Always On + Linked

[Zanthis]

Just curious, but would you allow the following:

 

Force Field: 10rPD/10rED (20 Active Points), 20 Real Points: 2 END

Power Defense: 10 points (10 Active Points), Linked: Force Field(-1/2), Always On(-1/2), 5 Real Points

 

For a FF that 1) Can never be activated without the Power Defense and 2) the Power Defense applies even against beneficial powers such as Aid/Succor, etc.

 

Just seems kinda weird having an Always On limitation on a power that isn't actually Always On.

[Tom McCarthy]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

I think you want:

 

Force Field: Force field (10 rPD, 10 rED, 10 resistant Power Defense) (30 active points)

 

It costs a litlle more (OK, a lot more), and you're paying END for Power Defense, but it definitely solves your "Power Defense available if and only if force field is on" in the simplest way possible.

[Zanthis]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

But I don't think that covers the fact that the Power Defense can sometimes be a limitation, such as when someone wants to heal the character while the FF is up.

[schir1964]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

A couple of things:

 

1) If Power Defense has "Always On", then it can never be turned off or removed willfully. Therefore, linking it to something else or vice versa would be an invalid construct by the rules.

 

2) If the "Power Defense" can be turned off willfully, then you can include inside the Force Field and partially limit the power to meet the SFX.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

There is no difference mechanically between this construct:

 

Force Field: (+10 PD/+10 ED)

Power Defense: (10 points), Linked to Force Field (-1/4) [since FF is a Constant Power], Must Be Used Whenever Force Field is Used (-x) [Call this Always On or some application of Limited Power]

 

and this construct:

 

Force Field: (+10 PD/+10 ED/+10 Power Defense)

 

The first example is functionally identical to the second, therefore its "Limitations" do not seem limiting to me. As a GM, I would require the second construct be used.

 

Of course, YMMV.

[lemming]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

In most of my games, it wouldn't be a limitation, probably a zero lim. I could see it, just not in this case out of context.

 

Does Pow def protect against Aids now? (or ever?)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

Does Pow def protect against Aids now? (or ever?)

 

I don't think so. I'd give a -1/4 limit on the Power Defense component for this (remembering he'll drop the field if he wants something to work, so it will only matter if someone wants to Aid him in combat, while he is conscious and not stunned), if anything, or a small Physical Limitation ("Power defense reduces beneficial effects; infrequently; slightly")

 

And I wish everyone would stop encouraging Power Defense Force Fields - it makes my AVLD Killing Attack less effective when they buy resistant power defense!

[Zanthis]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

Yes, the point was while it protected against damage and harmful drains and other vs-PD effects, it also reduced the effects of Aids and Healing on the user. This is a fantasy campaign spell and the user would be a fairly frail (compared to fighters) mage and so he won't want to be dropping his FF considering the time & skill roll required to cast. So its pretty much up for the duration of the fight, and if he does get hurt, its gonna be hard to heal him. Hence I feel it is somewhat of a disadv. in this case, although I personally felt it more like a -1/4 on the PD part not the full -1/2 of Always On.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

Personally, I wouldn't allow a Limitation on the PD, Id' make it part of the FF for the same reasons Derek pointed out. If it's always part of the Force Field (has to be turned on with it) it should be bought inside the Force Field. And I wouldn't give this a Limitation at all even outside the FF consctruct.

 

But that's me and how I'd run the game, as Derek said YMMV.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

I don't allow powers that are always on to be linked at all.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

Personally, I wouldn't allow a Limitation on the PD, Id' make it part of the FF for the same reasons Derek pointed out. If it's always part of the Force Field (has to be turned on with it) it should be bought inside the Force Field. And I wouldn't give this a Limitation at all even outside the FF consctruct.

 

But that's me and how I'd run the game, as Derek said YMMV.

 

I'm not inclined to allow a limitation for the need to have the power defense active whenever the force field is active. Whether purchased as Force Field, or purchased as separate power DEF that only activates when the force field is up, I don't see the big drawback to having power defense on (especially if it costs no END). It's not visible, nor does it jeapordize maintaining a secret ID or disguise (where, say, resistant PD that prevents a needle breaking the skin does). To me, there is no disadvantage to Power Defense being "always on", so no Limitation.

 

However, the power defense reducing beneficial adjustment powers is, to my mind, a limitation. How limiting depends on how often the power will be up when the character wants an Adjustment Power to affect him. I would call that -1/4 at most - even in an Aid/Heal heavy fantasy campaign, if the character can drop the force field, he won't maintain it out of combat if "friendlies" want to heal him.

 

If the power defense cannot be shut off, then this is better simulated by a Physical Limitation of "-10 to all beneficial adjustment powers". Frequency depends on how common these are in the game and impact by how large they are (ie it's fully impairing if adjustment powers max out at 1d6, but only Slightly if they run 10d6+). In a typical Supers campaign, probably Infrequent (5), Slightly (+0) or Major (+5) so 5-10 points. In a fantasy game, more likely Common (10), Major (+5) so 15.

 

I suppose slightly or major could also depend on the typical power. A 4d6 AID will get about 4 points through at a time, so eventually can build up 24 points. 4d6 Healing must roll more than the last roll to have further effects, so adding another 4 points requires a roll of 18.

 

Of course, this assumes the character doesn't have a bunch of beneficial adjustment powers he would generally want to use on himself...

[Zanthis]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

That's the tricky part. It's a "text book spell" that is available to many mages in the campaign. One of my players is a healer type. Another is more of a blaster type. If the blaster takes this power, he doesn't have any beneficial adjustment powers at all. The healer on the other hand has tons. Aid, Succor, Healing, you name it. This would limit her very much. Seems kinda weird to have a "text book spell" cost 30 points for one character and 20 for another.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

If it can never be turned off, it might be worth a Limitation .. but from what I read it's a spell that can be turned off and back on with effort. If combat is the area where you're worried most then I'd definitely not give a Limitation to it.. Combat it usually relatively short (game time speaking), if you can't wait until combat it over to get a couple of Body healed then you best turn those defenses off then and there and cope. Otherwise most damage can wait until the spell is expired or turned off. That's just my opinion however. I don't see a Limitation that affects the character only during Combat (when they'd most likely cast this spell) as that detrimental.

 

Especially considering that if there are other Adjusment spells out there to help the character (suc has a STR Spell or some such) they can usually be case BEFORE combat and circumvent the whole "won't work through the force field" issue. Still making it a non-Limiting factor and worth no points.

 

As for the last post regarding the cost of "text book spells" - oh well. That happens. If you insist on having them cost the same reduce the Active Points of one or increase the Active Points of the other or a combination of the two.. adding non-Limiting Limitations to force point-cost equality is worse than one costing more.

[Zanthis]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

They can just deal. I'll claim its harder for one character to learn than another. And in a way, it kinda makes sense. But not being able to be healed (very well) in combat is a fairly annoying effect. Our battles have sometimes taken multiple 8+ hour sessions to resolve. When your six person team are holding off 30+ demons/devils and more keep gating in every turn in addition to the existing creatures summoning their own allies a battle can get very long indeed.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

They can just deal. I'll claim its harder for one character to learn than another. And in a way' date=' it kinda makes sense. But not being able to be healed (very well) in combat is a fairly annoying effect. Our battles have sometimes taken multiple 8+ hour sessions to resolve. When your six person team are holding off 30+ demons/devils and more keep gating in every turn in addition to the existing creatures summoning their own allies a battle can get very long indeed.[/quote']

 

Sounds to me like a case that there will be some limitation due to the nature of your game. My experience is that combat may take 8+ real hours, but healing is most commonly done after the battle, or on downed opponents. If your experience is that healing during combat is common,then an inability to be healed in combat is more limiting.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

That's the tricky part. It's a "text book spell" that is available to many mages in the campaign. One of my players is a healer type. Another is more of a blaster type. If the blaster takes this power' date=' he doesn't have any beneficial adjustment powers at all. The healer on the other hand has tons. Aid, Succor, Healing, you name it. This would limit her very much. Seems kinda weird to have a "text book spell" cost 30 points for one character and 20 for another.[/quote']

 

So is "not in sunlight" worth the same to an elf who spends his days in the forest and a dwarf who lives underground? If it's less limiting to one specific character, he pays more points for it. It's not about how hard the spell is to learn - it's about how many character points get spent.

[lemming]

Re: Always On + Linked

 

Sounds to me like a case that there will be some limitation due to the nature of your game. My experience is that combat may take 8+ real hours' date=' but healing is most commonly done after the battle, or on downed opponents. If your experience is that healing during combat is common,then an inability to be healed in combat is more limiting.[/quote']

We had plenty of situations with the healing during combat. On occasion it would prompt an all out attack on whoever did healing.