-80% Limitation Cap: Any Exceptions?

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Putting a One Use ability in a AA seems like terrible idea.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

-80% limitations, One Use Ever 1/5, Alternate Ability 1/5.

You now have a trait that costs 1/125 it's base price. Do them in order of above; after the first two cuts, if the ability costs less than something you have, you get the last cut. For instance, if you have Alternate Form:Body of Fire with maxed out enhancements, that can get upwards of 50pts. 50*25 is [1250], so you can have a burning attack as an alternative ability to your alternate form that costs [10] but is actually 125d (and probably you got the limitation that you die to use it).

With this kind of set-up, it kind of makes sense; if you're dying anyway (assuming no ability to be resurrected) it shouldn't matter if One Use Ever on an AA means that the primary Ability is also gone (which is how I understand it - please tell me if I am right or wrong. XD). I mean, if you're going to go out, this lets you go out with a bang, maybe save the rest of the party/finish the mission as well.

If that combo doesn't burn out the primary Ability, then as long as it comes out at a bargain price, its kind of like a "creative" Extra Life: buy something worth using once, to do something important (like saving your own life), and if it came in under 25 points, seems like a decent deal to me. Of course, as this is from me, its not founded on actual play experience but just me trying to grasp the concept. O_<

[Libertine]

I would say that the one exception I would make would be gadget advantages that were quickly made in game that no points were spent on, then the extra limitation would be on breakable and can be stolen.

[Hannes665]

Is there not a optional rule were you calculate all enhancements and limitations then get the final +/-x%?

Like Super Fuuu Advantage. 100 pts. +50% +20% -35% -45% = -10% cost 90

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Hannes665

Is there not a optional rule were you calculate all enhancements and limitations then get the final +/-x%?

Like Super Fuuu Advantage. 100 pts. +50% +20% -35% -45% = -10% cost 90

That's not an optional rule, that's the Rules As Written. There's an optional rule called Multiplicative Modifiers, where you total up the enhancements, adjust the cost, then total the limitations and adjust the cost again. In your example that would mean 100 points, +50% +20% -> 170 points, -35% -45% -> 34 points. However, that actually means that any limitations over -80% are lost, instead of only wasting limitations if the total modifier (of enhancements + limitations) is less than -80%.

[Hannes665]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

That's not an optional rule, that's the Rules As Written. There's an optional rule called Multiplicative Modifiers, where you total up the enhancements, adjust the cost, then total the limitations and adjust the cost again. In your example that would mean 100 points, +50% +20% -> 170 points, -35% -45% -> 34 points. However, that actually means that any limitations over -80% are lost, instead of only wasting limitations if the total modifier (of enhancements + limitations) is less than -80%.

Yes sorry... that right... fever and cold does not good internet post do!

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Hannes665

Is there not a optional rule were you calculate all enhancements and limitations then get the final +/-x%?

That's the standard method, "additive modifiers". The -80% cap is a limit on the net value of all the modifiers added together. You can certainly have more than -80% of Limitations, but there will either be some Enhancements bringing the total above -80%, or else you simply treat the final modifier as -80%. (So find some more Enhancements, drop some Limitations, or just go with the fact that you've built the power the way you wanted it and don't worry that you're "losing points".)

The RAW "multiplicative modifiers" method, an option in Powers, sums all Enhancements, multiplies by the base to get an intermediate value, then sums all limitations, and multiplies to reduce that intermediate value. So, in your example, MM would be 100 * (1 + 70%) = 170 * (1 - 80%) = 34 CP. In this method, the cap on the total Limitation value is also -80%, so you can at most reduce that intermediate value by a factor of five. (Multiplying by 0.2, not to be confused with the several 1/5 multipliers such as for Alternate Abilities.)

Note that the RAW multiplicative method is not the same thing as multiplying by each modifier individually. (100 * 1.50 * 1.20 * 0.65 * 0.55 = 64 CP.)

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

... just go with the fact that you've built the power the way you wanted it and don't worry that you're "losing points".)

I wasn't being addressed by the quoted text, but I wanted to address it as a general point, because this can seem like a needless attempt at shaving a few points for better "power gaming".

Building the character you want still needs to conform to the game the entire group wants. With the GM's permission, a player can always elect to run a character built on less than the full point allotment or exceed the Disadvantage cap by a large margin*. Doing so can really upset campaign balance, as can "just build it" models, especially for those of us that are indecisive (maybe even Indecisive) or are just really bad at character concepts that aren't a little too well rounded ("You've got that skill at a competent level as well? Really?!").

This was one of those niggling little details that don't break the system, but can diminish enjoyment of it, at least for players such as myself. When building complex characters, I've also found myself desiring universal point inflation, so that fractional points can make a return without being fractional; all that rounding can really add up, whether its a low point, realistic character where a point is "lost" because of rounding up after applying Self Control Numbers to two Disadvantages or the high point Super that has multiple traits with heavy Modifiers (again, rounding up), either can lead to being forced to alter your vision of the character because the rounding made him a point (or whatever margin is relevant) over.

Yes, this is mostly an issue of my own competency with the system! Eventually I'll probably be good enough to just deal with it.

*While I rarely have a points to spare, I do prefer to come in a little under budget in case optional rules like spending CP to pay for an automatic success or even better, when the players and GM agree to use said points, as needed, to flesh out the character during the first few play sessions, akin to how one can do so with Quirks.

[Bruno]

Sort of a side note:

Originally Posted by Otaku

Of course, one might wonder why that is an issue at all? Well, one reason why Alternate Abilities is a multiplier and not a Limitation is to bypass this restriction, isn't it? Or is that another misreading/misunderstanding of the rules on my part? ^^'

It's a misunderstanding of the rules, in that you can put an ability in an Alternate Ability - at least as far as I grok it. An ability can be composed of one-or-many advantages together!

For an example, Animal Dude has his Chameleon and Rhino Hide abilities in an Alternate Ability - he can have one, or the other, but not both.

Chameleon Hide is DR 2 (Tough Skin) plus 8 levels of the Chameleon advantage.
Rhino Hide is DR 10 (Temporary Disadvantage: Ham Fisted 2)

Both are abilities, but one is two advantages and the other is just one.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Otaku

the only reason it isn't a big deal is the obvious; you can ignore your character concept and restrict yourself in design so that you never have more than -80% worth of Limitations. This can be a bit like the Disadvantage cap; the suggested guidelines are there for a reason.

I don't understand this, personally. It's a cap on the discount (or points return), not on the number of limitations or disadvantages you can have. If it's important to your character to take those two -50% limitations with no enhancements, then take them! You only get -80% back, but you still have them. And later the GM will probably give you easy excuses to add 20% in enhancements for "free" in game events, or just flat out make it easy/cheap to buy down one of those limitations.

Same, you can take all the disads you want, you just don't get points back. After I hit the cap I tend not to write them down as full disads but as quirks, or just roleplaying notes - but my characters tend to end up hindered with something closer to the full versions anyways.

Or, yes, you can adjust your character concept.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

That's not an optional rule, that's the Rules As Written. There's an optional rule called Multiplicative Modifiers, where you total up the enhancements, adjust the cost, then total the limitations and adjust the cost again. In your example that would mean 100 points, +50% +20% -> 170 points, -35% -45% -> 34 points. However, that actually means that any limitations over -80% are lost, instead of only wasting limitations if the total modifier (of enhancements + limitations) is less than -80%.

In practice, Multiplicative Modifiers isn't really usable out of the box, as I found when I tried to use it in Blight Years. I'd think you'd need to rework every modifier in the game, and I don't think there's a systematic way to do it either.