EC's and Linked Powers

[Tonio]

5ER, pg 314, says "A character cannot Link Powers in different slots of an Elemental Control to activate together. He must buy any Linked Powers in a single slot. A character cannot buy two or more Powers in the same EC slot unless they’re Linked or the GM permits him to."

If I understand correctly, this lets me do the following:

20 Radiation Control: Elemental Control, 40-point powers
20 1) Irradiate: Energy Blast 4d6, No Normal Defense ([Standard]; Defense is LS: Safe in High Radiation; +1) (40 Active Points)
17 2) Radiation Field: (Total: 40 Active Cost, 33 Real Cost) Force Field (10 PD/10 ED) (Real Cost: 20) plus Energy Blast 1 1/2d6, Damage Shield (+1/2), Continuous (+1) (20 Active Points); Linked (Force Field; -1/2) (Real Cost: 13)

Excellent... except it seems to me Linked can give me substantially more point savings in cases where the linked powers would not normally fit into the EC. In the case above, for example, I'm saving 23 points, rather than the 7 that I'd save if I bought the FF and DS outside the EC.

Which is not a bad thing (it IS an EC after all)... except I can't do that with unlinked powers! If I could only do it with powers that are two-way Linked (that is, each can only be used with the other) and that must be used at proportional strengths, then it'd make somewhat more sense, since what you're probably building is a power that has elements of more than one Power (a blast that both hurts and blinds you, a net that entangles you and drains your strength, etc.). But in the case above, which appears to be book-legal, I can turn on the FF without turning on the DS component.

Thoughts?

[Derek Hiemforth]

I disregard the rule about powers having to be Linked in order to share a slot. I don't like allowing something to a power with a Limitation that isn't allowed to a power without that Limitation. Limitations aren't supposed to make powers better. ;)

I allow (unLinked) multiple powers in a single slot as long as they're pieces of the same effect.

[DocSamson]

IMHO, this rule exists to prevent a form of "double-dipping". Some uses of Linked function very similar to a Framework. For example: lets say I am playing a character with multiple forms. One of my forms is large and powerful. If I bought this form with Shapeshift, I could justify having STR, CON, BODY, STUN, Growth, DI, and numerous Defenses Linked to Shapeshift. Now let's say this form is made of stone (or some other common sfx). Now I could justify putting the STR, Growth, DI, and Defenses in a EC in addition to my point savings from having so many characteristics and powers linked. This often results in a character that is much more powerful than characters using more common builds (such as OIHID and Multiform <assuming an AP capped campaign> for characters with multiple forms).

I realize similar point savings can be achieved with a Focus (such as OIF Powered Armor) and a Framework, but Foci carry additional restrictions that Linked does not.

[Derek Hiemforth]

IMHO, this rule exists to prevent a form of "double-dipping". Some uses of Linked function very similar to a Framework. For example: lets say I am playing a character with multiple forms. One of my forms is large and powerful. If I bought this form with Shapeshift, I could justify having STR, CON, BODY, STUN, Growth, DI, and numerous Defenses Linked to Shapeshift. Now let's say this form is made of stone (or some other common sfx). Now I could justify putting the STR, Growth, DI, and Defenses in a EC in addition to my point savings from having so many characteristics and powers linked.So how does the rule "prevent" double-dipping? Just the opposite. The rule says you have to double-dip if you want the stuff in an EC.

[Tonio]

IMHO, this rule exists to prevent a form of "double-dipping". Some uses of Linked function very similar to a Framework. For example: lets say I am playing a character with multiple forms. One of my forms is large and powerful. If I bought this form with Shapeshift, I could justify having STR, CON, BODY, STUN, Growth, DI, and numerous Defenses Linked to Shapeshift. Now let's say this form is made of stone (or some other common sfx). Now I could justify putting the STR, Growth, DI, and Defenses in a EC in addition to my point savings from having so many characteristics and powers linked. This often results in a character that is much more powerful than characters using more common builds (such as OIHID and Multiform <assuming an AP capped campaign> for characters with multiple forms).

I realize similar point savings can be achieved with a Focus (such as OIF Powered Armor) and a Framework, but Foci carry additional restrictions that Linked does not.

But the rules allow what you're describing! (Well, not really, since you can stick plain stats in an EC... but call 'em Aids with standard effect and 0 END.) I can have a bunch of those in an EC (Stone Body Powers), each of them linked to Shape Shift (which would be outside the EC). Powers in Power Frameworks can be Linked, just not to each other, unless they share a slot, which they can only do if they're Linked to each other. Which is what bothers me.

For example, this is legal:
20 Radiation Control: Elemental Control, 40-point powers
20 1) Irradiate: Energy Blast 4d6, No Normal Defense ([Standard]; Defense is LS: Safe in High Radiation; +1) (40 Active Points)
17 2) Radiation Field: (Total: 40 Active Cost, 33 Real Cost) Force Field (10 PD/10 ED) (Real Cost: 20) plus Energy Blast 1 1/2d6, Damage Shield (+1/2), Continuous (+1) (20 Active Points); Linked (Force Field; -1/2) (Real Cost: 13)

So is this:
20 Protective Radiation Field: Force Field (10 PD/10 ED)
20 Radiation Control: Elemental Control, 40-point powers
20 1) Irradiate: Energy Blast 4d6, No Normal Defense ([Standard]; Defense is LS: Safe in High Radiation; +1) (40 Active Points)
18 2) Harmful Radiation Field: Energy Blast 3d6+1, Damage Shield (+1/2), Continuous (+1) (42 Active Points); Linked (Protective Radiation Field; -1/4)

But this is not:
20 Radiation Control: Elemental Control, 40-point powers
20 1) Irradiate: Energy Blast 4d6, No Normal Defense ([Standard]; Defense is LS: Safe in High Radiation; +1) (40 Active Points)
20 2) Radiation Field: (Total: 40 Active Cost, 40 Real Cost) Force Field (10 PD/10 ED) (Real Cost: 20) plus Energy Blast 1 1/2d6, Damage Shield (+1/2), Continuous (+1) (20 Active Points) (Real Cost: 20)

since the two powers in the 2nd slot in the EC aren't Linked to each other. With all three constructs, I can: 1) put up a FF, 2) shoot NND EBs, 3) do both simultaneously. With the first and second ones, I can, additionally set up a DS, but only if my FF is up. With the last one, I would (if it were a legal construct) be able to, additionally, set up a DS, whether my FF is up or not.

Why is the third one not legal? (Because the rules say so... I know :p ... but what was the reasoning behind this rule?)

I've also considered allowing MPs in ECs, although I really haven't thought it all out. But, for example, given an EC based on, I dunno, Force (not as in Jedi) Manipulation, I could want an EB vs PD, a Force Wall, and a Force Field. But I might want to be able to vary the PD and ED in the FF. So I could want, say:
20&#160;&#160;Variable Force Field:&#160;&#160;Multipower, 20-point reserve
4m&#160;&#160;1) Force Field (20 PD) (20 Active Points) 2
4m&#160;&#160;2) Force Field (20 ED) (20 Active Points) 2
Only it's really more like a single power with some sort of "Variable Effect" advantage. So it really should fit into the EC.

[Sean Waters]

5ER, pg 314, says "A character cannot Link Powers in different slots of an Elemental Control to activate together. He must buy any Linked Powers in a single slot. A character cannot buy two or more Powers in the same EC slot unless they’re Linked or the GM permits him to."

If I understand correctly, this lets me do the following:

20 Radiation Control: Elemental Control, 40-point powers
20 1) Irradiate: Energy Blast 4d6, No Normal Defense ([Standard]; Defense is LS: Safe in High Radiation; +1) (40 Active Points)
17 2) Radiation Field: (Total: 40 Active Cost, 33 Real Cost) Force Field (10 PD/10 ED) (Real Cost: 20) plus Energy Blast 1 1/2d6, Damage Shield (+1/2), Continuous (+1) (20 Active Points); Linked (Force Field; -1/2) (Real Cost: 13)

Excellent... except it seems to me Linked can give me substantially more point savings in cases where the linked powers would not normally fit into the EC. In the case above, for example, I'm saving 23 points, rather than the 7 that I'd save if I bought the FF and DS outside the EC.

Which is not a bad thing (it IS an EC after all)... except I can't do that with unlinked powers! If I could only do it with powers that are two-way Linked (that is, each can only be used with the other) and that must be used at proportional strengths, then it'd make somewhat more sense, since what you're probably building is a power that has elements of more than one Power (a blast that both hurts and blinds you, a net that entangles you and drains your strength, etc.). But in the case above, which appears to be book-legal, I can turn on the FF without turning on the DS component.

Thoughts?

Not quite saving 23 points:

You are buying 80 points of power (80 active points, 73 real points), and paying 57 points for them because they are in an EC. You save 16 points overall, and have the limitation that if ANY of the powers are drained, all the powers in the EC are drained.

I have argued with myself over Derek's point: why get a bonus for powers in a single slot designed to work together. I vascillate BUT given that there are two aspects to linking:

1. you have to use them together (which is not really affected by placing the gestalt power in an EC, although you ARE doing it on the basis that it is in effect a single power) and
2. if one is drained then both are affected (which IS double dipping rather)

...the answer is not entirely clear. I think that a new rule that ANY powers placed in a ssingle EC slot are considered a single power and have to be used proportionately is better than requiring linking.

[Derek Hiemforth]

I think that a new rule that ANY powers placed in a ssingle EC slot are considered a single power and have to be used proportionately is better than requiring linking.I agree. I'd be more inclined to say that Linked Powers can't be in an EC at all... that things are either Linked or they're in an EC, not both.

[Tonio]

Sean, my point about saving more points wasn't that it was wrong in any way (which is what I meant by "Which is not a bad thing (it IS an EC after all)"), but about how I was receiving a substantial additional benefit from a Limitation.

I really like your proposed solution, though. If I understand it correctly, you're saying that "Powers bought in a single EC slot are considered mutually linked and must be used proportionately. They can't take the Linked Limitation to reflect this."

[DocSamson]

So how does the rule "prevent" double-dipping? Just the opposite. The rule says you have to double-dip if you want the stuff in an EC.

The rules allow you to link two powers inside an EC slot. In Tonio's example, he has a 60 AP linked power in a 40 pt. slot. Also linked only applies to one power. This isn't nearly the same same savings he would get if he had used an appropriately sized EC and then tried to link all the powers to eachother. The rules don't allow you to do things like link the entire framework (or even more than one power) to another power.


Linked
A character cannot (a) Link two slots in the
same Framework to each other, (b) Link a slot in
one Power Framework to a slot in another Power
Framework, (c) Link an entire Power Framework
(or more than one slot in a Framework) to a power
outside a Framework, a slot in another Framework,
or another Framework, or (d) Link a power or Power
Framework to the reserve or base cost of a Power
Framework.
A character may Link a power bought outside
any Power Framework to a slot in a Power Framework.
(See the Starburst example above for an
instance of this.) But as noted above, he cannot Link
a power to an entire Power Framework (or to more
than one slot in a Framework) or to a Framework’s
reserve or base cost.
A character can put two or more Linked powers
in a single Power Framework slot, unless the GM
forbids this for some reason. Th e combined Active
Points of the powers must not exceed the reserve.
For example, if a character had a slot with an Energy
Blast 8d6 + Sight Group Flash 4d6, the total Active
Point cost of the slot is 60; the power wouldn’t fi t in a
Multipower with a 50-point reserve. Normal rules for
use of Linked powers apply.