Hugh Neilson

Re: It can't be linear

Originally posted by JMHammer

The Hubble Space Telescope is in low Earth orbit, average altitude 368 miles or, let's just say, 130 kilometers. That's 130,000 meters, or 65,000 game inches.

 

Uselessly yours,

John H

Gotta call you on that one - It's not useless! I've been meaning to look fpor how far "earth orbit" is and you gave me a good number - THANKS!

Now, any idea how many game inches = 1 light year?

Originally posted by Spence

For me I try to make the focus fit its type. For instance, in this case the focus is a necklace. I wouldn't allow it to be considered inaccessable unless its effect fits. A necklace that is obvious and flops around has to be Obvious Accessable, if it is obvious, but say fuses to the heroes neck or sinks into him/her when active, then it can be Inaccessable. But there has to be a reason it is considured Inaccessable other than wanting the Focus bonus without the drawbacks.

To me, a necklace sounds Accesiible.

Your comment about wanting the bonus without the drawbacks seems misplaced

Seems to me this character is taking the drawbacks without the bonus. If it's easily grabbed, it SHOULD be accessible, which is a larger limitation. Perhaps the player might redefine the focus to be IAF - it can be grabbed but, since its only value seems to be ornamental, no one bothers.

Originally posted by assault

I'm not sure that he can only activate his powers once a day. I have a vague memory that he can pop another pill an hour after his previous one wears off, but that is quite likely a Roy Thomas retcon. Another retcon, of course, is his addiction to Miraclo. In the Golden Age, he could just enjoy super-steroids in moderation.

I believe the golden age character had to wait an hour before taking another pill, consistent with your comments.

Originally posted by Snarf

What do you mean by only visible to his target? Under what conditions would someone be considered a target? If anyone could be chosen, I guess that would be some sort of small enhancement.

I can see where this would sometimes be advantageous - we're fighting Big Ugly Megavillain, so I'll be invisible only to him, and not to my teammates.

But it seems to me it's generally limiting, as it's more common to encounter multiple foes. "Hmmm, my teammate FlameBoy acts like he can't see that guy. I'll help him out. " zzzaaap!!

In a fantasy campaign, how often will it be as useful to be invisible to ONE orc, rather than to all the orcs? Only when just one orc is there!

Originally posted by altamaros

- use this trick (i did it once or twice)

PC - "Can't see through that wall! That's where I need to go!"

GM- "Okey, you go there, there's nothing..."

PC- "what ?, i'm searching (concealmeent roll)"

GM-"this will take you some time: nothing!"

PC -"huh ?"

other PC - "we're doing during this time"

 

End of the game : less XP for the PC because while searching for inexistant stuff, he missed something important.

after losing his time once or twice, the player will be less eager to think that. yes, i know: it's vicious and reserved to abusing PCs

Sounds like it's being used for abuysing PC's who are trying to metagame.

Player: The only reason that the common substance I can't see through wuld ever be encountered is because the GM is trying to hide something.

GM: No, you encounter a common substance fairly commonly because - guess what - it's common! If you think this substance isn't common, you should not have defined it as the common substance you can't perceive through, should you?

Originally posted by Tom McCarthy

The multipower pool has to cover the Active points of each slot, so it needs to be 90 points. That said, if the slot to use is dictated (i.e. the multipower user has no choice of the active slot), I would (generously) give the multipower pool a -1 for No Conscious Control of the slot to use. I'd also give it the -.5 for Costs END, just to bring the price down.

Well, each slot has "costs END", so that's -1/2 to the base. The multi as a total has 8 shots (with 8 slots), so that's -1/2. Tack on, say -1 on the pool cost for "no choice which slot to use each time" and the base costs 23 (90/4), leaving room for 3 more slots, so now we're up to 12 (which raises the base points, if course). UGH!

The only catch is that he's out of luck after 12 shots - no more charges. Given the magnitude of limitations, I think I would look the other way and let the player have unlimited shots with the final slot, but that would be cheating

Hmmm...let's look at this another way. The first slot has 1 charge (-2) and Costs END (-1/2). All the others have more limits due to increased END cost, and the last has at least 8x END (-3.5). What if the base has "Variable Limitation" for - 1 1/4 and "no choice which order to use slots and can't vary each slot's limitations" for -1

90/3.25 = 28 points for the base. We've got 17 points to spend on slots before we hit 45.

Slot 1 costs 3 (1 ch; costs END - 90/3.5 = 2.57)

Slots 2 to 7 cost 2 each

Slot 8 is 12d6 AP EB, x8 END and costs 2 (90/4.5 = 20).

17 points spent on slots.

Total cost - 45 points

Once he hits x8 END, that's all it can take out of him.

I guess he could buy only (say) 7 shots/slots, and spend his extra 2 points on 12d6 AP blast, only if MP slots all used (call it -1/2), x 88 END (-43 1/2 limit), but that seems excessive somehow

At the end of the day, you're looking at "GM Fiat" to make this work. He could get 8 charges that cost 9 END each for 45 points. I don't think getting unlimited shots whose END cost increases by 9 each time should be more expensive, and the multipower construct makes it cost the same - it's going to be painful to use after even two or three of shots; forget 8.

If he made the whole EB x 5 END (-3 limit), he'd get it for 30 points with unlimited usage, and pay 45 END per shot (OUCH!). Seems to me the "right" cost is somewhere between 30 and 45. I'd gut feel the END doubling as a +1 to +2 limitation (+1 = 45 points, and equates to 4 charges - using it after that will be crippling anyway; +2 means 30 points which equates to 5x END at the outset, which would be crippling from the start). I'm inclined to say +1 1/2 for a cost of 36, same as 4 charges that cost normal END. For six points, he gets a very few shots that are not prohibitively expensive to fire.

[Maybe he could have 12x END from the outset and have a Linked Heal to END with charged dice having standard 6 END per die, but that's likely to drive me insane to try to compute, so let's go with the above...]

Originally posted by Crimson Arrow

So he never misses with thrown objects. How aout "Bullseye"?

 

HERO is down on "never misses" or even "almost never misses", because of game balance. I'd suggest that misses against characters are defined as "they dodged out of the way". This is just a special effect of the power, the defender doesn't need to make a dodge or anything. If you've seen "Daredevil", you will know what I mean.

Or call it "one hex area", the basis being he's so accurate that, unless the target dives for cover out of the hex, he will hit.

Give him Martial Arts (unless you want him to be really easily beaten in a hand-to-hand fight) and Lightning Reflexes.

 

For a name, how about "Dead On" or "Dead Center"? If he's a mercenary, he'll need a tough-sounding name.

Crackshot or Deadshot are others with a bit of history, but these more connect with firearms. How about "50" (the point value of a double bullseye in darts) or "Sure Thing" (since we all know it can't miss if it's a sure thing). No brilliant name ideas here, obviously...

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

2) may be the easier conundrum to solve. It sounds as though your robot's crystal creation power accesses both his normal END (his power grid) and an END Reserve (his byproduct elements). You could do this as an Advantage on his Power, "Can draw END from Character or Reserve" (+1/4), unless you want him to have to draw END for both simultaneously. That one I'd have to think about.

If he's drawing normal END from both the battery and his personal END, I'd buy the power with the battery and add "Also costs personal END" for +1/2, same as costs END for any other power that wouldn't normally draw on your personal END.

As for the grid, it depends on the effect you're trying to create. The fuel charge with a difficult to recover expendeble forcus seems like the closest match. The limit deoends on how hard the materials are to come by, but it would cap at/just below the limit for "charges never recover" (I don't have the book here, so not sure of that value).

Originally posted by altamaros

i approve the Hex's idea to count how many times the power will be used in one adventure but it's a new character and i've got no idea of that.

 

On the alternative, i could use "charges" this way.

 

Another GM i know came to me this week-end and suggested to apply the lim

- x ["charges"] END cost (8 charges => x 8 END Cost)

and then apply the "gradual effect" limitation on the "END cost" limitation.

 

Energy blast: 12D6 (60 B.Pts/90 A.Pts)

+ Armor-piercing: +1/2

- charges [8c]: -1/2

- Costs END: -1/2

- END x 8: -3,5

 

Base: 60

Active: 90

Real: 16

 

the END x8 lim. is worth 29 points.

 

apply a gradual on these 29 points

 

but i would prefer not to use it since

a) i don't want to limit the number of times the power can be used.

the "gradual effect" just don't do that.

c) At the end, it seems to have a rather low for a rather powerful effect (after half of the charges can be used without too much effort).

It's a 45 point cost even without moving the END up the charts, so the cost won't be that high at the end of the day anyway.

You say you don't want to limit usage but, in effect. you already have. Once the END multiple gets high enough, he's looking at being knocked out by using the power, at least unless he curtails his dice significantly. Eg. assume he has 50 END. At 8x END, and assuming he's at full END, he burns all END plus 11d6 Stun. At 10x END, it's 20d6 STUN, and 29d6 at 12x END. Assuming he also has 50 STUN (and I consider 50 END and 50 Stun pretty good), he-s at -37 STUN on standard 3 points per die - GM's option. A further multiple makes no real difference.

What about staggered charges? Buy several EB's with one charge, each costing END and limited with "Can't MPA with other EB's and must be used in order; -1/4". Buy 1 charge each at normal END cost, 2x END, 3x END and so on up to, say, 11x END. Then buy the EB 12x END without charges, only after charges exhausted and can't MPA with charges (90 active / 6.75 = 13 points) which is the unlimited blast. If he has enough END and STUN that 12x isn't instant KO, buy some more 1 charges at higher END multiples.

It's not elegant, but I don't see an elegant way to generate the effect you're looking for.

Re: UMA

Originally posted by Keneton

This has always been addressed as Lack of Weakness against analyze style according to the rules given in UMA on page 112.

 

Hope this helps as this is the official rule.

 

Oops! didnt see hugh beat me to it. My referance is to the updated rule in UMA.

Well, two of us beat Steve's roll! [Haven't read the UMA yet - lucky to get through FRED.]

OK, after brainstorming various ways to do this, I have to do this:

HEY, STEVE - I'M CALLIN' YA OUT - IT'S A RULES QUESTION!!!

FRERd p125, Lack of Weakness - "Characters can also buy Lack of Weakness to protect against the Analyze Skill. Every -1 to all Analyze rolls costs 1 character point." Since this would only apply to Analyze Martial Arts, I'd give it a limitation depending on how common Analyze Martial Arts is in the campaign (likely -1/2; maybe -1 or more in a pure martial arts campaign).

And the moral of the story is that no one remembers all the rules at all times (except Steve, of course, who obviously transferred this thread as a test of the Board Posters ). Always a good idea to get others' input on unusual structures!

Originally posted by Monolith

I have seen the VPP done several times. I generally would give it Skills Only: -1 and Must Witness Skill In use: -1/2 Limitations. I would probably also require the character to take Cramming as well to simulate his ability (and as a way of charging the character a few more points to get such useful power).

 

I would not let the character have a big VPP; probably around 9-10 points (enough to get and retain a maximum of 3, 3 point skills to begin with). That way the character cannot save a lot of different skills for long periods of time.

This depends on the exact ability you want to simulate. If he's as good as the person he witnessed, he may need more points to buy bonuses to the roll.

Presumably, he's limited to physical skills (seeing Professor Potts lecture on nuclear physics likely doesn't let him pick up Nuclear Physics: 14-). That restricts him a bit.

I would only allow this if it's not going to step on another player's toes (eg. you have a heavy skill character in the group already), but failing that, it seems a reasonable ability, at least for a Super. Note that he's virtually guaranteed access to skills of his teammates.

You should also address what skills are covered. Knowledge as discussed above. Can he duplicate martial arts? What about "hyper-skill" powers, like invisibility defined as "super-stealth" or Captain Crossbow's CSL's with crossbows? Either approach is likely OK, but you should both be on the same page up front.

The full blown "photographic reflexes" possessed by Taskmaster, for example, carries a lot of power, probably even an ability to enhance his stats (witness his ability to actually enhance his own DEX and SPD by watching himself on a VCR at 2x speed!), which is likely a bit more than you want to allow.

Another issue: does he have to see the person, or can he watch them on TV, movies and/or video. If he can, he'll find it easier to maintain skills.

Bottom line: Neat power; I'd allow it, but get it fully defined up front.

Originally posted by Demonsong

After I read your post again Geoff I agree...

 

Darkness 1†HRRH (Non Targeting Sense 5pts)

+1/4 Mega Scale 1km

+1/2 END =0

+1 Continuous

+1 Uncontrolled

+1 Usabale as an attack

 

Active Cost 24pts

 

-1/2 No Range

-1/4 Activation 15-

-1/4 Activation END

-1 END X5

-1/4 Deactivation END

-1/2 Concentration (DCV = 0) at Activation and Deactivation

-1/2 Deactivation 11- [i reduced this one because it’s not as big of a disadvantage to have problems turning it off, in my opinion.]

 

Total Cost 6pts

OK, the one I disagree with is "activation END " being a -1/4 limitation. I would instead reduce 0 END to +1/4. Why, you ask?

Let's use a different construct to illustrate. We'll say it's an 4d6 EB, NND, Area Effect, Continuous, Uncontrolled. That's got an active cost of 100 (20 x 5), right? Tack on 0 END. It now has an active cost of 110. With me so far?

Now let's make it cost END to start up. "10 END Please!" Well, that reduces the cost to 110/1.25 = 88, so it saves 22 points. If I had the power cost ordinary END every phase instead, it COSTS me 12 points.

So I would reduce the advantage, not apply a separate limitation.

Oh, and if you want to get technical, a power can't have both "Increased End" and "Reduced End", can it? Maybe just buy 0 END and take a side effect that does END damage rather than STUN damage

Originally posted by revanick

The story on the formatting is simple: I don't know what I'm doing. (LOL. I am going to have to review the help, because I can't even put a smilie face in at this point. Oh, well).

Join the club - but I can manage a (just click on him on the left). Mine often appear at the end and need to be cut & pasted though.

I liked the old format - it came neatly into a quote. This one leaves slop, which I have deleted.

Here is the modified character. Part of my problem is that I wanted the defensive devices, such as the crash helmet and the force field, to always be on, and tried to trim a few points by keeping them in an elemental control. The idea was that these are safety devices and should work whether or not I'm consious. It didn't make sense to me to have a crash helmet to protect me from smashing into a mountain not work if I don't see the mountain, or if I get knocked unconsious by flying into a seagull at high speed. On the other hand I wanted to be able to fly the skateboard while doing while doing the energy blasting with the prybar, which requires gestures. It didn't seem appropriate to be gesturing to fly the board and gesturing to use the energy blasts at the same time.

Generally, defensive devices are best purchased as some form of defense other than force field, such as armor. That covers off the issues of "persistent" and "0 END".

In my opinion, the EC is outside the rules. There's no real link other than "They're all defenses". Since all the powers are OIF, however, if you could talk me into the EC, I'd be inclined to give the OIF limit on the base cost as well.

I'd buy the vest as Armor (15/15 with OIF is 30 points, but still works if you're stunned, costs no END and need not be switched on and off. If the armor isn't available (and it should be unavailable at times as it is a focus), you have virtually no defenses. You could reduce the armor (and maybe add an activation roll), and use the extra points to buy up base PD and ED.

The teleport is, of course, illegal (under the power minimum), but the effect is reasonable. I'd probably waive the minimum cost if it were me, but I doubt I'd cut it down below 5". This power will probably have more impact than you think, as it would be triggered by knockback into a wall, say.

Hmmm...what's that worth? 5" Tport, Trigger, no rel velocity (what's that, +1/2?) = 17.5 AP. OIF's -1/2. I'd limit it further with "not to escape entangles/grabs" (say -1/2) and "cannot move out of current hex or through barriers" (that's got to be at least -1), and it costs 6 points.

Why aren't the sunglasses a focus as well? OIF or even OAF is reasonable on these.

You could cut the movement powers down a bit to shave some points. You could also merge the two multipowers into, say, a 60 point base, make the movement and TK standard slots and leave the attacks as ultras. Put gestures (or incantations) on the whole thing and you'd shave some points. This would prevent using full movement/TK and attacks at the same time, but save considerable points.

I'd suggest a gadget pool rather than your multi's, but the point cost could get quite steep (no limits on the base cost), and these can be tough to run anyway. If you're fairly confident with the rules you might try forcing your existing gizmos into a gadget pool, but I don't think they would all fit.

Hmmm...you've got 119 points in these now. Assuming a standard pool changed by, say, Inventor skill, and all powers requiring an OIF (or higher focus limitation), you could make an 80 point gadget pooi for 107 points (80 for the pool plus 27 for the control cost). Slap on "maximum 40 active poiints for any one power" (-1/2) and you're down to 100 points. But you still only have 80 "real points" of gadgets, which could force you to cut some powers out (or put more limitations on them).

Can you put which attaxk your levels effect [why I hate computer SW character sheets...]? I'd be inclined to take 3 point levels with the Multi, as you'll likely want to use the Flash, EB and TK with reasonable odds of hitting.

The martial arts are under the 10 point minimum, so a GM could call you on that. Not sure how much use the Strike (at 8 STR) or homemade weapons (you don't have any anyway that add to HTH) will be. Maybe you could get by with "+4 DCV; only when making a full move" - that should be a +1 limitation since it costs you your attack for the phase, so 10 points.

You could shave some points by reducing your skill rolls - these are easy to buy up with XP.

Given his size, a couple of bonus DCV levels (10 pts total) would seem reasonable.

I assume normal characteristic maxima is automatic in the campaign, as your stats qualify and you haven't taken the disadvantage. You've got 15 "extra" disad points, haven't you? Probably prudent - that gives you some leeway if your GM doesn't like the values.

Originally posted by dbsousa

This modifier you describe turns out to be an advantage rather than a limitation...

I'd say this indicates "continuing charges" isn't the way to go. It's working out to a +1 advantage because continuing charges incorporate not only the 0 END advantage but also the Uncontrolled advantage.

Uncontrolled says "be wary of 0 END uncontrolled powers" and continuing charges create them. The inherent time limit renders continuing charges less unbalancing, but they are priced higher, IMO, because of the potentially high powered effect of combining "uncontrolled" with "0 END". The construct worked out to a +1 advantage can keep going for a whole day.

This would be hugely advantageous for an attack - the target needs to find a way to shut it off or consider himself toast. For a Force Field (ignoring the "costs END" aspect) it would be better to just buy it zero END persisitent, as 4 charges/day, each continuing all day, would have the same effect. This would be the same +1 advantage, and you wouldn't need an easy way to turn it off.

The character has a limitation, not an advantage, so a point break should be available. That means looking for something else.

"Long Long Ago" [Champs 2e, to be precise], continuing charges automatically cost END, and provided the same bonus as ordinary charges. This would give a +1 advantage, which I think is on the high side. Instinctively, I'd say +1/2.

However the real value depends on how often he'd want to turn this on. If the campaign features frequent short battles, he'd likely want to keep it on all the time (a problem unless he can recover the END as fast as he spends it, and even if he can if long term END rules are in effect). If he doesn't, how many combats will he have no field up on a typical day?

Even assuming he can maintain the power when not in combat, how often will it be shut down in combat, requiring a charge be spent? Are Dispels fairly common? [eg. in a Fantasy Hero campaign, Dispel Magic might be a common feature] How often will the character run out of END, making him shut the field down or "spend Stun"? Spending 1d6 STUN a phase for your force field is pretty harsh! How often will he be Stunned be KO'd, requiring him to expend another charge to restart the field (and, if KO'd, leaving him little END to manage it)?

If he'll be missing the force field for more than 1/3 of the "average day's" battles, I'd say +1 is reasonable. Based on the above, especially "field drops if stunned", I'd say +1 is reasonable, but it depends on the campaign circumstances.

This kind of makes me wonder why the original continuing charges, which were exactly the limitation desired here, were dropped. This would have been between 2e and 4e - they aren't in 4e. Assuming it was available only for Constant (and not Persistent) powers that cost END, and reducing the END was prohibited (or maybe cost double), it would seem a reasonable construct. Anyone with some insights into the design process have any comments here?

Originally posted by GamePhil

Well, it's another 5 points over Weather Eye for what is already an effect of questionable utility. Can't think of anything that would stop someone otherwise.

Haven't looked at Weathereye, so there you go. Does it cost 10 points plus the skill? How much do you need to spend on the skill to predict the weather with any reliability (I'd go look, but the book's about 10' away and I'm lazy).

At least this one would work beyond the next turn or so with some reliabilityI'm inclined to agree that 3 points would make it comparable with pther "not exceptionally useful" detects.

Originally posted by Farkling

I would actually ask the character to buy a "Weather Sense" also, even if ONLY for use with the Precog. The Detect Weather would give intimate knowledge about the weather. Clairsentience without a weather sense attached is only going to tell Jake the Rain God what his eyes (ears?) see or hear. The Discriminatory, Analyze Weather Sense, IMHO, on a good PER roll will include all the little things he wants to know. Average Temperature, Humidity, WInd Speed, yadda yadda yadda. Shortening the time he needs to observe the future. And anyone who can accurately predict the weather should have good knowledge of the weather immediately surrounding them.

Actually, why not trash the whole "precog" thing and give the character "Detect weather patterns, Discriminatory; Analyze". for 15 points (weather patterns as a class of things). The better his PER roll, the more accurate and longer term his forecasts are.

Originally posted by Tom Carman

A lot can depend on exactly how precise a weather forecast you want. I mean, if you want to know the precise temperature, humidity, precipitation, wind speed and direction, etc. in a specific hex at some point in the future, then sure it can get hard to predict. On the other hand, determining the general conditions in a mega-scaled hex should be worth a considerable (+4 or better) bonus for being an "easy task".

??NOT FOLLOWING?? The limitation described imposed penalties only on the temporal distance (how far in the future). Locations were not at issue from what I read.

Originally posted by Snarf

I'm letting my players take extra time to reduce the time modifier penalty. For instance, if they take an hour to do their prediction, they get a +5.

Not to mention a +12 for seeing into the next phase since it's now an hour closer

Seriously, this limitation seems to restrict the character unduly for the limitation value. If a character wants solely to see the future, he pays 40 AP, applies -1 (precog only), -1/2 (RSR; skill woll is -4 as power is 40 AP) to get to 16 points. This added limitation saves a whopping 3 points!

Assuming a skill roll of 15- to begin with (to get even odds the power will work), he's actually down a point if he raises it to 17- to have a 50/50 chance of seeing into the next phase.

Maybe "time limit" should assume a base time of 1 day (or less) for an unmodified roll, -2 for anything within 5 days, and so on. Or maybe the player should just define his precognition as having a fixed time limit, or becoming vague after a certain period. Going from no modifer at all to -8 to see tomorrow seems like a hefty limit for a 3 point modifier.

Hmmm...If I buy Clairsentience for sight, hearing, touch and smell/taste (just like being there...) with RSR, I pay 33 (50 AP/1.5). If I add Precog and time limits, does that make it (70/2 =) 35 points, or (33 + 20/2) = 43 points? In other words, do I apply the limit only to the precog points, since it does not limit the clairsentience? [Mind you, is precog with that level of penalty even worth 2 points?]

I'd have to say he's invisibe to the Detect. I'd also require a pretty good justification.

If I buy my Desolidification "Affects Desolid", am I immune to attacks that affect desolid as well?

Re: -1/4 Limitation on VPP: Magic Only

Originally posted by JMHammer

Just to pick one character that I sort of remember without a book in front of me:

 

Witchcraft (from Champions) has a smallish VPP. Her VPP has this -1/4 "Only Magic" Limitation. One of the defined "spells" for her VPP is her magic dagger, built as a small physical killing attack with some extra damage against evil nasties.

 

So, if I understand you correctly, this would not trigger Paper Man's 2xStun and 2xBody from blades and other "sharp" killing attacks because it's just a "magic" attack. Similarly, if she put together a Drain REC, it wouldn't trigger Twiggy Frail's 2xeffect from Drains/Transfers/Dispels/Suppresses.

 

Makes sense and I suppose it's worth the -1/4 Limitation. If so, it might even be worth more... Works for me; thanks for the explanation!

 

John H

Yes to the first - it's magic so it has no other special effect - her magic dagger would be pure magic, and not a blade of any sort.

No to the second - this is still a Drain, so a character who is especially susceptible to Drains (or PD damage, or mental attacks) would still take double effect.

Essentially, the mechanics still underlie the powers, but the only special effect is Magic.

Re: A few thoughts on VPPs

Originally posted by JMHammer

I've seen the following Limitation applied to the control cost of Variable Power Pools on published characters:

 

Only Magic (-1/4)

 

Now, I'm pretty lenient when it comes to building powers as long as the builder has defined his effect and is just trying to reproduce it accurately. (Some of you might recall, for example, that in supers campaigns I don't restrict the active points in a power within a VPP to the number of real pool points in the VPP.) But this Limitation can't really be worth -1/4. I mean, you can do anything with magic, especially the magic power pools on super-types in a Champions-style campaign. And a Limitation that doesn't, isn't.

 

I would allow this limitation in Champions, but it must have meaning. In this case, to me, it means all powers are subject to any adjustment power targetting Magic (big deal ) and the ONLY valid special effect is magic. No "Magic Flames" against Cold Dude, no "Magic Silver" against the werewolf, no "Magical Stake" through the heart of the vampire. It can LOOK like flames, but it's pure magic so it triggers no vulnerability. And no Variable Special Effect powers either - that's off your list if you want the +1/4.

If the player wants to limit it more, a greater limitation may be available (eg. only magical attack powers), but if you want a limit for "magic only", it's magic ONLY..

Um, anyway, generally speaking if you can represent a character's abilities well without the use of a VPP then do so. Only allow the character to use a VPP if it's needed to represent the character's abilities, or if a Multipower or other construct is just too screamingly inefficient as a way of building them. (Usually - depending on special effect etc. - 5 or more "m" flexible Multipower slots or 10 or more "u" fixed Multipower slots will prove to be more expensive than a VPP, especially one defined as "just these 5 basic types of powers using this one special effect.")

Unless you have limitations. The inability to ever reduce the cost of the base pool can be frustrating (not so much in your campaign if you allow AP to exceed the pool), although limits do mean you can have more powers in your VPP at one time. But I agree there is a point at which your "multipower" would be better off as a VPP. I also agree that a listing of "standard powers" should be mandatory.

Players who start with a character conception of "I can do anything I want anytime I want," should be gently encouraged to come up with something else. Green Lantern is manageable, since you can define with the player exactly what his limits are. (Yes, GL can fly FTL in outer space and carry others along with him safely. No, GL can't change a man into a frog.) Cosmo The Cosmic Man is not manageable because he has no limits except the points he purchased. (Cosmo can do anything he wants as long as he has the points in his VPP to pay for it... BLECH! Ditto and double BLECH! to such published characters as Takofones whose VPPs are pretty much defined that way, too. Might as well just say that GM fiat defines what happens, and of course this is fine in limited cases for NPCs but simply can't be permitted for PCs.)

If it's a legit conception (eg. he's the Silver Surfer), maybe. But virtually every character with a "cosmic VPP" in the comics (outside the very potent NPC's you note) has some things his VPP can't do, even if it's just a restricted special effect.

Characters who can do anything get pretty boring, although it might work in a campaign with only one or two players. I find the power gamers can generally be put off with the cost - "pure cosmic" = 2.5 points per point in the pool. That's a maximum of 140 points in the pool, and that assumes all your characteristics are 10. Sure, you can raise them, but you're seriously wasting points putting things you'll virtually always have up through a VPP.

NOTE: For the same price, another player could have a 20 d6 EB, no END, +50/+50 resistant armor, a 20 DEX and a 5 Speed. He'll be pretty effective most of the time too - and YOU don't have enough VPP for either the EB or the Armor - they're both 150 AP. OIHID and he frees up some more points to spend!

[No, I doubt either of those characters will be in my campaign any time soon.]

Players who are wizards with huge numbers of spells, or mentalists who can use a very wide range of powers with telepathic and/or telekinetic special effects, are good candidates for VPPs. However, if your group is just starting with The Hero System, give them Multipowers or other constructs first; then allow them to rewrite their characters with VPPs after a few sessions when they have the hang of the rules.

I see no problem allowing a character to change from a multi to a VPP as his number of slots increases. That's not so much a rewqrite as an acceptance of the relation between multi's and VPP's.

Lord Liaden's suggestion about allowing only those powers that have already been written to be used in combat is critical unless you want your game to slow to a crawl. Make an exception when your player needs to do something critical, like defeat the master villain once and for all, or save the world, or something equally significant. But it's otherwise an excellent way to keep things moving while allowing the player to use his character with the flexibility he paid for with the VPP.

Time limits to act - always crucial if you want any happy players! Yeah, the guy you rush may be steamed, but the other players don't want to wait 45 minutes while he re-reads FREd to design his perfect power.

A compromise approach is to carry a chart of sorts (eg. this many points gets this many DC's with this much in advantages - I've got 60 points available; AP is +1/2; that's 8d6 AP). If the player can determine that in 10 seconds or less (ideally before his phase!) , that's fine

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

It may be nasty of me, but if a player with this type of VPP and a really long list takes more than a minute to find the spell he wants to use, I've ruled that he missed his Phase due to indecision.

OK, maybe I'm just a GM and player, but for the most part I don't think it should take a player more than a minute to decide his next combat action (the only time losing a phase really hurts), VPP or not, and I see no problem telling a player who can't make up his mind that he's missed his opportunity. Special dispensation for newer players still learning the ropes (who likely don't have VPP's anyway), but it's generally unfair to everyone else to let one guy hold up the game for inordinate periods of time.

How would your players react if the GM took even ONE minute to decide each NPC's next action in combat?

Originally posted by Blue Angel

There is such a transform power in USPD and this was part of my dislike of the +1 amicable modifier for the summon method. They used a limited target (spare parts) -1/2.

sigh...I need to find the time to read all these books I keep buying...

One thing about the transform method is that it is cumulative so a power with expanded class can be built for relatively few points - it just takes more time to get the results wanted. That makes the trasform method even more potentially abusive than the summon method. At least the summon method defines the maximum points of the summoned machine. The transform method is limited by body only and the cumulative affect means there is no upper limit on results, especially with expanded class modifiers.

Well, the Summon cost would come down a bit with "needs raw materials", and you could put Extra Time on it to simulate the phases you'd need with a cunulative transform. That might get the costs comparable for an ordinary vehicle. But why not have a custom vehicle with the same body that flies, turns desolid, obeys your commands, turns on a dime, is armor plated and has weapon systems? Same Body, same cost. Even if it gets destroyed, you just re-transform it from the spare parts.

Didn't "old transform," require you to point balance? Eg. if you transform a person into a person with wings (10" flight, OAF Wings) you could drop his SPD 1 or otherwise lose 10 points to balance the final form? I don't recall this being in FREd though. I think you need an appropriate skill to build technological items with Transform, but the the character you described would have the skills.

Obviously the GM has to be vigilant in both cases but why should one method have to pay extra points for "amicability " that the other method gets for free? Or in the case of common machines why should one method have to pay for loyalty it does not receive when the other doesn't have to?

Player: "I transform those two cars into one car with 15PD defence and security system that only responds to my voice command"

All the player has to do is perform the transform out of combat and there is no upper limit on what can be made. Again the GM has to think hard about that power.

One could impose the requirement that the player pay points for things he will be creating out of combat and bringing in (eg. a gadget pool), but the base problem remains - Transform lacks a points restriction, so the sky's the limit. Meanwhile, we limit Summon to prevent identical abuses, and probably go too far the other way.

At least the Summon method has built in point limits, which I think it is preferable over transform. The control over the power is more tangible for the GM and puts less demands on him/her to keep it under control. And potentially less motivation to just ban an interesting power outright.

But the player or NPC should also get what they pay for. Common objects cannot give loyalty. Just ask a pet rock owner.

That's my general beef with the restrictions on Summon - they seem there to make abuse cost more, but drive up the cost of non-abusive structures as well. Why not let the non-abusive structures pay a reasonable cost commensurate with their benefits, and push the costs for abuse out of reach (assuming we don't want to rely on GM Override).

Similar problems exist in other powers (eg. why can't Transfer be used as a drain? A Linked Aid and Drain could do this, and likely at a lower cost. Because Adjustment powers got a bad rep in 4th Ed so 5th Ed overcompensates for it.)

Originally posted by GamePhil

Yes, it means that you can withstand more pain, but that could mean you can "ignore more pain up to a point". If you truly want to ignore pain, you would probably need to get Takes No Stun from the Automaton Powers, and that causes some other trouble (though I've been known to allow it).

 

Now, if you really wanted to do that, I'd also suggest taking a Disadvantage that a certain amount of Body damage rendered you unconscious (the body just can't keep going with all that internal damage, regardless of its owner not feeling it), and buy up your Body.

That's a good idea from not only the "reality" standpoint, but playability. A character who keeps fightinguntil he drops dead (and he doesn't know how badly he's hurt since he feels no pain) probably won't have much of a lifespan (unless he can also regenerate from "dead" I suppose).