Who actually uses the multiplicative Modifiers from Powers?

[Yako]

...because I really, really start to like them more and more...

First, the values for a limitation and the opposing enhancement are almost always related in this way that the enhancement has the higher value, take reduced fatigue VS costs fatigue, that is 5% of limitation compared to 20% for the enhancement, while time ONLY factors 1:2 in favour of the enhancement.
...and this trend does continue elsewhere most of the time.
The problem with that is of course that additive modifiers has the underlying understanding that an equal amount of limitations should cancel out enhancements of the same value.

Given that many attacks especially, but also other abilities require rather huge amounts of enhancements, there is usually no way to get an ability that, for a fair prize, is both really good under certain circumstances but hard to set up or otherwise limited in its use.

Now, where this REALLY gets ugly though is when an ability ends up being defined MORE by its enhancements than by its base costs. The ideal candidate is Affliction for example. Since the ability bascially is ruled by enhancements, limitations, which still are priced by the base cost are often completely useless to drop the costs.
It is as much an absolute price reduction whether you inflict a mild stiffness in the joints (2 points less of Dexterity) or blind, mute and deafen someone, which is very much at odds with how other abilities get larger price cuts based on their power. This becomes especially evident when comparing afflictions to similar abilities (in effect) which are based on a limited form of a more cost intensive ability.
And there is the case of getting a big reduction for limitations on the ability to warp yourself and virtually none on the ability to warp others.

...or there is the point where with additive Modifiers it can save you more points to put a limitation ONLY on one pricey enhancements instead of the whole ability (once it is more than a 100% enhancement).

Granted, for games without big powers, especially when abilities have only limitations (very common, especially with abilities which are stated up with the powerful version which can then be limited to fit what the character can do, like, say, mind-control or healing) OR enhancements, it doesn't matter which you use, but once I did get to make a character for an upcoming game where I did need a power with both limitations and enhancements, I hardly see any reason to still use additive modifiers.

Overall, I am curious though how many people are actually using them and how some of the issues coming up with them are handled.
For example, does anyone have experience with needing to recalculate any limitations or enhancements to work with the multiplicative approach?

Are there any real major issues which pop up?
Do you think Multiplicative Modifiers deserve to become the standard rule?

[Bruno]

I did use Multiplicative Modifiers in my 1500 point supers game, mostly because I was pretty confident my players weren't going to try to do something sneakily optimized using MM any more than they were going to do with regular modifiers. If anything, I have to save my players from themselves and their character concepts ("Golden Age Supers" - character based around telekinetically wielding three halbards to murder villains with a flurry of attacks every round - not exactly compatible with the campaign assumptions).

If Multiplicative Modifiers became the standard rule (only going to happen in a hypothetical 5th edition[1]) all the modifiers and existing advantages would have to be reviewed.

Especially advantage-specific modifiers - these are often priced based on the entirely logical and appropriate "Well, it effectively bolts on a version of advantage Y, so we should price the enhancement in order to increase the cost by something like advantage Y's cost" (right in Basic Set you have Discriminatory Smell's Empathy enhancement, but there are many more examples).

As you pointed out, Affliction as currently constructed is heavily weighted towards large enhancements - I think this is an advantage that would have to be revisited and re-examined. There's already been a proposal that only the first level have a base cost of 10 points, and the subsequent levels have a reduced cost (possibly paired with increasing the base cost of the first level). I think whatever happens, and whichever enhancement/limitation scheme you use, Affliction would need to be closely examined.

[1] Which is not expected before about 2020-2025 at this point, so this is purely a thought exercise. It's too radical a change to make core in a 4e Revised or 4.5e or whatever.

[Yako]

Wow, the only time I came around that point range (granted, way past it...) was when I tried to stat up an original character a friend of mine draws for fun - and he is supposed to be a bio engineered one man army. ^^ ()

I agree on the need for a revision for all those modifiers, but, honestly, that is the most likely thing to happen anyway, isn't it?
All those years of playing and getting to know the modifiers in the field surely makes some changes even playtesting won't be enough to anticipate, or?

Well, regarding the line about effectively raising an advantage in cost so it effectively also includes another, this is exactly where I think multiplicative modifiers are at their best.
I mean, if you simply DID take that advantage on top (and modify it a bit), you'd approach the effect of multiplicative modifiers, which would, just the same way, apply to both advantages, while additive modifiers still only apply to the base power.

Oh, yes, of course, I used the 10 + 3 per level ruling from the forum from the moment I saw it, it just makes sense and compares very well to abilities like terror.
Personally, I do think affliction does work with multiplicative modifiers, you do this way get something rather akin to advantages like terror or mind control in effectivines and also, you get the same amount of points back for limitations.

Lastly, what made me most like multiplicative modifiers is that with this, I can also get at least a certain amount of price equality between magic as skills and magic as a power.
Abilities emulating spells so often come with big enhancements, starting with malediction after all and this way, I do not have the problem that, while I can make a reasonable mindcontrol spell, I cannot do the same for a sleep spell (-50% of limitations, which is already a lot get me down to 25 points for mind control, while the same -50% would still mean I'd have +200% for a level one sleep malediction, which is 30 points).

I'd just like to get to know as much drawbacks of multiplicative modifiers as possible or experience with their use before I make the final decision to fully embrace them.

[sir_pudding]

I've been using them. No problems.

On Affliction, I still haven't come up with a house rule I like on the price per level, but there's a problem when people will try to justify Malediction just so they don't need raise the Affliction level. Whatever the cost of additional levels of Affliction it shouldn't be any more than Will, for this reason.

[Darekun]

First, it's useful to distinguish between Multiplicative Modifiers(which is poorly-named) and multiplicative modifiers, where (almost) all modifier combining is multiplicative.

I used multiplicative modifiers in 3ed for years, worked great, any time it differed significantly from additive the additive answer was clearly flawed.

Originally Posted by Yako

Overall, I am curious though how many people are actually using them and how some of the issues coming up with them are handled.

The problem with additive modifiers is that you get "enhancement abilities", which have lots of enhancements and are therefore really efficient to enhance further and really inefficient to limit, and "limitation abilities", which have the reverse.

The problem with Multiplicative Modifiers is that you get both simultaneously. This leads to things like an ability with -80% in a handful of limitations and +400% in a handful of enhancements, which is blatantly not the same value as the base ability. (Four +100% enhancements should each double cost, so you're getting it for about a third the price from that alone, and adding limitations both aggravates the same problem, and lets it happen with expensive base abilities.)

It also doesn't solve the need for the -80% limit, but additive doesn't either.



Affliction, without something like multiplicative modifiers, would need its whole concept of levels fixed; it should probably be more like Modular Abilities, where the base cost is based on its "payload".

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

On Affliction, I still haven't come up with a house rule I like on the price per level, but there's a problem when people will try to justify Malediction just so they don't need raise the Affliction level. Whatever the cost of additional levels of Affliction it shouldn't be any more than Will, for this reason.

Hm. I've been considering halving the cost of additional levels, but I don't see additional levels get taken, so I'm not sure that wouldn't be too much… but that would bring the cost of +1 Affliction to the same as +1 Will. Granted, it's still cheaper with multiple Afflictions…

Of course, Malediction is kinda broken, probably not the best example to follow for balance.

[smurf]

No I do not use them as they tend to make cost spiral upwards.

Out of interest, you used a 1500pt build template with multiplicative mods, what would it be with out them. I think it may be down to the 1000 mark. Also, some MM is ok, it's when it is used on everything that it is a problem.

We have dedicated some points of the character to funny skills. Skating, hiking, research, writing. A host of skills they may or may not be used.

[Dragondog]

I use multiplicative modifiers and in my experience they lower the cost in most cases.

I bought Divine Favors recently and though I haven't looked at all the learned prayers yet, the ones I have looked at either cost the same or less. And I've posted about the use of multiplicative modifiers in the Divine Favors thread to see what to do with the learned prayers that are affected compared to those that aren't.

[Yako]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I've been using them. No problems.

On Affliction, I still haven't come up with a house rule I like on the price per level, but there's a problem when people will try to justify Malediction just so they don't need raise the Affliction level. Whatever the cost of additional levels of Affliction it shouldn't be any more than Will, for this reason.

Agreed, that and some of the symptoms and side effect builds I have seen have really been persuasive arguments to go for 3 points per level beyond the first or something like that.
A mechanic which no one wants to use can not be good.
It is the same with a German Roleplaying system I play, there were many horrendously overpriced abilities there which ended up never being used while other stuff was so cheap it was gruelling.
I used many inspirations from GURPS to houserule that system and it did make me realize that there usually is hardly a better guide at judging whether an ability is too good or too bad to see how many players take it and how extensively it is used.

Originally Posted by Darekun

First, it's useful to distinguish between Multiplicative Modifiers(which is poorly-named) and multiplicative modifiers, where (almost) all modifier combining is multiplicative.

Of course, that is why I made sure to include the "from Powers", as I have read that some people are experimenting with truly multiplicative modifiers, that is, applying every modifier separately by transforming them form a percentile addend to a decimal factor.
Personally I find that idea interesting as well, but I guess to use that would truly mean having to rework every single modifier, too many of them simply don't seem to be built for that (in my opinion).

Originally Posted by Darekun

I used multiplicative modifiers in 3ed for years, worked great, any time it differed significantly from additive the additive answer was clearly flawed.

By that you do mean the "true multiplicative Modifiers", yes?
Hmh, well, personally, I thought that this has to work very well for every modifier between -50% to +100%, but even the limits of this rather give me an uneasy feeling when doing the calculations...
I mean, once you start with four times the usual or once you pile up big limitations (which usually would be stopped by the -80% limit), doesn't it get pretty unbalanced?
I already do find some of the big limitations very expensive, sometimes overly so, but if 150% and 300% suddenly become TEN times the original cost, is that really worth it?
I'd at least think it would need a more careful revision than just the multiplicative stuff from Powers, but then again, I have only gone tzhrough this idea in theory...

Originally Posted by Darekun

The problem with additive modifiers is that you get "enhancement abilities", which have lots of enhancements and are therefore really efficient to enhance further and really inefficient to limit, and "limitation abilities", which have the reverse.

Yes, that is exactly what bothers me as well, there are abilities which are basically maximized at default prize (unkillable for example) and other which are minimized.
Both can be well exploited with enhancements or limitations but react very poorly to the other approach, given that you will need the other and in the additive system, limitations and enhancements often don't really mix well.

When an ability is somewhere in the middle though, things do get ugly, which is especially true for the afflictions, which almost always will have need for both.

Originally Posted by Darekun

The problem with Multiplicative Modifiers is that you get both simultaneously. This leads to things like an ability with -80% in a handful of limitations and +400% in a handful of enhancements, which is blatantly not the same value as the base ability. (Four +100% enhancements should each double cost, so you're getting it for about a third the price from that alone, and adding limitations both aggravates the same problem, and lets it happen with expensive base abilities.)

It also doesn't solve the need for the -80% limit, but additive doesn't either.

Well, as said above, I personally think that anything starting with 100% is definitely priced fairly only with additive enhancements (which the powers version of multiplicative modifiers does).
It would seem a bit strange to me if, say -30%, , -20%, -20% and -10%, which can be rather a lot of restriction would only net you still around five times the price for +100%, +100% and +200%, that is even more than additive modifiers.

Given that with -30% could be and attack you can only use twice a day, or one which wears you out pretty quickly to start with, while the rest could make it a melee attack you have to charge up to seconds in advance, the rest being a power modifier...

I guess one would have to test calculate it for a few abilities, but it does, to me, usually seem fairer to use the Powers approach which is after all said to be exactly for the purpose of making stuff like, say, a cosmic ability ignoring DR affordable, which does get even more pricey with true multiplicative modifiers...

Where I do worry is more the smaller but useful enhancements, like, say some levels of reliable or such which can basically completely drown in limitations. Let's say, reliable healing which has been modified down to -80% and thus would be only 1 point for two levels?
Granted, if you have several abilities who would profit from that it would still be cheaper to use a talent likely and -80% WILL make that healing ineffective enough that the reliability might not be so grand a boon after all, but still, if there is abuse potential, I mainly see it there, stacking on enhancements which are basically at no cost, however minor they may be...

Originally Posted by Darekun

Affliction, without something like multiplicative modifiers, would need its whole concept of levels fixed; it should probably be more like Modular Abilities, where the base cost is based on its "payload".


Hm. I've been considering halving the cost of additional levels, but I don't see additional levels get taken, so I'm not sure that wouldn't be too much… but that would bring the cost of +1 Affliction to the same as +1 Will. Granted, it's still cheaper with multiple Afflictions…

Of course, Malediction is kinda broken, probably not the best example to follow for balance.

I was thinking of turning the cost adjustment for the effects other than stun into something like the multiplied by X used by advantages like ally myself, but then again, this makes them even more pricey for anything like a sleep gas cloud, or a bright flash that temporarily blinds everyone in a whole area...

Well, yeah, of course no one takes additional levels if it is so much cheaper to go the other way with symptoms and side effects, or a malediction which technically should be a kind of reduced utility (ignores DR) instead of a superior method to make opponents succumb to a low level affliction.
Honestly, when a mechanic which is MEANT to do one thing is shunned for other approaches, there has to be something seriously broken.

I use 3 points per extra level, following Kromm's post where 2 or 3 was suggested.
It still can be cheaper to use malediction, so I think it cannot be too cheap...^^

Originally Posted by smurf

No I do not use them as they tend to make cost spiral upwards.

Out of interest, you used a 1500pt build template with multiplicative mods, what would it be with out them. I think it may be down to the 1000 mark. Also, some MM is ok, it's when it is used on everything that it is a problem.

We have dedicated some points of the character to funny skills. Skating, hiking, research, writing. A host of skills they may or may not be used.

You do mean the true multiplicative modifiers like Darekun suggested?

Well, I agree myself that those often conflict with the pricing scheme of existing modifiers, but I think you somewhat lost me with he rest of your post... ^^ ()

[Brandy]

I greatly prefer the Multiplicative Modifiers schema (as presented in Powers) and use it exclusively in the games that I run.

Contrary to some of the other posts, I use it in much lower powered games, and typically have Powers with Abilities in the 10-50 point range. It works very well for this and seems balanced to me.

[Darekun]

Originally Posted by Yako

Personally I find that idea interesting as well, but I guess to use that would truly mean having to rework every single modifier, too many of them simply don't seem to be built for that (in my opinion).

Nope, that's what I meant with the "any time it differed significantly" line, it's better than additive without reworking any/many, depending on how you count it :J You do need to group modifiers that were balanced together(I usually have No ½D and one or two other range mods on an attack, gadget lims seem to work well grouped, I haven't tried Emanation ungrouped from AOE but it requires it, etc). There's also at least one limitation(In Supers?) that's -300% or something, I've never actually played with it, but I assumed it was balanced to cancel out a +300% so I figured it's ×¼.

Originally Posted by Yako

By that you do mean the "true multiplicative Modifiers", yes?

Yes, I distinguish between them by capitalization :J

Originally Posted by Yako

Hmh, well, personally, I thought that this has to work very well for every modifier between -50% to +100%, but even the limits of this rather give me an uneasy feeling when doing the calculations...
I mean, once you start with four times the usual or once you pile up big limitations (which usually would be stopped by the -80% limit), doesn't it get pretty unbalanced?

Nope, quite the opposite :J Combining Cosmic: Ignores DR(×4) and Cyclic: +3 @ 1sec(×4) and ROF: 10(×2) is actually better balanced than the additive equivalent. You may've heard of M.U.N.C.H.K.I.N. on this forum; multiplicative modifiers assigns it a much higher cost, much more accurate. Piling up limitations also doesn't break; ×.7, ×.8, ×.8, and ×.9 is about ×.4.

Originally Posted by Yako

Given that with -30% could be and attack you can only use twice a day, or one which wears you out pretty quickly to start with, while the rest could make it a melee attack you have to charge up to seconds in advance, the rest being a power modifier...

In actual play, stacking small lims to get -80% that way is a great deal. If you put them on an Innate Attack large enough that you need the lims to afford it, that ability's roughly "I win boss fights". Only roughly, though, because it doesn't play with enhancements, so you may get one of your two shots today shut down by a one-shot defense like reactive armor plating, or a heavily-limited Warp. If you're using Multiplicative Modifiers, then you can also reduce it to one die, add Cosmic: Ignores DR(+300%) and Cyclic: +15 @ 1sec(+1500%) and ROF: 10(+100%) and Acc: +23(+100%), and rip through emergency defenses based on DR or active defenses. And you're still dealing a total of 16d per hit, which can be totaled because it ignores non-Cosmic DR. If that's burning damage, it's 20 points with Multiplicative Modifiers to kill two human-scale bosses a day, for 6 FP a pop, with some set-up. Maybe they'll have a countermeasure to your Power? (A kill that cares less about scale uses Heart Attack, but we all seem to agree Affliction is broken.)

Using multiplicative modifiers, OTOH, you don't get as good a deal by nickel-and-diming limitations, and you get charged for the extra cycles getting carried through DR, and the extra shots dealing extra cycles, etc.

If people stick to a small range — your -50% to +100% is decent — or stick to few modifiers of each type, then you don't really need multiplicative modifiers for balance. But I like having anti-boss measures, they just should have a cost commensurate with being an anti-boss measure.

Originally Posted by Yako

and -80% WILL make that healing ineffective enough that the reliability might not be so grand a boon after all,

That's the one.

Think of it this way: If you have an ability that's 6 points, before modifiers, and you only add two levels of Reliability, that's not a big deal. Worth the 1 point. If you have an ability that's 6 points, because it's been heavily modified, that means it's comparable to the ability that's naturally 6 points. Adding two levels of Reliability should only be worth 1 point. Otherwise, calling it 6 points was wrong in the first place, it's not comparable to the ability that's naturally 6 points.