MPP limitation question

[TaxiMan]

Excellent posts, Phil! Wholly logical and extremely thorough, completely clear if anyone puts in enough effort to read. Thought you'd like to know someone appreciated your efforts.

[PhilFleischmann]

Originally posted by badger3k

I know we're looking at it from two seperate ways.

Yes. I'm looking at it from a standpoint of fairness and game balance - the principles on which the game is built. You're looking at it from a standpoint of obedience to an individual ruling by a fallible game designer/owner, who has never made any attempt to justify or explain his ruling. That's OK. You don't have to be interested in logic and reason.

 

So where is the harm in playing that way?

The harm is that it isn't fair. The character isn't paying for what he gets. I understand that fairness may not be important to you, but it is to me and many HERO players. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I play HERO as opposed to some other system.

 

I really just skimmed your post, but I'm not really going to read it. Nothing in my ideas will change.

You don't have to read it. Only those who are interested in logically figuring out what a power construct should cost based on fairness should read it. Only those open to possibly changing their minds could benefit from reading it. My argument is not directed at you specifically. It's directed at anyone who is trying to come up with a fair price for a Multipower with limitations on the switching of slots.

 

I tried to end the the argument because it's going nowhere for me,

If it's going nowhere for you, then stop reading/posting to it. It's not up to you to end an argument on this public forum just because it doesn't interest you.

 

Your whole argument stems from the belief that I view the situation the same as you do

No. My argument stems from my own beliefs. It has nothing to do with what your view. I kept responding to you because you kept arguing against my claims. I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that you did so because you found my logic to be flawed. I now understand that you aren't interested in the logic of the situation. You didn't find a flaw in my logic, you simply didn't bother following it at all.

 

Unless I agree with everything you said on that point, your argument breaks down and means nothing to me,

This is the kind of statement which led me to my misunderstanding. My argument "breaking down" and "meaning nothing to you" are not the same thing. My argument means nothing to a goldfish either, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong, or that it breaks down. The only thing that has broken down is my communication with you. I still find this discussion worthwhile, because there are other people who read this thread.

 

-----

60 4d6 RKA -- Costs 60 points

 

20 Multipower 60-Point Reserve, 8- Activation to change slots (-2)

6 u 4d6 RKA

6 u Some other power

-- Costs 32 points according to Steve's answer in the FAQ

 

12 Multipower 60-Point Reserve, 8- Activation to change slots (-2), 1 Charge on changing the slots (i.e. you can only make one attempt per day to reallocate the MP) (-2)

6 u 4d6 RKA

1 u Some other 60-AP power, 10x END cost (-4)

-- Costs 19 points according to Steve's answer in the FAQ

 

Wouldn't you like a 4d6 RKA for only 19 points?

Would you like to face a villian with a 19 point 4d6 RKA?

[JmOz]

Phil,

 

Well thought out.

 

Having said that I am going to play Devil's advocate for a minute, I am away from my book right now, so the lim value may be wrong:

 

40 Reserve 60 points, 8 charges (-1/2)

4u 12d6 EB

4u 4d6 RKA

----

48 Points

 

This is definatly a lim on the entire MP, as the attack can only be used 8 times, from two different sourses

 

Compared to

 

60 Reserve 60 points

3u 12d6 EB 4 charges

3u 4d6 RKA 4 charges

-----

66 Points, again the attack can only be used 8 times, but is even more restricted by only being able to be used 4 times per slot, HOWEVER it costs 18 points more by your method.

 

 

Let me say that neither way works for this situation, so what is my point (Besides charges on MP is a broken construct as well)? That no matter what an example of a points/usefullness breakdown is going to pop up no matter what method you use (No system is infalible)

 

 

BTW there is a simple fix to my problem as well (Allow the MP to take the combined total of charges, while each slot takes the difference, similar to the relationship of OIF/OAF)

[PhilFleischmann]

Your example isn't really what we're talking about. The idea was limitations on switching the slots, not on using them. Yes, Charges is a little different from most other limitations, but the proper comparison is:

 

40 Reserve 60 points, 8 charges to switch (-1/2)

6u 12d6 EB

6u 4d6 RKA

----

52 Points - this is the value according to Steve Long's answer in the FAQ.

 

This power can be used as many times as you want, but you can only switch back and forth between the two slots 8 times. Frex: Use the EB ten times, switch to RKA, use it ten times, switch back to EB, repeat 7 more times.

 

Compared to:

 

60 Reserve 60 points

4u 12d6 EB 4 charges (-1/2 - half the usual value of 4 charges)

4u 4d6 RKA 4 charges (-1/2 - again)

68 points - This is the value according to my recommendation.

 

Each slot can be allocated four times, and then used as much as you want.

 

And as long as I'm posting, here's one other example of a benefit from putting the switching limitations on the slots: You can put different limitations on each slot! Example:

 

A mage-type character has a number of spells in a multipower.(Assume for simplicity that all slots are ultras and they all use up the entire reserve.)

60 Reserve

6 u Slot A - an everyday spell that the mage uses all the time and has easy access to.

5 u Slot B, Extra Time-Full Phase to switch to (-1/4) - a fairly easy spell that takes a little time to recall it to the front of the mage's mind and use.

4 u Slot C, Concentration to switch to (-1/2) - this spell is a little more difficult to call up. The mage is somewhat vulnerable while getting in tune to cast it.

3 u Slot D, No conscious control to Switch to (-1) - this spell cannot be called up by the mage at all. His diety, or perhaps luck, grants it to him every once in a while.

2 u Slot E, Side Effects to switch to, Costs Lots of END to switch to, Expendible Expensive Focus to switch to, (Total -2) - this is a spell that the mage will only use in emergencies, because calling it to his mind hurts him, fatigues him, and requires him to destroy a large precious stone each time. Once he makes this expensive sacrifice, in both wealth and health, he can cast the spell freely as many times as he wants.

 

So he switches to slot E, taking the side effect etc., uses the spell over and over until he's sure he won't need it again for a while, and then finds himself needing slot A. So he switches back to slot A - no problem at all, a standard MP slot. He uses slot A a several times, and then a situation arises where he needs slot E again. If he switches back to slot E, he'll have to make the sacrifice again.

[JmOz]

My point was in response to your statement that usefullness=points spent, this was an example of a BTR where you spend more for less versitility, under either system. I was using it as an example of the fact that the system has a few hiccups in it.

 

Having said that, I actualy do agree with your method, and the fact that it can be by the slots (Normal shots only take a moment, but for the multi phase affect desol attack takes five minutes to adjust it just right) is down right intriguing which opens the door on many many opportunities