Who actually uses the multiplicative Modifiers from Powers? - Page 6

Yako · 02-16-2011, 08:45 AM

...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?

02-16-2011, 08:45 AM	#1
Yako Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Germany	Who actually uses the multiplicative Modifiers from Powers? ...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?