New Power Advantage: Edible

[David Johnston]

Edible

An attack Power with the Edible advantage is used on some kind of food or drink and only affects people who consume the affected material. No roll to hit is necessary, but the victim does get a perception roll to notice the adulteration unless the Power also has invisible to smell and taste. The normal defenses still apply, but it is suggested that this advantage be used primarily with NNDs, or attacks versus Power Defense.

Edible Cost Multiplier: +1/2

[ghost-angel]

You can already do this with Trigger.

[Edsel]

Yep, I've used trigger for this myself.

I have also called it a Limited Power if that is the only way to get the effect to act upon a target.

[David Johnston]

You can already do this with Trigger.

Triggered effects still require an attack roll. I don't want Jack the Lad to avoid the poisoned cake he's eating thanks to his high DCV.

[cutsleeve]

Maybe Edible could be a limitation on an entangle.

[ghost-angel]

Triggered effects still require an attack roll. I don't want Jack the Lad to avoid the poisoned cake he's eating thanks to his high DCV.

There would be circumstances where I would bypass the attack roll - like the defender knowingly stepping on the landmine, or intentionally eating the hamburger. [I]Dramatic And Common Sense[/i}

On the other hand - there is no way I would make this a mere +1/2 Advantage if you want it to alway inherently bypass the attack roll as part of the mechanic.

[Foxiekins]

I would do it as a transform on the food... Then define the stats for the effect of the adulteration...

[Hugh Neilson]

Triggered effects still require an attack roll. I don't want Jack the Lad to avoid the poisoned cake he's eating thanks to his high DCV.

How high is Jack's DCV when he's out of combat sitting down to dinner? If you want greater certainty, make it Accurate. It should be tough for the attack to miss firing out of Jack's stomach anyway.

[Fenixcrest]

Triggered effects still require an attack roll. I don't want Jack the Lad to avoid the poisoned cake he's eating thanks to his high DCV.

I consider eating something to be a voluntary action. Sort of like how you don't have to make an attack roll on your DRAIN BODY when you've already convinced the victim that it's actually an AID INT. Being force-fed the poisoned cake is an entirely different story, but chances are he's bound and at 0 DCV by then.

[ghost-angel]

I consider eating something to be a voluntary action. Sort of like how you don't have to make an attack roll on your DRAIN BODY when you've already convinced the victim that it's actually an AID INT. Being force-fed the poisoned cake is an entirely different story, but chances are he's bound and at 0 DCV by then.

Pretty much.

I mean, would you force an attack roll on a player if the NPC said "Here, I'll stand still, take your time." at point blank? probably not. Same in this case.

[Teflon Billy]

Couldn't you as the GM just rule that the Character is automatically succeeding in an attack roll on themselves by putting the food into their mouth? Unless the player is paranoid out the wazoo, who's going to require a to hit roll everytime they want to put something into their mouth?

It'd be a good use of demonstrating the "Drinking Problem" the pilot from Airplane had. Most players have a ridiculouly high OCV for hitting their mouth, but every once and a while you'll run into one of those poor souls that just can't get it right. This would be one of those rare occasions a Limitation would come out being a benefit.

TB --I'm also thinking of
Steve Martin's character from Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

[Robyn]

Couldn't you as the GM just rule that the Character is automatically succeeding in an attack roll on themselves by putting the food into their mouth? Unless the player is paranoid out the wazoo, who's going to require a to hit roll everytime they want to put something into their mouth?

Repped for statting out the process of eating!

[keithcurtis]

Yeah, I think making the trigger, "when eaten" is the same thing as defining a trigger as "when an attack succeeds". If the person doesn't eat the food, they're fine. If they do, it's the same as allowing someone to poke you in the belly with a sword. You have allowed the attack to land. Allowing it to land is the trigger.

Keith "Matter-Eater Lad being the only exception" Curtis

[Dust Raven]

Triggered effects still require an attack roll. I don't want Jack the Lad to avoid the poisoned cake he's eating thanks to his high DCV.

He doesn't. If Jack the Lad were to pick up the bomb instead, would you still roll for attack if Jack stuck it in his mouth?

[Dust Raven]

Yeah, I think making the trigger, "when eaten" is the same thing as defining a trigger as "when an attack succeeds". If the person doesn't eat the food, they're fine. If they do, it's the same as allowing someone to poke you in the belly with a sword. You have allowed the attack to land. Allowing it to land is the trigger.

Keith "Matter-Eater Lad being the only exception" Curtis

You said this better than I did. Now I owe you rep.