Power Frameworks and the Active Cost cap

[Christopher R Taylor]

Now I know for almost all GMs the active cost cap in a campaign is negotiable, based on the power.  And I know that some don't even bother with an AC cap.  But for power frameworks, it seems like you almost have to violate the AC cap to make them give equivalence.

 

 

Consider: Campaign has a 60 Active Cost cap.  If you want to have a multipower with the ability to use a 60 active cost power and anything else in it at the same time, that multipower must by definition exceed AC cap.  To explain consider this:

 

PTS  POWERS AND SKILLS

  90   Fire Powers: Multipower (90 pts)

  6v   Fire Blast: 12d6 blast (vs ED, fire)

  4v   Fire Shield: 20 PD, 20 ED Resistant protection, costs END every phase

  6v   Flight: 24m flight, x2 noncombat, 0 END Cost, no gravity penalty, no turn mode, combat acel/decel

 

now, this build would allow Fire Girl to use some of her flight and fire shield and blast at the same time, or any of them up to 60 active points.  But the Multipower its self shatters the AC Cap, even though no one power used at a time is more than 60 active points.

 

And, of course, Power Pools bought with 60 max points have the same effect on cost.

 

Yes, technically a multipower or a power pool is more powerful than a straight power but keeping them under AC means keeping them below everyone else's max power level in the game.  Sorry Bob, you only get an 8d6 blast in your power pool, while everyone else gets 12d6.

 

Now I've always allowed people to go above the AC limit in the campaign with frameworks because of this effect, as long as individual powers in the framework weren't over it.  But I'm just curious what others have done or if the rules actually deal with this specifically.

[DasBroot]

I would build Fire Girl with a second multipool with the armor and flight in it.  (Truthfully, though, I'd personally take the armor out of it).

 

In my games it's not uncommon at all for people to have two, or even three, multipools - usually something like a 60 point for attacks / special situation attacks (such as a fire blast, a drain that works on fire (to siphon heat), a fireball AoE, a Change Environment to raise heat levels, etc) and then a smaller 40 point for movement and such (though not always - 60 point second pools are not unheard of).

 

As an example there's one character in my game that has basically the adaptive shields of the Borg from Star Trek.  His attack pool is 60 points.  His secondary pool is also 60 points - and holds all three damage reductions at 75%.  After he is attacked (or - if he has foreknowledge of what he'll be facing - before the fight) he switches to whichever fits the circumstances to bolster his Resistant Protection.

 

He's really frigging tough but enemies learn to mix attack types when they engage him (if they can).

 

He still had plenty of points to build the rest of the character because both pools use OIF (his blaster cannon arm for the first pool, his shield generator backpack for the other).

[ghost-angel]

More often than not, the type of Campaign where you see multiple Power Types in a MP like that is Fantasy Magic, where not all the Powers are even going to match the AP Limit, so fitting a multitude of Variable Slots like that is less of an issue, and the MP itself can sit at the AP Limit.

 

The design above is the reason the Elemental Control framework once existed, and has been replaced by the much more open structure of the new 6E Limitation (whose name has currently slipped my mind).

 

This is one way to structure a Character to keep with the AP Cap in place, where the MP Framework is left to Variations On A Theme as traditionally seen (Blast, AoE Blast, Autofire Blast, etc).

 

Even then, most of the time (actually, all the time as I think about it) the GMs were more concerned with the AP Cost of the Powers Themselves vs the AP Cost of the Framework; Especially when you put no Limitations on the Framework, buying it at full points rarely garners you any true advantage over a character who buys them outside the Framework. This is especially true when it comes to the versatile and power VPP, where by RAW the Pool+Control Cost = Active Points, every GM has been more concerned with the Pool and Powers inside it than they have with the RAW Definition of Framework Active Points.

 

This is also why 6E has recommendations based on Damage Class limits as either a replacement for, or addition to, Active Point Limits. As letting a player exceed AP by buying a Blast w/ 0 END but still remain competitive in a fight by keeping the Damage Classes in line with the rest of the group; not having to lose DCs to add non-Damange related Advantages allows for more versatility while not marginalizing a players ability to assist in Combat.

 

Personally, when you use a combination of DC and AP Limits in the design guidelines you end up with less cookie-cutter and generally happier crew. Non-Damage type Powers can follow AP guidelines to prevent certain types of potential game breaking abilities (teleporting an entire city population in one swoop, for instance, can cut the fun of the impending alien invasion of New York City), and DC Limits allow for all combat related powers to remain in a relatively close level of utility to each other while allowing for diversity of builds.

[JohnnyAppleseed098]

I honestly don't have a problem with it. A player in my campaign has a 120-Point MP Reserve in a 60 AP limit. Flying (60 APs for her) and Firing an ice blast (Also 60 APs) are different powers, so the fact that they are in the same MP makes no difference to me personally. 

[Surrealone]

Now I've always allowed people to go above the AC limit in the campaign with frameworks because of this effect, as long as individual powers in the framework weren't over it. 

This matches what I've experienced 100% of the time when playing with GMs who have caps -- i.e. the GM holds the powers in the framework to the cap, not the framework, itself.

 

As a matter of clarification, only once have I had advantages on a VPP (framework) -- specifically an @0 END advantage on a VPP for a character for whom it made sense.  I point this out because when laying advantages onto a framework that is at or above the cap, the advantages absolutely should be scrutinized and considered with the active points of the powers -- since max strength powers (i.e. powers at cap) will effectively violate the cap when the advantages are considered.  (In this lone, edge case, there were no caps on the game, so it was irrelevant.)

[Hyper-Man]

Unified Power is the Limitation that was created to replace elements of the Elemental Control Framework. It's notable that it is legal to be applied to the other two remaining Frameworks (Multipower and Variable Power Pool).

 

HM

[ghost-angel]

That's the one, Unified Power; Aside from being able to apply it to other Frameworks, it also allowed for Powers of varied Active Points to be grouped together (unlike with ECs).

[Vondy]

That's the one, Unified Power; Aside from being able to apply it to other Frameworks, it also allowed for Powers of varied Active Points to be grouped together (unlike with ECs).

Very slick.

[bigdamnhero]

Yeah, as long as none of the Powers exceed the AP cap, I wouldn't mind if the Framework itself does. It'd be kindof a Caution Sign for me to look at closely to make sure the specific build wasn't open to abuse, especially with variable slots, but that's just to make sure I'm not being out-muchkined.

[Tasha]

I usually don't allow Multipowers with Variable slots. Most players can't handle the math.