iamlibertarian

(I'm the OP from the other forum): but "If the GM wanted to allow it anyway..." but it can't be done in Designer that way, right? And here is how I envision it both from the Books and from a 'comic story' or movie viewpoint: Joe Magus has natural magic talent, like a young and less powerful version of Dr. Strange, expressed in the Hero System through a VPP. He don't need no stinkin' focus, lol. However, his Master gives him a gift of a Staff that increases or boosts his natural talent (in other words increases the VPP itself). Magical storywise, this seems reasonable. I can find nothing in 6E which rules this out. Now let's compare this to just a fully limited VPP. The OAF would be a common modifier, the Lim would apply to the Control Cost and all the powers. My version, Partially Limited VPP, is simply a "VPP-only Modifier" to be able to add OAF Limited extra points to the VPP itself. He has to have the staff to have the extra power for the VPP.

All of the "this doesn't work well," and GM Permission comments above just make it seem to me like VPP Multiform-Only is the only way to go. Build the VPP itself to cover the most powerful critter and POOF, any critter you already have a sheet for (like out of HSB) your character can become, no muss, no fuss, no figuring out how to get your GM to approve skills in a Framework, no complicated math (over and over) on each creature you want to emulate, yada yada. To me, simplicity is key. You have enough AP and RP in your VPP to be an Elephant, you open HSB to the Elephant page - Poof, done. You can even reduce the control cost of the VPP by limiting all Forms to "real animals only."

AHA! Love it! Better yet, create a separate "character" (i.e. VPP .hdc) to contain the actual powers which can fit into the VPP at the improved level, but in the main character, create an EMPTY VPP using the *costs* of what it VPP would be if partially limited. That way Designer still does all the legwork, but the true costs are maintained in the actual character sheet. That way I only have to do the math Once. DC :):)

I know most GMs don't like Power Frameworks, Especially VPPs. But what is this difference of being more accepting of Gadgeteers that Mages that I notice? They can both be built Exactly alike power and skill and talent-wise, and the Gadgeteer will be much accepted, and be allowed to put some things in a VPP for which the Mage will be denied, for example. Ex: Power Defense 5 on a sonic generator, self-only on the belt clip that the gadgeteer quickly whips up. Vs a mystical hour glass activated by a Mage for PowDef 5 self-only. Or a 5PD/ED resistant "force field" in the shape of a shield powered by electricity considered 'cool,' but not when the mage whips the exact thing out from his 'ring of defense'? Why do the gadgets Seem more 'acceptable' than the magic tricks? DC

I am just curious. Does anyone actually run or play in a campaign that starts at these levels? My though process for asking this question: 1) GMs do a Shit Ton of work. They have to do it because they love it, or they won't do it. Higher level games are harder to run. So most GMs with which I have interacted like the lower powered games. 2) But, how long do campaigns last? In any genre or gaming system over the decades I have been in or observed, the more frequently you play, the shorter the real life time of the campaign. Even if the gaming group sticks together, they either switch games (D&D Fantast to Hero Supers for example), or at minimum, switch Campaigns within same gaming system. 3) Some of us (me, lol) don't mind starting out like Tony Stark with his first cave-built powered armor, as long as we can eventually grow into the Tony Stark with his highly advanced, AI assisted, powered armor with a large bit of Duplication, lol. I don't mind starting out as a low powered mage with a small VPP of spells that takes a spellbook and an hour of study to change slots for, IF I can actually grow into Dr. Strange. Never in my 4 decades of gaming does this happen. So is it any wonder some of us want to START at the 400 - 600 level to see what it's like to play with that much power? DC

I agree, it can be brute forced. But see my response to LoneWolf about why I like Designer for its ease. Though in the case of Summon or Multiform or Shapeshift or Transform or Vehicles or Bases or the like, I LOVE using PDFs. Print it out and Boom, done Though I could, I suppose, switch to Excel. Master Manipulation of Excel used to be in my wheelhouse, since I used to be an Executive Assistant to a high muckety muck, but that was a lifetime ago.

I do love the idea. The one problem for Me (I am lazy) is the additional work on each and every power, and then the math each time I adjust the VPP either with XP or with an Aid (he is a mage afterall, lol). The thing I love about Designer is the Ease. My character could have a Schtick. Base Power + Partially Limited power in a Compound Power. Powers 2, 3, and 4 could have the same Schtick: copy and paste modifiers across all powers, boom, done. Eventually spend CP to remove one Lim on all the powers in that Schtick? Quick and easy and I don't do the math, Designer does. The AID for example: I use Designer to PRE create "spells" at a slightly higher power level (by creating a Separate .hdc file with the higher powered VPP and slots, so as not to slow down the game. For that matter, while most powers can be used at less than their full power, that fully powered "spell" still chews up a lot of the Control Cost. So in that same separate VPP file I also create Lower powered versions of the spells, which can be quickly slotted using up less of the available control cost. Ex: VPP 100/100 (for ease) one 20d6 Blast, sure I can blast away using only 10d6 of the blast, so as not to kill the target. But I am still using up the entire 100AP to do so. Or, I can switch out to a 10d6 Blast, use up 50 AP of the available control, and also slot a 50AP entangle. I LOVE DESIGNER! Except for this one problem I am having.

DC: Agreed. Though for me it isn't even really about the cost itself, as much as it is the concept. Dr. Mysterio blasts his ways through the front lines of the demon hordes; his staff of mystery flaring brightly each time he cuts a swath through the enemy forces. But alas, there are too many of them, and they swarm Dr. Mysterio and beat him senseless and capture him. They take away his staff and other equipment. Little do they know that he has a little power of his own. When he wakes, he transforms into a very dense and strong fly, and escapes his cage, flies around until he finds his equipment, overhear's the leader's plans, and flies out to rejoin the group and inform them of the plans. That's great. Makes perfect sense. On paper. Now how do you fit that "+" into Designer? It doesn't allow you to add the +50 AP Powers in a Compound Power to the VPP, so no access to, say, a 60AP power. Same happens if I create a Custom Power in Designer to add a focus to a now partially limited VPP. It doesn't actually -Add- to the VPP in designer. Super easy on paper though. But when you have a list of powers and other calculations, it is nice to have Designer do all the legwork AND store the character securely for you. Again, I can't find a way to do this in Designer. That's cool for you, based on the power levels you play/gm at. For me that's fine as well...just cut the numbers I originally gave in half. I used nice round numbers for ease. It is the Concept I am after, a partially limited VPP and being able to find a way to do it in Designer. DC I *love* it when the Limitations or Disads become part of the story. Makes it more like I am in a superhero Movie

Wait! I am only half awake, lol. What I was looking to do was -partially- limit the VPP itself, the same way you can do to an individual power, in order to also bring down the cost of the VPP. Ex: Dr. Magic has his own VPP naturally from training and experience. 50 Control and 50 pool. But his OAF Staff adds to his VPP another 50 points to both Control and Pool. He can cast from his VPP without the staff, but at lower powered Spells than if he had his Staff. DC

DOH! I wasn't factoring in the the staff/focus into the power/blast. Thanks!

If I wasn't working in Designer, that would be easy enough, and I did think of it. But the reason it doesn't work in designer, as a simple example: Single 100 Control 100 Pool VPP Slot 1) Blast 20d6 (100 AP 100 RP) No problem Two 50 Control 50 Pool VPP, one "normal" and one with a Focus Lim: Try to slot 1) Blast 20d6 into one or the other and Designer won't let you because both the AP and RP are greater than either VPP will allow. I suppose I could create two Blasts 10d6 (and make half power versions of every Power I want the character to have) each and put one into each VPP and designate that they always go off together? Sounds like a lot of work, but I guess it could be done. Half the reason I like VPPs is how easy they are (other than this issue). Thanks! DC

I know that is the intent, but... I just asked in a new topic as well, but since you're 'here,'... How do you partially limit a VPP? Spell Caster can use a 50 Pool, 50 Control VPP on his own. But with an inherited OAF staff, increases his Pool and Control by another 50 pts each. Is this not allowed by RAW? I can't find anywhere it says you can't, and I believe there are lots of fictionally historical examples of magic users increasing both raw power and ability to cast a greater variety of spells at a time using magic items.

How, in Designer, does one create a Partially Limited VPP? Example: Caster naturally has VPP with Pool 50, Control 50. Also has an OAF staff that adds another 50 pts to each. -Can- cast spells from the VPP without the staff, just at lower power. Can't put both into a compound power in designer. Thanks! DC

Actually, it doesn't work. At least not in Hero Designer. You can't do, say, two halves of the VPP itself into a Compound Power. On paper you can do whatever you want, but Designer simply won't let you. I am going to make this into a new topic.

Thanks Doug, I knew it had to be something simple like that, but like I said, brain dead, lol. But using Hero Designer, does that mean build it as a Compound Power to put it in the same slot? And to be extra sure, if the Amulet goes missing, the rest of the power still functions normally? What about something a little more complex, like Summon or Multiform? I guess it would be the same, built as Multiform 100 points plus Multiform 100 points, OAF: Amulet (-1/2) for 200 points of Multiform if the amulet is available. One last question, I hope! What if it is the VPP itself? Character can cast spells on his own (VPP 100 Pool 100 Control) but with an Amulet his powers are increased (+50 Pool, +50 Control). How would you build that? (In Designer). Thanks! DC EDIT: Nevermind. Took me a minute but I figured out how to put two joined VPPs into a Compound Power, and that compound power allows compound powers within it lol. Thanks again.

I am going brain dead and need some help. Picture a character who has a power natural to them, say, Magic, but has an amulet or wand (Focus) that boosts that power. S/he can still cast the spells without the amulet, say, 5D6 Magic Blast, but with the amulet all the powers are more powerful, like an 8D6 blast. I am looking to avoid all the math and time calculations that would come with the use of an AID spell, Oh, before we go further, I like VPPs. Linking parts of a compound power in a VPP does not make Hero Designer very happy, lol. DC

All valid points. Thank you

Exactly. I don't disagree with any of that. So then what is the problem? With Slavish a 200 point hoverbike costs you 40 x (1+1) = 80 points via Summon. Same for a 200 point demon which is Slavishly Devoted. All I am asking is that (back to the original question), if you wish to Summon a Specific Being/Object with which you have had multiple contacts before, or maybe your personal hoverbike which you have tricked out with your custom paint job and decorations (saddle bags, leather handlebar grips with streamers, sissy bar removed, and so on), what y'all think of that variant on Specific Being I mentioned in the original post to this thread.

Well, look at "Create Tower" or "Create Weapon" or 6E1 specifically stating that Summon is also Meant For Vehicles and Bases. I mean, you can Summon a 500 point demon to thrash your enemies without having paid for that demon separately. So what's the difference in summoning a 200 point hoverbike? I mean, even 6E created its own power (CP 220 - Object Creation) to do just this. As a GM, you may not like or allow this, and that's your prerogative. But the 'system' supports it. Plus, while it may be 'cheaper' by putting this in a VPP, the VPP is self-limiting by its Control Cost. A separate Summon outside of a VPP can add modifiers/limitations allowing the summoning of a more powerful demon (for example) to do the summoner's will. But adding more limitations in a VPP will never allow you to increase the power of the demon beyond the Active Cost limit.

That was the point of the original question, asking about thoughts on a lesser advantage to Summon a person/object who/which is already very familiar to the 'summoner' with an advantage less than the full Summon Specific Being.

Hmmm, interesting thoughts which I will have to incorporate. However, 6E1 288 says, "...a character can use Summon to “create” inanimate objects defined with Character Points (such as Vehicles and Bases)" and gives an example of Hoverbike. And examples of powers created in the Hero System books back that up. For example: Grimoire 128: Create Tower, and 286 Create Vehicle, and 287 Create Weapons. And even a 6E source says so, Champions Powers 220, Object Creation II? Which is why I even went down this path.

6E1 288 says objects as well?

Hmmm... I will have to look into Fantasy Hero for that. Does that still allow a character to call out to Summon a Specific creature, or even object? What happens if a character wants to summon his favorite vehicle?

I hadn't thought about that. Sounds so simple, and I like simple! Plus, whatever object could be made UBO if others can use it, like a specific, favorite vehicle which another person could drive. Thanks!