Dumb questions by me

[Era Scarecrow]

These are great ideas.

Now to throw a wrench into the plans. How can several skills be bundled into one? Is this something new in 6th ed.?

Multipower or a VPP could likely do the job, otherwise I'm not sure how you'd bundle them together. with a multipower you would likely use a fixed slot, and go with say 9pts (3 for skill, 6 extra giving a +3), which reduces it to a 1 point slot. So...?

 

 

 

9   multipower
1f  Lockpicking (DEX, +3)
1f  Stealth     (DEX, +3)
1f  Concealment (DEX, +3)

cost 12pts
  or 15 if they are not fixed thus you can use them at different levels at the
  same time vs only one at a time.


10  VPP pool
5   control (full VPP)

cost 15pts
  universal VPP pool... most simple powers can be thrown in here as cantrips,
  and nearly all skills...

 

[steriaca]

Have you looked at one big Computer Programing skill bought up to accommodate the impossible skill penitly (-10)? Prehaps with a limitation "Only For Impossible Skills" or something.

[mrinku]

These are great ideas.

Now to throw a wrench into the plans. How can several skills be bundled into one? Is this something new in 6th ed.? Savants use the SINC skill to hack. (Self Interfacing Neural Code - a special code they write after cracking their mindset.)  So a new skill, with elements of other skills built in.

In the setting, this one skill covers all their hacking shenanigans. Converting over, I'd require the player to buy those skills separately also.

The easy way- just use the Power skill in place of Comp. Programming, Security Systems, etc. when hacking?

Am I overthinking this?

 

Note to self: get Hero 6th.

 

Nah, just putting multiple power elements into one overall power, like a combined Flash/Blast. 

 

Having three skills like this isn't specifically mentioned, but skills are usually all available all the time anyway. You often make complementary rolls towards the main skill roll in the same action.

 

Another way of running this would be to build the power as a naked advantage. That's a relatively new concept to me, but would allow the effect of limited use when using the skills at range.

 

 

Edit:

 

Something like:

 

Limited Range (Independent Advantage up to 15 points, +¼) (4 points), Only for skills used during hacking (-1); other stuff as above.

 

The points limit would cap how many points of skills and skill levels you could use in any one action.

 

Another thought, especially relevant if you're building a whole setting and designing how things work from ground up, might be to co-opt the Mental Power suite altogether for all cyber interactions. Especially if there are no actual psychic powers per se. You would probably have limitations like Only vs Enhanced Brains, though that might be a -0 Limitation if most characters encountered have enhanced brains. There could even be a Complication (probably Social) for those characters without enhanced brains. There's nothing to really stop you giving every gadget in the world an EGO of 1, to allow Mental Powers being used on them either.

[mrinku]

Multipower or a VPP could likely do the job, otherwise I'm not sure how you'd bundle them together. with a multipower you would likely use a fixed slot, and go with say 9pts (3 for skill, 6 extra giving a +3), which reduces it to a 1 point slot. So...?

 

 

Sorry, Era. Skills count as Special Powers and can't normally be put in Power Frameworks. Also you will often need more than one skill at a time for complementary skill rolls.

[JohnnyR]

Then there's this:

When 6E was imminent but not yet published, Steve Long posted a series of "showcases" of various edition rules changes and his thinking behind them, which provides more detail in a few areas than the character creation summary he attached above.

 

"APG Goodies


—detailed rules for cyberkinesis (mentally or remotely operating electronics and machinery)"

 

Note to self: get Advanced Player's Guide

 

 

[Lucius]

Okay, I see that now. But as you costed it, the machine has full choice over what to do with the granted skill.

On the contrary. The way I built the power gives the machine in question no control and gives all control to the possessor of the power. That's what "Usable as ATTACK" means.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Palindromedary Usable As Tagline

[mrinku]

On the contrary. The way I built the power gives the machine in question no control and gives all control to the possessor of the power. That's what "Usable as ATTACK" means.

 

 

Okay, I think I see where we missed each other. I was just looking at the individual modifiers, which uses the term under "Grantor can force power on an unwilling recipient ("Usable As Attack")" (+1) (CC p119), but you might be referring to the "common configuration" of the same name (CC p120), which is given as:

 

Usable As Attack (UAA): can grant to one Recipient; Recipient need not be willing; Grantor controls power; Grantor must pay END; Recipient must be in reach when granted; Recipient must remain within Line of Sight of Grantor (Value +1¼)

 

Maybe things are different in 6e proper, but in CC it's a +1 advantage to be able to force the power on a recipient and a further +½ advantage to have full control. Even the common configuration description lists them as separate elements. In any case I think your costing is out, as effectively you've only listed +1 for Recipient need not be willing. What I think you intended is +1½ (unwilling recipient and total grantor control).

[Lucius]

 

Maybe things are different in 6e proper,

 

Maybe. Or maybe you're still overlooking things like "Granter must pay END" etc.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Overlooking a palindromedary, or is that looking over a palindromedary?

 

[mrinku]

Maybe. Or maybe you're still overlooking things like "Granter must pay END" etc.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Overlooking a palindromedary, or is that looking over a palindromedary?

 

 

Er... no. The "common configuration" listing has that element. It's listed as:

• Grantor can give power to one recipient (+¼)
• Recipient need not be willing (+1 more)
• Grantor controls power (+½ more)
• Grantor pays END (¼ less)
• Recipient must be within reach when granted (no change)
• Recipient must remain within Line Of Sight of Grantor (¼ less)

Which totals to the +1¼ advantage listed for UAA (CC, p120)

[Lucius]

Er... no. The "common configuration" listing has that element. It's listed as:

• Grantor can give power to one recipient (+¼)
• Recipient need not be willing (+1 more)
• Grantor controls power (+½ more)
• Grantor pays END (¼ less)
• Recipient must be within reach when granted (no change)
• Recipient must remain within Line Of Sight of Grantor (¼ less)

Which totals to the +1¼ advantage listed for UAA (CC, p120)

 

Well I checked out the description in 6th ed and it looks like you're in agreement with Rules as Written.

 

I've always assumed that "Usable as Attack" meant the attacker controls the power. I may continue to assume so, because otherwise, the attacker is paying a huge premium for zero benefit. "Forcing" you to have a power you only use when and as you want to is not as far as I can see different from "Gifting" you with such a power. Especially if you can just completely nullify it by saying "No thanks, I relinquish this power."

 

Lucius Alexander

 

If I "force" you to take a palindromedary, and you can relinquish it as an Action that Takes No TIme, I have accomplished nothing beyond having composed yet another palindromedary tagline.

[mrinku]

The power doesn't have to be something beneficial. It's not hard to come up with powers that are a liability to the user, even without any grantor control. Always On, Trigger and No Conscious Control would be useful for building those.

 

Ghost Gun: Desolidification; Usable on Others, Unwilling recipient, Standard Range ( Total +1¾); 0 END (+½); Persistent (+¼); Always On (-½) 

 

I think we are on the same page that normally unwilling grant is bought with grantor control.

 

(And that it would have probably been better if the term hadn't been used for two related but different things.)

 

The 4e version (Usable Against Others) was a +1 advantage with no range, END paid for by grantor and full grantor control... the "common configuration" in CC is basically that old Advantage, at the new costing. That appears to be version you're thinking of, or the 5e equivalent. 

[Lucius]

The power doesn't have to be something beneficial. It's not hard to come up with powers that are a liability to the user, even without any grantor control. Always On, Trigger and No Conscious Control would be useful for building those.

In the case of Always On and No Conscious Control, that would be using a Limitation as effectively an Advantage.

 

In the case of Trigger, I'm not sure it would work at all unless you can "force" the target to set up the Trigger.

 

In any case, the rules explicitly say that if the recipient controls the power, they can relinquish it at any time as an Action that Takes No Time.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

If I "force" you to take a palindromedary, and you can relinquish it as an Action that Takes No TIme, I have accomplished nothing beyond having recycled yet another palindromedary tagline.

[mrinku]

Good point. So basically Unwilling Recipient without Grantor Control really only matters for unconscious or unaware targets, and would frankly be most useful for the former case. This power makes sense:

 

Hang In There Buddy!: Regeneration, 1 BODY per Turn (16pts), UOO (Unwilling Recipient +1); 32pts

 

You might be able to get a sucker punch UOO using IPE and a trigger, or have it take effect while they were Stunned, but for offensive UOO you realistically would always take Grantor control.