Naked Limitation Buyoff

[Toxxus]

I built something for my wife's sorceress, but I can't recall where I saw this concept.

 

Basically, running with the idea of Naked Advantage I gave her the D&D equivalent of Sorcery Points to be able to use her spells without their normal limitations.

 

Base powers are a Multipower with 60 active points and shared limitations of (Incantations -1/4, Gestures -1/4, Full Phase - 1/2) for a cost of 30 points plus 3pts per fixed slot.

 

I modeled the Sorcery Points as Naked Advantage (+1 on 60 Active Points to remove the limitations) with the limitations of 6 charges per day, costs endurance, costs extra endurance (x3).

 

Is there a better way to model this?

[Killer Shrike]

I've done things like this...I like using NPA's to buy off lims and other tricks (up to a point...NPA's can be easily abused). There was a book example in one of the 5th edition books for a Cyclops visor sort of approach which gave the canonical example of it, IIRC.

 

Also, one of my magic systems is built around NPA's entirely... Metruvius

[Killer Shrike]

5e Champions page 18 sidebar:

 

Uncontrollable Eyebeams:
The character’s eyes
constantly emit beams
of powerful energy,
making him a danger
to everything around
him. He can control
this power through the
use of special high-tech
glasses or goggles, but if
they’re taken away he’s
in trouble. (This power
requires the GM’s permission
because of the
way it partly buys off the
Always On Limitation.)

Energy Blast 12d6,
Reduced Endurance
(0 END; +½), Persistent
(+½) (120 Active
Points); Always On (-½)
(total cost: 80 points)
and buy off the Always
On effect (40 Active
Points); OAF (special
glasses; -1) (total cost:
20 points). Total cost:
100 points.

[Chris Goodwin]

36 minutes ago, Killer Shrike said:

Energy Blast 12d6,
Reduced Endurance
(0 END; +½), Persistent
(+½) (120 Active
Points); Always On (-½)
(total cost: 80 points)
and buy off the Always
On effect (40 Active
Points); OAF (special
glasses; -1) (total cost:
20 points). Total cost:
100 points.

 

I've seen it done in this way as well; I don't recall when it was, but it seems like the 80's, with a character with Desolidification, Always On, and a "naked buy off" of the Always On with Costs END.  The character could become solid with effort, but was otherwise desolid.  

[Killer Shrike]

42 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

I've seen it done in this way as well; I don't recall when it was, but it seems like the 80's, with a character with Desolidification, Always On, and a "naked buy off" of the Always On with Costs END.  The character could become solid with effort, but was otherwise desolid.  

 

Ya...I vaguely recall seeing a "reverse shadowcat" ability like that as well...but I cannot remember the source. 

[Chris Goodwin]

22 minutes ago, Killer Shrike said:

 

Ya...I vaguely recall seeing a "reverse shadowcat" ability like that as well...but I cannot remember the source. 

 

Found it.  Enemies III, p. 7, Dark Angel.  Has an RKA built Always On, and spent points to turn it off with Costs END.

[SteveZilla]

I would presume a Buyoff would cost END, the same as a Naked Advantage does?

[Chris Goodwin]

10 hours ago, SteveZilla said:

I would presume a Buyoff would cost END, the same as a Naked Advantage does?

 

Good question.  I'd say, Consult Your Local GM.    One might assume it does, though the build in Enemies III applied the Costs END Limitation to it.  

[Cassandra]

On 5/31/2019 at 8:35 AM, Toxxus said:

I built something for my wife's sorceress, but I can't recall where I saw this concept.

 

Basically, running with the idea of Naked Advantage I gave her the D&D equivalent of Sorcery Points to be able to use her spells without their normal limitations.

 

Base powers are a Multipower with 60 active points and shared limitations of (Incantations -1/4, Gestures -1/4, Full Phase - 1/2) for a cost of 30 points plus 3pts per fixed slot.

 

I modeled the Sorcery Points as Naked Advantage (+1 on 60 Active Points to remove the limitations) with the limitations of 6 charges per day, costs endurance, costs extra endurance (x3).

 

Is there a better way to model this?

 

 

Variable Advantage can solve this problem.  Just take it at +1 and you can take add any +1/2 Advantage you like.  In the fifth edition if you decided on four or less advantages you are going to use you can take a -1/4 Limitation, so you'll actually pay only +3/4.  Example a weapon that you decide to use only Armor Piercing (+1/2), Explosion (+1/2), Autofire [2-3 Shots] (+1/4) & [32c] (+1/4), and No END (+1/2) Only, they you only have to pay +3/4.

[Hugh Neilson]

11 hours ago, SteveZilla said:

I would presume a Buyoff would cost END, the same as a Naked Advantage does?

 

Not sure why it should.  Let's assume I have a 2d6 RKA, Area Effect Radius (+1/2), 0 END (+1/2), Persistent (+1/4) (67 AP), no range (-1/2), always on (-1/4).  Real cost 38

 

Take off the Always On and real cost is 45.  If I have to pay 7 points to buy off the Always On, and it costs END, why not just remove the Always On limitation?  Then I can turn it off at will and it does not cost any END to do so.  I'm still paying 5 points for the privilege of shutting it off at a cost of 1 END per turn, so the point savings from Always On has effectively been reduced to 2 points.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

11 hours ago, SteveZilla said:

I would presume a Buyoff would cost END, the same as a Naked Advantage does?

Naked Advantages cost END because Advantages adjust Active Points which determine END cost. 

Limitations don't alter END cost so I don't see any reason to make a naked buyoff cost END except to screw over people for going that route instead of making a custom "Must have OIF (Visor) or IAF (Glasses), otherwise Eye Beam is Always On" Limitation. 

[SteveZilla]

Hugh and Gnome, you both make good points that my non-braining brain failed to realize.  :)

[Hugh Neilson]

18 hours ago, SteveZilla said:

Hugh and Gnome, you both make good points that my non-braining brain failed to realize. 

 

I always find it important to run the math.  In this case, I was not sure whether the math would lead me to conclude that the naked buyoff should, or should not, cost END.

 

Gnome nailed it, though, with a solid mechanical reason for the difference.

[Killer Shrike]

On 8/26/2019 at 11:06 PM, SteveZilla said:

I would presume a Buyoff would cost END, the same as a Naked Advantage does?

 

I would say no; you are just paying back the points on the lim itself and applying modifiers to the points you saved by taking the lim. It's basically an accounting trick.

 

A particularly interesting case to consider in fact would be, partially buying off the Costs Endurance limitation itself. Lets say you had a power that normally doesn't cost END but you've applied Costs Endurance to it, but if you have an item (Foci) that helps you use that power it does not cost END...you partially buy off the Costs Endurance lim and apply Foci to the buy off.

 

If the partial buyoff of the lim cost END itself then it wouldn't be very viable. If it doesn't cost END itself, then it might be viable.