Different power modifiers because of a Focus

[zslane]

Suppose I have a villain with an innate power of 6D6 EGO Drain. Let's also suppose that normally this power has the Attack vs. ECV (or MCV) advantage, and maybe the Reduced Endurance advantage. But when this villain dons a special costume piece (the Focus), this power changes such that it has a completely different set of power modifiers (e.g., Area of Effect, No Range, etc.). The base power remains the same, only the power modifiers change.

 

What is the best way to write up this sort of thing? A two-slot Multipower?

[Ndreare]

I think you could do this best with a 2 slot multipower.

 

But another option (I don't believe it would be the best way to do it).

Consider perhaps instead having the second option being to build the normal ego drain, but have a naked advantage with focus and side effect happens all the time were it negates your other advantages.

The multipower with only two slots would be better as it would allow advancement cheaper.

[L. Marcus]

Naked Advantage(s) on a Focus gets my vote.

[WistfulD]

Naked Advantage

[zslane]

Would someone be willing to demonstrate how I should write up the naked advantage method, maybe using the example from post #1?

 

I'm just not sure how to make the two sets of advantages and limitations mutually exclusive, based on whether or not the Focus is being worn. Much appreciated!

[massey]

I'm writing this up 5th edition style.  If something changed in 6th, oh well.  I know that Drain is Ranged in 6th, so I'll assume that.  I'm having to get creative with limitations calculations because you can't add a naked limitation on something.

 

6D6 Ego Drain

--No Range (-1/2)

----Only while wearing focus (-1/2)

 

Reduced Endurance (+1/2)  for 6D6 Ego Drain

----Not while wearing focus (-1/2)

--Based on ECV (+1)  for 6D6 Ego Drain

----Not while wearing focus (-1/2)

 

Area Effect: Radius (+1) for 6D6 Ego Drain

----Focus (-1/2)

 

 

So you're looking at 60 points for the Ego Drain.  It receives a -1/2 limitation because of the No Range limitation (since you can't apply a naked lim, it's gotta go here now).  But that limitation is itself reduced because it's not in effect all the time.  So it would normally save 20 points, but now it only saves 13 points.  So your real cost for the Ego Drain is 47 points.

 

30 for the Reduced Endurance, but since you've got a -1/2 on there since it doesn't work with your focus, that's only 20 (the "not with focus" is a value guesstimate on my part).  Based on ECV is another 60, but only 40 because of the 'not with focus'.  The Area Effect will be another 40.  Arguably you could try to apply the full "no range" limitation (since it is fully limiting here), to bring it up to a -1 limitation, giving you a cost of 30 points.

 

So total cost:

47+20+40+30=137 points

 

 

Much much easier to do it with two MP slots.  Probably cheaper too.

 

Edit:  On second thought, he's a villain.  It doesn't matter how many points he is.  It doesn't matter exactly how his character sheet is written.  It's only important that you know how he works.  The players can't see his character sheet.  All you have to know is that when he puts on his focus, his powers do XYZ.

[zslane]

So basically we're putting limitations on advantages. And I suppose we can think of a limitation that is itself limited (No Range, but only when Focus is worn) as just a single Limited Power limitation that aggregates them. I think I got it. I just wasn't sure how kosher it was to put limitations on advantages these days.

 

And you're right, since it's a villain we're talking about here, precise point costs aren't critical. But it's still nice to know whether this power makes him a 400-point-ish villain, a 600-point-ish villain, or a 1000-point-ish villain.

[Ninja-Bear]

Massey I'll double check but I believe you can put limitations in a naked power advantage. It goes advantage on power then subtract the base power cost then apply limitation to that.

[zslane]

The way I think about it, and please correct me if this is totally wrong-headed, is that I calculate how many extra points a set of advantages is adding to the base cost of the power, and then the limitations applied to that set of advantages merely reduces the amount of that increase. So, to take a simplified scenario, a 40 point power with a set of advantages that add up to +1 would normally cost 80 points, with 40 of those points coming from the extra cost added by the advantages. If those advantages are limited by a set of limitations that add up to +1, then those advantages only add 20 to the cost of the power, for a total cost of 60.

 

Does that sound right?

[massey]

Massey I'll double check but I believe you can put limitations in a naked power advantage. It goes advantage on power then subtract the base power cost then apply limitation to that.

 

Yeah, I agree on that.  But I don't think you can just put on a naked limitation.

 

In the above example, he wants to have a power that has either 1) Based on ECV and Reduced End, or 2) Area Effect and No Range when he's using his focus.  In that instance, the "No Range" wouldn't just apply to the AE.  It would apply to the base power.  But I don't think you can do that as a naked lim like you could a naked advantage.  I think you have to put it on the base power first and then buy it off.

[massey]

The way I think about it, and please correct me if this is totally wrong-headed, is that I calculate how many extra points a set of advantages is adding to the base cost of the power, and then the limitations applied to that set of advantages merely reduces the amount of that increase. So, to take a simplified scenario, a 40 point power with a set of advantages that add up to +1 would normally cost 80 points, with 40 of those points coming from the extra cost added by the advantages. If those advantages are limited by a set of limitations that add up to +1, then those advantages only add 20 to the cost of the power, for a total cost of 60.

 

Does that sound right?

 

Well, maybe.

 

What's making this one complicated is that in this specific instance, one of the limitations (No Range) would apply to the base power itself, but only in one of the configurations.

 

Naked Advantages (and you can absolutely put limitations on them -- that's why you have them) are great for things like your character has an Energy Blast, and then he puts on his power gauntlets and the blast becomes Armor Piercing.  So you have the base cost of the power without any Advantages, and then separately you'd calculate the cost to make it AP, and you'd put the Focus limitation only on the AP.

 

I suppose you could also put Limitations on Limitations that limit Naked Advantages.  So I can have a 10D6 EB (50 points).  And then I have my focusing gauntlets (OIF -1/2) that make it Armor Piercing (+1/2).  So Armor Piercing is 25 points, and I put an OIF (-1/2) on that, so it costs 17 points.  But THEN maybe my focusing gauntlets use a lot of power, but only intermittently.  They have a short in the power circuit.  So I buy the Armor Piercing with x3 Endurance, but only on an 11- Activation.  So x3 End (-1) itself receives a (-1) for the activation roll.  So in this instance, the x3 End would raise the total limitation on AP from -1/2 to -1 1/2, so it would save an additional 7 points (taking the total from 25 down to 17 and then down again to 10).  But then you would apply the -1 limitation to the 7 points you would save, giving you 3.5 and rounding up to 4.  So the x3 End 11- Activation giving you a minus some weird number limitation brings the cost down from 25 to 17 and then to 13.  Add that to your base power cost of 50.  It costs 5 End to shoot your power blast, or 8 End if you use the focusing gauntlets, but on an 11- they suffer a short and the End costs boosts to 5+9= 14 End.

 

I suppose you could do a Naked Limitation for the No Range.  I'm not sure it's specifically allowed by the rules but I suppose it's not too different in principle.

[zslane]

Yeah, this concept gets a bit complicated if taken too far. That's why I was thinking of the No Range, Only with Focus as a single Limited Power limitation that is an aggregate of the two. Maybe we call it "Anchored by Focus" which imposes the No Range effect, but only when the Focus is worn, and isn't valued at the full -1/2, but only -1/4 because the No Range effect doesn't apply in all situations. This way, we aren't putting a limitation on a limitation, per se, but instead we're inventing a new limitation that is applied to the base power, but the definition of this new limitation is that it only "kicks in" under certain circumstances.

[massey]

Sounds good to me.

[ghost-angel]

A Naked Advantage is a Power in it's own right, so any Limitations that apply to the Naked Advantage apply only to the Active Points of the Naked Advantage Power.

 

If you have a 40 Point Power and a Naked Advantage with +1 Advantages worth, the Advantage becomes a Power, with Active Points equal to the difference of the Base Power and Total Power Cost after Advantages (i.e. 40 Active Points in this case). If you apply a Limitation to the Naked Advantage it applies to the Active Points of the NA Power, thus -1 in Limitations gives the NA a Real Cost of 20 Points, but it still is a 40 Active Point Power.

 

Honestly, I think the easiest way is a Multipower, with the second Focus Based slot having a Lockout (or something along those lines) Limitation on it so only the Focus Slot can be used when the Focus is worn.

 

Naked Advantage is starting to overcomplicate an issue; because what you really have is two Power builds with circumstances attached to when they can be used (which is a Limitation applied to each Power separately, like a Lockout).

[zslane]

I could also just write them up as two entirely separate powers, one with the "IIF Psionic Amplifier" Focus (-1/4) limitation, and the other with an "Only when Focus not in use" (-1/4) limitation.

[WistfulD]

Well, if it's a villian, yeah, just do that. I think the conversation got bigger than that, though. :-)

[Hugh Neilson]

To the "no range when wearing focus", Limited Range is -1/4, and would seem to suit this situation, being a power whose range is sometimes available, other times not.

[Lucius]

What is the best way to write up this sort of thing? A two-slot Multipower?

I suspect so.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary ruminates

[zslane]

To the "no range when wearing focus", Limited Range is -1/4, and would seem to suit this situation, being a power whose range is sometimes available, other times not.

My understanding of Limited Range is that it sets the range of the power to somewhere between zero (No Range) and half normal range. It isn't "conditional range". However, Conditional Range (-1/4) could be a custom Limited Power limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

We get too hung up on exact descriptions, names and taglines.  If the power has enough of a restriction on its range to merit a limitation, but still has range, it's not -0 and it's not -1/2.  All that is left is -1/4, which is the value of Limited Range, and the limitation is on the range of the power.  So call it Limited Range. 

 

Many current limitations started out as "Limited Power".

[zslane]

You seem to be asking, "What's in a name?" To which I say, "Everything."

 

The name of a limitation is very important because it describes how the limitation affects the power. Not all -1/4 limitations have the same affect even though they all have the same cost impact. A power with Limited Range doesn't work the same way that a power with Conditional Range does. The power I was trying to build did not have Limited Range according to the RAW for that limitation, and so I don't feel it is correct to apply a -1/4 limitation with the label "Limited Range".

[WistfulD]

 and so I don't feel it is correct

Emphasis mine.

 

There is no correct. There's no one looking over your shoulder. This isn't the Wizards of the Coast website in 2003 with people patting themselves on the back for how "RAW" they are. You've defined the constraints of the limitation you want to apply. Whether you give it the Limited Range limitation or the Limited Power (blablabla specific description; -1/4) is material only to yourself.

[Lucius]

 

It might make a difference if you sometimes like to post your characters to a public forum such as this one, so that having some consistency to Rules as Written enables understanding.

 

But otherwise, yeah, it's between the people sitting at the gaming table and no one can tell them they're wrong.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Now the palindromedary is singing "Love is a Battlefield."

[zslane]

Of course we're all free to use the rules however we wish. However, my personal philosophy is that redefining the rules unnecessarily constitutes "bad practices," which in my game sessions is equivalent to "incorrect usage." That's just my perspective, and I write all my posts within that context.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The classic example of this is Solitaire's familiar crystal.  It made all her spells in her multipower reduced END cost.  I'd do it as a naked modifier as well.