MPP limitation question

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

I’m creating a character who has a 75 point MPP with special effects that I’m envisioning as being a little like a very limited shapeshift, for instance growing claws or toughening skin (and no he doesn’t possess the Shapechange power). One of the limitations I would like is for his MPP to be a little harder to change than normal.

 

I’m looking at making it take him a half phase action to change slots. My thought is that this should be worth about -1/4 if it is a non-attack action and -1/2 if it is a half phase attack action. Thoughts?

[badger3k]

Do you mean Variable Power Pool (VPP) or Multipower (MP)? The answer depends on which one.

 

If its a VPP, to change normally is a full-phase action. To switch in a half-phase is a +1/2 advantage (Fred p 209-210).

 

For multipowers, I'd just use the delayed phase (-1/4) - the change occurs on the same phase at half-dex, or extra segment (-1/2) - if you act in phase 3, you'd get a haf-move, then power activates at end of phase 4 - the extra time limitation (p186) explains those. At most, to use a half-phase (as a limited power perhaps), I wouldn't go above the -1/4 for either (since a full phase is -1/2).

 

Just my thoughts, hope they help.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

I was talking about a multipower pool, not a VPP. My thought was that I wanted to modle the effect on the shapechange power. Really that is similar to what I see the character as doing. For instace I see him growing claws ... and I see it taking more than just a 0 phase action to do it. Shapechange takes a 1/2 phase action to do & that seems like the perfect model for this pool. If he were actually fully changing shape I would just buy that power & link the pool to it, but he isn't so I have to find some other way to limit the pool.

 

Delayed phase isn't bad but from what I could tell changing powers would still be a 0 phase action. The character could move on dex, change powers on half dex, and then attack. Extra segment doesn't really do what I'm looking for either, though both are worthy thoughts and I thank you for posting them.

[badger3k]

Question - by multipower pool, you're referring to the reserve? Gotta be - OK- The 0-phase action is part of the standard multipower (just MP). Since that is the time it takes to reallocate the points in the multipower slots.

 

If you want to put a limit on the switching in the multipowers, you can use extra time, just put the duration to fit between the limits (I should have thought of this earlier) -

 

the current Extra Time limitations are:

 

Delayed phase -1/4

Extra segment -1/2

Full phase -1/2

 

To have a 0-phase action take a half-phase but still in the same segment, and be at his normal dex, it would be -1/4. It would be that for all powers, since a -1/2 would be a full phase.

 

Basically, it fits in:

 

0-phase action: -0

delayed phase: -1/4

half-phase: -1/4

Extra segment: -1/2

Full phase: -1/2

 

That way, you can still act on your dex, but you can only move or attack the same phase you reallocate your points/slots.

 

You still threw me with the "pool" - the only pool in the game is the variable power pool (it didn't hit me until I thought about the reserve, which has been/still is called a pool sometimes - I used to use it myself, a while back). No offense meant, it helps to use the proper (book) term/abbreviation, so people understand exactly what you mean.

 

Hope that helps a little better.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

Perfect. Thanks.

[badger3k]

No problem - glad I understood what you wanted and remembered how to do it. Good gaming.

[Maccabe]

Hard to change???

 

It sounded originally that you wanted difficulty switching

forms (slots)

Try; Must make skill roll to change slots on Mutlipower.

[Tom McCarthy]

Extra time to change slots is a funny case...

 

Extra time to change slots in a multipower has a quirk in the math; the limitation should be applied to the slots but not the reserve. Specifically, applying it to the reserve can make the multipower as a whole cheaper than having just one of the powers.

 

In a simple example, consider an extra phase to switch slots as -1/4, and look at the following:

 

48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase to switch slots (-1/4)

5u 4D6 HKA

5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM

 

It's only 58 points. Compared to just buying the HKA alone, you've gained access to flight and saved 2 points. Definitely a violation of "get what you pay for".

[badger3k]

????

 

Originally posted by Tom McCarthy

Extra time to change slots in a multipower has a quirk in the math; the limitation should be applied to the slots but not the reserve. Specifically, applying it to the reserve can make the multipower as a whole cheaper than having just one of the powers.

 

In a simple example, consider an extra phase to switch slots as -1/4, and look at the following:

 

48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase to switch slots (-1/4)

5u 4D6 HKA

5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM

 

It's only 58 points. Compared to just buying the HKA alone, you've gained access to flight and saved 2 points. Definitely a violation of "get what you pay for".

 

Actually, the only rule is that a limitation on the reserve must apply to all slots as well. You can and should limit the reserve - the points saved is part of "getting what you paid for" part of the multipower. Looking through the faq I can't find anything saying this should be illegal or limited.

[Simon]

Re: Extra time to change slots is a funny case...

 

Originally posted by Tom McCarthy

Extra time to change slots in a multipower has a quirk in the math; the limitation should be applied to the slots but not the reserve. Specifically, applying it to the reserve can make the multipower as a whole cheaper than having just one of the powers.

 

In a simple example, consider an extra phase to switch slots as -1/4, and look at the following:

 

48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase to switch slots (-1/4)

5u 4D6 HKA

5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM

 

It's only 58 points. Compared to just buying the HKA alone, you've gained access to flight and saved 2 points. Definitely a violation of "get what you pay for".

That is not correct.

 

Extra time to change slots is a Modifier that affects the reserve itself. It is applied to the reserve but not to any of the slots (as it does not affect them....firing off an EB from your MP takes the same amount of time as normal, for example).

 

This specific modifier for MPs has been cited before (by Steve) and, if memory serves, is part of the rules FAQ.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

Well I read through the FAQ & searched the Rules Questions board with no luck, so I posted a question for Steve there.

 

Interesting discussion. I had just started wondering how the math would look on this construct when I looked here again.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Vanderbilt_Grad

Well I read through the FAQ & searched the Rules Questions board with no luck, so I posted a question for Steve there.

 

Interesting discussion. I had just started wondering how the math would look on this construct when I looked here again.

 

From the Rules FAQ on Power Frameworks:

 

 

Q: Can a character apply an Advantage or Limitation to just the Multipower reserve, such as Extra Time to switch slots?

 

 

 

A: With the GM’s permission, yes, provided it makes sense to do so. Extra Time only to switch slots is a good example; there’s no reason such a Limitation would apply to each slot (once the character switches to it, he can activate the power in that slot normally). The GM can, if he wishes, alter the value of the Power Modifier if he thinks that’s appropriate for the power construct.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

Bah. I spent nearly 30 minutes searching and still missed it.

 

And that's on top of all the time I spend looking through the FAQ earlier.

[PhilFleischmann]

Oh no! Not this argument again!

 

Once again, the FAQ gives really bad advice. Sure, it includes the phrase "provided it makes sense to do so," but it should have said, "and it NEVER makes sense to do so."

 

Tom McCarthy's example illustrates why very clearly, provided you're willing to look at it.

 

48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase to switch slots (-1/4)

5u 4D6 HKA

5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM

 

vs.

 

60 4d6 HKA

 

2 points less for more power? That is not getting what you pay for. And why stop there? How 'bout:

 

30 MP, 60 points, extra year (or whatever) to switch slots (-1)

3u 4D6 HKA

3u 20" Flight, x8 NCM

 

Now you've saved 24 points and have the same 60 point RKA!

 

Also, any limitation that affects *switching* the slots should be less than what it would be for *using* the slots.

 

48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase on all powers (-1/4)

5u 4D6 HKA, extra phase

5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM, extra phase

 

is a lot more limited than the "only to change slots" limitation. With this last version, you need to take an extra phase every time you want to use the MP, not merely when you want to switch the slots.

 

There have been a number of threads explaining this.

 

I hate it when the FAQ says stupid things! (No temperature level zero... grumble, grumble...)

[badger3k]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

Oh no! Not this argument again!

 

Once again, the FAQ gives really bad advice. Sure, it includes the phrase "provided it makes sense to do so," but it should have said, "and it NEVER makes sense to do so."

 

Tom McCarthy's example illustrates why very clearly, provided you're willing to look at it.

 

48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase to switch slots (-1/4)

5u 4D6 HKA

5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM

 

vs.

 

60 4d6 HKA

 

2 points less for more power? That is not getting what you pay for. And why stop there? How 'bout:

 

30 MP, 60 points, extra year (or whatever) to switch slots (-1)

3u 4D6 HKA

3u 20" Flight, x8 NCM

 

Now you've saved 24 points and have the same 60 point RKA!

 

Also, any limitation that affects *switching* the slots should be less than what it would be for *using* the slots.

 

48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase on all powers (-1/4)

5u 4D6 HKA, extra phase

5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM, extra phase

 

is a lot more limited than the "only to change slots" limitation. With this last version, you need to take an extra phase every time you want to use the MP, not merely when you want to switch the slots.

 

There have been a number of threads explaining this.

 

I hate it when the FAQ says stupid things! (No temperature level zero... grumble, grumble...)

 

Isn't the FAQ from Steve Long? I thought that's why the FAQ rulings were considered official.

 

The construct he wants to use is SWITCHING the slots, not ACTIVATING the powers. Two seperate concepts.

 

The last example:

48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase on all powers (-1/4)

5u 4D6 HKA, extra phase

5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM, extra phase

 

means that if he wants to attack, he can switch his powers as a free action, then activate his HKA, and then take an extra phase there. Or say he suddenly is falling - take that extra phase to activate the flight. Hope you're not falling too fast. That's what the extra time means - grow the claws (instant basically), then wait one phase before you can attack. Or grow wings, then wait one phase before you can use them too.

 

That's not what the limitation is. He wants to switch the powers slower than normal, but still fast enough to use them in combat. If you apply the limitation to all slots, you're saving more points than not limiting them (ie just limiting the reserve), but it destroys the concept.

 

The one MP you build is wrong too -

30 MP, 60 points, extra year (or whatever) to switch slots (-1)

3u 4D6 HKA

3u 20" Flight, x8 NCM

 

IF you are using the same limitation. The change slots is only the reserve, so its -1. The slots don't have it, so they are still 5u. Total 40 points. It doesn't affect using the powers, but just limits using the multipower.

 

What about putting charges on the multipower - you can only use it 3 times per day. Not 3 uses for each ability, 3 uses for the whole multipower. The only way to do that is limit the reserve, not the slots. Is this stupid? Illegal? Judge Dredd has his lawgiver that has 20 or so shots. They can be different types (AP, Sabot, etc). You can build it with a multipower, then give the reserve a limitation on charges. The slots aren't limited in uses, since you can put any of the shells in the gun. The pistol itself has the limitation since it can only fire so many shells. Sure you could limit the slots as well with the charges concept (20 or each type), but its redundant and shouldn't be done since it only repeats the main weapon limitation.

 

Sorry. Obviously I'm missing something. To me getting the concept right is more correct than stretching it to save more points (which I believe is the idea, even though when I read it, it sounded like people were saying that the points saved were too much).

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by badger3k

Isn't the FAQ from Steve Long? I thought that's why the FAQ rulings were considered official.

They may very well be from Steve Long, and they may very well be official, but they're still wrong - unbalanced, not thought=through. Steve Long is not infallable.

 

The construct he wants to use is SWITCHING the slots, not ACTIVATING the powers. Two seperate concepts.

Yes, I know that. I was using it as an example of why applying the lim to the reserve isn't right.

 

Example in further detail:

DelayMan has

 

48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase on all powers (-1/4)

5u 4D6 HKA, extra phase

5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM, extra phase

 

for a total of 58 points. Every time he wants to use his HKA, it takes an extra phase. Every time he wants to fly, it takes an extra phase (to start the power).

 

SlowSwitchMan has

 

48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase to switch slots (-1/4)

5u 4D6 HKA

5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM

 

Also for a total of 58 points. It takes him an extra phase only once to use his HKA, but thereafter he can use it as much as he wants with no delay. If he flies later, he must take an extra phase to take off, but then he can land and take off again and again with no delay (provided he doesn't use his HKA in between).

 

DelayMan needs an extra phase for every use.

SlowSwitchMan needs the extra phase only for each switch.

SSM's multipower is less limited and therefore should cost more than, not the same as, DM's multipower.

 

The one MP you build is wrong too -

30 MP, 60 points, extra year (or whatever) to switch slots (-1)

3u 4D6 HKA

3u 20" Flight, x8 NCM

 

IF you are using the same limitation. The change slots is only the reserve, so its -1. The slots don't have it, so they are still 5u. Total 40 points. It doesn't affect using the powers, but just limits using the multipower.

Well, I put it on the slots because any limitation on the reserve is supposed to be on the slots as well. And Tom's original example also had it on the slots. That's why the slots cost 5 each instead of 6. But it really doesn't matter to my point. So let's leave the lim off the slots, then we get:

 

30 MP, 60 points, extra year (or whatever) to switch slots (-1)

6u 4D6 HKA

6u 20" Flight, x8 NCM

 

42 points. This is more power than (or at least as much as):

 

60 4d6 HKA

 

for 60 points. This is why any switching limitations should only be on the slots. They affect the accessibility of each individual slot (or at least all the ones you put the lim on), not the active points in the reserve. If your points are in the wrong slot, that doesn't mean the reserve is limited. The slot is ready to go. If it happens not to be the power you want at the moment, that isn't a limit on the power itself. For the same reason that you don't get a limit on ED just because some opponents only have physical attacks, or a limit on Flash, just because some opponents have another targeting sense.

 

What about putting charges on the multipower - you can only use it 3 times per day. Not 3 uses for each ability, 3 uses for the whole multipower. The only way to do that is limit the reserve, not the slots.

Yes. Of course. But that isn't what we're talking about. Here's another example involving a gun with multiple settings:

 

MP 60 point reserve - OAF required to switch slots (say, a small key-like device which must be inserted into a slot in the handle)

u 4d6 RKA

u 12d6 EB

 

If someone takes the key away from you, the gun can still be used. Therefore the limitation is only on the slots (accessibility), not on the reserve. So the reserve should cost the full 60 and the slots 3 each, for a total of 66, because it's more powerful than a plain 60 AP gun with only one setting, but less powerful than a two-setting gun that doesn't need the key, which would cost 60+6+6=72 points.

 

But wait, there's more! What if the gun is Normal damage normally but can switch to Killing with the use of a "safety key"? Now the gun looks like this:

 

60 MP 60 point reserve

3 u 4d6 RKA, OAF

6 u 12d6 EB

 

There's no limit on the normal setting, only on the killing setting. Actually, the way this is set up, the OAF is required each time the killing slot is used. The limitation should be less than -1 (less limiting that is), if the OAF is only required to switch to the slot. I think half the limitation is a good rule of thumb, so OAF to use is -1, OAF to switch should only be -1/2.

 

Sorry. Obviously I'm missing something.

That's OK. You're not the first and you probably won't be the last Even Steve Long (or whomever wrote the FAQ) got it wrong.

[badger3k]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

They may very well be from Steve Long, and they may very well be official, but they're still wrong - unbalanced, not thought=through. Steve Long is not infallable.

 

 

Yes, I know that. I was using it as an example of why applying the lim to the reserve isn't right.

 

Example in further detail:

DelayMan has

 

48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase on all powers (-1/4)

5u 4D6 HKA, extra phase

5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM, extra phase

 

for a total of 58 points. Every time he wants to use his HKA, it takes an extra phase. Every time he wants to fly, it takes an extra phase (to start the power).

 

SlowSwitchMan has

 

48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase to switch slots (-1/4)

5u 4D6 HKA

5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM

 

Also for a total of 58 points. It takes him an extra phase only once to use his HKA, but thereafter he can use it as much as he wants with no delay. If he flies later, he must take an extra phase to take off, but then he can land and take off again and again with no delay (provided he doesn't use his HKA in between).

 

DelayMan needs an extra phase for every use.

SlowSwitchMan needs the extra phase only for each switch.

SSM's multipower is less limited and therefore should cost more than, not the same as, DM's multipower.

 

Ok, but the same thing can be said of extra segment and full phase. Depending on your speed, they can be very different (say SPD 2, extra segment on 6 means it goes off on 7, full phase means it goes off on 12. A big difference to me, but they are both -1/2. Problem?

 

Well, I put it on the slots because any limitation on the reserve is supposed to be on the slots as well. And Tom's original example also had it on the slots. That's why the slots cost 5 each instead of 6. But it really doesn't matter to my point. So let's leave the lim off the slots, then we get:

 

30 MP, 60 points, extra year (or whatever) to switch slots (-1)

6u 4D6 HKA

6u 20" Flight, x8 NCM

 

42 points. This is more power than (or at least as much as):

 

60 4d6 HKA

 

for 60 points. This is why any switching limitations should only be on the slots. They affect the accessibility of each individual slot (or at least all the ones you put the lim on), not the active points in the reserve. If your points are in the wrong slot, that doesn't mean the reserve is limited. The slot is ready to go. If it happens not to be the power you want at the moment, that isn't a limit on the power itself. For the same reason that you don't get a limit on ED just because some opponents only have physical attacks, or a limit on Flash, just because some opponents have another targeting sense.

 

First, I think comparing the multipower with the staright power is useless, since its not even part of the issue. Any multipower or other framework will save points compared to a straight buy - its completely irrelevant. Second, the limitation on the reserve does not affect the slot, unless you set it up to apply for all slots. Using the example the player wants, he only wants to be able to change the slots in a longer time, not limit the time it takes each slot to be used.

 

Yes. Of course. But that isn't what we're talking about. Here's another example involving a gun with multiple settings:

 

Not to jump back to it, but its the same thing - an overall limit on using the power framework, not on each slot. He's trying to get something that takes time to switch the powers around, not use the power. If you limit the slot with extra time as well, then every time he wants to use the HKA, he'd have to take an extra phase (or whatever). Too limited for what he wants to do, and definitely not in the concept.

 

 

MP 60 point reserve - OAF required to switch slots (say, a small key-like device which must be inserted into a slot in the handle)

u 4d6 RKA

u 12d6 EB

 

If someone takes the key away from you, the gun can still be used. Therefore the limitation is only on the slots (accessibility), not on the reserve. So the reserve should cost the full 60 and the slots 3 each, for a total of 66, because it's more powerful than a plain 60 AP gun with only one setting, but less powerful than a two-setting gun that doesn't need the key, which would cost 60+6+6=72 points.

 

Now I know this has got to be the meds I'm on, but that makes no sense to me. The limitation is NOT on the slots. The focus is only needed to change. Putting it on the slots means that, in addition to needing the focus to change, its needed to fire as well. Lose that and the whole gun is useless, whereas if you lose the key to change slots, the gun can only stay the last way it was set up. As for points, you do know that if you bought the focus on all the slots, it applies to the reserve as well, so a pistol that was oaf for slots as well would be 36 points total, half the cost of the gun that doesn't need the key at all.

 

But wait, there's more! What if the gun is Normal damage normally but can switch to Killing with the use of a "safety key"? Now the gun looks like this:

 

60 MP 60 point reserve

3 u 4d6 RKA, OAF

6 u 12d6 EB

 

There's no limit on the normal setting, only on the killing setting. Actually, the way this is set up, the OAF is required each time the killing slot is used. The limitation should be less than -1 (less limiting that is), if the OAF is only required to switch to the slot. I think half the limitation is a good rule of thumb, so OAF to use is -1, OAF to switch should only be -1/2.

 

That's OK. You're not the first and you probably won't be the last Even Steve Long (or whomever wrote the FAQ) got it wrong.

 

Using the last example, if the character loses the focus, then he loses the killing attack, but not the normal one. So you don't think that's limited enough.

 

So if I understand correctly, Steve is wrong because you feel that limiting the reserve only gives you too many points. There's nothing in the rules that prevents his ruling, just that you don't like it. Do I have it right?

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by badger3k

Ok, but the same thing can be said of extra segment and full phase. ... A big difference to me, but they are both -1/2. Problem?

Maybe, but that's an entirely separate issue. I'm not comparing "Extra Segment" with "Full Phase". I'm comparing (a) a limitation on using a MP slot with ( the same limitation on switching the MP to that slot. With (a) the limit effects you every time you use the slot, and with ( it only affects you the first time you use it after using a different slot. Therefore, the limitation you get for ( should be less than the limitation you get for (a). Is that clear now?

 

For my own games, I like to use half the standard limitation for a switching limitation, but you could use some other method (1/4x the lim, 1/3x the lim, 3/4x lim, -1/4 lim, etc.).

 

First, I think comparing the multipower with the staright power is useless, since its not even part of the issue.

Of course it is! Read carefully:

 

(A) A 12d6 EB costs 60 points.

 

( A MP with two fixed slots, 12d6 EB and 12d6 Flash costs 60+6+6=72 points.

 

Isn't it fair and just and balanced that the above MP should cost more than the single power? Are you with me so far?

 

Now, should a MP like ( but with a limitation on switching between the slots (no limit on actually using the slots), cost less than (, that is less than 72 points? Yes. Of course. It's more limited than (, therefore it should cost less. Still with me? Let's call this one:

 

© A MP with two fixed slots, 12d6 EB and 12d6 Flash, with a limit that would normally be worth -1 -- not on using the powers in the slots -- but on switching between the two.

 

If the limit were on using the slots, the MP would cost 60/2+6/2+6/2=36 points. But the limitation is only on switching the slots. My claim is it should cost more than (A) and less than (, that is 60<©<72. Using my suggested rule, it would cost 60+6/1.5+6/1.5=68 points. Have I made my point clear? If not, let me know. If I have, do you still disagree? And if so, why?

 

So if I understand correctly, Steve is wrong because you feel that limiting the reserve only gives you too many points. There's nothing in the rules that prevents his ruling, just that you don't like it. Do I have it right?

What renders his ruling wrong, is that it grants a more flexible power for less points. It violates the notion of "You Get What You Pay For." See also my sig quote.

[paxx]

a bit off topic and way too long

 

While I don’t want to argue the infallibility of Steve Long, ( there are many things I disagree with) this one is not really one of them. At least not in this context.

 

Using the examples above,

 

DelayMan has

 

48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase on all powers (-1/4)

5u 4D6 HKA, extra phase

5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM, extra phase

 

 

SlowSwitchMan has

 

48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase to switch slots (-1/4)

5u 4D6 HKA

5u 20" Flight, x8 NCM

 

 

DelayMan should be

48 Multipower, 60 points, extra phase on all powers (-1/4)

4u 4D6 HKA, extra phase (-1/4)

4u 20" Flight, x8 NCM, extra phase (-1/4)

 

Now, this is only 2 points, or 1 point per power…but both characters have their own shtick. One takes a while to change his powers around….lets say adjust his metabolism, the other…could be said that his powers need to charge up for every use…more so when they need to change.

 

Now, the argument you are posting is that it is much better to have slow switch man then it is to have delay man.

 

Making an inefficient character is easy no matter what, here you are using inefficiency as the reason it is not fair. I do not think that is a valid argument, but that is just me.

 

I think arguing that Multipowers should have a cost per slot is a better argument.

 

Also speaking of inefficiency, why 60 point multipowers when 50 will do :-)

 

 

While I understand where you are going, I think it is foolhardy to argue the decisions of the “ Line director†when you are in the vast minority. The rules of this game offer flexibility Vs. balance, so balance falls on the GMs and players out there.

 

The hero system currently is decent, flexable and enjoyable. It is up to GMs to verify characters are balanced and effective enough in their role chosen by the GM.

 

While I and others differ in opinions with Steve Longs approach, I think he is doing a pretty great job overall. Currently this game has more life then I had dared to hope it would have when FRED was first announced.

 

My main argument against the hero system is the GM need to really be on top of the rules and the characters, and that the GM must control the effectiveness of his characters in all facets. The “rules†do not help the GM in any way here. This could be fixed with some hard line Champaign books, but then others will complain on lack of flexibility.

 

FYI: as for the my main complaint about Steve Longs direction, it is in that he leans to “Game realism†instead of fun “game play†for my taste. All the normal weapons do more damage then I would like, and monsters and such have huge defenses or attacks. The Basilisk from the bestiary being a great example…most super hero teams would fall to that thing, not to mention that it could take out entire armies of the medieval type quite easily.

 

Now killing it would be quite easy as well…but a persistent 6d6 RKA NND with pretty high stealth???? On an average roll that is 18 body 36 stun taken straight.

 

But anyway, more to the point is when people ask for “official†interpretations of the rules, I think it is fair to say Steve Long truly has the last word, with the option to change his mind, regardless of other peoples opinions. If that is not respected then you have rules by a comity of thousands, and in my opinion that is much much worse then anything Steve Long has done to my knowledge.

[badger3k]

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

What renders his ruling wrong, is that it grants a more flexible power for less points. It violates the notion of "You Get What You Pay For." See also my sig quote.

 

That's the key for me. See, I'm giving the advice based on the rules, not the way you, I, or anyone else think the rules should be. If you posted stating that you'd do it differently than I probably wouldn't have responded. The poster wanted help on how to do it within the rules. I gave a ruling that works for me, Simon posted the faq info on how to do it.

 

If you think that's wrong, thats all well and good for you, but from reading your post you still say the official ruling is wrong (ie an error/typo/etc). However, the basis you give is only your opinion. Completely different. The difference is between :

 

a) the rule is wrong because there is another ruling that says different; or

 

the rule is bad IMO because my thoughts are...

 

Big difference to me. I responded because I thought you were saying (a), when you're saying (. That's the only reason I posted a reply, since I found nothing to support (a). Everybody has some ( on a rule or another, but most say the rulings stupid, or ill-thought, or munchkin, or nerfed, or (insert favorite word). To me "wrong" implies a specific thing that has nothing to do with opinions.

 

That said, your way of doing it:

Maybe, but that's an entirely separate issue. I'm not comparing "Extra Segment" with "Full Phase". I'm comparing (a) a limitation on using a MP slot with ( the same limitation on switching the MP to that slot. With (a) the limit effects you every time you use the slot, and with ( it only affects you the first time you use it after using a different slot. Therefore, the limitation you get for ( should be less than the limitation you get for (a). Is that clear now?

 

For my own games, I like to use half the standard limitation for a switching limitation, but you could use some other method (1/4x the lim, 1/3x the lim, 3/4x lim, -1/4 lim, etc.).

 

works for you, but I see no reason for it. Why change the limitation because its not on the slot? I just see no reason that ( should be less than (a). They're both limited, and with (a) you save on the slots, ( you don't. To me that's enough. I just don't see any reason to do more. I appreciate you trying to show how/why you do it, but I think we look at it too differently to get anything productive out of it. Maybe when the flu and associated meds are gone, my head may be clear enough to try to get your reasoning, but I can't do it now. Hopefully no hard feelings, cause I'm not to sure I'm writing things the way I mean, and I can't tell if I'm sounding belligerent or just confused.

[PhilFleischmann]

My ego isn't on the line here. Nor is HERO Games politics. Rather than acusing me of blasphemy against the holy word of Steve, or saying that I'm in the vast minority of opinion, just tell me where my logic is wrong.

 

This is going to be long, but I'm trying to write out my logical argument as carefully and methodically as possible. I've numbered (or lettered) each statement, so you can refer to them easily and point out exactly where my reasoning has gone astray.

 

First, some general statements about the system:

 

A) The HERO System’s greatness largely comes from the ideas and principles it is based on.

Among of these is the principle that more points spent yields more effective power; fewer points spent yields less effective power; and equal points spent yields roughly equal power. This principle is stated explicitly on page 5 of FREd, bottom of the left column, and can be summed up as “You get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get.â€

a. Yes, there are individual examples of power constructs that violate this principle. This is because the HERO System is not perfect, and neither is any other gaming system. Such inequitable power constructs are often refered to as “abusive†or “munchkin†as things to be avoided/forbidden by the GM.

b. The existence of violations of this principle does not invalidate the principle. Just as the existence of crime does not invalidate the laws broken.

C) If two equally useful constructs have significantly different point costs, or if two constructs with the same point cost have significantly different usefulness, and both are built according to the rules, then that represents a flaw in the rules. Again, see FREd, p. 5, bottom of the left column.

D) Another principle is flexibility. The system should be able to build any power, skill, talent, perk, or ability that you can imagine. This is explicitly stated on page 2 of FREd, first paragraph. The phrase, “you can’t do that,†should not come up in the system. Instead, it is permissible to say, “you can do that, but it might cost more than you’re willing to spend.â€

a. “You can’t do that†may come up in particular genres, campaign worlds, or games, but not in the system as a whole.

E) If there is a power or ability that cannot be constructed with the rules, that represents a flaw in the rules.

F) If these principles are abandoned, the system loses some of its greatness. These principles are a large part of the reason why HERO Games calls the HERO System “The Ultimate Gamers Toolkit†and why Steve Long called it “the Best Game System There Is.†(FREd, p. 1)

G) The rules are those in FREd.

H) The FAQ does not carry the same weight as FREd. The FAQ is changed and updated occasionally, and in some cases directly contradicts the rules in FREd.

I) There is no mention in FREd of Limitations on switching slots in a Multipower.

a. Just because they aren’t specifically mentioned, doesn’t mean that “you can’t do that.â€

b. Assuming you can have limitations on switching slots in a Multipower, the value and application of those limitations should result in a fair and balanced point cost (per B and C, above).

 

Now, on to the specific reasoning about Multipower Slot-Switching Limitations:

 

For ease of reference, we can adopt the following terms for use in examples:

 

* A single 60-point power with no Limitations (60 Real/60 Active) will be referred to as the “Single Power†or “SPâ€

* A Multipower with a 60-point Reserve with no Limitations and two 60-point Fixed slots will be referred to as the “Standard Multipower†or “SMP.â€

* A Multipower with a 60-Active Point Reserve with –1 worth of limitations on its use, and two 60-Active Point Fixed slots (also with –1 worth of limitations on use) will be referred to as the “Limited Multipower†or “LMP.â€

* A Multipower with a 60-Active Point Reserve, and two 60-Active Point Fixed slots with –1 worth of limitations on use that aren’t applied to the reserve (varying limitations [like the “group of guns†example, p. 207], charges, or the like) will be referred to as the “Limited Slots Multipower†or “LSMP.â€

* A Multipower with a 60-Active Point Reserve, and two 60-Active Point Fixed slots, with the same limitations as the Limited Multipower, not on the use of the powers, but rather on how/when the reserve can be switched from one slot to the other, will be referred to as the “Hard-to-Switch Multipower†or “HtSMP.â€

 

1) The Single Power is less useful than the Standard Multipower.

a) And indeed, the rules agree, charging 60 points for the SP and 60+6+6=72 points for the SMP.

2) The Limited Multipower is less useful than the Standard Multipower.

a) And again, the rules agree. The LMP costs 60/2+6/2+6/2=36 points.

3) The Limited Slot Multipower is less useful than the Standard Multipower, but more useful than the Limited Multipower.

a) And the rules agree. The LSMP costs 60+6/2+6/2=66 points.

4) The Standard Multipower is more useful than the Hard-to-Switch Multipower. The SMP can be switched freely but the HtSMP has a restriction on switching the slots.

5) Therefore, the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost less than the Standard Multipower.

6) The Limited Multipower is less useful than the Hard-to-Switch Multipower. This is because the limitation applies every time the LMP is used, but only each time the HtSMP is switched. With the HtSMP, you could use one slot five times, switch to the other slot, use it five times, and switch back. The limitation only affected you twice even though you used the power ten times. With the LMP, you’d have been subject to the limitation ten times.

7) Therefore the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost more than the Limited Multipower.

8) For the same reason as (6), the Limited Slot Multipower is less useful than the Hard-to-Switch Multipower.

9) Therefore the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost more than the Limited Slot Multipower.

10) The Single Power is less useful than the Hard-to-Switch Multipower. The SP is only one power, but the HtSMP gives you a choice of two. Even though there’s a restriction on switching, at least you’ve got the option. If you left it on one slot all the time, you’re no worse off than if you just had the SP.

11) Therefore the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost more than the Single Power.

12) From (5) we derive that the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost less than 72 points.

13) From (7) we derive that the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost more than 36 points.

14) From (9) we derive that the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost more than 66 points.

15) From (11) we derive that the Hard-to-Switch Multipower should cost more than 60 points.

16) Combining (12)-(15) we derive than the cost of the HtSMP should be more than 66 and less than 72 points.

17) If the rules give us a cost for the HtSMP outside of the range in (16), then the rules are flawed, per © above.

18) When we determine the cost of the HtSMP, if we apply the –1 limitation to the reserve only, we get a cost of 60/2+6+6=42 points.

19) This contradicts (16) above, therefore applying the –1 limitation to the reserve only is not the correct way to determine the cost of the power.

20) When we determine the cost of the HtSMP, if we apply the –1 limitation to the slot costs only, we get a total cost of 60+6/2+6/2=66 points.

21) This contradicts (16) above, therefore applying the –1 limitation to the slots only is not the correct way to determine the cost of the power.

22) When we determine the cost of the HtSMP, if we apply a reduced limitation, say –1/2, to the reserve only, we get a total cost of 60/1.5+6+6=52 points.

23) This contradicts (16) above, therefore applying half the normal limitation to the reserve only is not the correct way to determine the cost of the power.

24) When we determine the cost of the HtSMP, if we apply a reduced limitation, say –1/2, to the slots only, we get a total cost of 60+6/1.5+6/1.5=68 points.

25) This agrees with (16) above, therefore applying half the normal limitation to the slots only may be a viable method for determining the price of the power.

a) There may be other methods, but they must all agree with (16) to be viable.

 

Is that clear? Take it slow and make the effort to follow the flow of logic. If there is anything above that isn't clear, let me know. Once it's clear, we can discuss whether it is correct. I claim that it is.

 

I've got the above in a nicely formated Word document, but I don't have any place to post it.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

Numbers 6 & 8 are not necessarily true especially if the powers in the slot are not instant.

[badger3k]

I know we're looking at it from two seperate ways. I don't know what's so hard to realize in the difference between a rule written by the author of the current version of the game and a players opinion.

 

You can swear up and down that a rule is wrong, and use whatever logic you want, but until it gets changed by the designer, it's still an official ruling. You or I or anyone else can cry "foul" all we want and it doesn't make the rule wrong. It may be wrong in your opinion, but it's still a rule, so its still perfectly by-the-book legal to do it the suggested way. Therefore it is only wrong in your opinion. If your logic can sway the powers that be and get that advice out of the faq, then it would be "official". Even then, Steve puts it with GM approval. So where is the harm in playing that way? Is someone playing that way wrong, then, and should be stopped before they hurt someone?

 

It's the use of the term "wrong" that caused my confusion. That's been cleared up sufficiently for my sake.

 

I really just skimmed your post, but I'm not really going to read it. Nothing in my ideas will change. I tried to end the the argument because it's going nowhere for me, and since I believe it was you who mentioned other previous threads, I didn't want this one to get into a pointless debate (which probably is how the others went). Your whole argument stems from the belief that I view the situation the same as you do (why should I agree that 'a' follows 'b' because you showed it? If I don't buy into one premise, your whole argument means nothing to me.) Your claim about the hard-to-switch multipower means squat to me, since I don't agree that it should cost different than it does now. The limited slots still costs less than the limited reserve. That's enough for me. Unless I agree with everything you said on that point, your argument breaks down and means nothing to me, since when you argue about that, I see that you're wrong there: 'a' does not follow 'b', so to speak.

 

Without common ground, the differences won't meet, so the whole exercise is futile. If you want to put you're ideas out and try to convince other people, then you can, just don't expect me to post. I got my misunderstanding cleared up, so I see no reason to continue.

 

The most I can say is that I did find one argument that may be like yours - changing the slots with extra time could be the same as taking the "only to activate" mod on the limitation, cutting its value in half.

 

Like I said, I appreciate you going through the trouble to post, but at least from my end I see no reason to go on. About all I can say. Sometimes I do like to argue, but when we differ on such a basic premise, there's just no reason to it. Thanks anyway.

[PhilFleischmann]

Oh, and one other thing: Nothing I said above contradicts anything in the HERO System Fifth Edition book. It only contradicts one answer given in the FAQ.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by Vanderbilt_Grad

Numbers 6 & 8 are not necessarily true especially if the powers in the slot are not instant.

Actually, it's not whether the powers are instant, but whether the limitations on the powers have an intant effect. If the power is Force Field (not Instant), and the limitation is Concentration Throughout. Then 6 & 8 are still true. But if the limitation is Concentration to Activate, then you're right.

 

And sure enough, Concentration to Activate has half the lim value as Concentration Throughout!