Rules Regarding Removable

A place to discuss game rules, homebrew systems and the like.
FuzzyBoots
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:20 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Rules Regarding Removable

Post by FuzzyBoots » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:42 pm

I agree with you up to a point. Changes in new printings that don't make it to errata are problematic because they might be newly introduced issues. To use an M&M example, the pocket version of the 2e Core book had fixes accumulated over the years. It also had a blatant error in the Size tables. A more real-world issue, look at how many variant Bibles came out with an editing error from the "Thou shalt commit adultery" one to the 5th century gospel where Jesus's ancestry got doubled

That said, most of the discussion is less about the change to round up the discount, which is pretty clear, but rather where the clause applies. That one is ambiguous. And, as many people, including yourself, have said, it's just a point or two at most.

IneloquentElephant
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:59 pm

Re: Rules Regarding Removable

Post by IneloquentElephant » Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:02 am

I hate to dredge up an old topic, but I have recently been looking into this exact issue. I will be running a PL6 game where there are no innate powers, only magic devices. This means a character may have quite a few low point devices, and this EXACT issue is VERY relevant.

I have noted that the wording 'round up' does not appear in the d20HeroSRD nor does it appear in any errata.


The exact arguments seem to be a bit disjointed, and I am hoping to clarify what the differences in interpretations are.

Option 1
  • -1 or -2 point reduction per group of 5 power points.
    11-point Easily Removable device = 7-points
Option 2
  • Round the power point total up to the nearest 5 point value. Use this value to determine point reduction.
    11-point Easily Removable device = 5-points
Option 3
  • Divide the power point total by 5. Multiply this (fractional) value by the proper point reduction value (-1 or -2). Round the total point reduction up.
    11-point Easily Removable device = 6-points or 7-points (see below)
I believe these are the possible interpretations?

Option 3 is the odd-duck version. It depends if you qualify the value as a "4.4 reduction" or "-4.4 point Flaw". The book exclusively uses a negative value for all flaws, but most interpretations I have seen revolve around using a positive value. Rounding up would make 4.4 a value of 5, but rounding up a value of -4.4 makes it a -4 point flaw. Personally, I think adding the 'round up' made the interpretation WORSE. The term rounding implies division, but no formula was given, and no (clear) examples are given. As was pointed out, there seems to be an inconsistency in the RAW as to how the calculation is done.

Now, I am not trying to dredge up old arguments, just trying to see if I have the different interpretations correct. Thank you!

User avatar
Psistrike
Posts: 295
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Rules Regarding Removable

Post by Psistrike » Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:42 am

Mutants & Masterminds Deluxe Hero's Handbook page 201, Removable entry, 1st paragraph: The flaw is worth -1 point (-2 points for Easily Removable) per 5 total power points of the power's final cost, rounded up, after applying extras and flaws to its effects.

They did confirm you round up in a later version of the main 3rd edition book.

FuzzyBoots
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:20 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Rules Regarding Removable

Post by FuzzyBoots » Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:56 pm

{nods} And basically, we're now just discussing what gets rounded up, the initial set of points from whence you calculate the discount, or the discount. :roll: To me, Option 3 is the clear correct answer, but I recognize that others will disagree.

EpicEclipse
Posts: 1485
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:06 pm

Re: Rules Regarding Removable

Post by EpicEclipse » Mon Feb 26, 2018 7:20 pm

Yeah, the line "per 5 total power points of the power's final cost, rounded up" is where all the hang up is.

By the strictest wording, it wants you to round up the power's final cost, but not what you are rounding it up to, which is where interpretation 2 comes from. "Per 5 total power points" is the closest thing we have to something to round to in the words of the rules.

I don't necessarily agree that interpretation 3 is correct by RAW or even necessarily as RAI, but I concede it is a fair compromise that sits somewhere between interpretations 1 and 2.

Interpretation 1, which is based on the original printing of 3E, leaves situations where the flaw offers no discount for the effects of the flaw if the total power cost is under 5, which is against the design of every other flaw. Even in 2E where you had to buy ranks of device which would give you 5pp to work with still GAVE you the pp, even if you ultimately didn't use them, giving some room to improve the item later.

As for using interpretation 3, I think rounding up after applying the x2 for easily removable is the most balanced in terms of being between interpretation 1 and 2. It means sometimes you'll save an odd number of pp when you have an easily removable device and I see no problem with this.

Using your 11pp device example, 4.4 rounded up to 5 rather than 2.2 rounded to 3 then doubled to 6.

This way, for easily removable devices, the math per 5pp power cost breaks down thusly;
1pp = .2(.4) rounds up to 1pp recovered. (Total cost cannot go below 1pp)
2pp = .4(.8) rounds up to 1pp recovered.
3pp = .6(1.2) rounds up to 2pp recovered.
4pp = .8(1.6) rounds up to 2pp recovered.

So for easily removable devices, the first 2 of every interval of 5 will only recover 1pp instead of the full 2pp. <- This sentence is why I disagree with interpretation 3 as RAW or RAI. Nothing in the wording supports calculations of this complexity, indicating a simpler ruling was intended. However, I do concede this is a much more fair and balanced ruling for removable than RAW and think it should be used over interpretation 2 (which is based strictly by RAW).

IneloquentElephant
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:59 pm

Re: Rules Regarding Removable

Post by IneloquentElephant » Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:25 pm

I do concede my secondary concern (rounding up a negative value) is unlikely as to the intent of the rules. I personally work with specifications across the globe with sensitive (and occasionally dire) consequences, so I do tend to look for all possible solutions regardless of their seeming unlikely-hood.

After some more examination, I see that the current ruleset tends to round in the player's favor, which would imply rounding up for the reduction. In this case, it seems my Option 3 would only have two interpretations; rounding before or after the application of the multiplier.
EpicEclipse wrote:I don't necessarily agree that interpretation 3 is correct by RAW or even necessarily as RAI, but I concede it is a fair compromise that sits somewhere between interpretations 1 and 2.
I would have to disagree that Option 3 is so far off base.
According to Option 1, the cost for an Easily Removable 9-point device is 7 points. The cost for an Easily Removable 10-point device is 6 points. Here the more expensive device is actually cheaper.
According to Option 2, the cost for an Easily Removable 10-point device is 6 points. The cost for an Easily Removable 11-point device is 5 points. This interpretation seems to have just moved the problem instead of fixing it. This seems to absolutely go against the 'spirit of the rules' where a higher 'cost' device is cheaper. I would gather this to be the exact reason the 'round up' phrase was added, to avoid this type of situation.


To make matters worse (more fun?) HeroLab has it's own interpretation. I do not own HeroLab, but I did download a demo to seek a clearer answer. It seems HeroLab rounds to the nearest, and then multiplies. This is clearly NOT rounding up, so I would have to assume HeroLab is currently calculating this incorrectly.
If you would like to verify, create a 12-point power and apply Easily Removable, then create a 13-point power and apply Easily Removable. The Flaw removes 4 points from the 12-point power (making it 8 points), and 6 points from the 13-point power (making it 7 points). This means the final price is CHEAPER for the more expensive power which seems incorrect.

EpicEclipse
Posts: 1485
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:06 pm

Re: Rules Regarding Removable

Post by EpicEclipse » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:54 am

This is why I don't deal in RAI. Rule to the letter or house rule. No trying to sell people on what you personally believe was the intent of someone you don't know with nothing more than conjecture as evidence which is often heavily biased on what one as an individual wants to believe.
The flaw is worth –1 point (–2 points
for Easily Removable) per 5 total power points of the
power’s final cost, rounded up, after applying extras and
flaws to its effects.
RAW means "rule as written". As written here says "Per 5 total points, rounded up". With nothing further elaborated for rounding, you must round to the next "5 total points". There is no other interpretation possible here because it says nothing further. Even this interpretation possesses some conjecture, but at least it is based on wording that is present.

I completely agree that this is poorly worded and probably doesn't express what the developers intended, but that can't be proven no more than proving what they actually wanted to accomplish.

Truth is, the updated rule to round up doesn't fix the issue you pointed out, but who ever said it was supposed to? What the updated rule DOES do is fix an oversight where devices with a power cost under 5pp did not benefit from the flaw.

Again, I think interpretation 3 is a fantastic fix. I recommend it as a house rule absolutely. But make no mistake it is a house rule. It is not RAW, and you cannot prove RAI.

FuzzyBoots
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:20 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Rules Regarding Removable

Post by FuzzyBoots » Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:00 am

EpicEclipse wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:54 am
RAW means "rule as written". As written here says "Per 5 total points, rounded up". With nothing further elaborated for rounding, you must round to the next "5 total points". There is no other interpretation possible here because it says nothing further. Even this interpretation possesses some conjecture, but at least it is based on wording that is present.
If they had phrased it as "The flaw is worth –1 point (–2 points for Easily Removable) per 5 total power points of the power’s final cost rounded up, after applying extras and flaws to its effects" then I might agree with you, but because of how they put the commas, it is not clear which part "rounded up" applies to.

But, that said, we agree that it's poorly stated.

EpicEclipse
Posts: 1485
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:06 pm

Re: Rules Regarding Removable

Post by EpicEclipse » Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:03 am

FuzzyBoots wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:00 am
EpicEclipse wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:54 am
RAW means "rule as written". As written here says "Per 5 total points, rounded up". With nothing further elaborated for rounding, you must round to the next "5 total points". There is no other interpretation possible here because it says nothing further. Even this interpretation possesses some conjecture, but at least it is based on wording that is present.
If they had phrased it as "The flaw is worth –1 point (–2 points for Easily Removable) per 5 total power points of the power’s final cost rounded up, after applying extras and flaws to its effects" then I might agree with you, but because of how they put the commas, it is not clear which part "rounded up" applies to.

But, that said, we agree that it's poorly stated.
How do the commas change anything? Where else do you think rounded up is actually pointing to? The "1 or 2 points per" part? Those are already whole numbers and not in need of rounding. The only thing that may not, in fact, be at an acceptable interval for the instruction given is the "5 total points".

The rule does not instruct that the "1 or 2 points" be fractionalized by the total value if the power's total cost doesn't happen to be an exact interval of 5. Otherwise, the rule would suggest you divide the power's total cost by 5 then round up and multiply by 2 if easily removable.

FuzzyBoots
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:20 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Rules Regarding Removable

Post by FuzzyBoots » Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:55 pm

EpicEclipse wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:03 am
How do the commas change anything? Where else do you think rounded up is actually pointing to? The "1 or 2 points per" part? Those are already whole numbers and not in need of rounding. The only thing that may not, in fact, be at an acceptable interval for the instruction given is the "5 total points".

The rule does not instruct that the "1 or 2 points" be fractionalized by the total value if the power's total cost doesn't happen to be an exact interval of 5. Otherwise, the rule would suggest you divide the power's total cost by 5 then round up and multiply by 2 if easily removable.
I understand it as applying to "1-2 pp per 5", which is a fraction. But again, I think it's only ambiguous because they shoved the clause in there, assuming people would understand their intent. *shrug* We're two blind men exploring an elephant and trying to determine what sort of animal it is, to use the old proverb.

EpicEclipse
Posts: 1485
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:06 pm

Re: Rules Reagarding Removable

Post by EpicEclipse » Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:36 pm

Here is where you are mistaken; 1-2 per 5 was never treated as fractional in the original printing. If it suggested dividing the power cost by 5, that would be a different ball of wax all together and we would not be having this conversation because the rule would make more sense already.

Instead, it was always treated that every time you hit an interval of 5, the value of the flaw increased.

So now we add "rounded up". Well, what was there to round anywhere, off or up or down, before? The flaw's value is based on an interval, which can be partial, and thus can be rounded.

The issue with your RAW interpretation is it adds more math that is not described in the rule.

FuzzyBoots
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:20 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Rules Regarding Removable

Post by FuzzyBoots » Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:19 pm

*shrug* Given the examples, I'd say the strongest case is that the math was elided. The closest we get is the example text where 98 power points is stated to be 20 when divided by 5. If we assume they always meant to round up, it could be them thinking "OK, the rule is to round up 98 to 100, then I divide by five" or could have been "A fifth of 98 is 19.6, which rounds up to 20". They don't really say. Both would come out to the same answer in both the original and Deluxe printings.

If you have a clearer example, that would probably simplify the whole thing by providing an actual "Rules As Written" that clarifies this instead of us dickering over their ambiguous comma, I would love to hear it. :)

And I'm not saying that you're wrong in your interpretation, just saying that it's just an interpretation. One that's pretty much moot for Removable instead of "Easy to Remove" since we come back to the same answer either way.

EpicEclipse
Posts: 1485
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:06 pm

Re: Rules Regarding Removable

Post by EpicEclipse » Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:48 pm

In some(most?) cases it comes to the same result, but yes, the book is notoriously inconsistent with its own examples which only compounds the problem. I was, admittedly, disregarding the given examples for that very reason and only using the wording of the rule itself.

I mean, I am pretty sure everyone here can at least agree that, regardless whether it is RAW or not, or was what was intended by the developers (which cannot be proven without some source originating from the developers saying so); dividing the total power cost by 5 and rounding up the result (after doubling if it is easily removable), is the best mechanical way to determine the value of the flaw. Right?

FuzzyBoots
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:20 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Rules Regarding Removable

Post by FuzzyBoots » Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:55 pm

EpicEclipse wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:48 pm
I mean, I am pretty sure everyone here can at least agree that, regardless whether it is RAW or not, or was what was intended by the developers (which cannot be proven without some source originating from the developers saying so); dividing the total power cost by 5 and rounding up the result (after doubling if it is easily removable), is the best mechanical way to determine the value of the flaw. Right?
Yup.

Flynnarrel
Posts: 2183
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 5:23 pm

Re: Rules Regarding Removable

Post by Flynnarrel » Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:34 pm

EpicEclipse wrote:
Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:48 pm
I mean, I am pretty sure everyone here can at least agree that, regardless whether it is RAW or not, or was what was intended by the developers (which cannot be proven without some source originating from the developers saying so); dividing the total power cost by 5 and rounding up the result (after doubling if it is easily removable), is the best mechanical way to determine the value of the flaw. Right?
I still disagree but until we get further clarification from the developers I'll go with however the individual game GM is running things.
"Something pithy this way comes."

Post Reply