Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

[Navar]

Ok this may be a stupid question, and it may come up a ton, but why would anyone ever take an Elemental Control power framework over a Multipower? It seems that multipower is just always better from a point cost standpoint?

 

Sorry if this comes up often.

[Steve Long]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Since this is a discussion topic rather than a rules question, I've moved it to the Discussion board.

[Vulcan]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

It comes down to utility, Navar. The powers in a multipower are generally not all available to be used together, at full power, all at once. Powers in an elemental control are.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

The powers in an Elemental Control can all be used at once, at full power, while a Multipower requires you to divvy up the points.

 

Most of the time, when I make a character, powers they'll want to use constantly like movement powers or defensive powers in an Elemental Control, with their attack powers in a Multipower.

[Navar]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Ok, I understand that the the conventional wisdom, but whenever I crunch the numbers (lets say I am making a speedster and I want him to have +8DCV (40 active points) +20 running (40 Active points) and 15PD/15ED (45 active points) I can put them into a EC for 85 Points. OR I could build a multi power and make them "m" slots. At this point I could add 60 points to the multipower and use them all at half strength (or 1 at full and 1 at half) for 25 points (85 points total) and add those additional 60 points to the multipower for flexability.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

I'm not going to talk about the powers just now but you seem to be making a costing error somewhere - here's those two pools costed as I think they should be....

 

 

20 EC - Speed Powers - pool cost 20pts

 

20 1 - +8 DCV

20 2 - +20" Running

25 3 - +15PD/ED

 

 

Elemental Control cost 85 points

 

 

45 multipower reserve cost 45 points

8 m +8 DCV

8 m +20" Running

9 m +15PD/ED

 

Multipower cost 70 points

 

So the difference in costs is only 15 points and you are limited in that you can only run one of those at full power at any one time. I think you have been omitting to buy the reserve for the multipower...

[Vulcan]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

First, good luck getting a GM to allow skill levels in a power framework at all, much less allow 8 of them! I've never met a GM who would.

 

And taking Doc's example a bit further, the 15 points saved can be used to raise the MP reserve to 60 AP, but that still leaves you well short of being able to use 2 powers at full capacity, much less all 3. The EC, on the other hand, allows the use of all three, at full capacity, all the time.

 

The real utility of the MP is for easy expansion. For a mere handful of points, another slot can be added to the MP. It often takes 20 or more points to add a new slot to an EC.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

First' date=' good luck getting a GM to allow skill levels in a power framework [i']at all[/i], much less allow 8 of them! I've never met a GM who would.

 

There are ways around that - the high speed allowing the character to appear more dextrous than they would otherwise be in avoiding attacks - it is another GM option thing but +24 DEX would only be 72 points and if the value was to be restricted to only for DCV then I think I might allow at least a +1 (DEX would normally provide OCV, DCV and DEX skills).

 

I could be persuaded on something like that....

 

 

Doc

[Navar]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

I think my math was right. I had them both costing the same. I just would think it would be unlikley that you would need to run all 3 at full power at the same time (espically the two defenses.) Either they likley cannot hit you, or they likley can hit you and you can pick what defense you want.

 

And yea Hero Designer does make a fuss when you try to put powers that don't cost endurance into an MP, but we are all new to the game (a buch of us are fed up with D&D) so our GM is new as well.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

I think my math was right. I had them both costing the same. I just would think it would be unlikley that you would need to run all 3 at full power at the same time (espically the two defenses.) Either they likley cannot hit you' date=' or they likley can hit you and you can pick what defense you want.[/quote']

 

That is a function of multipowers then. If none of the powers are core to what your character needs to function then it is a useful way of adding in flexibility to the character.

 

Your character could with 60 in the reserve have one at full power and (as you said) another at or around half power. There is flexibility in that but most Champions characters want their combat value, defence and movement available to them at all times.

 

 

Doc

[BoneDaddy]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Sorry to contribute to thread drift, but if there's a valid mechanic for the CSLs and they Cost END then I've rarely had trouble getting them into a Multipower - the hero is focusing his abilities in the direction of combat, which works well for the fast or the dextrous, or the strong. Getting them into an EC would seem a little greedy, IMHO.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

I think my math was right. I had them both costing the same. I just would think it would be unlikley that you would need to run all 3 at full power at the same time (espically the two defenses.) Either they likley cannot hit you, or they likley can hit you and you can pick what defense you want.

 

And yea Hero Designer does make a fuss when you try to put powers that don't cost endurance into an MP, but we are all new to the game (a buch of us are fed up with D&D) so our GM is new as well.

 

Most characters have both DCV and defenses. A trade between the two still leaves you exposed to a lucky shot, or a team of opponents, some of whom can or cannot hit your high DCV/get through your high defenses.

 

The official rule is that an ability which does not cost END by default cannot go in an EC unless you add "costs END". There are several old discussions about the appropriateness (or complete, utter, ludicrous absence thereof - but I'm not biased on this ) but that is the default rule.

[BoneDaddy]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Most characters have both DCV and defenses. A trade between the two still leaves you exposed to a lucky shot, or a team of opponents, some of whom can or cannot hit your high DCV/get through your high defenses.

 

The official rule is that an ability which does not cost END by default cannot go in an EC unless you add "costs END". There are several old discussions about the appropriateness (or complete, utter, ludicrous absence thereof - but I'm not biased on this ) but that is the default rule.

It gets fun when you put a formerly 0 END cost power in a framework by adding Costs END, but include a traditional END costing power with the advantage "Costs 0 END" in the same framework. Makes perfect sense.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

I think that the rule has more to do with the Visibility* of the powers eligible for EC's than costing END. It just happens that a power that has 0 END by default is also IPE by default. As soon as you apply any form of Costs END to the power it then becomes a Visible power as well.

 

* If an Elemental Control is supposed to represent several different aspects of the same power (even more so than a Multipower and VPP) it stands to reason that all aspects should be equally visible to any observers.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Mechanically, Elemental Controls are best for powers you want on all the time at full power, like defense, movement, and some utility powers like invisibility, and passive attack powers (almost invariably Damage Shield but some uses of Change Environment, Darkness, and other constant effects as well).

 

Used properly, an EC will give you significant price discounts. EC's also are the only one of the three Frameworks that place no restrictions on the _upper end_ of Active Points for powers in them which can be a significant advantage if AP's aren't artificially capped. In fact, if AP caps arent being enforced (I don't use them for Supers for instance), then a character cleverly built around an EC will probably have more raw power (though less utility and hampered growth options) than other characters at the same points.

 

 

On the downside EC's are largely static, it can be difficult / expensive to add more slots, and it can put you under some design pressure to raise up the lower powered slots to benefit from more of a price discount. Also, many powers wont go into an EC or don't make sense to go into an EC once the minimum slot cost gets beyond a certain point.

 

Also, many GM's and players, especially old-skoolers, go in for "grab-bag" EC's with no real central theme, simply to take advantage of the cost savings. This is technically not legal but the restrictions around it are so vague as to make it effectively GM's discretion. Personally, I think of an EC and all the powers in it as an expression of a single uber-Power (the slots being "stunts" for some central power) and if that doesnt make sense I generally don't allow the EC at all, or drop the slots that don't meet that expectation.

 

 

 

Multipowers are most efficient when you have an array of mutually exclusive options. You can arrange MP's in other ways as well, but from a pure efficiency standpoint you lose efficiency the further away you get from this. The more tool-boxy you try to make a MP, the closer you get to a situation where either multiple MP's or a VPP make more sense. Also, in some cases, an entire MP can be replaced with creative usage of Variable SFX and or Variable Advantage and or Variable Limitation.

 

Also, many GM's and players, especially old-skoolers, go in for "grab-bag" MP's with no real central theme, simply to take advantage of the cost savings. This is totally legal but very sloppy from a stylistic, design, and thematic viewpoint.

 

 

 

Also, keep in mind that they aren't mutually exclusive. The two frameworks work very well together. I've made many characters with an EC for their "passive" or "on practically always" powers and one or more MP's for their active, option-y powers.

[Marcus]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Oddly enough, Frameworks seem to be one of the few places in HERO where we reason from SFX rather than reasoning from effect.

 

Character A is hard to hurt, flies, and throws things really hard. Perfectly acceptable EC, SFX 'Gravity Manipulation'

 

Character B is hard to hurt (tough skin), flies (wings) and throws things really hard (EB, SFX of high strength and a bag o rocks). Unacceptable EC.

 

Ive seen some GMs displeased by the classic "Always on powers EC, Movement MP, Attack MP" character.

 

If the character is defined, effect wise, as able to do X things all the time, and have his choice of Y things one at a time, and Z things one at a time, isnt the above EC and pair of MPs exactly how it should be modeled?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Unfortunately, a bad GM trumps a good set of rules every time.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Oddly enough, Frameworks seem to be one of the few places in HERO where we reason from SFX rather than reasoning from effect.

 

Character A is hard to hurt, flies, and throws things really hard. Perfectly acceptable EC, SFX 'Gravity Manipulation'

 

Character B is hard to hurt (tough skin), flies (wings) and throws things really hard (EB, SFX of high strength and a bag o rocks). Unacceptable EC.

 

This is true, and I believe it to be somewhat intentional. The Powers themselves are reasoned from Effects, but how they are composed and work together is largely a function of the SFX intent they are meant to model.

 

Ive seen some GMs displeased by the classic "Always on powers EC, Movement MP, Attack MP" character.

 

If the character is defined, effect wise, as able to do X things all the time, and have his choice of Y things one at a time, and Z things one at a time, isnt the above EC and pair of MPs exactly how it should be modeled?

Yes, and its how I would encourage you to build it if i were your gm assuming that all X things had a common theme, all Y themes had a common theme, and all Z things had a common theme.

 

 

Also, I will make exceptions based upon efficiency on a character by character and case by case basis; the more "gamist" the reasoning gets the more resistant I get but on the other hand some concepts are inherently toolboxy and past a certain point "thematic relevance" reasoning can turn into "hybrid-hate". It also depends on the nature of the campaign; some campaigns have a narrow focus others are wide open and others are in between. In more narrow focused campaigns, like for instance a "New Mutants" style campaign where the PC's are supposed to be lower powered supers with a narrowly defined power set a character thats all over the place thematically is a wildcard at best and problematic at worse.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Unfortunately' date=' a bad GM trumps a good set of rules every time.[/quote']

 

All too true, and well said.

[Marcus]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

It just seems odd to have one part of a reason-from-effect game, and such an argueably important part of the game, be reason-from-sfx.

 

One concern is that it creates 'favoured SFX'. I've noticed the increasing restrictions on ECs and the increasing support of MPs and VPPs, especially with regards to things like continuing charges allowing MP swapping, have tended to (at least in games where we run the more restrictive modern EC rules) favour tool-users over innate-power people.

 

Similarly, I find that strictly enforced ECs tend to result in people wanting to play characters with more all-consuming SFX, that can be used to justify more things... and that the impact of drain one drain all is such that either it never comes up (and thus is not worth discussing) or is so hideously crippling that players try very, very hard to find ways to build solid, power-using non-brick characters without touching the EC construct (to the point that other, overarching limitations such as OIF, OIHID, Extra Activation Time, and their like are almost a given on non-bricks)

 

Just some thoughts, not necessarily meaningful of anything.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Over and above all the excellent cost comparisons on this thread, sometimes for a particular character, the concept just seems more appropriate built as an Elemental Control than as a Multipower. Point efficiency isn't the be-all, end-all of character design.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

re: the title of this thread

 

Someone should make an elemental super built with everything in a big multipower and a mimic super with everything in a big EC.

 

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

It just seems odd to have one part of a reason-from-effect game, and such an argueably important part of the game, be reason-from-sfx.

 

One concern is that it creates 'favoured SFX'. I've noticed the increasing restrictions on ECs and the increasing support of MPs and VPPs, especially with regards to things like continuing charges allowing MP swapping, have tended to (at least in games where we run the more restrictive modern EC rules) favour tool-users over innate-power people.

 

Frameworks are at root accounting gimmicks wrapped around a _group_ of Powers. The rules around Frameworks relate to what Powers can and can't be put in them, and how the Powers interact or don't interact with each other, and how the Powers can be activated and used.

 

They are Reason From Effects oriented primarily as they are mechanical constructs.

 

However, they do have a mild SFX orientation. No Framework is exclusive to a particular SFX and no SFX excludes the use of any Framework. However powers that share a SFX are easier to fit into Frameworks conceptually because a common SFX is another way to group powers. Common SFX = group, Framework = something you stick a group into. Nice fit.

 

 

Of course, a GM can always permit any particular assortment of powers to be treated as a group and shoved into Frameworks. So ultimately, while some GM's such as myself frown on "Random Boy!" and grab-bag frameworks, its still legal or within GM's discretion at worst.

 

Similarly, I find that strictly enforced ECs tend to result in people wanting to play characters with more all-consuming SFX, that can be used to justify more things... and that the impact of drain one drain all is such that either it never comes up (and thus is not worth discussing) or is so hideously crippling that players try very, very hard to find ways to build solid, power-using non-brick characters without touching the EC construct (to the point that other, overarching limitations such as OIF, OIHID, Extra Activation Time, and their like are almost a given on non-bricks)

 

Just some thoughts, not necessarily meaningful of anything.

 

My experiences have been largely different than yours, though I agree that if Drains are not common then some of the counterbalancing of EC's drops off. I also have to admit that I'm always loathe to bother with Draining EC's just because the amount of time it takes to recalculate everything can be such a pain in the arse and effectively halt the game for a while.

 

However, this is solvable by me as the GM -- I simply make sure I wield that particular whacking stick with finesse when it furthers the plot like rather than randomly or without a purpose, and also I plan ahead for such encounters and either have already pre-calculated standard effects and call it a wash or at least have walked the trees of affected PC's previous to play so I'm familiar with the subtleties.

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Someone should make an elemental super built with everything in a big multipower and a mimic super with everything in a big EC.

Actually, I just finished the stat design stage on my first playable 350-point character that more or less fits the former. Element-based theme, 10-slot multipower with defenses, Life Support, and one relatively minor linked power for flavor outside the framework.

[Marcus]

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower

 

Of course, a GM can always permit any particular assortment of powers to be treated as a group and shoved into Frameworks. So ultimately, while some GM's such as myself frown on "Random Boy!" and grab-bag frameworks, its still legal or within GM's discretion at worst.

 

My experiences have been largely different than yours, though I agree that if Drains are not common then some of the counterbalancing of EC's drops off. I also have to admit that I'm always loathe to bother with Draining EC's just because the amount of time it takes to recalculate everything can be such a pain in the arse and effectively halt the game for a while.

 

Completely agree with the not bothering to drain drain-one-drain-all constructs (or to make sure that the drain, supress, etc. is so large as to, in light of drain-one-drain-all, turn the character into a normal). The recordkeeping is a nightmare.

 

I am curious about your own-different-experiences... I always like hearing what does and does not work, what does and does not 'go', in other peoples games.

 

And as to random-grab-bag boy... Its funny, but when I stop and think about it, many of the most iconic superheros are random-grab-bags. Superman? Only Unifying SFX is "Im a Kryptonian"... which he invented. Wonder Woman? Strength, Speed, Indestructable Bracers, and a Lasso of Binding and Truth. Do What? Martian Manhunter is Superman-Plus-More-Wierd.

 

And what about Batman? Does "Gear" equal an elemental control? What about Iron Man? Power Suit even makes drain-one-drain-all sense, but it seems to me 'battle suit' can be the excuse for almost any power one might want to buy... grabbag land, again.

 

How do we deal with this? Is 'All on Fire Guy' going to be built on more points than "Kryptonian Guy'?

 

Im going back and forth internally, and a bit frustrated, so am seeking commentary/thoughts.