No Mass Change

**Blue** · Jun 13th, '03, 07:50 AM

If a character took shrinking but they wanted it so that their mass did not change, would this be an advantage, a limitation, or neither?

**Monolith** · Jun 13th, '03, 08:16 AM

I think it would be the SFX of buying Knockback Resistance (to counteract the KB penalties from Shrinking) Linked to the Shrinking.

**altamaros** · Jun 13th, '03, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Blue
If a character took shrinking but they wanted it so that their mass did not change, would this be an advantage, a limitation, or neither?

its a linked Density Increase, i think.
there was a character like that in Champions of the North IIRC.

something like

20 Shrinking (2 levels)
(at min size mass is divided by 64)
Act cost: 20
Real cost: 20

Density Increase (6 levels : to increase the mass 64 times)
Linked w/Shrinking: -1/4 (other power is constant)
No STR increase: -1/2
Act cost: 30
Real cost: 17 pts

the rule for "linked" says the linked power should be used proportionally to the power whom it's linked to. But i would not personally find too abusive to add a -1/4 (or -0) limitation "only to keep personal mass constant"

**Blue** · Jun 13th, '03, 08:25 AM

I think I'm going to make it simple. Limited Power: No Mass Change (-0). The character is not gaining any discernable benefit or limit from it. Tying in DI would give the character other benefits that are inappropriate to the power being constructed.

Thanks for the help.

**Monolith** · Jun 13th, '03, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Blue
I think I'm going to make it simple. Limited Power: No Mass Change (-0). The character is not gaining any discernable benefit or bonus from it.

The character is getting a benefit because Shrinking makes the character get knocked back farther. You are giving Knockback Resistance for free. You are taking away a disadvantage of the power for not cost to the character.

**Blue** · Jun 13th, '03, 10:25 AM

If I were removing the -3" KB this would be the case. I haven't. The only thing NOT changing is the mass of the character.

(EDIT: Forgot the word NOT up there.)

**Monolith** · Jun 13th, '03, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Blue
If I were removing the -3" KB this would be the case. I haven't. The only thing NOT changing is the mass of the character.

Ok, but you do realize the reason for the KB increase in Shrinking is the fact that the character is only 1/8 mass? It is not there because the character is smaller. It is there because the character is lighter.

**Blue** · Jun 13th, '03, 11:22 AM

Yup, but thanks.

I've got another rationale as to why the KB minus stays in effect. I'd elaborate, but I've submitted the power for USPD approval. If it doesnt' make the cut I'll repost it here.

**Citizen Keen** · Jun 13th, '03, 11:25 AM

Monolith is right, but he has to take it another step.

From what I understand of physics, Shrinking should not be tied to Increased Knockback. As a GM, for me, Knockback ties into Density. For example -

A 45 lb weight is harder to knockback than a 45 pound balloon.

If you leave the Mass the same for a character with less Volume (shrinking), then you increase their Density. They get even harder to knock back.

Remember, peeps, D = M/V

-cK

**Blue** · Jun 13th, '03, 11:30 AM

I'm sure no one will like my ruling except for me, but:

I'm declaring the character more... shall we say... aerodynamic. With this particular power, due to it's special effect it didn't make sense to have the character actually lose mass. Knockback was definitely arguable. But the fact is, once you've removed KB from the equation then the only change that has taken place with shrinking is the DCV and the physical space you occupy, and that wasn't enough to keep the power interesting.

I did two alternate ways of the power without shrinking involved, but this just seemed neater.

**Kid Chaos** · Jun 13th, '03, 11:46 AM

That comes out as a rather odd argument. It's like saying that if you remove the ability to do damage being able to fire an energy blast from your eyes isn't that cool anymore.

There are a lot of advantages to just shrinking alone. Though some become troublesome if you keep the same mass.

**Blue** · Jun 13th, '03, 12:57 PM

Understood. And the effect I'm going for could honestly go either way on the KB. For now I'll keep it the way it is. If I get a recommendation back to change it, I will.

**Kid Chaos** · Jun 13th, '03, 01:04 PM

Admittedly removing the KB removes my bricks favorite pasttime....shrinker punting.

**Xandarr** · Jun 13th, '03, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Kid Chaos
Admittedly removing the KB removes my bricks favorite pasttime....shrinker punting.

That sounds dangerously close to Dwarf Tossing. Beware the wrath of Gimli!

Amusedly,
Steve

**Kid Chaos** · Jun 13th, '03, 07:31 PM

no no Not Tossing...punting. I even built the ability using the 4th edition UMA rules. That plus 2 levels with all combat and 3 with kicking things means he has a good chance to hit most shrinkers who have 4 levels. I've considered buying double knockback on the punt maneuver....though the 8-15 hexes I usually kick them is plenty funny for me.

See the problem is my GM for this campaign built three different shrinker villians...one of them ended up being my mystery hunted. So I responded by giving him a very good reason not to like me.