gamerchick

Re: Power Limitation Formula Question Actually, the answer I was looking for was exactly what Mark & Derek gave me. Thank you both. I wasn't implying the formula should be any one thing or another, just noting an oddity in the reference. It's unusual to see numbers listed in the way they are in the book without referring to percentages, which is where my question came from. As a side note, the book I have myself is Champions Deluxe. I know how long the system has been around (and that the formula hasn't changed at all). I'd like to point out, however, that an encyclopedia that has been around about 80 years now still has the word "commonest" in it (which I'm sure you all know is incorrect any way you put it). Good evening to you all, and best wishes.

Re: Power Limitation Formula Question All I'm asking for is a response of either "It was intentional," or "It was a mistake." I don't see how that's a "philosophical" question.

Re: Power Limitation Formula Question Actually, I thought people would refer to the game designers as well, which is who my question was directed to, since only the game designers themselves would know the actual answer as to the intention of the formula. And I know I calculated the formula correctly. That wasn't my question either. I simply wanted to make sure this wasn't a math mistake on the designer's since the text infers a different method to the formula presented. Especially since the 1/4 increments are exact for the power advantages. It seems to me there should be a method to balance out advantages and limitations on powers, but because of this formula, that would take at least 4 of one and 5 of the other to balance out the cost. So the question stands-- is this a mistake, or was this done on purpose? And I was indeed asking the designers, not other gamers, since, in a nutshell, other gamers would simply have opinions on the matter where the designers would have the actual answer (which is what I'm looking for).

Ok, I've looked at it for a long time, and I keep coming up with the same conclusion. I've discussed it with a physics major/math minor and one other math person (as I'm somewhat a math person myself), and I have a question. And before you tell me to search, I've searched the forums every way I can think of and have come up with nothing in these forums, so I'll just ask and you can flame me if I've missed something obvious. So here's the explanation of my question. Ok, in the Power Limitations section of the book, the formula for determining the cost of a power is: Real Cost = Active Cost/(1+Total Bonus from all Limitations) Now, we'll say (for ease of understanding) that the active cost of a power is 60 points. Now, we want to put a 1/4 limitation on it. The formula in the book states that we should divide the Active Cost (60) by 1 + the limitation bonus. So the formula we get is: 60/(1 + 1/4) or 60/1.25 It's easier to demonstrate my point in fractions, so let's convert. 1.25 is equal to 125/100 which simplifies to 5/4. So our new equation is 60 / (5/4). Since dividing by a fraction is equivalent to multiplying by it's inverse, this is the same as saying 60 x (4/5). So, 60 x 4/5 = 48 (which if you use 60/1.25 it comes out the same, check your calculators if you don't believe me). Here's where the actual question comes into play. We all know that 1/4 of 60 is 15 (60/4 if you want to test it). So it would seem that by putting a 1/4 limitation bonus on a power, we'd get 1/4 of the points back for it, so that a 60 pt power with a 1/4 limitation would cost 45 points (or 60 - [60 x (1/4)]). Now, obviously the more a power costs, the more pronounced this difference will be (at 60, the difference is 3, at 100 it's 5, etc). But, instead we only get 12 points back for it instead of 15. So, for a 1/4 limitation on a power, we actually only get a 1/5 bonus. Of course, this is *exactly* what the chart in the book describes which is what leads me to my question. Following me here or have I lost people? I tend to think anyone that plays Hero System is pretty decent at math to begin with, so my apologies if this is too basic for some of you or over anyone's head. So finally, I'll get to my question: Was this done on purpose so that limitations were more of a penalty than the equivalent bonuses are a bonus (as the chart in the book would indicate), or was this a mistake in a formula? I can certainly understand how it could be on purpose to ensure that the limitations truly were limitations, and to thwart power gaming a bit, but the way the limitation bonuses are described, it just seems like a mistake. I apologize for even bringing this up, but it's been driving me nuts wanting to know the truth behind the formula, and I certainly don't want to bring it up in my gaming group until I know for sure one way or the other. Thank you for your time ) - Gamerchick