Another Silly Summon Question

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

By the rules, the maximum number of robots (toasters sounds a little silly so I'll change it) I can have summoned at one time equals my maximum number summoned. I can't just dismiss the old one at will - I have to dispel it, suppress it or persuade it to leave of its own accord (maybe there should be a "return" advantage). So, once Dr. Destroyer takes control of my robot, and assuming I can only summon one, I'm out of luck until it somehow gets eliminated.

 

So I have given up something. I am now attacked by my own "slavishly loyal summoned creature" because he'll follow anyone's orders. I'm worse off than a standard Summon - just because I fail the ego roll doesn't mean I get attacked, and certainly doesn't mean the creature automatically sides with my enemies (or whoever has the control box).

 

Hadn't remembered that. Your point.

I guess you'd best define your slavishly loyal robots (now that we're done with the toasters) as actually being slavishly loyal and thus only useable by you. As to your slavishly loyal car, you'd best take the keys out of the ignition when you go into the store, or define it as only driveable by you. You can do the same thing with any other device you've paid points for; a reasonable GM should let you do it here. If you start asking for a cost break because your summoned useable by anyone non-unique toaster may possibly be stollen, the GM had best steal that thing every time you leave the kitchen, otherwise you're getting those points for free.

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by OddHat

Hadn't remembered that. Your point.

I guess you'd best define your slavishly loyal robots (now that we're done with the toasters) as actually being slavishly loyal and thus only useable by you. As to your slavishly loyal car, you'd best take the keys out of the ignition when you go into the store, or define it as only driveable by you. You can do the same thing with any other device you've paid points for; a reasonable GM should let you do it here. If you start asking for a cost break because your summoned useable by anyone non-unique toaster may possibly be stollen, the GM had best steal that thing every time you leave the kitchen, otherwise you're getting those points for free.

 

Except that you are not likely to summon a toaster. You are likely to summon something with combat capability or other major capability which is way more likely to be worth stealing and using against you.

 

"Go ahead make your toast villain."

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Blue Angel

Except that you are not likely to summon a toaster. You are likely to summon something with combat capability or other major capability which is way more likely to be worth stealing and using against you.

 

"Go ahead make your toast villain."

 

What if you're Powdered Toast Man?

[Tseegno]

So if you summon a car that is not slavishly loyal, does that mean it arrives without keys and requires you to hotwire it?

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by Tseegno

So if you summon a car that is not slavishly loyal, does that mean it arrives without keys and requires you to hotwire it?

 

Only if you do not buy at least +1/4 of Amicable. With no amicability there is a roll needed to control it. In this case a B & E and pick locks (or equivalent). If you have a +1/4 then anyone can use it without keys (or the key is broken off in the lock and cannot be removed). At +1/2 the keys are included but you can take them to make someone else have to do the B & E.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat

I guess you'd best define your slavishly loyal robots (now that we're done with the toasters) as actually being slavishly loyal and thus only useable by you. As to your slavishly loyal car, you'd best take the keys out of the ignition when you go into the store, or define it as only driveable by you. You can do the same thing with any other device you've paid points for; a reasonable GM should let you do it here. If you start asking for a cost break because your summoned useable by anyone non-unique toaster may possibly be stollen, the GM had best steal that thing every time you leave the kitchen, otherwise you're getting those points for free.

 

But this brings us fuill circle to the original quiestion - I CAN make things slavishly loyal to me, and me alone. If they are not, due to conception (ie whoever gets the keys or hotwires it can take the van), what's the change to the cost?

 

I like the structure posted earlier for vehicles, myself. Nonsentient being summons can use that structure, and sentients the amicable structure. Seems fair.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

But this brings us fuill circle to the original quiestion - I CAN make things slavishly loyal to me, and me alone. If they are not, due to conception (ie whoever gets the keys or hotwires it can take the van), what's the change to the cost?

 

I like the structure posted earlier for vehicles, myself. Nonsentient being summons can use that structure, and sentients the amicable structure. Seems fair.

 

There's always a chance that your summoned minions will be mind controlled away from you. In many games, it's every bit as likely as having a punk steal your summoned motorcycle while you're searching the villains lair. No sane GM is going to give you points back for "minions might be mind controlled." If you do manage to brow beat your GM into giving you the point break for "someone might steal my BatToaster," that's all in the house rules. I'd say the stink of munchkinism is fairly high on this one.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat

There's always a chance that your summoned minions will be mind controlled away from you. In many games, it's every bit as likely as having a punk steal your summoned motorcycle while you're searching the villains lair. No sane GM is going to give you points back for "minions might be mind controlled." If you do manage to brow beat your GM into giving you the point break for "someone might steal my BatToaster," that's all in the house rules. I'd say the stink of munchkinism is fairly high on this one.

 

The character with Mind Control paid for the ability, and make up a very small proportion of the general populace. The original example is one where the entire population (absent those with physical limitations of one variety or another) can steal the summoned "being".

 

[Frankly, I'm still not sure where the ability to summon a vehicle came from, but it's a reasonable ability.]

 

"Someone might steal my Energy Blaster" is enough of a reason to cut the cost of EB in half, and that's even if it's not usable against me.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The character with Mind Control paid for the ability, and make up a very small proportion of the general populace. The original example is one where the entire population (absent those with physical limitations of one variety or another) can steal the summoned "being".

 

If "general population" doesn't make a difference in game play, it doesn't make a difference in cost. We've both cited that rule more than once. The question isn't "How many people out there could steal my summoned creature," it's "How often is my summoned creature likely to get stollen in play." Any GM who's going to steal your summons at all is just as likely to steal your Demon with a mind controlling sorcerer as he is your toaster with a toast-hungry villain.

As all of this is outside of the rules as written anyway, a simple deal with the GM to make your loyal summoned toaster exclusively obedient to you fixes any problem. "Yes you Captain Toast Master and you alone shall benefit from the complete loyalty of your army of bread making appliances."

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

[Frankly, I'm still not sure where the ability to summon a vehicle came from, but it's a reasonable ability.]

[/b]

 

Honestly I'd say so as well. OTOH damn if I'm giving point breaks on such an easilly abused power. If the PC wants a point break for his motorcycle, let him buy a multipower slot with extra running and the Visable Manifestation limit from USPD. Or in Captain Toast Master's case, he can buy a transformation attack: Bread into Toast.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

"Someone might steal my Energy Blaster" is enough of a reason to cut the cost of EB in half, and that's even if it's not usable against me. [/b]

 

The questions are always "How much of a game effect will it have?" and "What is the in game effect?" If you want a steal-able and thus cheaper cycle, maybe you'd be better off building it using a different construct. Letting you build it with summon and giving you point breaks for doing so invites serious abuse down the road.

[Blue Angel]

Preventing abuse is the GM's job.

 

If you are going to get the points break then it is the GM's job to enforce the consequences. It is no different with the focus limitation. If the limitation is not enforced and the GM agreed to it then it is his/her fault alone. A +1 OAF is a large limitation and as GM you can bet it will be taken, broken, occassionally malfuntion or fail outright and sometimes you won't have it with you.

 

If you can't or just plain refuse to enforce lesser advantages on summoned machines then alway use +1 advantage and make sure the player gets full benefit. But for those GM's who want to enforce the advantage based on it's actual advantage then why not have lower limitations available for machines that are incapable of loyalty.

 

There is another question that came up earlier though and I don't know the answer. Maybe it depends on special effect. When is a summoned thing considered lost/destroyed to enable you to summon another one?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat

The question isn't "How many people out there could steal my summoned creature," it's "How often is my summoned creature likely to get stollen in play." Any GM who's going to steal your summons at all is just as likely to steal your Demon with a mind controlling sorcerer as he is your toaster with a toast-hungry villain.

As all of this is outside of the rules as written anyway, a simple deal with the GM to make your loyal summoned toaster exclusively obedient to you fixes any problem. "Yes you Captain Toast Master and you alone shall benefit from the complete loyalty of your army of bread making appliances."

 

True. The villain needs to buy Mind Control to steal the Summoned being. What % of adversaries have Mind Control? He only needs to have the 8- Everyman skill to steal your vehicle, since it "obeys" whoever sticks the key in the ignition. Absent a physical limitation, he has Driving 8-. And the need for a key is a lot cheaper to get around (Mechanics skill) than enough Mind Control to co-opt a Summoned being.

 

To some extent, this is more a Vehicle (or Automoton) question than a Summon question.

 

Yes, the problem doesn't exist if the vehicle is "inherently loyal", but the original question was "how do I build a realistic vehicle that is not inherently loyal?" The player is willing to make his power less useful in the interests of better simulating the character's ability. Isn't that what limitations are all about?

 

Honestly I'd say so as well. OTOH damn if I'm giving point breaks on such an easilly abused power. If the PC wants a point break for his motorcycle, let him buy a multipower slot with extra running and the Visable Manifestation limit from USPD.

 

[Found it, by the way - it's in the FAQ]

 

Yeah, let's not let using the most obvious and appropriate mechanic get in the way. Let him buy extra running - clearly there's no reason at all to have the Vehicle construct, so let's just ditch it. Hey, let the paladin buy bonus running the same way - summoning a horse is just ripe for abuse!

 

The bottom line here seems to be that my approach is "Let's charge the character points for the benefits he actually gets." Yours seems to be "This is open to abuse, so let anyone who wantsit, regardless of whether they exploit the potential for abuse, pay extra." In my structure, the guy who doesn't abuse the ability doesn't pay extra, and the guy who has a hugely effective use may have to pay even more than +1 (always assuming the power is allowed at all). Under your structure, it sounds like everyone pays +1 and if you chose not to min/max your abilities, too bad - no point break, you're just an inefficient character designer.

 

Perhaps the character should take his summon power "OAF - Keys" (or OIF Keys) and define the Summon as "personal", the control as Universal? Now it costs half as much - there's a reasonable result.

 

And define it as summoning a "generic" vehicle, of course. No sense taking an extra +1 just so the vehicle is always blue!

 

Oh, and put it in a Multipower so you only pay the "ultra" points for it. Once it's summoned, it stays even if the points are shifted. That's in the FAQ, right near the "vehicle must have slavishly loyal" suggestion.

 

The real answer may be to consider the vehicle "Loyal" (+1/2) on the basis that the fact it will obey others means it's hardly "devoted" or "slavishly loyal".

 

The questions are always "How much of a game effect will it have?" and "What is the in game effect?" If you want a steal-able and thus cheaper cycle, maybe you'd be better off building it using a different construct. Letting you build it with summon and giving you point breaks for doing so invites serious abuse down the road.

 

What construct would you suggest is reasonable for building a construct which summons a vehicle? Energy Blast, perhaps, or maybe an Elemental Control? Summon is the power one uses to Summon something. It's one of the very few powers in the game which cannot be duplicated through other mechanics.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Blue Angel

Preventing abuse is the GM's job.

 

Absolutely. And your later comments indicate you and I are on pretty much the same page - it's a limitation, and it's up to the GM to ensure the effects of the limitation are felt.

 

May I suggest that the above quote could be refined to "Preventing abuse while maintaining the game as playable and fun is the GM's job." The easiest way to prevent abuse, after all, is to just ban virtually everything. If you can't have it, you certainly can't abuse it!

 

There is another question that came up earlier though and I don't know the answer. Maybe it depends on special effect. When is a summoned thing considered lost/destroyed to enable you to summon another one?

 

From the FAQ:

 

Q: How many tasks does a Summoned creature with the Amicable Advantage perform before leaving?

 

A: The GM is, of course, free to have an Amicable Summoned being stick around as long as he wants, but apply the following as a default rule:

 

Friendly EGO/4 tasks

 

Loyal EGO/3 tasks

 

Devoted EGO/2 tasks

 

Slavish EGO/1 tasks

 

As always, it’s up to the GM to decide what constitutes a “task.†For combat, perhaps each Phase of fighting equals a task; for ordinary household chores, perhaps it’s each day of service. Keep common sense, dramatic sense, and considerations of game balance in mind, and you should be fine.

 

Q: Can a character make an Amicable Summoned creature “go away†automatically, or must he buy a Dispel to accomplish this effect?

 

A: It’s up to the GM, based on how friendly/loyal the Amicable being is, but generally a character can make an Amicable being “go away†automatically, without the need for a Dispel.

 

Not a full answer, obviously. On the rules board, I posted a similar question which Steve graciously answered:

 

(a) If I can Summon one being, when is it considered to have departed? Specifically, if it is taken over by another character (say by mind control) is it still my Summoned being, preventing its replacement? The paragraph about forcing a return seems directed at both the Summoner and other characters, so I believe I have to Dispel my own Summon if I want it to leave.

 

(a) It “departs†when it actually leaves; losing control of it does not count as departure. As for having to Dispel it, that depends on the circumstances; for example, the Rules FAQ has a question re: being able to automatically “banish†Amicable Summonees.

 

[steve's answer ends here]

 

"When it actually leaves" still leaves things open to some debate. I would suggest the "stolen" summon hasn't left until either it leaves the controller or the controller is required to pay points to keep the "follower" (same logic as paying the points to keep the villain's focus).

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Blue Angel

There is another question that came up earlier though and I don't know the answer. Maybe it depends on special effect. When is a summoned thing considered lost/destroyed to enable you to summon another one?

 

This is a good point, and from the book and Steves answers I'd say it's the GMs call. Personally I'd allow "Johny Makes-Stuff-Out-Of-Fire Guy" to create/summon a new Fire Bike as soon as his next phase came up after the old one was destroyed. Seems fair; lose the device, lose an action. "Billy Steals-Things-Via-Telleportation Man" I might make wait to the next scene. On the other hand, I'd probably give JMSOOFG some troubles related to having fire-gadgets that I wouldn't give to BSTVTM. Common sense call; when points are spent or saved it shoud mean something, and the advantages and disadvantages of a special effect should ballance out.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

True. The villain needs to buy Mind Control to steal the Summoned being. What % of adversaries have Mind Control?

 

As many as the GM chooses to throw at you, just as as many people can steal your car as the GM chooses to have steal it.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson {B}Yes, the problem doesn't exist if the vehicle is "inherently loyal", but the original question was "how do I build a realistic vehicle that is not inherently loyal?" The player is willing to make his power less useful in the interests of better simulating the character's ability. Isn't that what limitations are all about?[/b]

 

As I said many times in this thread and the other. I also think that this is a case where the situation is best handled with house rules; For what it was actually meant to do from the description in the text, summon isn't broken.

 

OddHat Wrote:

Honestly I'd say so as well. OTOH damn if I'm giving point breaks on such an easilly abused power. If the PC wants a point break for his motorcycle, let him buy a multipower slot with extra running and the Visable Manifestation limit from USPD.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Yeah, let's not let using the most obvious and appropriate mechanic get in the way. Let him buy extra running - clearly there's no reason at all to have the Vehicle construct, so let's just ditch it. Hey, let the paladin buy bonus running the same way - summoning a horse is just ripe for abuse!

 

Hugh, I'd rather not get personal with another adult in a debate over game rules. Now apparently you feel that I already have, which was not my intention. The passage you quoted was not any kind of attack on you.

 

That said, Visable Manifestation is a perfectly valid way of representing many types of summons, from Green Lantern's Lions that you refferenced earlier, to Johnny Blaze's Fire Cycle, to many of Doctor Fate's creations and on down the line. Buying extra running to represent a vehicle has been around forever in Champions. If you'd like a "summon" for a realistic vehicle that doesn't use the summon power, one example might be a car with an AI that responds to a radio signal; the AI then drives the car to the Summoner. Other types of construct could certainly work as well. If the Player wants to use Summon, generally he'd best be prepared to pay the points the rules demand, unless his GM's house rules say differently.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

The bottom line here seems to be that my approach is "Let's charge the character points for the benefits he actually gets." Yours seems to be "This is open to abuse, so let anyone who wantsit, regardless of whether they exploit the potential for abuse, pay extra." In my structure, the guy who doesn't abuse the ability doesn't pay extra, and the guy who has a hugely effective use may have to pay even more than +1 (always assuming the power is allowed at all). Under your structure, it sounds like everyone pays +1 and if you chose not to min/max your abilities, too bad - no point break, you're just an inefficient character designer.

 

I cut the rest of this. I do not pretend to read your mind, and it looks to me like you're not that good at reading mine. My position is that I agree with the rules as published, and that house rules are enough to fix things to your taste in your own campaign. In mine I certainly would take a very close look at someone asking for point breaks on summon for many of the uses suggested in these threads, and I'd rule against most (but not all) of the breaks that have been suggested here and a few of those uses (no summoning Tony Blair, but I'd let the PC summon Talkie Toaster). Those would be my house rules, and I've explained my reasons; your house rules are your affair.

 

OddHat Wrote:

The questions are always "How much of a game effect will it have?" and "What is the in game effect?" If you want a steal-able and thus cheaper cycle, maybe you'd be better off building it using a different construct. Letting you build it with summon and giving you point breaks for doing so invites serious abuse down the road.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

What construct would you suggest is reasonable for building a construct which summons a vehicle? Energy Blast, perhaps, or maybe an Elemental Control? Summon is the power one uses to Summon something. It's one of the very few powers in the game which cannot be duplicated through other mechanics. [/b]

 

For many uses to which summon is put, there are valid and simple constructs that work just as well or better, as discussed above.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat

 

To the issue of how common is Mind Control vs. how common is someone who can steal a mundane vehicle:

 

As many as the GM chooses to throw at you, just as as many people can steal your car as the GM chooses to have steal it.

 

Any limitation comes down to how common the GM believes it to be. I don't know about your campaign, but in mine, people who can drive and possess the cognitive skill to recognioze car keys are way more common than people who can Mind Control a Summoned being away.

 

If you as GM feel the character's vehicle will seldom if ever be stolen (ie about the same frequency with which a summoned character would be mind controlled away), then the limitation should be disallowed. However, to my mind, a player who says "it can be stolen" assumes it WILL be stolen at some point, much like the OAF rules. The frequency with which it will be stolen, and the inconvenience, should be compared with existing limits to get the appropriate results. A -1 limit, to me, seems excessive if the character can just resummon the vehicle next phase. I might allow this if the stolen vehicle is not re-summonable for a period of time similar to the time to replace a stolen OAF (maybe a day or so - short, but Archer-Man has another bow back at HQ and can generally get it in under a day).

 

I would be inclined to allow -1/2 (similar to Restrainable) as the character must blow a phase if he wants to bring it back. This means, however, that it is as easy to steal as an OAF - no security devices, no skill rolls required, etc. The reduction reflects the ease of recovery.

 

For -1/4 (like OIHID or IIF), the vehicle could require some effort to steal, meaning security needing a skill roll and blow a phase to get a replacement. To me, this would be the norm for such a limit. Unless one is in the habit of leaving the keys in the ignition, at least a Mechanics roll is required to steal the vehicle.

 

If Mechanics (or any character with a desire to steal the car) is so rare this could almost never happen logically, no limitation is appropriate. Similarly, if the player expects the vehicle will never be stolen, a limitation (or reduced advantage - the -1/4 could reduce the advantage just as easily as provide a limitation, and likely should) is not appropriate - the hoods just decide not to steal that particular vehicle, or it has protection of some form - the car only starts for its summoner, for example.

 

As I said many times in this thread and the other. I also think that this is a case where the situation is best handled with house rules; For what it was actually meant to do from the description in the text, summon isn't broken.

 

Depends what you think Summon was actually intended to do. It's still vbery much geared around "call up a faceless nobody to provide combat support", which is unsurprising - the game focuses around combat, of course, and the genesis of the power was Fantasy Hero duplicating the Summons found in various other fantasy RPG's. However, there are many other uses, and we haven't really scratched the surface.

 

It's moving forward, of course. Champions 3rd Ed didn't even have Summon. It was in Fantasy Hero. Based on the changes from 4ed to 5ed, the power remains one in some flux. [changes include the drop of 30 points in base cost for a standard character; changing the "wider class" from either +1/4 or +2 to a range from +1/4 to +1; permitting summoning of specific beings, albeit at a +1 advantage; the ego roll construct to allow control without negotiation and many new modifiers resulting from same] Not like Energy Blast (unchanged since 2nd Ed, and that was adding an item omitted from 1st Ed).

 

Extensive playtesting of all of these, to assess where holes exist, what holes exist, what may be overpriced or underpriced, and what constructs may need looked at again (or at all - summoning vehicles or bases, for example, comes up in the FAQ).

 

So I would agree that Summon currently has not been designed to accomplish many of these tasks. House rules are therefore needed to fill the gaps (or you deny the power wholesale, or force cumbersome other constructs to mimic it). But a need for house rules is indicative of a weakness in the game system.

 

Hero claims the ability to duplicate pretty much any power in any genre, and there are bound to be holes in meeting such a broad statement. This is not a shot at Hero - I've never seen any system that comes close to meeting that claim to the extent Hero does. As well, the metarules provide insights to help individual gamers find stopgaps to fill the holes.

 

But house rules are stopgaps, rules we make up to cover the absence of appropriate "official" rules. They are not the best solution. That's why the game has evolved through 5 editions - bugs in the system get identified and fixed. Many house rules commonly needed in 5th Ed will likely see "official" rules in 6th Ed (when and if enough accumulate to merit 6th Ed). Then we'll stop arguing about the best house rule to do it, and start arguing over whether the costsa are right, how precisely the new rules work, whether they appropriately simulate the power, whether some other construct is, or would be, superior, etc. etc. etc. Que Sera!

 

OddHat Wrote:

Honestly I'd say so as well. OTOH damn if I'm giving point breaks on such an easilly abused power. If the PC wants a point break for his motorcycle, let him buy a multipower slot with extra running and the Visable Manifestation limit from USPD.

 

[Discussion of why we wouldn''t use the mechanic built to accomplish the effect...]

 

Hugh, I'd rather not get personal with another adult in a debate over game rules. Now apparently you feel that I already have, which was not my intention. The passage you quoted was not any kind of attack on you.

 

Getting personal is not my intent either. I have a pretty thick skin, so if you're thinking I may have been offended, set your mind at ease. I hope I have not offended you, and if I have, I apologize.

 

However, it is frustrating for players to be told "Sorry, your concept doesn't work in my game", whether disallowed outright or priced out of the value of its benefits. And as a GM, I'm sure I have frustrated more than my fair share of players in the same way. This is especially problematic in a game that enables you "to create any spell, technology, power, weapon, ability or other effect you can imagine", or so claims the intro.

 

When a player brings a reasonable construct ("When I snap my fingers, a corvette appears for me to drive" seems not unreasonable to me), I believe the GM should be looking for a way to facilitate this reasonable ability at a reasonable cost, not deny it on the basis someone else may later try to create an abusive ability using the same mechanic ("When I snap my fingers, a Star Destroyer, fully crewed, appears to serve my every whim"). These will have to be denied ("That's really not appropriate for our Wild West game, Powergamin' Phil").

 

That said, Visable Manifestation is a perfectly valid way of representing many types of summons, from Green Lantern's Lions that you referenced earlier, to Johnny Blaze's Fire Cycle, to many of Doctor Fate's creations and on down the line. Buying extra running to represent a vehicle has been around forever in Champions. If you'd like a "summon" for a realistic vehicle that doesn't use the summon power, one example might be a car with an AI that responds to a radio signal; the AI then drives the car to the Summoner. Other types of construct could certainly work as well. If the Player wants to use Summon, generally he'd best be prepared to pay the points the rules demand, unless his GM's house rules say differently.

 

Note that the rules don't demand any specific point cost for a summoned vehicle. They do not even consider a summoned vehicle. The FAQ suggests a summoned vehicle would be slavishly loyal, but I don't think the FAQ gets playtested. The player who opened this discussion (long departed for quieter pastures, I imagine ) had pointed out a gap in this logic - a realistic vehicle is not slavishly loyal to the summoner - and was looking for ways to reflect that, and pay the points his power is actually worth.

 

Whether some other construct works depends on the effect the player is looking for. If "summon lions" is really just "Here's an attack power that hits the target, then the lions fade away", some combination of EB, Entangle, RKA or what have you works just fine. If the power is "The Ring creates a pseudo-lion which acts of its own accord, attacks on its own speed of 3 and moves at 8" per phase full move", it's no longer an EB with a flashy special effect.

 

A car with an AI which responds to its Summoner by remote radio control sounds a lot like Summon (vehicle); OAF (or reduced focus) Radio Control; Slavishly Loyal (let's say the radio control is required to get in to drive); Arrives under own power; perhaps some variation of "must inhabit locale, and (you will say yes, I will say no based on other thread) possibly +1 for Specific Being (my vehicle). Maybe some Concentrate while it gets there if you have to "drive" its remote.

 

Mind you, it's probably a lot cheaper to buy High Range Radio Perception through a focus for the character, and through the vehicle for the AI, and buy a "come when called", and "navigate with no driver" program.

 

MINOR PET PEEVE: A car that drives itself through busy city streets to come get the owner is "realistic"?

 

Note that the rules don't demand any specific point cost for a summoned vehicle. They do not even consider a summoned vehicle. The FAQ suggests a summoned vehicle would be slavishly loyal, but I don't think the FAQ gets playtested. The player who opened this discussion (long departed for quieter pastures, I imagine ) had pointed out a gap in this logic - a realistic vehicle is not slavishly loyal to the summoner - and was looking for ways to reflect that, and pay the points his power is actually worth.

 

As for the fire cycle, it can't be stolen, takes a phase to resummon if missing or destroyed, and acts like a vehicle, albeit one with strange abilities. Summon Vehicle seems to work. And it is slavishly loyal - no one else can drive it away.

 

My position is that I agree with the rules as published

 

Am I missing an official published rule on summoning vehicles? Maybe this is in Ultimate Vehicle, which I haven't read?

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

As for the fire cycle, it can't be stolen, takes a phase to resummon if missing or destroyed, and acts like a vehicle, albeit one with strange abilities. Summon Vehicle seems to work. And it is slavishly loyal - no one else can drive it away.

 

It works even better as Flight, Only On A Surface, Physical Manifestation (USPDB, p.100). The term "Visable Manifestation" was my mistake.

 

"Mister Summons a 97 Toyota Corolla Guy" might have purchased a vehicle with an AI and HRRH for the transmitter to call it. That's a point efficient way to represent a number of vehicles in films and comics, and fairly intuitive in play as well. If it is a specific real car that appears instantly through some kind of teleport gate we might have to use summon to represent it (which gets us back to this debate).

 

OddHat Wrote:

My position is that I agree with the rules as published

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Am I missing an official published rule on summoning vehicles? Maybe this is in Ultimate Vehicle, which I haven't read?

 

There I was refering more generally to the rules for summon as layed out in FREd.

[Blue Angel]

I am still following the debate Hugh. Just too busy to chime in last while.

 

The summoned vehicle requires a +1 amicable is in Ultimate Vehicle. At the time I read it I was toying with a tech character who could summon known common machines out of parts or other machines. When I read the +1 amicable requirement I was surprised. It just doesn't jive with my intuitive view of machines as neutral objects incapable of anything even resembling loyalty. At least not without some special equipment.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Blue Angel

I am still following the debate Hugh. Just too busy to chime in last while.

 

The summoned vehicle requires a +1 amicable is in Ultimate Vehicle. At the time I read it I was toying with a tech character who could summon known common machines out of parts or other machines. When I read the +1 amicable requirement I was surprised. It just doesn't jive with my intuitive view of machines as neutral objects incapable of anything even resembling loyalty. At least not without some special equipment.

 

It's also in the FAQ, which is where I found it. Some level of amicable clearly makes sense. I'd suggest either assuming the character builds in failsafes so only he can control the vehicle or going for a +1/2 or +3/4 Amicable on the basis that it will follow your orders, but can be stolen fairly readily (equivalent to loyal) or stolen with difficulty (eg. hotwiring; anyone w/ Mechanic skill; equivalent to Devoted).

 

Which way to go depends in part on whether your GM is prepared to allow the reduced advantage.

 

Hmmm...I suppose another option is Transform (air, or spare parts, into vehicle). You only need enough effect to get the vehicle's BOD (11 to 19 range on the table on p 325 FREd), so a cumulative transform would do it, or a fairly large all or nothing Transform. Improved Target Group to get all technological devices, maybe?

 

Needing parts or other machines should qualify as a limited target (gut feel says -1/2 as -1 seems excessive, -1/4 if you can increase the BOD of parts and make a 15 BOD truck out of a 1 BOD flashlight)

[Blue Angel]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

It's also in the FAQ, which is where I found it. Some level of amicable clearly makes sense. I'd suggest either assuming the character builds in failsafes so only he can control the vehicle or going for a +1/2 or +3/4 Amicable on the basis that it will follow your orders, but can be stolen fairly readily (equivalent to loyal) or stolen with difficulty (eg. hotwiring; anyone w/ Mechanic skill; equivalent to Devoted).

 

Which way to go depends in part on whether your GM is prepared to allow the reduced advantage.

 

Hmmm...I suppose another option is Transform (air, or spare parts, into vehicle). You only need enough effect to get the vehicle's BOD (11 to 19 range on the table on p 325 FREd), so a cumulative transform would do it, or a fairly large all or nothing Transform. Improved Target Group to get all technological devices, maybe?

 

Needing parts or other machines should qualify as a limited target (gut feel says -1/2 as -1 seems excessive, -1/4 if you can increase the BOD of parts and make a 15 BOD truck out of a 1 BOD flashlight)

 

There is such a transform power in USPD and this was part of my dislike of the +1 amicable modifier for the summon method. They used a limited target (spare parts) -1/2. One thing about the transform method is that it is cumulative so a power with expanded class can be built for relatively few points - it just takes more time to get the results wanted. That makes the trasform method even more potentially abusive than the summon method. At least the summon method defines the maximum points of the summoned machine. The transform method is limited by body only and the cumulative affect means there is no upper limit on results, especially with expanded class modifiers.

 

Obviously the GM has to be vigilant in both cases but why should one method have to pay extra points for "amicability " that the other method gets for free? Or in the case of common machines why should one method have to pay for loyalty it does not receive when the other doesn't have to?

 

Player: "I transform those two cars into one car with 15PD defence and security system that only responds to my voice command"

 

All the player has to do is perform the transform out of combat and there is no upper limit on what can be made. Again the GM has to think hard about that power.

 

At least the Summon method has built in point limits, which I think it is preferable over transform. The control over the power is more tangible for the GM and puts less demands on him/her to keep it under control. And potentially less motivation to just ban an interesting power outright.

 

But the player or NPC should also get what they pay for. Common objects cannot give loyalty. Just ask a pet rock owner.

 

By the way I build characters for fun and GM. So I have no personal motivation in terms fo building a character I will play. I am just interested in making more sense out of this power construct.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Blue Angel

There is such a transform power in USPD and this was part of my dislike of the +1 amicable modifier for the summon method. They used a limited target (spare parts) -1/2.

 

sigh...I need to find the time to read all these books I keep buying...

 

One thing about the transform method is that it is cumulative so a power with expanded class can be built for relatively few points - it just takes more time to get the results wanted. That makes the trasform method even more potentially abusive than the summon method. At least the summon method defines the maximum points of the summoned machine. The transform method is limited by body only and the cumulative affect means there is no upper limit on results, especially with expanded class modifiers.

 

Well, the Summon cost would come down a bit with "needs raw materials", and you could put Extra Time on it to simulate the phases you'd need with a cunulative transform. That might get the costs comparable for an ordinary vehicle. But why not have a custom vehicle with the same body that flies, turns desolid, obeys your commands, turns on a dime, is armor plated and has weapon systems? Same Body, same cost. Even if it gets destroyed, you just re-transform it from the spare parts.

 

Didn't "old transform," require you to point balance? Eg. if you transform a person into a person with wings (10" flight, OAF Wings) you could drop his SPD 1 or otherwise lose 10 points to balance the final form? I don't recall this being in FREd though. I think you need an appropriate skill to build technological items with Transform, but the the character you described would have the skills.

 

Obviously the GM has to be vigilant in both cases but why should one method have to pay extra points for "amicability " that the other method gets for free? Or in the case of common machines why should one method have to pay for loyalty it does not receive when the other doesn't have to?

 

Player: "I transform those two cars into one car with 15PD defence and security system that only responds to my voice command"

 

All the player has to do is perform the transform out of combat and there is no upper limit on what can be made. Again the GM has to think hard about that power.

 

One could impose the requirement that the player pay points for things he will be creating out of combat and bringing in (eg. a gadget pool), but the base problem remains - Transform lacks a points restriction, so the sky's the limit. Meanwhile, we limit Summon to prevent identical abuses, and probably go too far the other way.

 

At least the Summon method has built in point limits, which I think it is preferable over transform. The control over the power is more tangible for the GM and puts less demands on him/her to keep it under control. And potentially less motivation to just ban an interesting power outright.

 

But the player or NPC should also get what they pay for. Common objects cannot give loyalty. Just ask a pet rock owner.

 

That's my general beef with the restrictions on Summon - they seem there to make abuse cost more, but drive up the cost of non-abusive structures as well. Why not let the non-abusive structures pay a reasonable cost commensurate with their benefits, and push the costs for abuse out of reach (assuming we don't want to rely on GM Override).

 

Similar problems exist in other powers (eg. why can't Transfer be used as a drain? A Linked Aid and Drain could do this, and likely at a lower cost. Because Adjustment powers got a bad rep in 4th Ed so 5th Ed overcompensates for it.)