Jump to content
iamlibertarian

Transforming polluted water to clean water

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Life Support doesn't change anything except for allowing the people affected by it to not suffer ill effects. That build does not change the air, it does not change the water.  It allows anyone in the area to not be bothered by the pollutants in the water.  They're still there, just nobody in that area is bothered by it.  If you took a cup full of that water and carried it outside the LS area, it would be just as polluted.

 

Special Effects don't trump game mechanics.  It doesn't matter if you define your flight as rockets of flame, you cannot use them to knock out your opponent, its flight not a blast.  If you define your resistant protection as gravity manipulation, that doesn't let you fall slower.  Its not flight, its resistant protection.

 

Life Support does not change the environment, it allows people to tolerate the environment.

 

It allows people to not suffer the ill effects of polluted water by purifying the water.

 

Yes, it does change the water. Repeating "The build does not change the water" is not a magical incantation that Dispels the power. The power keeps right on working, purifying that water. Saying "the pollutants are still in the water" doesn't put the pollutants back in, the water stays pure. All it pollutes is the online discourse.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to "re-contaminate" some of this nice pure water by making it into tea.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary points out that Resistant Protection would work against falling damage like any other damage, so yes, if it's defined as gravity manipulation, it does let you fall slower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't sure initially, and still think a Transform is cleaner for producing potable water, but it does pass muster. The AoE is granting the LS to any target in it.

 

The only point that probably needs clearing up is using "Costs END only to Activate" on a Persistant power (only applies to Constant powers that cost endurance; Life Support is a Persistant power that doesn't cost endurance). You probably need to also make it Nonpersistant or Costs Endurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yes, it does change the water. Repeating "The build does not change the water" is not a magical incantation that Dispels the power.

 

What happens when you take cup of the water out of the life support area  effect?  The life support is no longer protecting people from its negative effects.

 

Just repeating "it does change the water" isn't a magical incantation either.  However, noting that life support by definition and design in the book protects from negative effects rather than negates them is not a magical incantation.  Think about resistant protection.  It doesn't make attacks go away, it makes you not hurt as badly by them.  No matter what the special effect, the attack isn't dispelled or negated, it is protected from.

 

You're arguing mechanics from special effect.  That's not how the game works.  That's not how the rules work.  The game is very flexible but you can't use a power to do what it doesn't actually do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the examples of a minor transform is making inedible food, edible. I would think this goes the same with non-potable water to potable water. (I'd almost say it's easier vs the food)


As for quantity per body... well that's sorta up in the air. Although unless there's a long time limit in purifying, it doesn't matter if it's a lot or a little. If you can do 1 Liter of water per phase, and 2 phases per turn, that's still 12 phases in a minute, and 720 in an hour. So unless you are requiring to purify a whole lake, or purify water constantly say for an army encampment, then the quantity in this case really probably won't matter.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 1:22 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

 Think about resistant protection.  It doesn't make attacks go away, it makes you not hurt as badly by them.  No matter what the special effect, the attack isn't dispelled or negated, it is protected from.

 

 

Doesn't it? If it is for example Combat Luck and the attack did no damage, it seems to have "protected from" the attack by making it miss entirely.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

"Ha! Missed me!" says the palindromedary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a funny thought. I can have a force field defined as flames that melt bullets. However unless I buy a damage shield, an bare fisted person can punch me and suffer no harm. So bottom line, you get what you pay for and define it how you want.

 

Im sure Lucius paid for the palindrome to have 360* vision. The palindrome didn’t get it for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 12:39 AM, mrinku said:

The only point that probably needs clearing up is using "Costs END only to Activate" on a Persistant power (only applies to Constant powers that cost endurance; Life Support is a Persistant power that doesn't cost endurance). You probably need to also make it Nonpersistant or Costs Endurance.

 

 

Where are you coming up with the idea that 'Costs END only to Activate' supposedly 'only applies to Constant powers that cost endurance'?  I ask because per 6e1 p374, the Costs Endurance limitation states:

Quote

This Limitation, which characters can only buy for Powers that inherently cost no END (such as Resistant Protection or FTL Travel), makes such a Power cost END.

 

 

Life Support inherently costs no END ... and fits right in with other examples which are Persistent (such as Resistant Protection).  i.e. I don't think there's anything to clear up, here, as RAW is already plenty clear on the topic.  (One could certainly add the Non-Persistent limitation on top of the Costs Endurance Only to Activate limitation ... if one wanted the potential for knockout and stunning to turn off the power, but that wasn't desired.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

I think the confusion is that "Costs END only to Activate" is a Limitation on a power that doesn't normally cost END, or an Advantage on a power that does normally cost END.  Same basic name, different flavors. 

How is it confusing to have a power that doesn't normally cost END ... actually cost END to activate?  I ask because it's done all the time to model specific powers.  For example: a force field-generating OIF implant that someone can activate (and pays END for) ... which remains on (persistent, even if unconscious) if the person is stunned or knocked out ... until deactivated.  Note that while a focus is not required, I used it as part of the example to help obviate why one might want a persistent power that costs END to activate (GM willing, of course).  I could see the same thing being focus-less if the person had to put forth some effort (represented by END) to activate the force field ... but the mind or body subconsciously (a la autonomic systems, rather like breathing) kept it going (inertia?) thereafter without any effort.

 

Regardless, I believe RAW is crystal clear:

  • A power that doesn't inherently cost END does not have to be Non-Persistent to take the Costs Endurance Only To Activate limitation; and 
  • A Persistent power to which the Non-Persistent limitation is applied doesn't cost Endurance unless a Costs Endurance limitation is taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I think I already pointed out above, "costs END only to activate" only applies to Constant powers that cost END (CC p 102), so I can't see how it can be used for a Persistent power. You would need to make it Costs Endurance as well, which also has the effect of making it Constant (CC p.111; Nonpersistant and Costs Endurance aren't usable together).

 

Happy to hear from 6e proper, but the above is the CC rules as far as I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mrinku said:

As I think I already pointed out above, "costs END only to activate" only applies to Constant powers that cost END (CC p 102), so I can't see how it can be used for a Persistent power. You would need to make it Costs Endurance as well, which also has the effect of making it Constant (CC p.111; Nonpersistant and Costs Endurance aren't usable together).

 

Happy to hear from 6e proper, but the above is the CC rules as far as I can tell.

 

 

I already cited the 6e rules, proper -- in this very thread (see above).  Here it is, again, this time with more colour (since the original also had colour added by me) ... to help draw your eye.  Notice that the 6e example 'Resistant Protection' is ... Persistent.

 

Quote

...per 6e1 p374, the Costs Endurance limitation states:
 

Quote

This Limitation, which characters can only buy for Powers that inherently cost no END (such as Resistant Protection or FTL Travel), makes such a Power cost END.

 

 

 

And as for Nonpersistent, per 6e1 373 (something I did not previously site, but alluded to):

Quote

Nonpersistent ... A power with this Limitation does not automatically cost END. However, if a character takes the Costs Endurance Limitation (see below) for a Persistent Power, that Power automatically becomes Constant instead, and he may not take this Limitation for it.

 

Thus, per 6e, RAW is crystal clear:

  • A power that doesn't inherently cost END does not have to be Non-Persistent to take the Costs Endurance Only To Activate limitation; and 
  • A Persistent power to which the Non-Persistent limitation is applied doesn't cost Endurance unless a Costs Endurance limitation is taken.

 

Ultimately, applying Costs Endurance (in any form ... including only to Activate) to a Persistent power -renders- it a Constant power unless the GM rules otherwise.  (The force field example I provided earlier is one such case where many a GM would likely allow something that costs END to activate to remain persistent since in one example it's on a gadget ... and in the other it's autonomic in nature once activated.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, CC agrees with those two entries. But neither addresses the point about Costs Endurance Only To Activate being explicitly listed as something that only applies to Constant Powers that cost END (this should be found under the Costs Endurance Only to Activate description, CC p 102 as I stated before; I don't have the 6e reference). My point all along is that as I read it you can't apply the modifier to a power that is either Persistent or doesn't cost END, because that's what its own description says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, mrinku said:

Yes, CC agrees with those two entries. But neither addresses the point about Costs Endurance Only To Activate being explicitly listed as something that only applies to Constant Powers that cost END (this should be found under the Costs Endurance Only to Activate description, CC p 102 as I stated before; I don't have the 6e reference). My point all along is that as I read it you can't apply the modifier to a power that is either Persistent or doesn't cost END, because that's what its own description says.

 

What's on CC 102 is an Advantage (Costs Endurance Only to Activate) ... i.e. something that causes a Constant Power to cost END only once ... instead of every phase.  This is actually a subset of the Reduced Endurance Advantage in 6e (specifically found on 6e1 p345).  

 

What Lucius used in his build was a Limitation, not an Advantage.  It was specifically a subset of the Costs Endurance Limitation ... the -1/4 Only To Activate variant, usually written as: Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to Activate; -1/4) ... which is how Lucius expressed it.  (It's commonly abbreviated as Costs Endurance (Only to Activate) or similar ... and is obviously a Limitation (no matter how it's phrased/expressed) when applied to a Persistent power like Life Support that normally costs no END to use.)

 

i.e. My best guess is that you have been confusing an END-reduction Advantage ... with the END-increasing Limitation that Lucius used in his build.  Does that help clear things up ... or did I miss something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what you've posted clarifies things. It does appear that CC just doesn't include the more expansive versions of those modifiers, which is what I suspected might be the case.

 

You can use Costs Endurance (-½) and Costs Endurance Only to Activate (+¼) to build the effect for a similar overall price. Possibly Derek Hiemforth believed that was sufficient for most cases.

 

Is it correct, though, that Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to Activate; -1/4) would leave the power Persistent? Normally Costs Endurance turns it into a Constant power automatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mrinku said:

Is it correct, though, that Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to Activate; -1/4) would leave the power Persistent? Normally Costs Endurance turns it into a Constant power automatically.

See the text for 'Nonpersistent' above ... specifically the text I put in blue.  That's RAW and clarifies what happens when Costs Endurance (at any level) is applied to a Persistent power.  That said, there are situations where a GM can, should, and likely will rule counter to RAW (as in my example of a force field on an OIF implanted device) ... and allow Costs Endurance (Only to Activate) to apply to a Persistent power without turning it into a Constant one -- but that's purely a GM discretion kind of thing, not RAW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, it's the "at any level" side of things that I missed.

 

So... basically CC and 6e agree on this point (that Life Support becomes a Constant power) and the points end up similar. And GM fiat always applies, of course.

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 4:22 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

What happens when you take cup of the water out of the life support area  effect?  The life support is no longer protecting people from its negative effects.

 

Just repeating "it does change the water" isn't a magical incantation either.  However, noting that life support by definition and design in the book protects from negative effects rather than negates them is not a magical incantation.  Think about resistant protection.  It doesn't make attacks go away, it makes you not hurt as badly by them.  No matter what the special effect, the attack isn't dispelled or negated, it is protected from.

 

You're arguing mechanics from special effect.  That's not how the game works.  That's not how the rules work.  The game is very flexible but you can't use a power to do what it doesn't actually do.

 

Actually, both Champions Powers and the Hero System Grimoire have powers that create food and water from nothing at all by using ' Life Support (Diminished
Eating: no need to eat or drink), Usable Simultaneously', going as far as saying they can divide the food as they see fit (with GM's permission of course. So I believe Lucius' build and reasoning is actually correct.

 

Also Grimoire has a power called 'Putrify' built as 'Minor Transform 3d6 (edible food and drink to spoiled food and drink, heals back through another application of this spellor another appropriate spell)' that I believe can be tweaked for the OP's purpose. The relevant part to determine quantity is:

 

Quote

For purposes of this spell, the GM should assume that each pound of food or gallon of drink has 1 BODY, then use the total on the dice to determine how much the spell ruins.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vhoffmann said:

Actually, both Champions Powers and the Hero System Grimoire have powers that create food and water from nothing at all by using ' Life Support (Diminished
Eating: no need to eat or drink), Usable Simultaneously', going as far as saying they can divide the food as they see fit (with GM's permission of course. So I believe Lucius' build and reasoning is actually correct.

 

That's slightly different.  Mechanically its making the target no longer hungry or thirst, the special effect is food.  Lucius' build is making the water clean by making the drinkers no longer thirsty.

 

Let's put this minor argument into a better perspective.  

 

The GM has set the players up in a desert dungeon.  The players are being chased by a large group of raiders.  There is a small oasis with water.  The water is poisoned.  There are 8 players.  One player has purify water assuming all limitations are the same.

 

Scenario (transform): The player with transform either takes a small amount of water and purifies it or takes time to purify the oasis risking the raiders catching them.

 

Scenario (Life support usable by one other):  The player can satisfy the thirst of the one other player, but by special effect all players in the party can now drink the water.

 

This is the main problem I believe that those of use who err on the mechanics side see with the special effect over mechanics. 

 

Given this, a GM can always rule by fiat that the power doesn't work or does work in any given situation.  Whether the game works with this is based on the GM's preferences and the players acceptance.  For me and several others, we err on the side of mechanics over GM fiat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dsatow said:

Given this, a GM can always rule by fiat that the power doesn't work or does work in any given situation.  Whether the game works with this is based on the GM's preferences and the players acceptance.  For me and several others, we err on the side of mechanics over GM fiat.

 

 

Which is itself a GM fiat :)

 

As was this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Fiat_Small_platform

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cassandra said:

Couldn't this be handled by a Survival roll?

 

Maybe, or even an environmental engineering roll, but the original poster was talking transforming polluted water, not distilling or filtering using a skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dsatow said:

 

 

 

Scenario (Life support usable by one other):  The player can satisfy the thirst of the one other player, but by special effect all players in the party can now drink the water.

 

 

No. Not by special effect. By mechanic. See bolded Advantage.

 

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 10:10 PM, Lucius said:

 

 

Purify Water:  (Total: 6 Active Cost, 3 Real Cost) Life Support  (Immunity: Waterborne Pollutants/Contaminants), Area Of Effect (4m Radius; +1/4), Usable Nearby (+3/4), Grantor pays the END whenever the power is used (6 Active Points); Extra Time (5 Minutes, Only to Activate, -1), Costs Endurance (Only Costs END to Activate; -1/4) (Real Cost: 3)

 

This would purify all the water in a 4 meter radius and make it safe to drink.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I can purify a palindromedary's water but I can't make it drink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×