Linked: advantage, limitation, or both?

[bwdemon]

Under the rules, linked is a limitation. I can understand this, because the linked power cannot be used on its own. However, it also allows you to stack multiple actions' worth of powers into a single action, which is very powerful and, thus, a significant advantage.

Above, I've provided four options for how a linked power should work. Please choose the option that you think would provide the best balance between cost and benefit within the H5R system. If none of the above seem right, then please select the "something else" option and describe what you would see as fair.

Note that no numbers were put into the above options. If you feel it should be an advantage or limitation, please post what you feel an appropriate modifier.

[Hugh Neilson]

Under the rules, linked is a limitation. I can understand this, because the linked power cannot be used on its own. However, it also allows you to stack multiple actions' worth of powers into a single action, which is very powerful and, thus, a significant advantage.

Linked generally applies to powers which could otherwise be active/activated at the same time. For example, multiple attacks which could otherwise be used as a multiple power attack, a suite of abilities which could alll be activated as a 0 phase limitation, or a power which must be on before any of the other powers can be activated. All of these place a prerequisite on use of a power which otherwise coud be used at will. As such, the power is limited.

Can you provide an example where you see Linked becoming advantageous? I can see this prior to 5e, when the ability to make an MPA was at best unclear, but with the MPA rules, that issue is gone.

[schir1964]

Linked generally applies to powers which could otherwise be active/activated at the same time. For example, multiple attacks which could otherwise be used as a multiple power attack, a suite of abilities which could alll be activated as a 0 phase limitation, or a power which must be on before any of the other powers can be activated. All of these place a prerequisite on use of a power which otherwise coud be used at will. As such, the power is limited.

Can you provide an example where you see Linked becoming advantageous? I can see this prior to 5e, when the ability to make an MPA was at best unclear, but with the MPA rules, that issue is gone.
Ditto.

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

what they said.

[Killer Shrike]

As Hugh said...

However I will point out that some times Linked is a -0 Limitation because on the whole it is insufficiently limiting to give a price break. This usually occurs when Linked is used as part of a complex multi-power build to fully define how the power is intended to be used, but the overall restriction is mild.

In the 5th Edition era many powers that previously would have been built as a series of Linked Powers are instead expressed as a complex Power Construct. The individual Powers can be thought of as having "Linked -0" even if its not annotated because that is the end effect of how the Power Construct is intended to be used.

I can't think of any scenario where Linking two Powers becomes Advantageous in game play.

[zornwil]

what they said.
And from that perspective, my interpretation is that the post is really about running Linked in different ways, so that you combine things not normally allowed as an MPA or such, so I figure "other" is the choice, with differering options. But as is, I wouldn't do anything to the existing Linked Limitation in the book.

[GamePhil]

However I will point out that some times Linked is a -0 Limitation because on the whole it is insufficiently limiting to give a price break. This usually occurs when Linked is used as part of a complex multi-power build to fully define how the power is intended to be used, but the overall restriction is mild.


Most of the official write-ups of this sort do use the Linked Limitation, if not all of them, though. Also, if Limitations were reduced to -0 because they are how the individual Power is conceptualized, many of my characters stop working. Could you give an example?

[Killer Shrike]

Most of the official write-ups of this sort do use the Linked Limitation, if not all of them, though. Also, if Limitations were reduced to -0 because they are how the individual Power is conceptualized, many of my characters stop working. Could you give an example?

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

What I am saying is that Linked can become a -0 Limitation depending on its configuration and is still placed on Powers rather than not bothered with because the Powers should logically be Linked to model them correctly even though the resulting Limitation is not worth any price break.

For instance, if a character had a Change Environment that allowed them to raise the temperature within a given area, and also had a Power that allowed them to focus heat damage on a particular target within the Change Environment, something like the following can result:


Change Environment 32" radius, +5 Temperature Level Adjustment, Personal Immunity (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (73 Active Points); No Range (-1/2)

Energy Blast 8d6 (vs. ED), Linked (Change Environment; Greater Power is Constant or in use most or all of the time; Lesser Instant Power can be used in any Phase in which greater Constant Power is in use; Lesser Power need not be used proportionally to Power with which it is Linked; +0), Indirect (Any origin, any direction; +3/4) (70 Active Points)


So, basically, the Energy Blast is conceptually LINKED to the Change Environment, but with the various modifiers applied the Linked Limitation is reduced to -0. Thus there is no price rebate for limiting the Power in that way, but according to the concept it should be there.

If the Lim was left off the build the character would be more powerful (as they would be able to use the EB without needing to turn on the CE), but due to the way Linked works it works out to not being worth anything as a Lim. Some GM's might waive that and allow the Linked to be -1/4 as well (I generally would for instance), but techically its a -0. If it's included, it basically is there to indicate the intent to model the concept.

[GamePhil]

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying.


Yes, thank you for the example.