Most PCs...

[Ice9]

Re: Most PCs...

 

The biggest issue with multiform is that it backloads the cost of spending experience points. If all the PC's get awarded X amount of experience' date=' the multiform character has to spend points on the base form before spending any on the other forms.[/quote']Is that how it works? I got the impression that you could simply spend the XP on the base form's Multipower, thus gaining 5 points in the secondary forms for every 1 XP spent.

 

 

Re: Bricks. While that Multipower-Brick build is somewhat unusual, it's if anything less powerful than a standard Brick. Especially in 5E, where plain Strength was one of the best deals in the entire game.

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: Most PCs...

 

Yeah, the one time I ran a character that had a giant VPP, I quickly realized that I wasn't going to be able to come up with powers on the fly in game without slowing things way down. I wound up writing up three or four pages of powers that I could fit into the pool. So it was like a multipower with far too many slots, though of course I was still able to invent new powers on the fly if I had to.

 

That's my approach - I even made a page listing one character's default VPP allotment and a number of alternate slot combos for various situations, with the alternate Defense totals for each one so both the GM and I would have a handy reference. I'm pretty confident in my ability to build powers if I have a little study time to put into the process, but it's unfair to take that time in the middle of a combat involving other players.

 

 

He said that nothing was illegal, and he had a coherent set of special effects. I told him that, true, being a douchebag ISN'T illegal, and THAT was his special effect.

So your plan all along was to be so insulting that the player in question would quit your game?

[psyber624]

Re: Most PCs...

 

My biggest issue with VPP's is constantly having to rule on powers in them. If they are heavily restricted (mimic pools for instance) that's one thing, but if they are not then they are really easy to abuse and as the GM I have to keep watching out for abuse issues. I try not to FORBID them anymore (there have been several excellent arguments I have read on here regarding them) but they are highly regulated and I would never allow anyone I felt to be a munchkin anywhere near them (which creates its own set of problems).

[phoenix240]

Re: Most PCs...

 

I've had some trouble with VPPs. Most abuse issues many of which have stemmed from players using their Pools to hog the spotlight and step on the niches of the other PCs. I confess that in my younger days I was guilty of this myself so I guess it takes one to know one. These days I'm a little leery of VPPs but I try not to completely forbid them (some concept are impossible without them after all) but I expect some guide and firm guidelines on what the Pool can and, maybe more importantly, cannot do even if its not worth a Limitation overall.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Most PCs...

 

When using the term 'munchkin' do you mean 'powergamer' or something else? What is an example of abuse that you are referring to? I ask because many times the real issue is due to conflicts with *arbitrary active point or damage class caps as well as player attitudes regarding restraint (or lack thereof) in the superhero genre. Making mechanical based house rules to deal with these issues is actually counterproductive with a core concept of the HERO System. One of the main purposes to even use HERO in the first place is to allow players to create characters without being constrained by 'levels and classes' like so many other systems on the markert. Caps and other restrictive house rules that are primarily targeting players who are labeled 'munchkins' due to intimate knowledge of HERO is just punishing players for using the game as intended imo.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Most PCs...

 

The only way I see the OP being true is if you're playing fairly loose with what players can do with Powers and not getting stuck too far into the details of "you didn't buy that specific power/advantage" - which isn't to say you should always let players get away with doing things not paid for with points, but the game should allow more and interesting uses of powers since you'll either see a heavy load of them with too many Limitations, or a complete lack of interesting creativity.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Most PCs...

 

The only way I see the OP being true is if you're playing fairly loose with what players can do with Powers and not getting stuck too far into the details of "you didn't buy that specific power/advantage" - which isn't to say you should always let players get away with doing things not paid for with points' date=' but the game should allow more and interesting uses of powers since you'll either see a heavy load of them with too many Limitations, or a complete lack of interesting creativity.[/quote']

 

And thus, the Power skill.

[GhostDancer]

Re: Most PCs...

 

60 point MP with 18 Ultra slots costs 168 points. 60 point VPP with Cosmic advantages on the pool costs 150. Doesn't seem like the player is milking the system from where I sit.

Barring Limitations, you'd be right. Typically, I see Limitations with the MP, significantly altering the costs. Also, the Luck MP was all over the map, not coherent in anyone's* view except the author.

 

*In our crew, of course.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Most PCs...

 

Barring Limitations' date=' you'd be right. Typically, I see Limitations with the MP, significantly altering the costs.[/quote']

 

Well, let's compare. Often, I see an Attacks multipower with, say, OAF. 60 AP + 18 slots costs 168/2 = 84.

 

If I want a VPP that can fire off any one 60 point attack, always with the OAF applied, I get:

 

30 point pool (I only need 30 real points)

 

60 AP control cost = 30 with Cosmic (+2) and OAF (-1) = 45, so 75 points. VPP is still cheaper. And I have not restricted it to attacks only, or one slot at a time.

 

In 5e, it cost me 60 for the pool, so 105 points without further limiting the control cost (and only being able to have a single 60 AP power with OAF meant always wasting half the pool, which is a pretty significant limitation in my opinion). One form of VPP, in my view, is simply a Multipower which has grown too large to be cost-effective as a MP, so we swap it over to a VPP. All slots remain pre-defined.

[psyber624]

Re: Most PCs...

 

"Munchkin" stuff that I have seen/heard of/thought about with VPP's are things like: Buying a Multiform in a VPP (unrestricted, so you can get 5x the points out of the VPP), Buying powers with limitations that wont limit the power as you are currently using it, and switching limitations around if the effect actually comes up, Using VPP's to cheaply and easily take advantage of any weakness possessed by a target. Using VPP's to step on other players toes (If you have a 60 point VPP you can buy any power that anyone else can have. You can basically obtain any "situational" power that anyone else possesses if you want.)

 

The main issue is that it becomes hard to challenge someone with an unrestricted VPP without totally annihilating the other players. So it quickly becomes a situation that if anyone has a VPP everyone better have one or they are likely to become irrelevant.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Most PCs...

 

I agree that unlimited/unrestricted VPP's can easily become abusive. I've never built one. I don't believe a truly "unrestricted" VPP even exists in the source material. Even Herald's of Galactus with their "Power Cosmic" have limits to what they can do with their power*. *Example: I've never seen them use it for things like Growth or Shrinking nor mental abilities.

[Ranxerox]

Re: Most PCs...

 

I guess instead of a 60 AP multipower with 5 different slots (120 point cost)' date=' characters will either buy a single 120 AP attack power (which any sane GM will quickly disallow) or buy 2 60 AP attacks and always fire them as a combined attack. If versatility isn't allowed with a reasonable cost structure, go for the most punch you can pack for the same point cost.[/quote']

 

The character could (and often do) use the 120 points to get the 60 AP multipower with 10 ultra slots. But hey they can't use them at the same time so it's alright, right? Well yes, except there is a limitation for powers that can't be used at the same time, "Lockout", and lockout is only -1/2 limitation. However, the write-up for lockout does give the GM some discretion as to it values when a large number of powers are involved.

 

So, back to the 120 points to spend example. If the GM graciously allows the lockout to count a -1 limitation, then the character could have four 60 point powers that for which the character spends 30 points a piece. Or they could buy the multipower and have 10 powers. Four powers or ten powers, hard choice, yes? Okay, not really. Which brings me to my point, MPs are hell of a deal and aren't balanced with respect to limitations. Consequently, players are virtually forced to stick character concepts that lend themselves to MPs or have as Tasha put it "go to ridiculous lengths with Limitations (and not expect you to enforce them) and/or you will get pretty boring characters".

 

IMHO, it's a flaw in the game.

[Greywind]

Re: Most PCs...

 

My understanding is that if a power has Lockout, NONE of the other powers can be used at all.

 

Whereas a MP can be built so that more than one slot can be used at a time, usually by lessening one or more slots in effect. In fact this was a power feature when Starburst was built as an example in the earlier editions.

 

It is not a flaw.

[sinanju]

Re: Most PCs...

 

Back to the OP' date=' I [i']love[/i] MPs and Multiform, and like VPPs quite a bit. However I also think all those frameworks (MF is really a framework in practice) are underpriced, especially when you start getting creative.

 

Yeah, I love MPs and VPPs too. I use them often. Of course, I've been playing Champions since 1st edition, so I've got a really good idea of what I can do with the powers, and can build a power on-the-fly while other players are having their turns so I don't hold up the game. (If I can't, then I use one of the powers I've already built or pass up my phase while "my character tries to figure out what to do next.")

 

I like using VPPs _because_ I enjoy making up powers on the fly.

 

The price of that kind of flexibility is power. I played a VPP-using character in a round robin GM game once, where each player in turn ran 1-3 sessions for everyone else. It was a very fast n' loose game, and we gave each character 25--yes, 25--XP after each GM's run. The game ran for quite a while and we ended up with very high point-total characters. And while my VPP gave me a lot of flexibility, by the end of the campaign I couldn't really compete with any of the other characters when it came to raw power. I could duplicate any power any of them had...but never at anything like the power level they had. They could pour all their points into powers directly; I had to pay for the pool and the control cost both.

[dmjalund]

Re: Most PCs...

 

Multipowers predated Lockout, so we should be judging Lockout against Multipower not the other way round

[Tasha]

Re: Most PCs...

 

Multipowers predated Lockout' date=' so we should be judging Lockout against Multipower not the other way round[/quote']

 

Ultra slots AKA "Fixed Slots" have been a part of Multipowers since the beginning. (I'll give you the page number from Champs 2nd edition if you like). A 50 point Multipower with 5 50pt "Fixed Slots" basically had lockout.

 

Yeah, so Lockout the Limit should probably be worth more with number of attack powers effected by it.

[Greywind]

Re: Most PCs...

 

Yes, but you could always increase the size of the MP to allow 2 (or more) Fixed Slots to be usable.

[Ranxerox]

Re: Most PCs...

 

My understanding is that if a power has Lockout, NONE of the other powers can be used at all.

 

Whereas a MP can be built so that more than one slot can be used at a time, usually by lessening one or more slots in effect. In fact this was a power feature when Starburst was built as an example in the earlier editions.

 

It is not a flaw.

 

Well, it was just my opinion that MP giving a much larger cost savings than equivalent limitation was a flaw, so you can certainly hold the opposite opinion.

 

However, the fact that under some circumstances multiple ultra slots can be used at the same time makes them less limiting than the Lockout limitation. Since they place less of a limit on the character they would be expected to provide less in the way of a cost savings, not more.

 

Multipowers predated Lockout' date=' so we should be judging Lockout against Multipower not the other way round[/quote']

 

Yes and no. Multipowers predate the specific limitation of Lockout but they don't predate the notion of Limited Powers. Lockout is a specific example of a Limited Power and Limited Powers go back to the very beginning.

 

I'm sure that when he was designing Lockout Steve Long looked at the Limited Power guidelines and used it to come up with the -1/2 value (power loses about a third of its overall effectiveness) the assigned Lockout. Realizing that Lockout in cases where a lot of powers were involved might remove more than a third of the overall effectiveness some discretion was given to GMS concerning its value in these cases.

 

Back to example of the 10 ultra slot 60 AP Multipower for 120 points. For Lockout to give the same point savings it would have to be declared a -4 limitation (Ten 60/5 = 12 point powers). Since the Limited Power guidelines say that a -2 Limited power lose "almost all of its overall effectiveness", it is hard to justify giving a -4 limitation value to a power that works perfectly fine except that it can not be used at the same time as some other powers.

 

So, I stand by my assertion that Multipowers provide a huge cost savings relative the limitation that they impose on characters. Of course this is only a problem if you have a character concept that does not lend itself to Multipowers (I'm working on one of these right now which is why I have a bee in my bonnet on the subject). Then you have to either try to find an artificial to the concept rational for including a Multipower or have to accept a character that simply is not as effective as characters with large Multipowers. This is not because the character concept is not as good, but because the character concept is not as favored by the rules so points run out sooner.

[Christougher]

Re: Most PCs...

 

"Munchkin" stuff that I have seen/heard of/thought about with VPP's are things like: Buying a Multiform in a VPP (unrestricted, so you can get 5x the points out of the VPP), Buying powers with limitations that wont limit the power as you are currently using it, and switching limitations around if the effect actually comes up, Using VPP's to cheaply and easily take advantage of any weakness possessed by a target. Using VPP's to step on other players toes (If you have a 60 point VPP you can buy any power that anyone else can have. You can basically obtain any "situational" power that anyone else possesses if you want.)

 

The main issue is that it becomes hard to challenge someone with an unrestricted VPP without totally annihilating the other players. So it quickly becomes a situation that if anyone has a VPP everyone better have one or they are likely to become irrelevant.

 

Your problem there isn't with 'VPP, it's the word preceding it - 'unrestricted'. And most of that munchkin stuff is either directly prohibited by the rules or should(would?) be stopped by a good GM. VPPs limited to coherent special effect, even with both +1 advantages are not a problem. Someone with Fire Magic is not gonna tap the planet's magnetic field.

 

Chris.

[Alverant]

Re: Most PCs...

 

One thing I like about the Hero system is that it does depend on the maturity of the players and GM to know the limits and stick within them. Sure power frameworks can be abused but a good player won't do it and a good GM won't allow it.

 

I had a character with a VPP as his main power. The effect was that he had a bunch of components he could quickly assemble like Lego parts and the components themselves were modular. For example Plasma Generator + Flow controller = plasma gun. The flow controller could focus the beam (AP attack) and expand it to simulate an AE attack. The generator can make different kinds of plasma for Blast and RKA powers and could have a taser effect. Switch the Plasma Generator for a Gravatron Generator and you had pretty much the same thing but with a different special effect. The key was 1) knowing the rules 2) not being too greedy 3) being good enough at math to do the calculations in my head 4) having a cheat sheet listing how many DC a power can be with X advantages. I also agreed that if I couldn't allocate my powers in 5 seconds real time then I missed my turn. It kept things moving in combat.

[KX_Mushashi]

Re: Most PCs...

 

The Statement is true you can build all characters without a MPP or a VPP...they will either lose versatility or will cost a lot more points. If the rest of your campaign is built to that then go a head and enforce it. Lets say you go from fighting 4 minions of a master villain if you have 4 players that might be an easy fight they don't need a MPP or a VPP even when they get to the Master the same powers will probably effect him. Lets quadruple the number of Minions (if you are a Master Villain you really need more the 4 Street Thugs/gobblins/ect. working for you) in that case to 16 of them, your single target powers will still taking them out fast but now they have time to damage you since you can only take out at most 4 per turn...so you take that into account and you buy instead buy a weaker AOE attack and forgo the single target powers, but now you can't even hurt the big guy at the end. You could go with a Variable advantage and hope that swapping between an AOE and a AP attack will work but most Masters have harden and you are in the same boat.

 

I know that in early comics MPP and VPP like abilities where rare, but that is why groups like the X-Men had more to fear from a mob then they did someone like Magneto. A MPP and VPP is a tool to make it so that the foes people should fear are not the little cannon fodder characters but the one pulling all the strings. The other important thing is that a MPP and a VPP have close ties to the powers with in them, does a brick need +HTH dice and flight in the same Pool...probably not so it shouldn't be allowed; however does a mentalist need Telepathy, Telekinesis, and Mental Illusions all in the same Pool...that fits a bit better. VPPs in my mind should be restricted but then again try to do a master of the arcane that has spent 30 years studding magical tomes without a VPP. In reality this Arcane Master probably isn't more effective then the brick or energy blaster standing next to him, but he needs the VPP to symbolize all the spells he knows and can cast.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Most PCs...

 

I'm sure that when he was designing Lockout Steve Long looked at the Limited Power guidelines and used it to come up with the -1/2 value (power loses about a third of its overall effectiveness) the assigned Lockout. Realizing that Lockout in cases where a lot of powers were involved might remove more than a third of the overall effectiveness some discretion was given to GMS concerning its value in these cases.

 

Yet Steve wrote both 5e and 6e, and he looked at frameworks in detail in 6e, removing one entirely and revamping the VPP significantly. Yet he pretty much left Multipowers alone. How are you 100% confident Steve carefully considered the appropriate values for a Lockout limitation, but that he completely blew by Multipowers providing an excessive discount? I find a lot of "limited power" limitations are lowballed, so I'm more inclined to believe the Lockout limitation is too low than that the Multipower discount is excessive.

 

Back to example of the 10 ultra slot 60 AP Multipower for 120 points. For Lockout to give the same point savings it would have to be declared a -4 limitation (Ten 60/5 = 12 point powers). Since the Limited Power guidelines say that a -2 Limited power lose "almost all of its overall effectiveness"' date=' it is hard to justify giving a -4 limitation value to a power that works perfectly fine except that it can not be used at the same time as some other powers.[/quote']

 

If you have 10 powers and can only use one at a time, then on average they are each usable 10% of the time. Removing 90% of the opportunities to use a power seems a pretty significant limitation. The -2 cap is arbitrary, in my view. It certainly seems like a power that can only be used about 10% of the time has lost more than 1/3 of its effectiveness.

 

So' date=' I stand by my assertion that Multipowers provide a huge cost savings relative the limitation that they impose on characters. Of course this is only a problem if you have a character concept that does not lend itself to Multipowers (I'm working on one of these right now which is why I have a bee in my bonnet on the subject). Then you have to either try to find an artificial to the concept rational for including a Multipower or have to accept a character that simply is not as effective as characters with large Multipowers. This is not because the character concept is not as good, but because the character concept is not as favored by the rules so points run out sooner.[/quote']

 

I've seen a variety of characters operate without multipowers/frameworks and be fine as far as effectiveness goes. They generally have one primary attack, and maybe one backup attack, not an array of choices they select between. Perhaps if you post your poor, ineffective character for whom a multipower doesn't make any sense, you might get some assistance in making the character more competitive.

[Ranxerox]

Re: Most PCs...

 

Yet Steve wrote both 5e and 6e' date=' and he looked at frameworks in detail in 6e, removing one entirely and revamping the VPP significantly. Yet he pretty much left Multipowers alone. How are you 100% confident Steve carefully considered the appropriate values for a Lockout limitation, but that he completely blew by Multipowers providing an excessive discount? I find a lot of "limited power" limitations are lowballed, so I'm more inclined to believe the Lockout limitation is too low than that the Multipower discount is excessive.[/quote']

 

I think that Multipowers got grandfathered in because they were were such a major part of so many builds whereas VPPs being less common were considered fair game for revision. As for whether one it excessively discounted or the other lowballed, does it really matter if the game pushes one and the builds that go with it and not so much the other?

 

 

If you have 10 powers and can only use one at a time, then on average they are each usable 10% of the time. Removing 90% of the opportunities to use a power seems a pretty significant limitation. The -2 cap is arbitrary, in my view. It certainly seems like a power that can only be used about 10% of the time has lost more than 1/3 of its effectiveness.

 

Once characters have a variety of powers, even if they aren't bought through a Multipower, they are going to find themselves choosing to use some and not others in any given action phase. This is particularly true with attacks since those -2 OCV penalties for extra attacks add up quickly. So accusing the Multipower of removing 90% of the options is a bit of the opportunities is a bit of an exaggeration since choices were going to have to made in any event. Instead of robbing the character of nine powers in an action, it more deprives her of one or two that she might have been able to successfully used during the phase.

 

 

I've seen a variety of characters operate without multipowers/frameworks and be fine as far as effectiveness goes. They generally have one primary attack, and maybe one backup attack, not an array of choices they select between. Perhaps if you post your poor, ineffective character for whom a multipower doesn't make any sense, you might get some assistance in making the character more competitive.

 

Meow.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Most PCs...

 

Once characters have a variety of powers' date=' even if they aren't bought through a Multipower, they are going to find themselves choosing to use some and not others in any given action phase. This is particularly true with attacks since those -2 OCV penalties for extra attacks add up quickly. So accusing the Multipower of removing 90% of the options is a bit of the opportunities is a bit of an exaggeration since choices were going to have to made in any event. Instead of robbing the character of nine powers in an action, it more deprives her of one or two that she might have been able to successfully used during the phase.[/quote']

 

That's only true if the Multipower is just Attack Powers. Which is true most of the time in Superheroic games, but not true in Fantasy, and possibly other genres, where the 'spells Multipower' contain an array of utility Powers.

 

I can say, with some confidence as I was there, Multipower was not just "grandfathered in" to 6E while VPPs were given an overhaul because "they were less common". VPPs were given an overhaul because there was an obvious, and significant, improvement that could be made to the cost structure and interaction of the VPP.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Most PCs...

 

I think that Multipowers got grandfathered in because they were were such a major part of so many builds whereas VPPs being less common were considered fair game for revision. As for whether one it excessively discounted or the other lowballed' date=' does it really matter if the game pushes one and the builds that go with it and not so much the other?[/quote']

 

What Ghost Angel says. When Steve decided to write 6e, everything was on the table - no sacred cows. Seriously, if multipowers were simply "hold your nose and grandfather it in", where did figured characteristics (a major change in every genre) and comeliness (the most vehemently debated issue, by far IMO) go?

 

To be fair, a 5e model VPP still works in 6e. However, the framework was made much more flexible by removing the link of pool size to maximum AP, and allowing for, say, an OAF Bow and Arrow multipower to be reasonably and effectively converted to a VPP where the latter is more appropriate (or cost effective).

 

Once characters have a variety of powers' date=' even if they aren't bought through a Multipower, they are going to find themselves choosing to use some and not others in any given action phase. This is particularly true with attacks since those -2 OCV penalties for extra attacks add up quickly.[/quote']

 

Sure do. But there is a penalty for multiple attacks, not combined attacks. 6eV2 p 74 is quite clear that a combined attack "no OCV penalty, doesn’t halve the attacker’s DCV, and doesn’t take a Full Phase to perform", but would attract penalties, of course, where "sing two such powers multiple times against a single target, or against multiple targets," since that "is a Multiple Attack and subject to all Multiple Attack rules."

 

So the character with 10 attack powers outside a Multipower, able to use them all at once, can fire all 10 simultaneously as a strike - 1/2 phase, no OCV or DCV penalty.

 

So accusing the Multipower of removing 90% of the options is a bit of the opportunities is a bit of an exaggeration since choices were going to have to made in any event. Instead of robbing the character of nine powers in an action' date=' it more deprives her of one or two that she might have been able to successfully used during the phase.[/quote']

 

All ten could be used at no OCV penalty. For 120 points, instead of a 10 slot Swiss Army Attack Multipower, I can have a 12d6 Blast, a 6d6 Sight Flash and a 6d6 STR drain. I can fire them all at once, at no penalties. That seems, to me, a very potent combination. While a 10 slot MP gives me more options, this one gives me a lot more punch straight out of the gate.