Hugh Neilson

You are what you eat. Cows eat grass. Therefore, cows are vegetables. [Really, how much more plant-based can your protein get? How many plants do lentils eat?]

OK, so 124 points ignoring any limitations where an 87 point Multipower + slot costs of 44 would be 131 points. This ignores any limitations. No two power could be used in tandem with Fixed slots as all combinations exceed the 87 active point pool, but the pool cost gets common limitations. Slap on unified power and this model saves 9 points. The Multipower saves another 17 by applying a -1/4 limitation on the pool itself. The VPP could have a "limited powers" limitation further reducing the control cost. It may be less expensive to just make some slots Variable and accept the 87 AP cap for powers in use at one time, or buy a bigger pool to fit in certain combinations. I'm not sold either way as I haven' really dug in, but I question whether the added value of this "middle ground" framework is worth the added complexity of a third framework.

Agreed on finding some middle ground. That may include "all grenade tosses are created equal". I think we only need to work out size modifiers once, and we could simply set a standard for velocity rather than working that out in play. So there's our DCV, set as part of the trope. As an alternative, perhaps this simply becomes part of the "can be blocked/deflected" element typically included in a grenade. This gets the skill of the grenadier back in, as Block requires beating the grenadier's OCV with your Block roll. The drawback being that a more accurate throw doesn't necessarily make it harder to catch the grenade, just more likely that the grenadier accurately places it. But if we assume that OCV includes timing the throw, then you have the grenadier's skill incorporated.

Sure - but the ability to just snap up a new weapon of opportunity after the first is disarmed, or to have the weapon return to the user's hand provided it's still nearby isn't any less limiting than an inability to be disarmed in the first place.

We could certainly fine-tune grenades to have the fuse count down, if we really want granularity. That would suggest that the fuse is set by the action of the grenadier, who then must decide how long to wait before throwing it. Then he throws, and the countdown continues. That would also allow the grenade to land and someone to attempt to pick it up and throw it back. Of course, the grenadier could also wait too long - perhaps he is distracted by a PRE attack! We could reasonably start with the attack roll - the catcher has to go where the grenade will land to attempt a grab and throw back. I haven't done any math, but between the size and velocity of the grenade and the Grab penalties, I suspect it would be unlikely the average soldier would succeed. If it turns out to be too easy, then we have a problem as we know it's uncommon in reality and in the source material.

Why the focus on Disarm? You can't Disarm a suit of armor or a magic ring. If I can summon the weapon back when it's close by, that sounds pretty similar to any other Focus that can't effectively be removed in combat.

Real Weapon sounds like the best approach for allowing the grenade to be returned. It should not be easy, but anyone could attempt it. No one gets trained to do this, so a special maneuver seems out of place. We could simply use Grab mechanics (DCV based on size and velocity) - once you Grab, a Throw is a free followup. Given the defensive nature, I'd allow an Abort.

While the pool cannot be directly limited, it can be indirectly "limited". As an example, assume the Multiform can handle a 500 point character (so 100 AP). The control cost will be 50 points, modified by advantages and limitations. If the Multiform itself will have -1 1/2 in limitations (e.g. extra time), and will only be 40 real points, then the pool can be only 40 points to hold that Multiform power. That was a major 6e change, as the control cost was previously based on half the pool rather than half the maximum AP of any single power in the pool.

The use of OIF came from it being obvious in its usage, but not possible to take away for long. OK, he's disarmed. So what? There is no loss of actions to grab a different weapon of opportunity, provided one is readily available. It doesn't matter what you call it - at one time, Restrainable was "OIF". A -1/2 limitation is the mechanical result in any case.

As I recall, DC Animated Universe Batman had powered gauntlets used to make him credible in JLA combat. He's a super-rich gadgeteer. In the early comic JLA, he would fight in the BatPlane when he fought at all. But he can't be ineffectual in a significant part of the game, or he's no fun for a player. Combat Luck exists to explain why these types of characters appear never to get hit - and to give Supers who lack bulletproof skin access to resistant defenses. We know that, in the source media, they get shot at all the time. We know that, in-game, they will get hit on occasion. Therefore, there must be a mechanic to bridge the gap if we want the game to accurately reflect the source material. Most attacks miss, and the rare few that hit are deflected by Combat Luck. What is the point of making characters with vasty greater power if Granny's Purse is now a +8d6 Hand Attack added to her 20 STR, with which she strikes at 12 OCV? Rather, I would suggest that the agents that were at least something of a threat, en masse, to our 450 point Supers are swept away by our Cosmic 1,000 point Supers. They are no longer a credible threat, at least not directly. Perhaps they can distract the PCs from something else getting done. Certainly, they can threaten civilians, and there sure are a lot of them. Direct combat? The only challenge is not hospitalizing or disabling them. In fact, maybe we keep the Supers at SPD 5-7 and OCV/DCV 9-11, but agents have SPD 2 and CV 3. "Standard Supers" have SPD 3-4 and CV 5 - 7. Scaling down the rest of the world makes the PCs much more powerful at even standard point or stat levels.

The challenge, as identified above, is what you decide "high end" means. CV 13 - 18 sounds pretty good, but the OP was tossing around 20 as a baseline. How does Kiloton stack up if the norm is 20 OCV/20 DCV? The issue is no different than 450 point Supers or 150 point Competent Normals - setting expectations is important. 28d6 will average 98 STUN, which those defenses will leave at about 15 past defenses. Is that the expected norm? If we assume he gets hit 5 or 6 times a turn, with those higher SPDs, he'll soak up 75 - 90 STUN per turn. Should he have enough STUN/REC to last 1 turn or 3? Similar for END. Lots of moving parts to consider. Scale the rest of the world to match - agents with CVs that might hit, 6-7 SPD and enough DCs and defenses to matter - and these characters will feel no more powerful than 450 point Supers. How will these power levels scale to the rest of the world around them? That will set a lot of the game's feel.

A lot of the comments suggest -5 DCV, but many maneuvers impose -3 and some even impose -5 already, IIRC. This comes down to how disadvantageous you want things that currently halve DCV to be in the game. If the penalty is relatively modest, say a -5 DCV, then buying limited DCV to counteract it, limited to a single maneuver, would not be a huge investment at high point levels. Maybe I plan to Multiple Attack regularly, or a DCV-focused character could buy +5 DCV only when Stunned. The other question is why bother cranking CVs up to 20 or so? If all the characters have CVs of 19-21, then they interact just as if they had 9 - 11 and spend 100 extra points. Will those stratospheric CVs have any in-game effect, or are they just a Cosmic Character Tax?

Assuming 250 point characters (pretty low for Supers, but just as an example), that VPP will need 50 AP to hold the Multiform and a 50 point Control Cost assuming we want no skill roll but are OK with a full phase to change. I note from 6e V1 p 410 that "only multiform" is specifically contemplated. For the concept in question, I'd say it only changes under specific circumstances (-1/2), is only Multiform to access memories and skills of the target (-1 1/2, the maximum "only one power" limit). So that's a control cost of 17. We might be able to Limit the multiform and get by with a lower pool to hold the limited power, but those limitations would apply equally to a Multiform purchased outside a framework. 15 points would get 8 different forms, so we're saving some points getting to unlimited for less than the cost of 16 forms. Assuming a standard Multiform, so our control cost is only a -1/2 limitation (if that - we can access any powers), the control cost is 33 points, or 64 forms + 3 points. How many different forms did you need? We're assuming this is a game where VPPs are permitted. How much more would it cost to just have a straight VPP rather than Multiform? Is it susceptible to abuse? Sure. That's why VPPs have a stop sign and Multipowers have a Caution sign. Oddly, Multiform does not. Would I allow a construct that allows one player to step on everyone else's toes and unbalance the game? No. Might I allow a SuperMage to slot his DragonForm spell into a Multipower? Depends on the game, and the specifics of the spell, but maybe, at least.

There was a real debate in the past when combined powers first got published. If you can use 2 or more powers together when they are limited to only be usable together, but not when they have no limitations, it seems like the limitation is also an advantage. You could simplify the game a lot by removing rules, powers, maneuvers, options, whatever. That reduced complexity would come at the cost of reduced simplicity. Combined attack simply allows two or more attacks which are not otherwise restricted from being used simultaneously to be used as a single attack, using the Strike combat maneuver only, against a single target. That doesn't strike me as one of the more complicated rules in the book. Burying it in the middle of Multiple Power Attacks and not clearly stating the above seems like the bigger issue.

Multiform is not a framework.

Under 6e, it seems reasonable to limit the Multiform and Control cost "only to gain memories and skills of most recently consumed creature". Add a time limit if you wish. Assuming total limitations of -1.5, for example. you would have a 20 point pool (which can hold 1 50 AP multiform for a 250 point character, with 1 1/2 limitations reducing the real cost to 20) and a 50 point/2.5 = 20 real point control cost.

First, I see some of the problem here being that Desolid combines multiple effects, being to pass through solid objects and complete immunity to many attacks, at the cost of being unable to attack. Then we tacked on "unless he puts a big advantage on his attacks". ASW gets around the limitation imposed on the invulnerability. It seems like losing the limitation on the invulnerability should increase the cost (remove the limitation) on the invulnerability, not increase the cost of the attack. Consider, say, TurtleGirl. She can withdraw into her shell for massive defenses, with the Limitation that she can't attack while turtled. If she had one attack she could use while turtled, would we think she should have a lower limitation on the defenses, or an advantage on the attacks. Or should she have no limitation on her defenses, and instead have "not while turtled" on all of her attacks? That seems like the Desolid definition - all attacks are "limited" to not work while desolid, and that +2 advantage really buys off that limitation. He did pay extra. He had to pay for the Penetrating sense. A character with that same Penetrating sense and a mental or indirect attack could also attack from behind the wall. Here again, though, Indirect applies to the attack, supporting ASW applying to the attack. He could also buy Tunnelling and hide within the wall while attacking, either with an Indirect attack, or by exposing only a tiny portion of his body. The only other example I can think of where the attack costs more is Transdimensional. Maybe Desolid is a limited form of Extradimensional Movement, or an expanded form of Indirect. It functions like both. As set out above, the inability to see through the wall hinders both, and there are other ways of circumventing the wall. A teleporter or a desolid character could both "dive for cover" or move to hide behind the wall. Perhaps the answer is to reduce the price of ASW commensurate with the reduced protection from attacks. Indirect seems like a reasonable pricing model.

4th curtailed the benefits of growth and DI - as I recall, DI was 10 points per level pre-4e.

Page 181 opens the 5-point doubling rule section with and closes it with It mentions Followers, but the Vol 1 discussion of followers already provides for that. However, even if we wish to split hairs into "items that are not foci", we have only shifted the goalposts - why can a character whose SFX involve an object double them but a character with innate powers cannot. Can Captain America spend 5 points to double his SuperSoldier Serum SFX abilities? Let's give the Human Torch 32x Cosmic Rays? Of course, the spirit of using the doubling rules to pay 15 points and get the same attack 8 times as a Combined Attack is certainly consistent with RulesLawyering exactly what abilities qualify. But the bigger question is why should any ability NOT qualify? Why aren't we following the Hero Principle that mechanics are separate from special effects?

A Princess should fit in the 5e PHB - there's a Noble background.

In fairness, the discussion has fallen even further away from the OP's question of why this is OK for gear/gadgets but not for innate powers. What if the innate power is a gadget, but one so difficult to remove that it is not eligible for a Focus limitation? "I can Summon these guns to my hands with but a thought, so they are Restrainable, but not a Focus" - can I use the 5 point doubling rule?

Multiple attack is a standard maneuver (I had to look that up). Combined Attack (6e p 74 for those wanting to read it) does not include any "at the GM's option, two separate attack powers can be used together like this", so it is as standard as Multiple Attack. None of which says the GM can't alter the rules, but the 5 point doubling rule is much more "optional" in its presentation. The example is a robot with an attack built into each hand. Why would the rule be different if it had the same attack built into each hand, or doubled gear each of which is separate from the other? Clearly the robot did not need Two Weapon Fighting to use Combined Attack, but firing each weapon at a different target could benefit from Two Weapon Fighting (still a Multiple Attack, though, with the half DCV and full phase action in that maneuver).

First, it's an option, not a rule, which adds further justification to a GM limiting its use. That could go as far as limiting it to computers, vehicles, bases and followers (which need not be identical), although clearly it is also directed at weapons and gadgets. GM permission is invoked again for "unusual equipment". It could be used for signature gear in a heroic game, but that tends not to come up all that often. The proficiency rules are definitely a start. I find this is seldom enforced for one-off picking up a gadget on the battlefield. It's also only useful for weapons (see below), but resolves the combined attack issue. Especially in a Supers game, why does the focus need to be hand-held? It could be a necklace, a wristband, a ring or what have you. It need not even be a weapon. That Ring of Mystical Protection (+10 rPD, rED, Power Defense, Mental Defense and Sight Flash Defense, IIF) seems pretty handy investing 15 points to have 8 and hand them around to the teammates. Or consider a Ring of Invisibility. For experienced GM's, great. But for the game to attract and retain new blood, it cannot assume every reader is an experienced GM.

If half the discount was 20 points, them the original power must have cost 80 and then become an OAF to save 40. It would have been 53 as an OIF ("I have so many backup weapons that you can't really remove them all unless I am helpless"). That's only a 7 point difference. Of course, if you can fire all 16 all at once that's a bigger issue. A specific 5-point adder to the Focused power ("backup") to have a second gun? Not so big a deal. Cap it at one, or charge 5 points for each backup, and define it as "can't be used in tandem".

6e took a lot of the various elements from past editions, including Sweep and Multiple Move By (remember the maneuver that knocked two opponents' heads together?) and consolidated them into Multiple Attack. It can use the same attack, or mix different attacks, against one or multiple targets. So run down a line of agents hitting each once? Multiple Attack. Fire your Blast at the big opponent three times in rapid succession? Multiple attack. Fire your Colt .45 three times, at three targets, and stab that guy who thinks he's sneaking up behind you with your knife? Multiple attack. Or punch punch punch that one target. All are at 1/2 DCV, the maneuver requires a full phase and it's -2 OCV per attack after the first, so 5 attacks is -8 OCV to each attack. The first miss means the rest miss as well. Combined attack is two or more powers as a single attack against a single target. It imposes no modifiers. How much did the one gun cost? Let's say 90 points, so you made it OAF and dropped it to 45. It could have been OIF for 60 points, and could only be removed when you were helpless. That's not too far off having 8 guns on your person. For the same 60 points, it could have been Restrainable - he can Summon the gun to his hand with a gesture. Do we need the 5 and 10 point costs in between? It doesn't hurt to have that tool in the toolkit, I suppose.