Partially Improved Powers

[iamlibertarian]

2 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

I wasn't saying Skill Roll to activate;  the VPP will require the skill roll to change slots, unless you're paying the +1 advantage to eliminate it.

 

I didn't catch onto that, but I agree on the skill roll to change slots. And yes, it can get expensive, either to take the +1 advantage (which I never do) OR to buy the skill roll up (expensive either way).

 

2 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

I would be very averse to letting you have a plain Characteristic Roll that wasn't subject to an active point modifier, when you're tossing around powers of this size.  Skill roll at -1 per 20 points would still be at -4 or -5, and you only get -1/4 for that.  That'll still call for a decently pricey skill to earn that limitation, so I seriously doubt a plain Characteristic Roll would be worth anything.

 

DOH! That's what I get for not reading ahead before replying. I just agreed with this above, lol.

 

2 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

Why not 2 VPPs?  Because many of us can turn that into something truly, tremendously ugly...and what you're trying to do is a really good start because you're trying to get the actual pool size down (common modifier:  OAF staff cuts the pool size in half) and the control cost as well.  There would be other ways.  Plus, it's trying to manipulate the skill roll rules, as the pools are easier to roll because they're smaller.  And push comes to shove:  the LImited Power limitation I built *is* effectively expressing 2 joined VPPs.

 

Honestly:  I suspect many of us view the staff as nothing more than SFX to increase your pool size, and thus is worth NO limitation whatsoever.  If you're looking at fantasy/comics?  That is all it is;  how often does the staff get taken away?  90% of Green Lantern's power is the power ring;  even as OIF, how often is it at risk of being lost?  The 24 hour limit?  Only when the writer wants to add fake worry, or put GL into a dangerous position for a bit.

 

Well, I can't use the Staff to take down the cost of the Pool, just the Control. And, the cost savings isn't that much, at least not to me. I could have just built (and have many times) the VPP as 100 Pool / 100 Control to begin with. But I just yesterday had this thought it would be more fun/enhance the story if the GM could take the staff away once in a while, thereby reducing (but not Eliminating) the character's power. Retrieving the staff would make a great storyline (to me).

 

As for Green Lantern, that is the fault of the GM? (author) for making it OIF rather that OAF in Hero terms. It didn't have to be that way.

 

I don't want to have overpowered characters (relative to the rest of the team, whatever power level that may be). I just enjoy being Involved in the story, a lot (who doesn't?).

 

Any time, give me a character with less power and more variety, over, say, a simple Brick who can do only two things (very powerfully): take hits and pound things, and has one or two memorable one-liner quotes. Said Brick to me is very boring to play.

[unclevlad]

What you're missing:  the pool size is REAL cost.  So 50 active becomes 25 real because it's OAF.  You don't reduce the pool *cost*, you get to reduce the pool *size*.  That's why, with the staff, it's 75 real, 100 control, and the staff limitation kicks in at 50/50.  So, any time the control cost exceeds 50...the staff's in play.  Any time the *total* real costs exceed 50, the staff has to be involved.  That's not on one power, that's on all powers in use.  You couldn't have 30 points of defenses and 30 points of Flight w/o the staff because the pool size without it is only 50/50.

 

I love building VPPs that are, let's say, 120/60, with Requires a Skill Roll as a common modifier.  It means the maximum real cost is never over 40, so I can have 3 full-strength powers up and ready simultaneously.  Or make it, let's say, 100/60...60 attack, 60 defense, and 30 special-purpose (e.g. invis) or mid-level movement (flight 24m, 1/2 END) that I can transition to non-combat movement readily enough.  I don't typically need an attack power at non-combat speed.

[iamlibertarian]

16 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

What you're missing:  the pool size is REAL cost.  So 50 active becomes 25 real because it's OAF.  You don't reduce the pool *cost*, you get to reduce the pool *size*.  That's why, with the staff, it's 75 real, 100 control, and the staff limitation kicks in at 50/50.  So, any time the control cost exceeds 50...the staff's in play.  Any time the *total* real costs exceed 50, the staff has to be involved.  That's not on one power, that's on all powers in use.  You couldn't have 30 points of defenses and 30 points of Flight w/o the staff because the pool size without it is only 50/50.

 

I love building VPPs that are, let's say, 120/60, with Requires a Skill Roll as a common modifier.  It means the maximum real cost is never over 40, so I can have 3 full-strength powers up and ready simultaneously.  Or make it, let's say, 100/60...60 attack, 60 defense, and 30 special-purpose (e.g. invis) or mid-level movement (flight 24m, 1/2 END) that I can transition to non-combat movement readily enough.  I don't typically need an attack power at non-combat speed.

 

I definitely am missing that. I have been at this since Fantasy Hero and Champions first came out, intermittently, and have never known such a thing, or I am totally misunderstanding you. The Technon example in 6E1 pg 410 (quoted below) does not agree with what I Think you are saying. Technon has a 30/30 Pool/Control. He limits his VPP with OAF (-1). It directly states that his POOL (real points) remains 30, as does his 30 AP of Control.

"Example: Technon has a Gadget Pool with 30 Pool, 30 Control Cost. All of his gadgets are OAFs and must take that -1 Limitation, so that Limitation can also apply to the Control Cost if Technon wishes. Technon pays 30 points for the Pool Cost and (15/(1+1)) = 7 points for the Control Cost, for a total cost of 37 points for his VPP. The total Real Point cost of all gadgets in the VPP cannot exceed 30 points, and no gadget can have more than 30 Active Points."

[unclevlad]

The total of REAL points can't exceed 30.  Real point cost is *after* applying limitations.  

 

A 30 point active-cost gadget that's OAF costs 15 real points...so he can have 2 such.  Or he can have 3 gadgets, each 20 active.

Look further at that text, reformatted by me a bit for clarity here:

 

Quote

Technon’s Power Pool currently has 3 items:

HKA 2d6 (OAF Buzzsaw; costs (30/(1+1)) = 15 points);

Flight 16m (OAF Detachable Jetpack; costs (16/(1+1)) = 8 points);
Resistant Protection (5 PD/5 ED) (OAF Shield; costs (15/(1+1)) = 7 points).

A total of 61 active --> 30 real thanks to the OAF limitation.  

[LoneWolf]

You need to think outside the box.  Due to a software limitation you cannot have a partially limited VPP without some work arounds.  So instead of trying to put a VPP into a compound power which hero designer will not allow you to do you adjust the cost of the VPP by adding a negative adder.

 

Assuming you want a 100pt pool 50 of which is with no limitation and 50 is with an OAF.  This works out to be 112 point.  So what you do is to create a VPP in hero designer with 75 point pool and a control cost of 100.  This will come to 112 points.  So add an adder with a value of -13 to adjust your cost.  Now the VPP cost 112 point like it should.  This will allow you to put in a 100 point active cost power with a real cost of 75 which is what should be allowed in the pool.  

 

If you want to use hero designer to figure out the math for a more complex pool it is fairly simple.  Start by creating the portion of the pool with the least restrictions.  Now create another pool with whatever other limitations you want.   Make sure to adjust the pools point to account for the limitations.  In the above example you have a pool cost of 25 (the real points after applying the OAF) and a control cost of 50 (the maximum active cost).  Now use a calculator to add the two pools together to get the real cost.  Next create still another VPP with the pool cost of the combined pools and a control cost of the combine control cost.   This will be more expensive then then it should be.  Use a calculator to subtract the cost you got by adding the two pools together from the cost of the third pool.  Go into the third pool and ad an adder with a negative value equal to the number you just got.  Now delete the first and second pool. You now have a VPP that does what you want it to.  When you create a power in the pool create it as a compound power and apply the appropriate limitations to each part of the combined pool.  

 

The only important things in a VPP from Hero Designers point of view are is the real cost of VPP, the total points in the pool and the control cost.  As long as those are correct you do not have a problem.  You may need to explain this to your GM but once he understand what you are doing it should not be a problem.  
 

[iamlibertarian]

40 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

The total of REAL points can't exceed 30.  Real point cost is *after* applying limitations.  

 

A 30 point active-cost gadget that's OAF costs 15 real points...so he can have 2 such.  Or he can have 3 gadgets, each 20 active.

Look further at that text, reformatted by me a bit for clarity here:

 

A total of 61 active --> 30 real thanks to the OAF limitation.  

 

Yes, he paid 30 CP for a 30 Pool, and can have 30 RP worth of slots active at the same time. Before AND after the application of the OAF. The RP *cost* of each -power- is decreased. But it read to me like you were saying that the -available- real points in the VPP was decreased by the OAF.

 

The AP is meaningless. He can have 12,000 AP if he wants, as long as none of them individually exceed 30.

We are probably saying the same thing, just differently

[iamlibertarian]

12 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

You need to think outside the box.  Due to a software limitation you cannot have a partially limited VPP without some work arounds.  So instead of trying to put a VPP into a compound power which hero designer will not allow you to do you adjust the cost of the VPP by adding a negative adder.

 

Assuming you want a 100pt pool 50 of which is with no limitation and 50 is with an OAF.  This works out to be 112 point.  So what you do is to create a VPP in hero designer with 75 point pool and a control cost of 100.  This will come to 1125 points.  So add an adder with a value of -13 to adjust your cost.  Now the VPP cost 112 point like it should.  This will allow you to put in a 100 point active cost power with a real cost of 75 which is what should be allowed in the pool.  

 

If you want to use hero designer to figure out the math for a more complex pool it is fairly simple.  Start by creating the portion of the pool with the least restrictions.  Now create another pool with whatever other limitations you want.   Make sure to adjust the pools point to account for the limitations.  In the above example you have a pool cost of 25 (the real points after applying the OAF) and a control cost of 50 (the maximum active cost).  Now use a calculator to add the two pools together to get the real cost.  Next create still another VPP with the pool cost of the combined pools and a control cost of the combine control cost.   This will be more expensive then then it should be.  Use a calculator to subtract the cost of the cost you got by adding the two pools together from the cost of the third pool.  Go into the third pool and ad an adder with a negative value equal to the number you just got.  Now delete the first and second pool.

You now have a VPP that does what you want it to.  When you create a power in the pool create it as a compound power and apply the appropriate limitations to each part of the combined pool.  

 

The only important things in a VPP from Hero Designers point of view are is the real cost of VPP, the total points in the pool and the control cost.  As long as those are correct you do not have a problem.  You may need to explain this to your GM but once he understand what you are doing it should not be a problem.  
 

 

I just started something with pieces of both, though I did not think of the adder part, which is probably easier. I created a VPP in the actual character .hdc with the true cost of the VPP at half no-lims, half limited. Then I created a separate .hdc with the actual Pool/Control levels I wanted to achieve, and started building the powers/slots in that one (with the Compound Powers like you suggested), with a note in the Real .hdc explaining this. But since I only barely began that process, I think I will restart and use the negative adder suggestion you made. Thank you!!! So much simpler, while still being able to create powers up to their max level in a Single VPP.

[unclevlad]

LoneWolf:  There's no such thing as a negative adder on a VPP.  A custom power?  It can be used to define one, yeah, but IMO that's not supportable here.  And it isn't needed, IMO.  

Basically what I suggested parallels yours.  50/50 character VPP.  Staff is 50/50 which goes to 25/50 because of OAF.  So the combination is 75/100;  and what you do isn't some arbitrary, unsupported adder, but a straightforward "Limited Power" class of limitation on the VPP:  that exceeding 50/50 requires the OAF.  I think that's much more clear, and makes the conditions obvious.  And for me, importantly, it's within the language of the system, which an oddly-constructed adder is not.

 

2 minutes ago, iamlibertarian said:

 

Yes, he paid 30 CP for a 30 Pool, and can have 30 RP worth of slots active at the same time. Before AND after the application of the OAF. The RP *cost* of each -power- is decreased. But it read to me like you were saying that the -available- real points in the VPP was decreased by the OAF.

 

The AP is meaningless. He can have 12,000 AP if he wants, as long as none of them individually exceed 30.

We are probably saying the same thing, just differently

 

No, not at all.  You're misunderstanding how it works.  

 

First:  the fact that the real and control costs are the same is coincidental.  You can define a 30 real, 60 active;  a 60 active power would be required to have -1 in limitations, but they could be whatever the player desired at this point because I haven't included a Common Modifier.  Or a 30 point power with no limitations whatsoever.  Or a pair of 30 active point powers, each with -1  in limitations.  Note that a 30 pool, 60 active "magic pool" can be explained as "low level spells are easy to cast;  higher level spells need support, such as Gestures/Incants."  Or whatever your pleasure...some others might take Extra Time instead of G/I.

You can also define a VPP with pool size 60, control cost 30, and (let's say) Requires a Skill Roll.  Then you can define 10/10 Resistant and 50% resistant DR to phys and energy (in separate slots) for example...because the 30 active cost on each slot has dropped to 20 real.  The total real cost is 60.  Or you can add, let's say, Perceivable and Nonpersistent onto each, which reduces the real cost to 15...and the pool's still got 15 more points to work with.  So perhaps a 4d6 HA, 1/2 END...25 active, 14 real because it still has the RSR.  The notion of "total active cost" has no meaning on a VPP or MP;  the active cost is a factor for each defined slot only.

 

 

 

 

[dmjalund]

it almost seems simpler to have a multiform each with it's own VPP, one is 60 AP OAF, while the other has a plain 30 AP VPP

 

[Opal]

5 hours ago, iamlibertarian said:

I definitely am missing that. I have been at this since Fantasy Hero and Champions first came out, intermittently, and have never known such a thing,

I empathize, but I think I get what the 6e experts are trying to explain to us.

 

We're used to "you can't put a limitation on the pool" meaning just that.

Now, though, you can limit the pool, you aren't required to, and you don't call it that, but you can.

 

If you put a limitation on the control, you can go ahead and buy just enough enough points in the pool to hold one power with that limitation.  It's not a limitation on the pool, per se, but it's exactly the same real points as if you did slap that limitation on it.

 

In fact, if I'm following, you can just leave the pool, itself at 50.

 

The control cost would be purchased to allow 50 Apts+50 Apts OAF-1.  That's 37 Rpts for the up to 100 Apt control, plus the 50 Rpt reserve, for 87 pts.  With that, without the staff you can put a 10d EB, no limitations, in the pool.  With the staff, you could change that to a 20d EB, OAF, because that's also 50 Rpts.

 

IDK how 6e handles shifting pts in a VPP while a limitation is making a power in it unavailable, though.

[Ninja-Bear]

There is a reason why I stay away from VPPs. More hassle than they’re worth.

Btw @iamlibertarian, we’re you designing this for yourself? And if so, does it have to be RAW?

[iamlibertarian]

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

LoneWolf:  There's no such thing as a negative adder on a VPP.  A custom power?  It can be used to define one, yeah, but IMO that's not supportable here.  And it isn't needed, IMO.  

 

There is such a thing. The fact that everyone claims that if you can do it in Designer, it is legal proves it. And it does exist in Designer.

 

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Basically what I suggested parallels yours.  50/50 character VPP.  Staff is 50/50 which goes to 25/50 because of OAF.  So the combination is 75/100;  and what you do isn't some arbitrary, unsupported adder, but a straightforward "Limited Power" class of limitation on the VPP:  that exceeding 50/50 requires the OAF.  I think that's much more clear, and makes the conditions obvious.  And for me, importantly, it's within the language of the system, which an oddly-constructed adder is not.

 

Emphasis is mine. The example of Technon shows that this is an incorrect assessment. He paid for a 30 CP for a 30 Real Point Pool. After applying the OAF to the VPP, he still has a 30 Real Point Pool, allowing him to slot 30 RP of powers at the same time. The available pool does not decrease because of the application of a Limitation to the VPP.

 

 

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

No, not at all.  You're misunderstanding how it works.  

 

First:  the fact that the real and control costs are the same is coincidental.  You can define a 30 real, 60 active;  a 60 active power would be required to have -1 in limitations, but they could be whatever the player desired at this point because I haven't included a Common Modifier.  Or a 30 point power with no limitations whatsoever.  Or a pair of 30 active point powers, each with -1  in limitations.  Note that a 30 pool, 60 active "magic pool" can be explained as "low level spells are easy to cast;  higher level spells need support, such as Gestures/Incants."  Or whatever your pleasure...some others might take Extra Time instead of G/I.

 

There is nothing here with which I disagree. I used 30/30 both because that was what 6E used in its example, and for sake of ease during discussion. But nothing in your explanation shows that the Available Pool Pool Points decrease because of application of a Lim (in this case an OAF) on the VPP.

 

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[iamlibertarian]

5 hours ago, Opal said:

I empathize, but I think I get what the 6e experts are trying to explain to us.

 

We're used to "you can't put a limitation on the pool" meaning just that.

Now, though, you can limit the pool, you aren't required to, and you don't call it that, but you can.

 

Agreed. I am not trying to argue that you Can put a limitation on the Pool (to save character points). I am arguing (with just one person) that putting a focus on the VPP does not Reduce the available points in the pool, and using the example of Technon (6E1 page 410).

 

Technon has a 30/30 VPP. 

Technon applies OAF to the VPP.

This OAF reduces the CP cost of the Control.

After the OAF, Technon still has a 30AP Control and a 30 point Real Point Pool to work with.

 

Unclevlad appears (to me) to be saying that the Size of the Real Point Pool is decreased because of the OAF, but the Technon example shows this not to be the case.

 

5 hours ago, Opal said:

 

If you put a limitation on the control, you can go ahead and buy just enough enough points in the pool to hold one power with that limitation.  It's not a limitation on the pool, per se, but it's exactly the same real points as if you did slap that limitation on it.

 

In fact, if I'm following, you can just leave the pool, itself at 50.

 

Agreed.

 

5 hours ago, Opal said:

 

The control cost would be purchased to allow 50 Apts+50 Apts OAF-1.  That's 37 Rpts for the up to 100 Apt control, plus the 50 Rpt reserve, for 87 pts.  With that, without the staff you can put a 10d EB, no limitations, in the pool.  With the staff, you could change that to a 20d EB, OAF, because that's also 50 Rpts.

 

Exactly!

5 hours ago, Opal said:

 

IDK how 6e handles shifting pts in a VPP while a limitation is making a power in it unavailable, though.

 

9 hours ago, dmjalund said:

it almost seems simpler to have a multiform each with it's own VPP, one is 60 AP OAF, while the other has a plain 30 AP VPP

 

 

Simpler, yes, when done on paper. But in Designer, it doesn't work. Designer will reject any power with a AP cost above 30.

[Hugh Neilson]

14 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I wasn't saying Skill Roll to activate;  the VPP will require the skill roll to change slots, unless you're paying the +1 advantage to eliminate it.

 

I would be very averse to letting you have a plain Characteristic Roll that wasn't subject to an active point modifier, when you're tossing around powers of this size.  Skill roll at -1 per 20 points would still be at -4 or -5, and you only get -1/4 for that.  That'll still call for a decently pricey skill to earn that limitation, so I seriously doubt a plain Characteristic Roll would be worth anything.

 

Why not 2 VPPs?  Because many of us can turn that into something truly, tremendously ugly...and what you're trying to do is a really good start because you're trying to get the actual pool size down (common modifier:  OAF staff cuts the pool size in half) and the control cost as well.  There would be other ways.  Plus, it's trying to manipulate the skill roll rules, as the pools are easier to roll because they're smaller.  And push comes to shove:  the LImited Power limitation I built *is* effectively expressing 2 joined VPPs.

 

Honestly:  I suspect many of us view the staff as nothing more than SFX to increase your pool size, and thus is worth NO limitation whatsoever.  If you're looking at fantasy/comics?  That is all it is;  how often does the staff get taken away?  90% of Green Lantern's power is the power ring;  even as OIF, how often is it at risk of being lost?  The 24 hour limit?  Only when the writer wants to add fake worry, or put GL into a dangerous position for a bit.

 

Green Lantern clearly did not take a -1/2 OIF Limitation.  If Staff Wizard takes a -1 OAF limitation, then he can expect to be denied access to the staff with a frequency appropriate to that -1 limitation.  If he makes it OIF instead, then he saves less points and it is harder to take away from him (maybe he is nimble enough that a Disarm fails, or maybe the staff leaps or teleports back into his hands).

 

To Technon:

 

If he wants a pool that can hold a single 60 AP power at a time, with no limitations, he buys a 60 point pool (cost 60 points) and a 60 point Control Cost (no limitations; 30 points) and pays 90 points.

 

If he wants a pool that can hold a single 60 AP power at a time, and can only be used with his OAF TechnoGizmo, he buys a 30 point pool (cost 30 points) and a 60 point Control Cost (OAF; 15 points) and pays 45 points.

 

By limiting the control cost and all pool powers with his OAF, he has reduced the total cost of the VPP by half.

[LoneWolf]

The rules on partially limited powers explicitly state they can be used on frameworks and part of a power.  So applying an OAF limitation on half your VVP is perfectly legal.  Technically it only reduces the control cost.  

The problem is that Hero designer will not allow you to do this without creating separate pools which makes it difficult to create slots that actually fit into the pool. Hero designer uses compound powers to create partially limited powers, but you cannot put a framework into a compound power which means Hero Designer has no way of creating partially limited frameworks.  If you create two separate pools then it makes it difficult to create the powers in the pool properly.  Now each power you have is duplicated and you makes it harder to understand what the power actually are.  So instead of seeing 10d6 blast +10d6 blast OAF, you have one pool that list 10d6 blast and then way down the character sheet you have another pool with 106 blast OAF.   

I am using the negative adder because Hero Designer has some software limitations that do not follow the rules.  It is strictly a workaround not a game mechanic.   It is a useful trick to add something to the character that the rules allow and the software does not.  Why should the player have to spend more point than the rules state just because the software does not work the way the rules do? 

 I have used it before to allow me to add in the stats growth gives you to the character sheet.  Since growth itself will not do this.  It is also useful if you have a campaign where something does not cost any points.   For example let’s say the GM gives every character some power, skill or perk for free as part of the campaign.  Add the power, skill or perk and use a negative adder to 0 out the cost.  You can even change the text from adder to an explanation for using it.   By the way when I talk about a negative adder it is just an adder with a negative value instead of a positive.  As I stated it is a way to adjust a power to match what it should be

Also while you cannot put a limitation directly on the pool you can in an indirect way.  Since the pool cost is the amount of real points you can have in the pool if you have a limitation on the pool you don’t need as many points in the pool.  I have a pool that can have any 50 point power but has to have the OAF limitation I only need a pool of 25 points.  That is not really any different than applying -1 limitation to the cost of the pool.   Look at it this way a 50 point pool with a 50 point control cost will cost 75 points.  If I purchase a 25 point pool with a control cost of 50 and put a -1 limitation on the control cost that comes out as 37 points.  That is the same exactly half the cost of the pool without the limitation.  The cost works out exactly the same.
 

[Hugh Neilson]

11 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

The rules on partially limited powers explicitly state they can be used on frameworks and part of a power.  So applying an OAF limitation on half your VVP is perfectly legal.  Technically it only reduces the control cost. 

 

I think 6eV1P366 third paragraph."You can also apply this effect to Advantages, Adders, Power Frameworks, and parts of a power." is a far cry from "It is fully within RAW to apply a partial limitation to the control cost of a VPP", and my hunt for any further commenary (fully detailed in the thread in the HD forum) didn't find any clarification.

 

I'd interpret RAW to allow it, but that's not the only reasonable interpretation of RAW.  Even if it were, no GM has to allow it, and if Simon's interpretation is right, no GM is prevented from allowing it anyway.

 

Sounds like a negative adder is another option for popping the desired ability into HD at the same price as two VPPs, one limited and the other not.

[iamlibertarian]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Sounds like a negative adder is another option for popping the desired ability into HD at the same price as two VPPs, one limited and the other not.

 

I went with the Negative Adder. It was soooo easy :):)

[LoneWolf]

I think the main reason for Simon’s view is that it would be a royal pain to get the software to work properly.  I am an engineer and I would not want to try and I would not want to be the one to have to try and figure a way to add this to the program.  Chances are any way it could be implemented would create situations where it would allow a lot more things that should not be allowed.   It would also probably be very complicated and error prone to implement.  The program will not allow any partially limited framework so it is not just about a VPP.  Using a negative adder is a much better solution.  No tool is perfect, but as long as It does the job that is the important thing. 

 

The rules on partially limited powers state it can be used on frameworks, not just multipowers.  Since they eliminated elemental controls the only other framework in the game besides a multipower is a VPP.    To me that is makes is pretty clear that RAW partially limited VPP are legal.  I think most GM would probably agree with me on that.  Of course if a GM wants to change that in his game he is free to do so.