6E Multiple Attack, No Skill Levels?

[dsatow]

10 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

For the third time this thread, second time this page, I post this. 

Bolding mine. 

Mostly I was responding to Phil, but thanks, as I was concerned about defenses.

 

In Phil's construct, he would have to buy at least 1d6 blast outside the multipower for them to attach to.  

 

[PhilFleischmann]

4 hours ago, dsatow said:

In Phil's construct, he would have to buy at least 1d6 blast outside the multipower for them to attach to.  

Which is exactly what I did.  I constructed a variation of Hugh's construct from the previous post.  I didn't bother repeating the part outside the multipower, because it was exactly the same - I didn't make any changes to that part of it.

[Vanguard]

On 12/27/2019 at 12:27 PM, dsatow said:

OK, according to the RaW on 6e2p77 (thanks for the reference!), then you just put a limitation on the 2 point level, only for multiattack on one of the attacks in the multiattack.  This would probably be a -1 limitation making it 1 point per +1 OCV.

 

The problem with that is that you can only use Combat Skills levels in a Multiple Attack that applies to all the things being used in said attack.

 

For example,  if you were using a strike, disarm and throw in a multiple attack and had +2 CSL w/strike but not with the disarm or throw, you can't use the CSLs.  

[Hugh Neilson]

21 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

What stops him?  Nothing in the rules stops him.  Only the GM can stop him.

 

My point exactly - the construct you suggested and the "multiple multipower" both fit within the RAW.

 

21 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Because it's 100% within the rules, it clearly shows that FLEXIBLE SLOTS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE, relative to fixed slots. 

 

It shows that, if we allow what I would suggest is an abusive application of a broadly stated concept regarding how framework slots can add to powers outside a framework, but not to slots in the same, or a different, framework, then similar flexibility can be achieved at a lower price.  It does not demonstrate what the appropriate price is.

 

If I were addressing that concept, I would change it in a very simple manner:

 

(a)   All powers work together.  If the character has a framework with Growth, Density Increase and Hand Attack, and sufficient points to assign to all three slots, then they work together in exactly the same manner they would if every one were purchased outside a framework, or if some were in one or more frameworks and others were not.

 

(b)   The GM should disallow abusive constructs where multiple slots in one or more  frameworks are used to simulate variable slots without paying the extra cost of variable slots.

 

21 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

 It's not about campaign limits, or which powers can be in a framework

 

I maintain that it is campaign limits which have made variable slots unpopular.  I have never seen anyone take the approach of multiple tiny fixed slots, in one or more frameworks, to get around the cost of variable slots.

 

21 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Mental Defense is a Special Power, but when you make it Resistant, it's no longer a Special Power?

 

Mental Defense is a Special Power.  Adding the advantage "resistant" does not change that.  The Resistant Defense power is a standard power (as was Force Field before it), and both have been used to get special defenses into frameworks when this would otherwise not be allowed.  To me, the simple answer would be to ditch Resistant Protection as a power, leaving PD and ED (resistant or otherwise) as a "Standard Power" of Characteristics, and Exotic defenses either standard powers that can be included in frameworks or special powers which cannot.  Multipowers are Caution Sign and VPPs are Stop Sign already.  We don't need a special category of powers that can't be in a framework.  Let the GM apply judgement (and spell out some issues that should be vetted especially closely in the rules).

 

21 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

You know what else is not in the spirit of the rules?  Paying significantly more points than the utility is worth.  Not getting what you pay for.  I am in no way disagreeing with the spirit of the rules.  I am disagreeing with the letter of the rules.  Specifically the rule that makes flexible slots cost twice as much as fixed slots.

 

You are basing that on your opinion of the relative value as absolute fact.  If your concern is solely that flexible slots are only worth 1 1/3 x a fixed slot, perhaps the cost of a fixed slot should be AP/7 instead of AP/10.  Determining an appropriate absolute price point for a Multipower slot is by no means an exact science.  The best comparison, and it is a tough one, is "what would it cost to do the same thing with a VPP?"  For every multipower, there comes a point where nit would be less costly to convert it to a VPP than to add another slot.

 

21 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Your original construct was 180 points, with my revised cost proposal (which is just an initial estimate) it would be:

 

70 points for - An 8d6 Blast, +10 rPD/+10 rED and no Flight

70 point Multipower

v 10.5  +14d6 Blast

v 9.9 +22 rPD/+22rED

v 9.9 66 meters of Flight

= 170.3 points (I kept the decimals just to be transparent about any round-offs.)

 

So the character would have another 10 points to spend elsewhere.

 

Now in this particular example (the "Starburst-type" multipower),you're not likely to see a fixed-slot version of this, since you'll probably need defenses, movement, and attacks all at the same time, much of the time.  But if there were such a character, the slots would cost 7, 6.6, and 6.6, respectively, for a savings of (3.5+3.3+3.3=) 10.1.  So another 10 points to spend, in effect compensating him for his lack of flexibility.

 

Yes, flexibility is valuable, but it's not worth the same as raw power.  And indeed the cost of every other form of flexibility in HERO acknowledges this.

 

Thanks for the example.    I will tweak it just a bit to meet my objective, which was isolating the comparison to spending the same points on a similar construct.  If I am reading you right, you are setting the cost of a flexible slot at 15% of max AP, as opposed to 10% of max AP for a fixed slot (and the RAW 20% cost of a variable slot).  So...

 

70 points for - An 8d6 Blast, +10 rPD/+10 rED and no Flight

2 2 meters flight (1 if we want to saw off the rounding benefit on the slots below)

75 point Multipower

v 11(.25)  +15d6 Blast

v 11(.25) +25 rPD/+25rED

v 11(.25) 75 meters of Flight

 

So this fellow can get up to a 23d6 Blast, 35/35 defenses or 76 or 77 meters of flight. 

 

That is still less than the 24d6 or 45/41 defenses of my 7 multipower construct, albeit with a small loss in maximum flight speed, only 53 meters. 

 

As opposed to the third option, under current pricing, of

 

70 points for - An 8d6 Blast, +10 rPD/+10 rED and no Flight

2  2 meters of flight

70 point Multipower

v 14  +14d6 Blast

v 13(13.2) +22 rPD/+22rED

v 11 (10.8) 54 meters of Flight

 

Adding decimal places for the same reason you did.

 

This fellow can get up to a 22d6 Blast, up to 32 rDEF or up to 56 meters of flight.

 

21 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Yes, flexibility is valuable, but it's not worth the same as raw power.  And indeed the cost of every other form of flexibility in HERO acknowledges this.

 

It does?  Why does it cost me the exact same amount to have a 6d6 Blast and a 6d6 Flash (which I can use separately or apart as I see fit) or to have a 12d6 Blast, or a 12d6 Flash?  The single attack has far more raw power than combing the Blast and the Flash, but their costs are identical. 

 

SUMMARY:

 

There are really three issues here. 

 

The first is whether it should be possible to use multiple smaller fixed slots to simulate variable slots at a lower cost.  To that, I say "No it should not".

 

The second is what the price difference between a fixed and a variable slot should be.  Here, I say "The present system has not proven problematic to me."

 

The third is what the actual price of each type of slot should be, and again I say "The present system has not proven problematic to me."

 

In my view, the reason variable slots have proven unpopular is not that they are too expensive, nor that the same effect can be gained with a "multiple fixed slot" alternative.  It is that, at least in most games, they are not needed to hit campaign maxima in all areas and are not permitted to trade off exceeding campaign maxima in one or more areas by falling short in one or more other areas.  I do not  believe many, if any, GMs would allow any of our three builds, above, in a standard 12 DC, 25 rDEF game.

[Hugh Neilson]

BTW, Phil, as this thread has become heated at points, and as I know my own tone often is read as pretty confrontational, I wanted to state that I find this a good discussion of the issue. 

 

Your examples highlight where the RAW may be giving us a poor result.  I think intuitively most of us would not have allowed the "tiny fixed slots" model,  but an objective read of the RAW says the approach is rules-legal.  I'm still waiting for Steve's comments on the rules question board, but that will clarify what he may have wanted to say, not what was published.

[PhilFleischmann]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

You are basing that on your opinion of the relative value as absolute fact.  If your concern is solely that flexible slots are only worth 1 1/3 x a fixed slot, perhaps the cost of a fixed slot should be AP/7 instead of AP/10.  Determining an appropriate absolute price point for a Multipower slot is by no means an exact science. 

I think I've demonstrated the difference in relative value several times now.  For the record, I did not say they are worth 1 1/3 x a fixed slot.  The figure I was using was 1 1/2.  But as I said, that's just a rough guess.  1 1/3 might be better.  Or something else entirely.  And yes, increasing the cost of fixed slots is also a solution.  (Increasing the cost of fixed slots would probably be a more radical change, and a much harder sell.)  And yes, I agree that it's not an exact science.

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The best comparison, and it is a tough one, is "what would it cost to do the same thing with a VPP?"  For every multipower, there comes a point where nit would be less costly to convert it to a VPP than to add another slot.

I don't know why that's the best comparison,  It makes it even harder, and comparing MP to MP seems more apples-to-apples than comparing MP to VPP.  But you're right in that enough slots in a MP eventually becomes most costly than a VPP.  And this "tipping point" comes much sooner if the MP uses variable slots.

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Thanks for the example.    I will tweak it just a bit to meet my objective, which was isolating the comparison to spending the same points on a similar construct.  If I am reading you right, you are setting the cost of a flexible slot at 15% of max AP, as opposed to 10% of max AP for a fixed slot (and the RAW 20% cost of a variable slot).  So...

Just a reminder, my 15% proposal is just an estimate.  15% is a reasonably round number.  Assuming we want to keep fixed slots at 10%, then variable slots have to be more.  And as I think 20% is too high, 15% seemed like a good first guess.  But it could be 12.5% or 18% or something else.

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

It does?  Why does it cost me the exact same amount to have a 6d6 Blast and a 6d6 Flash (which I can use separately or apart as I see fit) or to have a 12d6 Blast, or a 12d6 Flash?  The single attack has far more raw power than combing the Blast and the Flash, but their costs are identical.

Exactly my point:  The raw power is more useful than the flexibility.  A 50-point MP with two fixed slots Blast and Flash costs 60 points.  The RAW equate this to a 12d6 Blast.  The "doubling" of flexibility is only worth +1/5 of raw power.

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The first is whether it should be possible to use multiple smaller fixed slots to simulate variable slots at a lower cost.  To that, I say "No it should not".

 

The second is what the price difference between a fixed and a variable slot should be.  Here, I say "The present system has not proven problematic to me."

 

The third is what the actual price of each type of slot should be, and again I say "The present system has not proven problematic to me."

Agreed on the first.  But the current price difference between fixed and variable has indeed been problematic to me.

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

In my view, the reason variable slots have proven unpopular is not that they are too expensive, nor that the same effect can be gained with a "multiple fixed slot" alternative.  It is that, at least in most games, they are not needed to hit campaign maxima in all areas and are not permitted to trade off exceeding campaign maxima in one or more areas by falling short in one or more other areas.  I do not  believe many, if any, GMs would allow any of our three builds, above, in a standard 12 DC, 25 rDEF game.

Can we drop the campaign maxima please?  It's about what you get for the price.  Instead of asking "What can you get for the points?", we can ask, "How much does it cost to get to the campaign maximum?"  Then both constructs we compare are within that, and we can see that one costs less than the other.

[Hugh Neilson]

3 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

I think I've demonstrated the difference in relative value several times now.  For the record, I did not say they are worth 1 1/3 x a fixed slot.  The figure I was using was 1 1/2.  But as I said, that's just a rough guess.  1 1/3 might be better.  Or something else entirely.  And yes, increasing the cost of fixed slots is also a solution.  (Increasing the cost of fixed slots would probably be a more radical change, and a much harder sell.)  And yes, I agree that it's not an exact science.

 

I am seriously not clear how you think you have demonstrated the "relative value".  I do apologize for "1 1/3" - I should have fixed that after I more closely reviewed your numbers (something from earlier lead me to 1 1/3).  However, it does not change the reality that, if the comparable is "I buy a Multipower with many tiny slots to get similar effect to variable slots", then outside of rounding adjustments, the tiny-slots approach will be the cheaper approach because it will cost out based on the flexible slots cost.  If there is ANY value to be placed on variable slots, and therefore they will cost more than fixed slots, then the "multiple micro-slots" cannot be allowed.

 

3 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Just a reminder, my 15% proposal is just an estimate.  15% is a reasonably round number.  Assuming we want to keep fixed slots at 10%, then variable slots have to be more.  And as I think 20% is too high, 15% seemed like a good first guess.  But it could be 12.5% or 18% or something else.

 

How did you determine 20% is too high, but are unable to assess whether 18%, 15% or 12.5% would be more appropriate?  The only comparison you have offered, to my knowledge, is the "mirco-slots", and if that argument is accepted, then there should be no premium price for variable slots because micro slots can avoid that cost.  It strikes me as very odd to "know" that 20% is too high, but believe maybe it could be 18%, or 12.5%.  How about 19.99999967%?

 

3 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Exactly my point:  The raw power is more useful than the flexibility.  A 50-point MP with two fixed slots Blast and Flash costs 60 points.  The RAW equate this to a 12d6 Blast.  The "doubling" of flexibility is only worth +1/5 of raw power.

 

You are moving my goalpost.  A 12d6 Blast costs 60 points.  A 12d6 Flash costs 60 points.  A 6d6 Blast and a 6d6 Flash (not one at a time, both together) costs 60 points.  The last has significantly less raw power than either of the first two, but the exact same cost.  Why do they have exactly the same cost when they have far less raw power, and precious little added flexibility?

 

The ability to choose between a 12d6 Blast or a 12d6 Flash costs 72 points, a 20% price increase for this flexibility.  Or we can choose between a 10d6 Blast and a 10d6 Flash for 60 points, losing 1/6 the original of raw power for the same 60 points.

 

Getting 60 points out of a Variable slots MP is mathematically problematic - closest I see is a 43 point pool with an 8 point slot (8d6 Blast, say) and a 9 point slot (8 1/2d6 Flash).  What should he get?  9d6 in total?  45 + 9 + 9 = 63 points at present.  Do you want it reduced to 60?  Then the slots need to cost 7.5, or 1/6 of the accessible AP.  For the difference between 1/5 and 1/6, I'll stick with what we have, thanks.

 

How much more "should" it cost to be able to mix & match?  An 11d6  Blast and a 1d6 Flash allows me to reduce the target's CV for all of my teammates for the most brief of times, and still knock the target over most of the time, at the cost of about 3.5 STUN past his defenses (compared to an "all or nothing" 12d6 Blast) or of him staying blind longer ("all or nothing" 12d6 Flash).  That seems like a lot of value for the 12 points paid for that extra flexibility.

 

If I accept the "micro Mini Multi" approach, I can buy 1d6 Blast and 1d6 Flash (10 of my 72 points) and 5 Multipowers with a 10 point pool and two fixed slots, one of +2d6 Blast and one of +2d6 Flash.  I have 2 points left over, so let's make one MP with Flexible slots.  10 points for the base attacks, 4 x  12 = 48 for four Fixed MPs and 14 for one Variable MP = 72 points.  I can have up to 11d6 Flash + 1d6 Blast, or 11d6 Blast + 1d6 Flash, or anything in between.  That is way more flexible than having 2 fixed slots, and carries exactly the same cost.

 

Reasonable?

 

3 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Can we drop the campaign maxima please?  It's about what you get for the price.  Instead of asking "What can you get for the points?", we can ask, "How much does it cost to get to the campaign maximum?"  Then both constructs we compare are within that, and we can see that one costs less than the other.

 

The reality is that campaign maximums are the reason that variable slot MPs have never been popular.  Starburst-style multipowers  trade off attack, defense and movement.

 

How often have you seen a game, or published characters, who have a Multipower of lower-powered attacks, rather than a multipower of campaign-standard attacks in fixed slots? 

 

The practical reality is that, even if you price variable slots equal to fixed slots, you will never see a character in a 12 DC, 25 defense max game who buys a Multipower with a 12d6 attack and +20/+20 rDEF instead of buying both outside the Multipower.  The player will want to be able to use campaign standard attacks at the same time he benefits from campaign standard defenses.

 

I have toyed with a character with a 10d6 Blast and a Multipower with +2d6 Blast, 2d6 Sight Flash, 2d6 STUN Drain, 2d6 END Drain (pick a few more Drains).  But there is no point running those as Variable slots.  I have run a VPP-using character (in 5e IIRC) who routinely used below DC max Blasts and tacked on a small Flash, Drain, etc.  More often, however, he would combine two or three small attack powers like an END drain, a STUN drain and a Flash.  Not great at taking down opponents on his own, but very good at setting up a teammate for the KO blow.

 

"How do we get to campaign maximum?"  Outside a multipower so we can be at campaign maximum all the time.  Then we move the attack power into a Swiss Army Attack Multiplier of campaign maximum attacks.

 

Attacks are the Absolute Worst Powers to dip below campaign max.  How useful is a 6d6 Blast in a typical Supers game?  8d6?  10d6?  12d6?  How many players limp around with 9DC attacks in a 12DC "max" game?  If they do, they are unlikely to be using normal attacks or KAs - it could work targeting less common exotic defenses.  Even then, I think they will gravitate to the full 12 DCs.

 

The only way I could see that Variable Slot MP that only gets you to campaign max would be in a game where the point totals and campaign max'es are such that you can't afford to be campaign max in all relevant categories.  That, I think, is how Starburst was originally envisioned.  He could get a 12d6 Blast if he sacrificed movement and defenses, in a game where attacks normally capped out at 8 - 10d6.

[Ninja-Bear]

Ok a clarification on my part. When I brought up Pulsar and Starburst I was thinking fourth edition. And I forgot that Pulsar’s MP was 60 pt and Starburst’s was 50 pt. I know when I needed to use a character, I used Pulsar (as a hero) cause everyone else practically in 4th was  built to the 60 pt max.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

However, it does not change the reality that, if the comparable is "I buy a Multipower with many tiny slots to get similar effect to variable slots", then outside of rounding adjustments, the tiny-slots approach will be the cheaper approach because it will cost out based on the flexible slots cost.  If there is ANY value to be placed on variable slots, and therefore they will cost more than fixed slots, then the "multiple micro-slots" cannot be allowed.

I disagree.  The many small slots (hearafter MSS) model clearly demonstrates that there's a pricing issue.  I see three obvious ways to fix it and only one is "Just say NO".  I'm sure there's more I'm not thinking of. 

1 - GMs just say NO.  Solves the 'abusive' behavior but doesn't address the pricing issue directly. 

1b - Change the stacking rules to forbid stacking.  Prevents MSS, but at the cost of collateral damage to non-abusive stacking constructs. 

2 - Change the price of slots, assuming that MSS is reasonable (ie, the pricing issue lies with variable slots).  As demonstrated upthread, N-1 10 AP fixed slots and 1 10 AP variable slot will give the full flexibility of a 10N AP variable slot at a 1 point surcharge over the 10N AP fixed slot.  Therefore, make variable slots a 1 point surcharge over fixed slots and permit fixed slots to be used in 10 AP chunks. 

3 - Change the price of slots, assuming that MSS is unreasonable (ie, the pricing issue lies with MSS).  For example, adding a 1 point surcharge to all slots would make any MSS construct significantly more expensive than single fixed slots, and the 10 AP MSS construct would cost as much as single variable slots.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

How often have you seen a game, or published characters, who have a Multipower of lower-powered attacks, rather than a multipower of campaign-standard attacks in fixed slots? 

 

The practical reality is that, even if you price variable slots equal to fixed slots, you will never see a character in a 12 DC, 25 defense max game who buys a Multipower with a 12d6 attack and +20/+20 rDEF instead of buying both outside the Multipower.  The player will want to be able to use campaign standard attacks at the same time he benefits from campaign standard defenses.

This at least is easily solvable by moving to flexible caps.  Specify baseline, and then specify what a step up or down from baseline is.  Then specify a maximum number of steps up/down per characteristic, specify categories and a maximum number of total steps up and down per category, and specify how many total steps up/down in general. 

This sort of capping structure means that Variable Slot Man can have the potential to reach actual-cap in everything and have it be useful, though he's paying a premium for the ability to shift around his strengths and weaknesses. 

[PhilFleischmann]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I am seriously not clear how you think you have demonstrated the "relative value".

I don't know how I can make it any clearer.  I showed - multiple times now - how the same functionality can be had in a rules-legal way for less cost using fixed slots.  And even with non-abusive constructs (not using the "microslots"), how you can achieve very nearly the same flexibility as the variable slots, using fixed slots.  But here's one more way to show how flexible slots aren't as useful as their official price suggests:

 

Take a "standard" Starburst-style MP, with a 12d6 Blast as one of the flexible slots.  How much of that flexibility is ever going to be used?  Will this character ever need to use just s 1d6 Blast?  Will there ever be an occasion where he will want to lower his defensive/movement power(s) by 5 points to make a 1 DC attack?  Will this character ever fire this Blast at less than 6d6?  If not, then he's really only using half the flexibility he paid for.

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If there is ANY value to be placed on variable slots, and therefore they will cost more than fixed slots, then the "multiple micro-slots" cannot be allowed.

Agreed, but I'm not talking about what should be allowed.  I'm talking about how much something should cost.  And I'm basing that on the HERO principle that its cost should be commensurate with its utility.

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

How did you determine 20% is too high, but are unable to assess whether 18%, 15% or 12.5% would be more appropriate?  The only comparison you have offered, to my knowledge, is the "mirco-slots", and if that argument is accepted, then there should be no premium price for variable slots because micro slots can avoid that cost.  It strikes me as very odd to "know" that 20% is too high, but believe maybe it could be 18%, or 12.5%.  How about 19.99999967%?

I assess that 20% is too high based on all the arguments I've presented.  I am not unable to assess whether 18%, 15% or 12.5% is appropriate - I simply haven't made that full assessment yet.  And all this is based on my many years of experience with the HERO System.  I picked 15% because it seems about right, based on everything I've learned about the system so far.  And it's also simpler to calculate than any other percentage between 10 and 20.  I do not offer it as *the* answer only because I haven't playtested it extensively, and I am willing to hear arguments for other costs.  So far, IMO, 15% seems about right.

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

You are moving my goalpost.  A 12d6 Blast costs 60 points.  A 12d6 Flash costs 60 points.  A 6d6 Blast and a 6d6 Flash (not one at a time, both together) costs 60 points.  The last has significantly less raw power than either of the first two, but the exact same cost.  Why do they have exactly the same cost when they have far less raw power, and precious little added flexibility?

Well then you're not addressing my question.  I was comparing flexibility to raw power.  If you aren't including flexibility in either of your two constructs, then it's not really relevant to the question.

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The ability to choose between a 12d6 Blast or a 12d6 Flash costs 72 points, a 20% price increase for this flexibility.  Or we can choose between a 10d6 Blast and a 10d6 Flash for 60 points, losing 1/6 the original of raw power for the same 60 points.

Exactly my point.  The great flexibility of two entirely different attacks only costs 20% of the price of the raw power.  Hence the fundamental principle of "Additional Flexibility costs less than Raw Power".  To look at it the other way, you could turn that 72-point MP into a single power, a 12d6 Blast, for the same 60 points.  Either way, we reduce the cost by 16.7%, but in one case, we're reducing the Raw Power 16.7%, and in the other case, were reducing the flexibility to 0.  A huge reduction in flexibility reduced the cost by the same amount as a fairly small reduction in raw power.

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The reality is that campaign maximums are the reason that variable slot MPs have never been popular.  Starburst-style multipowers  trade off attack, defense and movement.

None of these things exist in a vacuum.  What's allowed in a campaign is not directly related to what something should cost.  Assuming a campaign maximum of 12d6, you could have a three-fixed-slot MP for 60+6+6+6 = 78 points, or a three-variable-slot MP for 60+12+12+12 = 96 points.  Does this variable-slot MP truly offer an additional 18 points worth of utility?  That's the only question I'm asking.  Campaign limits have nothing to do with it.

[Hugh Neilson]

14 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Ok a clarification on my part. When I brought up Pulsar and Starburst I was thinking fourth edition. And I forgot that Pulsar’s MP was 60 pt and Starburst’s was 50 pt. I know when I needed to use a character, I used Pulsar (as a hero) cause everyone else practically in 4th was  built to the 60 pt max.

 

This is exactly why a Flexible multipower that allows you to get to the maximum is futile. You would be the only character who needs to sacrifice campaign-maximum defenses to have a campaign maximum attack.

 

13 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

I don't know how I can make it any clearer.  I showed - multiple times now - how the same functionality can be had in a rules-legal way for less cost using fixed slots.  And even with non-abusive constructs (not using the "microslots"), how you can achieve very nearly the same flexibility as the variable slots, using fixed slots.  But here's one more way to show how flexible slots aren't as useful as their official price suggests:

 

 

Obviously I am missing something, because I do  not recall any occasion where you present this in any way other than a bunch of tiny fixed slots (whether in one Multipower or several) to simulate variable slots.

 

13 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Take a "standard" Starburst-style MP, with a 12d6 Blast as one of the flexible slots.  How much of that flexibility is ever going to be used?  Will this character ever need to use just s 1d6 Blast?  Will there ever be an occasion where he will want to lower his defensive/movement power(s) by 5 points to make a 1 DC attack?  Will this character ever fire this Blast at less than 6d6?  If not, then he's really only using half the flexibility he paid for.

 

First off, the Starburst "everything in one big pool" build is never going to be efficient.  This is not because variable slots are, de facto, valueless, but because that 1 or 2 DC attack would not be worth paying 5 - 10 points for, whether within or outside the Multipower.  Any premium on those first few DCs is wasted, whether Variable slots cost 20%, 18%, 15%, 12% or 10.1%.

 

Build Starburst with a Blast, Defenses and Flight all in a fixed slot multipower and he will be just as useless.  Ultra Boy would either run around being invulnerable and achieving nothing, or be a fine red mist within three game sessions, in a typical Hero campaign.  This is a pretty common issue, really - many Supers in the comics have no obvious defensive powers, but they need decent defenses to survive in Hero.

 

I can see three models for the Starburst character.  One would see him as is -  everything in variable slots in the MP.  That's pretty inefficient.  The second would have a base Blast (maybe 8d6 or 10d6) and perhaps some base defenses, with a Variable MP to fly, enhance his attack and/or enhance his defenses.  The third would be a base +1d6 Blast, a Fixed slot of, say, +8d6 (no point Blasting for less than 9d6 in most cases) and Variable slots for further bonuses to Blast, defenses and/or Flight.  Of course, the fourth is a plain vanilla Blast, Defenses and Flight with no MP (or a multi-attack MP).

 

13 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

I assess that 20% is too high based on all the arguments I've presented.  I am not unable to assess whether 18%, 15% or 12.5% is appropriate - I simply haven't made that full assessment yet.  And all this is based on my many years of experience with the HERO System.  I picked 15% because it seems about right, based on everything I've learned about the system so far.  And it's also simpler to calculate than any other percentage between 10 and 20.  I do not offer it as *the* answer only because I haven't playtested it extensively, and I am willing to hear arguments for other costs.  So far, IMO, 15% seems about right.

 

Like you, Phil, I have played since 1e.  I expect 10% and 20% were selected as much or more to work nicely with 5 and 10 point increments as the game was even more based on that match initially than it is now, and not from a sense that these were the perfectly costed percentages.  This is also much less an issue with non-attack powers such as movement or defenses.

 

To me, you are picking 15% out of the air.  I see nothing (other than the cheesy "buy a whole bunch of itty bitty slots instead of one big one" approach) to suggest the costing is wrong.  If we accept that the "itty bitty" model is not cheesy, then there should be no additional cost for variable slots as they will always be more expensive than a pile of tiny fixed slots.

 

You say "so far, 15% seems about right".  Does that come from actual playtesting (i.e. you have used this, and now players use variable slots much more often, as it  is now an effective choice for character construction) or from your gut feel that it would be better?  You note you have not playtested it extensively - how much have you playtested it?  Can you post a couple of real characters using this model so we can compare how they would cost differently under the old model?

 

Like you, I am willing to hear arguments.  Unlike you, I don't believe the lack of desire to buy variable slots stems entirely, or even primarily, from the 20% per slot cost instead of a 15% slot cost. 

 

13 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Well then you're not addressing my question.  I was comparing flexibility to raw power.  If you aren't including flexibility in either of your two constructs, then it's not really relevant to the question.

 

A 6d6 Flash + 6d6 Blast allows the character to blind their target and do damage.  Neither a 12d6 Flash nor a 12d6 Blast allows both.  Having both is more flexible.  I'd be more inclined to have a 10d6 Blast + 2d6 Flash, or a 6d6 Flash and an NND or AVAD Blast, as 6d6 against standard defenses in a 12 DC game is categorically useless, of course.  But to state that "raw power is always more expensive than flexibility" with only one example does not indicate a thoroughly reasoned conclusion.  I would much rather have a Multipower of 5 (Flex) or 10 (Fixed) 2 DC attacks than a single 4 DC attack in a game centered around 12DC attacks.  Half the raw power has a shot, at least, of bypassing the target's defenses and achieving something.

 

13 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

None of these things exist in a vacuum.  What's allowed in a campaign is not directly related to what something should cost.  Assuming a campaign maximum of 12d6, you could have a three-fixed-slot MP for 60+6+6+6 = 78 points, or a three-variable-slot MP for 60+12+12+12 = 96 points.  Does this variable-slot MP truly offer an additional 18 points worth of utility?  That's the only question I'm asking.  Campaign limits have nothing to do with it.

 

The answer is always "it depends".  If those three slots are, say, +40 rPD, +40 rED and 60 meters of flight, I would greatly value the flexibility (especially if I expect a mixed bag of opponents, and can hover over them with modest Flight).  If they are a 12d6 Blast, a 12d6 Sight Flash and a 12d6 STR Drain, perhaps I am less inclined to value flexibility, but it would be nice to be able to blind my target and knock him over or weaken him at the same time, so there is still value there.  If they are a 6d6 NND, 12d6 Blast or 4d6 RKA, then the flexibility has much less practical value.

 

You know what could be really sweet?  An 8d6 Blast (40 points) and a Multipower with a 20 point pool including +4d6 Blast, 4d6 Sight Flash, +20 PD, +20 ED and +20 meters flight.  That's 80 points, cheaper than your second choice and only a couple of points more than the first, if they are all Flex Slots.  Tacking a bit of Sight Flash onto my Blast could be well worth a few less STUN past defenses, and higher defenses and/or movement could also be sweet, especially if I am fighting to delay or distract, or I am not attacking at all.

 

Is there utility to the flexibility?  Sure.  Is it worth, to go back to your two choices, 18 points or the 9 points it would cost at a 15% premium?  A much better question, and one with no objective answer.

[PhilFleischmann]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

To me, you are picking 15% out of the air.

Was the 20% price picked out of somewhere other than the air?  What number would you pick?  And where would you pick it from, if not the air?

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Can you post a couple of real characters using this model so we can compare how they would cost differently under the old model?

I'm not sure what good that would do.  You can do it yourself if you want.  The math is very easy.  Variable Slots change from costing 20% of the Active Points in them to only 15% (or some other % if you want to pick some other figure out of the air).  So a Variable Slot costing 12 points (such as for a 60-point MP), will then only cost 9 points.  And the character will have 3 points to spend on other things for each such Variable Slot he has.  A Variable Slot costing 8 points (such as for a 40-point MP), will then only cost 6 points.  And the character will have 2 points to spend on other things for each such Variable Slot he has.  Those extra points might be spent on defenses, on PRE, on any other characteristic, other powers, skills, buying off or buying down limitations,  etc., or even on increasing the size of the MP pool (assuming it doesn't go over campaign limits), or maybe even buying off complications.

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

You know what could be really sweet?  An 8d6 Blast (40 points) and a Multipower with a 20 point pool including +4d6 Blast, 4d6 Sight Flash, +20 PD, +20 ED and +20 meters flight.  That's 80 points, cheaper than your second choice and only a couple of points more than the first, if they are all Flex Slots.  Tacking a bit of Sight Flash onto my Blast could be well worth a few less STUN past defenses, and higher defenses and/or movement could also be sweet, especially if I am fighting to delay or distract, or I am not attacking at all.

OK, that's sweet.  Comparing sweet apples to sweet apples:

 

Fixed:

40 8d6 Blast

20 MP Pool

4 f +4d6 Blast

4 f 4d6 Flash

4 f +20 PD

4 f +20 ED

4 f +20 m Flight

80 Points total

 

Variable:

40 8d6 Blast

20 MP Pool

8 v +4d6 Blast

8 v 4d6 Flash

8 v +20 PD

8 v +20 ED

8 v +20 m Flight

100 Points total

 

Is that second one really 20 points worth of sweetness more than the first?

 

Or to go back to the earlier example:

 

60 MP Pool

6 f 12d6 Blast

6 f 12d6 Flash

72 points total

 

or

 

60 MP Pool

12 v 12d6 Blast

12 v 12d6 Flash

84 points total

 

Does this 12 points of additional cost really provide 12 points-worth of additional utility?  You said yourself that a 6d6 Blast plus a 6d6 Flash is not nearly as effective as 12d6 of one or the other.

[Hugh Neilson]

6 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Was the 20% price picked out of somewhere other than the air?  What number would you pick?  And where would you pick it from, if not the air?

 

20% is picked out of RAW which has survived  since the mid-1980's.  It is not objectively right, but neither is it objectively wrong, as you seem to believe  not only is the case, but is blindingly obvious.

6 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

OK, that's sweet.  Comparing sweet apples to sweet apples:

 

Fixed:

40 8d6 Blast

20 MP Pool

4 f +4d6 Blast

4 f 4d6 Flash

4 f +20 PD

4 f +20 ED

4 f +20 m Flight

80 Points total

 

Variable:

40 8d6 Blast

20 MP Pool

8 v +4d6 Blast

8 v 4d6 Flash

8 v +20 PD

8 v +20 ED

8 v +20 m Flight

100 Points total

 

Is that second one really 20 points worth of sweetness more than the first?

 

Or to go back to the earlier example:

 

60 MP Pool

6 f 12d6 Blast

6 f 12d6 Flash

72 points total

 

or

 

60 MP Pool

12 v 12d6 Blast

12 v 12d6 Flash

84 points total

 

Does this 12 points of additional cost really provide 12 points-worth of additional utility?  You said yourself that a 6d6 Blast plus a 6d6 Flash is not nearly as effective as 12d6 of one or the other.

 

I do not believe that utility can be measured with the same precision you seem to believe.  If 5 extra meters of Flight allows me to close to have no range modifier, or fly up out of my opponent's reach, then being able to do so while still adding 3d6 of damage to my Blast, or a 3d6 Flash to blind my target, seems very useful indeed.  Being able to divide the pool between PD and ED when facing off against an opponent with both physical and energy attacks also seems extremely valuable. 

 

After having fired off my attack with +3d6 while hovering in the air, and being fired on in return a segment later, the ability to Abort and increase my relevant defense by 19, while keeping 1 point in Flight so I do not drop like a rock also seems quite valuable.

 

Is it worth 30 points, 20 points or 10 points?  That measure of precision seems elusive at best. 

 

If I don't consider that extra versatility between Blast and Flash to be worth 12 points, I can certainly choose other builds.  Is it worth 12 points to sometimes be able to bypass 10 points of Flash Defense with a 12d6 Flash, other times be able to hit with a full 12d6 of normal damage, and still other times hit for 10d6 of damage and a blinding flash?  I don't think it is obviously worth 6 points, or 9 points, or 12 points.  With no obvious superior cost, and 30+ years of history for a specific cost, I'm fine with the current 20% cost.

 

Your model would save 6 points or 1/12 of the 72 point cost of having no flexibility.  Do you think the system is so precise that every cost is correct in every situation within 8.33%?  If so, I am very interested in seeing the analysis by which you computed those figures.

[IndianaJoe3]

On 1/5/2020 at 8:49 PM, PhilFleischmann said:

Take a "standard" Starburst-style MP, with a 12d6 Blast as one of the flexible slots.  How much of that flexibility is ever going to be used?  Will this character ever need to use just s 1d6 Blast?  Will there ever be an occasion where he will want to lower his defensive/movement power(s) by 5 points to make a 1 DC attack?  Will this character ever fire this Blast at less than 6d6?  If not, then he's really only using half the flexibility he paid for.

 

I once created a character with a telekinetic Multipower. It had a Blast, TK, Flight, and a force field. The blast and TK were fixed slots, but the Flight and force field were variable. I don't remember exactly how large the pool was, but it was not large enough to run both fixed slots at the same time. The idea was that he would be using either the blast or TK in combat, and balancing mobility with defense for the remainder of the pool.

 

I don't know how it would have worked in play (it was a design exercise), but the concept seemed viable.

[PhilFleischmann]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I do not believe that utility can be measured with the same precision you seem to believe.  If 5 extra meters of Flight allows me to close to have no range modifier, or fly up out of my opponent's reach, then being able to do so while still adding 3d6 of damage to my Blast, or a 3d6 Flash to blind my target, seems very useful indeed.  Being able to divide the pool between PD and ED when facing off against an opponent with both physical and energy attacks also seems extremely valuable. 

 

After having fired off my attack with +3d6 while hovering in the air, and being fired on in return a segment later, the ability to Abort and increase my relevant defense by 19, while keeping 1 point in Flight so I do not drop like a rock also seems quite valuable.

Indeed all those things are valuable.  So you can use the 20 points you saved buying Fixed slots instead of Variable slots to buy that +5 m of Flight outside of the Multipower, and still have 15 points left over.  you could buy some PSLs vs Range to hit your opponent accurately while staying out of his reach.  Or you could buy some PD/ED outside of the MP.  Or you could spend 4 of those points on an additional slot with +10 PD and +10 ED.  And another one with +5 PD/+5 ED and +10 m of Flight.  No micro-slots necessary.

 

Here's a justification of the 15% figure you might like:

 

60 MP pool

6 f 60 points of Power A

6 f 60 points of Power B

6 f 30 points of Power A, and 30 points of Power B (or whatever other distribution seems most likely to be useful).

 

Here, for 50% more slot cost than the cost of just two fixed slots, you can have the most likely split distribution between the two powers.  Granted, it doesn't have all the granularity in flexibility of the variable slots, but it gives you the ways you' would have used them most of the time anyway, if you had variable slots.  How much granularity do you need here?  How much extra utility does it give you to be able to use 23 points of Power A and 37 points of Power B?

 

1 hour ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

I once created a character with a telekinetic Multipower. It had a Blast, TK, Flight, and a force field. The blast and TK were fixed slots, but the Flight and force field were variable. I don't remember exactly how large the pool was, but it was not large enough to run both fixed slots at the same time. The idea was that he would be using either the blast or TK in combat, and balancing mobility with defense for the remainder of the pool.

 

I don't know how it would have worked in play (it was a design exercise), but the concept seemed viable.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it was viable.  But the question is, did it have a cost appropriate to its utility?  Now since there were only two out of four variable slots, it probably didn't make as much of a difference as it would have if all four slots had been variable.

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

Here's a justification of the 15% figure you might like:

 

60 MP pool

6 f 60 points of Power A

6 f 60 points of Power B

6 f 30 points of Power A, and 30 points of Power B (or whatever other distribution seems most likely to be useful).

 

Here, for 50% more slot cost than the cost of just two fixed slots, you can have the most likely split distribution between the two powers.  Granted, it doesn't have all the granularity in flexibility of the variable slots, but it gives you the ways you' would have used them most of the time anyway, if you had variable slots.  How much granularity do you need here?  How much extra utility does it give you to be able to use 23 points of Power A and 37 points of Power B?

 

Under your model, however, the added utility of being able to distribute points, say, 75%/25% is free.  Are you saying there is no added utility whatsoever?

 

If Power A is a defensive power and Power B is a movement power, to select only one example, and I need only 23 points, or at least 37 points, of movement to make a half move and attack, or get close enough to cut down a range penalty, that extra flexibility becomes very valuable.

 

Further, you are working with only two powers.  What if we make it three?  Now we are looking at:

 

60 MP pool

6 f 60 points of Power A

6 f 60 points of Power B

6 f 60 points of Power C

6 f 30 points of Power A, and 30 points of Power B (or whatever other distribution seems most likely to be useful).

6 f 30 points of Power A, and 30 points of Power C (or whatever other distribution seems most likely to be useful)

6 f 30 points of Power B, and 30 points of Power C (or whatever other distribution seems most likely to be useful).

6 f 20 points of each of Powers A, B and C.

 

That's 102 total points (or 42 points of slot cost).  Three variable slots under your model would cost 87 points (27 slot cost) and under the present model would cost 96 points (or 36 points for slots).

 

At some point, of course, it will be cheaper to convert that Multipower into a Cosmic VPP, so there is already a cap to the point cost of flexibility.  Taking 10 Variable slots for a slot cost of 90 or 120 points would be foolish - you could have a 60 point Cosmic VPP for the same price under your model, and save 30 points under RAW.  The VPP is far more cost-effective for providing extreme flexibility.

 

I can probably summarize all of the discussion as "The 20% cost, or twice the fixed cost, while no less arbitrary than any value you might set, is also no more arbitrary.  There is no objectively determinable, precisely correct cost for this flexibility."

[IndianaJoe3]

11 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it was viable.  But the question is, did it have a cost appropriate to its utility?  Now since there were only two out of four variable slots, it probably didn't make as much of a difference as it would have if all four slots had been variable.

 

I'll say, "probably." The design exercise was, "Can I create a viable superhero concept on 175 points?" I don't think I could have had all four powers, at an effective level, without using the Multipower.

[PhilFleischmann]

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Under your model, however, the added utility of being able to distribute points, say, 75%/25% is free.  Are you saying there is no added utility whatsoever?

No, I am not.  I'm saying that the utility diminishes so rapidly that it's not worth buying variable slots at 20%.  I don't know how many more ways I can say this.

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If Power A is a defensive power and Power B is a movement power,

Which is the main reason why hardly anyone buys a Starburst-style multipower, with attacks, defenses, and movement all drawing from the same pool (along with campaign limits),  I'd be willing to compromise and say that flexible slots in a Starburst-style multipower can remain at 20%.

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Further, you are working with only two powers.  What if we make it three?  Now we are looking at:

60 MP pool

6 f 60 points of Power A

6 f 60 points of Power B

6 f 60 points of Power C

3 f 30 points of Power A (or whatever other amount seems most likely to be useful).

3 f 30 points of Power B (or whatever other amount seems most likely to be useful)

3 f 30 points of Power C (or whatever other amount seems most likely to be useful).

87 points - the same as the 15% cost would be.

[Ninja-Bear]

Here’s the thing though. I got a chance yesterday to look at 3ed of Starburst and Pulsar. Both spent higher than 60 Act point on multi powers ( cause of 1/2 Ed.) and between the two, Starburst is actually is more rounded. Pulsar in this version has NO defensive Powers. Starburst also has a 8D6 Blast AoE.  It goes to show that points only give equal opportunity not equal results. Ymmv.

[Hugh Neilson]

5 hours ago, PhilFleischmann said:

No, I am not.  I'm saying that the utility diminishes so rapidly that it's not worth buying variable slots at 20%.  I don't know how many more ways I can say this.

 

Which is the main reason why hardly anyone buys a Starburst-style multipower, with attacks, defenses, and movement all drawing from the same pool (along with campaign limits),  I'd be willing to compromise and say that flexible slots in a Starburst-style multipower can remain at 20%.

 

60 MP pool

6 f 60 points of Power A

6 f 60 points of Power B

6 f 60 points of Power C

3 f 30 points of Power A (or whatever other amount seems most likely to be useful).

3 f 30 points of Power B (or whatever other amount seems most likely to be useful)

3 f 30 points of Power C (or whatever other amount seems most likely to be useful).

87 points - the same as the 15% cost would be.

 

60 MP pool

6 f 60 points of Power A

6 f 60 points of Power B

6 f 60 points of Power C

3 f 30 points of Power A (or whatever other amount seems most likely to be useful).

3 f 30 points of Power B (or whatever other amount seems most likely to be useful)

3 f 30 points of Power C (or whatever other amount seems most likely to be useful).

6 f 20 points of each of Power A, B or C (or whatever proportion).

 

93 points - more than the 15% cost would be, and less flexible.

 

Maybe 40 points of either Power A or C, and 20 of B would be "most useful", but 30 of each of A and C would be most useful when I don't need B.  That's also not going to math out, now is it?

 

Your approach assumes the flexibility does not have value, and then claims this as proof that the present model overprices flexibility.

 

If we never have an adventure where someone could drown, LS:  Water Breathing is useless too, so it should not have a cost, and I would not make a 31st century Superscientist pay for "detect Orcs" in a game where no orcs exist.  It does not mean those two powers should have no cost by default, it means one does not buy them in contexts where they are useless.

[PhilFleischmann]

23 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Your approach assumes the flexibility does not have value, and then claims this as proof that the present model overprices flexibility.

No, it does not.  If this is what you've taken from this discussion, then you haven't understood anything I've said.