Time Limit, persistent, usable as attack, costs end to activate in compound power

[eepjr24]

I am not 100% the above is the only combination that does this, but here is what I am getting:

 

Following Seas:  Swimming +4m (4m total), Persistent (+1/4), Costs Endurance Only To Activate (+1/4), Usable As Attack (x16 maximum weight per inanimate target; +1 1/4), Grantor can only grant the power to others, Grantor pays the END whenever the power is used, Recipient must remain close to Grantor, Time Limit (1 Hour; +1 1/4) (8 Active Points); Extra Time (Extra Phase, Delayed Phase, -1), Spell Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (-1/2), IIF (Sliver of vehicle being controlled; -1/4), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4)

 

I am thinking this either 1) Should not be allowed or 2) Time Limit should be a limitation? Either way, the math is.... wonky. If I do the calculation manually it would come out to 12 active points (power says eight) and either 4 Real (based on 12 AP) or 3 Real (based on 8 AP), HD says it is 2 Real.

 

Let me know if I can export it or something like that to help.

 

- Ernie

[Simon]

HD's calculation is correct. +4m Swimming is 2 points. 2 * (1+3) = 8 Active Points.  8 / (1+2.25) = 2 Real Cost

 

There's nothing that is explicitly against the rules -- HD does not prohibit bad builds, it just enforces hard rules within the system.  Whether a GM would allow the build (or if the build even makes sense) is something that you would want to determine outside of HD.

 

As for Time Limit, it should be a Limitation...and is, depending on when it is assigned relative to Persistent being assigned.  I'll look into why it's not recalculating its value automatically when Persistent is applied to the ability. 

[eepjr24]

Ahhhh, there's my math error. I kept thinking swimming was 1 per meter like running. Okay, so that bit makes sense now. Persistent was the first thing I applied, if that matters at all.

 

- E

[unclevlad]

Actually, isn't there a bad combo?  You can't have Persistent with Costs END to Activate.  Usually this gets caught...but not always.

 

Time Limit can be weird, and HD doesn't always recognize things correctly.  On a Persistent, Time Limit becomes a limitation;  on a Constant, it's an advantage.  My take is, it would keep going even when a Constant power would shut down;  it ONLY ends at the time limit, so that's why it's an advantage...it's a limited Persistent.  (Even then, in that context, it' shouldn't be as expensive as it is.  But that's an issue in RAW, not HD.  I believe HD is correctly applying RAW.)

 

I've tried using Costs END to activate and 6 hour time limit on something normally persistent...probably Damage Negation.  I *think* it went like this:

 

1.  Create a new list "Defensive Spells".

2.  Add a power to the list...let's say, Damage Negation.  Add Time Limit (6 hours).  It'll show as a limitation.

3.  Add a common modifier to the list:  Costs END to Activate.

 

The Time Limit may not switch to an advantage at that point.  And I might have the order backwards...but I definitely remember a list that went from "this is looking about right..." to "OMG HOW MANY POINTS am I over my nominal limit???" because the reload triggered that major shift.  Unfortunately, I think it's been intermittent for me.  I *think* it tends to happen somewhat more often when I have 6-8 characters open at the same time, but I give the virtual machine plenty of memory.  It might be swapping between them if, for example, I copy lists between characters.  I do this from time to time, because it's fast, but it *might* lead to some issues if list cloning isn't quite done right.  

And it might be something in power/skill lists.  For example:  say power A is in a List.  Power B links to Power A.  Take power A out of the list, and Linked in B goes to ???, IIRC.  Or it might be that you define A outside a list, then add it to a list...the notion of the power that's linked is broken.

 

 

[Simon]

You are incorrect on your initial statement...and ramble from there (too much to muddle through without knowing if you’re seeing an actual issue in the current update)