Understanding Multiplicative Modifiers

[Mailanka]

I want to make sure I understand something.

First, standard modifiers: I can have as many limitations as I want, as long as the advantage itself isn't brought to below -80%

For example, I could have the advantage Foo [10], and then apply a bunch of limitations, like so: Foo (Cosmic: Very Foo +50%, Accessible: Only on Foo's Day -75%, Takes Extra Time 2 -20%, Costs Fatigue 6 -30%) [2]. That is, I can go down to -80% and no lower, but I can have as many limitations as I want, correct?

Next question: Multiplicative Modifiers.

Optionally, the GM may treat enhancements and limitations as multiplicative.
Total the enhancements and apply them first. Then total the
limitations (reducing any total over -80% to -80%) and apply them to
the result. In the above example, +20% in enhancements would increase
ability cost to 120% of advantage cost, and then -50% in limitations
would reduce this to 60%.

Alright, so if I understand this, let's say I have Foo [10], and I want to add:
Cosmic: Kinda Foo +10%
Reliable: +10%
Costs Fatigue 5 -25%
All-Out -25%

So first, I would total the enhancements and apply them: +20%, so [12]. Then I would total the limitations (-50%) and apply them... to the advantage? So the total would be [6], correct? Or does he mean to apply them to the enhancements (that is, it becomes +10%, which would be [11])

Finally: Is there any point to having more than 80% in limitations with multiplicative modifers? Seems like no matter how many enhancements I add, I cannot do the additive trick of just piling on more negative modifiers until I reach my original low value. Or can I apply as many as I want, just as long as the final advantage is not less than 1/5 the original cost? That is, I could have:

Foo [10]
Cosmic: Ultra-Foo +100%
Costs 18 Fatigue -90%

For a total of [2]?

[Celti]

I've used Multiplicative Modifiers exclusively since Powers came out, I think I can answer these.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Alright, so if I understand this, let's say I have Foo [10], and I want to add:
Cosmic: Kinda Foo +10%
Reliable: +10%
Costs Fatigue 5 -25%
All-Out -25%

So first, I would total the enhancements and apply them: +20%, so [12]. Then I would total the limitations (-50%) and apply them... to the advantage? So the total would be [6], correct? Or does he mean to apply them to the enhancements (that is, it becomes +10%, which would be [11])

This would be: 10 * 1.2 (for +20% in enhancements) * 0.5 (for -50% in limitations) for a total cost of [6].

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Finally: Is there any point to having more than 80% in limitations with multiplicative modifers? Seems like no matter how many enhancements I add, I cannot do the additive trick of just piling on more negative modifiers until I reach my original low value. Or can I apply as many as I want, just as long as the final advantage is not less than 1/5 the original cost?

Using Multiplicative Modifiers as written, there is no point in taking more than -80% in limitations.

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Foo [10]
Cosmic: Ultra-Foo +100%
Costs 18 Fatigue -90%

As a house-rule I've used, if a build has more than -80% in limitations and those are seriously limiting enough to be worth more than an 80% discount, I'll take the excess beyond -80% and apply them as a second round of limitations. This example would be:

10 * 2 (for +100%) * .2 (for the first -80% of Costs Fatigue) * .9 (for the last -10% of Costs Fatigue) for a final cost of [3.6], rounding to [4].

[Mailanka]

Alright, then I understand it just fine.

Also, I like your house rule.

[Lord Azagthoth]

I thought it was +10%+10%-25%-25% for a net limitation of -30%
which result (rounded up) to 7pts for I Have Foo?

[Celti]

Originally Posted by Lord Azagthoth

I thought it was +10%+10%-25%-25% for a net limitation of -30%
which result (rounded up) to 7pts for I Have Foo?

That's standard modifiers, yes. We're talking about Multiplicative Modifiers, from the pox on b. 102 of Powers.

[spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Finally: Is there any point to having more than 80% in limitations with multiplicative modifers?

Technically, in terms of CP efficiency, no, but... making the ability match your idea for it, or getting approval from the GM for an otherwise nixed ability by rendering it even more limited. Either one can push you past 80% limitations at times.

[Lord Azagthoth]

Originally Posted by Celti

That's standard modifiers, yes. We're talking about Multiplicative Modifiers, from the pox on b. 102 of Powers.

I think I read that rule wrong. I was thinking about multipliers (i.e., *2, *1/2, etc.) in combination with plusses and minusses).

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Lord Azagthoth

I think I read that rule wrong. I was thinking about multipliers (i.e., *2, *1/2, etc.) in combination with plusses and minusses).

Out of curiosity:
"Multiplier Model:"
10 * 1.1 *1.1 *0.75 * 0.75 = 6.8

Multiplicative Modifiers
10 *1.2 * .5 = 6

Standard Modifiers
10 + (10 *0.1) + (10* 0.1) + (10 *-0.25) + (10*-0.25) = 7

The first one is your model, right, Azagthoth? I wonder how that would work on a larger scale.

[Lord Azagthoth]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Out of curiosity:
"Multiplier Model:"
10 * 1.1 *1.1 *0.75 * 0.75 = 6.8

Multiplicative Modifiers
10 *1.2 * .5 = 6

Standard Modifiers
10 + (10 *0.1) + (10* 0.1) + (10 *-0.25) + (10*-0.25) = 7

The first one is your model, right, Azagthoth? I wonder how that would work on a larger scale.

I have to read through these exceptional rules. Seems like they deviate from the normal modifer calculations. Does this even work in GCA4?

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Lord Azagthoth

I have to read through these exceptional rules. Seems like they deviate from the normal modifer calculations. Does this even work in GCA4?

The second should be standard multiplicative modifiers, and the third should be standard modifiers:

Standard Modifiers
10 + (10 *0.1) + (10* 0.1) + (10 *-0.25) + (10*-0.25) = 7
is the same as
10 + (10 *0.2) + (10 *-0.5) = 7
Which is the same as
10 + (10 *-0.3) = 7

Which is what happens when you add +20% to -50% and than apply it to 10.

I just spread it all out to give you a clearer indication of what was going on. So the last, at least, should work perfectly fine in GCA, or GCA is terrible. I don't know about the rest.