VPP active point costs

[Christopher]

Re: VPP active point costs

 

I never changed my mind, since it was never my intention. I just said it for you since you permanently say that the caps are in the way.

 

That's not my intent to build such a nonsense, is clearly stated by the post in the middle. Honestly I wouldn't think of such ridicilous amounts of Limitations (and I would argue that charges on a 9 END Power are hardly a limitation). I prefer playing with as little limitations as possible, not stack them to get a maxed power extremely cheap.

When I want something cheap, I build it in a Framework that follows the AP Limits with all the side-effects of having it in the Framework.

 

About limits:

Of course both: Total AP of the VPP (Control + Pool before limitations) and highest AP possible for a power apply. When there is a lower AP for certain powers (like attacks), they have to be inside that limit too (with the -0 Limitation). Sorry if I never mentioned that explicitly, but that's how I think a VPP should be build to be fair for the others and the player.

 

So why do we take that approach when a rigid AP cap allows a character to be too powerful, but not when it results in him being unable to play on the same level as his teammates?

You just showed me that one can come up with up to -3 Limitations for a VPP Power, and I showed you that you can make a VPP whose Controll is as big as the AP Cap, while completely confering to both Limits (over all VPP cost and Controll within AP Cap).

You want it again for an overall 60 AP cap? here:

60 Control (30 AP) + 30 Pool (30 AP).

The cap is 80? Easy math.

The cap is 120? Easy math.

So, how can you not build a power within it, that allows you to do the same damage as everyone else with to 60 AP Limit? Sure, you have to take Limitations but you can totally build a power that is equal in output to any other 60 AP Attack with this power pool. And not just one, but dozens of attacks, entangles, barriers. The sky is the limit...

 

I personally find Multipower Magic a problem as it encourages all spells to have about the same AP

How? You still have to put your defenses and movement power in it. If there are only attacks in there or spells you use outside of combat (Picking Locks, etc.), then there may be something wrong with the mutlipower as a whole.

My rule of Thumb for Frameworks is: "If you don't have to choose, than something isn't right." If you do have to choose (or have long switching time that is relevant), then it shold be all right.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: VPP active point costs

 

That's not my intent to build such a nonsense' date=' is clearly stated by the post in the middle. Honestly I wouldn't think of such ridicilous amounts of Limitations (and I would argue that charges on a 9 END Power are hardly a limitation).[/quote']

 

You can argue. I would disagree. I can fire a 9 END power off on the first phase of combat, then get my post-segment 12 recovery. I can probably fire it off at least once a turn thereafter and easily last out the fight, maybe more depending on the character. And I may well engage in more than one combat in a day. Philosophically, I would like to see charges repriced to NOT include 0 END. 16 charges would then be a -1/2 limitation based on current values. 4 charges would be -2 [60/2 = 30; 60 x 1.5/3 = 30]. But the current model works. And it acknowledges that, with over 32 charges, you really aren't very limited unless the ability is Autofire, in which case you aren't limited past 128 charges.

 

I prefer playing with as little limitations as possible, not stack them to get a maxed power extremely cheap.

When I want something cheap, I build it in a Framework that follows the AP Limits with all the side-effects of having it in the Framework.

 

Bully for you. I believe the book holds options, and there are times and places for all of them. The limitations must, of course, be limiting.

 

About limits:

Of course both: Total AP of the VPP (Control + Pool before limitations) and highest AP possible for a power apply. When there is a lower AP for certain powers (like attacks), they have to be inside that limit too (with the -0 Limitation). Sorry if I never mentioned that explicitly, but that's how I think a VPP should be build to be fair for the others and the player.

 

So the VPP has two AP limits and all the other abilities have one AP limit. Why? If the flexibility of a VPP is enough to mandate multiple limits, why doesn't the flexibility of a Multipower mandate that a 50 point pool, plus two fixed slots, is a 60 AP power?

 

You just showed me that one can come up with up to -3 Limitations for a VPP Power, and I showed you that you can make a VPP whose Controll is as big as the AP Cap, while completely confering to both Limits (over all VPP cost and Controll within AP Cap).

You want it again for an overall 60 AP cap? here:

60 Control (30 AP) + 30 Pool (30 AP).

The cap is 80? Easy math.

The cap is 120? Easy math.

So, how can you not build a power within it, that allows you to do the same damage as everyone else with to 60 AP Limit? Sure, you have to take Limitations but you can totally build a power that is equal in output to any other 60 AP Attack with this power pool. And not just one, but dozens of attacks, entangles, barriers. The sky is the limit...

 

I'll again remind you that the OP is playing 5th Edition. He gets a 40 point pool with a 20 point control cost. His max AP is 40. He cannot exceed that 40 AP max. He cannot buy a bigger control cost to allow higher AP powers in the VPP.

 

And why should the VPP user need huge limitations to be able to stand with the rest of the team as a viable combatant? In my view, he should not. Counting a VPP as a single power for AP limits carries an inappropriate result. Even Steve Long notes that the best measure is the AP of powers it can hold, not the sum of pool and control cost. Maybe we can get it officially changed for 7e (is there an official rule for 6e? cite, please - the quote was, I believe, 5e, which makes sense as that is the OP's edition).

 

How? You still have to put your defenses and movement power in it. If there are only attacks in there or spells you use outside of combat (Picking Locks' date=' etc.), then there may be something wrong with the mutlipower as a whole.[/quote']

 

If I'm always using a defensive or movement spell, why would I put it in the Multipower? Mix & match tends to slow MP's, and VPP's down. And even so, why would I not build my attack powers as flex slots going all the way up to the full pool? Very useful when striking from ambush. "I will stay hidden until Phase 1, then blast him at DEX 1. I'm betting I'll be aborting my next phase to activate a defensive spell if he lives long enough to retaliate."

[Christopher]

Re: VPP active point costs

 

I'll again remind you that the OP is playing 5th Edition. He gets a 40 point pool with a 20 point control cost. His max AP is 40. He cannot exceed that 40 AP max. He cannot buy a bigger control cost to allow higher AP powers in the VPP.

Wich was ended here, so I think we are arguing about 6E Frameworks in combination with AP-Caps. Or aren't we?

 

So the VPP has two AP limits and all the other abilities have one AP limit. Why? If the flexibility of a VPP is enough to mandate multiple limits' date=' why doesn't the flexibility of a Multipower mandate that a 50 point pool, plus two fixed slots, is a 60 AP power?[/quote']

Asuming we are talking about 6E here: Where does it say you rate the Multipower-Reserve or Reserve + Slots against the AP-Cap? Afaik you only take the single slots and rate them against it. So, theoretically a 120 Point Reserve Multipower may be possible (even if AP Cap is 60). Of course, this requires some really expensive/fixed slots or you don't run into "must choose" situation, thus making the entire construct questionable.

 

And why should the VPP user need huge limitations to be able to stand with the rest of the team as a viable combatant?

Because it's part of the disadvantage that allows him to have every power from the book within 1 Phase reach, perhaps? This of course asumes we are talking about 6E, if not this discussion has no meaning as I already said that 5E is indeed very unpracticable when adhering to the rules.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: VPP active point costs

 

Asuming we are talking about 6E here: Where does it say you rate the Multipower-Reserve or Reserve + Slots against the AP-Cap?

 

Where does it say you add the VPP pool to the control cost to determine an AP cost of a VPP? It's not in the rules, AFAIK (and I just ran a search for "Active" through my .pdf starting at the VPP header, and didn't find any reference to the AP of the power framework itself, just lots of references to the AP of the powers within it). It's not in the 6e FAQ either. The only cite I am aware of is in the 5er FAQ. Hmmm...could it be that the absence of a statement on AP of the VPP in 6e (rules or FAQ) indicate that there is no such rule in 6e?

 

Afaik you only take the single slots and rate them against it. So' date=' theoretically a 120 Point Reserve Multipower may be possible (even if AP Cap is 60). Of course, this requires some really expensive/fixed slots or you don't run into "must choose" situation, thus making the entire construct questionable.[/quote']

 

Anyone buying a multipower requiring no choices is an idiot. Why would I buy:

 

120 Multipower

6 u 12d6 Blast

3 u +10/+10 rDEF

3 u +30 meters running

 

when I can just buy all three powers separately and pay 12 less points.

 

A 60 point, or 120 point, Multipower filled with 60 and 30 AP slots is quite legit, but if you have enough points to use them all at once, you wasted the slot costs.

 

A VPP is a Multipower with infinite slots. There is no reason that "The AP of the powers in the pool is compared to the campaign's AP limit" should not be the rule for both. I know, by the way, that Steve does not consider AP caps to be part of the official rules, and he therefore does not design to such caps. He may have noted that on the Boards. He definitely stated it in at least one SETAC discussion. So I'm not surprised he doesn't put a lot of comments on the AP of a framework. In my view, powers have AP. Frameworks do not - they are just carrying cases for powers.

 

Because it's part of the disadvantage that allows him to have every power from the book within 1 Phase reach' date=' perhaps? This of course asumes we are talking about 6E, if not this discussion has no meaning as I already said that 5E is indeed very unpracticable when adhering to the rules.[/quote']

 

The disadvantage associated with a VPP is the control cost. To be as flexible as a multipower in changing slots, it must be Cosmic, so access to any 60 AP power as desired attracts a 90 point control cost. That is the cost of flexibility. If you would have 15 or more fixed slots in a 60 AP multipower, your character should switch to a cosmic VPP (with pre-defined slots, if desired) for simple cost effectiveness, as it will be mechanically 100% identical. And 15 slots is already pretty flexible.

[Christopher]

Re: VPP active point costs

 

After some thought I have realised that this disussion no longer serves any purpose.

We have contradicting points of view, therefore an agreement is unlikely.

There also seems to be nothing more we can learn form the perspective of the other.

 

As I do not debate for the sake of debating, this thematic is finished for me.