Problem with creating a FH spell.

[Basil]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

After thinking about it, I'd have to disagree. 5th Ed., p. 176, says "Usable By Other This is the typical, or default, Usable On Others Advantage. It means the Power is usable by any one person the character targets -- in other words, the character 'gives' a Power to another character."

 

The way I read that, the character who has the Advantaged Power can decided to give, or not to give, control and use of the Power to someone else. I don't think you can stretch the idea to forcing the owning character to give the power. That, to me, sounds like something much more significant.

 

Bear in mind I made the Usable by Other naked advantage Usable as Attack. The caster of the illusion stealing spell has complete control over how the naked advantage is used. That's what Usable as Attack does, it confers the attacker total control over how the power it applies to is used, and the power in this case is the naked advantage Usable by Other.

 

This construct, of course, still bends the rules (in at least two ways that I can think of), but not for the reason you state. As I said before, that doesn't bother me too much. Sometimes you have to bend the rules to get where you want. The Fantasy HERO Grimoire books by HERO Games' own Mr. Steven Long are full of spells that bend the rules for convenience and state as much in the spell descriptions.

 

Oh, I saw where you're coming from, I'm just not sure it's book-legal, for the reason I gave. Of course, that's not a huge stumbling block when it comes to Hero.

 

Let me see if I can be clearer using an example of a different power/advantage. Suppose I buy "Increased Maxiumum Range, for up to X points of EB" as a Naked Advantage, and buy "Usable As Attack" for said Naked Adv. I don't think it would be legit to claim I can now make Dr. Nasty's henchmen miss me by forcing them to shoot past me.

 

That is, I think there are some Advantages that are, inately, a matter of choice, and forcing (with Naked Adv. "Usable As Attack") such an Advantage on a Power should not give you the ability to control the underlying Power. This is particularly a problem when the forced-on Advantage is "Usable By Others" and you claim you can force the caster of the original spell to give you control of the (now modified) spell. That comes too close to mind control.

 

Now, I agree, the basic idea of "Naked Adv., _______, Usable As Attack" is a perfectly legit build, and doing it so the person 'attacked' has trouble, or even danger, from using the underlying power, is a neat idea. I just think that it's not a viable method of taking over complete control of the underlying spell. Still, YMMV.

 

 

 

BTW, a really nasty example of "the user is now in a heap of trouble", imagine a foe with a power with AOE or Explosion, and forcing "Megascale, 1 hex=1 km, for AoE/Explosion on a power of up to X Active Points" on your foe's AOE/Explosion power. He attacks a target outside his usual blast radius, and POW!, does himself in.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

BTW' date=' a really nasty example of "the user is now in a heap of trouble", imagine a foe with a power with AOE or Explosion, and forcing "Megascale, 1 hex=1 km, for AoE/Explosion on a power of up to X Active Points" on your foe's AOE/Explosion power. He attacks a target outside his usual blast radius, and POW!, does himself in. [/quote']

 

Oh, MAN!

 

I am _so_ stealing that! That's hillarious! (obviously, I'm not going to use it for explosions and such, but think about a Flash, or a character who's suddenly found himself in a darkness field that covers the city intead of the room? heh heh heh heh----

 

You, Sir, win the Evil GM's Seal of Approval! Much Rep!

 

say---

doesn't the FH sourcebook say something about 'areas of increased mana' where the effects can range from 'additional endurance' to 'additional spell strength' to 'gains x advantage,' etc? It seems the groundwork for such a construct has already been laid....

 

And Basil---

how'd you do that 'quote within a quote?' I've been trying to do it for a bit, and have never managed to make it work.....

[zornwil]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

I wonder if you couldn't do it as "Images" with the limitation "Only to alter already existing Illusions"

 

I guess it's the old story - what does this power actually do?

That was my thought, it seems simple to perform that way and you get a hefty -1 or similar Limitation since you can only employ "your" Images when someone else has their Images going. The real issue is you have to overcome someone else's images, so Mark's RSR still makes sense, and that Limitation helps offset the cost you need to exceed another's Image - as GM, I'd rule that basically it's whoever's Image is better-PERceived, which means whichever Image is more powerful/greater PER mod.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

Actually' date=' this has potential. Obviously it's bending the rules somewhat, but the following should serve. It inflicts [i']Usable by Others[/i] as a naked advantage on the target spell by making that advantage Usable as Attack, a different form of the same advantage... which is a bit screwed up, but I'm trying not to think about it too hard so my brain doesn't hurt. Anyway, plenty of spells in the Fantasy HERO Grimoire books bend the rules to as great or greater an extent, so that doesn't bother me too much.

 

Control Illusion: Usable By Other (+1/4) for up to 40 Active Points of Illusion Spells, Usable As Attack (+1) (20 Active Points); Requires A Sorcery Roll (-1/2), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4). Total cost: 10 points.

I've used this construct for some time to produce Rogue-like power stealing. I just hate having to build a VPP for that. I actually apply an Advantage similar to that for Adjustment Powers if the Naked UAA UBO can be used for a decently large variety of Powers. It can get unbalancing but is the only way I can decently satisfy myself for this kind of build on some depraved, obsessive level I don't normally mention in public (at least not explicitly).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

What an interesting and creative thread: kudos all round.I'm usually not keen on the proliferation of naked advantages, but this seems like a balanced and reasonable use. Kewl

 

Whilst I can see why no one has mentioned 'old faithful', can I ask you to pause a moment and reflect on 'transform'?

 

It is a power used to change one thing to another. His illusion to your illusion. Obviously, illusions do not have BODY so I'd use the EGO or INT (whichever usually controlls spell casting) of the caster instead or the active points of the spell or something.

 

I don't know how illusion spells work in your game: if they are just images in the air, mental illusions or something else entirely (it looks like a dragon, in fact it is a 3d6 continuous selective AE (not v anyone dressed in the King's livery) RKA with a 11- activation roll, and personal immunity). The transform could actually be used to change even the last of these - to, for example, change the activation conditions.

[Basil]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

Oh, MAN!

 

I am _so_ stealing that! That's hillarious! (obviously, I'm not going to use it for explosions and such, but think about a Flash, or a character who's suddenly found himself in a darkness field that covers the city intead of the room? heh heh heh heh----

 

You, Sir, win the Evil GM's Seal of Approval! Much Rep!

 

say---

doesn't the FH sourcebook say something about 'areas of increased mana' where the effects can range from 'additional endurance' to 'additional spell strength' to 'gains x advantage,' etc? It seems the groundwork for such a construct has already been laid....

Hey, you're right! There's already an excuse for the construct. Cool!

 

And Basil---

how'd you do that 'quote within a quote?' I've been trying to do it for a bit, and have never managed to make it work.....

 

You need to copy what you want to make into an inner-quote, paste it where it should go, and put a {quote=whateverhisnameis} in front and a {/quote} after it. Of course, you use "[" and" "]" instead.

 

That is, you form it up just like the auto-magically made quotes, entirely inside the primary quote. Oh, and use "preview" to make sure you got it right.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

You need to copy what you want to make into an inner-quote' date=' paste it where it should go, and put a {quote=whateverhisnameis} in front and a {/quote} after it. Of course, you use "[" and" "']" instead.

 

Ah. Therein lies the problem;

 

my clipboard simply does not work here....

 

I've been doing the bulk of my mulit-quotes longhand because of that; I was hoping for some push-button relief.....

 

Thanks.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

Very odd your clipboard does not work. Very odd.

 

You could try CTRL C and CTRL V. I mean, you never know....

 

Oh, and general tip for when you accidentally erase half an hour's typing: CTRL Z works here too.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

Oh' date=' and general tip for when you accidentally erase half an hour's typing: CTRL Z works here too.[/quote']

 

BLESS YOU AND ALL WHO DWELL WITHIN OR VISIT INTO YOUR HOUSE!

 

I have actually been quite worried about it. On other forums, I simply type in word (autosaved) then clipboard it over to the post window, just in case. I was actually concerned about what I might do to prevent a horrble accident here.....

[Sean Waters]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

De nada:thumbup:

[ghost-angel]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

BLESS YOU AND ALL WHO DWELL WITHIN OR VISIT INTO YOUR HOUSE!

 

I have actually been quite worried about it. On other forums, I simply type in word (autosaved) then clipboard it over to the post window, just in case. I was actually concerned about what I might do to prevent a horrble accident here.....

CNTRL-X is cut, in case you ever needed it. Z-X-C-V = Undo-Cut-Copy-Paste

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

And thank you, too, Sir!

[DrFurious]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

Whilst I can see why no one has mentioned 'old faithful'' date=' can I ask you to pause a moment and reflect on 'transform'?[/quote']

 

I thought I *did*. Oh well, just a small angry voice in the desolate plains...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

I thought I *did*. Oh well' date=' just a small angry voice in the desolate plains...[/quote']

 

So you did: the post must have been hidden behind an illusion the first time I skimmed through

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

Okay, this is _way_ out there, but as no one has suggested it yet, I reckon I'll put it on the table for discussion.

 

All the above suggestions are good, but I am seeing a possible flaw, depending on how you feel about GM fiat, and that is that as I understand them, all these powers are used to target another character. In these cases, you'd have to use your 'take over your illusions' spell against the original spell caster, who may not be at home that day.

 

So what I suggest is a way to target the actual power, which has _got_ to be right there; you're looking at it, after all. So I've bandied it around a bit, and well--

 

well, I haven't gotten anything better. But I have one possible idea, though it requires a limited fiat in itself, and that is the allowance of an optional rule:

 

Have you considered using the 5E (and I assume 5Er as well) rules for using Naked Advantages as Powers? Perhaps a quick _Independant_ or _Useable by Others_ (or even a combination of the two) set up with Limitation: _Only vs Illusions_ or some similar construct?

 

 

I wish I had my stuff unpacked so I could check this; it may well suffer from the same 'you're supposed to target the character with that,' but on the surface, I think you can't really apply Power Advantages to a _player_; seems ideal to me.

 

Just thinking out loud. Ignore me.....

You can't apply IND or UAA to other people's powers.

 

UAA could possibly be bent in that direction by a permissive GM, but IND wouldnt make sense at all under any circumstances. The primary affect of Independent is on the seperation of Power Constructs from their owners permanently, robbing them of the RC in points in the process.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

Consider this; allow an Images power limited in such a fashion that it can only imitate other Images; NuSword's recommended -2 is fair.

 

Then assess a PER penalty to "Cover Up" the original Images, effectively hiding it.

 

 

I mean, the purpose of Images is to change PERception. People perceive the original Images. Just change their PER to NOT see the original Images and to instead see the second Images.

 

The end affect is that to those perceiving both Images, the second set of Images is effectively "taking control" of the first, although mechanically it is simple overlaying it.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

You can't apply IND or UAA to other people's powers.

 

UAA could possibly be bent in that direction by a permissive GM, but IND wouldnt make sense at all under any circumstances. The primary affect of Independent is on the seperation of Power Constructs from their owners permanently, robbing them of the RC in points in the process.

 

The UAA was a modifier not for the currently-existing spell; it was being used to make the other advantages useable as attacks; in short, the other advantages were being used as attacks agains that power.

 

And in the end, I think the IND was dropped from his final construct.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

Consider this; allow an Images power limited in such a fashion that it can only imitate other Images; NuSword's recommended -2 is fair.

 

Yes; I found that to be a reasonable idea as well. I thought I had commented on it. If not:

Excellent idea, NuSword!

 

Then assess a PER penalty to "Cover Up" the original Images' date=' effectively hiding it.[/quote']

 

This intrigues me, mostly from a story point of view. I like the idea of having to work at hiding the existing image. Though if the 'new controller' of the image had sufficient dice, wouldn't that be enough to cover up the original? If the point of his image is to be seen as 'the one real truth,' then a successful roll and appropriate points of effect should do the job alone, shouldn't they? Though I like the idea, regardless. It adds a bit of challenge that may serve the story well.

 

My only issue with this idea-- an admittedly easy solution-- was that I was trying to preserve the feel of something being ported over from another game, and that was the idea of controlling an existing image, not simply hiding it with another. That's all.

 

 

The end affect is that to those perceiving both Images' date=' the second set of Images is effectively "taking control" of the first, although mechanically it is simple overlaying it.[/quote']

 

Yep. Still agree.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

Control Illusion: Sight, Hearing, Smell/Taste, Touch and Mystic Groups Images 1" radius, +/-9 to PER Rolls, Variable Special Effects (Any Mystical Illusion SFX; +1/4), Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4) (85 Active Points); Only to Overlap And Assume Attributes Of Another Caster's Illusion To Give the Semblance of Taking Control Of It (-2); Real Cost: 28; 7 END to Activate

 

or:

 

Control Illusion: Sight, Hearing, Smell/Taste, Touch and Mystic Groups Images Increased Size (4" radius; +1/2), +/-9 to PER Rolls, Variable Special Effects (Any Mystical Illusion SFX; +1/4), Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4) (114 Active Points); Only to Overlap And Assume Attributes Of Another Caster's Illusion To Give the Semblance of Taking Control Of It (-2), Difficult to Alter simple changes take a Full Phase (-1/2); Real Cost: 32; 10 END to Activate

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

Workable for me. In Champs, it's probably the way I'd go-- points bases are higher, etc.

 

But this was for FH which, as was noted earlier, is already full of bent rules.

 

And it takes up less lines.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

Yes; I found that to be a reasonable idea as well. I thought I had commented on it. If not:

Excellent idea, NuSword!

Perhaps you did; I thought I read NuSword suggesting it first. Either way; its worth a -2 IMO.

 

As far as UAA/UBO (same advantage), the build I saw someone propose when skimming the 1st few posts was a Naked UBO that was meant to be applied to other people's powers via UAA. That doesn't function mechanically. UBO is not applied to other peoples powers, and if you did apply it to someone elses powers you would effectively be taking that power away from them for the interim (unless you were generous and made it UBO Simul and included them in the Simul -- unlikely vs an enemy to say the least).

 

It could be Fiat'd to work but its hardly necessary to do so to model the effect. There are other legal alternatives.

 

This intrigues me, mostly from a story point of view. I like the idea of having to work at hiding the existing image. Though if the 'new controller' of the image had sufficient dice, wouldn't that be enough to cover up the original? If the point of his image is to be seen as 'the one real truth,' then a successful roll and appropriate points of effect should do the job alone, shouldn't they? Though I like the idea, regardless. It adds a bit of challenge that may serve the story well.

 

Not sure what you mean by "sufficient dice". Images is not a roll for effect Power. It is a flat effect that exists for other characters to make PER checks against. If they make their PER Check by enough, they still perceive the Images but sense that it is fake. If they fail their PER Check they think the Image is real and behave accordingly.

 

Technically, if one Image were applied to mask another one, to the best of my knowledge characters would not see thru to the masked Image even if they made their PER Check under normal circumstances. A GM might allow it on a natural "3" or something, but I can't think of anything in the rules that would permit it normally.

 

 

My only issue with this idea-- an admittedly easy solution-- was that I was trying to preserve the feel of something being ported over from another game, and that was the idea of controlling an existing image, not simply hiding it with another. That's all.

 

Well, the HERO System is an effects based game. What it looks like is SFX; what it does is the mechanics.

 

So from a SFX stand point, an Image limited in such a fashion would APPEAR to control another illusion. Thats what the HERO System is all about; the difference between what it looks like and how it is accomplished.

 

 

 

 

Yep. Still agree.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

Workable for me. In Champs, it's probably the way I'd go-- points bases are higher, etc.

 

But this was for FH which, as was noted earlier, is already full of bent rules.

 

And it takes up less lines.

There are characters in my FH games that can toss around 150 AP Spells, so I suppose it is all relative.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

Perhaps you did; I thought I read NuSword suggesting it first. Either way; its worth a -2 IMO.

 

ho-- let me quickly add this: NuSword did indeed suggest it first; I was completmenting him on the idea.

 

As far as UAA/UBO (same advantage)' date=' the build I saw someone propose when skimming the 1st few posts was a Naked UBO that was meant to be applied to other people's powers via UAA.[/quote']

 

yes, that was more or less the idea indeed. UAA modified the 'control' spell as opposed to the original image spell.

 

That doesn't function mechanically.

 

If it's not too much trouble, I'd like a little (not much, maybe a snippet of rule quoting or someting) to explain this. As I've said several times, I am currently deprived access to my 5E book, so all I have is 2E and BBB and a less-than-stellar memory to go on.

 

UBO is not applied to other peoples powers' date='[/quote']

 

Not as written, no it's not. You are, to the best of my knowledge, completely correct. But then, many powers do not, as written, do what they are ultimately used for through the addtion of advantages, limitations, etc. For example, a brick with Desolid: only vs PD attacks who is never, ever actually 'desolid,' simply impervious to a good clubbing. While the construct is a bit cheezy for my tastes, it is not a 'stand alone' example of rules tweaking, twisting, or whatever it might be called (I hate to say munchkinism, but there it is) to create a 'whole new thing' from things that already are.

 

Building on those examples, and not aware of any specific limitations in UAA to prevent using it to create naked advantages that were themselves useable as attacks (and seriously, please enlighten me if you know otherwise), I went forward.

 

and if you did apply it to someone elses powers you would effectively be taking that power away from them for the interim (unless you were generous and made it UBO Simul and included them in the Simul -- unlikely vs an enemy to say the least).

 

Ah! A very real over-look on my part. You are completely correct, and I failed to consider that. Though I am, now that I see it, or two minds here as well. Adding the Simul would indeed more closely model the original source for the power. But I also, now that you have brought it to my attention, like the idea of the original spell caster now having a 'tip off' that his work is being meddled with: 'a great disturbance in the Force,' as it were....... I'll have to think on this one some more.

 

 

Not sure what you mean by "sufficient dice". Images is not a roll for effect Power.

Poorly chose words; it is simply a descriptive that has fallen into use a handy abbreviation for 'size of the power' in these parts. Forgive the suggested error, please.

 

 

Technically' date=' if one Image were applied to mask another one, to the best of my knowledge characters would not see thru to the masked Image even if they made their PER Check under normal circumstances.[/quote']

 

I could be wrong here, but this is how I looked at it when NuSword first suggested it:

An image already exists. The target already sees the image and believes it. If he did not see or believe it, then there is little need to alter it in any way, after all. Let's assume that he sees and believes a friendly dog.

 

Spell caster B attempts to 'cover up' that image with a ravenous dragon. Should spell caster B fail to make a convincing dragon, should the target not still see the dog, as he already believes it to be real? Why would his reaction not be "Oho! there's a nasty wizard afoot! And he wishes me to not investigate yon friendly dog! I must at once go and see what special thing yon dog must surely be!"

 

Or perhaps spell caster B simply wants the friendly do to become a mean dog, but again fails to get the same success that the original spell had. "What? Someone has put a spell on that dog to make him appear mean! Surely he's starving, with no one willing to come near enough to feed him. I must at once go and see about this dog." And so on and so forth.

 

Going off straight mechanics, there will be 2 illusions operating. The second one will only overpower the first; it can't genuinely alter it. If the second image fails, the first still has a chance to be taken as real.

 

With the naked advantages construct, there is no second illusion. If the character fails to make his changes believed, then the entire illusion fails. The images on top of images has no inherent ability to rob effectiveness from the first image. While additional (and failed) images may make a subject more likely to question everything he sees, and thus have a better chance to see through the first image, he has already accepted it, and may continue to do so.

 

Granted, it can be fiated to destroy the first image, or that the power can only make the existing image do different things as opposed to become different things, but if you're going to handwave, then it doesn't matter which is 'least perfect' really.

 

 

 

Well' date=' the HERO System is an effects based game. What it looks like is SFX; what it does is the mechanics.[/quote']

 

Agreed here, and always will be. It is simply a matter of finding the mechanic that most closely duplicates the exact effect you are looking for, and ruling out those that for one reason or other do not, either through exception or application. That's how these threads get so many different ideas in the first place.

 

Hmmmm....

 

I think I goofed up my quote. You made another comment about your FH characters tossing about 'x' points based spells, but I've seemed to lost it. At any rate, it brings up another point, and that is that not only are effects different from campaign to campaign, but power levels also, and the 'feel' that each one provides. My heroic stuff is much lower than that, and for most of them, enough Images to properly mask an existing illusion is going to be impractical at the least. But the naked advantages construct-- while still one of the pricier spells, is at least attainable.

 

YMMV.

 

But please, tell me why UAA is not allowed in this case. Waiting till we move and unpack is going to be oh so cruel.....

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

I dont have time to respond in full, as I need to get to work, but the short version is that I think if you had access to your rulebook a lot of these questions would be clear.

 

However, baring that Ill try to explain briefly via analogy.

 

Think of Images as a Hologram on the Holodeck in Star Trek. The computer runs an elaborate illusion effectively that is interactive. It functions by generating various perception cues that are interpretted by participants as being real sensory data. This is a high quality Image build with a lot of options but a big disadvantage in that it is generated by an immobile focus, and some other traits that define its behavior.

 

Now lets say you start running holodeck program A. All those inside the holodeck see your illusion.

 

I hack in from outside. I cant turn off your illusion or alter it because I dont know your password and Im not you. But I do have permissions to start a new Holodeck program. So I start Holodeck program B which Ive written specifically to cover up/mask what your program is doing.

 

Your Holodeck program is still running, but my Holodeck program is covering your programs sensory data and producing new sensory data of my design.

 

If participants fail their PER rolls they believe it is real (even if logically, as is the case with the holodeck, they KNOW it isnt at a higher level; they still react to the stimulus as if it were real). Even if participants make their PER rolls they still perceive my program's sensory input instead of yours, they just perceive it to be fake.

 

 

Alternately, if my program didnt deliberately hide yours, the participants would see both, and where they overlapped would be a big cue that neither were real.

[Mark Taylor]

Re: Problem with creating a FH spell.

 

I understand the solution I settled on bends the rules, but it is still my preference over the legal solution of using one set of images to cover up another, for various reasons.

 

Firstly, if using one set of images to cover another the outcome would reasonably have to rest on which set of images had the better perception modifier. This is far too deterministic for my taste. Using a Skill vs. Skill contest to detemine who assumes or retains control actually makes a contest of it rather than reducing it to a "my images are better than your images" type of forced conclusion. This is far more satisfying in gameplay terms.

 

Secondly, it is more than just a matter of special effects. Illusion spells can be built in a variety of different ways with different limitations and, more vitally, different advantages. How do you assume control of an illusion that has MegaArea if your Control Illusion spell doesn't have it? How about Transdimensional? Other Advantages like Reduced END might not seem vital to the effect... but remember you're supposed to be assuming control of the spell - the same spell - the other illusionist cast, and it should therefore have the same properties. Handwaving the assume control aspect of it as a special effect doesn't really work in the case of illusion spells which deviate from the "norm" (if there is even such a norm). Sticking a bigass Variable Advantage on there "just in case" doesn't work either, for (IMO) obvious reasons.

 

Thirdy (putting one of my own suggestions from the initial post of this thread aside) the spell does and should assume control of "illusion spells", not "spells built using Images". There's an important distinction! Apart from the obvious Mental Illusions based spells, there are also illusion spells based on Cosmetic Transform or Shape Shift, and even still less obvious powers such as Drain PRE for fear-causing illusions or Flash for blinding illusions come to mind. These are all valid "Illusion" concepts but not all of them can be usefully simulated using Images.

 

I understand possible ojections to the build I'm going with may include A) it's not legal! and it sets a bad precedent!

 

My response to A) is "I know, and I don't particularly care", and my response to would be "It only sets a bad precedent if you allow it to". In other words I'm more than capable of letting my players know in no uncertain terms that this is a one-off construction and any attempt to use a similar build to assume control of any other types of Powers is likely to be vetoed way faster than you can say "but you let her do it!". Assuming control of illusions for a relatively low CP cost poses far less of a game balance issue than it might well do for other types of abilities, and I'm well aware of this.