, three different 8 DC attacks, each with Lockout so only one can be used at a time. That might be 8d6 EB, OAF BlasterGun (-1), Lockout (-1/2) real cost 16, so I need a 48 point pool to hold the three powers. That's a 58 point total cost. The Gun Multi would be a 40 point pool, plus 4 points per slot = 52, OAF reducing it to 26. The VPP is much more expensive, but then it allows much wider choice of powers selected.

 

I could have a much more versatile VPP. It could cost: 40 - Variable Power Pool (Gadget Pool), 40 point control cost, No Skill Roll Required (+1), Powers Can Be Changed As A Zero-Phase Action (+1) (60 Active Points); IIF (-1/4), Limited Effect: Gadgets (-1/4). With a 16 point pool, that totals 56 points, and I can have any of those three blaster powers, or any other gadget, any time I want. Seems like a 58 point total cost for the first build is excessive. This one's way more versatile, plus I SAVED 2 points on the build.

 

New 'gadget pool' VPP control cost:

24 - Variable Power Pool (Gadget Pool)' date=' 40 point control cost, No Skill Roll Required (+1), Powers Can Be Changed As A Zero-Phase Action (+1) (60 Active Points); Limited Power: Powers can only be changed in laboratory with the exception of ammunition or reasonable multi-functioning objects (alternate ammo and abilities must be approved at the laboratory. New powers cannot be created in the field). May require a full phase action to change powers depending upon special effect. (-1), IIF (-1/4), Limited Effect: Gadgets (-1/4)[/indent']

 

This costs 40 in total, with that 16 point pool. That's a 16 point discount for giving the GM some control on how often things can be changed.

 

Obviously there might be disagreement as to whether or not the limited power limitation is a full -1 but considering that without it I can change my powers whenever and however I want and that with it I still need approval of all the powers I'm going to take with me into the field and can very easily have to spend a full phase changing my power (to represent changing clips) and I'm pretty comfortable with -1. In fact I might even find it a little bit low.

 

If "can only be changed in a lab" is -1/2, why would "sometimes requires a whole phase to change" be -1? If it always costs a full phase to change, we have a 40 AB control cost, reduced to 27 when we add in the -1/2 in limitations. This can now be changed anywhere, to anything, but always costs a full phase to change.

 

I would suggest the "might take a whole phase and is restricted" aspects are limitations only on the two advantages. Perhaps the cost should be:

 

10 - Variable Power Pool (Gadget Pool), 40 point control cost, (20 Active Points); Can Only be changed in a laboratory (-1/2), IIF (-1/4), Limited Effect: Gadgets (-1/4)

 

PLUS: Buy off "only in a lab", and purchase Change as 0 Phase and No Skill Roll, limited to only ammunition or reasonable multi-functioning objects (alternate ammo and abilities must be approved at the laboratory. New powers cannot be created in the field). Let's see, the control cost for full Cosmic was 40, so this costs as extra 30. It seems like it's not available a lot, so a -2 limitation for its utility would seem reasonable. That's another 10 points for a cost of 20 + 16 point pool = 36 versus the 26 point cost of the Multipower.

 

It seems like that's in the ball park. Of course, if the "multipower powers" become more common, it would be reasonable to reduce that -2 limit, but it sounds like it would be limited to only a small fraction of the powers the VPP might be used for.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

Ultimately, a VPP is simply a much more versatile multipower. Your Multipower can have infinite variable slots if you spend half the pool cost (20, in our example) x 3 (60 points) for the two Cosmic advantages. That's the equivalent of the cost of 15 fixed slots, or 7.5 variable slots, not really a huge number of slots to equate to "infinite choices" in a Cosmic VPP. That said, I've never found a VPP too probelmatic provided its SFX are reasonably controlled, and the things it can and can't do are reasonably well spelled out.

[esampson]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

. . . If "can only be changed in a lab" is -1/2' date=' why would "sometimes requires a whole phase to change" be -1? If it always costs a full phase to change, we have a 40 AB control cost, reduced to 27 when we add in the -1/2 in limitations. This can now be changed anywhere, to anything, but always costs a full phase to change. . . [/quote']

It's actually "Limited Power: Power can only be changed in laboratory with the exception of approved ammunition or reasonable multi-functioning weapons. May require a full phase action to change powers depending upon special effect. (-1)" which is kind of a big restriction (IMO) considering you've already paid points to be allowed to freely change to whatever you want with a 0 phase action.

PLUS: Buy off "only in a lab", and purchase Change as 0 Phase and No Skill Roll, limited to only ammunition or reasonable multi-functioning objects (alternate ammo and abilities must be approved at the laboratory. New powers cannot be created in the field). Let's see, the control cost for full Cosmic was 40, so this costs as extra 30. It seems like it's not available a lot, so a -2 limitation for its utility would seem reasonable. That's another 10 points for a cost of 20 + 16 point pool = 36 versus the 26 point cost of the Multipower.

I'm having some difficulty following your math. Since you still get the IIF(-1/4) and Limited Effect: Gadgets (-1/4) on the base control cost and the 'Cosmic' advantage that would seem to me to be:

 

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD]13[/TD]

[TD]Control Cost (20 Active Points); IIF (-1/4), Limited Effect: Gadgets (-1/4)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]11[/TD]

[TD]Naked Advantage: No Skill Roll Required (+1), Powers Can Be Changed As A Zero-Phase Action (+1) for up to 20 Active Points (40 Active Points); Limited Power: Power can only be changed in laboratory with the exception of approved ammunition or reasonable multi-functioning weapons. May require a full phase action to change powers depending upon special effect. (-2), Limited Effect: Gadgets (-1/4), IIF (-1/4)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]24[/TD]

[TD]Total[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Which ironically is less than what I earlier had (I need to double check. I think I accidentally made the Limited Effect: Gadget an advantage). I'd probably only give you a -1 1/2 like I did in the earlier example personally, but that only increases the cost of the naked advantage to 13.

 

(edit: Yeah. I messed up in my earlier example where I broke the control cost down to base control cost and a naked advantage. That 18 should have been 13, so the earlier example should have been 23 points instead of 28, so if my new math is correct your method would cost 1 point more [or 3 points using my less generous -1 1/2]).

 

(second edit: I just realized, technically without the limitation 'Only change powers in lab (-1/2)' on the base control cost if the limitation to the naked advantage comes into effect (i.e. not a previously approved ammunition or reasonable multi-functioning weapon) I am left with only a IIF(-1/4) and Limited Effects: Gadgets (-1/4) limitation to the control cost, meaning I can still change the slots. It just takes me a full phase and a skill roll in combat.

 

Of course at that point I'm worried about things becoming excessively 'rules-lawyery' and so if my GM was to say that I couldn't take the limitation because it wasn't a real limitation and I couldn't change the pool under the standard VPP rules due to the special effect I would go along with it anyway rather than fight over it. It was just a 'technical point' that occurred to me).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

Without reworking all the math, I'd be starting with IIF, Gadgets and "Only in a lab", 10 points.

 

Full Cosmic, IIF, Gadgets would cost 40, less 10 = 30 points for the upgrade. I would then apply the limitations to that difference, so if we're allowing -2, this limitation buyoff and naked advantage combination would cost 10 real points.

[psyber624]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

I think the issue i had was i missed your "Only in a lab" modifier (or didnt understand it, which is more likely). Ive always thought of Gadget Pools as the good old batman utility belt, and one of the biggest reasons to have one was so that you could grab whatever you needed right then (from a pregenerated list of approved gadgets)

 

Nothing wrong with the Only in a lab thing, to me it just defeats alot of the purpose of a VPP in the first place (But thats just my view, i see where your going with it.)

 

Personally, (and this is JUST my opinion and in no way should be taken as a judgement about how others would choose to run a campaign) I would not have a problem with "copying" a Multipower with a VPP from a mimic pool, largely because in this case the VPP "Owner" has no control over the Multipower design, they are just copying/mimicing someone elses effect. And i can definitely see your ammo concept as being acceptable. My concern is Multipowers designed to get around the pool cost limitations, shrug, i have dealt with powergamers in the past and they tend to get on my nerves which has made me very leery of alot of things in a game like HERO. I LOVE the flexibility, but the last time I GM'd it (like 20 years ago or something like that), i had to rule with an iron fist to stop the insanity that one of my players kept trying to bring in.

[esampson]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

'Gadget Pool' is actually an old term that proceeds the VPP. It basically was a VPP with the 'Only in Lab limitation' although there was also a skill at the time called 'Gadgettering' that would let you alter the powers of any gadget. With the release of the Variable Power Pool it went away as redundant (similar to the way we no longer have Armor and Force Field). I've always had a fondness for them because they let a player do things like keep an array of weapons at home and then chose which ones they were going out with or keep an array of specialized armors that they could go and change into, but it still required planning. I always found that doing things like the Batman utility belt (where you didn't have the "Only in Lab" limitation) tended to get a bit silly with characters always having just what they needed (oh! he's got a vulnerability to frozen argon carrying a positive ionic charge? What a coincidence! I have a gun that shoots bullets composed of frozen argon carrying a positive ionic charge. [Ok, I would smack someone trying that, but you get the idea]).

 

Yeah, like I said earlier, as a GM I don't really have a problem with allowing people to copy a Multipower with a VPP or to have certain 'reasonable' weapons that have Multipower in their gadget pool. However it isn't actually Rules As Written and I came up with this as a possible solution for people who might have trouble with that.

 

I decided to throw it out there for review becomes sometimes the line between 'clever' and 'rules lawyer' can get really thin and it can be especially difficult to see when that line is crossed when it's your own idea. Happily it seems like other than perhaps quibbling over the exact value of some of the limitations (and those values are going to change from character to character anyway) it seems like no one has any real problems with the concept.

[psyber624]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

Cool, i always love hearing some of the history behind some of this stuff. And just for reference sake I always felt that a VPP had to have everything in it defined ahead of time, no "on the fly" argon bullets or anything like that. Of course I also loved that it gave a player the ability to, after failing to beat the guy this time, go home and "make" one for his VPP. (Every even half witted superhero out there learns how to adapt combat resources to exploit villains weaknesses, and vice versa..) It also let me be slightly less worried about how powerful my villains were, because even if they beat the heros this time, i knew NEXT time the good guys would be ready.....

[esampson]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

Well, technically as written a VPP doesn't have to have things defined ahead of time (and in some cases like the mimic pool you really can't, although the power is defined by someone else ahead of time in that case). I do see a lot of write-ups that include pre-made slots for VPPs but in pretty much all cases that's usually for convenience (even in the cases where the VPP represents things that can only be changed between scenes they aren't the only things the VPP can be used for).

 

On the other hand letting players have completely unrestricted VPPs like that can lead to complete chaos on the part of the GM (as in the case of the argon bullets) as well as several other big imbalances that might need to be addressed (NND attacks being a huge one since the player can just switch from life support to fully resistant PD to fully resistant ED, lather, rinse, repeat).

 

So I'm not trying to say you're doing it wrong by requiring things like pre-written powers or applying certain restrictions to the VPP (and in fact I agree that you simply have to put some restrictions on them). Just saying that as a technical point it isn't Rules As Written.

[Cassandra]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

Maybe Multiform is how Batman does it in his utility belt.

 

He has a Multiform each for the Batmobile, Batboat, and Batplane.

[Greywind]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

Cool' date=' i always love hearing some of the history behind some of this stuff. And just for reference sake I always felt that a VPP had to have everything in it defined ahead of time, no "on the fly" argon bullets or anything like that. Of course I also loved that it gave a player the ability to, after failing to beat the guy this time, go home and "make" one for his VPP. (Every even half witted superhero out there learns how to adapt combat resources to exploit villains weaknesses, and vice versa..) It also let me be slightly less worried about how powerful my villains were, because even if they beat the heros this time, i knew NEXT time the good guys would be ready.....[/quote']It depends on the character. The Punisher could be built with a VPP with an OAF limitation for his armory. He's got a lot of different weapons available, but basing on reality, there's a limit to how much he can carry.

[esampson]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

Actually, the VPP I designed should work fairly well for the Punisher. Just replace 'Lab' with 'Armory' (and probably extend the 'Limited Effect')

 

While I listed the focus limit as IIF that was only because that's the smallest limit that might be applied to a gadget (such as a hidden radio transciever). Devices can just as easily be OIF or OAF. It doesn't change the control cost (unless a character is unable to use an IIF). It just means the character uses up less of the pool with those foci.

 

A large part of the reason for designing the pool was to simulate the ability of someone like the Punisher to do things such as carry an M-16 with an M203 grenade launcher underneath as well as a selection of ammunition and shells, which is well suited to be a Multipower, without having to have a large enough pool to purchase all the different attacks independently.

[Christopher]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

I've had the following thoughts on that thematic:

First, the "embeded" Framework always has to take Unified for no Limitation Value. Otherwise that Framework slot would be much more resistant to Draining than a normal one.

Second, any Limitation that applies to all slots of the embedded Framework has to be taken on the containing framework. Otherwise the AP-cost of the Embedded Framework would be lowered to far.

 

Example:

Assault Rifle, 45 Reserve Multipower, all slots Unified (-0)

4f Single Fire: 7d6 Blast plus extra OCV for 10 AP worth, 45 Real

3f Burst Fire: 9d6 Blast, Multiple Shots (3; -3/4)*, 26 real

4f Autofire: 6d6 Blast, AoE (+1/2)

Total: 56

 

*as you can't directly take Multiple Charges or Increased Endurance Cost use this instead. Then, depending on how the Weapon is "fuelled", that slots takes more than one Shot - either more endurance or multiple charges.

 

 

Then in the containing Framework you make this Slot:

Assault Rifle (56 Base Cost), Focus, Charges

[esampson]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

Not sure about the whole unified thing. While it is certainly possible for someone to make a Drain that affects RKAs I can't recall ever actually seeing one, so it seems like an additional complication (on top of an already complicated solution) that's not really needed. Even in the case of people with broader ability to neutralize powers pretty typically the special effect is such that it wouldn't tend to have an effect on something like an assault rifle.*

 

Also, you've got a lot of things in your example that I wouldn't build that way. Autofire is just an autofire. There's already rules for using it to cover a large area, so if I was your GM and you tried to buy it as an AoE I would assume what you're actually trying to do is short-circuit people with high DCVs and say 'No'. (You can still do things like explosions from a grenade launcher to take care of them if you want, just not an AoE from autofire). I think that's more of a stylistic difference between you and I, however. Based on some of our earlier conversations I think you generally want to give special effects more leeway than I am comfortable with, which is fine. GMs have to draw the line on rules where they see fit and different GMs will draw the line in different places.

 

As for not being able to take multiple charges or increased endurance cost, I don't see why you couldn't. Charges are allowed on VPP slots in some occasions.

 

The Charges Limitation is a special case. If the GM allows it' date=' a character may take Charges for a VPP power. However, if he switches to another power, he must keep track of the first power’s Charges. When he switches back to the first power, he does not get a new, full supply of Charges — he must pick up where he left off before. This most often occurs with Gadget VPP Pools featuring guns and similar weapons.[/quote']

 

What you're not allowed to do is apply 'non-limiting limitations' to VPP slots. So no changing to a power in your Cosmic VPP with the limitation "Doesn't work underwater" since if you were underwater you could simply leave it off. No changing your VPP to a Blast with limited charges if you can keep changing your powers around indefinitely to make the limited charges no limitation. On the other hand if you have to chose your powers before you know what's going on "Doesn't work underwater" could be a real limitation since its possible for the character to find themselves in a situation where the power doesn't work.

 

 

*In the case of something like a mimic pool it would probably be better to handle the drain on either the VPP itself or to handle it on the Multipower of the character being mimicked (whether it is unified or not). That would really depend on the specific special effect of the drain.

[Christopher]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

Not sure about the whole unified thing. While it is certainly possible for someone to make a Drain that affects RKAs I can't recall ever actually seeing one' date=' so it seems like an additional complication (on top of an already complicated solution) that's not really needed. Even in the case of people with broader ability to neutralize powers pretty typically the special effect is such that it wouldn't tend to have an effect on something like an assault rifle.*[/quote']

Either Drain isn't a problem, so Unified would not be worth any points.

Or Drain against a Energy Weapon is common enough that not having these Weapons Slots unified would mean a attacker has to target each Blast mode Seperately. Wich means the Framework in a Framework gives you a big bonus against drains.

 

Hence Unified for -0. Either Drains aren't common enough to be a problem, or it is just to make certain Nested Frameworks don't become inbalanced against Drain.

 

Also' date=' you've got a lot of things in your example that I wouldn't build that way. Autofire is just an autofire. There's already rules for using it to cover a large area, so if I was your GM and you tried to buy it as an AoE I would assume what you're actually trying to do is short-circuit people with high DCVs and say 'No'. (You can still do things like explosions from a grenade launcher to take care of them if you want, just not an AoE from autofire). I think that's more of a stylistic difference between you and I, however. Based on some of our earlier conversations I think you generally want to give special effects more leeway than I am comfortable with, which is fine. GMs have to draw the line on rules where they see fit and different GMs will draw the line in different places.[/quote']

I misswrote. Meant to write Autofire.

 

As for not being able to take multiple charges or increased endurance cost' date=' I don't see why you couldn't. Charges are allowed on VPP slots in some occasions.[/quote']

They are allowed. But you don't know if they are used. Like I said: No Limitations that affect the Entire Nested Framework in this step. Otherwise you end up with 60 Reserve Multipowers that fit into a 30 Controll VPP. Something I think we should avoid.

 

Also, maybe someone plays Blaster Guy and buys that weapon with Charges and Focus, while the next one plays "modifyable Cyborg Guy" who uses a "Assault Rifle Arm" and powers it using his personal REC & END/Endurance Reserve. And the third guy buys the "Magic Alien Blaster with Unlimited Ammunition" and buys it with 0 END (+1/2 or +1).

The way it is written up above it serves all three needs.

[esampson]

Re: Solution to Multipowers within VPPs.

 

I think, also, you might be a little confused about the intent of this. There is no actual Multipower nested within the VPP framework. What I'm talking about is setting limitations and advantages to the VPP that allows someone with a VPP to effectively imitate a Multipower within the VPP when needed.

 

To use your example weapon the character would need the following at a minimum:

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 90%]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]22[/TD]

[TD]Variable Power Pool Points[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]7[/TD]

[TD]45 Control Cost (22 Active Points); OAF (-1), Limited Effect: Guns (-1/2), Can Only be changed in armory (-1/2)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]12[/TD]

[TD]Naked Advantage: No Skill Roll Required (+1), Powers Can Be Changed As A Zero-Phase Action (+1) for up to 22 Active Points (44 Active Points); Limited Power: Power can only be changed in armory with the exception of approved ammunition or reasonable multi-functioning weapons. (-1), OAF (-1), Limited Effect: Guns (-1/2)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]41[/TD]

[TD]

Total

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

This then allows the following effects:

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 90%]

[TR]

[TD]22[/TD]

[TD]Single Fire: (Total: 45 Active Cost, 22 Real Cost) Blast 7d6 (35 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1) (Real Cost: 17) plus +5 with any single attack (10 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1) (Real Cost: 5)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]22[/TD]

[TD]Burst Fire: Blast 7d6, Autofire (3 shots; +1/4) (44 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]22[/TD]

[TD]Full Auto: Blast 6d6, Autofire (5 shots; +1/2) (45 Active Points); OAF (Rifle; -1)[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

The 45 point control cost is needed since the largest effect is 45 active points. The 22 point pool is needed because the largest real cost on any of the slots is 22 points.

 

You will probably have noticed some of the limitations to the Control Cost and Naked Advantage have changed. The focus limitation increased to OAF since with the given example the character doesn't show any need to use foci with lower limitations. Likewise the Limited Effect limitation increased since we have no evidence in the example that the person is going to use the pool for anything other than guns.

 

On the other hand the Limited Power limitation decreased. As it was originally written it was assuming that for many of the character's 'Multipower' slots it would take a full phase to change to reflect swapping out clips. Since it appears that in the case of this character most of their guns can simply switch from one function to another they are not as limited, so the limitation becomes less.

 

Of course this example is still a bit limited. I've got an idea for a pool for an example character who is an ex-VIPER agent. Since he's always carrying different equipment he's best served with a VPP but the standard VIPER blaster is a Multipower which ordinarily can't be placed into a VPP. Unfortunately time is a little limited for me right this moment so I will have to write it up tonight.